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.

 

Hillary Clinton and 9/11

page: 6
65
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fermy
Even the MSM don't believe fire caused the collapse.
www.express.co.uk...


Neither did the ASCE who did the initial assessment for FEMA. Said they did not know what the cause could have been and that it required further investigation. Then NIST tried it's hand, while admitting to a free fall.

The official story about what happened to WTC7 is absurd.


The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they cause the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.

edit on 11-4-2018 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: Fermy
Even the MSM don't believe fire caused the collapse.
www.express.co.uk...


Neither did the ASCE who did the initial assessment for FEMA. Said they did not know what the cause could have been and that it required further investigation. Then NIST tried it's hand, while admitting to a free fall.

The official story about what happened to WTC7 is absurd.


The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they cause the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.


2.7 seconds of free fall if I remember correctly. What about it?



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy


I could join in, but I thought I'd put it on this site as I don't believe the official version. I have to wonder just what West and Co. actually have as a motive to set up the site....I mean, there's some work to do with all those calcs in his answers, is he not busy enough with his home life and work ?
I tried a quick web search for who is Mick West but didn't come up with much. Structural engineering is not my forte, others have more skill in that field so there's a lot of back and forth over there.Are Mick West and his band of provers solely setting up the site to spread the good word or are they employees of another agency that allows them the time and details to continue their hobby? It appears to me that there's a fair bit of work going on there for someone who's not doing it as a main source of income.

edit on 12-4-2018 by Fermy because: In response to reference to join in on metabunk

I have no stance on HRC's involvement though she is corrupt to the core.
edit on 12-4-2018 by Fermy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: Fermy
Even the MSM don't believe fire caused the collapse.
www.express.co.uk...


Neither did the ASCE who did the initial assessment for FEMA. Said they did not know what the cause could have been and that it required further investigation. Then NIST tried it's hand, while admitting to a free fall.

The official story about what happened to WTC7 is absurd.


The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they cause the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.


2.7 seconds of free fall if I remember correctly. What about it?

Impossible, with uniformity, absent the use of explosives.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fermy
a reply to: mrthumpy


I could join in, but I thought I'd put it on this site as I don't believe the official version. I have to wonder just what West and Co. actually have as a motive to set up the site....I mean, there's some work to do with all those calcs in his answers, is he not busy enough with his home life and work ?
I tried a quick web search for who is Mick West but didn't come up with much. Structural engineering is not my forte, others have more skill in that field so there's a lot of back and forth over there.Are Mick West and his band of provers solely setting up the site to spread the good word or are they employees of another agency that allows them the time and details to continue their hobby? It appears to me that there's a fair bit of work going on there for someone who's not doing it as a main source of income.

I have no stance on HRC's involvement though she is corrupt to the core.


The link is there, go comment. They don't bite



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 03:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: Fermy
Even the MSM don't believe fire caused the collapse.
www.express.co.uk...


Neither did the ASCE who did the initial assessment for FEMA. Said they did not know what the cause could have been and that it required further investigation. Then NIST tried it's hand, while admitting to a free fall.

The official story about what happened to WTC7 is absurd.


The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they cause the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.


2.7 seconds of free fall if I remember correctly. What about it?

Impossible, with uniformity, absent the use of explosives.


What uniformity? Why impossible?



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 03:11 AM
link   
.
edit on 12-4-2018 by mrthumpy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

I'm asking you, you're batting for the team. An aside, where are you based, Europe,US or other?


edit on 12-4-2018 by Fermy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fermy
a reply to: mrthumpy

I'm asking you, you're batting for the team.



Suit yourself



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: Fermy
Even the MSM don't believe fire caused the collapse.
www.express.co.uk...


Neither did the ASCE who did the initial assessment for FEMA. Said they did not know what the cause could have been and that it required further investigation. Then NIST tried it's hand, while admitting to a free fall.

The official story about what happened to WTC7 is absurd.


The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they cause the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.


2.7 seconds of free fall if I remember correctly. What about it?

Impossible, with uniformity, absent the use of explosives.


Why impossible? When the 2.7 seconds is only for the collapse of the facade of WTC 7? In fact, the 2.7 seconds from NIST is from a specific portion of the facade? If the facade fell uniformly, why use a specific pixel to time WTC 7’s collapse from the video? The penthouse and items on WTC 7’s roof shows the international structure started to collapse sometime before the facade started to collapse?

And the NIST study is not the only study that concluded collapse triggered by fire and thermal stress.

And what explosives? Especially for the outer facade? Point to proof of a detonation with enough power to cut steel? No witnesses pressure wave? No audible detonation indicative of a charge with the energy to cut steel? No demolition shrapnel? No seismic evidence?

In fact, please cite credible evidence of CD at WTC 7? Other then the false “looked like a a CD?” List one CD that started a progressive international collapse from one end through the opposite side, then the facade only started to collapse once most of the interior failed?



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy


From your post history I could envisage you already are on the debunk train. So I'll ask you, why do you think it's necessary to 'debunk' all the CT's that abound on here. Are you the real truth seeker or just to disseminate your own version.
IOW, what are your motives? Altruism?



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fermy
a reply to: mrthumpy


From your post history I could envisage you already are on the debunk train. So I'll ask you, why do you think it's necessary to 'debunk' all the CT's that abound on here. Are you the real truth seeker or just to disseminate your own version.
IOW, what are your motives? Altruism?


What's wrong with debunking?



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Then provide a credible argument for demolitions at WTC 7? Trust nobody? People should follow conspiracists without question? Like sheep? How much money have you given to Architects and Engineers if they are so credible?

Many “debunkers” would like answers to why WTC buildings lacked a traditional concrete core? Would like to have seen a more detailed NIST report? Would have liked to seen the contractors and engineers of WTC 7 scrutinized a little closer? Why was cost chosen over safety? The problem with WTC 7, the structural steel was not stamped with identifying marks. Why? Making identification of steel components meaningless.
edit on 12-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 12-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Neither of the above posts answer my question on what your motives are. However, you've both been jumping on ant responses to this thread quickly, where are you guys based? I'm in Europe.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fermy
Neither of the above posts answer my question on what your motives are. However, you've both been jumping on ant responses to this thread quickly, where are you guys based? I'm in Europe.


OK



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 04:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fermy
Neither of the above posts answer my question on what your motives are. However, you've both been jumping on ant responses to this thread quickly, where are you guys based? I'm in Europe.


Do you push CD at WTC 7? Based on what credible evidence? What are your motivations? See trust nobody comment? If AE 9/11 Truth is so credible, how much money have you donated to the cause? Why or why not?



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 04:54 AM
link   
I think I'd prefer you to answer my questions re. your motive/s in debunking this and location.
CD certainly looks plausible.
edit on 12-4-2018 by Fermy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fermy
I think I'd prefer you to answer my questions


I'm sure you would



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 05:20 AM
link   
The pair of you ask for credible explanations but give none yourself.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fermy
The pair of you ask for credible explanations but give none yourself.


Is there anything on-topic you'd like to discuss?




top topics



 
65
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join