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.

 

Just what evidence would you believe

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
Not long ago there was a bridge in Oak Land that collapsed from a diesel fire Oak Land Bridge Collapse

So there we have established that a fire can melt concrete and soften steel re-bar.

No one has ever doubted that *A* fire can melt concrete and steel, but not a fire from diesel fuel (which is essentially the same as jet fuel). Your link says this The driver of the truck, which was carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline Gasoline is a whole different thing than diesel fuel. Besides that, gasoline EXPLODES, diesel doesn't. If you've ever been a kid who has poured gasoline onto some wood to get it to light quick, you'd know that. You don't do it twice. On the other hand, if I had a bunch of wood that I wanted to burn, I wouldn't think twice about pouring diesel fuel on it.

So, were you mistaken or being deliberately deceptive about the tanker carrying "diesel fuel"?


And I found this NIS Report on building collapses. Of course you truthers may not accept the report because it is from the NIST, but what other organization in the world would do this kind of analysis?



Another important finding of this study was the lack of readily available, and well-documented, information on partial or total structural collapse due to fire. Unless the fire event was significant for other reasons, e.g., loss of life, very little information was available. It is recommended that a centralized database be developed, whereby structural damage and collapse can be investigated and systematically reported in the future. The current lack of systematic information on fire-induced collapses seriously limits the profession's understanding of the scope and nature of the real structural fire protection problem.


so, we have that buildings can collapse and do collapse from fire and that there is little to no record of this because of the rarity and insignificance of a building falling over without other things happening like deaths.


If there is "little to no record of this", how can we have "evidence" that buildings "can collapse and do collapse"? Those two statements are mutually exclusive.

A building falling over or collapsing from fire is "insignificant" without deaths? Is the NIST SERIOUSLY suggesting that a large building can collapse from fire, and as long as no one dies, everyone goes "Eh, it doesn't much matter"?


I GUARANTEE that any building that has collapsed that was insured was most certainly investigated, in the very least by investigators from the insurance company, and most probably by the fire marshall. BY LAW EVERY BUILDING THAT IS SERIOUSLY DAMAGED BY FIRE MUST HAVE AN INVESTIGATION (In the US, anyway. Oh, unless it's a building owned by Larry Silverstein, then apparently the collapse doesn't have to be investigated). Considering that, is it more likely that millions of dollars are lost, and everyone goes "oh well!", or is it more likely that there have been no structural collapses in large buildings from fire?

Play the game at home. Try running different permutations at home in a search engine to find a website showing a very large building collapsing from fire. You'll find buildings where several floors gave way, but not total collapses. At least I couldn't find any. Can you?


okay so half or better of your required evidence is provided.

also, i would think that the heat factor (about people walking so close to the fire) can be explained by insulation (walls and floor) , like an oven mit; you can pick up a dish that is more than 400 degrees without discomfort, BUT it will still burn.


No, the pictures CLEARLY show people leaning against the METAL of the building. You know, the metal that allegedly got so hot it melted? This wasn't some obscure location, it was DIRECTLY IN THE IMPACT ZONE.

So, basically your "proof" is the NIST going "We can't find any records of this kind of thing". They say it's because no one bothers to make a detailed investigation if no lives are lost. I say it's because it doesn't happen.

Think about that, all your lurkers. The NIST SERIOUSLY wants you to believe that when a large building collapses, without loss of life, no one gives a crap, and it's not thoroughly investigated.

No, 1/2 of the evidence is not provided. You have YET to show me where a collapse of a building, from anything OTHER than demolition, results in approximately 90% of the concrete turning into a fine powder. Where are those? Now remember, we're not even limited to fires here. buildings collapsing due to earthquakes or even bombs are just fine (just not purposeful demolitions).




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by JimBeamWow! I wish I could be as infantile as you.

Gaah Gaah, Goo Goo, the matrix has you.


Seriously? Did I just click on the wrong button and end up in the kiddie forums some how? Obviously you have the rationality of a child (although even that may be too much credit chalked up in your favor).

The question being asked is valid and all you can say is 'gaah gaah goo goo, the matrix has you"?
just


Do me a favor.

Go research USS Liberty then come back and talk to me.

