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.

 

September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

page: 14
89
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: soulwaxer




You forgot about WTC 7. What was the construction flaw in that building, and what did we learn from it?

I guess you didn't bother to click the link in my previous post.
Column 79 was the Achilles heel.
It's the next thread down. Sorry.
edit on 17-2-2015 by samkent because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ipsedixit

Not eeeven one whistle blower, huh? Are we going to have to wait for 50 years to get JFK style deathbed confessions?

Would you blow the whistle if you were paid big money and were told that your family would die as a result of you talking? Even if you confessed on your deathbed?

Many witnesses have come out with very damning information, but they were not a part of the operation and so were not informed of the consequences of doing so, like Barry Jennings who was in WTC7 while bombs were exploding inside:

soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: soulwaxer




Would you blow the whistle if you were paid big money and were told that your family would die as a result of you talking?

How do you explain 'big money' to your brother? Neighbor?
You can't hind 'big money'. Others will be jealous. Others will talk.

You also have to pay 'big money' to the death squads too.

With that overall line of reasoning there must be some super secret bureau in charge of 'Keeping the Secret'.
More people in on it.
Where does it end?

Why doesn't this bureau silence Richard Gage?
Why doesn't this bureau take down 911 conspiracy sites?



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: soulwaxer




You forgot about WTC 7. What was the construction flaw in that building, and what did we learn from it?

I guess you didn't bother to click the link in my previous post.
Column 79 was the Achilles heel.
It's the next thread down. Sorry.

No problem.

So you are saying that 1 bad column brought the whole building down symmetrically, like in that joke of simulation NIST brought to us? Then tell me, why don't demolition teams just rig 1 column to bring a building down?

You either have no understanding of the strength of steel-framed buildings, or you do but have another reason for your silly claims.

soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: soulwaxer




Would you blow the whistle if you were paid big money and were told that your family would die as a result of you talking?

How do you explain 'big money' to your brother? Neighbor?
You can't hind 'big money'. Others will be jealous. Others will talk.

You also have to pay 'big money' to the death squads too.

With that overall line of reasoning there must be some super secret bureau in charge of 'Keeping the Secret'.
More people in on it.
Where does it end?

Why doesn't this bureau silence Richard Gage?
Why doesn't this bureau take down 911 conspiracy sites?

There are several bureaus in charge of keeping secrets, they're not even secret. Who do you think designs all those top secret clearance levels?

"Why doesn't this bureau silence Richard Gage?"

How many times has Richard Gage been given a voice in the MSM?

"Why doesn't this bureau take down 911 conspiracy sites?"

Because they are the perfect tool for spreading disinformation and generally confusing anyone looking into conspiracies. They know very well that only a select few will see through that. In fact, they may very well be the ones putting up many of these conspiracy sites.....

Here's a recent example of how that works:

British army creates team of Facebook warriors

soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
No you overlook the the design of 7.
And you overlook what was under 7.

Nist did address the theory of a single charge controlled demo of 7.



NIST also determined that a blast would have propagated sound waves outward from the building. It was determined that the charge sizes for the hypothetical blast scenario would have produced sound levels of 130 to 140 db up to 1 km (0.6 mi) away if unobstructed. In southern Manhattan, these sound waves would have reflected off of hard building exteriors and echoed through channeled streets.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

And how exactly do you and they know that column 79 was the problem? Do you have any evidence? Or just a very implausible theory with no supporting evidence whatsoever?



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Why doesn't this bureau take down 911 conspiracy sites?

Why? They're too busy using them to sow disinformation.

Fake planes, "Pods", "nano thermite demolition" free fall, footprints, lol.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat




And how exactly do you and they know that column 79 was the problem? Do you have any evidence? Or just a very implausible theory with no supporting evidence whatsoever

I accept the experts evidence.
Not huxter for profit websites.

As to these super secret agents keeping a lid on 911:
You must mean like the Secret Service and the hooker in some third world country.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
No you overlook the the design of 7.
And you overlook what was under 7.

Nist did address the theory of a single charge controlled demo of 7.


NIST also determined that a blast would have propagated sound waves outward from the building. It was determined that the charge sizes for the hypothetical blast scenario would have produced sound levels of 130 to 140 db up to 1 km (0.6 mi) away if unobstructed. In southern Manhattan, these sound waves would have reflected off of hard building exteriors and echoed through channeled streets.

You mean like this "hypothetical blast":

Can't wait to read your reply to that, so bring it!

soulwaxer
edit on 17-2-2015 by soulwaxer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
No you overlook the the design of 7.
And you overlook what was under 7.

Nist did address the theory of a single charge controlled demo of 7.



NIST also determined that a blast would have propagated sound waves outward from the building. It was determined that the charge sizes for the hypothetical blast scenario would have produced sound levels of 130 to 140 db up to 1 km (0.6 mi) away if unobstructed. In southern Manhattan, these sound waves would have reflected off of hard building exteriors and echoed through channeled streets.

