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 Still Am!)

page: 5
48
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent



The best smoking gun in my opinion has always been building number 7.


I like to hear your explanation on that.




posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
911 is also about psychological and mind control of this society by sinister forces
It was a test of their power over the sheep and it was a blazing success.

It tells them they could get away with practically anything

A ridiculously clear mass murder that actually continued on by telling the poor workers and residents at the site that the air was clean.

Indeed, they weren’t finished they wanted more blood sacrifice so Christine Whitman the environmental czar and Giuliani told the workers everything is fine the air is okay.




On September 18, 2001, EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman told the public, via a press release, "We are very encouraged that the results from our monitoring of air-quality and drinking-water conditions in both New York and near the Pentagon show that the public in these areas is not being exposed to excessive levels of asbestos or other harmful substances" and that "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York … that their air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink."[15]

She was lying



An August 2003 report by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA said the Bush administration pressured the EPA to remove cautionary information about the air quality at Ground Zero.[36]





This has led to debilitating illnesses among rescue and recovery workers, and the pulmonary fibrosis death of NYPD member Cesar Borja.[8][9][10][11] Increasing numbers of cases are appearing in which first responders are developing serious respiratory ailments.[12] Health effects also extended to some residents, students, and office workers of Lower Manhattan and nearby Chinatown.[13]


The Superclass caper on 911, 2001 that tortured thousands of Americans to death

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958 Its a junk paper because it never considered alternate possibilities. It was predisposed to finding an "explosive" residue.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: EnigmaticDill
a reply to: samkent



The best smoking gun in my opinion has always been building number 7.


I like to hear your explanation on that.



It's better that you ask FDNY about building 7. Every member of the FDNY that saw WTC 7 after the collapse of the Towers reported heavy damage to the building and that they were sure that 7 was going to fall. They were right.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


The title of your thread was Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible." What you failed to mention is that Jones' paper in the journal was not credible, that the editor resigned after a lack of peer review on Jones' paper, and that it was a pay-to-publish journal.




The editor left because it got past her, Yet she could not debunk Jones paper.

As far as Jones paper found not credible, I have yet to see any Peer Reviewed paper against it today.


The science, or lack of it, was in Jones paper. You did not prove me wrong as I was using Jones' data. Maybe you proved Jones wrong.


I was able to prove that you repeatedly twisted Jones science, I called you out many times and proved it. Anyone reading the materials on that thread could read what you were doing.


It would seem that you have only opinions and nothing else.


Perhaps so, however the hard cold fact is, "opinions" are all you have ever given about Jones paper, and no credible science to back up your "opinions".

You can demonize Jones all you want, but it does not prove that you are right.



You proved nothing of the sort. Using Jones data, why don't you show why the thermodynamics are consistent with thermitic material and not paint? I showed the opposite with Jones' data. Prove me wrong; you haven't so far although you claim to have done so. Is that just an 'opinion' on your part?

Jones twisted the science, misinterpreted the data, started with a conclusion, and further erred when he did not do the key experiment; DSC in an oxygen free atmosphere. Under pressure from many, he said he would do such an experiment. Five years later we are still waiting for the results. Apparently, he wants to ignore inconvenient facts and milk a gullible and dwindling fan base while he can.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

This thread, and topic is not about me. Remember you attack me first.


You and I have debated this topic for many years and the fact is, I was able to prove you wrong.



Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Everyone can go to my above link on this post and read the facts.
edit on 24-6-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

This thread, and topic is not about me. Remember you attack me first.


You and I have debated this topic for many years and the fact is, I was able to prove you wrong.



Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Everyone can go to my above link on this post and read the facts.


You have inserted yourself and Jones' paper. You have tried to make it credible and you failed. I challenged you to refute my analysis. You failed. Your words are limited to "peer review," an appeal to authority, and that all who disagree with you just have "opinions." Remember that a peer reviewed paper is not necessarily correct; this is not a guarantee of any sort.
I again challenge you to show that the DSC in air proves thermitic material. I challenge you to show that the thermodynamics in the paper are consistent with thermite.
Have at it.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

This thread, and topic is not about me. Remember you attack me first.


You and I have debated this topic for many years and the fact is, I was able to prove you wrong.



Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Everyone can go to my above link on this post and read the facts.


You have inserted yourself and Jones' paper. You have tried to make it credible and you failed. I challenged you to refute my analysis. You failed. Your words are limited to "peer review," an appeal to authority, and that all who disagree with you just have "opinions." Remember that a peer reviewed paper is not necessarily correct; this is not a guarantee of any sort.
I again challenge you to show that the DSC in air proves thermitic material. I challenge you to show that the thermodynamics in the paper are consistent with thermite.
Have at it.



