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.

 

Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

page: 22
218
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



I am just amazed that even after a story such as this is proven to be a hoax, that some people continue trying to validate claims which have never been corroborated.


You're claiming the SOURCE is fraudulent/unreliable.

That in no way detracts anything from the original story which has mountains upon mountains of other evidence from thousands of other sources supporting it.

You may have disproved the credibility of ONE source. So what?
Completely irrelevant.




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
................
You think they had diesel fuel and oil drums up there?


There were diesel generators and fuel tanks in the basement of the WTC towers in case you didn't know...

BTW, jet fuel ignited does continue to expand as a liquid, and does move down hallways, and down stairwells and AC conduits if there is enough jet fuel...

The impact and explosion of the planes did not suddenly make all the jet fluid dissapear.

I really don't want to get into another long discussion in which the members who want to continue to believe something else happened will go on claiming more, and more stories meanwhile the claims keep being debunked. From thermite, to mini-nukes, to energy weapons concentrated in the towers, ect ect.

This thread is about the so called research paper from Bentham which is a hoax.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

You're claiming the SOURCE is fraudulent/unreliable.

That in no way detracts anything from the original story which has mountains upon mountains of other evidence from thousands of other sources supporting it.

You may have disproved the credibility of ONE source. So what?
Completely irrelevant.


I don't claim anything, I proved it is a hoax.

This whole thread is about that research paper which is from a sham company which made up this hoax to profit from people like you who want to believe something else happened.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



There were diesel generators and fuel tanks in the basement of the WTC towers in case you didn't know...


Which parts of the words basement and 80th floor confuses you?

I fail to see how the impact of planes tens of stories above the redundant generator systems caused them to explode and them miraculously spread flames from the bottom of the buildings all the way to the top of them.

If that's what you're really trying to imply here...


BTW, jet fuel ignited does continue to expand as a liquid,


What it also does while ignited is BURN at a hyperbolic rate, much faster than it expands.

Black smoke from combustible materials such as wood, plastic, and drywalls started pouring out of the tower impact zones almost minutes after the planes hit, indicating most of the jet fuel had burned up and simply set fire to combustibles within the floors.


From thermite, to mini-nukes, to energy weapons concentrated in the towers, ect ect.


No one here claimed any of that apart from thermite being present.

Sure label us all with the "whackjob" moniker because you don't like our arguments.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
ElectricUniverse, I checked out a few your recent threads and posts. It helps to know where people are coming from when they're so opposed to this particular topic. You seem like a well-informed person and I really don't disagree with anything you say.

Just curious how much time you've spent researching 9/11? It's apparent you're opposed to Obama's policies and believe the financial "crisis" has been manufactured. I agree, except it's not really Obama who's head manufacturer, just like it wasn't Bush who's responsible for 9/11. We both know there are powerful forces who influence and direct many of these world events. You aren't really caught up in the phony left/right paradigm, are you? Certainly you must realize that the neocons were not all sweetness and light, to put it mildly. But the same group of CFR/Trilateral/Bilderberger insiders are at the top levels every administration. The Rahm Emanuels aren't exclusive to Obama.

Your sigs are also interesting. Ask yourself what event has had the greatest impact on the American Republic, not to mention the freedoms and liberties you obviously value. Do you really think the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts are about making America safer?

Perhaps this would've been better communicated in a U2U, but I really hope you and others who are fervently opposed to the 9/11 truth movement will try to understand why this is such a significant issue for so many people and hopefully look into it a little deeper if you haven't already. I may be opposed to the wars and misery that presidents from both parties have inflicted on other countries. Just yesterday, it was announced that Iraq has become the most expensive U.S. war since WW II. Not quite self-financing like Rumsfeld promised. I have real doubts that we're perceived as anything but an oppressive occupation army.

But when governments start murdering their own citizens as an excuse for eternally disastrous war (and despite what he says, Obama is no different), that's when I seriously object.

