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: 47
13
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I'll just lay out to sum some things up.

I don't know one way or another what happened.

I am not 100% convinced only Bin Laden and his 19 terrorists knew.

I am not 100% convinced Americans knew and assisted.

I am 100% convinced that all the odd coincidences, every single one ignored by neutron - not a single one where he says '"that is strange" - even though just b/c it's strange doesn't mean its a conspiracy, just strange, not one, and that seems like a refusal to look at the number of weird things and focus solely upon testimony that abuts other findings to be someone pre-determined as to what happened.

I'll tell you this. I was a person 100% convinced that truthers were absolutely out of their minds, until I had to research their crazy theories for a FICTTIONAL book, and then ran into "odd" things.

I don't find that for Sandy Hook, not Las Vegas, not Boston, or a million other "false flags" claimed by conspiracy theorists. I don't bend toward conspiracy, I bend toward what the stuff that's found points to.

9-11 points to an incident not thoroughly addressed.

Do you disagree that 2 years prior to 9-11 the Neocons wrote a paper talking about "absent a Pearl Harbor event" the public wouldn't support a war in the middle east? Do you find it odd that that they got that "event" and many went on to be enriched by it?

That's odd.




posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I also say:

I'm a 100% unapologetic liberal democrat who believes that George W. Bush did a masterful job in the weeks after 9-11 (whether the hell he knew or not). His speech, that war with terrorism isn't war with Islam, prevented more deaths, prevented vigilantism. He couldn't have been better. Went on later to be a horrible president in my opinion, but wonderful right after.

I don't believe there's a conspiracy against Trump. My god the evidence is overwhelming that Putin is waging cyber/political war with the U.S. Ignoring that evidence to say it's a conspiracy and criminal cabal is irresponsible and dangerous.

I don't know about JFK b/c I haven't looked at the evidence at all.

I believe there's another intelligence in and around earth behind the UFOs, b/c to not believe it I'd have to think several astronauts and generals and thousands of others all decided to lie about it. It only takes ONE to be right to prove that SOMETHING is out there. I dont know what. I'm not sure anyone does.

I follow evidence.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Scrubdog

Let’s just work on the pentagon for now

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016.

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

So, what Scientists say there is a more credible event that caused the damage at the pentagon to supersede a large commercial jet impact?
edit on 30-12-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added



posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

The problem? you have no intellectually honest arguments.

Link to anywhere you have quoted NIST? And ever provide an explanation why the cited NIST material is wrong. I have provided NIST and American Wrlding Societies material.

The Explanation is not solely NIST.

You have not even proven the NIST calculations for the dynamic floor load limits which were excited at the start of collapse wrong.

It’s science that steel heated to 1000 Celsius looses 60 percent of it’s ability to resist strain.

There is a reason steel is required by code to be protected by fire insulation. The structural steel collapsed due to fire at the Mardrid Windsor is an example: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...


There is a reason why the inward bowing leading to buckling which initiated collapse was isolated and localized to the area of the jet impacts, where fire insulation was knocked of, the most damage was done to the structure, the area of the most fire damage, and the area that underwent the greatest thermal stress.

The area in which the collapse was initiated, there was no possibly of a cd system would have survived. The jet impacts would have knocked out the ignition system, the fires would have destroyed the ignition system and/or remote detonators, the impacts or fires would have prematurely set of blasting caps or explosives, the fires would have degraded the explosives beyond useful ability.

There is no explanation how a cd system would have survived the impacts and fires to initiate the collapse witnessesed.

There is no proof of CD.


No proof of murderers who are in charge of investigating their own murder? Who knew?

Once again, you talk about how steel will weaken and fail at a temperature - which DID NOT EXIST FOR ANY STEEL WITHIN THE TWO TOWERS.

You keep arguing about fires weakening steel to the point of failure, and collapse, while you obviously should know there is NOT ONE PIECE OF STEEL THAT WEAKENED TO THE POINT OF FAILURE.


Where is the steel you claim weakened to the point of failure, and collapse?

That's what you need to show. If you cannot do that, you have a worthless claim.

