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.

 

New 911 Evidence Solves Unanswered Questions

page: 10
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Your many posts here betray your claim that you trust no one.

Indeed, you trust men like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and a host of others who concocted the nonsensical story you consistently defend here. You trust authorities and nobody else. When they tell you certain cell phone calls were made from airliners, you believe it, and you either do not know or do not care that those phone calls were impossible with cellphone technology in 2001.




posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


Your many posts here betray your claim that you trust no one.

Indeed, you trust men like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and a host of others who concocted the nonsensical story you consistently defend here. You trust authorities and nobody else. When they tell you certain cell phone calls were made from airliners, you believe it, and you either do not know or do not care that those phone calls were impossible with cellphone technology in 2001.


What does that have to do with:

When it comes to the truth movement, why do you echo the truth movement’s lies. And yes, they are lies. The same falsehoods debunked over and over the past 16 years plus.

What are you going to do now? Back to the same old play book? Pick some poor first responder, and falsely parade them around as suffering from radiation poisoning stemming from a fantasy nuclear bomb using misquotes and innuendo?


Your on going and current postings of falsehoods?



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Why can you not explain what caused the inward bowing of outer vertical columns that lead to buckling resulting in collapse? Can you cite evidence of columns cut by planted explosives from the video recordings of the WTC? The only thing you have is blatantly posting falsehoods to not pick what is clearly recorded in the video evidence?


You must be referring to a video suggesting there was 'inward bowing', yes?

Are there any other videos that show it, or not?

There should be more than one video of the 'inward bowing', I'd think. All of the videos show the same features, from different angles, so that should be the case for 'inward bowing', as well.


If not, the video cannot be assumed to be authentic.


Assuming there are other videos showing the 'inward bowing', what does this indicate to you as proof of non-demolition?


Only loss of internal core column support could cause any 'inward bowing' of external columns. It cannot be more indicative of a CD, because moments later, the entire structure lost all support, and collapsed to the ground.

Look at other CD's. They have small features that are similar to the 'inward bowing', moments before the entire collapse occurs.



Anyway, the steel is our only evidence here, and it did not fail. 'Inward bowing' or not, the supports indicate exactly what did, or did not, happen, during the collapse. Nothing else matters.



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 06:26 AM
link   
The evidence alone proves fire did not cause these collapses.

Fundamental physics makes it impossible to duplicate, in any way. They cannot duplicate it, and never attempted to duplicate it, for that very reason. It cannot be done.

When you don't use the actual evidence, or physical demonstrations, you are in denial of reality. Or have an agenda.


And finding the truth is not your actual goal. It won't benefit you, to play along. Pawns don't get benefits. Not for long, anyway.



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



Only loss of internal core column support could cause any 'inward bowing' of external columns. It cannot be more indicative of a CD, because moments later, the entire structure lost all support, and collapsed to the ground.


False.


You mean like columns cut by a jet impact removing them.

No evidence of a an detention with the force to cut steel to initiate collapse. No bang, no shockwave, ni flash, no splintered steel being ejected at 140 km/h. Absolutely no evidence of conventional explosives. None.

Thermite? How did the triggering system survive jet impacts and fire?

Thermite single cut on each core column? Thermite burns relatively slow. Take 1 minute to get through the columns? The load bearing down on the columns would push together the molten cuts, result in cold welding of the columns’ cuts. How would you drop the core with only one cut on each column?

Thermite, two cuts on a core column. How do you unlodge the cut section to drop the core.

You do cut a section of core to drop the core. The actual video shows the inward bowing of the side of the tower in a narrow band. Buckling the outer columns only in one or two floors. The upper part of the towers above the buckling dropped down as whole units with slight leans. A dropped core would case visible damage runing up the structure.

There is no evidence of a cut core.

The bowing literally looks like a chain is hooked perpendicularly to the columns, pulling them in.

More views of WTC 2. Last video has video and photo analysis to document the extent of bowing. Calls out truth movement falsehoods.



