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.

 

So you still believe the official story?

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Seventh
 


You mention the straight "cuts" on the exterior columns as they fall. You forget to mention the fact that at the mechanical floors, all the exterior columns where not staggered like those above and below. It is mentioned in the design and in the FEMA report as well.

Its on page 3, second paragraph:
www.fema.gov...

It could very well explain that issue.

The mechanical floors are seen here as the gray bands:


After a little digging, the mechanical floors were found on: floors 7–8, 41–42, 75–76, and 108–109.



So it is here the splices were all even, which would allow for the columns to appear as if they have been "cut". and dont forget the Skylobbies!

[edit on 11/19/2009 by GenRadek]


This picture shows a few different aspects, if this was a section used to cause the bond to be straight it would have square ratchet access holes, it does not, therefore it has been cut, notice that it has not been cut with an oxy-acetylene torch, and why have all three truss seat fixings been cut out?....



And General, here is a diagram depicting the sections, clearly showing it is a half bond, one storey above and one below the point it meets the adjacent section........



Cheers.




posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by GoodOlDave




Your photos are deliberately misleading. The sections clearly show they did NOT have straight ends, but had jagged sections protruding past the red line drawn over them. That tells me right there that they weren't manufactured that way. They were broken that way.


Then kindly explain the picture below, if there are no ratchet access holes then the respective section has been cut, also the cuts themselves, the workers used oxy-acetylene for cutting, which leaves tell tall signs, the surface of the cut is scorched all around and relatively smooth, and traces of slag (molten metal) are abundant, also here - Why have all three truss seat fixings been cut out?.





Let me answer your question with another question- what caused all 500,000 people in lower Manhattan (and parts of New Jersey) to not notice a tremor so powerful that it registered in seismic stations miles away, fourteen and seconds before the towers were hit? The most obvious answer- the tremors recorded *were* from the impact of the plances, and the 14/17 second difference is a timing error of some type. Innuendo of impropriety is still innuendo.


Dave - All data from that day that used specific timings were all using time stamps set to the U.T.C. there are no timing errors here, relative flight data from sources like the radar unit, every single MSM crew, and a whole heap more, all had equipment with 100% accuracy regarding the exact time, to make one mistake would be very unlikely, making two is beyond comprehension, there are reasons that data involving time, do so with intricate precision ie - 07:23:51 and not 07:23. these times are not randomly plucked out of the air by someone, but automatically recorded by instruments set to the U.T.C.

Food for thought regarding plane crashes and seismic reading, the Pentagon impact was a few feet above ground level yet gave no readings whatsoever, what makes you think that planes hitting buildings designed to absorb energy around 1000 feet above ground level would do better?.




Those tapes were retrieved from Afghanistan, with an unknown chain of custody, so for all I know someone in Afghanistan probably had an uncle that kinda sorta looked like Bin Laden and made a home movie to sell to gullible CIA agents. I myself rely on the bin Laden public statement released on Al Jazeera, where he admitted his involvement-

Bin Laden admits involvement on Al Jazeera Al Jazeera is a favorite media outlet for Al Qaida, so they certainly have their own methods of determining authenticity. The fact that Al Qaida never came forward to denounce the broadcast shows right there they are not contesting it. Plus, Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir personally interviewed Bin Laden shortly after the attack and he all but admitted he had inside information on the attacks. Hamid Mir interview with Osama Bin Laden Hamid Mir himself has said he believes OBL is behind the attacks. Tell me, have *you* ever met and talked to Osama Bin Laden face to face, as he did?



October 16, 2001-- An interview with Osama bin Laden was published in a Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper, Ummat, on September 28, 2001. In this interview, bin Laden says of the September 11 attacks in the US:

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.

"It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people . . . " Everyone familiar with the content of the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum

Do some research Dave it will give you a better insight of Muslims and respective codes of conduct they abide by........



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


This looks like the beams have been cut as part of the cleanup. What does this prove?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 




This looks like the beams have been cut as part of the cleanup. What does this prove?


Prove it?