Which is it, then?



posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I find it odd you quote me which results in a log of questions you ignore?

What temperature does jet fuel and office fires burn at? Steel looses 50 percent of its strength at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. Uneven heating and thermal stress is a very real factor that resorts in damage to steel bodies.

Still more false arguments by you. All you can do is create straw man arguments, while not being able to cite a credible truth movement tower collapse model?

And please do answer....

The problem? you have no intellectually honest arguments.

Link to anywhere you have quoted NIST? And ever provide an explanation why the cited NIST material is wrong. I have provided NIST and American Wrlding Societies material.

The Explanation is not solely NIST.

You have not even proven the NIST calculations for the dynamic floor load limits which were excited at the start of collapse wrong.

It’s science that steel heated to 1000 Celsius looses 60 percent of it’s ability to resist strain.

There is a reason steel is required by code to be protected by fire insulation. The structural steel collapsed due to fire at the Mardrid Windsor is an example: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...


There is a reason why the inward bowing leading to buckling which initiated collapse was isolated and localized to the area of the jet impacts, where fire insulation was knocked of, the most damage was done to the structure, the area of the most fire damage, and the area that underwent the greatest thermal stress.

The area in which the collapse was initiated, there was no possibly of a cd system would have survived. The jet impacts would have knocked out the ignition system, the fires would have destroyed the ignition system and/or remote detonators, the impacts or fires would have prematurely set of blasting caps or explosives, the fires would have degraded the explosives beyond useful ability.

There is no explanation how a cd system would have survived the impacts and fires to initiate the collapse witnessesed.



posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You cannot even refute this little paper that totally explains way there is proof and credible reasoning to believe the towers were brought down by CD...

www.implosionworld.com...


You cannot even refute the answer on this simple question and answer page.



THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE
Questions & Answers

www.implosionworld.com...

DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?
To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.




posted on Jan, 6 2018 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

I find it odd you quote me which results in a log of questions you ignore?

What temperature does jet fuel and office fires burn at? Steel looses 50 percent of its strength at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. Uneven heating and thermal stress is a very real factor that resorts in damage to steel bodies.

Still more false arguments by you. All you can do is create straw man arguments, while not being able to cite a credible truth movement tower collapse model?

And please do answer....

The problem? you have no intellectually honest arguments.

Link to anywhere you have quoted NIST? And ever provide an explanation why the cited NIST material is wrong. I have provided NIST and American Wrlding Societies material.

The Explanation is not solely NIST.

You have not even proven the NIST calculations for the dynamic floor load limits which were excited at the start of collapse wrong.

It’s science that steel heated to 1000 Celsius looses 60 percent of it’s ability to resist strain.

There is a reason steel is required by code to be protected by fire insulation. The structural steel collapsed due to fire at the Mardrid Windsor is an example: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...


There is a reason why the inward bowing leading to buckling which initiated collapse was isolated and localized to the area of the jet impacts, where fire insulation was knocked of, the most damage was done to the structure, the area of the most fire damage, and the area that underwent the greatest thermal stress.

The area in which the collapse was initiated, there was no possibly of a cd system would have survived. The jet impacts would have knocked out the ignition system, the fires would have destroyed the ignition system and/or remote detonators, the impacts or fires would have prematurely set of blasting caps or explosives, the fires would have degraded the explosives beyond useful ability.

There is no explanation how a cd system would have survived the impacts and fires to initiate the collapse witnessesed.





None of the actual steel weakened to the point of failure.

Ignore it all you want, that's the reality.

No evidence of fires causing ANYTHING.

You choose to live in denial?



posted on Jan, 6 2018 @ 06:42 AM
link   
You seriously believe the total collapse of these two structures could only happen because of random fires, and random damage??

It cannot possibly happen with a CD??


Could a CD not cause the same collapse, since no explosives are needed, except a few to 'start-up'?


It is odd that a CD places explosives all over the building, at critical supports, and times the explosives to go off in a precise sequence, milliseconds apart. It's so much easier doing it by totally random damage at one area of the building!!!