9/11 - WTC 2 - South Tower Collapse
m.youtube.com...

WTC2 'Collapse' - Tim M.
m.youtube.com...

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained
m.youtube.com...

edit on 19-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed.

edit on 19-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




The evidence alone proves fire did not cause these collapses.



Funny thing to say? The collapse resulted from load redistribution from outer and core columns cut, and complications from removal of fire insulation and thermal stress.



Fundamental physics makes it impossible to duplicate, in any way. They cannot duplicate it, and never attempted to duplicate it, for that very reason. It cannot be done.


Name when “they” constructed a full scale tower and crashed a jet into it?

Good thing they have years of research that shows steel can buckle at room temperature, that steel needs fire proofing, as temperature increases steel weakens, as steel heats it expands, as steel cools it contracts, uneven heating causes thermal stress that can and will result in damage, and multiple angles of the collapse on video with audio, and seismic evidence.

edit on 19-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




When you don't use the actual evidence, or physical demonstrations, you are in denial of reality. Or have an agenda.



You explain how a demolition system would survive jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse at the points of jet impacts. And how a CD system would cause inward bowing in a narrow band isolated to one or two stories to cause buckling to initiate collapse.



9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained
m.youtube.com...



edit on 19-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixec



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

There is soooo much evidence of WTC CD that the AE backed WTC 7 evaluation study by a professor and a couple of interns has had its release date repeatedly pushed back. And looks like the study will never be released.

While there are at least three studies, with at least one being a signed deposition as evidence for a lawsuit, that WTC 7’s collapse was fire related.

edit on 19-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


Your many posts here betray your claim that you trust no one.

Indeed, you trust men like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and a host of others who concocted the nonsensical story you consistently defend here. You trust authorities and nobody else. When they tell you certain cell phone calls were made from airliners, you believe it, and you either do not know or do not care that those phone calls were impossible with cellphone technology in 2001.


What does that have to do with:

When it comes to the truth movement, why do you echo the truth movement’s lies. And yes, they are lies. The same falsehoods debunked over and over the past 16 years plus.

What are you going to do now? Back to the same old play book? Pick some poor first responder, and falsely parade them around as suffering from radiation poisoning stemming from a fantasy nuclear bomb using misquotes and innuendo?


Your on going and current postings of falsehoods?


I don't post falsehoods NF. I post a simple observation, the truth, that seems to make you very uncomfortable.


I post facts that contradict the official story and render it horribly inaccurate. Facts like no airliners where there were supposed to be airliners. Facts like the commission being set up to fail. Facts like cell phone calls impossible at the time.

And on and on. We are through NF. Your belief in the official story is your business, not mine.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


Your many posts here betray your claim that you trust no one.

Indeed, you trust men like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and a host of others who concocted the nonsensical story you consistently defend here. You trust authorities and nobody else. When they tell you certain cell phone calls were made from airliners, you believe it, and you either do not know or do not care that those phone calls were impossible with cellphone technology in 2001.


What does that have to do with:

When it comes to the truth movement, why do you echo the truth movement’s lies. And yes, they are lies. The same falsehoods debunked over and over the past 16 years plus.

What are you going to do now? Back to the same old play book? Pick some poor first responder, and falsely parade them around as suffering from radiation poisoning stemming from a fantasy nuclear bomb using misquotes and innuendo?


Your on going and current postings of falsehoods?


I don't post falsehoods NF. I post a simple observation, the truth, that seems to make you very uncomfortable.


I post facts that contradict the official story and render it horribly inaccurate. Facts like no airliners where there were supposed to be airliners. Facts like the commission being set up to fail. Facts like cell phone calls impossible at the time.

And on and on. We are through NF. Your belief in the official story is your business, not mine.


Then cite who had radiation poisoning at the WTC?

Can you quote Wallace Miller in there was no human remains or no wreckage from a crashed jet?

I think those are three of the biggest falsehoods you tried to push. The parading of first responders as they had radiation poisoning. You misquoting Wallace Miller to spin there where no human remains, and spin he stated no jet evidence of a crashed jet.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

False.


