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.

 

Study concludes explosives used on 911

page: 27
135
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Is there a new comment? Oh, now it shows. Sorry.
edit on 17-10-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: drderpinheimer


It seems more likely this is made up than it was scrubbed. News articles containing all sorts of other WTC details were not scrubbed. Please stop posting this if you have no proof.


Well then, we are at a stalemate then, because that is your "opinion".

Please stop telling members on ATS what not to post.

edit on 17-10-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

It's your opinion it was scrubbed........



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
The conclusion of the study can be found in that section of the study called "Conclusion", and not in the title of this thread.

"It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities"
edit on 20-10-2016 by RKWWWW because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: RKWWWW

It wasn't JUST fires that brought the buildings down it was STRUCTURAL DAMAGE snd the fact that floor slabs could fsll internally.

MANY fires scince then hsve seen STRUCTURAL STEEL fail due to fire ONLY.


edit on 20-10-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-10-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

It's a nice STORY though.

One even NIST couldn't find evidence for, which is why we're still here and the conclusion couldn't be DEBUNKED. And then there are you guys, eating PANCAKE while selling the fancy official THEORY as THE ultimate truth.

Repeating the same old same old wouldn't change a thing, just saying. And while you folks are obviously INAPT to debunk the piling evidence for explosives, your seemingly patriotic War on Terror turned out to be another epic FAILURE.

There's a nice EINSTEIN quote for in case you missed my point. Wanna GUESS which one it is?



edit on 21-10-2016 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: wmd_2008

It's a nice STORY though.

One even NIST couldn't find evidence for, which is why we're still here and the conclusion couldn't be DEBUNKED. And then there are you guys, eating PANCAKE while selling the fancy official THEORY as THE ultimate truth.

Repeating the same old same old wouldn't change a thing, just saying. And while you folks are obviously INAPT to debunk the piling evidence for explosives, your seemingly patriotic War on Terror turned out to be another epic FAILURE.

There's a nice EINSTEIN quote for in case you missed my point. Wanna GUESS which one it is?




I'll take a stab at it. Is it the one where he says:

"Conspiracy Theorists that unsuccessfully spent 15 years trying to prove a conspiracy using anecdotal evidence, straw man arguments, misquotes, ad hominem attacks, fake videos of cruise missiles, citations of unqualified sources, and cherry picking facts AND plan to spend the next 15 years trying to prove a conspiracy using anecdotal evidence, straw man arguments, misquotes, ad hominem attacks, fake videos of cruise missiles, citing unqualified sources, and cherry picking facts are the very definition of insane"

That one?
edit on 21-10-2016 by RKWWWW because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: RKWWWW



Precisely. Insanely depressing way to put it though, I'll give you that. The next 15 years? Really?

At least all that paternalism will keep the (counter-) education preserved, there's always a bright side to everything. Not to mention the amount of entertainment provided with your posting alone.

Life is a comic strip. And PR management is just another well paid sh!tty job after all. The only downside are stress and the awful workcondition created by creative ATSliens and the likes, who tend to constantly rip the Bollocks apart. Saving jobs since 9/11, what did you do for your country today?




posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: wmd_2008

It's a nice STORY though.

One even NIST couldn't find evidence for, which is why we're still here and the conclusion couldn't be DEBUNKED. And then there are you guys, eating PANCAKE while selling the fancy official THEORY as THE ultimate truth.

Repeating the same old same old wouldn't change a thing, just saying. And while you folks are obviously INAPT to debunk the piling evidence for explosives, your seemingly patriotic War on Terror turned out to be another epic FAILURE.

There's a nice EINSTEIN quote for in case you missed my point. Wanna GUESS which one it is?




Got a fact to debate or just another rant?



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Or just 15 years of speculation?




From: www.europhysicsnews.org...&ved=0ahUKEwixy6uI8-zPAhVE9IMKHXNmC1EQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNEBsR_XEtevG4KH97vfbqF EfAxxfg&sig2=yLLGVNSJVH91QQF0rWpjcA

Concerning: 15 YEARS
LATER:
ON THE PHYSICS
OF HIGH-RISE BUILDING
COLLAPSES
Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter


NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat different from our usual
purely scientific articles, in that it contains some
speculation. However, given the timing and the
importance of the issue, we consider that this
feature is sufficiently technical and interesting
to merit publication for our readers. Obviously,
the content of this article is the responsibility
of the authors.



Soild evidence or innuendo?
edit on 21-10-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Or just 15 years of speculation?




From: www.europhysicsnews.org...&ved=0ahUKEwixy6uI8-zPAhVE9IMKHXNmC1EQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNEBsR_XEtevG4KH97vfbqF EfAxxfg&sig2=yLLGVNSJVH91QQF0rWpjcA

Concerning: 15 YEARS
LATER:
ON THE PHYSICS
OF HIGH-RISE BUILDING
COLLAPSES
Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter


NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat different from our usual
purely scientific articles, in that it contains some
speculation. However, given the timing and the
importance of the issue, we consider that this
feature is sufficiently technical and interesting
to merit publication for our readers. Obviously,
the content of this article is the responsibility
of the authors.