Not only that, a random collapse WORKS, while a CD doesn't ever work!!



Truly a genius on display, no doubt!



posted on Jan, 6 2018 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Is there any of the steel that showed it weakened to point of failure, from the fires?

None?

But you keep on claiming fires weakened the steel, to point of failure?

You are lying, then?



posted on Jan, 6 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

I find it odd you quote me which results in a log of questions you ignore?

What temperature does jet fuel and office fires burn at? Steel looses 50 percent of its strength at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. Uneven heating and thermal stress is a very real factor that resorts in damage to steel bodies.

Still more false arguments by you. All you can do is create straw man arguments, while not being able to cite a credible truth movement tower collapse model?

And please do answer....

The problem? you have no intellectually honest arguments.

Link to anywhere you have quoted NIST? And ever provide an explanation why the cited NIST material is wrong. I have provided NIST and American Wrlding Societies material.

The Explanation is not solely NIST.

You have not even proven the NIST calculations for the dynamic floor load limits which were excited at the start of collapse wrong.

It’s science that steel heated to 1000 Celsius looses 60 percent of it’s ability to resist strain.

There is a reason steel is required by code to be protected by fire insulation. The structural steel collapsed due to fire at the Mardrid Windsor is an example: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...


There is a reason why the inward bowing leading to buckling which initiated collapse was isolated and localized to the area of the jet impacts, where fire insulation was knocked of, the most damage was done to the structure, the area of the most fire damage, and the area that underwent the greatest thermal stress.

The area in which the collapse was initiated, there was no possibly of a cd system would have survived. The jet impacts would have knocked out the ignition system, the fires would have destroyed the ignition system and/or remote detonators, the impacts or fires would have prematurely set of blasting caps or explosives, the fires would have degraded the explosives beyond useful ability.

There is no explanation how a cd system would have survived the impacts and fires to initiate the collapse witnessesed.





None of the actual steel weakened to the point of failure.

Ignore it all you want, that's the reality.

No evidence of fires causing ANYTHING.

You choose to live in denial?


Prove it

www.nist.gov...
Analysis of Structural Steel in the World Trade Center Investigation

And....

My argument is the contraction of drooping floor truess caused the inward bowing and buckling of the vertical columns lead to collapse as seen in the video in this thread...

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760

www.metabunk.org...

Have you even quoted NIST? To provide a argument on what is wrong?

More false arguments by you! More intellectual dishonesty by you!
edit on 6-1-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

I find it odd you quote me which results in a log of questions you ignore?

What temperature does jet fuel and office fires burn at? Steel looses 50 percent of its strength at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. Uneven heating and thermal stress is a very real factor that resorts in damage to steel bodies.

Still more false arguments by you. All you can do is create straw man arguments, while not being able to cite a credible truth movement tower collapse model?

And please do answer....

The problem? you have no intellectually honest arguments.

Link to anywhere you have quoted NIST? And ever provide an explanation why the cited NIST material is wrong. I have provided NIST and American Wrlding Societies material.

The Explanation is not solely NIST.

You have not even proven the NIST calculations for the dynamic floor load limits which were excited at the start of collapse wrong.

It’s science that steel heated to 1000 Celsius looses 60 percent of it’s ability to resist strain.

There is a reason steel is required by code to be protected by fire insulation. The structural steel collapsed due to fire at the Mardrid Windsor is an example: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...


There is a reason why the inward bowing leading to buckling which initiated collapse was isolated and localized to the area of the jet impacts, where fire insulation was knocked of, the most damage was done to the structure, the area of the most fire damage, and the area that underwent the greatest thermal stress.

The area in which the collapse was initiated, there was no possibly of a cd system would have survived. The jet impacts would have knocked out the ignition system, the fires would have destroyed the ignition system and/or remote detonators, the impacts or fires would have prematurely set of blasting caps or explosives, the fires would have degraded the explosives beyond useful ability.

There is no explanation how a cd system would have survived the impacts and fires to initiate the collapse witnessesed.





None of the actual steel weakened to the point of failure.

