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.

 

Looking For 911 Truths? You Will Not Likely Find It on These Websites

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by curious_soul
reply to post by jthomas
 


How am "I" going to get a new investigation?

"I" will probably never get a new investigation. "I" am not President. I beleive he is the only "I" you talk about who could demand a new investigation."



A new investigation won't solve or accomplish anything. The new investigation will do one of 2 things.

A. Confirm that the WTC towers were demolished via controlled demolition.

B. Confirm that the WTC towers were demolished because they were hit by 150 ton 500 MPH airplanes (stripping away fire insulation from steel) and set on fire. The fire then heated said steel to office fire temperature at which point it was not able to support weight and eventually collapsed.

If a new investigation confirms A. We will be at the same point we are at now. Truthers will be claiming the science, evidence, and expert testimony are proof that option A is not true.

If a new investigation confirms B. We will be at the same point we are at now. Debunkers will be claiming the science, evidence, and expert testimony are proof that option B is not true.




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


The one point i was trying to make concerning this thread is you can't put a face or name on some of these sites that claim to debunk 911. I do applaud the professionals from A&E truth and others who are pushing for a new investigation.(I'm not saying everything they have is fact checked) Right or wrong they have possibley put their careers or lives on the line over this cause and i think it's cowardly for a lot of these debunking sites to do this anonymously.

Again, were getting off topic, but since i called you out i will reply this last time. I'm not officially part of any "Truth" movement. I admitted i have a biased based on what's on the internet and i haven't even fully read the official reports, and to be quite honest, i'm not sure i will have the time and will to do so. Even if i had the time, without much homework, i'm not sure that i could even make sense out of the NIST reports. That's whay i said i try to stay out of these topics. There is no way i have the time and resources to fact check everything on the internet or of the official reports themselves. I got started looking at this very late after the fact. That doesn't mean it can't be done. I could ask you the same question, but i wont due to we're already off topic.

I just think it's odd that explosives were never given much considereration, considering how these towers fell and considering it very well could have been part of the plot since explosives were tried 8 years prior on the WTC. I know the set of circumstances were unique, but i still don't think that's enough explanation to not investigate the possibilty of explosives thoroughly, especially considering no steel structure has never been brought down without them.

This is another thing about this whole investigation that bothers me. With my brief look into all of this all i can really find is someone from CDI who was there for "clean up" who said since the windows were not blown out so explosives were never considered. Then you have the guy from NIST, which i did watch, saying since there was no big bang and it was impossible to get thermite to stick to the beams, they didn't consider explosives any further. Then you have people against the OS, like a Russian scientist who worked for the military saying it was a nuke and another foreign demo expert agreeing with explosives being used on WTC 7 but not 1&2.

Anyway, in my opinion, not nearly enough experts in the field of demolitions were given proper exposure to this and have not been given a platform to explain their position on these towers. So yes, with just this little bit of info, i think congress should have or should hold hearings at the very least to get testimony from explosive experts to get their opinion on this.










[edit on 12-5-2010 by curious_soul]

[edit on 12-5-2010 by curious_soul]

[edit on 12-5-2010 by curious_soul]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by curious_soul
reply to post by jthomas
 


no steel structure has never been brought down without them

[edit on 12-5-2010 by curious_soul]


If that statment is true then:

What about the kader toy factory fire. A steel framed building which collapsed only from fire. Building One collapsed completely at approximately 5:14 p.m. Fanned by strong winds blowing toward the north, the blaze spread quickly into Buildings Two and Three before the fire brigade couldeffectively defend them. Building Two reportedly
collapsed at 5:30 p.m. and Building Three at 6:05

What about the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings. The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

What about the Wolftrap Farm Theater and Pavilion fire in Fairfax County Virginia in 1988 suffered a total loss in the stage, props, dressing rooms and storage area. The pre-construction recommendation for a fire sprinkler system had not been heeded. When the facility was rebuilt, it was totally sprinkled.

What about the McCormick Place exhibition hall fire in Chicago, Illinois in 1967 was a public assembly occupancy built with fire protected steel construction and no sprinkler system. “Fortunately the fire started in the early morning hours; the possibility of life loss would have been staggering had the fire occurred during the day”.1 This fast burning, high rate of heat production fire caused complete collapse of the building.

