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.

 

Trying to resolve 9/11

page: 40
14
<< 37  38  39    41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

What does any of that have to do with there being zero evidence of planted pyrotechnics bringing down the WTC.

Hard to say NIST is lying when they right out state this is their most educated guess.

So, by all means. State what conspiracy fantasy you most favor over fire related collapse. Then cite actual supporting evidence.



Not my business to find how they accomplished this demolition at WTC7.

Fire related collapse is not the most probable cause. Fires have never collapsed a steel beam building . It least likely cause when there no precedent or history for it. NIST failure to adequately explain the failure on 9/11, you can't then ignore the alternative, some people brought down the building down by controlled demolition.

There visual evidence observable evidence the building was not brought down by fire. Freefall is the biggest clue the columns were taken out by explosives.


Still waiting for that example of a building with a similar construction which suffered similar damage and DIDN'T collapse.

Any time you're ready


If you can't manage that then maybe you can explain why a damaged steel framed building that has been subjected to hours of fire wouldn't collapse when steel frames are KNOWN to be vulnerable to fire and there are many examples of steel failing due to fire




posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Don't pick any. Go through the evidence and let that shine the way.



What evidence of WTC controlled demolition?



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Don't pick any. Go through the evidence and let that shine the way.


And if you can't find any to support the conclusion you want to reach then just make it up



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

LOL, what evidence is there that the NIST explanation is correct?

NONE



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

LOL, what evidence is there that the NIST explanation is correct?

NONE


Quote where my theory is totally from NIST?

Something about how I refer to the video and seismic evidence.....






Now. Do you have video evidence of columns being cut to initiate WTC 1 and / or WTC 2 collapse?



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

This was what was specifically stated to you.

And quote where I believe every bit of the “official narrative”?

Just because I don’t believe in:
Nukes?
Dustification?
No jets with holograms with lasers and/or missiles?
Thermite ceiling tiles and/or paint?
Richard Gage’s fizzle no flash bombs?

So Mr./Ms. Salander, which from the list above should I find more credible than fire related collapse?

Just more embarrassingly false arguments by you.



posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




You created your own “evidence”





Is that after your claim you tweaked the audio? So you are manipulating the sound?





Eight bangs who’s audio you manipulated, is that false?





You claim eight explosions from the video you “tweaked”?





Oh. Sorry. You tinkered. Nice that you “tinkered” to create your “evidence” that should be obvious.





Let’s say you claimed eight loud bands you Tinkered into “evidence”.





But you only have audio you “tinkered”





You didn’t hit a nerve with me.


Oh Neutron how i hit you in that exact pseudoskeptic nerve where you can't debunk evidence introduced, your only escape from fact now; Call the presenter a liar.

Sad behavior, but understandable.
edit on 13-7-2019 by democracydemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo



That you have to fabricate evidence.

The actual context of my statements. If you care what was actually posted

You didn’t hit a nerve with me. You created your own “evidence”.

Now again...




I counted them on the video did i not?


Is that after your claim you tweaked the audio? So you are manipulating the sound? Where, if the “explosions” actually had the force to cut steel columns, the detonations would be clear, obvious, and would have echoed about manhattan.

Let’s say you claim eight loud bangs that are expected from any large building fire, or from a structure failing by overloading.

Eight bangs who’s audio you manipulated, is that false?

Next, there is no way CD systems would survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse on the floors impacted by the jets as attested to by the video evidence.

Next you claim:


Nature of material used to cut core colums (Nano-thermite anyone)?


If you are saying nano-thermite cut the columns by shockwave, it still would have to create a pressure wave to cut the columns. The energy created by that shockwave is still going to produce audible energy of at least 130 dB.

If you are saying thermite cut the core columns, then why is the no visible white hot sparking from the WTC video evidence. Why would there be “explosive” sounds. Thermite burns relatively slow. Why is there no glowing metal from the collapse video?



Next. You.


Would, lets say, a normal shaped cutting charges even leave this evidence in the first place? Provide evidence for your claim!


But you are not claiming shape cutting charges are you?

You claim eight explosions from the video you “tweaked”?



I did some tinkering with the original video/audio and ended up with this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Oh. Sorry. You tinkered. Nice that you “tinkered” to create your “evidence” that should be obvious.

Anyway.

You again.


Would, lets say, a normal shaped cutting charges even leave this evidence in the first place? Provide evidence for your claim!


Let’s say you claimed eight loud bands you
Tinkered into “evidence”.

You claim eight cutting charges? Well, flight 175 probably took out about 7 core columns, and the tower did not fall.

Some estimates are more than 7 core columns taken out by Flight 175, with no serious consideration the tower would have collapsed from the jet impact.

That indicates your eight supposed “explosions” could not be cutting charges on individual core columns to take out enough of the 44 core columns to initiate collapse. For you fantasy to work, the supposed explosives would had to be wide area in nature. Not eight shape charges only taking out eight columns. Explosions that would need to take out multiple core columns with each detonation. Explosions that would look like the one event that is known to have taken out 7 core columns, and produced a seismic event of .7 magnitude.




Again. CD systems would not have survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse of the twin towers as attested to by video evidence.

You are falsely confusing expect sounds of “explosions” from a building fire, and expected from a building failing from being overloaded.

You have produced no evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. Explosions that would be obvious, awe inspiring, and echoed about manhattan.
Very similar to the explosive sounds starting around 4:14 mark of the FDR drive video


18 Views of "Plane Impact" in South Tower | 9/11 World Trade Center [HD DOWNLOAD]
m.youtube.com...


How far is FDR drive fromWTC 2?

But you only have audio you “tinkered” with from expected normal building fires, or sounds from a building being overloaded.

