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.

 

Let's Face It We Were ALL Duped

page: 8
53
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: MALBOSIA


I really had to laugh at this statement.



And 99% of the buildings weren't any warmer than room temperature and not a single structural impairment. Oh wait the, the mob stole the rivets, right?

Its like saying I don't know why the person died by the bullet 99 percent of there body was unharmed. Really seriously???????


Ya it's more like tossing a 4yr old child above my head and when I tried to catch him on the way down I blown up and left a pile of rubble on the floor.

One stupid comment deserves another.

Where did all the good 9/11 OS cheerleaders go? Where did all these noobs come from?




posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Another rant

One: if demolition blowout the side, then a rain of determination shrapnel would have been produced.


What do you mean "if" ?? It's a fact. Look at the photos I posted from FOI videos. And do you MEAN this shrapnel:




Two: if the whole side was blown out visibly by explosives, then the audio would have been clearly distinct. Thanks for debunking yourself.


Labtop has a great thread on seismic readings. You should try reading before you run your mouth.


Three, prove the other sides did not bow inward.


Every piece of video that does not concentrate on 1 specific corner that you use as an example shows the building blowing outward all around. That corner buckled in because the planes bent the structural members inward when it entered the building. A child could figure that out.

Putting your hands over your eyes yelling la-la la-la la is not an argument. It's ignorance.



Four, room temp? You would be more credible if you just said NIST lied. You don't even know what to argue..


The buildings were 100% structurally sound when collapse initiation began with exception to the impacted floors. You seem to believe that the top section of the towers (1 was much larger than the other) were like hammer of Thor and nothing could resist it or slow it down. Pardon me for the Thor simile but that is how unrealistic the idea is.

Can you show us another instance of that. Don't use popsicle sticks if can help it.



www.nist.gov...

14. How did NIST derive the temperatures in the WTC towers and how valid are they?


Using all the visual and physical evidence available, NIST conducted simulations of the fires in each of the towers from the time of airplane impact to the collapses. The computational model used to simulate the fires was NIST's Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). This model had been validated in numerous experiments and fire recreations prior to the NIST WTC investigation. Additional large-scale experiments conducted during the investigation (NIST NCSTAR 1-5) provided further assurance of the validity of the model output. This output was in the form of maps of the air temperatures on each of the floors over the duration of the fires (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5F).
In a following set of computations, the evolving temperatures of the concrete and steel structural components of the towers were calculated by exposing them to the mapped air temperatures (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5G).
Both sets of computations are based on the fundamental laws of combustion, heat transfer, and air flow. The methods have been documented extensively and have been successfully subjected to technical peer review and published in professional journals.


Yes, they created a model by placing furniture and walls where ever they needed to in order to get the outcome they wanted. It was a lab test and clearly you have NO idea how science works these days.

Peer reviewed.... go pound sand.



The NIST is still more realistic than saying the towers were rigged for CD and not found out.

Then for a CD system to survive jet impacts that severed electrical lines, elevator cables, and water mains.

Then for the CD system survive extensive fires.

Then to carry out the first CD of a high rise building over 50 floors and the fisrt high raise top down demolition, flawlessly twice in one day using a fire deranged CD system has about a zero chance of occurring.


Who are you arguing with? I said "blown up" I never said CD. Your only defense against the theory of explosives is that it doesn't look like a a CD.

I can't make your brain any bigger so I am going to have to leave to your stupidity.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Can you state your position succinctly? Do you disagree with the NIST explanation and have an alternate explanation? Do you have any physical evidence for your claims?



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Do you have any physical evidence for your claims?



No that would require an investigation. Let me know own when someone under oath presents any facts that are used to conclude the OS of 9/11. FBI, NYPD, anyone that can be held accountable for their results.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Do you have any physical evidence for your claims?



No that would require an investigation. Let me know own when someone under oath presents any facts that are used to conclude the OS of 9/11. FBI, NYPD, anyone that can be held accountable for their results.


So your claims have no evidence to support them. Why would you expect that there would need to be an oath to present the results of an investigation?