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/20/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Very good post, I was just about to ask dave if he really thought that the seismic recordings were all broken.

So dave, All the seismic recording stations were in error.
...
There was no molten steel (because you said it was burning hot enough to make it lose HALF its strength) However, I posted an image of the molten steel and Seventh has a great video in his signature of multiple eye witnesses.
...
The government just happened to be having war games in Canada.
...
Osama has denied being involved and has likely been dead near or before september 11th (although videos keep getting pressed out every time we need to scare the american people) So he must be alive and still craving media attention by putting out videos.
...
The fire flew out of building one, over another building, and landed on building 7 and burnt it down? (no jet fuel, no plane)
...
All the eye witnesses that say there were bombs inside the building all just want media attention, yes, even the guy that had his skin blew off.
...
Several important people were notified to not fly on sept 10th or 11th, this must just be coincidence as well.
...
The passport flew out of the building and landed on the sidewalk? Really?

or.....

The government conducted 9-11, passed the terrorist act (patriot act), and made quite a ton of money off it. They even have this neat little colored terror level. Its like waking up and checking the weather, and then checking the terror scale. "Oh! Its going to be really scary today! Guess I better let them retina scan me so they know I'm not Osama. )



One of those instances are kind of fairtytale sounding.

And before you ask me to post documents, please just search for them first. www.google.com

If you can't find them, then I will be happy to help you.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by The_Zomar]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 

Prove it? You have it backwards once again. The poster of said photo should prove his point.
It would seem that the poster of such a photo should state the time/date/location and show why the beam was not cut by a torch. It certainly looks like it was cut by a torch.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Then kindly explain the picture below, if there are no ratchet access holes then the respective section has been cut, also the cuts themselves, the workers used oxy-acetylene for cutting, which leaves tell tall signs, the surface of the cut is scorched all around and relatively smooth, and traces of slag (molten metal) are abundant, also here - Why have all three truss seat fixings been cut out?.


That is right, it wasn't cut by torch. It was cut by some mechanical means I.E. saw. You can specifically see the saw marks on the end of the steel, and the reason why it was cut is standing right next to it- the search dog. That column was cut *after* the collapse, during the cleanup and search for possible survivors.


Dave - All data from that day that used specific timings were all using time stamps set to the U.T.C. there are no timing errors here, relative flight data from sources like the radar unit, every single MSM crew, and a whole heap more, all had equipment with 100% accuracy regarding the exact time, to make one mistake would be very unlikely, making two is beyond comprehension, there are reasons that data involving time, do so with intricate precision ie - 07:23:51 and not 07:23. these times are not randomly plucked out of the air by someone, but automatically recorded by instruments set to the U.T.C.


The Commission didn't sit down and come up with all its material on its own. It reviewed many reports and interviewed many people to put together their report. In the case of the exasct timing they listed for the plane impacts, they got it from other sources. For example, the bibliography lists that they got the impact time for flight 11 from the NTSB (footnote 39, page 454), not Palisades. It's no stretch of the imagination that the NTSB reported the impact time with a seven second difference from seismic data, particularly when different sources were reporting different times all over the place, and the commission simply included whatever it was they were given first in their report.

On the other hand, it is a great, big, giant, unrealistic stretch of the imagination to claim that none of the 500,000 people in downtown Manhattan noticed or remembered a tremor so large that it was picked up by a seismic station miles away, seven seconds before the impact. This *is* what you are saying, whether you want to concede it or not.


Food for thought regarding plane crashes and seismic reading, the Pentagon impact was a few feet above ground level yet gave no readings whatsoever, what makes you think that planes hitting buildings designed to absorb energy around 1000 feet above ground level would do better?.


Because I know full well the WTC was specifically anchored into bedrock to give it solid footing, and bedrock is what conducts seismic activity to begin with.



October 16, 2001-- An interview with Osama bin Laden was published in a Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper, Ummat, on September 28, 2001. In this interview, bin Laden says of the September 11 attacks in the US:

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.


