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: 46
55
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Even more so because the WTC structures were supporting huge amounts of weight above the impact points, and the impact points are where the collapse of those buildings were initiated.

At the impact point of WTC 2, the building was supporting more overhead weight then WTC 1, which is why WTC 2 collapsed before WTC 1 even though WTC 1 was struck first.

Another case to remember is where fire from an overturned fuel truck had weakened the steel structure of an overpass in California, which caused the overpass to collapse. A typical wood fire can weaken a steel railroad track after an hour whereas, that railroad track can be bent by hand around a tree.

.
edit on 25-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine




Note that the NIST conclusion is based on facts in that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found


Thats based on the fact they did not look for any, you do know that ? well you do now.


It is a fact that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found. Actively looking for something and discovering the unexpected are not the same thing. Was anyone supervising the cleanup?

If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible. Directed energy weapons from space that "dustify" metal and nuclear bombs are examples of things that did not happen.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine




Note that the NIST conclusion is based on facts in that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found


Thats based on the fact they did not look for any, you do know that ? well you do now.


It is a fact that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found. Actively looking for something and discovering the unexpected are not the same thing. Was anyone supervising the cleanup?

If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible. Directed energy weapons from space that "dustify" metal and nuclear bombs are examples of things that did not happen.



Well that depends on who you want to believe , taking into consideration all the events of 911 the gov is the last I will trust..

I don't know how it was done, there are many opinions on that, however when observing what happened it is clear that gravity did not act alone.. There is plenty of evidence to support that..



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine




If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible


By this statement are you on the fence about 911 and are willing to look at other possibilitys than the OS ?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




Even more so because the WTC structures were supporting huge amounts of weight above the impact points, and the impact points are where the collapse of those buildings were initiated.


Not that simple nor 100% true as you state it..





Another case to remember is where fire from an overturned fuel truck had weakened the steel structure of an overpass in California, which caused the overpass to collapse. A typical wood fire can weaken a steel railroad track after an hour whereas, that railroad track can be bent by hand around a tree.


Again nothing to do with 911..



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine




If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible


By this statement are you on the fence about 911 and are willing to look at other possibilitys than the OS ?


My conclusions are based on fact. There is no evidence of demolition of any of the structures.

In the spirit of open discussion, I have asked for a how-to from conspiracists many times. I have never had a clear response. If I get a response at all it is the general non-specific hand waving about super-secret quiet explosives and no one can postulate who did it and how but they really want a conspiracy. I tell them about the conspiracy of silence and coverup of Bush appointee incompetence but that is not exciting enough and we go around until they call me a "liar" [a sign that they can't respond and have lost the argument] and go away.
I am willing to go through various scenarios with anyone to examine any possibilities. Postulate the devices, locations and how they would have been placed and set off and we can discuss them.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine




If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible


By this statement are you on the fence about 911 and are willing to look at other possibilitys than the OS ?


My conclusions are based on fact. There is no evidence of demolition of any of the structures.

In the spirit of open discussion, I have asked for a how-to from conspiracists many times. I have never had a clear response. If I get a response at all it is the general non-specific hand waving about super-secret quiet explosives and no one can postulate who did it and how but they really want a conspiracy. I tell them about the conspiracy of silence and coverup of Bush appointee incompetence but that is not exciting enough and we go around until they call me a "liar" [a sign that they can't respond and have lost the argument] and go away.
I am willing to go through various scenarios with anyone to examine any possibilities. Postulate the devices, locations and how they would have been placed and set off and we can discuss them.



As to your first sentence I think there is. But you gave me a fair response, so then I would ask what interest you most #7 the towers 1 and two , they are all different, And I would have to address each in its own way.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine




I tell them about the conspiracy of silence and coverup of Bush appointee incompetence but that is not exciting enough and we go around until they call me a "liar" [a sign that they can't respond and have lost the argument] and go away.


This is already a known, they knew the attacks were coming and ignored it, but thats another story..



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine




If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible


By this statement are you on the fence about 911 and are willing to look at other possibilitys than the OS ?


My conclusions are based on fact. There is no evidence of demolition of any of the structures.

In the spirit of open discussion, I have asked for a how-to from conspiracists many times. I have never had a clear response. If I get a response at all it is the general non-specific hand waving about super-secret quiet explosives and no one can postulate who did it and how but they really want a conspiracy. I tell them about the conspiracy of silence and coverup of Bush appointee incompetence but that is not exciting enough and we go around until they call me a "liar" [a sign that they can't respond and have lost the argument] and go away.
I am willing to go through various scenarios with anyone to examine any possibilities. Postulate the devices, locations and how they would have been placed and set off and we can discuss them.



As to your first sentence I think there is. But you gave me a fair response, so then I would ask what interest you most #7 the towers 1 and two , they are all different, And I would have to address each in its own way.


What is the least complicated place to start? That would be a good place to test your theories.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Not that simple nor 100% true as you state it..


Of course it's true. Let's take a look at the following depiction and note the overhead mass above each impact point and tell us, which building collapsed first.

