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.

 

9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

page: 28
24
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Another thing you might notice when you look at the video of the collapse,

www.youtube.com...

If you keep your eye on the damage line that is the furthest down, you may notice it stays intact right up until the huge bits of falling debris obscure our view of it. That's extraordinary engineering.. The colliding objects above should have been sending shockwaves down the vertical columns. But the undamaged portioins held even while collapse was happening, right up until they got hit by the fast falling heavy debris.

If not for the 3 meters of free fall in the initial collapse imparting so much momentum to the falling debris in the upper portion of the tower, there is a very reach chance the top could have slowly collapsed and slid off, leaving the structure below it entirely intact.

But partial collapse would not create the all important shock and awe. Like in the "star spangled banner" song, no matter how many people die, hope remains so long as "the flag was still there". Destroy the flag (or national icon which serves the role of a flag in this case), and you inflict real pyschological damage on the population.




posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee


Explosion at 0:26, look at top right corner of building!!!!
Have a look for yourself!
Proof explosives were used!!
Did you see it? I can see it.



edit on 1-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   

edit on 2-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: NM



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 10:43 PM
link   
NM
edit on 1-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



You created a false post showing that this video and the statement in the video was originally posted from me!

You need to remove it, or I will notify a moderator of your actions now.

This is the lowest attemp I have ever seen by a member to discrete the member character, and credibility.

This is not debunking this is a smear campaign.
Notify away, it doesn't look that way on my screen. it clearly shows those are my words not yours.
I don't know what you are getting on about really?


edit on 1-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   

edit on 2-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: NM



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   
That's the problem with bought and paid for science, it's junks science or pseudoscience. NIST has yet to show their models. Those that defend this kind of science in my "opinion" are not interested into the Truth.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



I have NEVER posted that video or made those statements!

Do you enjoy setting innocent people up to look guilty?

That was never originally posted by me.

Never said you did.

And I want to know what you are accusing me of.
edit on 1-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
For anyone who thinks NIST's report is "peer reviewed"...... you need to have a look at this.

www.youtube.com...

This guy is a former member of NIST, and the things he's saying may sound like pretty generalized and light accusations, but to the academic community his accusations are huge!

Refusing to share raw data is the worst possible insult you can give to peer review. If you refuse to share your raw data, you are refusing to let your "peers" do any kind of "review" on your data.

That's the exact definition of not being peer reviewed.

And it implies that NIST does not believe its work would stand up to academic scrutiny.


edit on 1-6-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: shortened

edit on 1-6-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: added last sentence



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   

edit on 2-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: nm



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
One might even go so far as to interpret it as a confession.

NIST is quietly telling us that its explanation could not stand up to academic scrutiny. But for political reasons, they have to at least stand their ground superficially.

I guess somebody has a foot on their throat, preventing them from being able to say it out loud. So you just have to pay attention to their gestures.
edit on 1-6-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: add last bit



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous




This guy is a former member of NIST,
In what capacity was he employed at NIST?

Do you have his name?

I'll watch the video after I get home.

eta: Peter Ketcham and Euro Physics News, very weak.





edit on 1-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


Refusing to share raw data is the worst possible insult you can give to peer review. If you refuse to share your raw data, you are refusing to let your "peers" do any kind of "review" on your data.

That's the exact definition of not being peer reviewed.

And it implies that NIST does not believe its work would stand up to academic scrutiny.


You're absolutely correct.


Yet, there are people saying it's all been Peer Reviewed, and is accepted by all scientists all over the world.

How can anyone only Peer review part of science, when parts of it is not accessible, because it is under National security and is top secret?

What part of this so call science would be a national security risk?

Perhaps it's the phony models that cannot stand up to real science and their phony story line. Science For Sale anyone?

This is a fact now, NIST has painted itself in a corner and cannot get out of it.

NIST used to be an open, honest, intellectually open, and never defensive to open public debate.

Nist is the crown Jewel of the American government.

However, since NIST wrote the NIST Report about the WTC, it has become the opposite to the above statements I have made about NIST.

The fact is, NIST failed the American people, and the victims of 911, by not telling the truth and wrote a Report that was only politically motivated with a predetermined outcome and at the same time NIST ignored the real evidence.
edit on 1-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Dude, it doesn't even look like it's attributed to you.
You are crazy.




edit on 2-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


originally posted by: [post=22303256]D8Tee

originally posted by: [post=22303210]Informer1958


This video was never originally from me. Why does it say so on your responce to me?

When I respond to you, your name will be the only name on the top right, correct? However this is not the case in the video you posted to me, it shows it was originally posted by me.

I never have posted that video or wrote those words.
edit on 1-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee



Here. I've replied to the same post the same way.

Whats the big deal?

Is this misquoting you somehow?

I don't see how...

I post like this all the time bro?

Does anyone think these are Informers words?

Or Informers Video?

Seems clear to me that they are mine alone.



edit on 1-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
One might even go so far as to interpret it as a confession.

NIST is quietly telling us that its explanation could not stand up to academic scrutiny. But for political reasons, they have to at least stand their ground superficially.

I guess somebody has a foot on their throat, preventing them from being able to say it out loud. So you just have to pay attention to their gestures.

There's an article dealing with this at metabunk.

Have you read it?

They released the data without all the connection models.

In theory you could use the blueprints and fill in the blanks.

A & E for 911 truth are working on their own model, it was to be released this May 2017, have yet to see it show up. Will be interesting to see what they have.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   

edit on 2-6-2017 by Informer1958 because: nm



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

I guess you never hit the reply tab then.

Because that's not how it works here.


I guess you never hit the 'quote' tab then.

Because thats how it works around here.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

No one has seen NIST models?


'jeapardise public safety'. When pushed, they go on to suggest that the data could be used by potential terrorists to programme their own computer and use that to discover how to bring down other steelframe highrise buildings.


www.metabunk.org...

Public safety?
I am calling it BS.

I believe NIST models cannot stand up to their Report. That is why it is a secrete. I believe someone has their foot on NIST throat.




top topics



 
24
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join