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.
originally posted by: Informer1958
And what famous court case might that be?
originally posted by: imjack
Okay,
Ignoring the physics of the planes taking down the buildings, and assuming there was explosives-
How were the people that flew the plane connected to the explosives?
Did they set them?
Why not just set off the explosives? Why give people time to evacuate the building?
Why kill yourself in a plane when you can just set off explosives?
Something there feels very off.
And you cannot list one bullet point of pseudoscience out of the reports.
Lies like what?
more questions about that testing that our CEO had referred to. It would have been testing done forty years earlier when the buildings were constructed to ensure what’s called fire resistance. This is a kind of testing in which floor assemblies and column assemblies are put into a big testing furnace, and they’re tested per a standard called ASTM E119, which rates the components for a certain amount of fire resistance.
In the case of the WTC Towers they were tested to the 1968 New York City code which required that the floors would withstand two hours of intense fire in the furnace, and that the columns would withstand three hours of fire in the furnace.
One of the big contradictions with the facts of 9/11 is that one of the Twin Towers completely collapsed in only 56 minutes which, given that the official account was a fire, contradicted the facts of what happened.
So after a year of questioning my company, I ended up writing to the Government agency NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), asking them about the investigation that they were conducting and that my company was helping with, and asking them to clarify some of these contradictions.
I was fired from my job for having done that.
I went on from there to become a researcher into 9/11 in my spare time. I spent the next ten years (almost ten years so far) going into great detail into the events of 9/11 – not just at the World Trade Center, but otherwise as well.
The WTC steel was sent to China with no inspection. Conspiracists lie. Steel and debris inspected at multiple sites and conspiracists try to hide the fact.
The only way iron spheres could exist were from controlled WTC demolition. Lie. Experiments and common sense of welding contamination from building construction / maintenance from all of New York proved otherwise.
Evidence of thermite in WTC dust. Lie. Proven primer and contaminates from building materials.
Jones paper was a serious peer review. Lie. From pay to play journal that bypassed editors responsible for peer review.
Most scientists support controlled demolition? Lie. If a majority of architects and engineers supported controlled demolition, then no need to form the architect and engineer group for 911 "truth".
The fact that conspiracists totally ignore a court case brought to court by the insurance company to prevent payout for WTC 7 concluded fire collapse with no fault of the building owner. The strongest case the insurance company could make was fire collapse propagate by bad engineering.
QUIT quoting ignorant sites and self fulfilling people that have not themselves even looked closely at the impact sites.
LOOK AT THE HOLES, LOOK AT THE MULTIPLE FLOORS, BEAMS, AND OTHER STRUCTURE DAMAGE.
Yes I am on board with the planes not being able to take down the buildings.
My question is if the purpose is to kill people, why use the planes at all?
I have done more research on this topic than porobably 80% of the posters on this page and site.
So go ahead and explain to me how my research into this topic is pseudo science.
Okay, so the point was to remove the building? Without care of human life and on the cheap? And to create a diversion?
originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: Informer1958
Okay, so the point was to remove the building? Without care of human life and on the cheap? And to create a diversion?
I'm only asking because again, blowing it up without crashing into it would get the most number of casualties... No one would have had time to escape at all, and that's what I feel a terrorist would have preferred.
Still waiting on your post bullet point by bullet point the lies and pseudoscience of the NIST reports. Should be simple for you to list one from a "white washed" report.
originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: liejunkie01
I have done more research on this topic than porobably 80% of the posters on this page and site.
Perhaps you have, however many of us on ATS has also done our research on the given Topics of 911 and no one is saying your research is flawed.
So go ahead and explain to me how my research into this topic is pseudo science.
Perhaps you have overlooked my above response to your question?