If that happened and the results were that NIST was correct, would you then claim that someone had lied under oath?



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

What claims?

The building blowing outward?

Look for yourself point dexter



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
So many threads about 9/11 get derailed.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: pteridine

What claims?

The building blowing outward?

Look for yourself point dexter


Point Dexter is likely on a coast to the right of Point Sinister. I know you didn't mean "Poindexter" as an insult, now did you?
The building fell outward and the core remained standing for seconds before it also collapsed. This was because of the construction of the building. You might want to look that up. Maybe you can come up with another theory besides "blowing" outward.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I asked you to PROVE other sides did not bow in?

Again. If demolitions blew out a whole side with a visible blast, the rain of demolitions shrapnel would be devistating.


If demolitions blew out a whole side with a visible blast, then the ear shattering sounds of numerous charges creating pressure waves resulting in 140 db tell tale sounds would be present.


Please stop ranting and provide a better theory than inward bowing.

Also, ask laptop what seismic activity is exclusive to explosives and how it would be different for a building collapse. Especially when there was no recorded atmospheric waves from a pressure blast that should accompany charges setting off and no physical evidence of explosives.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   

edit on 26-12-2016 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You try to say the NIST models are not real?

Yet, you only have example in you don't like their parameters?

The NIST models are still the mostly likely, based on more evidence, and unbiased peer reviewed research than CD, Lasers, holograms, nukes, missiles, drones, evaporation, fizzle no flash, and dustification.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AnkhMorpork


More speculative videos with no physical or audio evidence.

Want to put forth a logical and more convincing argument than inward bowing. Or just rely on false narratives that require firefighters to be part of a conspiracy?
edit on 26-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Added first line



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Want to put forth a logical and more convincing argument than inward bowing.


Could you please put forth a logical and more convincing argument of that, in the face of the physical reality of the occurrence of destruction itself ie: in terms of what actually happened?

I know what I've seen and heard both with my own eyes and from the first hand accounts.

What you're asking everyone to believe just isn't really believable, no matter how horrific the alternative to the OS, and although you post vociferously in this forum, to be honest, other than a few regulars, I really don't think that anyone's buying it, what you are asking them to believe and to disbelieve, even what their own eyes can plainly see.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux
a reply to: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: pteridine

I don't have a theory. I have questions like:

Why did the WTC 1 and 2 blow up?

All video evidence suggests that it blew up. There is not a single instance in history caught on tape that would backs up NIST's observations. That's ironic considering all they really had to go off of were pictures.

NIST has a theory that the building imploded due to structural failure caused by the airliners and helped along by the intense heat of the fires. That's NIST'S theory. They Made a model using data they inputted and claim to have supported their theory with it.

Ok. I say that the buildings look like they were blown up. NIST says their reports conclude it could have imploded due to structural failure initiation.

Show me.

I want to see what it would look like in a real situation. I know that a building that big has never collapsed, so maybe there is a computer generated visual simulation you can refer me to?

NIST says their theory is scientifically proven to be the best explanation but they can't produce anything visually convincing. Why didn't anybody investigate the theory of planted explosives?

That would be the most obvious innitial theory based on the video evidence.

Because it didn't look like a CD?


I bet Hollywood could not even pull off a reenactment of the NIST model. It would look ridiculous. Director would get pissed off and say "fu@k it! Terrorists rigged the building with explosives. Get pyro in here, we are blowing this fu@ker up!"



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
We found this to be rather enlightening.

Incontrovertible - New 9/11 Documentary by Tony Rooke



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA
From what I understand traditional skyscrapers are structurally different than the WTC buildings. Essentially they were stronger in the past. WTC wanted to reduce the number of materials used because costs. They used hte latest science and research. Maybe it backfired on 9/11. My feeling is if there's a conspiracy, it's that or regulatory offenses.

Also from what I understand the WTC buildings were NOT made to be hit by the aircraft which hit them at the velocity it hit them.
edit on 12/26/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


You try to say the NIST models are not real?


No there not. Fact is, if they were real then why not Peer Review their models?

Fact is, NIST report is pseudoscience and can not stand up to scrutiny to real science and most people know that now.


