It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

page: 30
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 01:11 AM

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
You accept those pictures as evidence despite the fact you honestly state no one has any information on them.
Yet you blast the people that believe the report for doing the same thing.

Well because i am going with more then just the photos, i am going with other information from research.

People that believe the official story just go with what they have been told and do not do any extra research. Thats the difference.

Also i have been stating all along that we do not have all the evidence to know what happened that day, so its hard to believe people that believe the official story when they state that they know what happened that day.

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by ULTIMA1

yes i agree that it is hard to believe what happened that day. There are so amny anomolies that its difficult to argue on single point. However, I have asked this question from the beginning of the post, and I have yet to see a reasonable reply..........

William Rodriguez....If you believe the official story, then you have to be able to explain his experience....You can say that he is looking for attention or trying to gain fame/money, but it makes no sense. His whole life was the WTC....he had pride in that building....

Someone please explain what happened!! What did he experience?? Was he mistaken??

Again...This is a topic that FEW will argue against...

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Riffyes i agree that it is hard to believe what happened that day. There are so amny anomolies that its difficult to argue on single point.

Well the other thing is that more and more first responders are speaking out against the official story also.

More reports about explosions and hearing the count down for building 7 demo over the radio.

Plus we still have the reports and radio calls about a missile fired from the Woolworth building at the towers.

posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:14 AM
reply to post by ULTIMA1

That is interesting? Who reported missiles being fired from that building. Wouldnt we have seen that if it happened?

posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by Jeff Riff

I posted this thread a while ago but here it is anyway, is there any truth to it, I don't know.
Missiles Fired at the WTC From Woolworth Building ?

[edit on 7/2/2008 by Sauron]

posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by ULTIMA1

I make that statement it gets attacked.
You make that statement its perfectly fine.
Especially since I have poked holes in every bit of so called evidence that has been brought my way.
Or when called to answer a simple question is is repeatedly avoided then the question is repackaged and thrown at me.
I don't know about anyone else but this whole damn thing is POINTLESS.
I am just stupid ignorant sheeple to you and nothing I say or do short of accepting these ludricis sounding (to me) theories (especially considering I see holes in each and every bit of so called evidence) and happily agreeing with you will change that.
Well I am done trying to nail jello to a tree.
Have fun making any progress as to answer the questions impossible.
Feel free to say whatever ego building words will make you feel better about me because I am way past the point of apathy on the whole damn issue.

posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 03:38 PM
reply to post by ULTIMA1

About the question regarding the page-source of that statement that a plane flying into a WTC tower at 600 MILES per hour would not bring it down.
Your post and coughymachine's answer on page 27 did start me wonder if a hasty visit to an ophthalmologist is preferably high on both your to-do lists. (smile!)

It's clearly written on top and at the bottom of that photocopied page, put up by coughymachine :

Appendix A Draft for Public Comment. (top)
Page 302 NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation. (bottom)

What intrigues me, is that scribble written by pen on top, under "Draft for Public Comment".
Looks like someone wrote there : Dragonritter ?
Who wrote that and why? Someone from NIST ? Coughymachine, or perhaps the one who send it to him?

As you see, I do tend to pay attention to the finest details. (wink!)

posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 04:07 PM
It took THIRTY PAGES of nit-picking, and the only SIMPLE "provided evidence" (asked for in the OpeningPost!) is ignored by all participants. Evidence which is crystal clear laid out, and never refuted.

It's now 10 days since I posted this on top of page 19 of this thread :

and not one of those, who vehemently attack OR defend parts or the total of the official position on 9/11 of the US government and its Institutions, have posted questions or tried to prove me wrong on my thesis that human intervention is crystal clear, from the huge amount of external energy introduced before the first visible signs of collapse of the last WTC tower demolished on 9/11, the WTC 7 building.

NOT ONE follow-up post regarding my irrefutable evidence that 9/11 was planned in advance, and executed in military style.
Which military, or a combination of them, is still an important question.

You don't need to be an academic to be able to understand what I proved in my thesis, in fact any basic school boy or girl will be able to understand my reasoning.
That's also the reason why no one can refute the facts I laid in front of you all.
Because those facts are so damn SIMPLE, no academic language is needed to understand those facts, or need to be used to refute them.

So why, oh why, are all of these official-theory believers, posting here, so blatantly absent now in my seismic-proof threads?

Because none of them can find and come up with a valid oppositional argument?
That seems to be the only possible conclusion.