What about in Kyriakos Papaioannoa, 1986 fires began at 3 a.m. on Dec. 19, 1980, with arson being suspected as the cause. The Katrantzos Sport Department Store was an 8-story reinforced concrete building. Its fire started at the 7th floor and rapidly spread throughout the building, due to lack of vertical or horizontal compartmentation and the absence of sprinklers. Collected evidence indicated that the fire temperatures reached 1000°C over the 2- to 3-hour fire duration, and the firefighters concentrated on containing the fire spread to the adjacent buildings. Upon termination of these fires, it was discovered that a major part of the 5th to 8th floors had collapsed. Various other floor and column failures throughout the Katrantzos Building were also observed. The cause of these failures was considered to be restraint of the differential thermal expansion of the structure that overloaded its specific elements or connections.

What about on May 21, 1987, Sao Paulo had one of the biggest fires in Brazil, which precipitated a substantial partial collapse of the central core of the tall CESP Building 2.5 This was a 21-story office building, headquarters of the Sao Paulo Power Company (CESP), after whom the building was named. Buildings 1 and 2 of this office complex were both of reinforced concrete framing, with ribbed slab floors. Approximately two hours after the beginning of the fire in CESP 2, its structural core area the full building height collapsed.

What about A fire-initiated full collapse of a textile factory occurred in Alexandria, Egypt, on July 19, 2000 This 6-story building was built of reinforced concrete, and its fire started at about 9 a.m. in the storage room at the ground floor. Fire extinguishers were nonfunctional, and the fire spread quickly before the firefighters could arrive. An electrical short-circuit accelerated the fire spread. At about 6 p.m., nine hours after the start of the fire, when the blaze seemingly was under control and subsiding, the building suddenly collapsed, killing 27 people.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by curious_soul
reply to post by jthomas
 


Anyway, in my opinion, not nearly enough experts in the field of demolitions were given proper exposure to this and have not been given a platform to explain their position on these towers. So yes, with just this little bit of info, i think congress should have or should hold hearings at the very least to get testimony from explosive experts to get their opinion on this.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by curious_soul]


This may be true. The problem is that 2343 demolition experts say controlled demolition and 2343 demonlition experts say airplane crash and fire.

What no one can explain is how that it is possible the world's largest demolition project was successfully completed and covered up in occupied buildings in the middle of New York without anyone knowing about it.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


I appreciate the post. While looking through some of these i noticed that 2 were theaters, but on the other hand i found an article posted by FPE that lists 22 prior partial or total collapse of steel framed buildings. I'll try to look at these and if i have the time and purpose i will post back, maybe even start my 1st thread lol, if i got time showing this.

Here is the link that shows the survey from 1970-2002 shows 22 partial or total collapses if intrested.

www.fpemag.com...

Like i said before it would take a lot of time and resources to clearly digest all of this, and i don't like posting about stuff i don't fully undersatand, but i think the link above should be viewed by anyone intrested in the collapse of steel structures.

Thanks again for the post iamcpc.



[edit on 12-5-2010 by curious_soul]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


This may be true. The problem is that 2343 demolition experts say controlled demolition and 2343 demonlition experts say airplane crash and fire.


Do you have a sources for this information?



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by iamcpc
 


This may be true. The problem is that 2343 demolition experts say controlled demolition and 2343 demonlition experts say airplane crash and fire.


Do you have a sources for this information?



Yes I do.


If you really want i'll copy and past all the links of all the experts saying the WTC towers were demolished and the experts saying that the WTC were not demolished.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 




Yes I do.


If you really want i'll copy and past all the links of all the experts saying the WTC towers were demolished and the experts saying that the WTC were not demolished.



Yes please, we are anxiously waiting.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 

Do you use any of the websites that I posted in my OP as credible sources?
If so, would you explain why you find them credible?
I would like your thoughts about the websites that I suggested, that I find very credible.



[edit on 12-5-2010 by impressme]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I'd like your thoughts about my response. You waved it away suggesting I was ridiculing you, when in fact all I had done was make some observations.

