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 Woman

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2018 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Fermy

Really? Who is the second to poster without understanding how air was binging brought into the tower by up drafts. Just a post to complain without any regard for the actual topic? How many off topic posts have you made in the resent new threads to complain? What is your stated theory on what brought down the towers? So what is actually being debunked? Stating actual evidence, stating real scientific principles, and referencing actual video evidence is debunking?

The trapped women was in an area acting like a national draft furnace. I think she was far from comfortable....... God bless her soul.




Natural Draft Furnace
primitivetechnology.wordpress.com...

edit on 3-5-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed.

edit on 3-5-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed more




posted on May, 3 2018 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




The other thing that amazes me about 9/11 conspiracies is how fast someone will come out of nowhere to refute any talk of conspiracy. It's just amazing how this happens.



Well, don’t post the same items that have been explained and debunked for the last 15 years. A simple search would give the natural draft principle and the whole truth of the trapped women. I would think you would have researched the topic before posting to provide a counter argument to the natural draft argument?


And what does a trapped women have to do with there is no video, audio, and physical evidence of detonations at the WTC powerful enough to blow apart steel columns? It is only evidence the towers were acting like a natural draft furnace? Is that false?

edit on 3-5-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 3-5-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
Is that a woman, or a fuzzy shape that looks like a woman? I am going from the photo on the OP. This may be a case that people are seeing what they want to see.

Maybe a case of you not seeing what you don't want to see?



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

What confuses me about the jet fuel thing is the huge explosions when the planes hit. Is that not most of the jet fuel burning very quickly right away?



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Never understood why it has to be an either or, I question the ability of the govt to pull off a massive false flag like this would have been without somebody with a conscience blowing the whistle.

I question the fact that nobody... in either tower ever questioned the massive construction that would have been required to lace the buildings with explosives.

That does not mean I accept the OS 100% with no concerns, I figure most likely they had wind of it and wanted their war so allowed it occur, and maybe it was more effective than they expected. (kinda like I think Pearl Harbor was)

While yes we should question the OS story when a big thing like this happens, that does not mean we should blindly accept any other story without question.

ETA: forgot to mention, as for the woman, there are plenty of stories out there with tornados ripping through a house leaving china untouched, or a child being thrown by the wind and surviving or other things that you go that's just not possible.

But it did actually happen, sometimes things happen with no logical explanation beyond wild random chance.
edit on 3-5-2018 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

despite your OP - i am compelled to respond

first , a few questions :

1 - which tower is that ?

2 - when was the pic taken

3 - what is the identity of the " woman "

these are 3 basic questions - that the truth moovement seems to have difficuklties including in thier narative - why is that ??

but to address the bare claim :ie [ paraphrased ] :

"despite the fires that alledgedly caused the collapse - a clothed corpse is evident in the aftermath "

do you accept this as a valid paraphrasing of your argument ?

if so - then :

1 - fire did not engulf every floor above the impact point

2 - fire did not continute to burn in all the debris post collapse

these 2 points alone make your OP invalid

further - we do no actually know the position of the woman prior to the collapse [ was she even above the impact point ? ]

but hey - i is just here for the shill bucks



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

There is no evidence for "fire weakened steel" in the microstructural analysis, not in the NIST report or anywhere else.


“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 ºC for as long as 15 min. This was based on NIST annealing studies that established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure.”

Falsifiability & the NIST Report (direct PDF link)

The pudding is in the data.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

What does the woman wearing "cloths" in the photo you posted have to do with the official story being crap? Are you saying that her clothes should have vaporated off her body or something?

Not debunking. I do not believe the official story (although I don't know what really happened, but I don't believe any of the crazier theories like airplane holograms or whatever the hell), but I don't understand what you're getting at with the picture of the survivor in clothes.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Whoever pulled this job got away with it.
It is no longer worth dwelling on.
All evidence has been destroyed.
Go plant your Spring gardens.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

Aint got no flowers anymore, in this second decade of our War with Terror.