I really don't have the patience any more over this [snip]. Certain elements inside the US goverment were involved along with Israeli agents. IT'S ALL THERE FOR YOU TO SEE.

LOOK!!!!

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 19-9-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Chancelot- Are you seriously trying to compare a B-17 and a Corsair hitting a building to the planes that hit the WTC? Perhaps you would like to compare the damage a hand grenade would do compared to a nuclear warhead.

JimBeam- Do you have anything of value to add to the thread or are you just here to insult people?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 




The passport they found on 5thh Avenue

The fact that 20 out or the 19 highjackers are still alive

The plane "@" The Pentergon

That bloke that had to jump from the 191th floor

The fact that people made money off it knowenly

The fact that 98% of us belive the truth




The fact that it has happened,and those accoutable have not been held...

YET!



thats %$%% why lol



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Why don;t you people just come out like adults that have a spine and say.


"There is absolutely no source that could be accepted as the TRUTH in the events of 9/11 because of the wide reach of the conspirators. It is blatantly apparent that all truthers that cross over were coerced some how and can not be trusted."


That is what you believe right? stop making pathetic excuses and putting "evidence" and admit that you would not accept any source...


Ohh wait you you admit to that, it would mean that you are admitting to being closed minded...much like you accuse everyone else.

So, I doubt that any one will make any statement similar to the one above. and if there were a ATS currencey with which to bet I would wager it all



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   
There are too many inconstancies - and too much money made off the tragedy to ever think it was anything other than a deliberate action by the *Powers that be* - and by that I do not mean Bin Laden. Plus, the USA has far too long a history of false flag operations for me to even spend a second of my time trying to justify this event was anything but that.
I hate it yes.
I mourn the dead, sure.
But I'm not stupid.






...it all adds up to a negative...



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   
I've said it before and I'll say it again;
For those who believe, no evidence is necessary. For those who do not, no evidence is enough.
Some say that in the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
I say, in the world of the blind, the one-eyed man would be labelled a lunatic-heretic, and then be stoned to death.

That is the sad reality of our world.

It wasn't that long ago that we as a race were killing our fellow man because he didn't believe the earth was flat.

It wasn't that long ago that we burned women at the stake as witches because of fear and ignorance.

We haven't "evolved" much in a few hundred years, nor have we learned much from the experiences of our ancestors.
If nothing else, this site proves that point.

If anyone believes our government is truly concerned about it's people and are an honest, forthright entity, why are we spending billions and billions of dollars in Iraq when we have tent cities full of homeless families popping up all over the country? Why are they "bailing out" major financial organizations with billions of more of our tax dollars instead of prosecuting the thieves who made their own mess?
That alone to me is evidence in itself of how well our government and elected officials can be trusted to tell us the whole truth, and nothing but.

No thanks. I'll believe what I see before I blindly believe what they say.
Something stinks in the "Bushes", and if you look into them, you will see the rotting carcass of Truth buried in a shallow, unmarked grave.


[edit on 9/19/2008 by cmongo4]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmongo4
I've said it before and I'll say it again;
For those who believe, no evidence is necessary. For those who do not, no evidence is enough.
Some say that in the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
I say, in the world of the blind, the one-eyed man would be labelled a lunatic-heretic, and then be stoned to death.

That is the sad reality of our world.

It wasn't that long ago that we as a race were killing our fellow man because he didn't believe the earth was flat.

It wasn't that long ago that we burned women at the stake as witches because of fear and ignorance.

We haven't "evolved" much in a few hundred years, nor have we learned much from the experiences of our ancestors.
If nothing else, this site proves that point.

If anyone believes our government is truly concerned about it's people and are an honest, forthright entity, why are we spending billions and billions of dollars in Iraq when we have tent cities full of homeless families popping up all over the country? Why are they "bailing out" major financial organizations with billions of more of our tax dollars instead of prosecuting the thieves who made their own mess?
That alone to me is evidence in itself of how well our government and elected officials can be trusted to tell us the whole truth, and nothing but.

No thanks. I'll believe what I see before I blindly believe what they say.
Something stinks in the "Bushes", and if you look into them, you will see the rotting carcass of Truth buried in a shallow, unmarked grave.