You mean like columns cut by a jet impact removing them.

No evidence of a an detention with the force to cut steel to initiate collapse. No bang, no shockwave, ni flash, no splintered steel being ejected at 140 km/h. Absolutely no evidence of conventional explosives. None.

Thermite? How did the triggering system survive jet impacts and fire?

Thermite single cut on each core column? Thermite burns relatively slow. Take 1 minute to get through the columns? The load bearing down on the columns would push together the molten cuts, result in cold welding of the columns’ cuts. How would you drop the core with only one cut on each column?

Thermite, two cuts on a core column. How do you unlodge the cut section to drop the core.

You do cut a section of core to drop the core. The actual video shows the inward bowing of the side of the tower in a narrow band. Buckling the outer columns only in one or two floors. The upper part of the towers above the buckling dropped down as whole units with slight leans. A dropped core would case visible damage runing up the structure.

There is no evidence of a cut core.

The bowing literally looks like a chain is hooked perpendicularly to the columns, pulling them in.

More views of WTC 2. Last video has video and photo analysis to document the extent of bowing. Calls out truth movement falsehoods.



After ignoring all of the actual evidence from the structures, you have some gall to accuse anyone else of "falsehoods"!!

All of the real, valid evidence is what matters, you must know that, right?

You still try to dismiss it, and ignore it - because you know it doesn't support your argument. Too bad.

Until you assess the REAL evidence, you have nothing to argue about. You can either accept the real evidence, or choose to ignore it.


No steel was found to fail from fires, and videos cannot change that fact.

What was the main purpose in analyzing all of the steel from these structures?

Think hard....


They assumed that the steel failed, from the extremely high temperatures of fires.

You suggest they specifically searched for steel with fire damage, and they collected all that steel, and they analyzed all that steel, because it's utterly worthless?

If they'd found fires caused steel to fail, they would have mentioned it, at once. That's why they investigated the steel.

You think an investigation is only valid if it supports YOUR argument, but it's not valid if it refutes your argument.


Sorry. It stands as is, no matter what the results show.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1




When you don't use the actual evidence, or physical demonstrations, you are in denial of reality. Or have an agenda.



You explain how a demolition system would survive jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse at the points of jet impacts. And how a CD system would cause inward bowing in a narrow band isolated to one or two stories to cause buckling to initiate collapse.



We have to understand that if it was not caused by fires.

It's another cause(s), unknown as yet. And that's what they should have continued the investigation for, immediately afterwards.


It can't be investigated further, thanks to your side. Asking for proof of a CD is a joke, since your side destroyed all the actual steel evidence.


You take the evidence, examine it, and after none of it supports your claim, you avoid it, destroy it, and invent useless computer models, as support. So there's no existing evidence to prove it was a CD, since you've destroyed it all!!


That's why you're trying to argue for evidence of something that you've already destroyed. As if that's even a valid argument, to start with!



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



They assumed that the steel failed, from the extremely high temperatures of fires.


See lots of rants by you based on falsehoods?

Can you quote they?



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1




When you don't use the actual evidence, or physical demonstrations, you are in denial of reality. Or have an agenda.



You explain how a demolition system would survive jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse at the points of jet impacts. And how a CD system would cause inward bowing in a narrow band isolated to one or two stories to cause buckling to initiate collapse.



We have to understand that if it was not caused by fires.

It's another cause(s), unknown as yet. And that's what they should have continued the investigation for, immediately afterwards.


It can't be investigated further, thanks to your side. Asking for proof of a CD is a joke, since your side destroyed all the actual steel evidence.


You take the evidence, examine it, and after none of it supports your claim, you avoid it, destroy it, and invent useless computer models, as support. So there's no existing evidence to prove it was a CD, since you've destroyed it all!!


That's why you're trying to argue for evidence of something that you've already destroyed. As if that's even a valid argument, to start with!





