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: 24
122
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

Sorry, but CheckTheEvidence had nothing to show regarding Gage's income. The idea that Gage makes a living from AE911 is pure propaganda and cannot be proved.



Double post. I showed the computer a hot soldering iron and it has promised to behave better.
edit on 9/17/2016 by pteridine because: Double post




posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Premium Thank You Gifts for your Donation

I wouldn't doubt that organisation's success, triumph is a bad thing now?

You're not remotely capable to debunk any linked study, that's the only thing that matters. A spindocs move to go for the messenger instead is just more circumstancial evidence to be derived from that circumstance. Try again!



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pteridine

Premium Thank You Gifts for your Donation

I wouldn't doubt that organisation's success, triumph is a bad thing now?

You're not remotely capable to debunk any linked study, that's the only thing that matters. A spindocs move to go for the messenger instead is just more circumstancial evidence to be derived from that circumstance. Try again!


Linked "study?" If you mean the Jones paper, that is easily buried within a few minutes of reading by any competent chemist. Should you wish to defend it, we can have a fun debate. Put up or shut up. Where would you like to start?

If you read the latest string of posts, they were about Gage earning a living by running A&E for 911. As he claims tax exemption for his organization, the 990 return forms are public. Should you actually look at the link I provided, you will see said returns from 2007 to 2014. Note that the income is now falling and Gage took about $20k less in total executive compensation in 2014. Maybe there is another 9/11 conspiracy organization that is fleecing the sheep or maybe A&E has saturated the market and the theorists have all the CD's and pamphlets they need.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


Who on Ceres cares anyway? I wouldn't donate a dime for your cause either but taxes are mandatory, so what? The one who should be mad as hell is obviously me. And yet here are you folks, making a fuzz of voluntary donations. Geez...



Put up or shut up. Where would you like to start?


Start with the OP, Harris or LeeGroup paper. Doesn't really matter at all. Go for the ball and not for the players?
edit on 18-9-2016 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pteridine


Who on Ceres cares anyway? I wouldn't donate a dime for your cause either but taxes are mandatory, so what? The one who should be mad as hell is obviously me. And yet here are you folks, making a fuzz of voluntary donations. Geez...



Put up or shut up. Where would you like to start?


Start with the OP, Harris or LeeGroup paper. Doesn't really matter at all. Go for the ball and not for the players?


Harrit paper?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




Sorry, but CheckTheEvidence had nothing to show regarding Gage's income. The idea that Gage makes a living from AE911 is pure propaganda and cannot be proved.

So now that 7 years of tax returns are listed what say ye now ?
Do you agree that Gage is making his living by pushing his beliefs about 911 ?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: DimensionalChange03
www.europhysicsnews.org...

A study of the attacks on September 11th, recently published in Europhysics Magazine, concluded that there's much evidence to indicate explosives were used to cause the collapse of the buildings.


Skeptical Science has all the skinny on this silly little magazine article, which is not a study at all.

It's already been debunked.




posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   





posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
being an old fart I've seen alot of media pieces...

in vegas, it used to be a big thing to pull buildings on live tv...

it's the same thing here, only this time around it's not called entertainment, it's called terrorism brought about by the use of box cutters held by terrorists that we knew were behind enemy lines at the time...

everyone who dropped the ball got a promotion?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   
if history has taught us anything it has taught us that the truth can`t be disclosed until everyone who was involved is dead that way there will be nobody alive who can be sued or hanged.
it just wouldn`t be good for the moral of the 1%ers to have a few of their members imprisoned, sued and hanged.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

Oh, like the lies of the EPA on the WTC dust was safe. Wait, I think that was proven in a court of law in our lifetime?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




Oh, like the lies of the EPA on the WTC dust was safe.

Ya know that was one I knew wasn't right when the news reported that 'officials' said the smoke wasn't harmful.
Was it a lie eeeeeeeeeeh yes buuuut what were they going to say ?
"It's hazarous and stay out !"
How well was that going to work ? Your fellow fire fighters under the rubble.
I honestly think everybody knew it was hazardous but pride and macho . . . .
Face it if it makes you cough and burns your eyes it ain't good for you.
Doesn't everyone know that there are no safe by products of fire ?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

I get that, but why would a criminal government / court system find the EPA negligent? If the government killed 3000 people, what is a few first responders. Sarcasm.

I believe more should be done for the victims of 911. But a government allegedly willing to do anything to cover-up any crime let the EPA thing get out of their control?



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: samkent

I get that, but why would a criminal government / court system find the EPA negligent? If the government killed 3000 people, what is a few first responders. Sarcasm.

