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.

 

Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

page: 33
13
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine


Well there was a conspiracy, assuming I am allowed to use dictionary definitions here. The only question really is just who the conspirators were.

And it is your side claiming UA93 crashed there. That is your story, the story you defend. So far, you are unable to prove your claim/story.

I simply do not believe your story BECAUSE it cannot be proved. That may be too damn complex for you to grasp, but in the traditional rules of debate, if Party A makes a claim (UA93 crashed in that field), then Party A must be able to prove that.

I have no obligation to believe an unsubstantiated claim. The obligation rests with you and yours to prove your claim.


If not there, where did UA93 crash?


I don't know that it did crash. How do you know that it did?



Impact crater in field. Parts recovered. Human remains recovered. Evidence seems to say that it crashed.
If it didn't crash, then where are the passengers?




posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Radar data, radio messages, air traffic controller accounts, remains of passenger’s personal items and luggage, large debris field, large area of trees burnt, the dig area to recover the wreckage was seventy feet by seventy feet by forty feet deep, accounts by the hundreds From people working the recovery site, and the remains received by surviving family members.

All Salander can claim is Miller said no wreckage, which is even false. Miller said the wreckage looked dumped, not there was no wreckage from flight 93.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


Impact crater in field that some say was there before. I don't know, but I've seen photos.

"Parts" were recovered like seat belts and other small pieces easily placed. The important parts like airframe and landing gear and engines were nowhere to be seen. That's why Miller and all the newsmen overhead in helicopters could not see anything like that. Further, the aircraft debris was quickly hidden away in Iron Mountain, under cover of secrecy. Hmmm....

Human remains? Well, yes, the coroner Miller who changed his story 180 degrees was delivered "DNA samples" from the same gang of liars that brought us the pentagon papers. I consider the source, maybe you do not.

Sure, they made a movie about it, and they placed a marble monument, but that does not prove anything except deception.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander


Salander quotes from, www.abovetopsecret.com...




Parts" were recovered like seat belts and other small pieces easily placed.



Misrepresentation of the crash site. Ignoring the initial find of a large debris field with burnt trees, pieces of fuselage, and passengers personal effects. Miller has always said there was wreckage in the crater. Large amounts of wreckage cratered into the ground.



aircraft debris was quickly hidden away in Iron Mountain,


So, you admit there was commercial jet wreckage.



Human remains? Well, yes, the coroner Miller who changed his story 180 degrees was delivered "DNA samples" from the same gang of liars that brought us the pentagon papers. I consider the source, maybe you do not.


False argument. The times you have posted Miller quotes, it was shown you quoted Miller out of context to create an intellectually dishonest narrative.

Would you like to provide the actual Miller quotes again, and your structured argument?

What is it like to be a sad little individual who’s arguments are based on misrepresentation of facts, and that you gave up citing sources because all your sources have been debunked?
edit on 13-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander


Where are the passengers?



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


What passengers? Until they were edited, the passengers manifests did not include the hijackers?

It's pure speculation as to where they are. The important part for the critical thinker is "why are they not in that field?"



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander




What passengers? Until they were edited, the passengers manifests did not include the hijackers?


What was published by media were LIST OF VICTIMS !!!!

terrorist names were left off for reason that they were not victims ....

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine


What passengers? Until they were edited, the passengers manifests did not include the hijackers?

It's pure speculation as to where they are. The important part for the critical thinker is "why are they not in that field?"


The passenger's remains that were recovered were in that field. Aircraft parts were recovered from the field and surrounding area.
I think that you are trolling, Sal. I have thought so for a while, since you claim to be a "critical thinker " but merely deny everything without any evidence that would support your position. You have little grasp of technical things and can only repeat what you read on fringe sites written by others who also have little grasp of technical things, such as A&E [Steven Jones comes to mind].



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

There are large amounts of evidence and records the hijackers bought tickets for the 9/11 flights. Phone records, computer records, ticket agents, financial records, and paper trails.

A flight list is fluid until the doors of the jet are shut. Until then, people can be asked to give up their seats to other individuals before the jet leaves the terminal.

Are these false statements?

You ignore the body of evidence to base your beliefs on lists that have a history of being fluid. And please cite a source.

You didn’t answer what happen to the passengers.

So, you are again misrepresenting the truth to create false arguments.

