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: The New Pearl Harbor [Video]

page: 5
62
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

What makes you think that a covert team (play with me here) with most likely unlimited funding would choose to do a cheap form of traditional wired demo?




posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Here's a video highlighting some serious flaws in the NIST report



Care to comment?



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: jaffo

What makes you think that a covert team (play with me here) with most likely unlimited funding would choose to do a cheap form of traditional wired demo?


Ah, so now we are moving onward to "magical and undetectable forms of demotion that no one else knows about or can prove exist" huh? O...k...



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

They are in fact sometimes done at height. Specific demolitions like the French one, see my 4 LINKS below.

It's not that difficult at all, only reason it is not used much is the fact that one can use a much greater weight of the building to effectuate a global collapse, when demolition charges are placed as low as can be, to let the weight of the above part do the work. The impact of the falling huge top part, after removing one or two bottom stories, is suddenly halted by a huge deceleration force when reaching ground level, and that compresses the whole top part so much, that it crumbles.

This same process can be done at the 70th or 90th floor of a 110 floors high building like the WTC Towers. What happens is that in principle the same occurs as described above, but then some assistance is asked for in the form of planted explosives, to keep the demolition pace going down the lower part all the way to the ground.
I have explained it based on other research much deeper ad nausea, so look up my Academia papers on-line.
Search ATS : "LaBTop Academia"



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: jaffo

Here's a video highlighting some serious flaws in the NIST report



Care to comment?


Sure, I'll comment. I have no idea who that person doing the voiceover is and no idea on Earth why I should care one iota as to what he is saying, on the rare occasions that I can even understand him. But hey, you want to believe "some guy" over the evil government, go right ahead. What I could make out was a bunch of "you guys didn't do it the way I think you should have done it." Which, really, is the same thing you are doing on here. . .



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

So, only wired explosives exist? Would a wireless one require me to believe in magic? Please, explain



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: jaffo

So, only wired explosives exist? Would a wireless one require me to believe in magic? Please, explain


What you need to show is that there is ANY evidence AT ALL that anyone put ANY kind of explosive in the buildings. And you can't do that. There are no witnesses describing the MYRIAD of late night visits that would have been required to pull this off. And yeah, I do think that going to the magical wireless explosives is a HUGE leap in faith and logic. Because there just is not one shred of evidence to support ANY type of explosive being used at Ground Zero. I'm sorry, but that is a fact. No magic thermite, no magic wireless devices, nobody coming to place them within the buildings. . . there's just nothing. For the planes "theory" however, there is a WEALTH of actual proof to show that they hit the buildings and damaged them so as to cause their destruction. I've got proof, you've got denial and "what if". . .
edit on 5-5-2015 by jaffo because: Spelling error.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

I am not reading an entire thread and multiple links to find what you are talking about.

But I would really be interested in reading your specific link. That was all I ask for in my reply.


I would also like to see a link to your paper (is it peer-reviewed)?




edit on 5-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Right....So the presenter shows clearly that NIST incorrectly calculated the amount of expansion in the steel, used incorrect measurements for the seat plate, and completely left out other very important components of the connection, and the best you can do is knock his scottish accent? No offense, but that's a pretty weak debunking effort....



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: jaffo

Right....So the presenter shows clearly that NIST incorrectly calculated the amount of expansion in the steel, used incorrect measurements for the seat plate, and completely left out other very important components of the connection, and the best you can do is knock his scottish accent? No offense, but that's a pretty weak debunking effort....


Simple questions: WHO IS THE NARRATOR?! WHAT ARE HIS QUALIFICATIONS? WHY SHOULD I LISTEN TO HIM?!



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

If 9/11 was an inside job, one would think that clean up may be part of the conspirator plans and maybe the information made public as well. Fire fighters and cops were looking for survivors, not explosives or damaged rubble. Then, the pieces of tower were whisked away.


You don't have proof. You have pieces of paper with most likely falsified information on it. All of which you've placed your faith on, hoping it's right and ridiculing others who believe otherwise.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

No need to shout mate. And maybe you should concentrate more on what he's saying, not who he is....



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: jaffo

If 9/11 was an inside job, one would think that clean up may be part of the conspirator plans and maybe the information made public as well. Fire fighters and cops were looking for survivors, not explosives or damaged rubble. Then, the pieces of tower were whisked away.


You don't have proof. You have pieces of paper with most likely falsified information on it. All of which you've placed your faith on, hoping it's right and ridiculing others who believe otherwise.


