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: 37
135
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: face23785



Taken out of context you say? I don't think so, take a look for yourself and deny what you need to deny.


As Informer would say, this is just opinion. No hard evidence was ever found.


Not to mention, as I linked to in my earlier post, they were shown to have stated later that their words in this very video were taken out of context. They weren't saying definitively that was what happened, they just meant that's what it seemed like. How many times have we all seen news stories of a shooting where a neighbor says they heard firecrackers? Does that PROVE that there was no shooting, or were they just mistaken? Or maybe they were just unaware that their off-the-cuff description was going to be taken as 100% verified scientific evidence by idiots who have no idea how science works.




posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785



Not to mention, as I linked to in my earlier post, they were shown to have stated later that their words in this very video were taken out of context. They weren't saying definitively that was what happened, they just meant that's what it seemed like. How many times have we all seen news stories of a shooting where a neighbor says they heard firecrackers? Does that PROVE that there was no shooting, or were they just mistaken? Or maybe they were just unaware that their off-the-cuff description was going to be taken as 100% verified scientific evidence by idiots who have no idea how science works.


Is ridiculing & insults all you have for answers to ATS members who do not agree with the OS?

Few of you can't even debunk the given material in the OP and yet have the audacity to say none of us understands science, funny for someone who supports the NIST report on the WTC demize, demonstrates one cannot determine the difference from pseudoscience to real science, how ironic.

The fact is, the NIST report leaves us hanging right up to the beginning of the collapse, and failed miserably to finish the rest of the collaps. The News videos in questioned do not support the NIST phony hypothesis, What NIST tries to explain in their Report does not support the visuals we all see in the News media videos taken on 911.

Yet few of you guys on here want our eyes to lie to us, Yeah, just pretend you didn't see the top of the WTC falling over and disintegrating in mid air, while all the concret turn to dust in mid air.

This is something that was left out of the NIST Report, why you may ask? Becaused it was "ignored."

It was deliberately ignored because NIST models of their pancake collapse can not explain the top portion falling over and not pancaking. The concrete on the upper floors should have falling in large chunks as the topside was falling over, however that is not what we witness on the News feeds, is it?

If the top floors did pancake instead of leaning over, NIST "may have been able to explain why the concrete turn to dust", however anyone with eyes watching the News feeds of the collapse can see there was no pancaking of the upper floors in one of the WTC demize.

So if you are claiming there was no demolition, then please do explain "using credibal science" to how on earth, the upper concrete floors of the one particular Tower concrete turning to dust as it was falling over? You can't.

Fact is, the News videos of the WTC leaning over does not support the NIST Hypothesis. Our eyes do not lie to us.

edit on 6-12-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
while all the concret turn to dust in mid air.


Your evidence for all the concrete turning to dust is what exactly?


This is something that was left out of the NIST Report, why you may ask?


Well, how about as there is zero evidence all the concrete turned to dust!


The concrete on the upper floors should have falling in large chunks as the topside was falling over, however that is not what we witness on the News feeds, is it?


Yes it is, actually!


the upper concrete floors of that one particular Tower turn to dust as it was falling over?


There is zero evidence that all the concrete turned to dust, so what are you on about?



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce


Your evidence for all the concrete turning to dust is what exactly?


The News videos taking on the morning of 911 of the collapsing WTC.


Well, how about as there is zero evidence all the concrete turned to dust!


Our eyes do not lie.


Yes it is, actually!


Perhaps your eyes want to see something different, It's called selective vision.



There is zero evidence that all the concrete turned to dust, so what are you on about?


On the contrary, the News videos do show the concrete turning to dust, stop acting ignorant.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

What Tower you have had enough years now to learn the North from South collapse put a link to the video


Are you still harping on about concrete and dust ONCE again for the hard of learning, the dust was composed of sheetrock, sprayed on fire protection, verviculite, ceilling tiles paint and numerous other building compnents that are easily crushed add to that dust gathered over the years in uncleaned recesses and smoke particles and concrete.

This is the truthers collapse theory insert your favourite method of structural damage we have the choice of painted on explosive during construction, mini nukes with no heat blast or emp, holographic plane/missile or death ray from outer space, then if you can get away with it claim only fire brought the towers down also remember everything turned to dust concrete steel etc. It all collapsed at freefall (just ignore wall panels on video overtaking the collapsing structure if it's brought up). Also remeber that everything fell in it's own footprint (even if it didn't)

That's about how it's claimed by you guys working on a thread at the moment about how truthers think going to use claims by members here which will entertain the internet for years when I make the claims look kind of STUPID !