Why do all your arguments need to push false narratives and use intellectual dishonesty?
edit on 14-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Addedand fixed



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Gents, I'm not offering arguments.

I merely state facts and tell the truth no matter how unpleasant it might be.

I watched the news and video from the helicopter in my boss's office on his small TV. They spent 10 or 15 minutes on site with the camera running the whole time. I have flown similar helicopter missions myself, so I was enjoying watching it. It really happened, like everybody agreed, there was no crashed airliner anywhere near that field. I've seen crashed airplanes before.

Somebody hauled in some painted fuselage pieces for the trial and pictures, but no airliner crashed there, they had the wrong field.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Gents, I'm not offering arguments.

I merely state facts and tell the truth no matter how unpleasant it might be.

I watched the news and video from the helicopter in my boss's office on his small TV. They spent 10 or 15 minutes on site with the camera running the whole time. I have flown similar helicopter missions myself, so I was enjoying watching it. It really happened, like everybody agreed, there was no crashed airliner anywhere near that field. I've seen crashed airplanes before.

Somebody hauled in some painted fuselage pieces for the trial and pictures, but no airliner crashed there, they had the wrong field.




That is the problem. You don’t cite facts with any sources. You didn’t even say shanksville? Is that what you are referring too? I have posted ground video that shows wreckage at shankville that was not refuted by you.

You going to cite the source of the video. Link to the video. When did the video take place? Again, there was a no fly order on 9/11?



www.history.com...
9:42 am – For the first time in history, the FAA grounds all flights over or bound for the continental United States. Some 3,300 commercial flights and 1,200 private planes are guided to airports in Canada and the United States over the next two-and-a-half hours.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You never defined uniform collapse by the way.

There reason there was no resistance from the vertical columns? Once the upper portion of each tower Collapsed into the static floor system below, it didn’t knock over vertical columns. The falling mass fell through the path of least resistance. Stripping floor connections from the vertical columns. The falling mass fell around and between the vertical columns. Not through the vertical columns. Over simplified, But the vertical columns probably became more like bumpers in relation to the falling mass.


All the vertical columns were supporting the entire structure for over 30 years, and this generates 1/10th of a second resistance on each lower floor, somehow. Nobody can ever prove that there is any sort of 1/10 second resistance, since nobody can measure 1/10 of a second in the first place, anyway. But that's not a problem, we know it's resistance, because it's slower than a free fall collapse.

Do you know that CD's do not collapse at free fall speeds, either??

I suppose that must be from all the resistance, which they've already removed, yes??

All of the falling mass, which comes directly down, is why it is slower than a pure free fall.


You can try to prove me wrong, with an actual demonstration, but it is absolutely impossible to replicate, in any way, and you know it is.

Have you ever taken any sort of Physics classes, before?

They show how resistance works, and, how it fails to work....

When a specific mass is being adequately supported, it is due to the structure supporting the very same mass.

If 50 tons of mass is supported with an enormously strong structure, or a 2 lb. mass is supported by a small, wafer thin structure....it is the SAME PHYSICAL LAWS APPLIED IN BOTH CASES..IN ALL CASES.


You try to portray a magical 'tipping point', where mass is so large that it renders all known physical laws...totally worthless.

You invent all sorts of magical phenomena that don't even exist, that defy physical laws, that cannot be proven....

Sad, to deny all reality..All science... living in a blissful ignorance...



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

First off, the jet impacts reduced the number of vertical columns you are referring to in you thirty year rant. Additional load was transferred to the remaining vertical columns because of the missing/damage columns. Another false argument by you.


Again, what caused inward bowing and buckling as seen in the video in this metabunk thread

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

I didn’t say the steel columns under the buckling failed by fire. The vertical columns only toppled once the side to side support supplied by the floor systems was completely stripped from the vertical columns. The evidence is the vertical steel columns remained standing whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor systems.

Pre 9/11 studies showed the WTC fire insulation was deficient.

Science shows steel loses 60 percent of its ability to resist stains around 1000 Celsius.

The jet impacts remove a large portion of vertical columns and fire proofing.

Additional load was transferred to remaining vertical columns.

Vertical steel columns only transfer full load to the foundation. Bending causes the strain of load to get caught in the geometry of the bend.

The floor trusses droopped because of load and heat. When cooling, the floor trusses contacted. The contraction pulled in on the additional loaded and remaining vertical columns.