Sorry, but all you are doing is pontificating and exercising hand waving. Saying the evidence that is so sorely lacking had to have been spirited away. There were news crews and cameras ALL OVER THAT PLACE for the days and weeks after they fell. To say that no one would have been noticed BY ANYONE while they were running around trying to find and hide all of the evidence is just crazy. You just keep moving those goal posts. Now you have the ultimate movement of them by simply saying that the evidence that is lacking had to have been scooped up and hidden in full view of everyone Whatever. And saying that "all I have is pieces of paper" is just plain nonsense. You are disregarding everything reputable and ACCOMPLISHED engineers have produced on this matter with a wave of the hand. I do not accept that as valid argument. Again I will ask some questions that are extremely fair: Where is the proof of explosives? Who is the narrator in your "debunking" video and what are his qualifications?



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: jaffo

No need to shout mate. And maybe you should concentrate more on what he's saying, not who he is....


No, actually I MUST focus on the issue of who he is first. Why on Earth should I take that guy's word when I do not even know who he is or what his actual qualifications are? Seriously, what part of that would be denying ignorance?!
edit on 5-5-2015 by jaffo because: Spelling error.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify




So, only wired explosives exist? Would a wireless one require me to believe in magic? Please, explain

Can you explain why none of the US enemies have come forth to say the US engineering data is wrong ?
Why hasn't Iran said the buildings could not have come down that way?
Iran has excellent engineers. But not one word of foul play.
Same thing from N Korea.
How has TPTB kept Kim Jung Idiot silent?
Is Putin best buddies with TPTB?

It's ok for you to believe in different theories.
But these theories need to encompass the totality of 911.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: bobbypurify




So, only wired explosives exist? Would a wireless one require me to believe in magic? Please, explain

Can you explain why none of the US enemies have come forth to say the US engineering data is wrong ?
Why hasn't Iran said the buildings could not have come down that way?
Iran has excellent engineers. But not one word of foul play.
Same thing from N Korea.
How has TPTB kept Kim Jung Idiot silent?
Is Putin best buddies with TPTB?

It's ok for you to believe in different theories.
But these theories need to encompass the totality of 911.


Because, because. . . CONSPIRACY!!! You just don't get it, sir.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Dr Graeme McQueen, a professor in Scotland and he teaches engineering at a university in Edinburgh, if I remember it right.
He has published some well written papers regarding his critique on the NIST report its engineering parts.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
a reply to: jaffo

Dr Graeme McQueen, a professor in Scotland and he teaches engineering at a university in Edinburgh, if I remember it right.
He has published some well written papers regarding his critique on the NIST report its engineering parts.


"If I remember it right." How about proof?



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

So you're relying on news crews to examine the rubble professionally for explosives? That seems rather silly. Are they qualified to do such tasks? Tell me, why didn't they examine the rubble for explosives? Why did NIST not consider explosives but were instead commissioned to make up a fairytale to explain how a building could come down without external accelerators (WTC 7)? Seems like "explosives" were made to be "taboo" from day 1. Like a little kid shoveling evidence behind him after being comfronted.

You don't speak for every engineer and you seem to think only "qualified" ones are the ones that agree with your flawed assessment of the events. Please, don't just say they all agree with the OS - where's a list of them that studied the OS and wrote their name down in ink supporting such. Is that list bigger than AETruth?



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: jaffo

So you're relying on news crews to examine the rubble professionally for explosives? That seems rather silly. Are they qualified to do such tasks? Tell me, why didn't they examine the rubble for explosives? Why did NIST not consider explosives but were instead commissioned to make up a fairytale to explain how a building could come down without external accelerators (WTC 7)? Seems like "explosives" were made to be "taboo" from day 1. Like a little kid shoveling evidence behind him after being comfronted.

You don't speak for every engineer and you seem to think only "qualified" ones are the ones that agree with your flawed assessment of the events. Please, don't just say they all agree with the OS - where's a list of them that studied the OS and wrote their name down in ink supporting such. Is that list bigger than AETruth?


No, that is not what I said at all and you know it. What I said was that it is silly to try and say that nobody would have noticed the massive numbers of people that would have had to be involved to try and get every single piece of evidence away from the scene in the middle of an active rescue effort. As to who I believe, I believe people who know what they are doing, do not rely on YouTube videos, and who freely and openly submit their qualifications and work for peer review. I will ask again: Can you prove who the guy on the video actually is? Or do I just have to take that on faith too? Oh and AETruth is hot garbage. Like 95% of the claimed experts on that rag aren't even structural engineers. They pretty much let any fool who wanted to and who had even a base BA or BS of any sort sign that thing. If you had actually vetted them all instead of looking at the number of signatures you would know this.




top topics



 
62
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join