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: hellobruce


Your evidence for all the concrete turning to dust is what exactly?


The News videos taking on the morning of 911 of the collapsing WTC.


Well, how about as there is zero evidence all the concrete turned to dust!


Our eyes do not lie.


Yes it is, actually!


Perhaps your eyes want to see something different, It's called selective vision.



There is zero evidence that all the concrete turned to dust, so what are you on about?


On the contrary, the News videos do show the concrete turning to dust, stop acting ignorant.




Speaking of ignorant, are you ready to defend the ignorant Dr. Jones paper yet? We can start with the EDAX analysis instead of the DSC if you are still at a loss to explain that. Of course, we will get to the thermodynamics part eventually at which time you will have to put up or shut up...or head for the hills, again.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008


This is the truthers collapse theory insert your favourite method of structural damage we have the choice of painted on explosive during construction, mini nukes with no heat blast or emp, holographic plane/missile or death ray from outer space, then if you can get away with it claim only fire brought the towers down also remember everything turned to dust concrete steel etc. It all collapsed at freefall (just ignore wall panels on video overtaking the collapsing structure if it's brought up). Also remeber that everything fell in it's own footprint (even if it didn't)


How about learning some manners. I thought it was against ATS TC especially in the 911 threads to insult members?

What on earth does you snide comment have to do with my above post? Nothing.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


Speaking of ignorant, are you ready to defend the ignorant Dr. Jones paper yet? We can start with the EDAX analysis instead of the DSC if you are still at a loss to explain that. Of course, we will get to the thermodynamics part eventually at which time you will have to put up or shut up...or head for the hills, again.


Where in my above post did I address to you about Steven Jones?

Where in my above post do I discuss Steven Jones? Nowhere.

What does Dr Jones have to do with my comments? Nothing.

Where in my above post do I even address you? No where.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


Speaking of ignorant, are you ready to defend the ignorant Dr. Jones paper yet? We can start with the EDAX analysis instead of the DSC if you are still at a loss to explain that. Of course, we will get to the thermodynamics part eventually at which time you will have to put up or shut up...or head for the hills, again.


Where in my above post did I address to you about Steven Jones?

Where in my above post do I discuss Steven Jones? Nowhere.

What does Dr Jones have to do with my comments? Nothing.

Where in my above post do I even address you? No where.



You never did respond to my offer to discuss Jones' paper, so I thought that I'd give you another chance. You claimed to have 'busted' me and I don't remember anything of the sort. When this came up in the past, you failed to respond to the technical aspects and invariably retreated to your safe space after proclaiming Jones' thermite paper as "science" even though it is far from that.
Would you like to start with the DSC data or will you agree that the towers did not have any paint-on thermite on their structures?



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


You never did respond to my offer to discuss Jones' paper, so I thought that I'd give you another chance. You claimed to have 'busted' me and I don't remember anything of the sort. When this came up in the past, you failed to respond to the technical aspects and invariably retreated to your safe space after proclaiming Jones' thermite paper as "science" even though it is far from that.
Would you like to start with the DSC data or will you agree that the towers did not have any paint-on thermite on their structures?


Wong, wrong, and wrong. That is why I will not discuss this topic with you, you still have not learn any manners on here.

This is my last post to you, consider yourself ignored.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Typical of YOU LOT get challanged by someone who knows what they are talking about and you go and hide, I will have finished my new thread by Friday latest, I will be cherry picking some classice quotes on here from you people you will hide you heads in SHAME!



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

You mentuined the dust and to people like you the dust is concrete you don't consider the other materials in the buildings that would crush more easily and create more dust.
It's always selective with you guys isn't it


edit on 7-12-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


Speaking of ignorant, are you ready to defend the ignorant Dr. Jones paper yet? We can start with the EDAX analysis instead of the DSC if you are still at a loss to explain that. Of course, we will get to the thermodynamics part eventually at which time you will have to put up or shut up...or head for the hills, again.


Where in my above post did I address to you about Steven Jones?

Where in my above post do I discuss Steven Jones? Nowhere.

What does Dr Jones have to do with my comments? Nothing.

Where in my above post do I even address you? No where.