The NIST models are still the mostly likely, based on more evidence, and unbiased peer reviewed research


Peer Reviewed "unbiased" research?

Thoughts from a Former 14 year long NIST Employee :
www.ae911truth.org...

How is your "unbiased" research working for you now?


The more I investigated, the more apparent it became that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring,
dismissing, and denying the evidence.


Among the most egregious examples is the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 as an elaborate sequence of unlikely events culminating in the almost symmetrical total collapse of a steel-frame building into its own footprint at freefall acceleration.

I could list all the reasons why the NIST WTC reports don't add up, but others have already done so in extensive detail and there is little that I could add.

What I can do, however, is share some thoughts based on common sense and experience from my fourteen years
at NIST.

First, if NIST truly believes in the veracity of its WTC investigation, then it should openly share all evidence, data,models, computations, and other relevant information unless specific and compelling reasons are otherwise provided.

For example, would the release of all files and calculations associated with the ANSYS collapse initiation model jeopardize public safety to an extent
that outweighs the competing need for accountability?

Second, in its reports, NIST makes a great show of details leading to collapse initiation and then stops short just when it becomes interesting. Te remainder ofthe explanation is a perfunctory statementthat total collapse is inevitable and obvious.It is easy to see through this tactic as avoidance
of inconvenient evidence. In response to any challenges, NIST has provided curt explanations from its Public Affairs Office.

There were many contributors to the NIST WTC investigation: Why not let them openly answer questions in their own voice with the depth of knowledge and level of detail that follows from the nuts and bolts
of their research?

Lastly, awareness is growing of the disconnect between the NIST WTC reports and logical reasoning. The level of interestin "15 years later" is a good example.

Due to the nature of communication in today's world, that awareness may increase approximately exponentially. Why not NIST blow the whistle on itself now
while there is still time?
Truth is where our healing lies.

www.ae911truth.org...




edit on 26-12-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I don't know what to tell you. If you are not debating to prove the theories of Richard Gauge, Alex Jone, Steven Jones, Dr. Hulsey WTC 7 study, or AE911Truth over inward bowing, then you have nothing to argue.

After 15 years, no conspiracy person has came up with a more studied and scientific explanation than the NIST. You have AE911Truth, Gauge, Jones, Dr. Hulsey, and Dr Wood. Where does all their money go?

The NIST reports even survived a lawsuit of insurance companies and engineers against the owners of WTC 7. The lawsuit claimed design flaws. Nothing about explosives. In a court system that found the USA government and EPA liable for the damage done by reporting WTC dust was not toxic.

Sorry, facts that totally eliminate the possibility of planted explosives, demolitions, and incendiaries.

If what you claim looks like a visible explosion, people would have had their hearing damage from the sounds of 140 db blast.

In this day and age, the distinct frequencies, sound signature, and the 140db sound intensity of a blast cannot be filtered from the 911 videos? If there was a hint of an demolition explosion strong enough to cut steel columns, the audio would have already been filltered and isolated long ago. Again, Gauge and AE911Truth would wet themselves with such evidence.

No sound evidence, no proof of planted explosives.


There was no demolitions shrapnel found / recovered from 9/11 victims, not in remains, nor from nearby buildings, not in the street, nor found during exstinsive hand searching of debris that recovered over 18,000 individual human remains.

No steel worked on by demolitions backed by metallurgy samples of WTC steel.

No seismic proof of demolition charges setting off. The recorded activity is explained by collapse. None of the seismic activity was exclusive to charges powerful enough they could create seismic activity 26 miles away. No supporting physical evidence. No supporting atmosphere pressure waves that are used to prove seismic activity is from detonations.

No way a system of detonation and demolitions would have survived jet impacts that cut elevator cables, wiring, and fire water mains.

No why a system of detonation and demolitions would survive wide spread and extensive office fires.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958


Are you flat out saying the NIST research was not conducted by experts and peer reviewed?

You think the NIST research is not fact because you don't take the time to look up all research conducted by teams that was peered reviewed and published in scientific journals that compose the NIST reports.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join