[edit] An interesting observation I read the other day: "The real purpose of governments is to pretend to fail."

Think about it.


[edit on 13-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

ElectricUniverse, I checked out a few your recent threads and posts. It helps to know where people are coming from when they're so opposed to this particular topic.




Doing my best to keep the discussion civil and focused -

but a * BACKGROUND CHECK * on someone because of their conflicting views on the topic!!

Under discussion are the merits of presented evidence and arguments relating to the planting of explosives in the WTC.

The predispositions on other issues of the people contributing to this discussion should not be a factor.


Mike















[edit on 13-4-2009 by mmiichael]

[edit on 14-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
You're claiming the SOURCE is fraudulent/unreliable.

That in no way detracts anything from the original story which has mountains upon mountains of other evidence from thousands of other sources supporting it.

You may have disproved the credibility of ONE source. So what?
Completely irrelevant.


What you are saying is that Jones paper is discredited. This would cast doubt on his previous "papers" also. Is it still irrelevant? Is Jones irrelevant?
As to the "mountains upon mountains of other evidence from thousands of other sources supporting it" where is it? As there seems to be no other physical evidence of demolition, are those theories irrelevant, also?



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

Which parts of the words basement and 80th floor confuses you?

I fail to see how the impact of planes tens of stories above the redundant generator systems caused them to explode and them miraculously spread flames from the bottom of the buildings all the way to the top of them.

If that's what you're really trying to imply here...


Which part of a fueled passanger plane crashing and exploding inside a building, weakening the structure of the building don't you understand?

Which part don't you understand that there was so much fuel that the explosion spread great part of the flaming fuel all over the place, including into AC ducts which go to the basement, and probably at least some of the staircases, weakening even more the structure allowing for the collapse of the building.


Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
What it also does while ignited is BURN at a hyperbolic rate, much faster than it expands.


Not fast enough...there have been plane crashes with an initial explosion but in which the surviving flaming fuel burned for about a day, and this was in the outside, where there is more air than inside a building.

This does not prove your claim.


Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Black smoke from combustible materials such as wood, plastic, and drywalls started pouring out of the tower impact zones almost minutes after the planes hit, indicating most of the jet fuel had burned up and simply set fire to combustibles within the floors.


That just shows that part of the fuel exploded, not all of it, nor most of it.

Another fact that people like you don't understand is that fuel burns black because most of the burned fuel is turned into elemental carbon, not because of any starvation of oxygen.



Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
No one here claimed any of that apart from thermite being present.


I made that comment because every time one claim is debunked, others appear, and when those are debunked the original ones return once again months, or years later.

BTW, the point I was making is that there is clear evidence this new thermite claim is nothing but a hoax.


Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Sure label us all with the "whackjob" moniker because you don't like our arguments.


I never said that you , or anyone else is a whacko, but not all conspiracy theories are correct.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The predispositions on other issues of the people contributing to this discussion should not be a factor.


I agree, they should not be a factor at all.

However, unfortunately many people view material with preconceived notions of what is plausible based on outside reasoning rather than the evidence within the actual situation.

This causes people to make speculations based on personal assumptions to rationalize information into a more "acceptable" version.

This prevents cognitive dissonance.

Predispositions often have more control over an individual's logic and reasoning than the evidence itself.

A common and natural predisposition is, "if more people believe something it is more likely to be true"



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
ElectricUniverse, I checked out a few your recent threads and posts. It helps to know where people are coming from when they're so opposed to this particular topic. You seem like a well-informed person and I really don't disagree with anything you say.


I only believe in certain conspiracies if there is any real proof to them. All I have seen about this theory are claims which don't have any real evidence to support it.

Every time one claim is debunked, new ones come up, and exactly like I said, after the new claims are debunked for some reason those who want to believe no matter what return some months or years later with the same claims they started with.

Now, regarding this one claim it is clear this was made up, it is a hoax trying to give some evidence to the claim, and as Bentham Open goes, they are trying to profit from people like yourself who believe the U.S. government/Capitalism was behind it no matter what.


Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Just curious how much time you've spent researching 9/11? It's apparent you're opposed to Obama's policies and believe the financial "crisis" has been manufactured. I agree, except it's not really Obama who's head manufacturer, just like it wasn't Bush who's responsible for 9/11. We both know there are powerful forces who influence and direct many of these world events. You aren't really caught up in the phony left/right paradigm, are you? Certainly you must realize that the neocons were not all sweetness and light, to put it mildly. But the same group of CFR/Trilateral/Bilderberger insiders are at the top levels every administration. The Rahm Emanuels aren't exclusive to Obama.


I spent too much time researching the whole WTC demolition theory as I tried to seek if there was any real evidence supporting this, and found none. From WTC1, and WTC2 being an inside job, which were debunked, then those like you who want to believe the U.S. was behind it claiming WTC7 was a demolition job, even though there is video evidence that WTC7 did not fall in one step, but rather slowly, and it took too much time for it to collapse to be any sort of demolition job.



Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Your sigs are also interesting. Ask yourself what event has had the greatest impact on the American Republic, not to mention the freedoms and liberties you obviously value. Do you really think the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts are about making America safer?


My sig, nor my signature doesn't mean that I believe anything, and everything, unless those statements, and theories can be corroborated, or that I have personal experience about.

I also know for a fact that there are factions withint the U.S., and outside that will try to use anything, and everything to turn the American people against each other, and for us to hate Capitalism with all our hearts.

Capitalism, and also the Republic of the United States are being attacked by people who want to turn it into something it was never supposed to be.



Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Perhaps this would've been better communicated in a U2U, but I really hope you and others who are fervently opposed to the 9/11 truth movement will try to understand why this is such a significant issue for so many people and hopefully look into it a little deeper if you haven't already.
...................


Fervently oposed? why because every time one claim is made about this whole issue it is debunked, and this one, the latest of the claims is even more easy to debunk?

Perhaps you should ask yourself why are you so fervently believing that everything seems to be the fault of the U.S. government, and in general of "Capitalism".

I have noticed more, and more an air of anti-U.S. government, and anti-Capitalism campaign, which includes claiming all the wars fought were caused by the U.S., yet people seem to forget that countries like China, and Russia were part of the other side which the U.S. was fighting, as they tried to spread their Permanent Revolution around the world.

I think it is clear by now there are at least two, or three factions who have their own NWO view, and now at least one of those sides have been blaming and discrediting Capitalism, to be supplanted by true Socialism, or even Communism.

Not everyone in the government wants for this to happen, and quite a few people are trying to fight it.

Since pretty much every claim about the WTC being an inside job has been debunked, it should be clear that if anyone was really behind it, are outside of the government. I am not talking about any demolition of any of the towers, but rather the terrorists who took over the airplanes and flew them against the buildings.



[edit on 14-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

I also know for a fact that there are factions within the U.S., and outside that will try to use anything, and everything to turn the American people against each other, and for us to hate Capitalism with all our hearts.

Capitalism, and also the Republic of the United States are being attacked by people who want to turn it into something it was never supposed to be...

... I have noticed more, and more an air of anti-U.S. government, and anti-Capitalism campaign, which includes claiming all the wars fought were caused by the U.S., yet people seem to forget that countries like China, and Russia were part of the other side which the U.S. was fighting, as they tried to spread their Permanent Revolution around the world.



Thanks for the articulation of something I believe strongly and have been trying to communicate in my own way around here.

The rush to embrace any and every theory that makes the US the villain is frightening. It becomes evident that there are people out there who crave some kind of positive self-image and see themselves as champions of Truth, Justice, and the True American Way by researching hidden plots and duplicity on the part of their own people.

The US, UK, Israel, are demonized at every opportunity. The rest of the world is given a free pass to destroy, deceive, deprive people of their dignity and their rights. They issue a blanket excuse of being victims of American Imperialism. So many Americans buy into it.


