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.

 

Truther Thread

page: 16
34
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642


Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.


Did Chief Daniel Nigro really say this? or did you say this.

Because if Chief Nigro said this, before an investigation was even finished, it stinks of a cover up.

Chief Nigro is not an Engineer either.

I would like to see the source for this information since you have it at your finger tips?




posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
When the upper floors leaned over first as they were falling, the rest of the WTC would still be standing. ....But that is not what everyone witness that terrible day is it? Any honest Engineer will tell you that.


Honest engineers know that pivot point would not support all the building above its weight, so were not surprised it came down.


You see there was nothing there to pull the rest of the WTC down at that point.


Apart from gravity, and thousands of tonnes falling on it!


The only way that scientifically proves what was observed on all the un-tampered News media videos that day of 911 can only be demolition.


A demolition that no one noticed being set up, left no signs, made no noise and no blast effects? The magical hush a boom explosives, I guess!





posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
The Bottom Line How can you or anyone Re-Open an Investigation into 911 ???? I Don't know .



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: bobw927

Unfortunately, re-open investigation seems pointless big effort by now, to me.

Important is to create awareness, into new and old generations.
With awareness we make links, and won't be easily fooled again.


Also, chances are, will be the same fuqks screwing us, again.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce


Honest engineers know that pivot point would not support all the building above its weight, so were not surprised it came down.


I disagree.

Care to prove your statement?

Because my understanding is when the top floor leaned over and fell leaving the rest of the WTC standing for a few seconds, there was nothing pulling the rest down, so would you care to explain from the 78 floor what cause the rest to fall down without any thing above it? And remember this there were no fires below that point or no damage.

Are you going to tell me a few office fires and the already burnt out jet fuel brought down the undamaged WTC at a natural free fall?


Apart from gravity, and thousands of tonnes falling on it!


Here is a little fact for you to digest. After the leaning upper floors fell there was nothing pulling on the rest of the WTC to bring it down.


A demolition that no one noticed being set up, left no signs, made no noise and no blast effects? The magical hush a boom explosives, I guess!


On the contrary, creditable people did noticed and went on the historical written record with their testimonies. I would expect this kind of an answer from an OSer because many cannot answers the questions, but only ridicule it.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
Because my understanding is when the top floor leaned over and fell leaving the rest of the WTC standing for a few seconds


As the top part of the building fell it crushed the floors underneath it,


there was nothing pulling the rest down,


So gravity should have just stopped working? The conspiracy theories get sillier every day, now gravity just stopped working beneath the WTC!


would you care to explain from the 78 floor what cause the rest to fall down without any thing above it?


Ever thought the floors above where the plane hit falling on it may have caused it to collapse?


Are you going to tell me a few office fires and the already burnt out jet fuel brought down the undamaged WTC


You appear to have missed the remainder of the building falling on it!


at a natural free fall?


WTC 1 & 2 never fell at free fall speed, as can clearly be seen by just watching a video of them collapsing....


Here is a little fact for you to digest. After the leaning upper floors fell there was nothing pulling on the rest of the WTC to bring it down.


Apart from gravity, and thousands of tonnes falling on it!


On the contrary, creditable people did noticed and went on the historical written record with their testimonies.


Please show these testimonies that people saw holes bashed in walls, tonnes of explosives being wired up in the WTC.

You cannot, as no such testimony was ever made!





posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   
The thing about the south tower and the fact the top pivoted to the side can be explained.

If you study the video through (and do it at 25-50% speed) you will note a couple of things.

1) the top of the building tips to the side and then falls straight down. A lot of it is covered by the dust so where you need to look is the dust and debris being blown out the side of the tower below. You will notice it is happening at a 45° angle almost (lower on the east face than the west). This collapse front would point towards the remains of the building above forming a wedge shape as it collapsed. I used to shout about Mr newton having something to say about that. But he would have something to say. He would say the reason the building stopped tipping and evened out was because it did meet resistance. The floors on the east side were mangled and allowed the motion untill it hit the largely unaffected floors below the impact zone. From there it would then begin smashing the building below.

