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
63
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

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?



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Fifteen years and they are still treating us like fools ...



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: maicata
Fifteen years and they are still treating us like fools ...


Yes. Dr Wood, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, AE9/11Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Alex Jones, Radio Coast to Coast explots 9/11 for all its worth. Will do so until the truth movement finds a way to police itself.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Every time a high rise building catches fire, burns all night and does not collapse into its own footprint at free fall speeds, Richard Gage and AE911 Truth is vindicated, the truth movement is vindicated.

No, that will never be talked about on the mainstream media, but the lurkers out there in the truth movement know the official story is false.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Every time a high rise building catches fire, burns all night and does not collapse into its own footprint at free fall speeds, Richard Gage and AE911 Truth is vindicated, the truth movement is vindicated.

No, that will never be talked about on the mainstream media, but the lurkers out there in the truth movement know the official story is false.



How many of the high rise buildings you refer to.....
Had long spans of floor trusses with no additional steel nor concrete support alone their lengths.
Build to minimize concrete beyond normal construction practices.
Were documented in being deficient in fire proofing.
Had large 757s crash into them to spread fires at a rate faster than anticipated by building design, and had cut fire sprinkler systems.
Had virtually no fire fighting response.

For building 7, many of the above items. And building seven was testified in court to have improperly designed/tested floor connections for its abnormal trusse angles.

Then there is the Iranian high rise fire collapse of a steel structure in Tehran.

How many building implosions are set off with no BOOM? Eveytime a implosion charge goes boom, underlines the ridiculousness of AE 9/11 Truth.

For your false WTC narrative.....

Like to state how many Implosions by charges of buildings over 46 stories has occurred?

Like to state how many implosions of high rise buildings have been carried out with slow and inconsistent burning thermite?

Like to state how many top down implosions of high rise building have been carried out.
edit on 5-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

You were all in for nuclear devices. I didn't know AE 9/11 Truth preached nukes. What happened? Now you know the truth?



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

This may be too subtle for you to grasp, but I am not AE911.

I am just one individual who thinks for himself. I read it all, judge, and make up my own mind.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

This may be too subtle for you to grasp, but I am not AE911.

I am just one individual who thinks for himself. I read it all, judge, and make up my own mind.



Then why would you care if they are "vindicated". And sorry you cannot see the truth movement for the con it is.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: brutus61
Although it has all been hashed over many times I couldn't agree with you more. Both that the buildings COULDN'T have come down like that and that it was a government/TPTB cover-up.

Physics and reality greatly disagrees with you.



posted on Jul, 7 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

It's not so much that I "care" if they are vindicated, I merely observe that they are vindicated. Every time a new high rise building catches fire, burns all day and night, and does not collapse as the WTC buildings did, the point made by Gage and others is hammered home as being valid and true.

That is, the sophistry advanced by the NIST explanation is exposed yet again.

Having essentially bought into the silly government story for 5 years or so, I very much see the truth movement as a valid and correct position. It is painfully obvious that our government and media have again viciously failed us.

The really interesting part would be just what it is that motivates them to deceive the public.



posted on Jul, 7 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And yet you ignore the real debate.

State what buildings had long floor truesses with no mid supports.
What buildings minimized concrete to save cost beyond normal practice.
What buildings had documented deficient fire proofing.
For WTC 7, testimony the building had untested floor connections for the abnormal building angles.

And you are completely ignoring the Plasco Building 17-story high-rise Tehran, Iran building collapse do to fire.

Again, the truth movement relies on hiding of facts and false narratives.

Then state what brought down the towers. Going to push false nukes again?



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

There is no debate NF.

There is the official story and those who still believe it and do not understand they have been deceived, and then there is everybody else.

Any honest debate ended years ago when the heads on the 911 Commission acknowledged they had been set up to fail, and when then Senator Mark Dayton called NORAD a group of liars for their ever-changing perjury in front of the Commission.

There is no more debate in the adult and honest meaning of the word. The official story is a bright and shining deception, and all the facts demonstrate that.

Every time another modern building catches fire, burns all night, does not collapse as happened at WTC, the official story has another nail in its coffin.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Is inward bowing and collapse is the Offical Narrative? as seen in a video at this link:

www.metabunk.org...

The above video shows what triggered and caused the moment of collapse of WTC 2.

No indication of cutting charges. No indication the core dropped first.

I base my facts weighing on many sources.

Please, let's talk out your belief in the con that nukes were used at the WTC.

Or how about:

How a complex never before used CD of a top down implosion using never before thermite for a high rise building was carried out perfectly twice in one day. Please explain how a ignition system would perfectly time a a top down implosion using slow burning and inconsistent burn time thermite. Please explain what complex ignition system would have servived the jet impacts that cut elevator cables and vitial services such as fire water mains. How the ignition wiring and ignition devices would survive the wide spread fires. Please explain the absolute absence of steel columns and floor trusses worked on by cutting charges. Metallurgical analysis of WTC steel and floor connections shows failure do to being overloaded, not burnt and cut by a chemical means.
edit on 8-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Addedand fixed



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Damn it, now my waffles are cold do to fighting ignorance and the con jobs of the truth movement exploiting 9/11 for book sales and likes on YouTube.....




top topics



 
63
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join