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.

 

New Article Knocking Self-Proclaimed 9/11 "Truthers"

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Lets try to stop getting personal and get back on the topic at hand. This thread is just leading into two or three people personally attacking each other which it was NOT intended to be.




posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa


There are a myriad of secrets held in the military, research facilities, and government that no one knows about except those in "need to know" positions.

Obviously you have never worked for the feds or been in the military or you would know that secrets CAN be kept.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by whaaa]


No question, everytime I read these type of reports and then the following posts agreeing that its impossible are totally out of there minds if they dont think that there are many NS secrets/programs/ops. It happens, what do you think the movies just dream this stuff up in there heads, try again.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Wow, I actually fell asleep reading this post...I think it was somewhere on page 2.

It looks like there will always be 2 sides to this story....I have not responded to these 911 posts in a long time. It is so fruitless.

Good luck to all of you who believe with the "truthers"....



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
BTW anyone who really thinks that there arent boat loads of classified secrets take a look at this page www.gwu.edu... or better yet spend some time on the site the US Archives are very interesting.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Okay, I can respect that. But the 'they' you say you said seemed like a 'Liar....'truther'' to me.
Just trying to say that if you want to get people to listen to your side of things it is best to not go on the attack by calling them names.

I too have fallen into this trap but I will not claim anyone is a liar. I'll state that I believe they are mislead or simply spewing the same dribble that their mentors are spewing but I try not to call them liars or whackjobs (not saying you have called anyone a whackjob either, just making a dang point).



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Claim: There is no way that jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt the steel in the World Trade Centers. Therefore, the fires from the planes could not be the cause of the Tower's collapse.

Reality: Jet fuel burns at 800 degrees to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel melts at somewhere in the ballpark of 2,750 degrees. However, the steel did not have to melt like candle wax to cause a collapse. According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, steel loses 50% of it's strength at about 1,000 degrees. In addition, the jet fuel was not the only substance burning. In extreme heat, steel can expand, then sag, then crack, then give way.



Ok well explain how it was possible for the fires to heat the steel UNIFORMLY so to cause the building to collapse straight down rather than topple to the side?

Also if you watch the south tower collapse, you will notice that the top part (the part that isn't burning, above where the plane hit) begin to drop, but falling to the SIDE, and just disappears into the smoke. According to the laws of physics, you would have seen the top part of the tower impact something (the rest of the tower), and then falling off over to the side as it was at an angle. Also, what happened to it? It just pulverized into dust... how does this happen WITHOUT explosives?

Just a couple anomalies, which shows that the official story is at least inaccurate.

Since your article claims that the official story is 100% correct, and I have shown at least two things that are blatant obstructions of physical laws if the official story is correct, then the article is false.

logic'd

[edit on 10-9-2008 by italkyoulisten]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
What about building 7 ?????



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by italkyoulisten
According to the laws of physics, you would have seen the top part of the tower impact something (the rest of the tower), and then falling off over to the side as it was at an angle.

Can you show your maths behind this?


Also, what happened to it? It just pulverized into dust... how does this happen WITHOUT explosives?

Can you show any evidence that it was 'pulverized into dust'? How do explosives pulverize concrete when they are attached to columns and not floors?


Since your article claims that the official story is 100% correct, and I have shown at least two things that are blatant obstructions of physical laws if the official story is correct, then the article is false.

Correction, you have claimed two things are obstructions of physical laws, but you have yet to name said laws or provide any supporting calculations.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
To me the probably most fascinating physical anomaly of the twin towers' collapse was the steel beam that was bent into a U shape without any stress fractures. (This was covered in the film 9/11 MYSTERIES). It plainly takes an incredible amount of heat/force to accomplish that. That in tandem with the ground being too hot, melting rubber boots, for 8 weeks or more is easily indicative of bigger "guns" used than a mere kerosene fire.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightworth
To me the probably most fascinating physical anomaly of the twin towers' collapse was the steel beam that was bent into a U shape without any stress fractures. (This was covered in the film 9/11 MYSTERIES). It plainly takes an incredible amount of heat/force to accomplish that. That in tandem with the ground being too hot, melting rubber boots, for 8 weeks or more is easily indicative of bigger "guns" used than a mere kerosene fire.

How so? Rubber boots will easily melt in fire, and steel loses about 90% of its strength at the upper range of fire temperatures. All this seems to indicate was that yes in fact the temperatures in the towers were quite high. Thermite on the other hand burns at 2500C and leaves characteristic marks on steel which fire does not.

Incidentally I also believe this was a core column, and not a floor beam.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I'd like to hear of a structural engineer or whatever other expert physicist who can state that, under anything resembling normal conditions, that a very heavy steel beam can be bent into a U shape without any cracks or breaks (stress fractures). Someone please let me know of whomever can make such a claim.