What people don't take into account at this point is the fact you now have the solid inner core structure driving downwards. But it's off centre. Which means its pushing down onto open floor space and between the columns of the core below and it has the hat truss adding to the weight of it. That would do massive amounts of damage.

Something that would point to the floors below pushing back and giving resistance to the floors above (and the second thing you will note) is the fact the top section then loses a massive portion of the outer columns in one large chunk. That would point to the eastern side of the top section taking a massive impact.

When that eastern face goes the top section would lose nearly all of its structural integrity and its no longer a solid chunk of a building it is just dead weight dropping on anything below it. That would explain why it appears to just disintegrate. From then its just a mangled mess falling doward.

Once the building toppled into the impact zone it is no longer a flat bottom surface. It's a wedge shape, that fact goes unnoticed. And the tip of the wedge is driving down the eastern side of the building but its inside the outer face as it goes. That has the effect of falling debris not just driving down on the floors below but it is also peeling the outer structure away from the floors below as it goes (the outer structure giving the towers a massive part of their strength). This happens in both towers, the outer columns falling inside the columns below and acting like a razor, skimming them away from the floor trusses. That's what gives the effect of the large outer columns and faces of the towers falling away and outwards as they go down.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce


As the top part of the building fell it crushed the floors underneath it,


It did, that not what the world watched on their television on the morning of 911. We all witness the top floors from the 78 floors lean over and fall down leaving the rest with plenty of resistance.


You appear to have missed the remainder of the building falling on it!


You are repeating yourself, you cannot answer the question, very interesting.


WTC 1 & 2 never fell at free fall speed, as can clearly be seen by just watching a video of them collapsing....


That is not what real science says. Your free to express your opinions, however science has trumped those opinions already.



Please show these testimonies that people saw holes bashed in walls, tonnes of explosives being wired up in the WTC.

You cannot, as no such testimony was ever made!


Uh, I never made any such claim.

Who said there was testimony of holes bashed in with tons of explosives being wired up in the WTC???



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce



demolition that no one noticed being set up, left no signs, made no noise and no blast effects? The magical hush a boom explosives, I guess!


Exactly! Great point!

In addition, the structures of the buildings must be pre-weakened even before cutter charges and other explosives are firmly attached to the steel columns. Just gaining access to the WTC structures would have generated huge amounts of waste material and the pre-weakening process would have generated far too much noise and hazardous environmental conditions that would not have been tolerated and preparation would have taken almost a year for each WTC building, but the underlying fact is, there is not a single piece of evidence that explosives were used.

* No sound of explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed

^ No explosion shockwaves as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No seismic data indicating the use of demolition explosives as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No demolition hardware found in the WTC rubble

* No secondary explosions seen nor heard during the impacts or during the collapse of those buildings

* Structural experts have rejected the WTC demolition theory

* Civil engineers have rejected the WTC demolition theory

* FDNY has rejected the WTC demolition theory

* Demolition experts have rejected the WTC demolition theory

* Architects have rejected the WTC demolition theory

* Seismic operators of Protec Documentation Services, Inc. and Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, have stated their seismographs did not detect demolition explosions. Case in point:



Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Arthur Lerner-Lam, a seismologist at the University states: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

ARTHUR L. LERNER-LAM
Deputy Director
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

www.popularmechanics.com...


And now, let's hear from the other company that was operating seismographs in the area.



Seismographs of the Protec Documentation Services, Inc

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. In his words:

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition.
The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

www.jnani.org...


In addition, the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 is not indicative of controlled demolitions by any means. To sum it up, there is zero evidence for demolition explosives at WTC ground zero.
.
edit on 1-1-2016 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



That is not what real science says.


Let's take a look.



Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

It seems that all the proponents of the CD theory state the case, like Jones above, along the lines: “The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses.” This is simply unscientific; not corresponding to the reality of how controlled demolition is carried out

www.jnani.org...


