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: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:17 AM
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 will make a change to this question:

Why do you believe in the OS that has changed so many times? What "credible scientific evidence and proven facts" led you to believe the “new OS” is one hundred percent true?




posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:39 AM
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 "credible scientific facts" lead you to believe the OS is one hundred present true?


I will make a change to this question:

Why do you believe in the OS that has changed so many times? What "credible scientific evidence and proven facts" led you to believe the “new OS” is one hundred percent true?



In the first place it would be foolish to suppose that the truth about something so complex as 911 can be accomplished 100 %. There will always be unknowns and anomalies.

However, I do accept the OS, if you want to call it that, in its essentials. I am puzzled as to why you think the OS has changed. It seems to have remained pretty stable to me. Quite unlike truthers with planes, no planes, holograms, missiles, flyovers, fly by wires, beam weapons, thermite, thermate etc etc.

You ask why I would prefer the OS over truther speculation. It is because it is supported by massive evidence. Just as a taster, why don't you have a look at some of the 1200 plus exhibits in the trial US v Zacarias Moussaoui which resulted in his conviction.

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

On the other hand, all truthers have been able to do is shout wild unsubstantiated accusations at people.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Originally posted by Alfie1


On the other hand, all truthers have been able to do is shout wild unsubstantiated accusations at people.


You are forgetting who some of these *Truthers* are, people from high standing including ex agency organisations dealing with counter terrorism, you mention a trial and not the commission, where 503 first responders were neglected and other eye witnesses overlooked, all these had something in common, all of them spoke of aspects not tied to the OS, over half of the people involved with the commission stated it was a fraud/corrupt/full of lies.

They were there, you were not, does your perception of and labelling truthers as shouting wild unsubstantiated accusations at people, cover these people who cry foul after experiencing 1st hand the flaws/irregularities/science breaking aspects of that day, if so, please feel free as to why veterans covering all aspects of that day whom disagree with the OS fall into your category, based on your opinions alone?.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Seventh
 


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


Beams that have been cut as part of the clean up, including a picture of one of the only two tools seen cutting the steels (thermal lance), there are other pictures showing oxy-acetylene cutters, there is mention of other cutting devices used from that day, but i`ve yet to see them, maybe you guys that state alternative cutting tools can show pictures of them.



Cookie cutter situation, here we have a picture showing steels that have been cut, but there are appears to be no logic reasons (if they have been cut for the clean up, why where they cut and left?.) for the cutting and no signs of thermal cutting devices. Also the two stacked on top of each other show no signs of thermal cutting usage.




posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

MIT engineers discuss the WTC collapse


From the above link:


The collapse, which generally occurred inward without significant tipping (Figure 2).


For the lack of significant tipping they use a picture of tower one's fall not the south tower with its significant..ahh..tipping. (south tower)


The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure...that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high.


They sidestep the issue of how so much material was projected outside the footprint and the fact that there's no pile driver in evidence at the at the bottom to explain the collapse.


However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range.


They dodge explaining whether the steel actually could get to that temperature given that it was connected to a lot of other steel. Instead, they quickly move on to explaining that steel loses half its strength at 650°C implying that the steel actually did get to this and beyond.


...if the sprinkler system fails to operate...


The sprinklers did fail that day - another strange 9-11 coincidence. Why was that?

I know, I know, the planes did it. Anything the fires didn't do the planes did. Individually, neither the fire nor the plane impact could bring down the building, but combined - look out conspiracy theorists - combined they make a super force in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Kind of like in Ghostbusters - on 9/11 there was this vortex of time and physics altered by Bin Laden's voodoo mind power changing the laws of physics. [/sarcasm off]

The authors admit:


Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.


So, they go on to offer a boost to the steel weakening in the form of deformation:


The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses.


Steel is just too good a conductor and the greatest deformation would be at the start when there was the most heat input. And, why was the collapse symmetrical if this "non-uniform" fire contributed to the instability?


The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. ...the weak points...were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5).


If the floor sections were the weak points why didn't all the floors just come crashing down leaving the columns intact? The volume of the top 10 ten floors compresses to 5 before there's even any movement below the impact zone. The pile driver disappeared before it even got going.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell.


If the angle clips were the weak point how did they have enough strength to allow the floor spans to drag down those core columns?


It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself.


Oh boy, they must do for this for laughs...sitting around seeing many stupid people they can fool. How much air is meaningless! It's the 5% including the structural steel that's important!


This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h....To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.


Wait a minute, too much inertia to fall sideways but not enough inertia to slow floors falling vertically? Inertia works the same in the vertical as well as horizontal direction you know!? Besides, how did it go from a "light-weight steel frame design" that's "95% air" to something that's too heavy to move?


WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE

The clean-up of the World Trade Center will take many months. After all, 1,000,000 t of rubble will require 20,000 to 30,000 truckloads to haul away the material. The asbestos fire insulation makes the task hazardous for those working nearby. Interestingly, the approximately 300,000 t of steel is fully recyclable and represents only one day’s production of the U.S. steel industry. Separation of the stone and concrete is a common matter for modern steel shredders. The land-filling of 700,000 t of concrete and stone rubble is more problematic. However, the volume is equivalent to six football fields, 6–9 m deep, so it is manageable.


Umm...well...did you think about examining the stuff, or even keeping it maybe, instead of going straight to the recycling phase? No, I guess there nothing to see here, except the evidence to actually prove or disprove your collapse theory; just move on.


It would be impractical to design buildings to withstand the fuel load induced by a burning commercial airliner. Instead of saving the building, engineers and officials should focus on saving the lives of those inside by designing better safety and evacuation systems.


Oh good, so we can forget about the inconvenience of actually changing concepts in structural engineering as a result of 9/11. Any analysis of the structural failures, including the above, should have no relevance whatsoever. The two MIT authors can wash their hands of it and....AHHHH glad that's over and done with...crack open beer...good day - science done MIT style.

It finishes with the rather Bushesque:

As scientists and engineers, we must not succumb to speculative thinking when a tragedy such as this occurs.


What else, if not speculative thinking, is this paper? All of their statements are presented with no calculations, no models, no tests, and no empirical evidence. It admits there's no examination of physical evidence. What happened twice to two towers in one day was without precedent. What else, therefore, could this paper be but speculation?

Remember folks, if speculation supports the govt story it's called evidence; if evidence is presented that contradicts the story it's called speculation.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


The beam that the guy is sitting on has those square holes near the end like those seen at joints. Maybe that is a factory cut and this was dissassembled at the joint.
As to the other beam, a 360 degree slag/burn wouldn't be the case if it was cut from one side, would it? Wouldn't the slag be on the underside?
Linear shaped charges would tend to depress the ends of a cut beam and large I beams would need cutters for each flange and the web. None of the pictures show this depression. images.google.com...://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/charge-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p hp%3Ft%3D145439&usg=__GT9uJ3CLYimVAcuzWXiRxH40-8o=&h=321&w=391&sz=47&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=9VpwU54CYP969M:&tbnh=101&tbnw=123&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlin ear%2Bshaped%2Bcharges%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4ADBR_enUS319US319%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1 Lead or copper is often used as the lined cavity and the actual cut is made by these high density materials streaming into the target. See M.A. Cook, "The Science of High Explosives" for the details or "Behavior of Materials under Impulsive Loads" for more information.
No evidence for cutter charges, 7th.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Firstly pt I tried those links and could not get any joy, my apologies for that.

Secondly, going back to the picture with a guy sitting on a beam and the beam his feet are on, a close up picture revealing three intermittent scorch marks a tell tale sign of certain cutting charges, whilst yet again is void of any characteristics of a thermal based cutting device.........



You state no evidence of cutting charges being used on the steels, maybe, but here it is the case like many others regarding 9/11, that the only way to offer points as evidence is not proving them, but disproving the points put up as the reason/cause - The process of Elimination..........

1). The cutting tools used by the workers were gas based thermal torches. These leave many tell tale signs including - Uneven cuts, scorch marks, slag deposits, and the steels cut were cut as part of the clear up.

2). Steels with obvious cuts but show no signs of any of the above, especially in places or positions that have not been touched since the collapse, cannot be proven to have been cut with charges, but on the other hand have disproved thermal cutting to be the cause.

So where does that leave us?.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


The cuts you show look like oxyacetylene cuts. Note that the steel is not at all deformed as would be expected from a cutter. For this, there would be a charge on each face, so deformations would be expected along several axes.
Another thing not generally considered is residue from the lined cavity. Lead is often used because of its density and after a shot, there is a fine lead deposit around the cut. After a short time, the lead oxidizes in air and turns into white lead oxide. We see neither the deformation nor any deposits.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



However, I do accept the OS, if you want to call it that, in its essentials. I am puzzled as to why you think the OS has changed. It seems to have remained pretty stable to me. Quite unlike truthers with planes, no planes, holograms, missiles, flyovers, fly by wires, beam weapons, thermite, thermate etc etc.


I am puzzled that you haven’t even notices and you have jest demonstrated that you have never researched 911.

No changes to the OS? What happened to mastermind of 911 OBL? NIST report a failure, 911 commission report a proven lie, I can go on, and on, and on,….


Quite unlike truthers with planes, no planes, holograms, missiles, flyovers, fly by wires, beam weapons, thermite, thermate etc etc.