This wasn't an interview. It was a set of written questions the Ummat mailed to, and received from, the Taliban gov't in the hopes they'd get Bin Laden's response. Bin Laden didn't have any reliable mailing address, after all. It is unrealistic to believe this could have actully come from Bin Laden himself, becuase this questionnaire was processed by the Taliban Gov't and it would be exceptionally stupid for the Taliban gov't to allow any public admission of responsibility when they were trying to give Bin Laden sanctuary. I discount this for the same reason I discount the videos recovered from Afghanistan- no credible chain of custody.

I do thank you for posting this, however, becuase all you're doing is winding up proving everything I'm saying- these damned fool conspiracy web sites are deliberately manipulating the information they give out in order to instigate false public unrest and get people all paranoid over shadows. They show photos of cut steel without telling you that it was cut during the cleanup, they show you an interview from bin Laden without telling you it came through the Taliban gov't censors, and so on, all to drop "doesn't THAT sound suspicious (wink wink)" innuendo to get you to believe in signs of impropriety, when the truth is, they're manufacturing these signs of impropriety themselves.

A BS artist is still a BS artist, regardless of what side of the debate the BS artist is on. Do you agree or disagree?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
Very good post, I was just about to ask dave if he really thought that the seismic recordings were all broken.

So dave, All the seismic recording stations were in error.


If this is what you wish to believe, fine. I myself believe that...

a) the Palisades figure is probably the correct one

b) the Commission probably just used whatever the first realistic sounding time was that they received, and according to the bibliography that turned out to be from the NTSB. The error isn't on the commission's side, it's on the NTSB side.

c) noone bothered to correct it becuase a seven second difference is too insignificant to be argung about. The emphasis of the commission report was to document who was responsible for the attack and how they did it, not the mechanical process of what happened to the buildings.

d) The only reason this bit is even being brought up is becuase these damned fool conspiracy web sites are trying to manufacture more innuendo of sabotage, in this case, to invent suspicions that there was some massive explosion that occured in the towers seven seconds before the impact.

e) You conspiracy people are so much in love with your "inside job" stories that you'll grasp at any straw that allows them to stay alive, and you don't even care how idiotic they sound. NYC is one of the highest populated cities on Earth, and claiming that none of the 500,000 people in lower Manhattan and New Jersey ever noticed any pre-impact tremor powerful enough to register on a seismic station miles away is just plain absurd, even for you.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Well done Dave, excellent approach there, managing to completely demean all those points to irrelevant status, whilst at the same time incorporating *truthers websites* as the source to aspects that are completely fabricated, great work, well done.

I am not going to bother segmenting your replies, nor am I going to post loads of pictures, I will however counter the main points you brought up...

1). A rescue dog, a section of an exterior steel, your assessment here is - The dog is on to something could be a trapped human, so for quickness they use a saw, whilst at the same time and for no apparent reason they cut out all three truss seat fixings (maybe a trapped human you say), time is the essence, here we have a site littered with over head cranes, why not use one of them and remove the section in one piece?.

2). There are hundreds upon hundreds of pictures showing steels in the places they landed, showing identical cutting patterns, good try here though with the saw/dog/ aspect, I will leave it down to the people themselves to look for these steels showing a none thermal device cut, and ponder over wether these steels have been cut, or remain exactly as they landed.

3). Regarding the times that seismic data was registered and labelling it as none specific is mind boggling, again, you have gone for the demean and no significance approach, there is huge evidence that support basement explosions just prior to both impacts, the seismic data timings support this 100%, how is an exact time stamp here not important?, and what you guys call a bedrock, is, if I am reading it right, what we Brits call a footing, the last place you want a shockwave to travel to is that, if it severs then the building falls like a tree, the whole design of high rise towers is to evenly absorb the energy and gently displace it before it reaches the ground.

4). The Bin Laden tape was the sole excuse to declare war, so are you stating that the blatantly faked film and the respective war declarations it induced are fine, because everyone involved was tricked by such an exact likeness to Bin Laden, and maybe there should be a ceasefire and `Sorry guys, easy mistake to make, we`ll pay for the damage, no hard feelings hey
.

