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.

 

Just Wondering...

page: 14
29
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: In4ormant

My only agenda is the truth. Nothing more. I see you are ignoring my information.


Your information is all speculation. It's like your agreeing with people that say 2+2=5 because they have presented it well.

You don't like the truth. Not sure if its too simple or convenient but you would rather believe a convoluted fantasy.




posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




A fire does not need to be hot enough to melt steel to collapse a steel frame building and here is another example.


Why would you put something like that in print?



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I have to disagree with you.

You make erroneous claims, yet you do not back them up.

High Treason: 'Pentagon Lied to the 911 Commission'; Bush's Theory Falls Apart


911 Commission co-chairs claim that they were misled, perhaps deliberately, by the Bush administration and Pentagon brass. Because 911 was an act of mass murder overtly covered up by the Bush administration, the many lies told amount to more than mere obstructions of justice or cover ups. They amount to high treason, a betrayal of the public trust, a mechanism by which this administration seized power unconstitutionally. Upon the 911 pretext, Bush deliberately subverted the legitimate institutions of our government! The lies told by Bush and brass amount to sedition and high treason.
Instead of making a big scene and dropping a bombshell so-to-speak, the commission 'compromised' and deferred to the justice department so that it could pursue criminal investigations.
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
As we are all well aware, criminal charges were never made and it looks like interest in pursuing 'justice' wasn't a top priority for the Department of Justice.

The panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."




www.thepeoplesvoice.org...



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



Why would you put something like that in print?


Because it is true and evident when WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 buckled just before they collapsed, which was an indication that fire was weakening the steel structures of those buildings.

You might want to take a look at the Kader Toy Factory in Thailand where steel frame buildings collapsed due to fires.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: skyeagle409




A fire does not need to be hot enough to melt steel to collapse a steel frame building and here is another example.


Why would you put something like that in print?


Because......it just needs to be hot enough to reduce the load bearing qualities that keep the structure rigid. You act like the supports had to be turned to liguid before they lost the ability to bear the full load.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant

Everything you are saying is speculation you cant even back up your claims. An why is it I am the only one in this thread showing evidence. Are there that many OS believers on ATS? Are we embracing ignorance.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: In4ormant

Everything you are saying is speculation you cant even back up your claims. An why is it I am the only one in this thread showing evidence. Are there that many OS believers on ATS? Are we embracing ignorance.


There's a very large report that covers all this. The burden of proof is on you because your the one presenting an alternative. I think your belief that what you have presented is "evidence" speaks volumes about your position.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

I don't need to look at some bamboo toy factory to know the
fires simply didn't burn any where close to six thousand, nope
not five thousand, four thousand? Nope, three? Not even close.
Doesn't matter if you keep saying it over and over it will always be
WRONG!






Because......it just needs to be hot enough to reduce the load bearing qualities that keep the structure rigid. You act like the supports had to be turned to liguid before they lost the ability to bear the full load.


It's painfully obvious you don't even know what you're talk'n about.
edit on Rpm72515v36201500000026 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: skyeagle409

I don't need to look at some bamboo toy factory to know the
fires simply didn't burn any where close to six thousand, nope
not five thousand, four thousand? Nope, three? Not even close.
Doesn't matter if you keep saying it over and over it will always be
WRONG!



Have you read the NIST report? Here's a brief cover:

Immediately following the attacks, a building performance study (BPS) team of engineering specialists was formed by the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The BPS team issued its report in May 2002, finding that the aircraft impacts caused "extensive structural damage, including localized collapse" and that the resulting fires "further weakened the steel-framed structures, eventually leading to total collapse." They also presented recommendations for more detailed engineering studies of the disaster.[5]

The BPS team investigation was later followed by a more detailed investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which also consulted outside engineering entities. This investigation was completed in September 2005. The NIST investigators did not find anything substandard in the design of the WTC towers, noting that the severity of the attacks and the magnitude of the destruction was beyond anything experienced in U.S. cities in the past. They also emphasized the role of the fires and found that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns: "This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."

Yet you choose to believe a couple crackpots with outlandish claims. God could tell you the planes brought them down and you would still argue.
edit on 25-7-2015 by In4ormant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: skyeagle409

I don't need to look at some bamboo toy factory to know the
fires simply didn't burn any where close to six thousand, nope
not five thousand, four thousand? Nope, three? Not even close.
Doesn't matter if you keep saying it over and over it will always be
WRONG!






Because......it just needs to be hot enough to reduce the load bearing qualities that keep the structure rigid. You act like the supports had to be turned to liguid before they lost the ability to bear the full load.


It's painfully obvious you don't even know what you're talk'n about.


99% of the countries engineers would disagree. The other 1% couldn't be reached for comment.
edit on 25-7-2015 by In4ormant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant

You didn't really think I've never seen the report did you?
And how would that report have anything to do with the facts?




99% of the countries engineers would disagree. The other 1% couldn't be reached for comment.


Why are you making #### up now?

Source please?
edit on Rpm72515v43201500000059 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: In4ormant

You didn't really think I've never seen the report did you?
And how would that report have anything to do with the facts?


Just wow



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



*Fact*, Robert Muller head of the FBI admitted that we might never know who the real hijackers really were, because they left no paper trail.