[edit on 9/19/2008 by cmongo4]


So, if we have not evolved and are still stoning the "round earthers" what day are you scheduled to be stoned?

if nothing else this website proves how much we have evolved. No one here; that I have noticed, have sent the police ( or black helicopters) after you. So, I think we have moved past that stoning stuff... well except for those people in Muslim countries which we are "wasting" our money fighting.


so again, just admit that you have taken an irrational position. irrational based on the fact that no possibility exists in your mind that you could be wrong. Don't get mad, in a previous post I laid out what proof I would need to agree that it was an inside job.

Wait, maybe it is you that has not evolved to a more open minded human? one that is not willing to acknowledge other possibilities?

but, I am willing to bet that you believe that there is a possibility that life on earth began with aliens seeding earth rather than evolution, right?

and No, this is not an Ad hominem attack, because this entire board is about the individuals rational, not only the reasoning of their argument.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by irongunner
 



Wrong.

We are not evolve beings. We are suppressed beings. Major difference.

We evolve when we are not limited in our daily lives. Friends, family, your church(if you go), work, the media, etc. are all in place to keep you IN place. Only when you are able to detach yourself from your social structure are you truly free to evolve.

We put our energy into stuff, but rarely do we put that energy into us. You think we are evolved because you see these "marvelous" things we have created. They were building pyramids thousands of years ago in Egypt, so what. An architect can design wonderful structures but is an out of shape, overweight, divorced, lonely person.

If you really believe evolvution can be measured by the things we produce, you are in for a major shock if you ever "wake up" from your delusional state that you are in at present time.

A producer is a slave.

My dad was a physicist and worked for NASA, on his deathbed he had only one thing one his mind, women. Why do you think? Could it be because we are told to do things throughout our whole lives that are counter productive to our own nature??? Hatred of self and others is the driving force behind this machine. Love is frowned upon. Without unconditional love, you cannot evolve.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimBeam
reply to post by irongunner
 



Wrong.

We are not evolve beings. We are suppressed beings. Major difference.

We evolve when we are not limited in our daily lives. Friends, family, your church(if you go), work, the media, etc. are all in place to keep you IN place. Only when you are able to detach yourself from your social structure are you truly free to evolve.

We put our energy into stuff, but rarely do we put that energy into us. You think we are evolved because you see these "marvelous" things we have created. They were building pyramids thousands of years ago in Egypt, so what. An architect can design wonderful structures but is an out of shape, overweight, divorced, lonely person.

If you really believe evolvution can be measured by the things we produce, you are in for a major shock if you ever "wake up" from your delusional state that you are in at present time.

A producer is a slave.

My dad was a physicist and worked for NASA, on his deathbed he had only one thing one his mind, women. Why do you think? Could it be because we are told to do things throughout our whole lives that are counter productive to our own nature??? Hatred of self and others is the driving force behind this machine. Love is frowned upon. Without unconditional love, you cannot evolve.


Please answer the question.
This bit of rambling has nothing to do with 9/11 and evidence provided.


If, this is your answer to "proof," then you are in a round about way admitting to my assertion that you indeed have taken an indefensible position (one that all criticism and evidence against can be cast aside do soley to your opinion on the source and not the content or context.)



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by scotty18
Chancelot- Are you seriously trying to compare a B-17 and a Corsair hitting a building to the planes that hit the WTC? Perhaps you would like to compare the damage a hand grenade would do compared to a nuclear warhead.

JimBeam- Do you have anything of value to add to the thread or are you just here to insult people?


We don't have a lot of planes hitting buildings, however, you don't find ANYTHING odd about the fact that the only building to have EVER collapsed due to a plane hitting them are the world trade centers?

"Debunkers" like to say that it wasn't the jet fuel that "melted" the steel beams, it was everything inside that caught fire. So, the question still remains: Why didn't the empire state building catch fire and collapse?

Why didn't any of those other buildings collapse? Remember, the ratio of building mass to airplane weight, energy, etc, was MUCH, MUCH GREATER in those smaller buildings than in the other ones.

Besides, how does CONCRETE GET TURNED INTO DUST FROM THE COLLAPSE. Something the "debunkers" will tap dance around time and time again.

Do you have an explanation for how the concrete got turned into a fine dust? Any explanation?

