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.

 

Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

page: 21
55
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: HorusChrist



hmmm even if you believe the official theory you should admit two explosions occurred, when the planes hit the buildings they blew up.


Those were primary explosions, not secondary explosions.




posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: HorusChrist



did you benefit financially due to the wars on terror which occurred due to 9/11?


No, but the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on Terror, will cost the United States well over $6 trillion over the coming decades. That is not beneficial to the United States. In fact, there was cases in Afghanistan where some units cut back on breakfast items because of financial issues. That was evident when I tried to order safety gloves for my workers and had to wait for the money to become available. Flight crews in some units were unable to replace their worn flight suits because of the financial the situation. We can also take a look here.



Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.

www.nytimes.com...



.. do you continue to benefit to this day from the "defense industry"?


Not personally, I am now retired, but I still keep my connections with the Air Force, who have supported me and my chapters. I continue to participate in Air Force airshows and even participated in an airshow at Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, which featured the Blue Angels.

While in Corpus Christi, I opened an exhibition shop in the city and the folks of the USS Lexington, supported my exhibition on the aircraft carrier for the month of February 2010. The grand opening of my shop and my exhibition had received press coverage in the local newspaper and from multiple TV stations.

To sum it up, there was no way the government could have pulled off 9/11 and not get caught. After all, it didn't take that long to reveal the Watergate scandal and yet, it has been 14 years since 9/11 and still no evidence of an inside job.
edit on 30-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
There were all kinds of different explosions, described by many people, heard by more.

Primary or secondary does not begin to describe the explosions at WTC.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Neither do demolition explosives. Simple fact.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   


That is false. The fact that in videos and even in photos, debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings. Here is further proof that the WTC buildings did not collapse at free fall speed.


The NIST report admitted the towers fell at essentially free fall speed, why can't you...



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



The NIST report admitted the towers fell at essentially free fall speed, why can't you...


The WTC buildings did not fall at free fall speed. That is proven by the fact that debris are outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings and are seen striking the ground as the collapse of the buildings are still in progress many stories above ground level.

Photo: Debris Outpacing WTC Collapse

Now, let's review the following video.



To sum it up, WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 did not fall at free fall speed as proven in photos and videos.
edit on 31-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander



There were all kinds of different explosions, described by many people, heard by more.


The explosions they heard had nothing to do with explosives. Let's take a look at another example.



The Elevator Man's Tale

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level.And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

www.thrnewmedia.com...


The fact that demo explosions are not heard as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed is further proof that demo explosives were not responsible.

Now, let's read what an expert has said.



Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

911research.wtc7.net...

edit on 31-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

You claim that all eyewitness accounts are discredited, so you can not use anything by any eyewitness to support your OS.

It's that simple.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



You claim that all eyewitness accounts are discredited, so you can not use anything by any eyewitness to support your OS.


I use my own experience, knowledge, data, documented physical evidence, and the laws of physics to determine who is right and who is wrong.

It is that simple!!



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409



I use my own experience, knowledge, data, documented physical evidence, and the laws of physics to determine who is right and who is wrong.

It is that simple!!


The fact is, there is no documented physical evidence and the laws of physics that you defend do not exist on this planet.

Yes, we all know you believe our government is right all the time and everyone including credible science is wrong as you demonstrated that all ready.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



The fact is, there is no documented physical evidence and the laws of physics that you defend do not exist on this planet.


Fact of the matter is, reality doesn't agree with you.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




The fact is, there is no documented physical evidence and the laws of physics that you defend do not exist on this planet.

That is a very ignorant statement.
There is no other way to put it.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Fact of the matter is, reality doesn't agree with you.



You are not a trained psychiatrist, to giver your "opinions" to what reality I live in.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



You are not a trained psychiatrist, to giver your "opinions" to what reality I live in.


Tell that to these experts.



Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

The fact is the NIST report was not complete, they did not look at how the towers fell...



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



The fact is the NIST report was not complete, they did not look at how the towers fell...


Let's take a look here.



Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors.

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

vincentdunn.com...


Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign

www.bloomberg.com...


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

sites.google.com...


Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

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...



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   


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.


Thanks for backing up my post....



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Architects and Engineers


I guess a lot of you have heard about the website ae911truth where a group of individuals claim that what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened. This is just a claim, because they have nothing to show for their allegation that it could not have happened the way it did. You won't find any calculations that show how the NIST Report is wrong. On this site, you will find many structural engineers - those who actually know what they are talking about - explaining why the towers collapsed the way they did. So feel free to look at all the information I have gathered about the research done on the collapse on the towers. The research has been published in numerous engineering magazines and all over the internet on engineering sites (See the links on the right side of this site).


911-engineers.blogspot.com...

This source you just used is very bias and is ONLY opinionated and nothing more.

The fact is, this source you used mocks credible science and ridicules scientist.
The fact is, This website does not give any scientific evidence of any kind to debunk A&E.

Knowing how the OS is chuck full of proven lies after 14 years, I have to ask you, why do you use dishonest websites to support your claims?

This writer from your source gathered information from engineering magazines which has nothing to do with 911.


Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition


The fact is, Because they where PAID to lie in their pseudo Report.

edit on 1-11-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



The fact is, This website does not give any scientific evidence of any kind to debunk A&E.


"AE911 Truth" is not credible by any means and has been under attack, not just from the "OS" folks and hardcore 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but from the very people who have worked for "AE911 Truth" as well.



The Shaky Moral Foundation that AE911Truth is Built Upon

Why We Can No Longer Associate with AE911Truth

healthwyze.org...


Even Richard Gage has been called a liar by hardcore 9/11 Truthers.







The fact is, Because they where PAID to lie in their pseudo Report.


Evidence please and I want you post your evidence for everyone here, otherwise, you have no case that they were paid to lie.
edit on 1-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Evidence please and I want you post your evidence for everyone here, otherwise, you have no case that they were paid to lie.


The NIST report that you defend dearly was proven a fraud by A&E and is a laughing stock to real science.

Even NIST failed to tell the world in their pseudo Report what happened as the onset of the collapse begins. Yeah, they didn't even bothered to finishes their own Report.

The fact is, IF they had finished their Report explaining the rest of the onset collapse it would not match mathematically to the rest of their pseudo Report and NIST knew that.

The fact is, the NIST Report was incomplete.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join