5). The straight ends of the steel sections, I really will start banging my head against the wall with this one, if they do not have square holes at the ends for ratchet access, they have been cut, regardless of being the smaller sections needed to start or end the bond, they had these holes, a great example is here right at the base of the towers, part sections all showing square holes...



All it takes is to study the ample supply of photos, look for cut sections in places that have not been cleared, and ask yourself why the holes are not there.

/cheers.



[edit on 20-11-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


The point I made about the cut section was that it looked like it had been cut by a torch and not a cutter charge. Look closely at the photo and you will see several cuts that look like torch cuts. The presence of the dog indicates the photo was taken some time after collapse. How long is not stated. For the sake of sane discussion, I will accept that this photo is of the WTC debris and that it has not been altered.

You should explain why you think the beams were not cut by a torch and what you think cut the beams.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Prove it? You have it backwards once again. The poster of said photo should prove his point.
It would seem that the poster of such a photo should state the time/date/location and show why the beam was not cut by a torch. It certainly looks like it was cut by a torch.


Oh, I forgot you don’t answer questions you just ask them.



This looks like the beams have been cut as part of the cleanup. What does this prove?


Never mind, you have just answered the question for me you said: (This looks like the beams), “looks like” = opinion or assumption.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


The poster said that there was some proof that these were not cut with a torch. He should provide some statement showing the basis of his claim. Your problem is that you understand very little of the details of these discussions and can only repeat what you read on websites for wingnuts. Why do you do that?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



The poster said that there was some proof that these were not cut with a torch. He should provide some statement showing the basis of his claim. Your problem is that you understand very little of the details of these discussions and can only repeat what you read on websites for wingnuts. Why do you do that?


Insulting me with preposterous lies does not help your creditability does it?
As far as where I get my information from, you do not know do you? And if you do, I will ask you to prove it. As far as me not understanding the content on this thread, you have just demonstrated just how ignorant you are. You talk about me repeating wing nuts websites, right, and what are you doing, being another mouthpiece for the government, how loyal of you.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


By the way when are you going to answer my question that I keep asking you.
Why do you believe in the OS and what "credible scientific facts" lead you to believe the OS is one hundred present true?

I bet you refuse to answer my question.



[edit on 20-11-2009 by impressme]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


You seem to be very angry. You didn't respond to my explanation of why I would ask for any support for an unsupported statement.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



You seem to be very angry.


You are not my psychiatrist so do not try to determine my mood.


Your problem is that you understand very little of the details of these discussions and can only repeat what you read on websites for wingnuts. Why do you do that?


Back to reality.


You didn't respond to my explanation of why I would ask for any support for an unsupported statement.


In response to your remarks, this link should help you understand what you don’t get.

www.youtube.com...

Now where is your support for your statements?




[edit on 20-11-2009 by impressme]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
 


By the way when are you going to answer my question that I keep asking you.
Why do you believe in the OS and what "creditable Scientific facts" lead you to believe the OS is one hundred present true?

I bet you refuse to answer my question.



Please define the "OS." In general, if we are speaking of the same set of documents, some of which have contradictory points within, then I may not subscribe to them 100%, as you suggest.
In general, the explanations given are consistent with the known facts. There is no evidence for any other series of events and no detailed proposals for any other series of events to consider. The many video analyses show buildings falling down. The flyover theory has no support. There is no evidence for any sort of demolitions. The rationale provided for such a CD conspiracy is weak. There are no detailed theories of who, what, when, or how anything other than the OS occurred. This has been asked for many times but it is hand-waved away with secret explosives set by secret men none of which leave any evidence. Paint chips are poorly analyzed and claimed to be thermite yet if they were, such a layer would do nothing. There is the continued simplistic questioning of unexplained details and this is taken as evidence of a coverup. If it hasn't been investigated ad naseum and completely explained, then somebody must be hiding something.
This will continue on into the future as those who need a conspiracy to believe in will grasp at any straw while the entrepreneurs and egomaniacs take advantage of them. They are not looking for any truths and they are not denying ignorance.
If anyone had anything at all, there would have been indictments long ago. They didn't and there weren't. They still don't and after this amount of time, studying videos with colored lines and arrows will not change that.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


The link you provided was about 4.5 minutes long. The last 30 seconds showed some twisted and torn metal and claimed that it was from explosives. There is no evidence that this was from anything other than the collapse.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



In general, the explanations given are consistent with the known facts.