You look increasingly like a zealot to me. Your assertions are becoming more and more based on faith rather than fact. Anyone who disagrees with you is mounting a personal assault. Any criticism is by its nature "discredited".



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by iamcpc
 


If you really want i'll copy and past all the links of all the experts saying the WTC towers were demolished and the experts saying that the WTC were not demolished.


Yes please, we are anxiously waiting.


experts saying the WTC towers were not demolished:

John E. Fernandez
Assistant professor of archiecture building tech program MIT

Eduardo Kausel
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Tomasz Wierzbicki
professor of applied mechanics MIT

Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Ocean Engineering MIT

Meg Hendry-Brogan
Undergraduate stuid of ocean engineering MIT

Ahmed Ghoniem
professor of mechanical engineering MIT

Oral Buyukozturk
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

franz-josef ulm, esther and harold edgerton
associate professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Yossi sheffi
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Source: web.mit.edu...

Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California

David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers

Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University:
Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist
Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director
Mary Tobin, senior science writer

source www.popularmechanics.com...

Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

source www.scientificamerican.com...

Tim Wilkinson, Lecturer in Civil Engineering

source
sydney.edu.au...

Civil engineer S. Shyam Sunder

source
www.pbs.org...

Christoph Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and director of Purdue's Rosen Center for Advanced Computing
Mete Sozen, Purdue's Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering
civil engineering assistant professor Ayhan Irfanoglu
civil engineering assistant professor Santiago Puiol
civil engineering doctoral student Oscar Ardila
civil engineering doctoral student Ingo Brachmann

source www.purdue.edu...

Brent blanchard Senior editor for implosionworld.com and director of field operations at protec documentation services

Protec employees:
earl garder
gary mcgeever
michael golden
john golden

Source www.implosionworld.com...


ramon gilsanz Structural Engineer
Willa Ng civil engineer

www.structuremag.org...


Dr Keith Seffen a Cambridge University engineer

source news.bbc.co.uk...

McCormick Institute Professor and Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science.

mathieu verdure from ecole polytechnique

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

Gene corley Vice president construction technology laboratories
ronald strum senior petrographer
charles thornton engineer
paul mlakar concrete tech division US corps of engineers

terrorisminfo.mipt.org...

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl professor of Structural Egineering University of California

graduate student Qiuhong Zhao
Undergrad student Mark thomas

source www.nistreview.org...

now i'm running out of space. it would take me upwards of 30 hours just to cite all the expert debunkers. Let alone another 30 hours for the expert truthers.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by iamcpc
 




Yes I do.


If you really want i'll copy and past all the links of all the experts saying the WTC towers were demolished and the experts saying that the WTC were not demolished.



Yes please, we are anxiously waiting.


Please give me time there are so many and a lot of sources are not people who I would consider experts in physics or engineering or demolition so I have to weed those out.

I also am disgusted that so many people are able to ignore all of the experts and chose one side or the other.

Also I don't know why i'm going to spend 30 hours copying and pasting the credible sources from the sites you have presented when you already know they are there.



[edit on 13-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by iamcpc
 

1. Do you use any of the websites that I posted in my OP as credible sources?

2.If so, would you explain why you find them credible?

3. I would like your thoughts about the websites that I suggested, that I find very credible.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by impressme]



1. Yes your websites have credible sources.

2. I find someone credible when they are a highly educated or professional in their field. If someone gets paid 300 grand a year to do building demolitions they are an expert. If someone spent over 8 years of their life professionally studying something then I would call them an expert.

3. My thoughts are:
for somone believe the buildings (were/were not) demolished when there are so many experts who say they (were/were not) demolished means that said person must ignore a lot of expert testimony and presented scientific theory and evidence.


It personally DISGUSTS me that people are able to just ignore half of the story (or dismiss it all as lie and opinion as you have attempted to do) and blindly pick a theory without the ability to answer any questions about it.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 



This may be true. The problem is that 2343 demolition experts say controlled demolition and 2343 demonlition experts say airplane crash and fire.

Do you have a sources for this information?


I am still waiting for your proof of [color=gold]2343 you have only provide 38 people.

1195 architectural and engineering professionals
and 8111 other supporters including A&E students
who will disagree with you and your very few

cms.ae911truth.org...