And if you can't disprove my arguments, you have to accept the fact that FAR TOO MUCH external energy was introduced before the first visible sign that WTC 7 began collapsing.
And subsequently accept that the same amount of external energy was introduced before any visible signs of the global collapses of WTC 1 and 2.

The impact of an airplane is a massive chaotic, unpredictable event.

The three external energy introductions, before all three 9/11 collapses, were certainly far less chaotic, and very well planned.
Thus having MUCH MORE structural demolition IMPACT than the MEDIA spectacle which the two plane impacts and their unpredictable, following chaotic damage pattern, in reality were.

And thus those external energy introductions broke the back of already damaged buildings.
And were enough to start an inevitable gravitational collapse, started by these explosions.

If you could diagonally cut all WTC 1 and 2 core columns below plane impact level (best would be 3 meters above the first mechanical floor below impact), so they slip down two to three meters all together, at once, their total mass will pull on their hat truss connections, which force then will spread out via the hat truss construction and then push down equally on all four of the outer walls, and the collapse initiating point will then be at plane impact damage level, as Griff concluded so eloquently before.

Or at core column cut-level, when there is no plane impact damage, as in the WTC 7 collapse.

And when you want to be sure that a global collapse will proceed to ground level, you place a few more charges at the lower core columns, and especially heavy ones at the mechanical floor levels and basements.

If you are honest to yourself, and can't refute my conclusions, than you have to start doubting the NIST report conclusions, which report basically is a massive fact gathering, done by honest researchers, and than subsequently the whole heap of facts were interpreted by politically driven NIST-editors, who stick their opinions to the culminated facts, and then declare these opinions into factual conclusions.

If WTC 7 clearly was a demolition, then all conclusions by NIST, LDEO, 9/11Commission, FEMA report, Purdue, are all not worth the paper written on.

Prove me wrong, OR start seriously doubting the 9/11 explanations by the US government and its institutions.

This is an extraordinary claim, which however doesn't require extraordinary proof.

That proof is in fact extraordinary simple, and in my case, handed over by two, academically highly valued, US institutions.

posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 04:29 PM
The following can be read by clicking my LaBTop member name :

Comment from: LaBTop on: 9/4/07 @ 16:11
WTC 7 official collapse time does not fit the LDEO and NIST institutes times!
Interpretation of Seismic 9/11 charts from LDEO, compared to NIST photo time stamp, Time stamps from NIST and LDEO do not compare to the official WTC 7 collapse time.

I'm curious if anybody can proof me wrong on this obvious "9/11 smoking gun".

Comment from: WraothAscendant on: 10/2/08 @ 21:07
"" Easily. In three words even.
Possible intentional discrepancies. ""

You posted this in my LaBTop Member Profile, within a few (no more than 5) minutes after I posted my above post.

Did you read anything of my quite extensive writings on the subject, before?
If not, do you base your opinions solely on intuition ?
If you did, why didn't you post your comment here, and explain your three words somewhat more eloquently.

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 01:50 AM
Whether you are aware of the obvious government involvement or not... answer me this:

1. Why isn't Rudy Giuliani in prison for destroying evidence?

A. Rudy Giuliani almost immediately started transporting and shipping all the steel and material, from the twin towers, to china. this before an in depth investigation could be done. He was a prosecuting attorney and knows this is a serious felony.

2. Does anyone find it peculiar that the WTC material was sent to China for recycling or destruction. We have many facilities that could have done the job. The masterminds (our government officials) did not want this material in the hands of american "critical thinkers" who could prove that the buildings were brought down by demolition and not fire.

3. Do you find it odd that we borrow 3 million dollars a day from China to support this illegal and unconstitutional war in Iraq. At the same time, we ship all the recyclable (evidence) WTC material to China. At the same time, China exports dangerous goods (toys with lead paint, food..Etc) to the USA and we have no QC to stop these products until they have already effected millions of citizens.
A. Possible payoff to accept China's dangerous goods in exchange for lending us money?

4. Why are 4 of the terrorists, who were supposedly on the planes that struck the towers, still alive and have not been taken off the FBI list of terrorists involved. Also, The Govenment, FBI or President Bush has not shown actual proof that Bin Laden had anything to do with it and if he did, we haven't been offered any proof that he acted alone or how a cave dwelling arab was able to infiltrate a trillion dollar defense system.

There are many more questions that need to be answered and just the fact that goverment officials refuse to answer them, with proof or evidence, is a obvious sign of their involvement. Its been over 6 freakin' years and NOTHING!

Something to think about... I welcome any and all comments.

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 07:03 AM

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
OK I read this from another thread regarding 9-11:
"You will find that most truthers refuse to observe the evidence. The ABUNDANCE of evidence.

