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: 32
130
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
You need to lay out a clear and credible arguments
edit on 25-11-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: PublicOpinion



None, the lobby came down on the firemen. You've seen their statement? The use of explosives to merely weaken the structure with the first charges isn't anything new either.
There's a very good thread regarding seismic reports though, missing audio files from random devices is a no-brainer for various reasons and thus not my favorit source of data.



The fact is, the only thing that can scientifically explain the demise of the WTC is demolition, nothing else scientifically holds up.

The one thing conspiracy theorist do agree on, is demolition brought down the WTC and not jet fuel.

Perhaps that is why there is very little traffic on the 911 threads these days, we are just waiting for a Peer Review Report to come out and from my understanding there will be one this Spring next year.

The fact is we do not know what kind of demolition was used. We do not know if the building were wired or remote control demolition was used, we do not know if military grade weapons or chemicals where used that are not known to the civilian population that was used, that is a mystery to this day.

Whatever it was, it was fast, and burned at extremely hot temperatures for months, this is unheard of in any kind of building demolition anywhere in the world today.

As soon as there is evidence of demolition, you can start figuring out what was used.

If it was fast, how did it burn for months? You can't have it both ways. Did you ever hear of underground fires? Did you consider that the slow burning of building contents would last for many weeks?



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux


Can you answer any of these questions I just posted to you?


No reply, just as I thought.

No use having a debate with a brick wall.


You are the one making accusations? Emotinal Rants does not count as debate.
Sad your speculations are always counter by reality and facts.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DimensionalChange03

Nice Thread


This is part of what Informer1957 said in a comment here on page 31. The entire text in quotes is from His but Please focus on what is in between the parenthesis.

"it is my belief that this demolition was something entirely new. Whatever it was, it was fast, and (burned at extremely hot temperatures for months), this is unheard of in any kind of building demolition anywhere in the world today."

THAT RIGHT THERE should have anyone with even half a brain asking the serious Question of WHY? Especially when the 'Official Story' says the buildings just 'fell down' from jet fuel?!? Like WOW... Really?!?!? REALLY?!??!

Ya know They can have their pancake theory, Maybe they can also explain why there were molten pools of metal for, long ass time undergound, and the burning of extremely hot temperatures, from a 'pancake' event!!! WTF anyway, right?
Just.. Like wow. WOW!!!



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: SyxPak

Ya know They can have their pancake theory, Maybe they can also explain why there were molten pools of metal for, long ass time undergound, and the burning of extremely hot temperatures, from a 'pancake' event!!! WTF anyway, right?
Just.. Like wow. WOW!!!


By metal, do you mean steel, iron, gold, copper, aluminum, silver, lead, calcium, or sulfur? Prove what was in the glowing material. Or is it just another generalized term the movement uses out of context?



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SyxPak
a reply to: DimensionalChange03




THAT RIGHT THERE should have anyone with even half a brain asking the serious Question of WHY? Especially when the 'Official Story' says the buildings just 'fell down' from jet fuel?!? Like WOW... Really?!?!? REALLY?!??!

Just.. Like wow. WOW!!!


Just like wows and really reallys with ????and !!!! aside, the buildings did not fall down from burning jet fuel. The jet fuel started fires in the building contents and the impacts dislodged the spray-on fire proofing. Steel, when heated, loses a good fraction of its strength and rigidity. Under load, it becomes plastic. Note that the collapses started where the fires were burning and that the building hit lower down collapsed first because of a greater load.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   

edit on 11/26/2016 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Double post.
edit on 11/25/2016 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Again.......

Let's start simple with your accusations. Is it true the witness collapse speed of the towers could only be achieved by the precise timing and setting off of demolitions floor by floor?



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: SyxPak

Thank you.
I am happy there are still ATS members on here that can actually logically and critically think

It is truly refreshing.

There is no point in debating with few members when all they do is post condescending, remarks and mostly never answer our questions.