Which is why I still have some fish to fry. You might call it a worthless struggle, but I'd like to enjoy my peace without this war on the people. Go plant peace-pipes instead?




posted on May, 3 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




Supposedly the intense heat of the jet fuel burning caused the collapse.



are you forgetting how that jet fuel got there?


A plane crashed into the building, that may have, just maybe may have helped with the collapse.


Maybe. Who knows.




But look at this woman wearing cloths:


She looks like she is wearing pants and a top.

So what?




It's hard to accept The official story with evidence like this floating about.


what evidence, the pic?

what are you saying its evidence for?





The other thing that amazes me about 9/11 conspiracies is how fast someone will come out of nowhere to refute any talk of conspiracy. It's just amazing how this happens.


I don't work for free, do you?






And how google magically always brings up the debunking websites top of the search order.



You do know that it depends on what you type in the search.

If you want conspiracy put that in the search and google does its magic and you have all the conspiracy you can ask for and then some.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
a reply to: dfnj2015

What confuses me about the jet fuel thing is the huge explosions when the planes hit. Is that not most of the jet fuel burning very quickly right away?


Could it be because jet fuel didn't bring the towers down like the 9/11 catch phrases says?



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

So much cognitive dissonance it doesn't matter what you say. Every piece of evidence will just be explained away. The best one I heard was the woman was photoshop'ed into the picture. Or, because we did not know her name that debunks the conspiracy theory.


edit on 3-5-2018 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

The USS Liberty! Never forget! After many years the conspiracy theories became the official story!



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




Supposedly the intense heat of the jet fuel burning caused the collapse. But look at this woman wearing cloths:

Ohhh how sinister! She forgot to take her cloths off after the impact.
That's grounds to reopen the case !
Call officer McGruff!



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Bigburgh

Let your eyes be the judge:



Show me which one of those buildings was hit by a jet going really really fast.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

So much cognitive dissonance it doesn't matter what you say. Every piece of evidence will just be explained away. The best one I heard was the woman was photoshop'ed into the picture. Or, because we did not know her name that debunks the conspiracy theory.




What evidence is the photo supposed to be for?

What has been said for you to claim cognitive dissonance?

How about explaining what the hell this thread is supposed to be about?


9/11 woman and you post a pic saying she is wearing cloths which I assume was supposed to be clothes.

You say that this evidence (what is it evidence for?) makes it hard to accept the official story.

What are getting at with this thread?

She shouldn't be able to be standing there?

Is that it?



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

the cog. diss. is your :

who ACTUALLY claimed :


Or, because we did not know her name that debunks the conspiracy theory.


?????????????

stop making crap up and grandstanding to the echo chamber - try addressing the issue



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
a reply to: dfnj2015

What confuses me about the jet fuel thing is the huge explosions when the planes hit. Is that not most of the jet fuel burning very quickly right away?

Yes but if you watch the videos the plane(s) are fully inside the building before the fireball.
So some fuel had a chance to go elsewhere like elevator shafts.
Plus if some fuel wasn't atomized if will just burn from the top of the puddle downward.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: MteWamp
You know, as an engineer, although admittedly not a structural engineer, but electrical, I have to admit that to this day, every single time I start digging into 9/11, whether it's videos or writings, I get this twisting thing in my gut.



It's almost like when you are suddenly startled, and you get that really uncomfortable adrenaline rush that instantly tells you that your brain and body just instantly transitioned into fight-or-flight mode. Or at least that's how I interpret it.



Even now, approaching 20 years later, I still get it, and it's exactly the same as it was the first time I felt it.



Every single time it happens it just feels like it's telling me something's not right. Every time.



Damn, I HATE the way that feels...






What happens if you try to investigate that feeling by doing research into the matter? Just like the moonlandings... there is so very much evidence that points into the direction it is a hoax. If I then watch an interview with one of the apollo astronauts I start to doubt again.. At these moments I try to go back to the facts and come to the conclusion that what the astronauts say are just words... The other stuff is cold hard proof which is in my face. That is why I know that the apollo moonlandings never happpend.

Same with 911...testemonies other than hard facts are just words.


edit on 3/5/2018 by zatara because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join