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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Study concludes explosives used on 911

page: 15
122
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



From: en.m.wikipedia.org...

Numerous volunteers organized to form "bucket brigades", which passed 5-gallon buckets full of debris down a line to investigators, who sifted through the debris in search of evidence and human remains. Ironworkers helped cut up steel beams into more manageable sizes for removal. Much of the debris was hauled off to the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island where it was searched and sorted.[38]



The idea WTC steel was sent straight to China is a lie.
The idea WTC steal was not inspected is a lie.

Really need to do your own research and kick those false narrative conspiracy sites to the curb.

Lots of small documentaries and news articles that back up Wikipedia
edit on 8-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Your go to line of "sources please" is sad and tiresome. Especially when people have lead you by the noise in other threads and have repeatedly supplied the sources you ask for again and again.




The WTC site and steel was thoroughly sorted and inspected.

If a person cannot be honest that WTC debris was inspected to the extent of sorting on conveyor belts by hand,


My question to you:

Can you send me a credible source to validate this opinion please.

I just haven't had any luck finding it.


Am I being disrespectful for asking a simple question?

This is your answer to me about a simple question I asked.


Your go to line of "sources please" is sad and tiresome. Especially when people have lead you by the noise in other threads and have repeatedly supplied the sources you ask for again and again.


I have been very courteous towards you.

You asked questions all the time, and ask for proof from conspiracy theorist all the time. The door swings both ways in here when debunking conspiracy theories.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Really need to do your own research and kick those false narrative conspiracy sites to the curb.

Lots of small documentaries and news articles that back up Wikipedia



Wikipedia Censoring 9/11 Truth

disinfo.com...

I don't trust a website that anyone can edit especially when it only support the official narratives of 911.

You claim I am very biased?


You are so biased I think you are Steve Jones himself...........


The fact is, the information you gave to me is very biased.

edit on 8-9-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


The WTC site and steel was thoroughly sorted and inspected.

If a person cannot be honest that WTC debris was inspected to the extent of sorting on conveyor belts by hand,


So you have no evidence to support this claim about a conveyor belts being used to inspect millions of tons of WTC debris, except "Wikipedia" ?
edit on 8-9-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


There is no proof of controlled demolition.


The fact is, there is no proof that the WTC fell due to office fires either.
So what is it, your defending?
edit on 9-9-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

It's far more difficult to tell a large group of people, they've been deceived.
Than it is to deceive them..



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




The idea WTC steel was sent straight to China is a lie.
The idea WTC steal was not inspected is a lie.

They have to believe in things like that otherwise their conspiracy falls apart.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

They have to believe?

You say pulling 1.5 million tons of rubble from a crimescene and selling most of the steel to China isn't a problem at all?

You say they found evidence (for office fires weakening said steel) in the microstructural analysis of this joke they call a NIST report?

Right. Believe in your War with Terror if you like, my condolences for this loss of common sense. 15 years of trollery and all you pseudo-debunkers have to offer is this kind of supposedly strong language from some teen in his ma's basement.
God bless those tax-dollars at work, just imagine we wouldn't have our state sponsored clowns here to hammer the last nails in that coffin.
It's actual evidence for the use of explosives brought foward by desperate infowarfare activists. At least I don't need to read the study from the OP anymore, thanks for the cooperation! May I speak your supervisor now?



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: samkent

They have to believe?

You say pulling 1.5 million tons of rubble from a crimescene and selling most of the steel to China isn't a problem at all?

You say they found evidence (for office fires weakening said steel) in the microstructural analysis of this joke they call a NIST report?

Right. Believe in your War with Terror if you like, my condolences for this loss of common sense. 15 years of trollery and all you pseudo-debunkers have to offer is this kind of supposedly strong language from some teen in his ma's basement.
God bless those tax-dollars at work, just imagine we wouldn't have our state sponsored clowns here to hammer the last nails in that coffin.
It's actual evidence for the use of explosives brought foward by desperate infowarfare activists. At least I don't need to read the study from the OP anymore, thanks for the cooperation! May I speak your supervisor now?


Of course you don't need to read what you don't want to see. Fires do weaken steel and steel under load that is being heated doesn't take much to distort and fail. An accidental fire a week ago in Pittsburgh where a tarp and plastic pipes were ignited by welding torches came close to collapsing a major bridge. The steel beam was twisted after a surprisingly short time.
"Actual evidence?" Do you mean blasting caps and unexploded bombs, controllers, wiring and such or just a video filled with laughable conclusions from a bunch of wannabe conspiracists?



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Nobody said fires can't do that. You're being intellectually dishonest again, which is duly noted as circumstancial evidence nr. 2.

Problem with this firery theory is, that they resorted to fictional evidence in order to support their hypothesis. Which is precisely why the NIST report doesn't fit the standarts for a scientific study. You'll find all that in their microstructural analysis, have some fun not finding actual evidence.
One has to wonder why you folks forget all that whilst demanding cables (from towers full of cables) as actual evidence for the use of explosives. This fact alone is pretty hilarious and more circumstancial evidence for me, being in my head. Just saying the really scientific method has some merit and it would be equally applied to all theories if that's what all this trollery is about.

Which is why I think you folks are rather part of the paid damage control than really interested in debunking lies. Just cut the crappy part and present hard evidence for 'office fires weakened steel' in that joke of a cover-up, I'll doubt you'll find any.

Physician, heal yourself!