Thats interesting, considering this video…

ETA:I see soul waxer beat me to it. It is a blast, people need to claim this occurred at building 7, which is fine, just prove it did. Prove it…
edit on 17-2-2015 by intrptr because: ETA:



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: samkent
No you overlook the the design of 7.
And you overlook what was under 7.

Nist did address the theory of a single charge controlled demo of 7.



NIST also determined that a blast would have propagated sound waves outward from the building. It was determined that the charge sizes for the hypothetical blast scenario would have produced sound levels of 130 to 140 db up to 1 km (0.6 mi) away if unobstructed. In southern Manhattan, these sound waves would have reflected off of hard building exteriors and echoed through channeled streets.

Thats interesting, considering this video…

I posted the same video just above your post.

What is your point? What is interesting about this to you?

soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Blah, blah…

I asked you how a hurricane compares to a jet liner?

We can't 'discuss' anything if you keep dodging that question I asked you waaay back…


Answered and ignored. This is not our discussion. If you want to to make a thread that says an airliner contains more energy than hurricane go for it. I've already given my thought on the comparison.

I will assume there are some topics that you are not emotionally attached to, that you are capable of adding to discussion in an intelligent manner, and forgive your obstructionism and childishness.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst


I will assume there are some topics that you are not emotionally attached to, that you are capable of adding to discussion in an intelligent manner, and forgive your obstructionism and childishness.

You said, 'we construct buildings to withstand hurricanes' as though that proved some theory you hold about how planes couldn't have destroyed the twin towers, right? That is your talking point, right?

So show me how planes compare to hurricanes…



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Just to amplify what I said about American stupidity (in the mainstream), I don't think Americans are uniquely stupid. Canadians are just as dumb and never seem to stop at the hook when the line, the sinker , the fishing rod and the boat are only a few more gulps away.

The whole world is in this category. I think one of the major shifts in the way the world was run was when the elite finally figured out that they could ignore intellectuals altogether and just propagandize the broad mass of the people, who for a variety of reasons are not able to get to the bottom of a government lie.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: ISawItFirst




What I am wondering is what makes those inner load bearing walls different from the WTC outer load bearing walls?

ESB has a latticework of steel beams throughout.
WTC only had this in the inner core.

The exterior could not stand 110 stories tall without being braced.
The bracing came from light weight floor trusses attached to the inner core.

The inner core could not stand 110 stories tall without being braced either.
Again the floor trusses braced the inner core.

ESB steel work could stand with no bracing at all.

Check construction websites.
They all say that no sky scraper will ever be constructed using the same method as WTC again.
We learn from our mistakes.


You are factually incorrect wrt wtc. You say wtc was build different, then forget how. The bulk of the steel in wtc was in the shell. It had a far more impressive lattice work of much better structural steel than ESB. It was on the outside.

At least 20% of the surface area of the impact directly contacted just the Main beams of this lattice work. Main beams with a tensile strength of over 100,000 psi. They were 44 inches on center over the entire outside structure. 7 inches wide.

Your bracing statement makes no sense in actual construction. Lightweight concrete floors are in NO WAY considered bracing. As far as the building is concerned, those floors may as well be drywall and paint.


Dang, you got my hopes up with your fist post. Thought you knew your stuff and we're going to enlighten me.


I don't need to read 'construction' sites. I am well versed in IBC.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
ETA:I see soul waxer beat me to it. It is a blast, people need to claim this occurred at building 7, which is fine, just prove it did. Prove it…

Well, the firemen are very close to WTC. You can tell by all the dust and debris from the exploded twin towers.

But yes, the blast could be coming from another building than 7, but then you need to ask yourself why this wasn't reported and questioned in the news or in the 9/11 commission report. All we got from them is that there were no explosions on 9/11 except for the planes hitting the buildings. There were however several reporters who were live at the scene describing explosions, even controlled demolition, but none after the day of 9/11... Then there are the many witness testimonies describing explosions in the buildings. And of course we have all the video footage of WTC 1 and 2 exploding and WTC 7 dropping exactly like a controlled demolition. All that is more than enough proof for me.

soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: intrptr
ETA:I see soul waxer beat me to it. It is a blast, people need to claim this occurred at building 7, which is fine, just prove it did. Prove it…

Well, the firemen are very close to WTC. You can tell by all the dust and debris from the exploded twin towers.

But yes, the blast could be coming from another building than 7, but then you need to ask yourself why this wasn't reported and questioned in the news or in the 9/11 commission report. All we got from them is that there were no explosions on 9/11 except for the planes hitting the buildings. There were however several reporters who were live at the scene describing explosions, even controlled demolition, but none after the day of 9/11... Then there are the many witness testimonies describing explosions in the buildings. And of course we have all the video footage of WTC 1 and 2 exploding and WTC 7 dropping exactly like a controlled demolition. All that is more than enough proof for me.

soulwaxer


Anyone remember what happened to the only person who didn't take the settlement in the lawsuit??