I take it you cannot point to the video evidence as an example to why CD should be taken seriously?



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1



They assumed that the steel failed, from the extremely high temperatures of fires.


See lots of rants by you based on falsehoods?

Can you quote they?


You have no idea what their analysis of steel is about, do you?

Read it, and you'll (hopefully) understand the problem.


I'll gladly address your posts, afterwards...



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Let's review -

The investigation looked for fire-damaged steel. No other steel was considered relevant, and thus, was not collected, or analyzed. Only fire-damaged steel was considered relevant.

After they found out fires weren't hot enough to cause failure, their own steel was no longer considered relevant to the investigation.

What they did before collecting any steel, which they have never spoken about, is that they deliberately left some of the steel at the site, which they did not want to collect, or analyze.

That assured fires were hot enough to cause failure of steel - the steel which wasn't collected, or analyzed, obviously! Too bad they never collected or analyzed that steel, but oh well!!


It was nonsense, but nobody thought about it, anyway.


It's so easy to trick people, again and again..



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

I take it you cannot point to the video evidence as an example to why CD should be taken seriously?





posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Blowback

I didn’t ask for a truth movement propaganda.

Can you cite actual collapse video and form an actual argument based on the physics of the collapse.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1



They assumed that the steel failed, from the extremely high temperatures of fires.


See lots of rants by you based on falsehoods?

Can you quote they?


You have no idea what their analysis of steel is about, do you?

Read it, and you'll (hopefully) understand the problem.


I'll gladly address your posts, afterwards...


Eventually you cannot cite an example of what you are talking about? Can you point to something specific? Or you just here to spin innuendo to create false arguments.

And for your fantasy of holograms of jets, you never explained how enough shape charges where staged on the outside of the towers to blow the perimeter columns inward, cut core columns, expel jet wreckage on the opposite side, and required 8000 gallons of staged fuel in each tower to cause the fire balls.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Let's review -

The investigation looked for fire-damaged steel. No other steel was considered relevant, and thus, was not collected, or analyzed. Only fire-damaged steel was considered relevant.

After they found out fires weren't hot enough to cause failure, their own steel was no longer considered relevant to the investigation.

What they did before collecting any steel, which they have never spoken about, is that they deliberately left some of the steel at the site, which they did not want to collect, or analyze.

That assured fires were hot enough to cause failure of steel - the steel which wasn't collected, or analyzed, obviously! Too bad they never collected or analyzed that steel, but oh well!!


It was nonsense, but nobody thought about it, anyway.


It's so easy to trick people, again and again..


More falsehoods by you?



The investigation looked for fire-damaged steel.


Please define “fire damage”?

Weakening steel is no really damaging the steel, is it.

Note, I had to transcribe. The copy function is disabled from the below cited document.



Final collapse of WTC 7
ws680.nist.gov...

Page 25-26
Leading hypothesis

The fires on floor 7 through 13 headed the structure. Being lighter than the columns and thinner SFRM the floor beams, floor slabs, and connections heated more quickly and to higher temperatures than the columns. The elevated temperatures in the floor elements lead to their thermal expansion, sagging, and weakening, which resulted in failure of the floor connections and/or buckling of the floor beams.



It goes on to talk about thermal stress and strain from the changing geometry of the building causing floor connection failures.

The report talks about the effects of fire on floor elements; “lead to their thermal expansion, sagging, and weakening, which resulted in failure of the floor connections and/or buckling of the floor beams.”

Are you saying the fires in WTC 7 were not hot enough to cause ”their thermal expansion, sagging, and weakening” that placed enough strain on the floor connections to the columns to cause mechanical failure.

Especially upon cooling and contraction?

The document states the below on colum buckling



Page 26
Sufficient breakdown of connections and/or beams resulted in loss of lateral support and the buckling of at least on critical columns


The report clearly states the critical column or columns buckled from loss of lateral support, not fire damage.



edit on 25-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording

edit on 25-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 25-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 25-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Moved paragraph

edit on 25-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added contraction



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join