You cannot produce physical evidence of columns cut by pyrotechnics. Especially when the truth movement claims the resistance of each floor had to be removed by removing the structural steel of each floor.






posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

There we go Neutron, repost for what it's worth.



pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:

-The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,[2]
-Double standards in the application of criticism, [3]
-The making of judgements without full inquiry,[4]
-Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,[5]
-Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,[6]
-Presenting insufficient evidence or proof, [7]
-Pejorative labelling of proponents as ‘promoters’, ‘pseudoscientists’ or practitioners of ‘pathological science.’ [8]
-Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof, [9]
-Making unsubstantiated counter-claims,[10]
-Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence,[11]
-Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it,[12]
-Tendency to dismiss all evidence, [13]


Pseudoskepticism

Sound familiar?
edit on 13-7-2019 by democracydemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

What does that have to do with the fact there is zero evidence controlled demolitions systems would have survived the jet impacts.

There is zero evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

The only thing you have presented are eight bangs expected from most building fires.

That there is no evidence the eight bangs you are referring to took out any of the 44 core columns. Much less took out enough of the 44 core columns to initiate a collapse where flight 175 did not.




posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   


There is zero evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

The only thing you have presented are eight bangs expected from most building fires.
a reply to: neutronflux

Eight bangs Expected from most building fires



How deep into denial can you go until you are faced with the option of Controlled Demolition?





edit on 13-7-2019 by democracydemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

Maybe when you can answer the questions below with actual evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns

What does that have to do with the fact there is zero evidence controlled demolitions systems would have survived the jet impacts.

There is zero evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

The only thing you have presented are eight bangs expected from most building fires.

That there is no evidence the eight bangs you are referring to took out any of the 44 core columns. Much less took out enough of the 44 core columns to initiate a collapse where flight 175 did not.




posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo



How deep into denial can you go until you are faced with the option of Controlled Demolition?


Really?

If there was sound evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns, why did the truth movement abandon “conventional” controlled demolitions? And move to fizzle no flash bombs and thermite?

Because there is no evidence of detonations on the video, audio, and on the seismic record having the force to cut steel columns.

Who’s in denial......



posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo




How deep into denial can you go until you are faced with the option of Controlled Demolition?

Doesn't compare.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY

the matter isn't closed. to me, once you get enough people to believe that the government was involved, as many came to realize that the government killed jfk, thinks may change. sadly, not enough feel strongly enough about either. let's face it, it's tough to believe that government is capable of such things. believing it brings about a deep fear one that most don't want to deal with. don't believe they killed jfk, don't believe they brought down the towers and killed thousands and they are safe. if you believe that they are capable, you can become full of fear that you might be next. don't give up!



posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: clairec

I believe governments are capable of great evil. The problem concerning the WTC, there is no evidence planted pyrotechnics brought down the buildings. I find it odd conspiracists ignore that charlatans will exploit cults. In this case, charlatans exploiting the false narrative of planted pyrotechnics at the WTC for personal gain.



posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Its bizarre people are saying theres no evidence when everything points to premedicated between Netan/Silver/Bush controlled demo with Tim Osman!

There genuine pics of the infamous GELATIN/GELITIN agents masquerading as students with BOXES WITH EXPLOSIVES

I forgot the letter and number that followed the explosive type, anyone remember or have a link to those pics



posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: letni
Its bizarre people are saying theres no evidence when everything points to premedicated between Netan/Silver/Bush controlled demo with Tim Osman!

There genuine pics of the infamous GELATIN/GELITIN agents masquerading as students with BOXES WITH EXPLOSIVES

I forgot the letter and number that followed the explosive type, anyone remember or have a link to those pics



Like what evidence?

You mean an Austrian art group still making art to this day?



gelitin

en.m.wikipedia.org...

gelitin is a group of four artists from Vienna, Austria. The group was formerly known as gelatin and changed their name in 2005. They are known for creating sensational art events in the tradition of Relational Aesthetics, often with a lively sense of humor.






The B-Thing
Edit
One of Gelitin's best known art projects began in March 2000, when the group allegedly removed one of the windows on the 91st floor of the former World Trade Center complex and temporarily installed a narrow balcony, while a helicopter flew around the scene, taking photographs to be later documented in their book The B-Thing.[4] The book was published in 2001 and had even by that time taken on an air of urban legend, with new copies selling for $500 on Amazon.com as of 2016.[4][5][6]

www.nytimes.com...


The group was only in one building at the 91st floor. The art project was about one year before 9/11. With bomb sniffing dogs stationed at the WTC. With no explanation how any Controlled Demolitions systems would survive the jet impacts and wide spread fires to initiate the collapse of the towers at the point of the jet impacts as shown by the video record.


edit on 13-7-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 10:05 PM
link   
BB 18 on their boxes in the pics

Then years later, they return to exhibit phallic 'impressions' in NEW YORK GOLEM

take a hint?

(see pics at thegoldenpathblog.wordpress.com... as the img here doesn't work)



posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: letni
BB 18 on their boxes in the pics

Then years later, they return to exhibit phallic 'impressions' in NEW YORK GOLEM

take a hint?

(see pics at thegoldenpathblog.wordpress.com... as the img here doesn't work)



Do conspiracists ever get tiered of ignoring questions to answer, and posting blatant falsehoods.


Again...

With bomb sniffing dogs stationed at the WTC. With no explanation how any Controlled Demolitions systems would survive the jet impacts and wide spread fires to initiate the collapse of the towers at the point of the jet impacts as shown by the video record.

Are you taking about these boxes?


With no indication the boxes are storing anything explosive or flammable? Or any precaution to protect against accidental ignition?


With BB 18 being related to fuse holders...
Like you might find for a large telecommunications upgrade?


Or the boxes were second hand, holding who knows what.
edit on 13-7-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 13-7-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 37  38  39    41  42 >>

log in

join