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.

 

'Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate'

page: 1
77
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+19 more 
posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Here are ten good rebuttals from a debunker site. I have not seen them posted here and I would like the community opinion. I believe his points are legit, acknowledging legit rebuttals will actually help conspiracy theorists to narrow down the possibilities as is sorely needed.

layscience.net...

In a nutshell. A plane hit the Pentagon as evidenced by debris such as landing gear. The WTC1 and 2 collapses started fires in WTC5, 6 and 7 due to the collapse showering hot debris on the surrounding buildings as evidenced in the pictures. Gradual movement and distortion of WTC7's structure was recorded in the hours before collapse. Shanksville smoke plume consistant with plane crash, not air to air missile. Hundreds of volunteers combed the Shanksville crash site and found items such as seatbelts. Fire weakened the structure of WTC2 as evidenced in visibly sagging floors. Workmen after the collapse are pictured cutting steel beams in angles. Debris outpacing WTC towers shows collapse was well below free-fall speeds.




posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Actually, I thought those pictures were great!

Especially this one, which is great evidence for a bomb exploding in a Pennsylvania field:
www.layscience.net...

It's a possibility they added extra smoke effects to the bombs. I definitely think the giant cloud around the World Trade Center after they fell was part of the demolitions installed.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by kiwasabi]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kiwasabi
Especially this one, which is great evidence for a bomb exploding in a Pennsylvania field:
www.layscience.net...


How is a smoke plume "great evidence for a bomb"? It looks very similar to the plumes of other plane crashes as shown here: media.photobucket.com...


+15 more 
posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
For a science site, there's very little actual science going on. It's a viewpoint, yes but not a scientific one. The piece is lightweight and fails to substantiate much of what it contests. It's preaching to the converted.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   


1. Flight 77 wreckage (from the landing gear) at the Pentagon. Conspiracy theorists used to argue that no plane ever hit the Pentagon, claiming that there was no visible debris at the site. They seem to have retreated from this claim in the last couple of years


we retreated that claim? did we? hahaha

that's from the original post link

[edit on 4/11/2010 by indigothefish]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by kiwasabi
Especially this one, which is great evidence for a bomb exploding in a Pennsylvania field:
www.layscience.net...


How is a smoke plume "great evidence for a bomb"? It looks very similar to the plumes of other plane crashes as shown here: media.photobucket.com...


Haha, the pictures you're comparing it to are completely different. The picture from Pennsylvania is a one-time, "poof", type smoke cloud, while the ones on the right are thick, black, constantly burning smoke clouds.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


The ones on the right are stills from video which caught the moment of impact. The Shanksville plume was taken a significantly longer time after impact by a witness who went to reach for her camera.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


The ones on the right are stills from video which caught the moment of impact. The Shanksville plume was taken a significantly longer time after impact by a witness who went to reach for her camera.


Ok, so what you're saying is that your "evidence" proves nothing since you're comparing 2 completely different things?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Is there a working link for the fire fighters measuring the structural collapse of Tower 7? The one from the photo does not work.


+10 more 
posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Let's look at a different view of this photo:




The following image was recently released by the NYPD along with other images. It is a view of the same collapse as above, but from the NYPD helicopter:




Notice the two columns in the middle-left that have white smoke coming from the ends from just being cut with explosives? Pictures really are worth a thousand words.

If you take into account all the first responder testimony to the flashes in the lower/middle levels of both towers as they were collapsing, and take into account every other aspect of the collapses, controlled demolition is the only option for what we are seeing and what happened to those mighty towers that day.





[edit on 11-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]


+12 more 
posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
SteveR:
You got me, I convinced.
Only a couple of small problems that you can help me with.
The same KPMG client that controls the power for the New York & Chicago exchanges kept the exchanges up while trading made a bunch of people money. Where is the money?
The Pentagon had strengthened all of the Pentagon against Airplane attacks except for the 1 area that got hit which incidentally had the data where the missing 2.3 trillion went to. Where is the money?
Building 7 had the hard copy data the SEC had for the trials to bring down some bad companies (KPMG & Halliburtan among them). These bad companies were freed by the justice of no proof (dead men tell no tales).
Planes hit the Towers, ok.
Is the government covering it up, is it all coincidence that the bad guys got away with all that money while terrorists did the distraction or did the terrorists get all the money & bring down the Towers as well?


In the late 90s the twin towers were told by the city of New York that they wound have to come down by 2007 because of structural degradation. The EPA banned the use of explosives and the Towers had to be manually deconstructed.
Someone paid bucks to buy the leases & insurance for towers that had to come down. Someone made a lot of money when they did.
The EPA said NOTHING about the released particulates.
Where's the money?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Let's look at a different view of this photo:

The following image was recently released by the NYPD along with other images. It is a view of the same collapse as above, but from the NYPD helicopter:



Notice the two columns in the middle-left that have white smoke coming from the ends from just being cut with explosives? Pictures really are worth a thousand words.


What we have in that photo is just your claim. nothing more. You have no ability to say what you claim as "smoke" really is. Yes, it could be smoke from the fires that were burning, but could equally be dust from disintegrating wallboard that covered the inner core. You cannot eliminate those just from looking at a photo.


If you take into account all the first responder testimony to the flashes in the lower/middle levels of both towers as they were collapsing, and take into account every other aspect of the collapses, controlled demolition is the only option for what we are seeing and what happened to those mighty towers that day.


Actually, no such claim can be made. No evidence for explosives has ever been found. The collapses were explained without the need to introduce the need for explosives. Your claim remains unsupported.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


If you take into account all the first responder testimony to the flashes in the lower/middle levels of both towers as they were collapsing, and take into account every other aspect of the collapses, controlled demolition is the only option for what we are seeing and what happened to those mighty towers that day.


