It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 And the Chain of Conspiracy.

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

well I started out with "HOW DARE THEY"...cause I believed the OS.

till I started researching.....TRUTHFULLY!

I found that the 2005 NIST NEVER did find a scientific reason for collapse x3 on 9-11....


"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"




then I found the 2008 WTC7 tech briefing with Shyam Sunder, leader of the NIST 2008 HYPOTHESES crew claiming a brand new NEVER BEFORE SEEN physics phenomenon fell WTC7 equal to g. for a CONSTANT 105 vertical feet...globally and UNIFIED.



"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."
Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing


there is transcript under the video...that quote is on page 34.





reading more in-depth into the history and ideology behind Al-Qa'ida taught me that they had to be the ones behind 9/11.


well it's too bad then that the 2005 NIST found the plane involved caused LITTLE damage to each tower and did not factor into the collapse....x3....so technically, within a scientific standpoint....they failed!


33 outer columns were damaged from the impacts. We can count the columns in any image or video that shows the holes. 33 out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%. That leaves 86% of the outer columns intact and undamaged.

NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns were damaged using the three scenarios of core damage. That's 6-8 out of 47. We'll go with 7 since it's in the middle, 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% of the core columns were damaged leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.

When we put those two percentages together, you get 14.5% of the structure in each tower was damaged leaving 85.5% of the structure undamaged. That is minimal structural damage.


and no supporting evidence the FIRES PRESENT allow the failure of the 240 intact fireproofed load-bearing vertical support on each towers impact floor that must simultaneously fail to have occur what we all see.


so AGAIN.....what changed your mind????...a new job?




posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: biffcartright

Another part that keeps the "Truther" movement going, denying any facts or knowledge that directly debunks their preconceived notions.

I too was once a "truther". I watched Loose Change, and that awful awful Sept. Clues, and other conspiracy sites and I fell for a lot of it. Until I started noticing a lot of bogus deceptions, out of context quotes, cherry-picking of accounts, outright lies, and deliberate manipulation of facts, videos and pictures by the so called "Truth" movement. Once I started to look into them, the whole thing fell apart and I could not take anything from the "Truth" movement seriously. Then I found the debunking sites that pretty much confirmed what I suspected and discovered, and well, here we are.

I started reading the facts and the reports and eyewitness accounts, and I was shocked at how much I had been LIED to by the "Truth" Movement.

By the way, are you ever going to read NIST's final report on WTC7? Or are you going to continue posting questions that have been answered for you earlier? This too turned me off from the "Truth" Movement, when cold hard facts are presented to the "Truthers" it gets ignored and tossed aside. No matter how factual and compelling, it gets kicked aside. Then the lack of reading comprehension skills and lack of critical thinking really took me for a spin and turned off even MORE from the "Truth" Movement. I mean, I was seeing some serious stupid things being said about quotes and comments that I could not fathom how they came to such erroneous conclusions.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Just wondering, what does anyone think of this? (link directly below)

letsrollforums.com...

A couple of excerpts:

"At 8:30am on the morning of September 11, 2001, Elizabeth Williams went down to Gate 32, where Flight 11 had boarded an hour previously, and she saw there, with her own eyes, an empty plane.

A plane. That was empty. That is: empty of passengers.

“Flight 11” had not taken off, but the passengers were gone.

Simple as that.

“Flight 11” was still parked at the gate, half an hour after its alleged take-off, but the passengers were gone.

If Elizabeth Williams is telling the truth, if she is not mistaken, or deluded, or mis-reported, then we may have here the the key which unlocks the entire 9/11 puzzle.

Is there any other evidence that “flight 11” simply never took off?

There certainly is: it's the famous NTSB database entry which lists no wheels-off time for the flight for that day.

There have been two explanations for this oddity in the official record: the NTSB say that the data was not reported, in the confusion of the day. The conspiracy theorists say that it proves flight 11 never existed.

But the data does not say either of these things. If we just take the data at face-value, rather than assuming it is incorrect, or misreported, or falsified, what does the data tell us? It tells us that flight 11 existed but that it never took off!

The wheels-off data is recorded automatically and electronically, even if it is not automatically reported. The fact that the entry exists shows that the flight was scheduled. The fact that the data shows the time as 00:00 indicates that the wheels never moved. This corresponds exactly to what Elizabeth Williams saw and described. The plane was there. It had not taken off.

If Elizabeth Williams is correct in what she saw, not mistaken or misreported, then the entry in the NTSB database for Flight 11 exactly matches what she described.

So we have two witnesses now who testify that the plane labelled as flight 11 never took off that morning: Elizabeth Williams, who says it twice, unambiguously, and the NTSB data, which shows that the plane never moved from the gate."

"Two flight attendants from Flight 11 made contact with the outside world via airphone: Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney. Both identified the flight as Flight 12, at least twice, each, at the beginning of their respective conversations. Once would be a slip-of-the-tongue. Twice would be carelessness. But when two flight attendants both make the same “mistake”, at least twice, in circumstances where accuracy is of the utmost importance, this is beyond the possibility of error. Why did they do this?"

