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: 9
44
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Look my point is this. I don't think they were demolished. I think they fell down because aircraft were flown straight into them. DEA, NYPD, FBI (the list goes on) reports all give the game away. Israeli intelligence knew about those hijackers. They knew where they were. They knew where they planned to strike. If they knew that leaves three possibilities.

1)They kept that knowledge to themselves and allowed the attack to go ahead.

2)they passed that information on and it was ignored.

3)they were part of the hijacking operation.

If people care to look and stop the stupid arguments about how the buildings fell or why they will see the real conspiracy is already blown wide open but nobody cares to piece it all together. The method of the collapse is irrelevant. The attack going ahead as it did while people in the right places KNEW (regardless of what crap is written on debunking and debunking the debunkers websites) is the real conspiracy.




posted on May, 2 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: sg1642

Any amount of explosives with out drilling would stick out like a sore thumb. I image it takes four times more explosives strapped to a column to "cut" it than if you stick it into a hole. The explosion is going to be very pronounce due to the pressure wave following the path of least resistance to atmosphere. Who much explosives would it take to level a whole village. Now imagine placing that amount in the towers using one frieght elevator per tower in open spaces unnoticed? Or utility spaces become unusable because they are packed full of suspicious creates. That is sure to piss off the maintenance and janitor staff.

People miss the point of controlled demolition. How would they know which floors to put the explosives on and not have the jets set them off prematurely?

The towers pancaked due to multiple floors being damaged buy the jets. The fuel ignited and burned all the way to the lobby through the elevator shafts. Thus heating and weeking steel and introducing thermal stess thought the towers.

Controlled demolition logic is really deficient for building 7. If the building was not damaged and fire did not weaken the steel to the point of collapse, how did it fall? controlled demolition? Controlled demolition is not about a massive charge that obliteates a building for maximum shock value with least amount of efficiency. A massive charge that would frag the building would push it up and out in all directions. If it was a conspiracy, wouldn't the conspirators go for maxmium shock value? But that's a by thought.

Controlled demolition on a healthy building is about using the least amount of explosives through out the entire structure in perfect timing to drop the building into its own footprint. That takes planning, running wire, and drilling. I cannot figure out if truthers think a special ops team rigged building 7 to fall on the day of 911. Or it was rigged to blow over weeks?


It's swings and roundabouts. I already said det cord is a non requirement. You dont have to dodge the impacts zone there is going to be a pretty big explosion there anyway. If there was demolition charges that were used there would be residue in the dust (please no comments about thermite particles) there would be fragments of charges and transmission receivers in the debris. Not to mention duffs that didn't go off and would still be in the rubble.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
you could argue the building was full of things like this. you could also argue that fragments would have been in the rubble

Regardless of the questions about a quick clean up etc. There were hundreds of people from all walks of life sifting through that wreckage and rubble. Someone would have seen or found something.
edit on 41101642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

I think I agree with you on the demolition of the buildings. I'm puzzled in the truthers arguments. Most of them seem to think it was an inside job because it's obvious jets cannot cause a building to weaken and fall. Their logic not mine. That it's obvious the WTC buildings fell due to perect controlled demolition into their own footprint. Again that's not true and their logic. I agree with you on why truthers are obsessive with the implosion idea of the WTC buildings and why that must be true for it to be a conspiracy. They are obsessed with how and waste time on how that hurts their case but no time for why?



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642




there would be fragments of charges and transmission receivers in the debris. Not to mention duffs that didn't go off and would still be in the rubble.

Facts have no basis in a conspiracy theory.




. There were hundreds of people from all walks of life sifting through that wreckage and rubble. Someone would have seen or found something.

Didn't you know that they are in on it too ?
The government is paying off 99.9% of all the worlds engineers .



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I'll use the doc for an exapmle. I asked with the destruction of the twin towers the shock it cause, and the lose of life, why their was a need to bring WTC 7. I don't think why was ever answered. Maybe they did? But they posted paragraph of paragraph on how they never communicated to me why the destruction of building 7 was needed or why it had to part of the conspiracy? Jets were set to hit the towers and murdure civilians. Why clear building 7 and set it off? The logic alludes me? If there was something in building seven to hide your going to destroy it so everyone and their brother is going to have to shift through the ashes?



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Well I can see the logic in that you could remove the evidence (be it information stored in the form of date or paperwork or even physical evidence) beforehand and then bring the tower down to hide the fact but it's too much hastle. I certainly wouldn't wait for hours afterwards to bring it down when nearly every human being on the planet had their attention focused on the WTC complex. People can argue they would have waited to give the cover story more credit ie damage due to fire but that defies logic. There are things about the collapse in my mind that have not been properly explained and I used to firmly believe in the demolition theory but when you add it all up you begin to see its unlikely. I also think the truther movement as it has been labeled has been infiltrated and made a mockery from the inside out by wild claims and theories. I also think that's partly deliberate and partly down to the individual.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
But that's really the big problem. Where does the need for logic stop and human nature take over. There is no law saying conspirators and truthers will use logic? if the goal was to knock the towers down why the jets? Just lead the terrorist to planting the explosives for you. If the goal was shock, why risk planting explosives. Unless the conspirators wanted to rube it in? If that was the case, was the act the only true motivation. So easy to run in circles.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Mongo just pawn in game of life?