Hint, there is another flight number in the story.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ISawItFirst


I will assume there are some topics that you are not emotionally attached to, that you are capable of adding to discussion in an intelligent manner, and forgive your obstructionism and childishness.

You said, 'we construct buildings to withstand hurricanes' as though that proved some theory you hold about how planes couldn't have destroyed the twin towers, right? That is your talking point, right?

So show me how planes compare to hurricanes…


###SNIPPED##

Once again, we are way off topic.

Thanks to Truth Now for the original information. If ever verified, the drills behind the drills behind the day will be forever unfolding. There are drills going on every day.

There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people working in support of daily drills. Some of the companies are publicly traded.
Or if you have a disability that would make you a good actor...


edit on 17-2-2015 by ISawItFirst because: (no reason given)

edit on Tue Feb 17 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: All Members: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Update and Information



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
My favourite truther remarks are things like 'a fifth grader knows enough physics to know it's not possible' or 'I'd believe it, if I was 13'. They're probably right! A fifth grader probably wouldn't understand it, just like them, because they only have a highly simplistic view of the physics involved and can't even to begin to comprehend the bigger picture, luckily I'm not crippled by this nor are the majority of reputable scientists and engineers that actually work and therefore don't have to sell their souls peddling drivel to people that just don't know any better. Like the collapse of the buildings, every truther I see talks about them as if they're solid blocks - they're not built out of lego guys!

Keep looking at things in an over simplistic way and one will only ever come to the simplest sounding solutions which are usually unworkable in reality. Usually why something 'simple' like 'it was done with explosives' has to morph into it was done with micro nukes and lasers with explosives that don't deteriorate as the narrative has to be modified to take into account all of the many little hurdles that kind of imply - well no, not likely.
It's happened before when trying to prove that we live in an geocentric solar system and explain retrograde motion of the planets using epicycles. The model became convoluted and ridiculous trying to support the notion that Earth was central to the Solar System. Of course, it was wrong and the irony was it became ridiculous trying to explain the 'obvious and simple' 'fact' that everything went around us.

Occams razor is supposed to lead you down the path of making as few assumptions as possible so you use reliable data to come to a possible conclusion. It doesn't mean you look at things with the eyes of an infant, which is what most truthers seem to do and only leads them to completely idiotic and simplistic conclusions - which look great - if you're a fifth grader!

There's a reason not everyone is a physicist, or an architect, or a demolitions expert, etc, etc. There's a reason why you have to be a cut above the rest and spend decades of education and experience to actually achieve anything.
These things aren't simple, a fifth grader can't do it sorry! And a fifth grader level of education, or even high school or college isn't really enough to really get into the nitty gritty of the processes involved. The average truther I've come across in real life can't grasp the most fundamental principles of physics and yet keeps parroting the same 'a fifth grader would understand it' crap while not even being at that high of a level!
The average truther does exactly what they criticise the so called 'OS Supporters' (an insulting term, there's a difference between not believing garbage and falling hook line a sinker for every aspect of the official story) of and just parrot some crud off a YouTube video or a truther website.
Every truther I've spoken to in real life - as soon as I start probing them for any kind of understanding about the simplest things just starts repeating phrases like 'I don't know', 'I don't understand physics very well, but I know that a 5th grader would get it'. Without their truther cheat sheet handy the conversation devolves either into something where they are practically expressing faith like a religious person - in their 'truther' overlords - or them having a tantrum. No offence, I haven't come across a truther in real life that actually knows anything relevant at any level to have come to an independent conclusion. I know there must be some smart ones out there, I just haven't met them yet.

I've never seen any 'truther' actually say anything of any sense when it comes to most things, especially the collapse, and they just repeat the same simplistic garbage without even beginning to touch on actually very simple things like the stresses on the components and the joints that made up the buildings. They seem to have no idea what the concept of stored potential energy means, nor how a drop due to weakened metal of only a foot even (for instance) would transfer an enormous amount of energy which would cause individual joins to fail and cause a cascading effect. If truthers are so clever why are they unable to think beyond blocks? Why do they get confused about and ignore kinetic energy?
I seriously feel like I AM watching 5th graders, in a special school, when I read most truther garbage.

What would have been suspicious would have been if there were complete scientific reports all ready to roll and explain away what anyone saw. But instead people had to wait years to see any results. Why is this? Is it because after all of that scheming no one though that it would be a good idea to explain what happened on that day, you know the day where their meticulous plan which had been in the work for decades came into fruition?
Or is it because it was a random event no one expected and they have to gather data, experiment and try and work it out?
The fact we had to wait so long and there are still uncertainties actually goes against the concept of a massive inside job conspiracy. Why is it truthers and the hardcore conspiracy guys in general think that there are always going to be a load of clues like some crap game, clues which undoubtably only they are ever going to 'get' because everyone else is just a 'sheep'. Them and their 5th grade level of physics.



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join