Not only was that paper peer reviewed. The NIST paper was never peer reviewed.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

This thread, and topic is not about me. Remember you attack me first.


You and I have debated this topic for many years and the fact is, I was able to prove you wrong.



Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Everyone can go to my above link on this post and read the facts.


You have inserted yourself and Jones' paper. You have tried to make it credible and you failed. I challenged you to refute my analysis. You failed. Your words are limited to "peer review," an appeal to authority, and that all who disagree with you just have "opinions." Remember that a peer reviewed paper is not necessarily correct; this is not a guarantee of any sort.
I again challenge you to show that the DSC in air proves thermitic material. I challenge you to show that the thermodynamics in the paper are consistent with thermite.
Have at it.



Not only was that paper peer reviewed. The NIST paper was never peer reviewed.


Federal reports are internally reviewed. There is no magic about peer review for scientific journals and no guarantee that a reviewed paper is correct, especially if the reviewers are "friendly" toward the predetermined conclusion that the towers were somehow sabotaged. Remember that the Editor of the journal resigned over a questionable set of reviewers. Reviewers that were not biased would have noted the obvious faults and rejected the paper until corrections were made. Obviously, Jones and team started with a far fetched conclusion and then tried to write the paper to fit.
I often review papers for chemical journals as many of my colleagues do. I showed a few of them this paper and none would have recommended it for publication, as is. The consensus was that the Jones team was misguided, biased toward a specific conclusion, and did not understand the chemistry involved in the thermite reaction or the chemical analysis.

You are also invited to show that the DSC in air proves thermitic material and that the thermodynamics in the paper are consistent with thermite.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine




You are also invited to show that the DSC in air proves thermitic material and that the thermodynamics in the paper are consistent with thermite.

They don't possess the skills to do anything like that.
They rely on one misguided paper for their entire thermite belief.

If they didn't have thermite their entire conspiracy theory crumbles.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   
So many anomalies the abundance
is staggering . Every scene from WTC
the Pentagon and Pennsylvania had
huge glaring problems.

Little rubs like no planes
bodies, tail sections, luggage or wings.
And certainly nothing unusual about Manhattan having
the worlds first 3 self destructing sky scrapers..



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak




Little rubs like no planes
bodies, tail sections, luggage or wings.


I guess you have not been to a high speed plane crash ......???

What do you expect ?? Wile Coyote in his Acme airplane ??

There is not a whole lot of things left . Most of the remaining debris is smashed into small pieces

The people onboard are ground into is called "human hamburger" - not a lot is left recognizable



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Look at the Germanwings crash photos and tell us what it would look like mixed in with building debris.

Germanwings crash



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Funny its always about the NIST reports. Even though they didn't like the NIST reports, major insurance companies that rather not make payouts, major engineering firms, and foreign engineering universities concluded fire brought down buildings 1,2, and 7. Why didn't they like the repreports? Not enough info on improving fire safety.

Dr. Wood claims all the explosive / pyrotechnic hypothesis are flat wrong. 911 conspiracy theories have so many holes, the movement itself cannot agree on the truth.

I think energy in the form of heat brought down the buildings. Source, fire. Oh my.

And the question that never gets answered. If structural steel is impervious to structural fires, why by code does the steel need insulated from fire and rated for only a few hours.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
The worst lie of the conspiracy movement? The debris of the WTC building was not thoroughly investigated. Its never mentioned engineers and experts were on sight to scrutinize the debris. 17,000 remains and bone fragments found. It was amazing they identified as many remains as they did. Yet no bomb fragments, shape charge fragments, signs of drilling to place explosives / thermite, no evidence steel worked on by explosives / thermite, blasting cap fragments, or evidence of an ignition system found. Persons worked the WTC site because they lost family / friends / colleagues yet are part of the cover up and the lie they are accessory to murder?



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Oh, Dear Me.

Am agreeing with you again.

Though I think the current imposter in the WH was a more brazen 'up yours' to the populace.

It is now like they are sooooo arrogant about being elite and able to treat the serfs and slaves like meat to Bar-B-Q or whatever they want . . . it's mind boggling.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Here's video evidence of investigation. Plenty of pieces marked 'SAVE'.



edit on 26 6 2016 by Kester because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester

I am very puzzled. Went to YouTube and this incarnation of the video had only three thousand views. Thermite backers praise a paper based on samples with no chain of custody? Yet, no scrutiny of this video?



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester

Thanks for the video. I was wondering if the steel was marked to indicate location as installed.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




I was wondering if the steel was marked to indicate location as installed.

Fire would have burned off the word 'save'.
So it was sprayed after removal.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join