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 esdad71
I personally think Jones is a government agent who is causing conflict within a group who believe strongly in something. It would not be the first time the CIA or FBI or any other government acronym infiltrated a movement.
PS- I have also attempted contact with MR Jones and he will not return my emails regarding chain of evidence for the dust and if he is willing to share a sample to be tested.Nothing but silence but I am sure you will say that is because there is no need to since it is truth...see, I can read your mind it is so easy.
Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
actually, no, we're not overlooking that fact because Stratesec (Securacom) was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, one of whose principals for the company is none other than Marvin P. Bush, George W. Bush's younger brother.
As far as occupants noticing anything fishy going on, look up Scott Forbes, who worked for the Fiduciary Trust, a tenant of the South Tower's 90, 94-97th floors. He noticed suspicious activities in the days and weeks leading to 9/11.
Lack of proof doesn't prove anything Just because you didn't look for/find the evidence, doesn't mean it's not there, nor that it didn't happen. You didn't prove anything
And thanks for ignoring my replies to your post. Looks like YOU are the one "refusing to look at information" and making me "show over and over" the assertions you make are illogical.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Not true. Marvin Bush left that company some time before the 9/11 attack. Besides, unless you're saying Marvin Bush went around and planted the explosives himself, it would necessary mean to do it he'd need the support of all the managerial layers in between him and the guys manning the security desk.
Is that what you're saying?
Yes, I know. He also said the workmen he saw weren't particularly hiding anything they we're doing. He also said they were only working in a few sections of one single building. What behavior did they display that would certify them as NOT being actual workmen?
Umm I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was making the statement that in no time in history has controlled demolitions ever been planted in an occupied building without anyone noticing what they were doing. Is the statement true or not true?
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Remember, this is a group that seriously (not kidding) entertains the notion of space beam weapons, nuclear explosions, mini-nuclear explosive devices, sonic vibrations, thermate, thermite, "nano-thermite", thermetic ceiling tiles, Doppler sound machines, holographic projectors, and other modalities as yet discovered, either brought down the towers, or played a part in their destruction.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Let's get one thing absolutely clear: other than thermite/nano-thermite being found in a laboratory by a seasoned and qualified physicist and being verified by other scientists in other countries (which nobody has proven otherwise), the 9/11 truth movement does not support nukes, space beams, holographs, etc.
Those who would say such things have done zero research into the claims of the 9/11 truth movement and are ignorant to the facts.
Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
If you are going to group BoneZ into a group of people he never associated himself with in the first place, i'll go ahead and do the same with you.
If you or anyone here is confused as to what BoneZ advocates, you might want to try to go to the link provided in his signature:
Originally posted by exponent
Does the belief in high explosives pass this line considering Steven Jones has been analysing dust samples for some time now and has found no evidence of high explosive residue?
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
High-powered explosives were used to bring the towers down as evidenced by the plumes:
... my opinion, the thermite would have been used to make the towers appear to start collapsing from fire and then conventional explosives took over from there.
Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
Yet again, I'll post this for the hundredth time since none of you can seem to answer it with anything other than attacks and ridicule:
110 stories fell to the ground in 10 seconds? 110stories/10sec = 11 stories per second!!!!
110stories/15sec = 7.3333 stories per second!!!
110stories/20sec = 5.5 stories persecond!!!! Even if it was a little over 10 seconds far from free fall speed, it still fell too fast to be anything other than controlled demolitions!
Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
Yes, I'm not stating it as fact as you or esdad71 would, but i'm saying that it does warrant further investigation.
And, you're saying that even if the workmen were planting explosives, they would automatically exhibit suspicious behavior? In fact, it's pretty safe to assume the opposite. Again, like i said before, your logic is TOTALLY twisted.
And again, I'm not stating it as fact, I'm merely saying that it warrants further investigation. However, the fact that your logical reasoning methods are in fact illogical is absolute fact and verifiable through the laws of logic.
Again, if in 1900 I said, "No time in history have humans ever been able to achieve flight", does that mean it could never happen?????
The "official" story is that the building "pancaked". Even in the best case, 110 stories pancaked in 20 seconds (which is not the case, it's actually more like 10-15 seconds, but LETS JUST SAY, for the sake of argument),
With your illogical reasoning and all, I'd like to know how you explain to yourself and others how a building fell at a rate of 1 floor per less than 2 tenths of a second (< .2 sec) and not be a controlled demolition. I assume it'll be very entertaining.
Originally posted by exponent
Would you say that claims of nano-thermite being used in place of high-explosives mean you don't support 911 truth, or would this fall inside the line?
Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
Anything standing still on the ground, ranging from a person to a steel structure (even a steel structure that has lost some structural integrity) experiences 1g at all times.
For you to say that the building experience 2/3rd or 3/4 the force of gravity is ludicrous and synonymous with saying, the laws of physics didn't apply in the few seconds that it took the WTC towers to "collapse". If you want to misinform people, you'd better make sure you get your facts straight.
Originally posted by esdad71
OK, so let there be a new investigation. I am not afraid of a new investigation, I am concerned with a lot of money spent and resources wasted to come to the same conclusion in this day and age since the government is now a trillion dollars in debt.
If there was a new investigation, and after millions are spent, all the witnesses testify. All the evidence is presented. Bush testifies, Cheney testifies, Clinton and Gore testify.
DHS is broken into pieces and the CIA has it's doors closed. what will happen if the same results came back from a left wing jury, will the case then be closed?
Would those who did not believe the OS concede or would they demand ANOTHER investigation?
Originally posted by dariousg
To answer your question. If a completely independant investigation was allowed, and ALL (ALL ALL ALL) of the evidence was made available then of course we would have no choice but to agree with the conclusions.
But you see, I don't see that happening simply for the fact that the buildings fell the way they did. I know, you will say that is a weak reason for not believing the OS. Believe me, I have MANY more reasons to not believe that BS, oh, I mean OS. Many many more. The way they fell is just one of them and kind of an important one.
Especially WTC7 and the miraculous new theory of thermal expansion severing all support at once and allowing the building to come straight down instead of collapsing in sections like fires normally (and I mean virtually every single time as normally) do.
Originally posted by Badgered1
Why not? Worked for 911.
Originally posted by exponent
Firstly, the buildings did not descend at a consistent speed, more they accelerated constantly at 3/4g and 2/3g respectively. This means that closer to the end of the collapse, the number of storeys per second would increase drastically, to well over your numbers. For example, 5 seconds into the collapse, at 3/4g, the collapse front (if such a thing can be said to exist) would be moving at 36.8m/s, or 10 storeys per second. The collapse undoubtedly lasted longer than 5 seconds and therefore if the acceleration remained consistent (we can't measure it) then it would have exceeded your speeds.