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.

 

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 76
160
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Tell them how delighted you are on how the Bush Administration handled the 911 investigation.


Let's take a look at AE911Truth's, the group that is well-known for spewing disinformation.



Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis

AE911Truth is an organization founded by Richard Gage where people with some Architectural and Engineering background discuss the events of 9/11, and generally promote the idea that the destruction of the two towers and WTC Building 7 were controlled demolitions.

They are a big budget organization, spending nearly half a million dollars a year (and with $85,000 just on Gage's salary).

www.metabunk.org...




posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   


Tell all these WTC survivors that they are the enemy of truth by going on the written Record.


How many produced evidence of demo explosives that can be used in a Court of Law?



Debunking WTC Controlled Demolition Theories

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.

Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings, Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America", states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse.

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives".

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.

en.wikipedia.org...



edit on 4-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


In a previous post, you suggested that you were somehow involved with my critique of the Jones paper. This must have been in a previous life as you registered in 2013 and turbofan and I discussed this in 2010. Are you a reincarnation?


I took several years off because my partner died. I am Impressme. Now do you remember me? I debunked you on Jones paper in threads that I created.


You were not in the WTC when they were blown to pieces, furthermore you are not qualified to determining to what all these people heard.

You may have your "opinions" however your "opinions" are not true. You denying what these people heard is no different than calling them lairs.

These eyewitness are Truthers as well by going on the written record all you have done is created excuses to what you think all these eyewitness heard.
edit on 4-10-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


They are a big budget organization, spending nearly half a million dollars a year (and with $85,000 just on Gage's salary).


The fact is OS supporters try their best to discrete anyone that is important by creating assumptions, in hoping to discrete the whole organization including all their science.

Where is your science disproving A&E. You have none.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




Where is your science disproving A&E. You have none.

It was just given to you.
But you refuse to accept it.
Somehow you would rather believe in some mass conspiracy where no one ever talks.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Where is your science disproving A&E. You have none.


You were well-aware that "AE 9/11 Truth" has been debunked with scientific evidence and common sense.

Let's take a look here.



AE 911 Truth says:

We know that the falling section of Building 7 did not crush the lower section of the building because the top section of Building 7 fell at freefall. It didn't just fall at something close to freefall. It fell for about 2.5 seconds at a rate that was indistinguishable from freefall.

www1.ae911truth.org...


Now, let's take a look at the rest of the story.



"AE 911 Truth" is well-known for spewing disinformation and for the solicitation of donations to help finance Richard Gage's $85,000.00 salary.

edit on 4-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Where is your science disproving A&E. You have none.


Let's take two more examples that discredited "AE 911 Truth."



"AE 911 Truth" says that lateral ejections of mult-ton steel was evidence of explosives

"Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,

www.ae911truth.org...


I would like to hear the "AE 911 Truth" explanation as to why the steel columns of WTC1 remained standing within this bomb crater.

Photo: WTC1 Steel Columns Standing in Huge Bomb Crater

Now, let's continue here.



"AE 911 Truth" says

Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,” evidence of bombs.

www.ae911truth.org...


Let's take a look here.



Squibs

During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could.

According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core.

* Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.

* ”Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”

Photo: Compressed Air Squibs



Two more examples that debunked "AE 911 Truth" with scientific facts and evidence.
edit on 4-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent



It was just given to you.
But you refuse to accept it.
Somehow you would rather believe in some mass conspiracy where no one ever talks.


DITTO!!

And, he was made aware that "AE 911 Truth" has been deunked with scientific facts and evidence.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent


It was just given to you.
But you refuse to accept it.
Somehow you would rather believe in some mass conspiracy where no one ever talks.


You mean experts "opinions" and old edited videos? You call that science?

No, I do not believe in a mas conspiracy, however the OS of 911 is a mass conspiracy with few facts supporting it.

Where is your science debunking A&E? You have none.

Do you discount the 500 eyewitness as well? Probably so.
edit on 4-10-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


In a previous post, you suggested that you were somehow involved with my critique of the Jones paper. This must have been in a previous life as you registered in 2013 and turbofan and I discussed this in 2010. Are you a reincarnation?


I took several years off because my partner died. I am Impressme. Now do you remember me? I debunked you on Jones paper in threads that I created.


You were not in the WTC when they were blown to pieces, furthermore you are not qualified to determining to what all these people heard.

You may have your "opinions" however your "opinions" are not true. You denying what these people heard is no different than calling them lairs.

These eyewitness are Truthers as well by going on the written record all you have done is created excuses to what you think all these eyewitness heard.


I remember you trying your best to support the Jones paper in a valiant but losing effort. Alas, you could not explain how he discriminated between a thermitic reaction and combustion of the organic binder by erroneously running the DSC in air instead of an inert gas. He didn't, so his results were inconclusive, at best. That means he proved nothing. If you want to believe that you "debunked" me, you are alone in your opinion. Jones really capped it by saying that there was 10 tons of unreacted thermitic material in the debris. About that time, he was forced to retire from his university as he was an embarrassment to the science department.
Maybe you didn't read my post about what was heard. The eyewitnesses may be surprised to find that they have been drafted as "truthers." I hope gage doesn't send them a bill.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



You were not in the WTC...


Neither were you.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409



"AE 911 Truth" is well-known for spewing disinformation and for the solicitation of donations to help finance Richard Gage's $85,000 salary.


That is untrue. you are spreading disinformation.

Your silly edited video is not science and it does not debunk A&E science, nice try for what little you can come up with.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



You mean experts "opinions" and old edited videos? You call that science?


Let's take a look at an old edited video that truthers claimed was evidence that WTC7 was brought down by demo explosives.




posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409



Let's take two more examples that discredited "AE 911 Truth."



"AE 911 Truth" says that lateral ejections of mult-ton steel was evidence of explosives

"Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,

www.ae911truth.org...


So your opinions are science now?

Where is your science to disprove your silly comment. You have none.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


I remember you trying your best to support the Jones paper in a valiant but losing effort.


LOL, you lost that debate with me years ago. I won.

I remember you getting your posts removed, because you where breaking every TC by belittling me and everyone who was giving you proof that you were sadly wrong. You were caught lying repeatedly and that is why I will never have another debate with you again.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Let's take a look at an old edited video that truthers claimed was evidence that WTC7 was brought down by demo explosives.


Yeah, the very same edited videos the OS uses and they call it science.

You lose my friend throw in the towel, I bet you didn't even read the OP of this thread either.

The very fact is The Op has debunked everything you have regurgitated.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



That is untrue. you are spreading disinformation.


That doesn't fly. I have challenged you to prove me wrong and you took off running away.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Yeah, the very same edited videos the OS uses and they call it science.


I have challenge you to prove me wrong on the videos and seismic data and you've failed to post the times lines and seismic data proving me wrong.
edit on 4-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



So your opinions are science now?


That's right!! As proof, explain to us all, why this bombed steel frame hangar is still standing?

Photo: Bombed Steel Frame Building Still Standing



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


That doesn't fly. I have challenged you to prove me wrong and you took off running away.


I have never run away, however you did when I posted that 500 eyewitness accounts.




top topics



 
160
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join