I'm not American, but had to watch painfully as the United States was attacked and nearly a decade later some of it's citizens are examining paint chips to prove already destroyed buildings were brought down with explosives by government agencies, supposedly for some extra dramatic effects.

Meanwhile US enemies are laughing at all this. They are closer to accomplishing the downfall of the West with the help of it's residents.

There are real conspiracies against the American people. It's citizens should be addressing them.


Mike



[edit on 14-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

It starts with a real investigation of 9-11.Then when we find out it was lies we were fed the fog of cognitive dissonance dissipates,we will see these other conspiracies clearly.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

I only believe in certain conspiracies if there is any real proof to them. All I have seen about this theory are claims which don't have any real evidence to support it.


This doesn't seem to make much sence to me. How can there be "proof" to a conspiracy? Other than after the fact, of course. Seems to me that if there is proof, then we already know that something had happened and it is not a conspriacy.

In this situation we [or just myself] do not have all the information, therefore that magical proof you are after might not be known for some of us.


after the new claims are debunked for some reason those who want to believe no matter what return some months or years later with the same claims they started with.


I am far from an expert on this 911 hoopla. In all honesty I could really care less who did it. I find it all interesting reads, and so here I am. After reading all of these pages I had decided not to post. But watching the "truthers" be beaten down by bad debating tactics has brought the devils advocate.

So I ask you sir, to list some other examples of these "claims" being brought back after months, for this smacks to me of weasle words. (check wiki for the definition)


Now, regarding this one claim it is clear this was made up, it is a hoax trying to give some evidence to the claim...


So you have inside knowledge that it was made up? I ask this because you say it is "clear" this is made up, however it is obvious to me that not everyone sees it so translucently. PS More weasle words, "it is clear..." What is clear, how is it clear, why is it clear?


, and as Bentham Open goes, they are trying to profit from people like yourself who believe the U.S. government/Capitalism was behind it no matter what.


Gasp!! Could this be a conspiracy?! What "proof" do you have that this is taking place?

And I don't think we need another 'blacklisting' of commies. Capatilism, Communisim, and several other forms of government only look good on paper, because people are asses, greedy, and mammals.

So If I understood you correctly, Terrorists did the towers and Commies were in support of the terries--I mean terrorists.

--My two tower cents--
In all honesty I can not say either way what happened for important reasons:

1. I WAS NOT THERE (were you, general question not targeted)
2. I do not care what happened there.

What do I think happened? Well those 2 reasons make my speculation moot, but if I had to say this seems like a plausable explanation for the 'unusual circumstances' of the destruction of those buildings. The real question is: "Are the circumstances and events of that day explain fully (as in 99.9%) everything that occured?" After that one is answered, give a little shave with occhams razor and you have a "gist" of what happened.

Or be like me, who gives a rats, at least until they discover time travel not much can be done to "fix" the mess that day.

**EDIT** Curse you BB code!

[edit on 4/14/2009 by adigregorio]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by trueforger

It starts with a real investigation of 9-11.Then when we find out it was lies we were fed the fog of cognitive dissonance dissipates,we will see these other conspiracies clearly.




I agree there has been a chain of lies and deceit from the US administration 2000-2008 that needs to be revealed.

The narrow focus of this thread was the cause of the collapse of the WTC buildings. In the process dishonesty from some sources on how it happened and who caused it has come to light.


Mike



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
This whole thread is about that research paper which is from a sham company which made up this hoax to profit from people like you who want to believe something else happened.



How does Benthem "profit from people like you"? I didn't have to pay to read the article, did you?

Oh, btw, go to any news/scientific site and see if you have to pay to read the research papers. I bet 9 times out of 10 that you do.

Also, why not discuss the actual paper itself instead of the pages it is written on? Attack the messenger maybe?

[edit on 4/14/2009 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The narrow focus of this thread was the cause of the collapse of the WTC buildings. In the process dishonesty from some sources on how it happened and who caused it has come to light.