Let's take a look here.



Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

www.pbs.org...

www.foxnews.c...ibility-for-11...


Al-Qaeda released martyr videos for most of the 9/11 hijackers

The Al Jazeera satellite network shows an hour-long video about al-Qaeda containing footage given to it from al-Qaeda of some of the 9/11 hijackers, including a martyr video from hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari (see September 9, 2002 and September 9, 2002).

A martyr video from hijacker Ahmed Alhaznawi was shown in April 2002. But this new hour-long video contains images of each of the hijacker teams that hijacked Flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 on September 11. These images show pictures of each hijacker in the team floating over a background.

Ahmed al-Ghamdi - Last will of 9/11 hijacker

The Last Will of Saeed al-Ghamdi the United 93 Hijacker

9/11 Hijackers Last Will and Testiment

cdn.historycommons.org...




*Fact*, the FBI admitted there was no investigation into the four planes that were allegedly hijacked.


That was false.



*Fact*, under the FOIA the records show flight 93 was still airborne “seven miles” pass the alleged crash site.


That is false as evident at the crash site of United 93.


*Fact*, Mayor in Ohio made a Press release stating flight 93 landed at Cincinnati airport.


You got that wrong because the aircraft in question was Delta 1989, which was a B-767, and United 93 was a B-757.



*Fact*, eyewitness account saw a jetliner fly on the south side of the pentagon not the north side as the government claims. [/quote

American 77 flew a course south of the gas station before slamming into the Pentagon. My Wing Commander was in the Pentagon when it was struck by American 77.

quote]
*Fact*, after explosion at pentagon the first photos revel no airplane wreckage on pentagon lawn.


According to my Wing Commander who was there, wreckage was spread all over the place.



*Fact*, before pentagon collapse, early photos show only a small entry hole.


Look at the entry hole of the Empire State Building made by a World War II bomber, which was much larger than the hole you see in the photo.

B-25 Entry Hole


*Fact*, eighty videos were seized at the pentagon and nearby business, yet not one video seem to capture a plane hitting the pentagon.


Let's take a look here.

Video of American 77 Stricking the Pentagon

That is definitely a B-757 in the background.

*Fact*, it has now been proven that Ted Olsen lied to the Press about is wife Barbra Olen phone call from hijack plane, it never happened.



*Fact*, Nano Thermite ,Nano Thermate have been found in the WTC dust, a chemical compound ingredient that is used in making explosive devices, and burns at extremes tempters.


I guess you were not updated to the facts. Richard Gage and Steven Jones were found to hsve lied about thermite and thermate at ground zero.



*Fact*, NIST refuses to investigated or acknowledge there were explosions, witnessed before the WTC came down.


Let's take a look here.



Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, wtc.nist.gov.... This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

www.webcitation.org...


To sum it up, much of what you posted was planted disinformation.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: In4ormant

You didn't really think I've never seen the report did you?
And how would that report have anything to do with the facts?




99% of the countries engineers would disagree. The other 1% couldn't be reached for comment.


Why are you making #### up now?

Source please?



You really should be keeping up with the number of experts opposed to this mickey mouse theory you guys have.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant



I don't need to look at some bamboo toy factory to know the
fires simply didn't burn any where close to six thousand, nope
not five thousand, four thousand? Nope, three? Not even close.
Doesn't matter if you keep saying it over and over it will always be
WRONG!


Why do you ignore the fact that 3 steel frame buildings in Thailand collapsed due to fire? Ever wonder why fire protection is applied to steel frame buildings?



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant


I think your belief that what you have presented is "evidence" speaks volumes about your position.


I think your belief is "evidence" that speaks volumes about "YOUR position", yet you can not back up your erroneous claims, except to deny "everything".

I am done here, it is like talking to a brick wall on this thread.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant

And I obviously need some one who has no idea when their
being lied to tell me what I should be " Keeping up with".

And what is this about?




Yet you choose to believe a couple crackpots with outlandish claims. God could tell you the planes brought them down and you would still argue.


Who, what crackpots?

edit on Rpm72515v01201500000019 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



It's painfully obvious you don't even know what you're talk'n about.


Of course I know exactly what I am talking about. Other than my experience as a pilot, I am also an airframe structural technician and one of my many jobs as such is the softening (annealing] of aerospace metals, including steel, at temperatures of only 1000 degrees F., which is a much lower temperature than recorded in the WTC buildings.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: In4ormant


I think your belief that what you have presented is "evidence" speaks volumes about your position.


I think your belief is "evidence" that speaks volumes about "YOUR position", yet you can not back up your erroneous claims, except to deny "everything".

I am done here, it is like talking to a brick wall on this thread.


How many experts does it take? 500? 1000? What's the number before the lightbulb goes on?



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: In4ormant



I don't need to look at some bamboo toy factory to know the
fires simply didn't burn any where close to six thousand, nope
not five thousand, four thousand? Nope, three? Not even close.
Doesn't matter if you keep saying it over and over it will always be
WRONG!


Why do you ignore the fact that 3 steel frame buildings in Thailand collapsed due to fire? Ever wonder why fire protection is applied to steel frame buildings?


I haven't. I think your confused



new topics




 
29
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join