[edit on 10-9-2008 by Lightworth]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightworth
I'd like to hear of a structural engineer or whatever other expert physicist who can state that, under anything resembling normal conditions, that a very heavy steel beam can be bent into a U shape without any cracks or breaks (stress fractures). Someone please let me know of whomever can make such a claim.


Hold on a second, why is the burden of proof on me? You suggested that this couldn't occur, so the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that fire temperatures were not hot enough.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
The government picks and chooses its propaghanda based on its military and fascistic intent in the world they pee on each day with there lies nad defense of the lie, that man somehow has power over his universe beyond accepting he/she is fallible stupid powerless creatures pretending in a fantasy world they created by paving over reality..i.e nature to create a paradise of lame losers telling others what to think, do , be etc..its all too annoying. Im flying off this planet as soon as i get my hands on a space ship. suckers.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I think you're missing my angle. I'm saying that there are no normal conditions, like a kerosene fire, that can account for the extreme force required to bend solid steel like it was a piece of rubber. I'm not here to bicker about one beam, but when taken into account with all the other items that don't physically add up - and I'm comfortable enough not to go into those as well - there's clearly (to me and many others) more that happened than the official (government-media) fairy tale claims.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 



Please understand that as I have already stated, my accusations are not generalized to include all who believe the different theories, part of the theories, etc. I am specifically talking about the ones who are distorting the evidence; be that the video, audio, testimonials, or anything else that has to do with the events on 9/11. It is for the ppl that are shown very clearly that they have misunderstood something and they will blatantly disregard this with a comment such as "I don't care" or some other such nonsense.

My accusations are not for those who honestly are misled and have the right intentions in their hearts. I have been on that side and I understand that. I just don't understand the leaders of the other side.

I am also not on the side of the government necessarily, just to clear that up. I am on the side of the truth even when that means I have to admit I am wrong as I have had to do many times.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


what makes you think NORAD only focuses on planes coming from outside the US??? That is absurd disinfo...every golfer in America saw F-16s escort Payne Stuart's plane after his US Open win. You can find NORAD's radar coverage of the US on the Internet.

NORAD stood down. Simple.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   




Take a look at the 'central core'. That is where the steel began to lose 50% of its capacity. At the top of the tower there was also steel cross-bars that helped to support the central core. When the central core began to weaken to a critical level, the most of the weight had to be held by the cross-bars at the top of the towers. Once the weight was too much for even them to hold, they gave way and a pancake collapse resulted.

It's not something that "defies the laws of physics". It's pretty damn plausible if you ask me.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Wow, all the people out there who still beleive 911 was an inside job. All they do is take what is said on 911 truth sites think it is fact. If they do their own research, you will find all of the theories are half truths or completley fake. This is why none of the 911 schollars will submit the controlled demoliton theory for peer review, somethng all scientist do when submitting a new theory, especially this big. Instead they submit papers that they pay to ahve reviewed and claim aspects they agree with and rally around uneducated children who support them. They use the Dr. in front of their name to fool people in to beleiving they are an expert in the field they are discussing regarding 911. They are not. Dr. Steven jones is a cold fusion expert, not a demoliton or building collapse expert. he is as useful as a podiatrist on the subject of 911. Check out the debunking websites and then double or tripple check their info. Its all right. 911 truth is a joke. You want something to be pist about, be pist we ahvent bombed saudi arabia, pakistan or Iran for what they did in 9/11. Why do we let irans pres come in and out of our country when they let highjackers travel through their country without stamping their passports so they could alter enter the US without raising any flags? WTF. The reason Pakistan has nukes and Saudi has oil. Thats why we need to stop Iran from getting nukes and get off of foreign oil. If not, these countries can attacks us and we cant do # about it wihtout destroying the global economy whihc would get way more people killed then any terrorist attack.

If you want the truth, read, read, read. Dont trust the 911 truth sites and videos to be true, they are not



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
When it states,
""If there was any proof of conspiracy, it would be the largest news story in history. Not posted on the internet along with Chupacabra sightings. The ironically self-named "Truthers" will tell you that the story is not being reported because the media is controlled by the government. Moses smell the roses... If that is the case, then how did the Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, Grover Cleveland's illegitimate son, Whitewater, Alberto Gonzales' dismissal of U.S. attorneys, Thomas Jefferson diddling Sally Hemmings and other Presidential scandals slip through the cracks?""

Well that's easy.......the stories slipped out to the public because half of the things it mentioned in the statement above was researched and brought to the public by honest reporters or at least at the time anyways not an entire news agency. Now if them things mentioned was completely reported on by the MSM "agencies" then i would have nothing to say because like he said .. why would they have released the information out to the public...but that's just not the case now is it. This article is just another denounce to all of us truthers and of course the puppets and sheep will listen and believe it. I would too if i didn't know how to think for myself.

Read but doesn't deserve a flag.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join