I call this a one way debate and nothing can be accomplished from that.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: SyxPak

Thank you.
I am happy there are still ATS members on here that can actually logically and critically think

It is truly refreshing.

There is no point in debating with few members when all they do is post condescending, remarks and mostly never answer our questions.

I call this a one way debate and nothing can be accomplished from that.


You have had ample opportunity to put forth a complete theory and all you can come up with is that it must have been a demolition because you don't understand it or really want a conspiracy.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: SyxPak


By metal, do you mean steel, iron, gold, copper, aluminum, silver, lead, calcium, or sulfur? Prove what was in the glowing material. Or is it just another generalized term the movement uses out of context?


Don't fall for it.

They do not know what all the chemical composition is either, it doesnt really matter how you respond to this question, it will be subject to ridicule.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Remove because condescending remarks not worth it.
edit on 26-11-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Removed post not worth it.

edit on 26-11-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


You have had ample opportunity to put forth a complete theory and all you can come up with is that it must have been a demolition because you don't understand it or really want a conspiracy.


You and I go back many years on this topic and you still talk condescending.

I busted you many times on the 911 demolitions threads many time for out right dishonesty. You have yet to disprove demolition and your pales. The fact is,asking redundant condescending questions has never help your case if you want to get to the real issues here.

Those debates are only one way and no one is interested in that, don't you think?


I don't have to disprove demolition; you are making the claim so you have to prove demolition. See how that works?

I used thermodynamics and Jones' own data to prove he was a fraud or an incompetent, or both. You didn't understand it then and don't understand it now, so any thought of "busting" me in the past is merely your ego talking. You don't want to understand it because it would mean that you have been promoting a fantasy for many years. I understand your position and wish you no ill will.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

The truth movement is growing?

The 9/11 truth movement facebook page, about 9,000 likes.

The AE911 facebook page, about 400,000 likes.

The loose change facebook page, about 80,000 likes.

Dr Judy Wood facebook page, about 11,000 likes.

George W Bush, possibly the most disliked and critized modern president, 4 million likes on facebook.....


GWB has more respect than the 9/11 truther movement.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


I used thermodynamics and Jones' own data to prove he was a fraud or an incompetent, or both. You didn't understand it then and don't understand it now, so any thought of "busting" me in the past is merely your ego talking. You don't want to understand it because it would mean that you have been promoting a fantasy for many years. I understand your position and wish you no ill will.


Fact you were busted by me and other member twisting the science of Steven Jones repeatedly, no ego talking here just plain honesty here.

At this point it doesnt matter what I think or believe this topic is not about me. I understand Jones science very well I studied it for a long time before I ever posted about it. I am not one to come on ATS talking about "crap" that I don't understand just to make a fool of myself.

Fantasy?

Your condescending remarks are well noted.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



The truth movement is growing?

The 9/11 truth movement facebook page, about 9,000 likes.

The AE911 facebook page, about 400,000 likes.

The loose change facebook page, about 80,000 likes.

Dr Judy Wood facebook page, about 11,000 likes.

George W Bush, possibly the most disliked and critized modern president, 4 million likes on facebook.....


Out of 380 million people that is a tiny group, most people have their own "opinions" and keep it to themselves, most people are not as stupid as you might want to believe.


GWB has more respect than the 9/11 truther movement.


GWB has no respect except what you give him.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

1000 ton floor falling 12 feet , no i honsestly dont believe it would vaporize the floor under it. That saying if it even weighed that much. Not to mention no one ever looks at the fact that a steel structure, if your going from top to bottom gradually gets bigger. So not only did roughly the top 10% vaporize the bottom 90% but it also had to go against a gradually growing bigger mass all the way down. Which it did literally without having one hang up, no resistant at all. Thousands and thousands of huge I Beams instantly gave way.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: LittleFire
no i honsestly dont believe it would vaporize the floor under it..... top 10% vaporize the bottom 90%


Who claimed it "vaporised" floors?



new topics

top topics



 
130
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join