Ignore it all you want, that's the reality.

No evidence of fires causing ANYTHING.

You choose to live in denial?


Prove it

www.nist.gov...
Analysis of Structural Steel in the World Trade Center Investigation

And....

My argument is the contraction of drooping floor truess caused the inward bowing and buckling of the vertical columns lead to collapse as seen in the video in this thread...

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760

www.metabunk.org...

Have you even quoted NIST? To provide a argument on what is wrong?

More false arguments by you! More intellectual dishonesty by you!


The steel didn't weaken to point of failure, yet you just keep on spewing about fires!!


I have the evidence, you have none.

You claim 'bowing' caused it, while all the steel - THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE - proved without doubt it wasn't caused by fires.


The steel is evidence, nothing else is relevant here.



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Schmoe1223

I thought the Bin Laden's were somehow in on 9/11 and many Afghani's actually flew out of the USA prior. ?? Maybe Bin Laden had something in it for them??
And is he even really dead. How do we believe he is really dead if we cant believe it was a terror attack? Where did the 'terrorists' that 'hijacked the planes learn to fly? I always just think of Bush's reaction when he found out about the attacks.



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

One, what evidence do you have why the towers collapsed.

Again....

The jets hit the towers, knocked off insulation. The impacts damaged numberous vertical columns and core columns beyond the capability to transfer load to the foundation.

The floor trusses heated by fire tried to expand. The heat of the fires decreases how ridged the steel was. The floor trusses boxed in by solid columns could only bow downward.

The fires also caused stress on the steel by uneven heating. Do you know uneven heating alone can cause steel pipes, solid steel members, and steel containment vessels to crack and break.

Upon cooling and contracting, the floor trusses pulled in on the vertical columns.

The vertical columns bowed. A column is able to resist load by how straight the column is. The stain of the upper part of the towers increasingly could not make it past the bow in the vertical columns to the foundations. Once enough stain built up in the bowing columns, they buckled and initiate the collapse.

The process is clearly seen in the video clip in this linked to thread.

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

This has been my stance for about a year. Quote who said the fires caused steel failures in the structure leading to steel breaking and cracking.


The structural steel failure directly caused by fire is a false argument by you. Quote who is saying the fire directly caused steel failure to collapse. The only people saying the fire directly caused steel failure are those of the truth movement creating false arguments.

edit on 13-1-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

One, what evidence do you have why the towers collapsed.

Again....

The jets hit the towers, knocked off insulation. The impacts damaged numberous vertical columns and core columns beyond the capability to transfer load to the foundation.

The floor trusses heated by fire tried to expand. The heat of the fires decreases how ridged the steel was. The floor trusses boxed in by solid columns could only bow downward.

The fires also caused stress on the steel by uneven heating. Do you know uneven heating alone can cause steel pipes, solid steel members, and steel containment vessels to crack and break.

Upon cooling and contracting, the floor trusses pulled in on the vertical columns.

The vertical columns bowed. A column is able to resist load by how straight the column is. The stain of the upper part of the towers increasingly could not make it past the bow in the vertical columns to the foundations. Once enough stain built up in the bowing columns, they buckled and initiate the collapse.

The process is clearly seen in the video clip in this linked to thread.

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

This has been my stance for about a year. Quote who said the fires caused steel failures in the structure leading to steel breaking and cracking.


The structural steel failure directly caused by fire is a false argument by you. Quote who is saying the fire directly caused steel failure to collapse. The only people saying the fire directly caused steel failure are those of the truth movement creating false arguments.


"The jets hit the towers, knocked off insulation."

No proof to support that claim, but who cares!!

"The impacts damaged numberous vertical columns and core columns beyond the capability to transfer load to the foundation."

Again, no proof to support that.


Where is the actual steel evidence to support all these claims?

Nowhere.


Every single piece of steel was available to investigators. There is NO evidence of steel failing, in any way.


Your arguments simply don't wash.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Donnak1
I always just think of Bush's reaction when he found out about the attacks.


America is under attack, Mr. President!

