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.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Thousands of chemical reactions happen in a brief span of time with unusual materials combined at extreme temperatures.
You carefully narrow in on some residual evidence
For the most part intelligent people laugh at or just ignore the controlled demolition mythology.
Originally posted by bsbray11
So you would sooner believe that reactions that are more efficient at eating through steel columns than thermite, and yet of the exact same type of chemical reaction as thermite, just happened to form there by chance, in just the right ratios, in just the right particle sizes, from unknown sources? What other sources can you show that would form a eutectic mixture across so much surface area of the steel, besides someone doing it intentionally?
... Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and your perception of what constitutes "intelligent people" might as well be a ghost. Objectivity is not an illusion, that was the whole point of it.
Originally posted by mmiichael
You got it wrong. Rejection of authority for the sake of rejection does not immediately demonstrate superior knowledge.
My inability to explain your contentious chemical reaction - if it is unheard of to begin with - does not mean it points to a planned demolition.
Most supposed evidence for the claim of controlled demolition have been addressed by independent sources, official as well as professional hobbyist. The data and analysis provided are routinely ignored and dismissed by those who are agenda driven.
The Weather Channel got the storm warning wrong. Conclusion - they are controlled by the government and mass media. They are covering something up. Only free thinkers can see this and know the REAL story.
How do you argue constructively with anyone who thinks like that?
Why even bother?
Originally posted by mmiichael
Most supposed evidence for the claim of controlled demolition have been addressed by independent sources, official as well as professional hobbyist. The data and analysis provided are routinely ignored and dismissed by those who are agenda driven.
Originally posted by mmiichael
The Weather Channel got the storm warning wrong. Conclusion - they are controlled by the government and mass media. They are covering something up. Only free thinkers can see this and know the REAL story.
Originally posted by trueforger
Actually,mike,the buildings were built to withstand airplane hits,so it was not,"undue stress".And,of course bdg.7 wasn't hit by plane.This does get tedious,like explaining to a little boy.
And speaking of little balls,these iron spheres in question were found,"in abundance."Yet not found in any other steel framed high rise destroyed by fire to point of collapse.
Originally posted by trueforger
the buildings were built to withstand airplane hits,so it was not,"undue stress".And,of course bdg.7 wasn't hit by plane.This does get tedious,like explaining to a little boy.
And speaking of little balls,these iron spheres in question were found,"in abundance."Yet not found in any other steel framed high rise destroyed by fire to point of collapse.
Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
Mikey my amigo you still here???
After viewing all the information presented in this thread and combining that with all of the other suspicious behavior (Pentagon, 931 lies, No Osama on most wanted list etc) you have got to say that there is a strong probability that the Govt was involved with 911 and are trying to cover it up.
What do you really think bro??? Give a little it's aight, you have to admit that at the least they knew something about it.......
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
Can you tell me what exactly what facts you have demonstrated in your last two posts and how exactly you demonstrated them? And a follow-up question that you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but I'm just curious, how old are you?
Originally posted by mmiichael
Vast amounts of technical information were exchanged in the first 500 or so messages on this thread. All seemingly to no avail.
If this was about arguing the merits of the Jones paper, as it began, that would be fine. But it gets shot down by solid facts
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by mmiichael
Vast amounts of technical information were exchanged in the first 500 or so messages on this thread. All seemingly to no avail.
Maybe that's because you don't actually post any proof for what you say? You think that might have something to do with it?
If this was about arguing the merits of the Jones paper, as it began, that would be fine. But it gets shot down by solid facts
Like what?