[edit on 11-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]


I agree Bonez
controlled demolition and nukes under the foundation is how the buildings fell. They didn't even need "planes" to help the buildings come down, I guess they were "added" for effect.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 




You know what some of the families and first responders hate?

I would tell you but that would get my posted deleted, a good clue to help you find the answer is to use a mirror.

IF you visit NYCCAN you will find that some of the people you are calling nuts gave so much more on that day than you ever will.

I will be waiting for the insults against the character of the "nutjobs" listed as is standard from people like you.

Like it or not the voice of the people listed means something while yours and that of your buddies who talk about space aliens, hologram planes and wear silly costumes at ground zero do not.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Actually, no such claim can be made. No evidence for explosives has ever been found. The collapses were explained without the need to introduce the need for explosives. Your claim remains unsupported.




The problem is the explanation is not scientific or supported by concrete evidence.

No one has proved it is physically possible for buildings to collapse like that without explosives or something other unknown variable.

Explosives are only one possibility but the real problem is that a possibility without explosives has not been proven physically possible...



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You have no ability to say what you claim as "smoke" really is.

Well firstly, you can see that the smoke is white and all the dust around it is gray. Secondly, you can see how the smoke is behaving as the columns are falling. The smoke obviously is behaving differently than any of the dust around it.



Originally posted by jthomas
it could be smoke from the fires that were burning

Not on the very ends. You know, the exact place that would have been cut with explosives. Oh, and heating steel up to where it's red-hot will not cause it to smoke hardly at all. The steel has to be super-heated to smoke like that. And don't tell me any different because I work with steel and aluminum every day.



Originally posted by jthomas
but could equally be dust from disintegrating wallboard that covered the inner core

Again, not coming from the very ends. You can actually see the gray dust coming from the rest of the length of those columns, but the white smoke coming from the ends stands out like a sore thumb.



Originally posted by jthomas
You cannot eliminate those just from looking at a photo.

Sure you can if you're researched and knowledgeable in the subject and know what you're looking at.




Originally posted by jthomas
No evidence for explosives has ever been found.

No evidence for anyone specifically searching for explosives has ever been found either. Bodies, telephones, desks, everything in those towers were blown to tiny bits. I don't know how you think very much explosive evidence would have survived.



Originally posted by jthomas
The collapses were explained without the need to introduce the need for explosives.

The collapses are explained to the lay person who doesn't know any better, to those who are lacking in the logic and physics departments, to those who are unresearched, to those that don't fully understand the construction of the towers, and to those who's denial won't let them see past their own bias.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Quote 'the possibility [of collaspse] without explosives has not been proven physically possible..." can you back this up? This is the whole issue in a nutshell. It's an on/off switch, only one answer can explain all the evidence and the OS does not cut it, not by a loooong way.

As to the OP, and the 10 photos, half of them seem fake (as in evidence planted or doctored somehow) and the other half demonstrate to me that 9/11 was an inside job. I am not an expert but in Photo 7, did the belt buckle survive the fire and if so, how many other seat belt buckles survive or was this the only one? And the grass by it is not burnt by jet fuel? And photo 3 of WTC6, how come 7 is flattened even at the base and 6 is not, and 6 has a hole in the middle?

And we don't even want to go down the route of Bonez, who uses evidence, logic, first hand witness accounts (I remember in school history lessons that first hand witness accounts were more reliable than 2nd hand) and experience to show the buildings did not fall down just cause of planes and fire.

Peace,

Remember we are all on the same side here, trying to get to the truth.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


Originally posted by jthomas
it could be smoke from the fires that were burning


Not on the very ends. You know, the exact place that would have been cut with explosives. Oh, and heating steel up to where it's red-hot will not cause it to smoke hardly at all. The steel has to be super-heated to smoke like that. And don't tell me any different because I work with steel and aluminum every day.


Even if it were smoke, there is no evidence that it is actually the steel that is burning.


Originally posted by jthomas
but could equally be dust from disintegrating wallboard that covered the inner core.


Again, not coming from the very ends. You can actually see the gray dust coming from the rest of the length of those columns, but the white smoke coming from the ends stands out like a sore thumb.


Even if it is smoke, you cannot claim that it is the steel that is burning nor that it is "super heated."


Originally posted by jthomas
You cannot eliminate those just from looking at a photo.

Sure you can if you're researched and knowledgeable in the subject and know what you're looking at.


You'll understand why I would require more evidence than that you think you know what you are looking at. There in fact would be other evidence of the use of explosives.


Originally posted by jthomas
No evidence for explosives has ever been found.

No evidence for anyone specifically searching for explosives has ever been found either.


Testing of the dust to determine the chemical components of the dust were done within weeks of 9/11. No chemical signatures of explosives were found.


Bodies, telephones, desks, everything in those towers were blown to tiny bits. I don't know how you think very much explosive evidence would have survived.


So, no test could be done to determine if explosives were used?


Originally posted by jthomas
The collapses were explained without the need to introduce the need for explosives.

The collapses are explained to the lay person who doesn't know any better, to those who are lacking in the logic and physics departments, to those who are unresearched, to those that don't fully understand the construction of the towers, and to those who's denial won't let them see past their own bias.


You won't mind, then, that I will go with the overwhelming consensus of forensic scientists, chemists, physicists, structural engineers and architects that no evidence of explosives were found nor were they ever needed to explain the collapse initiations of all three towers.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


According to this Firefighters for 911 Truth speech there was no testing for explosives:

www.youtube.com...#



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Nice try, Layscience.net ....

What you see in photo 1 is from the RQ-4 Global Hawk.

Here are two more related photos:







new topics

top topics



 
77
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join