WTC Tower Depictions



Again nothing to do with 911..


It proves once again that fire can weaken unprotected load-bearing steel structures to the point of failure.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine




If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible


By this statement are you on the fence about 911 and are willing to look at other possibilitys than the OS ?


My conclusions are based on fact. There is no evidence of demolition of any of the structures.

In the spirit of open discussion, I have asked for a how-to from conspiracists many times. I have never had a clear response. If I get a response at all it is the general non-specific hand waving about super-secret quiet explosives and no one can postulate who did it and how but they really want a conspiracy. I tell them about the conspiracy of silence and coverup of Bush appointee incompetence but that is not exciting enough and we go around until they call me a "liar" [a sign that they can't respond and have lost the argument] and go away.
I am willing to go through various scenarios with anyone to examine any possibilities. Postulate the devices, locations and how they would have been placed and set off and we can discuss them.



As to your first sentence I think there is. But you gave me a fair response, so then I would ask what interest you most #7 the towers 1 and two , they are all different, And I would have to address each in its own way.


What is the least complicated place to start? That would be a good place to test your theories.


HUM, well wtc 7 has the strongest and more easily understandable data, as for my theories no not really, what needs to be discussed it what was observed, science starts with observation...after that theories then can be applied to explain what was observed..



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

With fires burning uncontrolled within WTC 7 and the huge impact hole on its south wall, many people knew that WTC 7 was going to collapse. Read the reports of the firefighters and demolition experts.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine




If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible


By this statement are you on the fence about 911 and are willing to look at other possibilitys than the OS ?


My conclusions are based on fact. There is no evidence of demolition of any of the structures.

In the spirit of open discussion, I have asked for a how-to from conspiracists many times. I have never had a clear response. If I get a response at all it is the general non-specific hand waving about super-secret quiet explosives and no one can postulate who did it and how but they really want a conspiracy. I tell them about the conspiracy of silence and coverup of Bush appointee incompetence but that is not exciting enough and we go around until they call me a "liar" [a sign that they can't respond and have lost the argument] and go away.
I am willing to go through various scenarios with anyone to examine any possibilities. Postulate the devices, locations and how they would have been placed and set off and we can discuss them.



As to your first sentence I think there is. But you gave me a fair response, so then I would ask what interest you most #7 the towers 1 and two , they are all different, And I would have to address each in its own way.


What is the least complicated place to start? That would be a good place to test your theories.


HUM, well wtc 7 has the strongest and more easily understandable data, as for my theories no not really, what needs to be discussed it what was observed, science starts with observation...after that theories then can be applied to explain what was observed..


WTC-7 is the most complicated. It is not directly comparable to other WTC buildings. WTC 1 and 2 are very similar and both appeared to collapse in the same fashion and about the same speed. We have videos and accurate times of aircraft strikes and the damage is clearly visible. WTC 7 had serious structural damage from falling WTC sections and its collapse occurred long after the initial collapses. How about WTC6? Is that a part of your theory?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">



Ok so, WTC 7 by observation was a text book example of a controlled demo, it showed the kink in the roof line, and as we see in the photo above it fell into its foot print with the fasad falling on top of the debris pile.

What is significant about the collapse is the building fell at free fall speed for the first 2.5 seconds or about 100 feet, and it did so in complete symmetrical fashion, this is a very significant observation.. in order for this to happen all vertical supports would have to be severed at the same time, there is no way around this fact. NIST when challenged with this had to admit it, and they did, again this is not natural..

For 100 feet of fall there was no resistances across the entire building, if fire caused the collapse we would have observed something very different, such as a partial collapse or the building tipping over ect..

More annalists in the two links below..




Building 7 - NIST Finally Admits Freefall -


www.youtube.com...

And





WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial


www.youtube.com...



In addition to that many will say there were no explosions heard before or during the collapse, this is not true, in fact it was broadcast on live TV. In the next video the live broadcast is examined , it is clear the sounds of explosions were heard, I can personally say from experience that when a reporter is on the air live the rest of the world is tuned out, a good example is the story this year when that guy shot the reporter and camera man , he walked up with the gun in hand out in front of him and no one noticed.

Further more the reporter had an ear piece in one ear reducing the ability to hear down to one ear and still the both of them stopped dead in there tracks and turned around because of what they heard, and that was just before the building began to fall..




posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine




WTC-7 is the most complicated. It is not directly comparable to other WTC buildings. WTC 1 and 2 are very similar and both appeared to collapse in the same fashion and about the same speed. We have videos and accurate times of aircraft strikes and the damage is clearly visible. WTC 7 had serious structural damage from falling WTC sections and its collapse occurred long after the initial collapses. How about WTC6? Is that a part of your theory?


NIST said the damage from the tower had no influence on the collapse, it only started the fires. AS for WTC 6, thats a whole big can of worms, other than the vault was empty and the gold gone and the fact the center of the building was missing I don't know what to make of it, it is not my area however I am aware of it..


" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">

edit on 25-12-2015 by wildb because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine




Note that the NIST conclusion is based on facts in that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found


Thats based on the fact they did not look for any, you do know that ? well you do now.


It is a fact that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found. Actively looking for something and discovering the unexpected are not the same thing. Was anyone supervising the cleanup?

If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible. Directed energy weapons from space that "dustify" metal and nuclear bombs are examples of things that did not happen.
The company named Controlled Demolition Inc., the market leader in the blow up and removal of multi-floor buildings, was chosen to remove the rubble from the WTC buildings. (Such as the twisted steel columns at the base of the structures) This carefully collected material (remember the police guards always surrounding the site for months?) was then ordered to be sent promptly to China where it was melted.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine




Note that the NIST conclusion is based on facts in that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found


Thats based on the fact they did not look for any, you do know that ? well you do now.


It is a fact that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found. Actively looking for something and discovering the unexpected are not the same thing. Was anyone supervising the cleanup?

If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible. Directed energy weapons from space that "dustify" metal and nuclear bombs are examples of things that did not happen.
The company named Controlled Demolition Inc., the market leader in the blow up and removal of multi-floor buildings, was chosen to remove the rubble from the WTC buildings. (Such as the twisted steel columns at the base of the structures) This carefully collected material (remember the police guards always surrounding the site for months?) was then ordered to be sent promptly to China where it was melted.


So what are you saying..



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine




Note that the NIST conclusion is based on facts in that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found


Thats based on the fact they did not look for any, you do know that ? well you do now.


It is a fact that no evidence of demolitions of any sort were found. Actively looking for something and discovering the unexpected are not the same thing. Was anyone supervising the cleanup?

If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible. Directed energy weapons from space that "dustify" metal and nuclear bombs are examples of things that did not happen.
The company named Controlled Demolition Inc., the market leader in the blow up and removal of multi-floor buildings, was chosen to remove the rubble from the WTC buildings. (Such as the twisted steel columns at the base of the structures) This carefully collected material (remember the police guards always surrounding the site for months?) was then ordered to be sent promptly to China where it was melted.


About 1/3 of the rubble from 9/11 was sent to Fresh Kills Landfill for examination and sorting; not China. Parts of the USS New York were made from 9/11 steel. Search on "Fresh Kills Landfill" for details.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine




WTC-7 is the most complicated. It is not directly comparable to other WTC buildings. WTC 1 and 2 are very similar and both appeared to collapse in the same fashion and about the same speed. We have videos and accurate times of aircraft strikes and the damage is clearly visible. WTC 7 had serious structural damage from falling WTC sections and its collapse occurred long after the initial collapses. How about WTC6? Is that a part of your theory?


NIST said the damage from the tower had no influence on the collapse, it only started the fires. AS for WTC 6, thats a whole big can of worms, other than the vault was empty and the gold gone and the fact the center of the building was missing I don't know what to make of it, it is not my area however I am aware of it..


" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">


The NYFD had a transit on #7 and saw it beginning to move which is why they backed off. If it was a demolition, how did the plotters get the building to start leaning before the collapse?


madenusa

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine




If you believe that there were demolitions, devise a series of postulates of what was used and how it was accomplished. We can go through them and see if any are possible


By this statement are you on the fence about 911 and are willing to look at other possibilitys than the OS ?


My conclusions are based on fact. There is no evidence of demolition of any of the structures.

In the spirit of open discussion, I have asked for a how-to from conspiracists many times. I have never had a clear response. If I get a response at all it is the general non-specific hand waving about super-secret quiet explosives and no one can postulate who did it and how but they really want a conspiracy. I tell them about the conspiracy of silence and coverup of Bush appointee incompetence but that is not exciting enough and we go around until they call me a "liar" [a sign that they can't respond and have lost the argument] and go away.
I am willing to go through various scenarios with anyone to examine any possibilities. Postulate the devices, locations and how they would have been placed and set off and we can discuss them.



As to your first sentence I think there is. But you gave me a fair response, so then I would ask what interest you most #7 the towers 1 and two , they are all different, And I would have to address each in its own way.


What is the least complicated place to start? That would be a good place to test your theories.


HUM, well wtc 7 has the strongest and more easily understandable data, as for my theories no not really, what needs to be discussed it what was observed, science starts with observation...after that theories then can be applied to explain what was observed..


WTC-7 is the most complicated. It is not directly comparable to other WTC buildings. WTC 1 and 2 are very similar and both appeared to collapse in the same fashion and about the same speed. We have videos and accurate times of aircraft strikes and the damage is clearly visible. WTC 7 had serious structural damage from falling WTC sections and its collapse occurred long after the initial collapses. How about WTC6? Is that a part of your theory?
Why did building 7 collapse? It wasn't even hit by anything save a small amount of debris. It was a whole block away from the burning Twin Towers. And yet it collapsed in exactly the same way - a perfect implosion - on the day of 9/11.www.todayscatholicworld.com... www.todayscatholicworld.com...



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
55
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join