The vertical columns bowed in and buckled. The building above the buckling fell into the floor system below. The falling mass pulled and sheared the floor connections. The floor system failed, leaving the vertical columns with no side to side bracing. The vertical columns tumbled down.



edit on 22-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

First off, the jet impacts reduced the number of vertical columns you are referring to in you thirty year rant. Additional load was transferred to the remaining vertical columns because of the missing/damage columns. Another false argument by you.


Again, what caused inward bowing and buckling as seen in the video in this metabunk thread

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

I didn’t say the steel columns under the buckling failed by fire. The vertical columns only toppled once the side to side support supplied by the floor systems was completely stripped from the vertical columns. The evidence is the vertical steel columns remained standing whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor systems.

Pre 9/11 studies showed the WTC fire insulation was deficient.

Science shows steel loses 60 percent of its ability to resist stains around 1000 Celsius.

The jet impacts remove a large portion of vertical columns and fire proofing.

Additional load was transferred to remaining vertical columns.

Vertical steel columns only transfer full load to the foundation. Bending causes the strain of load to get caught in the geometry of the bend.

The floor trusses droopped because of load and heat. When cooling, the floor trusses contacted. The contraction pulled in on the additional loaded and remaining vertical columns.

The vertical columns bowed in and buckled. The building above the buckling fell into the floor system below. The falling mass pulled and sheared the floor connections. The floor system failed, leaving the vertical columns with no side to side bracing. The vertical columns tumbled down.




Apply the remarkable theory of 'Buckling flattens all structures within seconds'

What proves it buckled?

This 'buckling' is seen in towers, also?

Assume there is 'buckling' in both buildings, without genuine proof,,,

Who can show this 'buckling' effect' causing anything at all?



Why do you argue for anything they say is true, when it is a complete lie, which cannot be proven, just because you say so.

It is simply about proof. And that's it.

To me, if this would really be true, then I'd need proof of it, just as you should want, and who wants an unproven, non-existing, idiotic claim, of making nonsense seem like scientific explanations.

Nobody knows better than scientists, there is no proof, which - of course - means there is already proof of some kind, which nobody knows, although it is proven, while sometimes - the entire issue is not even discussed.

Say nothing, just move along..



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   
You cannot avoid the problem.

This collapse follows the very same laws of physics. There is no point where a mass is so extreme in weight, that it defies all physical laws.

It's pure nonsense


Any structure follows the same laws of physics.

Mass is always proportional to the structure which is built to SUPPORT THE SPECIFIC MASS....



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Your goofy. I have video and proof.

The only things you have is the misrepresenting of facts, ignorance, and disbelief.

Then state and provide the evidence to a cause to supersede inward bowing and buckling leading to collapse.

There is zero evidence of CD at the WTC.

I have posted references and cited cases where building have collapsed from being overloaded or from mechanical strain.

Buildings collapse from having there design limits overloaded.

World Trade Center - Role of floor loss and buckling
m.youtube.com...

Your massive argument is a false argument out of ignorance.

The Madrid Windsor had a collapse of its steel structure, and there was no missing columns from jet impact. The only thing that prevented the total collapse of the Madrid Windsor was the concrete supports that the WTC did not have.

The Tehran high rise fire collapse is another example.

Intimation of collapse videos.

WTC close up of South Tower buckling
m.youtube.com...

9/11: North Tower Collapse (Etienne Sauret)
m.youtube.com...

WTC Tower 1 collapse from north (in SoHo) - enhanced
m.youtube.com...


Wtc 1, impact site close up, tower collapse close up,...
m.youtube.com...




edit on 28-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Sad you only have rants and false arguments.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Your goofy. I have video and proof.

The only things you have is the misrepresenting of facts, ignorance, and disbelief.

Then state and provide the evidence to a cause to supersede inward bowing and buckling leading to collapse.

There is zero evidence of CD at the WTC.

I have posted references and cited cases where building have collapsed from being overloaded or from mechanical strain.

Buildings collapse from having there design limits overloaded.

World Trade Center - Role of floor loss and buckling
m.youtube.com...

Your massive argument is a false argument out of ignorance.

The Madrid Windsor had a collapse of its steel structure, and there was no missing columns from jet impact. The only thing that prevented the total collapse of the Madrid Windsor was the concrete supports that the WTC did not have.