Soild evidence or innuendo?


Title shamelessly sez "Study Concludes Explosives Used". Actual conclusion ends up being a limp suggestion that a scientific study may be in order. That's rich. A "study" that wasn't a scientific study concludes a scientific study is needed.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: RKWWWW




That's rich. A "study" that wasn't a scientific study concludes a scientific study is needed.

That's like a definite maybe.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: drderpinheimer


I am also a bit of a lurker as you are, and I would like to chime in regarding your comment.


I am personally aware, going back 7 or 8 years, of videos that were once on the internet (I viewed them many times) that became "no longer available" at some point in time.


And it so happens that each of those videos provided solid evidence that contradicted the official story in a major way.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: RKWWWW

How about this collapse then RKWWWW or any of the others want to explain HOW that couldn't happen to the families of the construction workers injured and KILLED in this.



Top floor slab dropped on one below, collapse stopped at ground level NO explosives required only STRUCTURAL FAILURE

edit on 22-10-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: drderpinheimer


I am also a bit of a lurker as you are, and I would like to chime in regarding your comment.


I am personally aware, going back 7 or 8 years, of videos that were once on the internet (I viewed them many times) that became "no longer available" at some point in time.


And it so happens that each of those videos provided solid evidence that contradicted the official story in a major way.




Can you list one of those videos that cannot be found?

Can you list one contradiction for debate? Or list how many explosive devices your false narrative would take to soften each floor of the towers?

The video from this thread might be a good start of WTC 2 debate.


Or just keep pouring on the speculation?



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Or just 15 years of speculation?




From: www.europhysicsnews.org...&ved=0ahUKEwixy6uI8-zPAhVE9IMKHXNmC1EQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNEBsR_XEtevG4KH97vfbqF EfAxxfg&sig2=yLLGVNSJVH91QQF0rWpjcA

Concerning: 15 YEARS
LATER:
ON THE PHYSICS
OF HIGH-RISE BUILDING
COLLAPSES
Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter


NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat different from our usual
purely scientific articles, in that it contains some
speculation. However, given the timing and the
importance of the issue, we consider that this
feature is sufficiently technical and interesting
to merit publication for our readers. Obviously,
the content of this article is the responsibility
of the authors.



Soild evidence or innuendo?


Title shamelessly sez "Study Concludes Explosives Used". Actual conclusion ends up being a limp suggestion that a scientific study may be in order. That's rich. A "study" that wasn't a scientific study concludes a scientific study is needed.



I did not name this post / thread.

The name being; Study concludes explosives used on 911, which references the article in question?



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

911 happen 15 years ago. The videos were scrubbed 8 years ago?

How many years did architects 911 truth / Richard Gage have to archive video that was "solid evidence" of contradictions readably available on the internet, and the didn't?

Or there was never any video that contradicted the NIST conclusions in the first place?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

The 911 loose change videos came out from 2005 to 2009. So, I guess you admit loose change and architects 911 now have no videos that you would label "solid evidence"?

Again, when are we to know when the movement is being transparent, knowledgeable, or selling snake oil?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Or just 15 years of speculation?




From: www.europhysicsnews.org...&ved=0ahUKEwixy6uI8-zPAhVE9IMKHXNmC1EQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNEBsR_XEtevG4KH97vfbqF EfAxxfg&sig2=yLLGVNSJVH91QQF0rWpjcA

Concerning: 15 YEARS
LATER:
ON THE PHYSICS
OF HIGH-RISE BUILDING
COLLAPSES
Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter


NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat different from our usual
purely scientific articles, in that it contains some
speculation. However, given the timing and the
importance of the issue, we consider that this
feature is sufficiently technical and interesting
to merit publication for our readers. Obviously,
the content of this article is the responsibility
of the authors.



Soild evidence or innuendo?


Title shamelessly sez "Study Concludes Explosives Used". Actual conclusion ends up being a limp suggestion that a scientific study may be in order. That's rich. A "study" that wasn't a scientific study concludes a scientific study is needed.



I did not name this post / thread.

The name being; Study concludes explosives used on 911, which references the article in question?


I wasn't implying you created this disingenuously titled thread.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: drderpinheimer


I am also a bit of a lurker as you are, and I would like to chime in regarding your comment.


I am personally aware, going back 7 or 8 years, of videos that were once on the internet (I viewed them many times) that became "no longer available" at some point in time.


And it so happens that each of those videos provided solid evidence that contradicted the official story in a major way.




Solid evidence isn't left to the vagaries of an internet host site. Here are some words you would never hear from a credible person who has evidence that one of the most important Building Performance Studies was faulty:

"Dammit! I had incontrovertible evidence that the NIST/FEMA study was flawed, but youtube took the video down"!



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join