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.

 

Free Coffee and Free Donuts and a USA Today

page: 8
62
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


The government has authorized three investigations, all of which explain the collapses as due solely to the combined effects of the plane impacts and the resultant fires. No evidence was found for any other cause so, in fact, there is nothing more to investigate.


The fact is, no evidence was found because no one was looking for it.

The fact is, NIST pseudo Report is based on a bais, false narrative with a predetermined conclusion.

The fact is, NIST did everything in their power to avoid looking into demolition, & ignored critical visual evidence, and out right lied about credible eyewitness accounts.

The fact is, NIST sold their reputation, honor, and prostituted themselves out to the government highest bidders to make millions of dollars.

Fact is, NIST lied publicly, stating there was no eyewitness accounts to hearing, or witnessing explosions, these NIST interviews are all over the internet.

Why would NIST lie about eyewitness accounts? Perhaps NIST lie was their excuse to avoid looking into demolition.

To make derogatory remarks that there was no explosions in the WTC, proves one does not understand "basic science" and has no problem ignoring credible eyewitness accounts into supporting a false narratives for whatever reason it is.

Skyscrapers just don't fall down like that, many people might accept one Towers falling, but "three Towers" falling like that in one day, what are the odds of that ever happening again? Never.

Some on here can dream up all the excuses to why all three fell that day, but excuses is all you have at this point.

You can ask questions all day long to none believers of the OS to why, how, when, whom, in this circular logical assumptions there were no explosions at, or in the WTC until one is blue in the face. The fact is, asking redundant questions continually will never prove the OS narratives true.

Like you, I have a right to my "opinions" on this topic, however I will not call my "opinions" scientific facts, as some on here do.

edit on 25-1-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


The government has authorized three investigations, all of which explain the collapses as due solely to the combined effects of the plane impacts and the resultant fires. No evidence was found for any other cause so, in fact, there is nothing more to investigate.


The fact is, no evidence was found because no one was looking for it.

The fact is, NIST pseudo Report is based on a bais, false narrative with a predetermined conclusion.

The fact is, NIST did everything in their power to avoid looking into demolition, & ignored critical visual evidence, and out right lied about credible eyewitness accounts.

The fact is, NIST sold their reputation, honor, and prostituted themselves out to the government highest bidders to make millions of dollars.

Fact is, NIST lied publicly, stating there was no eyewitness accounts to hearing, or witnessing explosions, these NIST interviews are all over the internet.

Why would NIST lie about eyewitness accounts? Perhaps NIST lie was their excuse to avoid looking into demolition.

To make derogatory remarks that there was no explosions in the WTC, proves one does not understand "basic science" and has no problem ignoring credible eyewitness accounts into supporting a false narratives for whatever reason it is.

Skyscrapers just don't fall down like that, many people might accept one Towers falling, but "three Towers" falling like that in one day, what are the odds of that ever happening again? Never.

Some on here can dream up all the excuses to why all three fell that day, but excuses is all you have at this point.

You can ask questions all day long to none believers of the OS to why, how, when, whom, in this circular logical assumptions there were no explosions at, or in the WTC until one is blue in the face. The fact is, asking redundant questions continually will never prove the OS narratives true.

Like you, I have a right to my "opinions" on this topic, however I will not call my "opinions" scientific facts, as some on here do.


Without evidence, the conspiracists cannot expect others to be converted to their religion.
There is no evidence of demolitions so any conspiracy that has to do with demolitions is unfounded. There are no excuses about why three buildings fell that day; there are reasons. Physical impacts and uncontrolled fires.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Still waiting on an intelligent rebuttal!!!!!

Again, failure analysis is used to find THE cause of failure. The argument "they didn't look fo CD" is totally BS and a straw man argument!

The way I have to phrase this simple point just shows how dogmatic you are, and how you hide the simplest of facts!

One: Prove no metallurgical analysis of WTC steel and failed floor connections ever took place.

Two: Prove from the metallurgy samples, CD by shape charges / blasting was missed.

Three: Prove the metallurgically analysis used would have missed the samples being worked on by shape charges / blasting.

Four: Prove the results of the various metallurgy analysis conducted on the WTC steel and floor connections were wrong!

Cite sources please!

(Hint, a detailed analysis of why floor connections failed was conducted.)

edit on 25-1-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed finger fumble



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


Without evidence, the conspiracists cannot expect others to be converted to their religion.


A Religion?

What religion would that be?


There is no evidence of demolitions so any conspiracy that has to do with demolitions is unfounded.


On the contrary, there is.

What is factual is the OS narratives are unfounded, biased, and pseudoscience.


There are no excuses about why three buildings fell that day; there are reasons.


Then stop making excuses to why the OS narratives are true.


Physical impacts and uncontrolled fires.


Polls done in the passed on ATS says you are completely wrong.

In fact I did a poll around 7 years ago that ran for many months, 98% ATS do not support the OS of 911.

911 Poll

www.abovetopsecret.com...






edit on 25-1-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


Without evidence, the conspiracists cannot expect others to be converted to their religion.


A Religion?

What religion would that be?


There is no evidence of demolitions so any conspiracy that has to do with demolitions is unfounded.


On the contrary, there is.

What is factual is the OS narratives are unfounded, biased, and pseudoscience.


There are no excuses about why three buildings fell that day; there are reasons.


Then stop making excuses to why the OS narratives are true.


Physical impacts and uncontrolled fires.


Polls done in the passed on ATS says you are completely wrong.

In fact I did a poll around 7 years ago that ran for many months, 98% ATS do not support the OS of 911.






I'm not making excuses as to why the OS narratives are true. I think they are true and am glad that you agree.

Polls do not determine right or wrong. ATS is a conspiracy site and many are looking for a conspiracy, so it is not surprising that those who bothered to answer don't support the explanations of the NIST report. How many actually answered?



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


Polls do not determine right or wrong. ATS is a conspiracy site and many are looking for a conspiracy, so it is not surprising that those who bothered to answer don't support the explanations of the NIST report. How many actually answered?



Update to the 911 poll.

No 455 voted, the government lied about 911.

Yes 20 voted, the government told the truth about 911.


I have no problems in what people believe and I am not here to change that. However, I am on ATS to share facts and evidence.

If members chose to ignore these facts then that is their issue, not mine.

It is my "opinion" that most ATSer's come to ATS for many reasons.

1. To Deny Ignorance.

2. To share News from around the world that mainstream media refuses to cover.

3. To share current events going on around the world and our country.

4. To share information and to debunk if it is true ,or false.

5. I have changed my mind over many issues on ATS when the facts were indisputable and in some cases I even apologies for my ignorance. I call it Manning Up. Very few can do that on here.

I believe what evidence, scientifically, credible eyewitness accounts, and yes, circumstantial evidence that has been ignored as many others have demonstrated periodically.

The old saying goes: If it walks like a duck....



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Still waiting on ten cherry picked facts that prove CD blasting at the WTC?




top topics



 
62
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join