The Tehran high rise fire collapse is another example.

Intimation of collapse videos.

WTC close up of South Tower buckling
m.youtube.com...

9/11: North Tower Collapse (Etienne Sauret)
m.youtube.com...

WTC Tower 1 collapse from north (in SoHo) - enhanced
m.youtube.com...


Wtc 1, impact site close up, tower collapse close up,...
m.youtube.com...



There is never going to be proof that any structures would possibly collapse in such a way, from only random damage . Let alone two times, sheesh.


The towers were structurally sound, for 30 years.

Whatever mass that was supported, would be supported after the damage. The two buildings did not lose any structural support...not to any significant degree. Otherwise, it would be very noticeable.

A structure holds to the same physical laws, no exceptions.

We have built millions of structures, over decades, and damaged many of them.....yet, they have never defied our physical laws.

How can we have ever proven if the structures have not defied physical laws?

So, how did we prove this claim?



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 12:15 AM
link   
I have seen a preponderance of evidence that in aggregate- taken altogether- makes it painfully obvious to anyone willing to put aside preconceived notions and follow their cognitive dissonances to their logical conclusions that the events of that day were orchestrated.

There have been extremely well done documentaries on this. ("In Plane Sight" comes to mind; was available on Netflix a few years ago.)

There are plenty of incongruities with the official story just within the commonly seen videos of the aircraft, crash sites and so on, to anyone with more than casual familiarity with military aircraft is clearly nothing at all in line with the official story.

There is extraordinary evidence of a financial nature concerning various businesses that had connections to the World Trade Center in one way or another.

There is physical evidence in the form of chemicals that can only form under the extremely high temperatures that thermite can generate, which burning jet fuel cannot.

There is the lack of certain videos that should have been released early on but still have never seen the light of day thanks to the FBI- video from cameras around The Pentagon such as a freeway traffic camera, one from a nearby hotel and one from a nearby gas station, all of which were confiscated, never released. There is so much that is mysteriously hidden away like that, tons of physical evidence that was whisked away never to be seen again, some of it actually destroyed while investigations and crime scene analysis were still very much called for.

There are testimonies from hundreds of witnesses that contradict the official B.S., and while it's common to have lots of false recollections and faulty conclusions from low-IQ, low-self-awareness, panicky people, some testiomonies are from intelligent, knowledgeable people who were cool, calm, collected and explained their observations rationally in such a manner as to give one the sense that this person really knew what they were talking about.

How about Operation Northwoods? Our government- the Department of War if it were called by its original and proper name- has actually planned an operation incredibly close to the events of 9/11 involving hijacked airliners being flown into high-profile targets in Florida, to be blamed on Cubans to justify an invasion of Cuba. This is not up for dispute, you can easily find the released documents yourself and our government does not deny such a plan was proposed to the Commander-in-Chief when it was made. Why would you be so naive as to think various parties wouldn't attempt precisely such a false flag event yet again, when our nation has taken part in false flag events at least FIFTY TIMES in the past couple of centuries? False flag events aren't some new phenomena, some new form of devious misdirection to justify war, it has been done for thousands of years and in our times that still applies, the monsters who run the world are still utterly without regard for human loss of life or suffering.

I may have just joined this site, but I have no further need of trying to convince people with shut minds that they're blinding themselves to the conspiratorial reality of our world. If you do not have a particular mixture of personality traits and beliefs, it is highly unlikely you ever discover the kind of things I've personally learned, personally been a part of or witnessed that are proof that reality is stranger than fiction.

The traits necessary are: intelligence (pattern recognition), curiosity, humility, and a strong desire to find the truth, to value the truth as so valuable as to be pursued even when all your "common sense" is screaming that you're wasting your time and are nuts while everyone else is sane and correct.....and lo and behold, once in awhile you find that source that confirms you are not crazy, that your instincts and relentless pursuit of truth were worthwhile and correct all along.

Eventually, when you realize how few people will ever give a crap even if you could show them simple 1-2-3 "hard evidence", you either get depressed and kill yourself or develop a Zen-like detachment from the fate of the human race. I thankfully achieved the latter. I still care, just not enough to lose sleep anymore.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Whatever mass that was supported, would be supported after the damage. The two buildings did not lose any structural support...not to any significant degree.

That has got to be one of the most ignorant statements I've seen on here in a long time.



new topics




 
13
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join