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: 19
122
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958

And what famous court case might that be?



The one if you would properly research, you would know about. Shows your biases.


Please, out line the lies and pseudoscience of the NIST reports.
edit on 11-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
The reason the truther movement is dwindling? Most people do not believe in the official narrative, but also do not believe the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. Again, pretty arrogant to think one must believe in controlled demolition to not believe the official narrative. To ignore that, is to put nails in the movement's coffin. Just giving you a helpful hint.
edit on 11-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   

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.


Obviously the explosives were planted by the already known fact they had, that planes alone would not be enough to bring down the buildings. That would be obvious to anyone except those fighting their own little battle against that being true.



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Obviously, there would be no way a complicated floor by floor system of explosives, ignition systems, and detonation systems would maintain their usability after a building fire.

Also obvious, such a system would have rain very real and detectable shrapnel into adjacent buildings, cars, and people. You know fragments from fragmented columns, shap charges, and blasting caps.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


And you cannot list one bullet point of pseudoscience out of the reports.

Lies like what?


Apparently you never bothered to read the 10,000 pages of the NIST Report.

There are to many flaws to list

Why Are NIST’s 9/11 WTC Reports False and Unscientific?


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.


That's what happened when you question a tyrannical government. Fired for just asking questions!


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.


www.globalresearch.ca...

Why the NIST WTC Report on the Towers is False

digwithin.net...

On Why NIST’s 9/11 WTC Reports are False and Unscientific

www.911truth.org...

NEW WTC 7 FINDINGS: NIST CRIMINALLY MANIPULATED COMPUTER INPUT DATA; EXPLOSIONS AND EXTREME HEAT IGNORED; KEY VIDEOS CUT SHORT

isgp-studies.com...

DEBUNKING THE REAL 9/11 MYTHS:

www1.ae911truth.org...

It is in all these reports that NIST report is flawed.


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.


Stop lumping me with all the other conspiracy theorist, I never made that claim. Stop calling everyone who does not support the official narratives lairs.


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.


What experiments are you talking about? The fact is, there has been no experiments done by the United States government that refutes that claim.

Fact is yes, there was proof found of some iron spheres found in some testing and were found to be no more from contamination from welding, however other study also showed iron spheres that were not from welding contaminates.

So it is not a lie.


Evidence of thermite in WTC dust. Lie. Proven primer and contaminates from building materials.


Not a proven lie. Your "opinion" nothing more. I have yet to see any Peer Review Report that refutes it.


Jones paper was a serious peer review. Lie. From pay to play journal that bypassed editors responsible for peer review.


This I will agree with, Jones paper was not properly Peer Reviewed, however it by no means proves the paper is wrong.


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".


It is not a lie. The only scientist that supports the official narratives are the one's that have government contracts most scientis outside of government will not comment about 911 because they do not want to risk their careers and reputations.

Since professional experts questioned the government about controlled demolition were indeed fired from their profession, just for asking simple question. It was then is was impairment to form a group for other architect and engineer group for 911 Truth.

Nothing wrong in having a scientific group outside the government.


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.


The fact is, it was never proven scientifically that office firers brought down the WTC, these court cases where about Insurance and nothing more. The rest is your "opinion" and are not the facts here.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

What is obvious, is that people have not personally taken the time to study building engineering and structural steel properties for themselves.

It seems that many people here and all around have not even took a close look at the damage caused by the impact of the jet liners.

Seriously, take the time and examine the impact zones in the towers.

There is no way in hell that anyone with an ounce of structural knowledge can even think about any other way of the failure of the structure.

JUST LOOK AT THE DAMAGE. THE STRUCTURE IS COMPLETELY COMPROMISED.

It is amazing that they stood for as long as they did.

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.

Quit with the nonsense and look closely. Study the impact sites and areas. The damage is absolutely unsustainable.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

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?

If it was a terrorist attack(and it was), would it not make the most sense to detonate the explosives and kill essentially 100% of everyone instead of giving people an hour to evacuate the building?



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01



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.


Look all you like, but it is up to professional scientis in their field of expertise to prove the collapse by using real science. Sorry but pseudo science wont work for people with an IQ over 70.

Take the time and read some of the given sources that actually proves without a shadow of doubt the science that the government paid for is seriously flawed.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I have done more research on this topic than porobably 80% of the posters on this page and site.

I have sat and had discussions with my instructor about the structure and connections themselves. I have sat and took the time to investigate the viscoelastic dampers that connect the trusses to the beams. I have sat and personally took the time to find the size and shear strength of the bolts that connect the beams and trusses. I took the time, and learned in class's how heat actually does weaken the atomic structure of steel. I have done my research friend. Independent from any government findings and I sure didn't use the NIST report.

So go ahead and explain to me how my research into this topic is pseudo science.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack


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?


Why not especially if the Powers That Be want to hide demolition and also using the airplanes for SHOCK and AWE to enrage the American people.

The fact is the WTC had to come down, they were built with asbestos that cause cancer, the EPA had order the Port Authority who owns the WTC that they had to do an abatement program floor by floor to remove the asbestos.

This alone would cost the Port Authority millions of dollars to scaffold the WTC, they were considered the White Elephants, an eyesore to NYC skyline.

Many 911 news and information has been scrub off the internet from google searches, I know this for a fact, in 2004 I found News articles from the NYT that Port Authority had submitted controlled demolition to take down the WTC to the City Council of NY in 1998 and in 1999, the City Council voted no to this plan and stated it was far to dangerous.

However when 911 happened the Port Authority was very pleased with what happened and never paid a dime for the clean up process either. They got their buildings removed without paying for it, how convenient for them.

edit on 12-9-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

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.

One little simple fact after simple fact you are misleading. If not more than misleading?

90 percent, if not more, of scientists do not believe in WTC controlled demolition. 90 percent work for the government?


The WTC 7 court case found fire collapse the cause of the building's destruction.

Two little simple points you will not admit too. Along with all the other falsehoods listed. Especially Jones has been debunked and proven a fraud again and again. Jones being the best evidence you have is s joke.
edit on 12-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack


Okay, so the point was to remove the building? Without care of human life and on the cheap? And to create a diversion?


Do you really believe our overlords care about people? History has proven time and time again no they don't care who they kill to get what they want. Yes it is shocking enough that this happened in the United States, however it's not the first time the Powers That Be have killed many people in the USA to push their evil agenda.

These people could careless what happened's to people below them, they have no "empathy" for the human race.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   

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.


Or even make the buildings fall to one side to maximize damage and terror?



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

You have an overlord?
I don't. I am free to screw my life up however I see fit.

Of course, I could always blame it on someone else. I can blame it on them.

edit on 9/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


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.


Still ignoring my posts and sources. You need to read the above sources I gave you that proves NIST Report is flawed.

Yet you want me to go over 10,000 pages with you just to ignore the facts, because it doesnt support the official narratives.

Lets just agree to disagree. I do not support the official narratives of 911, unless you have some "credibal science" that will change my mind, and that is something you do not have.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   

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?


Your above response to my post talks about pseudo science and NIST reports. My comments come directly from my own personal research from independent sources not tied to or connected to any NIST report or "911 Truther" sources.

You seem to be quite confident in your findings.

But please tell me.

Have you personally examined the impact sites and studied the structure damage yourself?

And if you did, how did you come to the conclusion that explosives were needed, even after sustaining the amount of damage that the buildings recieved?



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Just asking for one item of pseudoscience from the NIST reports so it can be debated?

Cheers




top topics



 
122
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join