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.

 

My personal take on 9-11

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Hello ATS board members


Just want to throw in my two cents here. I used to believe the official explanation of 9-11, but in the last several months I have had the eye-opening experience of running into a wealth of information which sheds doubt on that official explanation.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence I've found was the testimony of Steven Jones, a physicist, regarding his analysis of Building 7 debris. The tests reveal demolition-grade thermite in the samples. This correlates with the pools of molten metal that existed for weeks after the collapse.

I have read the official NIST explanation about Building 7, and I believe further investigation is warranted. I would like to see a response to their explanation by independent sources that have the capacity to test the NIST theory using similar computer modeling techniques. One especially crucial factor to consider would have to be fall time, something which the NIST report seemed to be lacking. A chain reaction involving one steel column would have a calculatable range of time that would be reasonable for the building's collapse. Does that coincide with the actual amount of time it took (about 6 seconds)?

There are a lot of questions that remain to be answered. Tests still need to be conducted. I believe that Building 7 is the weakest link in the official story, and focus needs to be put there. If the NIST report can be proven infeasible, and thus removed from consideration, then perhaps the rest of the official story will collapse at free-fall speed. Wouldn't that be ironic!?


Have fun!
~Maat




posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Good for you. I know how you feel and then some. In the 70s-80s I was pretty clued in on conspiracy then let it lapse and after 9-11, I was GWs biggest supporter. But, reality wouldn't leave me complacent and the Vertical Collapses bothered the heck out of me. I woke up, again! Such is the nature of the world. The greatest lie is not that "The Devil Doesn't exist" but that the world is our home and we needn't be concerned about what's best for our soul or that it's taken care of with a promise.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Is the official NIST report out finally? I was under the impression it was yet to be released, along with the FBI report. I could be wrong though.

I guess I may be considered one of those that believe the govt reports. Only because nothing has convinced me otherwise. Lots of theories about thermite, no planes, demo teams, missiles, all kinds of things. However, when it comes to backing up those claims, they cannot provide any evidenc at all. No evidence of demolition teams at all? No evidence of anything but the planes causing the damage? Lots of theories, no solid evidence to back them up.

Until some actual evidence comes out that could convince me otherwise, the govt reports so far seem plausible enough.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Thanks for the replies. Reelview, I'd just like to say that it's a blessing and a curse being clued in. "Ignorance is bliss" but the truth is hard to handle. Ultimately though the truth will set us free.

Gavron, I used to believe as you did. I totally respect your position and have no desire to change your beliefs. Whatever one believes is their truth. You mentioned evidence. There is plenty of evidence pointing in either direction. The thing is, if you believe that the government's theory is basically correct, then you have little to no motivation to explore any other evidence. I had to reluctantly admit that I was probably wrong about believing the official story. Of course, for me, that's not as difficult to do as someone who identifies his or herself with their beliefs. I'm not saying that you do or not. But what I mean about identifying with one's beliefs is when someone will say, for instance, "I'm not someone who believes in wild conspiracy theories." It's easy to use logic and rationality to change one's beliefs based on overwhelming evidence. However, it's difficult for a person, or more like the ego, to let go of its identity. Do you know what I mean?

I like to remain open minded. I'll go where the evidence leads me, and try not to identify myself with my beliefs.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Is the official NIST report out finally? I was under the impression it was yet to be released, along with the FBI report. I could be wrong though.

Until some actual evidence comes out that could convince me otherwise, the govt reports so far seem plausible enough.

It's not out yet and NIST still doesn't have an explanation for WTC 7.

You think the govt. reports are "plausible enough?" Do you get cheated and taken advantage of on a regular basis?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I work for a government agency (state government) and I don't believe that any conspiracy large enough to make 9-11 happen could have held together for this long. On the other hand, so much of what happened that day just demands a better explanation than what we've had so far. So, for now anyway, I stand in the mushy middle.

I would like to have more or better answers about why the fighter jets just didn't arrive until it was too late. It seems that Air Traffic Control knew early on about the hijackings, and passed that info on to our air defense system. But, something didn't work there.

I understand government incompetence (believe me, I've seen it firsthand!), but for a government entity whose sole purpose is to protect American air space they sure did miss everything that day. I mean incompetence can only go so far until it turns into sabotage.

I believe some incredibly lucky committed men attacked us that day, but so much of their luck just doesn't agree with my experience of the world.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Well I guess I was talking about the NIST preliminary report. I didn't know that they haven't come out with a full-fledged answer to the WTC7 collapse. That means the unofficial explanation really stands unequaled!

Hey Marcos, being in the "mushy middle" is a good place to be. If you're waiting for the hard evidence to come out, then I think time will tell. My brother is a lot like you in his beliefs. He used to be in military intelligence and thinks that the gov't is too unorganized to collaborate on anything on such a large scale. There is an answer to that however, and it is compartmentalization. In other words, as Richard C. Hoagland puts it, "the lie is different at every level." Only those at the very top of the pyramid know what's really going on. Everyone else plays their part, most of the time unwittingly, and just follow the lies given to them by their superiors. The finger does not know what the toe is doing, you know? And the ''government" itself is not really "in on it." Our government is really controlled by higher-ups like bankers and families like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds.

You ask some crucial questions. I'd like to know the answers to them as well. There is a point where an overwhelming amount of coincidences can begin to be viewed as circumstantial evidence. Once you put all of the little pieces together, you can convict someone of a crime without a "smoking gun" or irrefutable proof. The jury is still out though. Most people have only heard one side, call it the prosecution or the defense. We need a full disclosure of all evidence pertaining to 9-11.

Another question to ask, and it's been asked before but once again: if Building 7 collapsed due to fire damage, which would be a first in the history of steel framed buildings, then why was the debris carted off and destroyed without analysis? Why not study it to prevent further collapses? To me that seems highly suspicious. The thermite findings of Steven Jones and the molten metal seem to answer those questions though.

I'd like to see his findings corroborated by a number of independent labs in blind experiments where they didn't know what they were testing and why. If confirmed, then I believe there is irrefutable proof that a crime was committed - of a far different nature then the one that was described to us in the mainstream media through official sources. It's not that I don't believe Steven Jones. He actually has a lot to lose by supporting the conclusions that he has come to. He was offered grants to discontinue his research in this area, and also received a number of death threats!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join