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.

 

I Was A Professional 9/11 Truther (And I Gave It Up)

page: 11
29
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: beijingyank

My condolences and I am sorry you have fallen prey to the lies of the "truth" movement.




posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander





There is no mistake in the Payne Stewart report. No matter how badly you think you want one. Even TODAY it takes 30-45 minutes to intercept a lost aircraft and THAT is with ADA sites all over the country now.



You are in denial sir, with all due respect. An airplane travelling 250 knots will travel 160 miles in 42 minutes, whether it is being intercepted or not.

The numbers do not lie, but reports written by humans are notoriously inaccurate. An honest person would acknowledge the huge factor the presence of the time zone line contributes to the obvious calculation error. Not you.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: cuckooold

Well...

You can believe what you want..

But the science and physics don't lie...

I went to college for welding....yeah, never welding more than 1 inch of steel by stick or wire, but yeah...it was broght down, It didn't fall down



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

edit on 7/25/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Pal, I'm fight ignorance everyday. I am teacher and I am in China.
Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Ryan, et. al. wrote a scientific, peer reviewed paper that proved nanothermate was in the dust. I had the paper translated into Chinese using members of the Chinese Science Academy. When completed I asked them three questions. 1. Did they find anything objectionable with the science? Answer, no 2. did they find any translation mistakes? A. no 3. Did they concur with the finding nanothermate was in the dust. A. yes
Every academic that has read the paper in China agrees with the findings. A common response was the science is not difficult to wrap your head around.
a reply to: cardinalfan0596



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




An airplane travelling 250 knots will travel 160 miles in 42 minutes,

201 miles.
You forgot you knots to mph conversion.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: beijingyank
Pal, I'm fight ignorance everyday. I am teacher and I am in China.
Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Ryan, et. al. wrote a scientific, peer reviewed paper that proved nanothermate was in the dust. I had the paper translated into Chinese using members of the Chinese Science Academy. When completed I asked them three questions. 1. Did they find anything objectionable with the science? Answer, no 2. did they find any translation mistakes? A. no 3. Did they concur with the finding nanothermate was in the dust. A. yes
Every academic that has read the paper in China agrees with the findings. A common response was the science is not difficult to wrap your head around.
a reply to: cardinalfan0596



Find some analytical chemists in China and ask them the same question. Jones' paper was a conclusion looking for a justification. It uses red primer paint to fool as many as possible so that they will "donate to the cause" by purchasing DVD's and books. It has fooled many who do not understand the chemistry and analytical protocols. The thermodynamics in the paper disprove his hypothesis but there is yet a more basic point that would question his conclusions.
The thermite reaction does not need air. A key experiment would be to do the DSC in the absence of air to separate the energy of the combustion of binder from the thermite reaction. Jones didn't do that and when he was called on it said that he would do so. He never published the results because paint doesn't ignite in the DSC under an inert gas.

He is a fraudster and many unwitting souls are caught up in his deception.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: beijingyank

A flawed paper, written on a flawed premise, and predetermined to find an answer? The paper, never really looked for any other explanation for its results, and, IGNORED that one of their prime "findings" was something that you would EXPECT to see in ANY steel framed building. So, no, its not science.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Keep reaching. The intercept took over an hour. Your attempt to use, "Well it only takes this long to go from point A to point B" to show that the radar tracks, timelines, and reports of the pilots involved are wrong is actually sad, but, I should not be surprised.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

So you are saying that an airplane doing 250KIAS will take more than an hour to travel 160 miles?

Wow, such denial. It is fascinating to see the tortured logic displayed by those attempting to defend the official 911 story.

Pure desperation.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

No, I am saying that you are assuming things that just ain't true. Primarily where you think the intercept took place.



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Dude, "red primer paint?" I think it is time to ask your doctor if Paxill is right for you!
What has it been? Six years and to date there isn't one scientific peer reviewed article to refute the Jones, Harrit, Ryan et. al. findings?
edit on 30-7-2016 by beijingyank because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: beijingyank

Because anyone with any experience in construction and welding look at those idiots and wondering how they got their degrees? Because maybe most of us understand that the items they consider "thermite" are actually going to be found in the debris of ANY steel framed office building?



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: beijingyank
Dude, "red primer paint?" I think it is time to ask your doctor if Paxill is right for you!
What has it been? Six years and to date there isn't one scientific peer reviewed article to refute the Jones, Harrit, Ryan et. al. findings?


Well "Dude," the Jones team reeks of fraud and incompetence. Jones' paper was not "peer reviewed" other than to have some of his cronies and fellow travelers peer at it from a safe distance and say it was reviewed.
Jones stated that there were TEN TONS of unreacted red [paint] chips in the dust that he also said were "highly reactive." Does this seem a little inconsistent to you? Do you have any idea of the chemistry involved? Do you not understand that the thermodynamics in Jones' paper are self inconsistent? Do you understand that running a DSC in a stream of air does not separate combustion of the binder in the red [paint] chips from any actual reaction? After much criticism for this and other glaring errors, five years ago Jones said he would repeat the experiment under an inert atmosphere. He didn't publish those results. Care to guess why? I'll give you a hint; paint needs air to burn. There are so many holes in the concept of thermitic demolition that it is laughable. If you'd like to argue point by point, I'd be glad to explain them to you so you can impress the other kids in your class.
People still refer to the original crap paper because they think it is some sort of proof. It is only proof that Jones and crew couldn't find their butts with both hands if they were on fire.


ETA: It is Paxil not Paxill unless you have a Chinese counterfeit version. Check your label, dude.
edit on 7/30/2016 by pteridine because: ETA



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: kyleplatinum




Please provide authentic security video of all the hijackers with authentic date and time stamps, I would be much obliged.

Are you so lazy that you can't type into google ?


The footage of them boarding the aircraft was extremely compelling:



Though it's a single frame, and simply words, does it count as footage? I used to think they had cameras where people board planes as well....I guess not(?)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

The only cameras are at the checkpoint and a few places in the sterile area, usually around doors that need a badge to open.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   

edit on 8/2/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boncho

The only cameras are at the checkpoint and a few places in the sterile area, usually around doors that need a badge to open.


Where are the other ~290 cameras placed?


After the 9/11 attacks, I was part of a team that had the laborious task of reviewing all the video from the airport with several federal agents looking over our shoulders. Did you notice I said all the video? That's every frame from over 300 cameras with 30 days of retention time.


www.securityinfowatch.com...
edit on 2-8-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

High security areas. Baggage processing areas, ramp areas, some in public areas but the majority are in areas where you need a badge to get to. Some of those kind of overlap with public areas, so they all had to be checked. They also had to check to make sure there was no help from an airport worker.
edit on 8/2/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The video evidence of the bad guys at the airport are as convincing as the video evidence at the Pentagon.

What a coincidence. Pshh.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join