The fact of the matter is, debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are seen in a number of videos outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings, and since debris are seen in free fall, which are outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings, how could the collapse have been in free fall when debris are seen outpacing the collapse and striking the ground while the collapse is still in progress many stories above the ground?

The total recorded collapse times for WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 have debunked claims those buildings collapsed at free fall speed.

.
edit on 1-1-2016 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)


(post by Debunkology removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)
(post by pteridine removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Lack of demolition evidence is not lack of destruction evidence, just a negation of a single method.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

You got it in a nutshell there


The spine of the building (the core columns) were compromised by the impact + fires and it only took a shift of a metre or so in any direction to result in a massive pile driver that was guided down by the outer wall structure. All that stood in its way were the relatively weak floors that were only constructed to support themselves. The outer walls peeled away and broke up at their joints (every 3 floors apart). The core columns also broke apart at their welded joints when no longer stabilized by the floors and outer walls.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Those of you espousing the official story, why do you think NIST refusing to release their data is in any way acceptable?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
*POST REMOVED BY STAFF*


Come on, you can do better than that.

I subscribe to the ideas of thousands of professionals who want truth, whether they be professional architects and engineers, professional pilots, military personnel, and professional firefighters. Because the official explanation does not hold up.

Explosives is the best explanation into why Building 7 fell down in its own footprint within seconds. It is a very logical theory, using critical thinking. Yet the only argument against this idea that hasn’t already been debunked time and time again on these forums, is not an argument but a tactic of defamation by association. You simply want to mention it alongside death rays from Space. Hoping that this idea simply becomes absurd by association, rather than the very rational idea that it is.

A missile hitting the Pentagon looks far more plausible than an airplane hitting it from the evidence gathered, and lack of evidence thereof of an airplane hitting it. Again, a very rational explanation using critical thinking. Yet you want to associate it with holographic planes.

This tactic is a tired method that I see used time and time again. And if all else fails then just call the people who don’t believe in your religious book ”a truther”.

I think “truther” is the wrong word. I think the name should be “none believers in bull#”


edit on 1/1/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Debunkology




TA missile hitting the Pentagon looks far more plausible than an airplane hitting it from the evidence gathered, and lack of evidence thereof of an airplane hitting it. Again, a very rational explanation using critical thinking. Yet you want to associate it with holographic planes.

You have to stay with what is real and physical evidence.

Many people saw a full sized aircraft not a missile.
Full sized airplane parts were found at the scene.
Light poles were knocked down in the flight path.

Even today no one is able to create a free air hologram large or small.
Especially on a bright sunny day.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: pteridine
*POST REMOVED BY STAFF*


Come on, you can do better than that.

I subscribe to the ideas of thousands of professionals who want truth, whether they be professional architects and engineers, professional pilots, military personnel, and professional firefighters. Because the official explanation does not hold up.

Explosives is the best explanation into why Building 7 fell down in its own footprint within seconds. It is a very logical theory, using critical thinking. Yet the only argument against this idea that hasn’t already been debunked time and time again on these forums, is not an argument but a tactic of defamation by association. You simply want to mention it alongside death rays from Space. Hoping that this idea simply becomes absurd by association, rather than the very rational idea that it is.

A missile hitting the Pentagon looks far more plausible than an airplane hitting it from the evidence gathered, and lack of evidence thereof of an airplane hitting it. Again, a very rational explanation using critical thinking. Yet you want to associate it with holographic planes.

This tactic is a tired method that I see used time and time again. And if all else fails then just call the people who don’t believe in your religious book ”a truther”.