Such as hearsay information we were provided from the FBI to the mainstream media that OS. You mean the 911 commission report that is part of the OS that has now been a proven lie. You mean the NIST that has been a proven lie, proven by A&E. You mean the OS of OBL the mastermind of 911, which has now been proven he work for the CIA until the day of 911.



There is no evidence for any other series of events and no detailed proposals for any other series of events to consider.


what part of what diffrent OS gave you that determination? because there are so many dont you agree?

Try and do some real research into “real facts” that have been uncovered, by professionals who are experts in their field, here I will provide you with some “real sources” of very credible findings besides the government web sites.

www.ae911truth.org...

www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

www.911truth.org...

Or, do you consider anything factual proven by sciences, from these websites “wing nuts” websites.


The many video analyses show buildings falling down. The flyover theory has no support.


These are your “opinions” and we all have our own opinions don’t you agree and I do disagree with you? You don’t mind if I disagree with you, do you?


There is no evidence for any sort of demolitions.


Your opinion, totally false. Do some research?
www.ae911truth.org...


The rationale provided for such a CD conspiracy is weak.


Your opinion, not true, your ignorance is making a fool out of you. I am only trying to help you.


There are no detailed theories of who, what, when, or how anything other than the OS occurred.


Wich new version of the OS are you referring to? The OS continues to change with the governments lies, dont you agree?

Your opinion, only there are no facts to support your statements if there was, you would have shown them.


This has been asked for many times but it is hand-waved away with secret explosives set by secret men none of which leave any evidence.


Your opinion, I don’t know what garbage you have been reading that convinced you of such nonsense but people in the truth movement do not look to go in denial in searching for truth don’t you agree? We really don’t believe in secret men the fact is we haven’t proved who place the demolition charges and nano Thermite and Thermate into the WTC. We know what was used but, so far we haven’t proved who placed it there, don’t you agree?


Paint chips are poorly analyzed and claimed to be thermite yet if they were, such a layer would do nothing.


Again, that is your opinion and some of us disagree with you. I have yet to see any scientist write a report against Professor Steven Jones report and submit it for peer review. Other than that, your word alone on a conspiracy web site has not convinced me of anything yet.


There is the continued simplistic questioning of unexplained details and this is taken as evidence of a coverup.


Because, it is. Yes, it is my opinion.


If it hasn't been investigated ad naseum and completely explained, then somebody must be hiding something.


Mostly that is true, or should we accept nothing for our important questions?
Do you think we should not question our government if we feel they are not forthcoming with appropriate information? If the government continues to ignore millions of American questions into the event s of 911 what does that tell you?


This will continue on into the future as those who need a conspiracy to believe in will grasp at any straw while the entrepreneurs and egomaniacs take advantage of them.


Again this is your opinion.


They are not looking for any truths and they are not denying ignorance.


What are they not looking for? And what are they not denying?


If anyone had anything at all, there would have been indictments long ago.

That is your opinion; obviously, you do not understand how corrupt government works.


They didn't and there weren't.


Your opinion, you do not know the real out come to this even yet, none of us do.


They still don't and after this amount of time, studying videos with colored lines and arrows will not change that.


Your opinion only, you do not know the long term out come, unless you are a psychic.








[edit on 21-11-2009 by impressme]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



The link you provided was about 4.5 minutes long.


True.



The last 30 seconds showed some twisted and torn metal and claimed that it was from explosives.


Also true.


There is no evidence that this was from anything other than the collapse.


So, you mean the metal melted because of the collapse?






[edit on 21-11-2009 by impressme]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join