Do not associate ALL Truthers in the same barrel as” holograms, fly by wires, beam weapons,” your attempt to smear ALL Truthers as nutcase. This only goes to show how ignorant you really are.


You ask why I would prefer the OS over truther speculation.


I did?



It is because it is supported by massive evidence.


It is? What ”massive evidence” are you referring to? Show me something? Anything? And don’t spin this as, you need to read all the 911 post, because I have.

Show me some physical evidences, and do not waste your time showing me airplane photos that we have no clue to whom, where, what, how, or airplane bone yard photos and do not give me OS eyewitness hearsay information from the lying FBI. I have studied all the sides of the 911 story and there are problems with all the sides.
I do not believe the OS is the most excepted story. I believe that most people do not know what to believe in anymore. I do know there is a big distrust in our government from (We The People) thanks to the Bush administration.


On the other hand, all truthers have been able to do is shout wild unsubstantiated accusations at people.


Exactly, what you are doing now. Buy lumping all Truthers in one barrel and comparing them to “holograms, missiles, flyovers, fly by wires, beam weapons, thermite, thermate etc etc.” believers. Look’s to me pot calling kettle.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Seventh
 


The cuts you show look like oxyacetylene cuts. Note that the steel is not at all deformed as would be expected from a cutter. For this, there would be a charge on each face, so deformations would be expected along several axes.
Another thing not generally considered is residue from the lined cavity. Lead is often used because of its density and after a shot, there is a fine lead deposit around the cut. After a short time, the lead oxidizes in air and turns into white lead oxide. We see neither the deformation nor any deposits.


The top two sets of pictures at top of this thread, the 1st set are of cuts using thermal devices, the 2nd set show none of the signs of these, and there are many different cutting charges, some even use air as the fracturing force, how much residue would air leave?.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
making sure everyone here has seen some of the points made by 9/11 Loose change?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
OK. The question here is:
So you still believe the official story?

Let me say that I believe the OS about 95%. I think there may have been some negligence on the part of some gov. agencies, some mismanagement of intelligence or bad communication that hasn´t been totally cleared up. Although some failures of communication and responsibility in bad intelligence have been admitted by some agencies.
My reasons for believing this are:
1.- What I saw on 9/11 on television.
2.- What I have since then seen on recordings and TV specials about 9/11.
3.- What I have researched myself through the internet since then.
Some of it, not all, is in these sites:

www.911myths.com...
911research.wtc7.net...
www.flight77.info...
www.911myths.com...
www.debunk911myths.org...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
www.9-11commission.gov...
wtc.nist.gov...
www.nist.gov...
www.nist.gov...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.youtube.com...

All these sites have many many links in them where you can go and do more research.
Most of it is from trusted sources or is very well supported.




posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Those taht use air are less effective and still distort the metal at the cut. The metal is not distorted. No explosives.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 




www.911myths.com...
911research.wtc7.net...
www.flight77.info...
www.911myths.com...
www.debunk911myths.org...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
www.9-11commission.gov...
wtc.nist.gov...
www.nist.gov...
www.nist.gov...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.youtube.com...



No wonder you believe in the OS anyone would. All those web sites you just gave us are one sided the government OS side. You will not find truth on disinformation websites that only parrot MSM and gov.org. Your websites does not discuss facts and sciences that has been discovered by experts in their fields, besides your OS experts were paid by our government, the very people that some of us think were involved in 911,they are part of the on going cover-up in my opinion.


www.ae911truth.org...

www.911truth.org...

www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

visibility911.com...


Here is where you all should start looking to get to the Truth. Don’t waste your time on gove.org websites, you are reading what the government wants you to believe.


I think there may have been some negligence on the part of some gov.


Really, who?


agencies, some mismanagement of intelligence or bad communication that hasn´t been totally cleared up.


Where would get that idea from? “ not cleared up” don’t you think this is important? Don’t you think American deserves answers to why our government did “NOTHING” during the attacks? The government has told us nothing except to make “excuses” that they were busy and pointed fingers at other government agencies.

How would a corrupt organization behave if we asked them to investigate themselves?
Any ideas?


Although some failures of communication and responsibility in bad intelligence have been admitted by some agencies.


What government agencies have admitted failure in their communication on the morning of 911?

What government agencies have admitted failure in their intelligence on 911?


All these sites have many many links in them where you can go and do more research.
Most of it is from trusted sources or is very well supported.