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642




I also think the truther movement as it has been labeled has been infiltrated and made a mockery from the inside out by wild claims and theories.

That's because you are hearing from the extreme ends of the bell curve.
Remember the bell curve in statics class?
The internet levels the field between main stream and extreme ends.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: sg1642




I also think the truther movement as it has been labeled has been infiltrated and made a mockery from the inside out by wild claims and theories.

That's because you are hearing from the extreme ends of the bell curve.
Remember the bell curve in statics class?
The internet levels the field between main stream and extreme ends.


My point is there is a large group or percentage of the population who don't believe the official version of events. Within that group are people who make statements such as space beams or nuclear devices brought down the towers. As a result of that, the people who do make valid points and have something interesting to say are forced to the sidelines or not listened to. For every theory about demolition and supposed evidence, there are several logical explanations for them. If a person truly believes something it takes a lot for them to change their mind and they will only do it of their own accord. That's why the whole 9/11 debate has turned the way it has. There are people on both sides of the fence who are so busy arguing the smaller details and forgetting the bigger picture. Ultimately, I have yet to see a demolition theory that can't be explained quite easily by other less controversial (right way of putting it?) theories but in the same breath there are aspects of what happened before during and after that day that have not been explained away quite so easily. They probably never will. In my opinion it is the single most significant event in our lifetime from a global and collective sense. It would be great to get to the bottom of everything once and for all but while we are going round and round in circles that's not going to happen.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

That's what puzzles me the most, give the benefit of well meaning. People so zelous about their belief that they "plant" information. Maybe it's to push the narritive to light, but the actions of the zelous can hurt the intgerty of a whole movemt. It was strange hearing a ufologist on coast to coast AM complain about the integrity of their field because new technology allowing more people than ever to creat fictitious UFO vedio as real footage. Seems that the professor from Alaska time would be better spent forming a civilian panle to go gather the more creditable truther evedance and go from there? Start fresh and not waste time with the disinfomation. Can't polished a turd?



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I just went back and read the good professor statements from the original post. The good professor wants to figure how building 7 fell from office fires. More confused than ever. I thought the narrative for building 7 was stored fuel in the basement for generator caught fire. Fuel fires are different than office fires?



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642




My point is there is a large group or percentage of the population who don't believe the official version of events.

I understand you belief but I feel it is wrong.
I don't believe there is a 'large' group or 'percentage' that don't accept the OS.
I feel it is very small.
My reasoning is as follows:
If you look all around the internet the only place you see stories about 911 come from three types of sites.
1. Dedicated 911 sites.
2. Conspiracy sites.
3. Sensationalism sites.

You don't see main stream news sites on the 911 conspiracy band wagon.
Some say those sites are too afraid of TPTB.
Or are controlled by TPTB.
But these same sites have no problem tearing into who the head of the CIA had an affair with.
These same main stream news outlets ate up the rumors of who was on their knees in front of Bill Clinton.
But now they are afraid of who pressed the button on building 7?
That makes no sense.

Who are the most famous reporters in recent US history ?
Woodward and Bernstein.
What reporter wouldn't want his name in the same sentence?
Or more likely to eclipse Woodward and Bernstein given the death toll of 911.
After 15 years no reporter has received an anonymous tip and ran with it ?



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: sg1642




My point is there is a large group or percentage of the population who don't believe the official version of events.

I understand you belief but I feel it is wrong.
I don't believe there is a 'large' group or 'percentage' that don't accept the OS.
I feel it is very small.
My reasoning is as follows:
If you look all around the internet the only place you see stories about 911 come from three types of sites.
1. Dedicated 911 sites.
2. Conspiracy sites.
3. Sensationalism sites.

You don't see main stream news sites on the 911 conspiracy band wagon.
Some say those sites are too afraid of TPTB.
Or are controlled by TPTB.
But these same sites have no problem tearing into who the head of the CIA had an affair with.
These same main stream news outlets ate up the rumors of who was on their knees in front of Bill Clinton.
But now they are afraid of who pressed the button on building 7?
That makes no sense.

Who are the most famous reporters in recent US history ?
Woodward and Bernstein.
What reporter wouldn't want his name in the same sentence?
Or more likely to eclipse Woodward and Bernstein given the death toll of 911.
After 15 years no reporter has received an anonymous tip and ran with it ?