What abundance of evidence?

1. The FBI has not released a photo or video that shows flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

The real world relies on a number of lines of evidence including physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, not exclusively on videos as you are demanding.

2. The FBI and FAA will not release the part numbers of the 9/11 planes to match the parts found.

By that logic, the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony are meaningless unless they have "serial numbers" that have revealed to you.

So please show me the abundence of evidnece that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

We have over, and over, and over. Start with the links here and refute them:

Remember, you are claiming there was no 757 without refuting the massive evidence demonstrating that AA77 hit the Pentagon. The burden of proof is on you.

Then provide us with the statements and testimony of the over 1,000 people who saw and/or recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon. Please provide their statements as to exactly what wreckage they recovered.

Thanks in advance.

posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 06:13 PM
lets just move on and find modern evidence

posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by IvanZana

I heard them too.

I am new to this and I am shocked at the anger displayed towards those who have questions and have not been reasonable answers.

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link scroll down to fireman on radio and look at the 4 inch thick beam with slag running off that is not going to happen in under 15 seconds 900 feet away from the top of the stucture ,with an open flame of kerosene and surely not cutt at 45 degres u could get slag like that in an electric arc furnice and that is about it, as a torch would have left the slag to the inside of the cutt not running down the outside the cutt,and a plasmacutter would have left a much much cleaner cutt,so some sort of chemical reaction that genrated a force greater than 90,000 psi had to be used since the steel was rated at 90,000 psi wich is this the metal was strong enough and thick enough to disapate the heat rapidly enough that a controlled flame would have to burn at about 2200 deg farhen for at least 2 hours for that steel to reach its point of structural ingegrity,(so basicly someone or somthing would have had to apply a temp greater than 4500 deg to melt 4 inch thick 90,000 psi steel in a 45 degr angle with that much slag to form in under 15 seconds at 2200 deg it can take that for 2 and a half hours befor becoming glow red or soft enough to bend or twist ,and it wouldnt have fallin strait down, if it reached that temp it would have started to crinkle and lean at the weakest link in the beam(where it was glow red)im just thinking out loud good day all salute

[edit on 18-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by plasmacutter

You do realize that on the link you posted...the second picture down is NOT fireman looking into a molten hot they lead you to believe. They are illuminated by a high intensity light while searching for victims. If you watch the actual video of that scene you would see. That is just a still from it.


Start around 2:00 or will see your footage.

Now granted, there were areas there that were super heated...but that photo was just put thee for dramatic effect. It had nothing to do with molten anything....just looking for victims.

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:11 PM
no evidence of a inside job located in this thread, just unrealistic theories that can all be explained. the problem is, they all have been debunked a million times. its true, truthers just wont believe real evidence, its not in their genetic makeup or logical thinking capabilities.

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:23 PM
reply to post by fastfingersfunk

Wow, that was a terribly ignorant post. Care to elaborate on YOUR outrageous claims that its not in our genetic makeup to think logically and analyze evidence? My guess is that you arent going to touch that one.

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Jeff Riff]

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Disclosed
You do realize that on the link you posted...the second picture down is NOT fireman looking into a molten hot they lead you to believe.

The picture isn't leading anyone into believing anything. Right above the picture it says:

The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to

Bolding mine. It may be for dramatic effect, but it says the fires are too deep for the firefighters to get to. So obviously that light wouldn't be coming from the fires. Hell, it doesn't even look like firelight.


posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 03:12 PM
sorry for being redundant, but... IF the steel didn't maintain a temperature hot enough to disintegrate it (heat rising, not maintaining; temp cooling after the impact, steel needing to be at such high temps for at least 2 hours, etc, etc.), and IF there were supporting core structures around the destroyed core columns, and IF the building dissipated the heat AND the destructive debrise, HOW did the tower fall STRAIGHT down??? the pics from the top clearly show the antennae on top of the towers going straight down, not veering an iota. if the steel was molten, this is impossible! is there rationale to support anything other than the theory of implossion, esp. with pictures showing the puffs of smoke from the sides of the building and eye-witness reports of hearing 'bombs'? i hate to keep beating this dead horse, but where is the evidence?

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 03:50 PM

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
no evidence of a inside job located in this thread, just unrealistic theories that can all be explained. the problem is, they all have been debunked a million times. its true, truthers just wont believe real evidence, its not in their genetic makeup or logical thinking capabilities.

Have you read LabToP's thesis he has posted on several threads? Nobody has yet to debunk him. If you can't proove his evidence wrong, will you accept it is evidence of an inside job?

top topics

<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in