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: 43
135
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

Not when I'm told that it was a "natural collapse". Not when it came down at very near free fall speeds. Not when I read the NIST explanation. Not when I consider all the other facts and evidence related to this story, the so-called "big picture."


Not when I'm told the story by men and organizations notorious for their depraved deceptions, no.



Because you can't believe it. Not because you can give any actual reasons, just because you can't believe it.




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

The NIST, New York Fire Fighters, FAA, air traffic controllers, FAA, and college physics and engineering departments are notorious for lying before 9/11? They are notorious for lying now. Have a proven patter of notorious lying? Or you just back to knowing?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I still don't understand the mentality of allegations New York fire fights knew about WTC 7 in regards to WTC 1 and 2? The fire fights were just willing to go into the towers people claimed were set for CD as willing sacrifices?

The government is only lying if the allegations of a private person rigging WTC 7 are true? Why would the government cover for a private citizens's crime. Specifically in the context local government first responders died in WTC one and two?

Why does the allegations of the government setting the towers to be blasted have to do with allegations a private person set WTC 7 for blasting?

Why is it dependent upon the allegations government set WTC one and two for CD to prove the government was laying.

The truth movement doesn't just depend on NYPD and NYFD lying, but being willing sacrifices! They were part of the investigation of the events that killed their sisters and brothers. In some instances, blood family members. Fathers and mothers.

Sad the truth movement is so dogmatic in that they don't understand their disjointed innuendo has no logic or reasoning.
edit on 27-1-2017 by neutronflux because: Added bothers and family

edit on 27-1-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

No, because it didn't happen that way.

Facts and evidence contradict the official story. That you still believe the official story just shows how credulous you happen to be.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

But there is no proof of CD either!

How is CD and government lying dependent on each other? Government only lies when something collapsed?

Or is it more likely the government was covering its bottom on being complacent, resulting in the largest and most destructive terrorist attack on US soil.

It's more likely New York first responders were part and willing to die to papitulate AE911TRUTH's version of 9/11?

Or it's more likely AE911TRUTH has constructed a narrative that lets them milk the conspiracy cash cow?


Come on, think!



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Actually there is proof of CD, both circumstantial and direct evidence.

Firstly, there is no proof of the NIST theory. They cannot prove it, and neither can you. Multiple repetition of a false statement does not make it become truth, it just makes it a propaganda technique.

So by process of elimination, if the NIST theory is not valid, some other explanation must be.

Comparing the recent natural collapse of the building in Iran provides some information for the analyst. The Iranian fire and collapse did not eject debris laterally, but the towers did, so that's one difference that is helpful in the analysis.

I know you deny what so many including firemen at the scene said about explosions, but that is your problem, not mine.

In fact, many people reported hearing explosions, and several of them were firemen at the scene. People hearing explosions mean there were explosives of some sort employed.

The fact is that a fairly symmetrical debris field surrounded the towers. Compared to the Iranian building's lack of such a debris field, that means some source of energy created the debris field at WTC.

And of course the pictures taken from NYPD helicopter overhead at the moment clearly show explosives working. That somebody had to go to court to get those pictures released shows how serious the government is about keeping certain things from the public view and knowledge. Cover-up by the government is a sure sign the official story cannot withstand scrutiny.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

I linked you to a video that quite clearly shows the bowed floor trusses pulling in on WTC 2 vertical columns to initiate the collapse.

What video and sound proof do you have of CD?



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

You cannot cut columns without the resultant sound waves, pressure waves, and demolitions shrapnel.

You have no proof of blasting!



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

No, because it didn't happen that way.

Facts and evidence contradict the official story. That you still believe the official story just shows how credulous you happen to be.



What "facts and evidence?" You keep saying that but haven't produced any. You alluded to underground fires and I asked if you had an explanation other than burning office contents. You had said something about NYC fire codes but had obviously never read them. I asked for an alternative explanation and you didn't reply. Silence gives consent, so we conclude that you now accept that the underground fires that burned for weeks were the result of burning office contents. We have solved the underground heat problem.

Near freefall speeds is next up. "Near" is interesting. How near? A parachutist falls at "near" freefall speeds; not really near but sort of near. Why wouldn't the gravity collapse be "near?" I think that this is a red herring as any collapse would be near free fall regardless of the cause. Near freefall is a non-argument that is only used to confuse the reader.

We have just eliminated two talking points that are used to influence the people looking at this event. What should we discuss next?

Don't send A&E any more money until they have provided enough "facts and evidence" for the Federal prosecutor to sit a grand jury.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

LOL, don't pay your federal taxes anymore until the federal government can prove 911!

You are humorous.




posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Sorry you are easily confused by debris expulsion from a collapsing building, and mistake them for demolitions blasting. Sad.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

LOL, don't pay your federal taxes anymore until the federal government can prove 911!

You are humorous.



I am humorous and you are evasive. We have just negated the near free fall and underground fire arguments. What would you like to tackle next?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

LOL, don't pay your federal taxes anymore until the federal government can prove 911!

You are humorous.



I am humorous and you are evasive. We have just negated the near free fall and underground fire arguments. What would you like to tackle next?


Depends on your definition of "near". They weren't even close



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

LOL, don't pay your federal taxes anymore until the federal government can prove 911!

You are humorous.



I am humorous and you are evasive. We have just negated the near free fall and underground fire arguments. What would you like to tackle next?


Depends on your definition of "near". They weren't even close


You are right, they weren't even close. Freefall 9.22 seconds; actual about 15 seconds.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

You cannot cut columns without the resultant sound waves, pressure waves, and demolitions shrapnel.

You have no proof of blasting!


YOU have no proof for the NIST explanation. Does that make us even?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

You cannot cut columns without the resultant sound waves, pressure waves, and demolitions shrapnel.

You have no proof of blasting!


YOU have no proof for the NIST explanation. Does that make us even?


The laws of physics are the proof. Your complete lack of even basic concepts make you ill-equipped to even enter this conversation. This is what we have to deal with; people who are too stupid to understand that when a 110-story building collapses, it's loud and doesn't fall into a perfectly neat pile.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

The laws of physics? Surely you jest.

The laws of physics contradict the official story, they make it impossible.

Lateral ejection of material for hundreds of feet contradict the official explanation of office fires and a natural collapse. Gravity cannot launch things horizontally. That is Physics 101.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

PROVE THEY WERE LAUNCHED horizontally !



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

What latter ejection? The buildings collapse in their own footprints? Is that wrong?

Which is it?

I thought the truth movement narrative was only "natural collapse" could cause building collapse materials to go sideways?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

All the latter ejections are at an angle closer to the buildings than to an angle parallel to the ground. You find that odd during a building collapse due to only failed components deranged by jet impacts, insufficient fire proofing and fires, and gravity?

again, I thought the truth movement claimed gravity collapse would make collapsing material go sideways?







 
135
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join