Why do you automatically jump to "dishonesty"? Maybe Jones has found a steel paint/primer that has explosive qualities?

Would you be willing to ignore this data just because this man has an "agenda" or would you be willing to say to yourself "maybe he's found something worth further investigation"? For the sake of those who work in steel buildings painted with this material?

But no, it's automatically him being "dishonest". One has to wonder why.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Why do you automatically jump to "dishonesty"? Maybe Jones has found a steel paint/primer that has explosive qualities?

Would you be willing to ignore this data just because this man has an "agenda" or would you be willing to say to yourself "maybe he's found something worth further investigation"? For the sake of those who work in steel buildings painted with this material?

But no, it's automatically him being "dishonest". One has to wonder why.



I don't know how much of this long thread you've read. The straightforwardness and credibility of Jones and the commercial publisher Bentham have been dealt with by people more knowledgeable than myself.

I recommend going back and seeing what was said to answer these questions.


Mike



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Speaking of dishonesty, this might be of interest to the official story believers.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&flagit=454961
or perhaps this...... www.abovetopsecret.com...&flagit=454970
What are we to think of official story believers that constantly defend liars.
It works both ways. I put more faith in these guys www.patriotsquestion911.com... than any www., authority worshiping pseudo scientist, ideologues that think they can sway folks over to their way of thinking with name calling and arrogance. yeah, I know I'm namecalling also; but if the shoe fits, wear it.

It's the big picture that matters not trivial BS about paint chips or other minutia.







[edit on 14-4-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Could you please tell me whether the KABBOOOOMS!!! in this video qualify as being consistent with the sound of secondary explosions or are they disqualified by the fact that the explosions were heard in and around the WTC buildings?

I'm not sure about any shattered windows, except of course the massive sheets of plate glass in the WTC main lobbies, but I realize they don't count because the basement explosions that shattered sub-level freight elevators and everything in the lobbies were also heard.


I'm glad someone is finally making a distinction between the suspicious KABBOOOOMS!!! and the more benign, run-of-the-mill KABBOOOOMS!!! that can now be properly dismissed.

First off, if there were basement explosives, then why did the towers come from the top down, and why did the ground floors and basements survive? Second, if the basement explosions were for something, why did the cores remain standing for another 15 seconds or so after initial collapse? Third, "basement explosions" should have leveled the ground floor into impassable debris. Fourth, if there were "basement explosions" then why were fireballs racing downwards through elevator shafts? Hmm, explosion in basement and the fireball races down from the 75th floor. Right.



I understand. Thank you for clearing that up. If I may ask one more question, when the FDNY firefighter in the above video yells, CLEAR THE AREA -- THERE'S A BOMB IN THE BUILDING!!!, would that be the type of bomb responsible for secondary explosions or is it the common large fire bomb?
[edit on 13-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]


Ahh you are referring to the Stuyvesant high school bomb scare? Ah yes THAT "bomb in the building" clip??? Yes the one that has been edited and twisted to bolster the lie of "explosives/bombs" in the WTCs? Yes that one? here it is IN FULL for your viewing pleasure:


This already has been cleared up years ago, and yet some people still bring this blatant lie and falsehood and try to pass it off as "proof" of bombs. Another "truth" movement LIE. A bomb scare in a high school 5 WHOLE BLOCKS away from the WTCs is proof of "bombs/explosives" inside the WTCs? and reports of "secondary explosions" during a fire and after the collapse is also "proof". Oh boy.

And way to use to use initial reports that are unverified and still specualtion during a massive catastrophy and passing it off as "proof" of explosives. Yes, as if initial reports of something that is beyond imagination happening are ALWAYS accurate.
And this is what you people still cling to. Hell someone could have said they saw Elvis running around Manhattan with a plunger type detonator prior to collapse and that would have been reported as well.

And once again, way to go on speculations and assumptions and passing it all off as proof and evidence. You should know by now that specualtion and assumptions are not admissable in court.



new topics

top topics



 
218
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join