I think “truther” is the wrong word. I think the name should be “none believers in bull#”



I was pointing out the many diverse theories of groups that cannot cooperate with each other to come up with a single theory that better explains events than the NIST report, the so-called OS. As samkent has pointed out, enough eyewitnesses to the event and recovery of airplane parts and human body parts from the aircraft, inside the Pentagon, have eliminated the missile theory for all but a few. If it was a missile, where did the plane go? This was asked and many had the most contrived answers imaginable to ensure that their own conspiracy theory would remain afloat. As time goes on, I have noticed that the towers and Pentagon have been less under discussion and WTC7 has risen to the top. I think that since only the most close minded individuals could argue for planned demolition of WTC 1&2, the concept is that since 7 didn't have such extensive video coverage, claims could more readily be made that 7 was a planned demolition. If doubt can be cast on 7, it can be extended to 1 and 2 by implication. This will never get resolved in some eyes just as the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations and Flight 800 shoot down have never been resolved. In fact, Flight 800 is a much better investigative event than the WTC.
Calls for a new investigation went unheard and will continue to be unheard. There are more problems facing the US of far more immediate importance than trying to find thermite residue in paint chips. What evidence would even be investigated? It would be a relook at existing evidence which would lead to the same conclusions. Who would investigate? What would happen if the new investigators said that the OS was correct? Would we keep reinvestigating until the desired conclusions were reached? How would new investigators discover incompetence at the top of government and cover up of that incompetence by heads of agencies?

The Truthers, especially in the form of A&E, have been marginalized.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Debunkology




A missile hitting the Pentagon looks far more plausible than an airplane hitting it from the evidence gathered, and lack of evidence thereof of an airplane hitting it. Again, a very rational explanation using critical thinking. Yet you want to associate it with holographic planes.


You have to stay with what is real and physical evidence.

Many people saw a full sized aircraft not a missile.
Full sized airplane parts were found at the scene.
Light poles were knocked down in the flight path.

Even today no one is able to create a free air hologram large or small.
Especially on a bright sunny day.


Precisely, You have to stay with what is real as well as physical evidence. However there is no physical evidence that a commercial jet airliner hit the Pentagon.

There were witnesses and employees who didn’t see a plane hit the pentagon. Including a witness who was in the Pentagon and walked out of the “hole”, that the plane supposedly hit.
"Full size airplane parts" were found at the Pentagon but not big enough to be a commercial plane.
Light poles being knocked down is no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon.


And again, you are associating this with holographic planes. I did not say anything about holographic planes.

Also, you totally ignoring my point about Building 7. This is just typical selection of information that you choose to omit, and associating the absurd with the rational. Holographic planes is your delusions. Not mine.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Debunkology


Come on, you can do better than that.

I subscribe to the ideas of thousands of professionals who want truth, whether they be professional architects and engineers, professional pilots, military personnel, and professional firefighters. Because the official explanation does not hold up.

Explosives is the best explanation into why Building 7 fell down in its own footprint within seconds. It is a very logical theory, using critical thinking. Yet the only argument against this idea that hasn’t already been debunked time and time again on these forums, is not an argument but a tactic of defamation by association. You simply want to mention it alongside death rays from Space. Hoping that this idea simply becomes absurd by association, rather than the very rational idea that it is.

A missile hitting the Pentagon looks far more plausible than an airplane hitting it from the evidence gathered, and lack of evidence thereof of an airplane hitting it. Again, a very rational explanation using critical thinking. Yet you want to associate it with holographic planes.

This tactic is a tired method that I see used time and time again. And if all else fails then just call the people who don’t believe in your religious book ”a truther”.

I think “truther” is the wrong word. I think the name should be “none believers in bul


Thank you.


I agree with everything you wrote and it is the truth. I have seen this tactic used many times, it is a form of ridicule and yes, a tactic of defamation by association.

When I see this kind of attack, I want to leave the thread and many ATS members do. I agree a missile is more plausible then a 757 when it comes to the Pentagon attack. When the evidence reports one of the engines just disappeared, and the lack of wreckage, tells us something is seriously wrong with the OS.

Steel and concrete buildings do not just fall down and all the concrete turns to dust while having fires underneath for several months that is impossible just from office fires. We know now there was far to much energy involve when one watches all the videos. So do the experts they are not fools and they based their science on it. I have yet to see their science debunked yet.
edit on 1-1-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join