It's a pretty detailed and interesting thread that tries to make sense of Betty Ong's phone call, it's really hard to wrap my head around all of this so I'm not exactly sure which parts to believe, hopefully some people here might have their own take on it.

This is my first post here, and I didn't mean to derail the thread or break any rules - my objective is simply to create some discussion surrounding the thread I linked from the Let's Roll forum.

This seems like a nice community, and I would like to thank all the moderators and users for making this a good place for discussion.

Cheers
edit on 13-8-2014 by NeverHere because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-8-2014 by NeverHere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: GenRadek




Another part that keeps the "Truther" movement going, denying any facts or knowledge that directly debunks their preconceived notions.


and this occurred WHERE in response to me and my posts????

lol...oh and here it comes again..."I was once a 'truther"....well, I was once on of those whom did not like anyone claiming this was an inside job, till I decided to investigate to show these people a thing or two.....and guess what.....there is NOTHING to show these people..now I'm one of these people!


which is the reason you leave these 'long-winded' posting SAYING nothing to SUPPORT the OS....just pathetically attack me.

the official story is said at the WTC7 tech briefing you avoid like the Ebola plague....a NEW PHYSICS phenomenon!


"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."
Shyam Sunder and the HYPOTHESIS crew at the 2008 NIST technical briefing

this video webcast is 2 MONTHS BEFORE the NIST WTC7 report came out......EVERYTHING you spew from that report is BASED on this NEVER BEFORE SEEN physics phenomenon of science they REFUSE through science....

there is NO denying this.

it's their OWN Video from their OWN webcast spewing their OWN made up science.....



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Here are some things i find hard to understand about 9-11-

Port Authority, the owners of the WTC complex bragged in their monthly tenant news letter that the response time from threat alert to military intercept in the air was less than four minutes. The only day in an exemplary history of protecting the towers for over 25-years from in the air threats, that an intercept was not launched from not just one reported threat in the air but four known threats in the air? That day was 911. On that day was the only day a firm stand-down order was given.

In 1979 the WTC spent about 135 million dollars to build a special micro-particle air filtration system to capture asbestos particles as they broke down to keep exposure of the particles from the tenants. They also commissioned in 1979 a report per the cost for demolition of the towers due to the asbestos. It came back with a cost of 8 billion dollars and the report noted that is was not accounting for the billions in law suits that would arise from people saying they were exposed to the asbestos as the towers were demolished. That problem they were sitting on was resolved on 911.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   
It would be interesting to know if there are any residual connections between the Original benefactors of the contracts ect. when the WTC were built and the companies who removed the debris and shipped it to the smelting destinations with these destinations also possible being involved peripherlly,the montoring of the debris is a smoking gun as well as the RECORD REMOVAL AND DISBURSMENT speeds.

At any rate the dynamic template of the processes,methods and constellation of micro-actions which weave the fabric of a cohesive tapestry painting a picture of the debris history should be lain out by competant driven people.

Usually there are remora attatched to and living symbioticlly with Great White Sharks, the same goes for conspirators,the Primary WTC apex predator forgot about the remora attatched to it.Nature tells us that there are dynamic trails to follow which the remor will leave,just as a sharks wave displacement pattern will reveal the remora atttched to it so will the fiscal impacts generated by the WTCs Primary Predators will be illuminated when the proper and optimal Tactical Dynamic Template of the fiscal landscape before,during ,and after the event are actioned and made part of the public domain.


There seems to be a lot of unanswered questions,but it isnt that complicated,it is simply that the right minds have not been focused upon the optimal methods of observation and action.

There is a natural evolution to the process of disclosure based upon 100% truths, the right people are out there,but the right environment for them to flourish in optimally does not yet exist.Nature will have her way and the full truths will be revealed as they must be for the conspirators to ensure their own escape..



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: douglas5

Uhhh yeah, that worked out so well. I mean it was sooooooooo much cheaper this way right?
I mean 7 buildings utterly destroyed, numerous more severely damaged, 3000+ people killed, four aircraft destroyed, hundreds of firefighters and police killed, hundreds of cars, trucks, police, and fire trucks destroyed, miles of streets contaminated with a powder of asbestos, drywall, and tons of particles that can cause cancer, diseases, and respiratory illnesses and a large gaping hole that was sucking down hundreds of millions of dollars a year from property taxes and zero income. Yeah! Wow! Sooooo much better off this way........ right.............. /sarcasm.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: biffcartright

Ok I dont give a rat's hind end about the stupid tech briefing. What does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

I am interested in the final product. The final report. The report I have a copy of and have read it and actually understood it. You have not. You blabber on and on and on about what some schmucks said at some tech briefing about WTC7 and yet you ignore WHAT the said in the damn final report. They acknowledge it and explain it IN DETAIL. Can you please point to the part where they said its never bee seen before?? Cause I posted a whole ton of papers that were written well before 911 and after 911 that explain this in detail.