As far as your website being well supported, I will agree with you on that. They are supported by people who do not know how to think on their own, they need to be “told” what to think, how to think, and to believe in, that is my opinion. When it has been proven, the government has lied repeatedly about 911, why would you rely on their information to begin with?
Common sense should tell you to read cautiously and don’t depend on every word as gospel truth because it’s not and that is on most web sites period.
I don’t think the government can be trusted they haven’t been very honest with Americans for about hundred years. Why would you think the government is going to be honest about 911 when they are not very honest about anything else? You really don’t understand the magnitude of the hard-core corruption that is being looked into in the Bush administration do you. If someone told you that our government does not deliberately lie in their reports due to so much corruptions and cover-up then they just lied to you. We all tell lies and the government is no exception.




[edit on 22-11-2009 by impressme]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
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?.


You can't be serious. The wreckage wasn't piled all nice and neat for the cranes to pick up. When the structure fell the wreckage was thrown on top of each other and jumbled together like pick-up sticks. Not only would it be more difficult trying to lift a beam that was half buried under other rubble, moving the beam may very well shift the wreckage around and crush whoever it is they're trying to dig out.

If you are analyzing the wreckage of ground zero, as you claim you are, then you should know that already.


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.


Before you continue any further with this "suspiciously cut steel" farce of yours, I strongly urge you to pick up a copy of the book, "Aftermath", by Joel Meyerowitz. He was a photographer who took extensive photos of the cleanup of Ground Zero, and the photos you're selectively posting are almost certainly his. Not only does he show the steel being cut by the steel workers, he even shows *them*. So yes, I absolutely know the steel you're showing was cut during the cleanup process.

You'll forgive me therefore if I say I'm entirely underwhelmed with your so called evidence, as odds are, I've seen your photos before you have. I don't go to those conspiracy web sites to pre-process my information for me. I always go directly to the source.



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.


...and yet you continue to evade the blatantly obvious flaw in your scenario: how is it that 500,000 people in downtown Manhattan never noticed a massive tremor that registered at seismic stations miles away, seven seconds before the impact of the planes? If you can't get past that inconvenient truth then your supposed interpretation of mysterious differences in the times listed in separate reports doesn't even get out of the gate.


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
.


If you're going to quote historical events then quote them correctly. The reason for the invasion was because Afghanistan specifically refused to hand Bin Laden over for trial, despite even other Islamic countries asking them to. The films you're referring to were recovered *after* the invasion had started. I just looked this up- the war began in October, and they found the videos in December.

It's blatantly obvious at this point that you're not looking at the evidence and seeing suspicious activity. You WANT there to be signs of suspicious activity so you'll keep staring at it until you start seeing it. It's also blatantly obvious you're getting your information from those conspriacy web sites trying to get you all paranoid over shadows becuase there's no way you can be coming up with this on your own. If this isn't enough to convince you that those damned fool conspiracy web sites are feeding you rubbish, I don't know what is.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
OK. The question here is:
So you still believe the official story?

Let me say that I believe the OS about 95%. I think there may have been some negligence on the part of some gov. agencies, some mismanagement of intelligence or bad communication that hasn´t been totally cleared up. Although some failures of communication and responsibility in bad intelligence have been admitted by some agencies.
My reasons for believing this are:
1.- What I saw on 9/11 on television.
2.- What I have since then seen on recordings and TV specials about 9/11.
3.- What I have researched myself through the internet since then.

Do you remember seeing any of these 9/11 news stories on television?




posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike84596
making sure everyone here has seen some of the points made by 9/11 Loose change?


Good grief. How anyone can still debate the fact it's these damned fool conspiracy web sites that's behind all this mischief at this point is beyond me.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Good grief. How anyone can still debate the fact it's these damned fool conspiracy web sites that's behind all this mischief at this point is beyond me.

Then why are you on one now?

Did you take a look at the 10 minutes of 9/11 news clips that I posted above? There's nothing "damned fool conspiracy" about any of it -- just 100% TV news stories from 9/11 that tell a powerful story.


[edit on 22-11-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
I agree. Using that definition,
we are all on a damn fool conspiracy website right now!

I thought that was against T&C anyway?

So....anything on here is just that, a foolish conspiracy then?
Wow!

And I thought this was the msnbc news website!

Oh lordy damn it, what website do we trust now?

The web is full of ignorant and evil people!

Only trust govmint sites!


So tell me why is the OS so vigourously defended on here like its a job or something?
Whats the harm in asking what if anyway?
After all it only led us into TWO wars. No biggie.
Might pay to learn from it.

Arent the big buddy bailouts enough of a clue the ptb will do
whatever it takes to achieve their objectives.....?
Or should we wait until they crash the dollar too?

Can't one make up his or her own mind based on the facts without
input from someones obviously biased opinion on some damn fool
conspiracy website? Apparently not.
Just my observant opinion.



[edit on 22-11-2009 by dodadoom]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join