I believe more should be done for the victims of 911. But a government allegedly willing to do anything to cover-up any crime let the EPA thing get out of their control?


Not real hard to figure out when someone needs to find a fall guy that fits into the puzzle just right that the higher officials can control, if that's what you meant. Like Hillary blaming some poor fool in the mail room instead of where the blame actually should be placed. These scum bags like to pull their own asses out of the fire and burn someone Else's ass instead. Say someone else over that way > went rogue on them.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: samkent

I get that, but why would a criminal government / court system find the EPA negligent? If the government killed 3000 people, what is a few first responders. Sarcasm.

I believe more should be done for the victims of 911. But a government allegedly willing to do anything to cover-up any crime let the EPA thing get out of their control?


Not real hard to figure out when someone needs to find a fall guy that fits into the puzzle just right that the higher officials can control, if that's what you meant. Like Hillary blaming some poor fool in the mail room instead of where the blame actually should be placed. These scum bags like to pull their own asses out of the fire and burn someone Else's ass instead. Say someone else over that way > went rogue on them.



Rant? It found a government agency at fault and cost the government billions, not some criminal worker scapegoat that got the government off neglect free. It goes against the context of an all controlling government that will go to any length to cover-up any blame and save the government billions.

Or against the context the government controls everything, including the court system.
edit on 19-9-2016 by neutronflux because: Added last line.

edit on 19-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish



Ignores the obvious, which is that the impact of the plane debris stripped away a good deal of the fireproofing. This is the usual Truther nonsense of focusing solely on the fires and not considering the enormous energy released by the two 757s when they hit the two towers.

screwloosechange.blogspot.co.uk...

Either that and/or the whole planning was flawed and the towers were never designed properly. The usual yadayada, nice story though.
You guys actually believe this? Burden of proof, eh? Right.


If NIST really acknowledges that the Twin Towers came down "essentially in free fall" then bad on them. As for why the lower sections failed to arrest (they did slow) the descent of the upper floors, it is blindingly obvious: The floors were connected to the exterior and central columns of the building.


Did they read the Nist-report, do they know that there's no evidence to support it? This 'debunkery' you linked is a perfect example for the problem in this debate. You can't claim sanity on your side and insanity on the conspiracy-nuts version of things if you've got nothing to prove your take with. It's ridiculous at best, really.

Same with your vid btw. It's a nice try to suggest, that the steel cores were in the midst of some smelting furnaces due to office fires. The only problem with this theory is, that there's no evidence to be found in the hardness evaluation Nist conducted.
Let me put it this way then: do you folks understand what 'no evidence in the Nist-report' means? And btw... who said steel couldn't be weakened with fire, is this a moronic joke or something?

I'm surprised, I'll give you that. Some years ago you had to put up something factual in order to call yourself a debunker. Funny development though. Let's call that progress, I guess...




posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Why am I not surprised to see you having issues with concepts like 'damage control', whilst spreading illusions of total control instead?




posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Let's start with a simple two part question. What demolitions were used in WTC 1 and 2 and were they set off on each floor?
edit on 19-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Let's start with a simple two part question. What demolitions were used in WTC 1 and 2 and were they set off on each floor?


I have never seen a coherent answer to this question by any truther. Public Opinion can't be expected to be able to do this, either, as he lacks the technical knowledge. The usual reply is either abandonment of the thread, a quick change of topic, or the old standby of "I can't explain what happened, it just didn't look right [like what I imagine based on Hollywood special effects]" followed by some babbling about the NIST report, peer reviews, etc., in a desperate attempt to maintain the fantasy.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Let's start with a simple two part question. What demolitions were used in WTC 1 and 2 and were they set off on each floor?


I have never seen a coherent answer to this question by any truther. Public Opinion can't be expected to be able to do this, either, as he lacks the technical knowledge. The usual reply is either abandonment of the thread, a quick change of topic, or the old standby of "I can't explain what happened, it just didn't look right [like what I imagine based on Hollywood special effects]" followed by some babbling about the NIST report, peer reviews, etc., in a desperate attempt to maintain the fantasy.


This poster might be the one that said the towers were rigged so not all the floors had to be blown to bypass the charges compromised by fire. Seems it was proven not ever floor had to be softened for the towers to reach their NEAR free fall speed. I guess whole undetonated sections of the towers didn't offer any measurable resistance during their collapse? Ho hum. Think of the implications. Free fall speed was achieved with out softening sections of the towers. It's their narrative.



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join