But I see you have been booted again. I await your reincarnation and the same nonsense being spewed again. Maybe now you can have some time to actually read the report. Posting something that you have no idea about is a very bad idea.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: GenRadek

CUE BONO genradek

look at the number of people this kept in work when the budget was increased



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: GenRadek




Ok I dont give a rat's hind end about the stupid tech briefing. What does it have to do with the price of tea in China?



in China...nothing

HERE...the NIST 2008 TECH BRIEFING preceded the 2008 WTC7 NIST report by TWO months claiming brand new science fell WTC7.....and they include their scenario of NEW science in the report.



"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."


you don't give a rats because there is NOTHING you can say about it.......it's ALL self explanatory...

that the official claim that fell 7 105 vertical feet GLOBALLY and UNIFIED equal to g. was NEW science of thermal expansion that works at LOW temps to REMOVE resistance.....not weaken, ALL agreed upon science states mass MUST be removed to allow CONSTANT acceleration equal to g..

unless they want to SHOW HOW this new science did all that work......but I don't see that occurring in the near future..



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

Three rings? Not really, the first and second floors at the Pentagon, were joined through the three outer rings. Only two exterior walls.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: douglas5

First part. I would like to see the tenant news letter that claims a military intercept would take place in less than four minutes when the nearest alert base was Otis Air Force Base in Massachusettes, 250 miles away from New York. Not to mention that the Continental Air Defense was an alert 15.....jets off the ground within 15 minutes of the alarm. Then there is the actual events of 9/11. The fighter at Otis were alerted at 8:40 AM....less than one minute later, Flight 11 impacts the North Tower. The jets launch out of Otis less than 12 minutes later (around 8:50). At that time, no one had a location on anything and there isn't enough time anyway for the jets to have made it to NY, correctly identified a hostile, and shot it down before Flight 175 hit the South Tower at 9:03 AM. There was never a stand down order given.

The second part, the asbestos. The estimated cost, according to reports and court documents prior to 9/11, listed an estimate for the ENTIRE WTC Complex at 200 million dollars. Far short of the 8 billion you claim.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

and how does that ...'plane' fit into that 16 foot diameter hole seen in the pics BEFORE the facade fell 35 minutes after impact?????

how does the ...'plane' go into the second floor slab and leave an intact window three feet above the hole where the rudder/elevator must hit????

where are the wings???....did they just 'fold-back' and follow the plane into the hole???

the engine would have dug a pretty deep ditch before entering......where is that ?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: fillerfish

Bob, little Hoss, Filler....why do you refuse to read the final report? Are you that afraid of finding out that you have been wrong all along? There is no shame in admitting that.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




why do you refuse to read the final report?


I quote it....

why do YOU refuse to respond????



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: fillerfish

Well first off, the fuselage of a 757, is just about 14 feet in diameter, so, last time I checked, 14 will indeed go into 16 with space left over. Second, the impact area at the Pentagon was over 90 feet wide. So....at the angle the plane hit...yeah the impact zone was about the size that one would expect.

The rudder, which, had quite a bit of composite construction, did leave a mark where it impacted, and basically disintegrated.

The wings....over 90 foot impact zone...figure it out.

The engines, in the photos, you can see where one of the engines ripped through a fence and a generator on its way into the building, and in the Pentagon building performance report, there is one photo that shows a crescent shaped deformation on the first floor slab. All you have to do, is actually read a report or two.....oh, wait......



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 04:37 AM
link   
a reply to: fillerfish

No, you post things that are on websites. There are plenty of actual professionals that have gone over that report and have no problems accepting the conclusions.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




There are plenty of actual professionals that have gone over that report and have no problems accepting the conclusions.


post just ONE, NOT tied to the fingers of Gov. whom will put their professional reputation on the line to support an OFFICIAL claim that NEW physics too place ONLY on 9-11, called 'LOW TEMP THERMAL EXPANSION', hypothesized to REMOVE, [not weaken], but REMOVE structural resistance to ALLOW CONSTANT global unified acceleration EQUAL to g. found occurring in WTC7.

before ALL taught agreed upon science states mass CONSTANTLY acceleration equal to g. NEEDS a CLEAR PATH in which to ACCELERATE......so you tel me how this NEW science makes this possible....and then tell me WHY the authors refuse to prove this new science through science?


2008 NIST OFFICIAL claim from the hypothesis crew is.....

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."
Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing


and the 2009 refusal to prove....."NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse."



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: slipstreaming

Other posters have pointed out to you the error of your ways on numerous occasions, and you refuse to accept reality. Why should I beat my head against the wall too?



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




Other posters have pointed out to you the error of your ways on numerous occasions , and you refuse to accept reality. Why should I beat my head against the wall too?


I just joined.....and I am posting facts I have found to be true.....what would show these facts wrong are ...'facts', showing these facts wrong....

and from what I have read here in all these threads...it 's you whom refuse to accept reality.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join