Those who still defend the official story must change the subject and place red herrings in the thread to give the appearance they have something to talk about. Without such dishonest posting techniques they would be silent. It is amusing IMO.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

We will see how amused you are Thursday night/ Friday morning when I post my new thread



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


You never did respond to my offer to discuss Jones' paper, so I thought that I'd give you another chance. You claimed to have 'busted' me and I don't remember anything of the sort. When this came up in the past, you failed to respond to the technical aspects and invariably retreated to your safe space after proclaiming Jones' thermite paper as "science" even though it is far from that.
Would you like to start with the DSC data or will you agree that the towers did not have any paint-on thermite on their structures?


Wong, wrong, and wrong. That is why I will not discuss this topic with you, you still have not learn any manners on here.

This is my last post to you, consider yourself ignored.

Once again, a cry of hurt feelings and a refusal to discuss that which you have been invoking since 2009. We both know that you are unable to discuss it because to do so would force you to admit that Jones is either an incompetent or a fraud. I will graciously extend my offer to discuss any aspect of the paper with you whenever you are done pouting. You may gather ammunition from any source you wish to try to support it.
As a start, you can argue for running the DSC in air which burned the organic binder in the primer paint and provided a false hope to some conspiracists. You should consider that that combustion was more energetic on a w/w basis than thermite; thermodynamics will readily show that. Then there is the EDAX analysis which shows elemental mapping; we have a few things to discuss there having to do with stage material and shine through. We won't bother with sample chain-of-custody but may touch on Henryco at his darksideofgravity site.

ETA: @Salander- - I offer to discuss the Jones paper with you, also, should you wish to claim it as "evidence" of demolition. You may gather ammunition from any source you wish to try to support it.
edit on 12/7/2016 by pteridine because: ETA to Salander



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   


In the above picture, a large chunk of the building highlighted in YELLOW has clearly fallen faster than the building itself. Notice the side of the building facing the camera highlighted in RED which is many stories higher than the chunk highlighted in yellow.

The only way this chunk can be lower than the rest of the building is if it is falling faster than the rest of the building. This is what's known as evidence in the scientific realm. This is evidence that the buildings are not falling at freefall speed, because if they were, it would be impossible for a chunk that has fallen away from the building to outpace it's unimpeded collapse unless it had rockets attached accelerating it beyond the speed of normal terminal velocity.

So I'll just ask you to answer directly, do you think the chunk of building highlighted in yellow has rockets attached? Or is this some super secret government weapon that can alter the pull of gravity in select locations and is letting that chunk fall faster than freefall?

The only way you can continue to think the buildings fell at or even near freefall are if you're incompetent and this is simply too complicated for you to understand, or you're just being willfully ignorant.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

And where's the debunk of at least one study quoted in the OP piece? Nope, I'm watching the kids targeting fellow ATSliens for their opinion again. And if that wasn't already enough, you're now threatening to author a new thread filled with quotes without context. Sounds like another epic piece of slander to further emotionalize the already heated debate. Genius. Add my devious take on Vogon poetry to the mix as well, please!

So you need a new thread to get the spin straight? Yeah, this one was quite successful indeed. Carry on! It's pretty entertaining to watch, like a distant dream of my artisan colleagues in fatigues on their last day of duty. Pre-9/11 reinvestigation panic in the infowarriors headquarter, that's a new one. I like that picture.



And special thanks to Informer! A persistent demand for facts might lead to the epiphany, that the emperor doesn't wear any clothes after all. Just in case we're not talking about talking tax-dollars at work, of course. Ya never know, ya know.





posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Define irony: 9/11 conspiracy theorists whining about people taking quotes out of context.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


What a nice incentive to have a look through your opinions on the events of 9/11 and add one in !
.
The theead I am working on compares 2 events and the coments made regarding them.

It will compare the results of the events with each other and comments made on here by members to show the TOTAL LACK of understanding of what they see think of it as an educational process


As fot the slander comment get off your high horse
I will be showing comments made on here re 9/11 with the other event to show they are wrong it may be a little embarrassing but hardly slander as it wont be my opinion it will be evidence

edit on 7-12-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Thank you for the offer to discuss the Jones paper. To be honest, I'm pretty sure I have not read that paper, and have no interest in doing so.

I am an independent thinker. I read information from as many sources as I can, try to analyze the Big Picture, and reach my own conclusions.

I am neutral on Jones, but there is no question that the official story regarding 911 is false because all available evidence contradicts it. Just as the 911 Commission members noted, they were "set up to fail".



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join