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.

 

University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

page: 2
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Great...go for it Doc!
The truth has been hidden...let the light of truth shine.
Anyway...anyone that believes that a hand full of nuts with box cutters highjacked four airplanes, flew two into the WTC and collapsed three buildings is either delusional or bought off...oh yea these guys flew piper cubs and then a jet airliner...right...Have I got a bridge deal for you.
Cheers,




posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I'm very curious to see what they come up with. Thanks for sharing.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
as to the title of this thread.....why?.....how many people are going to keep doing this.....there is simply nothing that is going to be done about it...it's over, the evidence is destroyed or hidden, the history has been written.

What?!

By your logic, if evidence was discovered or produced decades later that could potentially convict a murderer or rapist, it should be passed up based upon the length of time that's gone by?

Are you advocating we let those responsible walk free? What if they commit another atrocity? It could've possibly been prevented if good people who do nothing, did something about it when the opportunity arose.

Investigations can stay open for years or even decades. This is not uncommon and I'm not sure why you have such a problem with it. Given that are government has lied in the past, leaving the book open is the best way to hold someone accountable in the future.

edit on 24-4-2016 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
This dwas brought down by the chimney effect of super heated fire with jet fuel in the two other buildings. Just thing about that for a second. JET fuel! very powerful! Its a wonder that more of the city wasnt brought down at the same time. I guess we were just fortunate....... Sarc off



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   
How will they simulate the impact damage from Towers 1 & 2?



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 02:54 AM
link   
WTC7 collapsing doesn't make sense.

Some of you on ATS believe the fire(s) was powerful enough to bring it down, but entire floors were not on fire. Pockets of fire in numerous areas of the building were observed, not entire floors. I will never believe that these randomly placed pockets of fire burst all 83 columns in the same split second to cause the building to collapse in the controlled manner that it did.

I will also never believe that these fires ignited because a few tonnes of bricks broke the surface, regardless of some fire travelling from the twin towers on their flying brick vehicles towards WTC7.

Nor do I believe the sole responsibility for the building collapsing was the result of fuel tanks exploding. I think the entire fantasy is laughable.

You may think I'm insane for what I believe, but if any of you believe the opposite I think you're insane. This does not make me smarter than you, or you smarter than me. It's my opinion vs yours. Prove me wrong, and I'll try to prove you wrong. It's what ATS is all about.


(post by PLAYERONE01 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   
***ATTENTION***

Please be advised that T&C violations within the 911 Forum result in no less than a 72 hour posting ban, review of your account by staff and potential outright banning for 1st offenses.

This is not to be taken lightly. Please note that any T&C violations or anything listed in [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1099528/pg1]this thread are subject to the actions listed above.

You will not be warned again, please do not reply to this post.

~Tenth
ATS Super Moderator



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis


About 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators didn't have the authority to preserve the wreckage.


So your only issue with 911 events is 80% of the steel wasn't examined properly? Your basis for this conclusion should be interesting. Try to focus on specifics instead of mantras. What was in the steel that they didn't examine?



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: angryhulk
WTC7 collapsing doesn't make sense.

Some of you on ATS believe the fire(s) was powerful enough to bring it down, but entire floors were not on fire. Pockets of fire in numerous areas of the building were observed, not entire floors. I will never believe that these randomly placed pockets of fire burst all 83 columns in the same split second to cause the building to collapse in the controlled manner that it did.

I will also never believe that these fires ignited because a few tonnes of bricks broke the surface, regardless of some fire travelling from the twin towers on their flying brick vehicles towards WTC7.

Nor do I believe the sole responsibility for the building collapsing was the result of fuel tanks exploding. I think the entire fantasy is laughable.

You may think I'm insane for what I believe, but if any of you believe the opposite I think you're insane. This does not make me smarter than you, or you smarter than me. It's my opinion vs yours. Prove me wrong, and I'll try to prove you wrong. It's what ATS is all about.


Your statements reflect you either haven't reviewed very much footage of the days events to any degree or are just meming what others say abut wtc 7.

There is plenty of video showing that the building was on fire all day until it collapsed. Whole floors were burned out one office at a time as reflected in this compilation. Look close, take off your blinders.
The gas tanks didn't 'explode', the fire compromised the piping in the building that dispersed the fuel and the leaking gas fed the flames until the support structure was so compromised it could no longer sustain the weight of the upper floors. Like a house of cards collapses when you pull out a single card at the bottom.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: angryhulk
WTC7 collapsing doesn't make sense.

Some of you on ATS believe the fire(s) was powerful enough to bring it down, but entire floors were not on fire. Pockets of fire in numerous areas of the building were observed, not entire floors. I will never believe that these randomly placed pockets of fire burst all 83 columns in the same split second to cause the building to collapse in the controlled manner that it did.

I will also never believe that these fires ignited because a few tonnes of bricks broke the surface, regardless of some fire travelling from the twin towers on their flying brick vehicles towards WTC7.

Nor do I believe the sole responsibility for the building collapsing was the result of fuel tanks exploding. I think the entire fantasy is laughable.

You may think I'm insane for what I believe, but if any of you believe the opposite I think you're insane. This does not make me smarter than you, or you smarter than me. It's my opinion vs yours. Prove me wrong, and I'll try to prove you wrong. It's what ATS is all about.


Your statements reflect you either haven't reviewed very much footage of the days events to any degree or are just meming what others say abut wtc 7.

