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.

 

Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

page: 24
0
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Explosives and CD are a hot issue and I suspect will always be with no resolution of the argument within this century.

Personally I saw no evidence of explosives exploding but I wasn't there in person and the first reports of the basement explosion are compelling but; no explosions of a scale capable of destroying the major supporting parts of the overall structure sufficiently to bring about collapse were evident. Also, as mentioned earlier, evidence of columns cut by explosions is lacking and thermite being very messy stuff would leave mountains of evidence.

All the rubble including the steel was taken to places like Staten Island and picked through carefully for remains of victims, personal effects, items of value by an army of workers yet no reports of 'unusual' effects on the steel came from there but they did find enough to identify the remains of over 300 of the victims. What I found remarkable is that the bulk of the core column sections appear to have snapped cleanly at the welds and were virtually undamaged otherwise.

I'm still open to solid evidence of something exotic and invisible that leaves no trace and functions without blasts but so far it appears to me that the buildings suffered terminal damage from the planes striking them and they simply fell down. The collapses weren't necessary from a terror point of view, maybe desirable but not essential.




posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Snoopy I really want you to look at this link carefully before I respond to you anymore:

42 informal logical fallacies

We'll be talking about one thing, and I'll respond, and you'll respond again with something that completely contradicts what your originally said, or abandons your original point.

Here's an example:


Originally posted by snoopy
NIST didn't test for residue because it would not be possible.


You were just asking me where the evidence of explosives was, and now you say that it wouldn't really even be possible to test for them.

It's hard to really discuss anything intelligently with someone who can't remember what they just said in their last post.



Once again, the problem is that you simply don't understand how this works. I did NOT EVER EVER EVER EVER ****EVER**** say it's impossible to test for explosives. You simply did NOT read what I wrote.


The way it works is you don't go testing for chemical residue unless there is evidence of explosives. You seem to think that the only way to determine if there are explosives is by testing for chemical residue. THIS IS 100% FALSE!!!! Do you understand? It's very simple.


The reason for this is because there are so many materials in such an event that it's near impossible to determine simply from chemical residue that they were put their by explosives since most of them exist there naturally. So the way to determine explosives is by looking at the tell tale signatures they leave behind. if you actual find those signatures, then you might do some chemical testing to see if it further backs the REAL evidence of explosives. C4, Thermite, etc. They all leave clues by the marks they leave behind. Anyone searching through the debris pile would instantly be able to recognize the damage left by explosives. NIST has stated that they found no such evidence what so ever. So of course they aren't going to test for residue because it would be completely and utterly pointless.


DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? I am not typing in bold as yelling, but to highlight the importance of such words. Do you understand now? Or are you going to pretend that I am changing the subject which is a complete lie?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   


seems to me like the CD skeptics on this thread got their tips from the '9/11 conspiracy debunking for dummies' guide.


Unfortunately, this video hits the nail right on the head depicting the majority of debates given by the 9/11 debunkers around here.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Do you understand now? Or are you going to pretend that I am changing the subject which is a complete lie?


You are changing the subject. In this case, you're reading into my post something I didn't intend and avoiding my real point. I never meant to imply that testing for explosives was physically impossible. You just said it wasn't possible for NIST. So, I'm saying, why the hell are you asking for evidence (ie test results)? Who do you think did it? Just because you think someone did, doesn't mean it's true. I hope you at least understand that much.

Read over that link I just posted. I'm serious. Have you ever taken programming classes or tried playing around with programming? You have to learn how formal logic works in those cases. Or at least try to stick to some kind of relevant point, that doesn't shift between posts.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
It's not just that the towers collapsed, which is odd, it's HOW they collapsed which is really troubling.

To have it happen 3 times in the same day in the exact same manner is an obvious inside job.

To take down 200,000 tons of steel you need to get at the under infra-structure of a building.

90% of the North Tower was holding up the other 10% ... yet it still collapsed exactly like the South Tower!
lol

William Rodriguez isn't the only one to hear a HUGE explosion in the sub-level before the 1st plane hit either.

The government's story, Pancake theory, while possible, is not very probable.

The floors would've taken at least 30-45 seconds to pancake all the way down.

The floors would've been stacked on top of each other at the bottom too, not pulverized into fine dust.

And most importantly, a concept debunkers are too stupid to grasp, the massive 47 steel core columns would've still been sticking straight up into the air AT LEAST a couple hundred feet after the floors pancaked all the way down. The 47 steel core columns would NOT have been little stubs.

The planes did not cut all of those columns at the BOTTOM of the towers, and obviously fire & jetfuel didn't either.



WTC 5 & WTC 6 were PULLED months after 9/11, but the damage those two buildings took on 9/11 made the twin towers & WTC 7 look like NOTHING!

WTC 5 was literally cut in half and it still didn't collapse!

I think 1/2 the country knows what's up, the other 1/2 is brainwashed by the mainstream media, and the power of denial allows them to believe whatever they want to believe.

But I guarantee there WILL be another 9/11, much bigger, and we will go to war with Iran.

Just like Paul Craig Roberts said.

en.rian.ru...


370+ Engineers & Architects question 9/11:

www.patriotsquestion911.com...



Military, CIA, Structural Engineers, Pilots, Physicists all question 9/11:

georgewashington.blogspot.com...







.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Google «molten metal ground zero». The evidences are there for those want to see. For those who refuse to see, there is nothing we can do.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I don't have time to refute your whole post but just this statement will do for now...

4- Squibs..EVERY expert has come out to agree these are not FLUMES or Squibs, but air, dust and debris.

NIST admits both that flames were ejected and that the source of the flames are unknown. There is a thread about it Here.

So there is proof that not every expert agrees on what you posted.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
NIST has stated that they found no such evidence what so ever. So of course they aren't going to test for residue because it would be completely and utterly pointless.


So why did FEMA do testing on the steel then? Did they see something that NIST did not?

Also why did NIST fail to recover any steel from building 7 for testing?



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Markshark4
 

Thank you for the link to patriotsquestion911, one of the best I had not seen yet! People who know how to think for themselves and question authority who didn't even take the acid test!



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
This THEORY will end when it becomes ACCEPTED FACT. Too much real evidence otherwise.




top topics



 
0
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join