What OTHER methods do we know of that turn concrete into "dust" when a building collapses. Do we know of any methods that do that? I know one, but I'll leave it to the reader to learn for themselves what that method actually is.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
We don't have a lot of planes hitting buildings, however, you don't find ANYTHING odd about the fact that the only building to have EVER collapsed due to a plane hitting them are the world trade centers?


I just thought I'd interject here, apologies if you weren't soliciting open replies.

No I don't think it's that odd, in no case have buildings ever been deliberately rammed in this manner (that I am aware of), especially not with large planes at close to their upper speed limits.


"Debunkers" like to say that it wasn't the jet fuel that "melted" the steel beams, it was everything inside that caught fire. So, the question still remains: Why didn't the empire state building catch fire and collapse?

There are several reasons. Firstly the Empire State Building did catch fire, but the B25 which impacted it was moving very slowly (lost in fog), it impacted at a much slower speed and with a miniscule amount of kinetic energy compared to the towers. Furthermore the Empire State Building isn't vulnerable to the same kind of failure as occured in the WTC Towers.


Why didn't any of those other buildings collapse? Remember, the ratio of building mass to airplane weight, energy, etc, was MUCH, MUCH GREATER in those smaller buildings than in the other ones.

Can you give some examples? Please make sure to include kinetic energy estimates as I think this will show you are very very wrong on this topic.


Besides, how does CONCRETE GET TURNED INTO DUST FROM THE COLLAPSE. Something the "debunkers" will tap dance around time and time again.

Do you have an explanation for how the concrete got turned into a fine dust? Any explanation?

You're joking right? Even Dr Steven Jones has pointed out that only a small amount of concrete was turned into dust and this is entirely expected. Portions of 4" thick concrete slab fell from well over 1000 feet high, often impacting other large portions of debris. The calculations to support this have also been done by several people. There is absolutely nothing unusual in the volume of dust produced by the collapses.


What OTHER methods do we know of that turn concrete into "dust" when a building collapses. Do we know of any methods that do that? I know one, but I'll leave it to the reader to learn for themselves what that method actually is.

Magic? In order to do what you're proposing with explosives, you would literally have to drill thousands of holes in the floor slabs of whichever floors you believe were affected. This is not going to happen in an occupied building without someone questioning what is happening. Explosives on core columns cannot simply pulverize concrete up to 60 feet away without ejecting the concrete closer to them at extreme velocities. This was obviously not observed.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
an in-depth analysis of the material left over at ground zero would have done a lot to clear the smoke (no pun intended)

But, in his infinite wisdom, Mayor Guilliani (an ex-District Attorney I believe) saw fit to have all the evidence shipped off to China for processing as soon as it was cool enough to handle..

And this is not some fluke, the White House is not so big on evidence.

It took 2 years of pressure for Bush to even allow an investigation, and made certain there where arrangements made to make sure the heat didn't get to close..

How else can you explain Bush and Cheney got 'questioned' together, and they did not even have to take the pledge.. so any lies they told there wouldn't be false testimony and a federal offense?

Building 7 was not some random target, either.. it housed many federal bureaus, including the service that monitors the stockmarkets.

Remember those big 'bets' on the stock market that those airline shares would plummet? And that was not done through some Al Quaida shell company but by one linked to the CIA..

Plus, Larry Silverstein taking over shortly before 9/11, and then cashing in bigtime on the insurance policy which, unprecedentedly, included a clause to insure in case of a terrorist attack or acts of God ? (He even tried to cash in twice, claiming two airplanes = two attacks, luckily, the courts stopped that pile of bulldung)

And that's not even going in to the 5 frames of 'evidence' they gave on the Pentagon 'video' where nothing conclusive is shown either way, that it was or was not a phantom-boeing which allegedly would have hit, leaving no debris whatsoever, and dated 9/12 instead of 9/11 ?

Nor the testimonials about 9/11 by several people, including that janitor that supposedly killed himself not long ago, which was withheld from the hearings, because the information was totally blowing the official version out of the water ?

You ask me which evidence we will accept for believing the gouverment hoax.

I ask in return, what would it take for you to recognize that all is not what it seems.. a written confession by G.W Bush ?

I suppose after he signs that, you'll all go saying that's what he has said all along, and that anyone who says differently must be missing a few cranks ?

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Knowledge

Sounds familiar ? It is you mate.. George Orwell was so right.