There is plenty of video showing that the building was on fire all day until it collapsed. Whole floors were burned out one office at a time as reflected in this compilation. Look close, take off your blinders.
The gas tanks didn't 'explode', the fire compromised the piping in the building that dispersed the fuel and the leaking gas fed the flames until the support structure was so compromised it could no longer sustain the weight of the upper floors. Like a house of cards collapses when you pull out a single card at the bottom.



No, that compilation video does not exhibit entire floors on fire, only pockets of fire. Yes, large fires however the building is bloody huge.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: angryhulk


No, that compilation video does not exhibit entire floors on fire, only pockets of fire. Yes, large fires however the building is bloody huge.

Entire floors weren't on fire, entire floors were burned, one office at a time… all_day_long. Yah gravity pushing down on the damaged floors was 'huge'.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: angryhulk




No, that compilation video does not exhibit entire floors on fire, only pockets of fire. Yes, large fires however the building is bloody huge.

Did you notice that all the windows across entire floors were broken ?
What do you think caused that ?
Black op's with sledges or fire ?



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


So your only issue with 911 events is 80% of the steel wasn't examined properly?

The steel was NOT examined, not improperly examined as you suggest.

Mr. Bloomberg stated:


“If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything.” (Mayor Bloomberg Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris, January 24, 2002.)

I have a BIG issue with that considering how many lives were lost.


Generally, the purpose of a forensic engineering investigation is to locate cause or causes of failure with a view to improve performance or life of a component, or to assist a court in determining the facts of an accident.

Link

Also, I'm not here to discuss what my issues are with 9/11. Not this thread. The point was to bring exposure to Dr. Hurley and his work. Anything to say about that? I'm not personally trying to convince you of anything, so why does it matter what I believe? Try to focus on what was presented in the OP, not me.


What was in the steel that they didn't examine?

I hate trick questions.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis


The steel was NOT examined, not improperly examined as you suggest.

If it wasn't properly examined, how do we know anything was "missed"?

Argument fallacy, like other wtc 7 arguments that insinuate some realm of hidden evidence tells more truth.

Reopening the investigation on these grounds negates the investigation that was done (conveniently) as well.

So now that the investigation is dismissed and the missing evidence is 'unavailable' the mystery of the rubble can go on ad infinitum.

New investigation should take its head out of the rubble pile and look to the endless wars, profit from armaments and whose behind all that. Thats what will kill more people eventually, not some missing rubble or steel.

911 'truthers' get your heads out of the debris.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I didn't see the footage of 7 WTC collapse rebroadcast until
about a year after the event, but as soon as I did
alarm bells went off and I thought,
WTC 1 & 2 had to have been demolished as well .
Maybe the clacker for 7 failed as 1 and 2 collapsed ?

Someone got it fixed and back in working order by 5:20pm.
ALSO, Somebody got into some VERY big secret trouble that day.

Think about 47 stories of steel, much stronger than the burner
you cook on at home, a lot of it Emergency Bunker strength..
Now wrap that steel in concrete and think about carpet and paper burning.
Carpet papers and computers somehow made steel wrapped in concrete
crumble to the ground.
ALL of the FLOORS.
Neatly and completely.

7WTC is the smoking gun.
It's about to blow wide open and when it does a few energy
billionaires, their mercs and an armed to the teeth middle eastern country
may hit the panic button..hopefully the plunger fails again.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak


Think about 47 stories of steel, much stronger than the burner
you cook on at home, a lot of it Emergency Bunker strength..

Emergency bunkers are underground.

WTC 7 design was compromised from the get go… so was the twin towers, but thats another story.

Original buildign design (wiki)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

anyone hear that theory about the proposed building before the towers were built instead ?



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak


Think about 47 stories of steel, much stronger than the burner
you cook on at home, a lot of it Emergency Bunker strength..

Emergency bunkers are underground.

Yeah, just not Giuliani's.


The Times reported plans to build the command center — derided by some as a bunker — in June 1998. A June 1999 article about the opening of the the $13 million command center, by Judith Miller of The Times, stated, in part:

Asked about the center’s location in the World Trade Center, in a building across the street from the site of the 1993 terrorist bombing that killed six people, Mr. Hauer, who is director of the city’s Office of Emergency Management, said the location was chosen after a study of some 50 alternative sites. The complex now has tight security and is close to the Mayor’s office, the Police and Fire Departments and the headquarters of other high city officials, he said, adding that in the event of an emergency, personnel would want to reach the center on foot.

Mr. Lhota noted that 7 World Trade Center already housed several federal law enforcement agencies and was in easy walking distance of major city agencies headquartered in Lower Manhattan. The building was also relatively new and had backup power and advanced communications capabilities. It was seen as hurricane- and blast-proof. The 23rd floor, Mr. Lhota added, was empty and available and free of columns, giving it the feeling of an open “trading floor” where officials could interact with each other easily during an emergency.

Richard J. Sheirer, Mr. Hauer’s successor, testified before the 9/11 Commission that the command center should not have been located in a skyscraper and suggested that the blame lay with Mr. Hauer.

But in June 2004, Newsday reported:

Speaking separately to reporters after their testimony, Giuliani and Hauer were consistent in their accounts of how the command center came to be removed from 1 Police Plaza in 1996 and put in leased space at 7 WTC.

Both said Hauer and other mayoral aides drove the decision, but Giuliani guided them and ultimately made the choice. He had directed Hauer to find a place close to City Hall. Underground facilities were ruled out because of flooding concerns and it was considered ideal that the CIA and Secret Service were already in 7 World Trade Center.

Link

edit on 25-4-2016 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   
NVM
edit on 25-4-2016 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join