You are I can honestly say I know more people who believe there is more to the story than don't and I keep a wide and varied circle. Who would run a story and commit professional suicide? That's what it would be without concrete proof. It's my belief based on personal experience and circumstances but that obviously differs from person to person. I don't see any reporter getting a tip because this is a highly secretive and compartmentalised thing. And no I don't mean by that swapped aircraft or explosives being planted.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: sg1642

That's what puzzles me the most, give the benefit of well meaning. People so zelous about their belief that they "plant" information. Maybe it's to push the narritive to light, but the actions of the zelous can hurt the intgerty of a whole movemt. It was strange hearing a ufologist on coast to coast AM complain about the integrity of their field because new technology allowing more people than ever to creat fictitious UFO vedio as real footage. Seems that the professor from Alaska time would be better spent forming a civilian panle to go gather the more creditable truther evedance and go from there? Start fresh and not waste time with the disinfomation. Can't polished a turd?


Exactly. Nobody is going to prove they were brought down with explosives. It's that simple. Unless someone who did it documented it somehow. Let's face it, you wouldn't.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642
a reply to: neutronflux

Well I can see the logic in that you could remove the evidence (be it information stored in the form of date or paperwork or even physical evidence) beforehand and then bring the tower down to hide the fact but it's too much hastle. I certainly wouldn't wait for hours afterwards to bring it down when nearly every human being on the planet had their attention focused on the WTC complex. People can argue they would have waited to give the cover story more credit ie damage due to fire but that defies logic. There are things about the collapse in my mind that have not been properly explained and I used to firmly believe in the demolition theory but when you add it all up you begin to see its unlikely. I also think the truther movement as it has been labeled has been infiltrated and made a mockery from the inside out by wild claims and theories. I also think that's partly deliberate and partly down to the individual.


And I gave you some examples (but you just deny it) like. Maybe one of the planes were suppose to hit building 7. CIA in building 7 you know. Enron investigations perhaps. They had to detonate it to get rid of demolition charges. Could be a million reasons.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: sg1642




My point is there is a large group or percentage of the population who don't believe the official version of events.

I understand you belief but I feel it is wrong.
I don't believe there is a 'large' group or 'percentage' that don't accept the OS.
I feel it is very small.
My reasoning is as follows:
If you look all around the internet the only place you see stories about 911 come from three types of sites.


1. Dedicated 911 sites.
2. Conspiracy sites.
3. Sensationalism sites.

You don't see main stream news sites on the 911 conspiracy band wagon.
Some say those sites are too afraid of TPTB.
Or are controlled by TPTB.
But these same sites have no problem tearing into who the head of the CIA had an affair with.
These same main stream news outlets ate up the rumors of who was on their knees in front of Bill Clinton.
But now they are afraid of who pressed the button on building 7?
That makes no sense.

Who are the most famous reporters in recent US history ?
Woodward and Bernstein.
What reporter wouldn't want his name in the same sentence?
Or more likely to eclipse Woodward and Bernstein given the death toll of 911.
After 15 years no reporter has received an anonymous tip and ran with it ?


The mainstream media is just a propaganda machine. Owned by the elite. Probably 70 % believe it was an inside job. All the foreign leaders like Putin for example believe it was an inside job. Wait until Trump gets in there and we get a real investigation. Instead of controlled moles we've endured for the last several decades.

Here's what happens to whistle blowers.




posted on May, 4 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
I just went back and read the good professor statements from the original post. The good professor wants to figure how building 7 fell from office fires. More confused than ever. I thought the narrative for building 7 was stored fuel in the basement for generator caught fire. Fuel fires are different than office fires?


No. diesel burns no hotter than office fires and diesel is almost impossible to ignite. He looked into it. No way. Wouldn't cause a global collapse without demolition. Their is 0 examples of a global collapse (steel frame building) without demolition in history. No one can produce and example. Doesn't exist.



posted on May, 5 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Your disregarded for the exdtinsive building damage, they type of fire, the lenhth of fire, no signs of a controlled demolition you claim, the building did not fall at free fall, the duilding did not fall in its own foot print, you never gave a reason why they would take time to rig the building to fall in your imagined contolled demo (less time and obvious to blow the building to hell for more shock), never gave a reason why they needed it to fall, and why they would want it to look like erroneoudly the cortolled demo you imagine, is it even possible to time thermite to burn for a controlled demo, would rather bitich with the "idiots" than take offial and poositive avtion to spread the "truth" (hast to be a college that would want to expose Bush for the criminal you claim he and those false reporys under the Obama Administration.), and lack of witnesses.

Yeap. Convinced more and ever you are working for the saudies to place blame from their government to the government of the USA and spread disinfomation. And lots of foreigners have made truther debunking videos because they think your nutters.

And you trust manipulative foreign leaders with their personal reasons to lie to make the USA look bad, plus the USA competes with them in arms sales, for your well being? Russian that arms Iran. And Germany / France that didn't want a Iraq war because they didn't want the world to know they were selling arms to Iraq.




top topics



 
44
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join