[edit on 22-9-2008 by Phatcat]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phatcat
But, in his infinite wisdom, Mayor Guilliani (an ex-District Attorney I believe) saw fit to have all the evidence shipped off to China for processing as soon as it was cool enough to handle..


All? I assume you're ignoring the fact that members of NIST and FEMAs BPAT team looked over steel and retained well over 100 elements for testing? It's also ignoring the extensive sorting and verification process at the dump sites?

It's true that some steel was disposed of rapidly, and this may well have adversely affected early investigations, but your statement is wildly inaccurate, and is a result of 'feature creep' with regards to conspiracy theorist claims.

NCSTAR 1-3 is a good place to start, they have quite a lot of information on the steel retrieved.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
This is thé biggest investigation the World has ever known, not just America's, and they only take a few samples.

I remember when that plane exploded above Lockerby, èvery shred of the plane was retrieved.

And that was just one plane, and the outcome did not directly affect 2 wars (currently)

I doubt they took that piece we all saw footage of, the ones that where cut at 45° angles..

And even the little of the material they did take showed evidence of Termaid being used..

By the way, if you're going to attack 1 point of my post, why not discount them one by one? Too hot to handle?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phatcat
This is thé biggest investigation the World has ever known, not just America's, and they only take a few samples.

I remember when that plane exploded above Lockerby, èvery shred of the plane was retrieved.

Indeed, do you expect them to rebuild the WTC to confirm what caused it to collapse? Why does your opinion of what they should have done supersede people who have doctorates in the subject and many many years of experience?


I doubt they took that piece we all saw footage of, the ones that where cut at 45° angles..

Would you like to see some pictures of workers cutting these columns at angles during the cleanup?


And even the little of the material they did take showed evidence of Termaid being used..

Perhaps you mean "Thermite", and this claim is unfortunately only supported by a small group of people who have (as far as I am aware) yet to release any confirmed results.


By the way, if you're going to attack 1 point of my post, why not discount them one by one? Too hot to handle?

They have been addressed for many years. Perhaps you could spend a little time reading some of the many sites which exist to address these claims, here are a few:
www.911myths.com...
debunk911myths.org...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

If you find that these do not adequately explain things, I would be more than happy to go through them with you, but my expertise is primarily with WTC1,2 and 7. I am just getting to grips with the complexities surrounding the flight path arguments of AA77 also, so I am more than happy to discuss that.

You must understand that from my perspective, I have seen endless numbers of people make these claims, and then switch the subject as soon as any sort of evidence showing that they may be wrong has come up. This is why I didn't immediately go point-by-point.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I don't suggest they should have rebuilt the buildings, I suggest they should have gone through the wreckage with a fine comb.

much like an archaelogical site, with a toothbrush if necesary.
firefighters reported 'streams of lava-like substance in the basement.
I do believe it's Thermaid though, which is a form of Thermite, a brand used for Demolition

And I suggest that any sane President, one with nothing to hide, should have been first among equals to demand an investigation, and make sure no stone is left unturned in pursuit of the thruth, not stonewall it for as long as possible..

And the obvious foreknowledge of several partys leading to potentially the biggest heist of insurance money ever.. and several companys are making gazillions because of it, to this day. Companys which so happen had politicians as boardmembers.. how convenient..



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phatcat
 


Phat Cat,

those are good reasonings to question the government, but could you please tell us what evidence you would need to believe them?

that simple. We don't need a summary of loose change.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
Have 9/11 conspiracists reached the same point as the moon landing hoax believers who now state that there is no longer any evidence that would convince them the moon landings actually took place?

Just what conclusive evidence would actually convince you that 9/11 really was all about a group of terrorist hijackers wanting to cause as much damage to the US as possible by flying planes into buildings?



What would make me believe it was as advertised was if more planes struck the towers (since each was designed to take 4-5 hits), if the towers hadn't fallen into a neat pile without swaying, if the air force actually did something to prevent the planes from hitting, if explosions hadn't gone off prior to the towers collapsing and finally if Larry A Silverstein hadn't wanted to build two new modern towers to replace the WTC's because the cost of maintenance for the towers would have been equal to that of building two new towers.

[edit on 22-9-2008 by Tomis_Nexis]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join