The President makes a dumb-ass face, and keeps sitting in the classroom!


It's most impressive!


Bush later said - on two separate occasions - that HE SAW THE FIRST PLANE HIT THE TOWER ON TELEVISION, BEFORE THE SECOND PLANE HIT THE OTHER TOWER!!

He cannot be mistaking this.

No excuse for it.

Because he said he was TOLD about the second plane, while he was sitting in the classroom.

That confirms his seeing the first plane BEFORE the second plane hit.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   
So the President saw the first plane hit before anyone else did.

That's ignored by the media, and supporters of the official fantasy.

In accepting a terrible lie, there's no hope to ever find the truth.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Bush later said - on two separate occasions - that HE SAW THE FIRST PLANE HIT THE TOWER ON TELEVISION, BEFORE THE SECOND PLANE HIT THE OTHER TOWER!!

You are taking his statement out of context.
If I say "I saw the wreck". That doesn't always mean I saw the impact.
It could also mean I saw the result. As in wrecked cars and glass and the ambulance.

The conspiracy crowd tends to take statements out of context to twist the meaning.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 07:52 PM
link   


The President makes a dumb-ass face, and keeps sitting in the classroom!
a reply to: turbonium1

No numb nutz

He told chief of staff, Andy Card, to round everybody up and gather a much information as possible - there would be
a meeting in few minutes

Also had staff ready to move , SS told aircrew to warm up air Force and be ready for immediate takeoff



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: turbonium1




Bush later said - on two separate occasions - that HE SAW THE FIRST PLANE HIT THE TOWER ON TELEVISION, BEFORE THE SECOND PLANE HIT THE OTHER TOWER!!

You are taking his statement out of context.
If I say "I saw the wreck". That doesn't always mean I saw the impact.
It could also mean I saw the result. As in wrecked cars and glass and the ambulance.

The conspiracy crowd tends to take statements out of context to twist the meaning.


It's true people look for their evidence in a lot of the wrong places.

I think what happens is a person has a gut feeling, and wants to justify it somehow. It's really easy to just grab the first thing that looks plausible and hold onto it, rather than hold out and wait to see if there is any better evidence.

What is even more difficult is to remain honestly objective, leaving both possibilities open, and just keep absorbing information from both sides until something falls into place and you can get a good picture.




-


For me the most plausible evidence of sabotage is in the way the buildings collapsed themselves. Normally when steel buckles under a load that is just barely too heavy for it to hold, it buckles slowly. Not instantly. There should have been no "hammer effect"

I believe NIST's report of how the collapse progressed after the "hammer effect" to be accurate, but .... there shouldn't have been one in the first place.

Sabotage of the three or four floors nearest the impact seems to me to be the most plausible possibility. Not sabotage of the whole building (like in a "controlled demolition") Just a few floors, so they could fail instantaneously, giving the upper portion of the building enough time/space to free fall for 30 feet and then hit the lower portion to initiate the rest of the collapse.

What helps the hypothesis is that I discovered that both points of impact, where the planes hit, were multiple floor tenancies, and in both cases, the plane hit the center floors. Perhaps just a coincidence, but it is interesting. If you wanted to sabotage the nearby floors you would only need to get past the security of one tenant in each building.
edit on 19-1-2018 by bloodymarvelous because: adds



posted on Jan, 20 2018 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: turbonium1




Bush later said - on two separate occasions - that HE SAW THE FIRST PLANE HIT THE TOWER ON TELEVISION, BEFORE THE SECOND PLANE HIT THE OTHER TOWER!!

You are taking his statement out of context.
If I say "I saw the wreck". That doesn't always mean I saw the impact.
It could also mean I saw the result. As in wrecked cars and glass and the ambulance.

The conspiracy crowd tends to take statements out of context to twist the meaning.


"I saw an airplane hit the tower – the TV was obviously on – and I used to fly myself, and I said, “There's one terrible pilot.” And I said, “It must have been a horrible accident”

www.theguardian.com...

So who is really taking it out of context?

He said that he saw the plane hit the tower, so stop your whining and face it.







 
13
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join