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
It's about to fall.

Lines are beibg drawn.
NIST Nat Geo PBS Pop Sci and others
have made their bed, going way out
of their way, to protect the OS.
Treasonous actions that have assured
their place in history.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pteridine

Nobody said fires can't do that. You're being intellectually dishonest again, which is duly noted as circumstancial evidence nr. 2.

Problem with this firery theory is, that they resorted to fictional evidence in order to support their hypothesis. Which is precisely why the NIST report doesn't fit the standarts for a scientific study. You'll find all that in their microstructural analysis, have some fun not finding actual evidence.
One has to wonder why you folks forget all that whilst demanding cables (from towers full of cables) as actual evidence for the use of explosives. This fact alone is pretty hilarious and more circumstancial evidence for me, being in my head. Just saying the really scientific method has some merit and it would be equally applied to all theories if that's what all this trollery is about.

Which is why I think you folks are rather part of the paid damage control than really interested in debunking lies. Just cut the crappy part and present hard evidence for 'office fires weakened steel' in that joke of a cover-up, I'll doubt you'll find any.

Physician, heal yourself!


Blasting caps would do for evidence if wiring is too difficult. Timers and unexploded demolition charges would be ok, too. Is there any actual evidence other than hearsay from your cousins friend of a friend or someone's interpretation of the NIST report? As to that, the temperatures were high enough to weaken steel and heated steel under load will readily deform. That is easy to find out if you aren't already vested in a demolition conspiracy and are ignoring reality.

There are also more than a few who say "it just didn't fall like it should have" as though they had some idea of how the buildings should have collapsed. When asked the usual reply is "I don't know, it just didn't look right." Solid evidence, that. A&E Gage is a complete idiot trying to explain things using his cardboard box collection.
If you remember, in 15 seconds over 100 stories collapsed. After initiation, that is a generous 200 milliseconds per floor. Do you or your fellow travelers have any clue of how that could be done with explosives?

If I am paid damage control, I'd like to know where to send my timecard. Bush and Cheney won't pay up.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DimensionalChange03

Thanks



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine




If I am paid damage control, I'd like to know where to send my timecard. Bush and Cheney won't pay up.

Nobody on Ceres cares, sorry. That's a pretty compelling picture I only used to visualise the hypocrisy involved.
I'd consider it to be even worse in case you're not in some way paid for this crap. Seriously.


Is there any actual evidence other than hearsay from your cousins friend of a friend or someone's interpretation of the NIST report?

What? Look, you've wasted my time long enough by now. Go and find something from the NIST-report to talk about, here is a good one for starters.

Ignoring reality you say, let me ask you one thing: is there somebody in your reality capable of comprehending the plain facts Nist presented? Find a supervisor who actually knows his trade, please! Just for the sake of this funny little debate, ya know...





posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronfluxA debate that will rage on forever with hardly any change ....As a society, we're basically begging for somebody to do our thinking for us!
As long as there's a vacuum of curiosity, there will be someone more than happy to fill in the blanks for us.


edit on 9-9-2016 by madenusa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pteridine




If I am paid damage control, I'd like to know where to send my timecard. Bush and Cheney won't pay up.

Nobody on Ceres cares, sorry. That's a pretty compelling picture I only used to visualise the hypocrisy involved.
I'd consider it to be even worse in case you're not in some way paid for this crap. Seriously.


Is there any actual evidence other than hearsay from your cousins friend of a friend or someone's interpretation of the NIST report?

What? Look, you've wasted my time long enough by now. Go and find something from the NIST-report to talk about, here is a good one for starters.

Ignoring reality you say, let me ask you one thing: is there somebody in your reality capable of comprehending the plain facts Nist presented? Find a supervisor who actually knows his trade, please! Just for the sake of this funny little debate, ya know...



I read the NIST reports. What did you want to discuss? Maybe I can help with the technical details that elude you. We could also talk about explosives. I have more experience in that area than most people, likely including you.

I am resubmitting my damage control time card to the Bilderbergers. You wouldn't happen to have their address, would you?



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

As you're still asking what's the point I will have to put it simple: every theory needs evidence to be considered valid if you're up to follow the scientific mindset. Right? If you discard this actual piece from the OP you'd also have to laugh about that nisty report, as it simply lacks the physical evidence for the 'office fire weakened steel' hypothesis. The question remains: why don't you?

Agreed to disagree on the Nist-report interpretations of my cousin then. It's obviously a piece of art as different people tend to see different things within that masterpiece. And I'd agree. It's a perfect piece of bad art in desperate need of first aid, otherwise we probably wouldn't find ourselves in an A&E topic dealing with another study regarding this literally explosive hypothesis.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




Problem with this firery theory is, that they resorted to fictional evidence in order to support their hypothesis.

So helicopter pilots who said they say glowing beams carries no weight with you?



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Firefighters witnessed pre-collapse explosions whilst being in the lobby, but that didn't have a great impact on your reasoning either. Did it?

I couldn't even tell if you just made that up after having a few baked beans, eggs from helicopter hens and way too much bacon for your breaking badfast.




posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: samkent

Firefighters witnessed pre-collapse explosions whilst being in the lobby, but that didn't have a great impact on your reasoning either. Did it?

I couldn't even tell if you just made that up after having a few baked beans, eggs from helicopter hens and way too much bacon for your breaking badfast.

www.911truth.org...



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join