I have, 1195 architectural and engineering professionals who will disagree with you and have gone on to sign a petition for a new investigation.

Here are plenty more people who do not agree with you.


200+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
1,100+ Engineers and Architects
250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
400+ Professors Question 9/11
300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals


www.patriotsquestion911.com...

Looks like 38 people who have their heads buired in the sand compare to some of our experts. still waiting for you to prove your [color=gold]2343



[edit on 14-5-2010 by impressme]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 



It personally DISGUSTS me that people are able to just ignore half of the story (or dismiss it all as lie and opinion as you have attempted to do) and blindly pick a theory without the ability to answer any questions about it.


Not true and that is you opinion.
Perhaps, instead of you making up false numbers [color=gold]2343 and when confronted you do not produce the evidences to back you ridiculous claim to begin with. I believe you have shown us all who [color=gold]blindly pick a theory without the ability to answer any questions about it.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by impressme]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Your assertions are becoming more and more based on faith rather than fact. Anyone who disagrees with you is mounting a personal assault. Any criticism is by its nature "discredited".


That is your opinion.
How about sticking with my OP instead, this thread is not about me its about 911 websites that spews proven disinformation and tools for internet Trolls concerning 911.
Do you support those websites that I posted in my OP? If you do I would like to know why.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by impressme]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by iamcpc
 






200+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
1,100+ Engineers and Architects
250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
400+ Professors Question 9/11
300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals


www.patriotsquestion911.com...

Looks like 38 people who have their heads buired in the sand compare to some of our experts. still waiting for you to prove your [color=gold]2343



[edit on 14-5-2010 by impressme]


Thank you so much for your reply. How nice it was that someone was able to put all of the people onto a website! In my research I need links to the published paper or article that the source wrote. I can't help but notice that a lot of the experts are not linked to their published article in which they expressed their views. If we are not citing our sources then I could just as easily copy and past names from the website you just link me to and say they believe the earth is flat. (i'm not saying they don't agree with the website I'm saying it would be nice to read what their thoughts are and what method of investigation they used to reach their conclusions)

How many of those sources have done independant studies of the 9/11 collapses? How many colleges have done independant investigations with truther results? Why does that website call for an independant investigation when multiple independant investigations have already been done?

i'm sorry. I own a house. I work 50 hours a week. I have to cook dinner. I have to pay my bills. As much as I would love to sit here and copy and past peoples names and credentials and websites for 40 hours a week untill i get to 2343 I have more important things to do. I took me 2 hours to get 38.

Oh and just for giggles I signed the petition to have yet another independant investigation done into the WTC towers.


I'm not able to do what you do. I'm not able to say that these independant investigations of the WTC collapses that confirm the WTC towers collapsed and give evidence to support their claims and explinations as to how they came to those conclusions are 100 FALSE and WRONG.


If you want unbiased information it's best to look at websites that are not debunking911conspiracy.com or 911demoltionconspiracy.com.


Also I believe that it is possible that the WTC collapsed because they were hit by 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton planes and set on fire. I also signed the petition.

I have, 1195 architectural and engineering professionals who will disagree with you and have gone on to sign a petition for a new investigation. You have 1195 professionals many of whom i can't read what they wrote. You also have 1195 professionals who signed the same petition that I did.

When you say they will disagree with me what will they disagree with me about? What exactly did I say that they would disagree with? I'm confused.



Supporting a new investigation is not the same as supporting that the buildings were demolished.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by iamcpc
 



It personally DISGUSTS me that people are able to just ignore half of the story (or dismiss it all as lie and opinion as you have attempted to do) and blindly pick a theory without the ability to answer any questions about it.


Not true and that is you opinion.
Perhaps, instead of you making up false numbers [color=gold]2343 and when confronted you do not produce the evidences to back you ridiculous claim to begin with. I believe you have shown us all who [color=gold]blindly pick a theory without the ability to answer any questions about it.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by impressme]


Ok so you have not blindly picked a theory without the ability to answer questions about it? But I ask the same questions over and over and over again and no one can answer them yet they have picked a theory.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I wrote a response to your post which showed that you didn't engage with the material. You ignored it.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 



Ok so you have not blindly picked a theory without the ability to answer questions about it? But I ask the same questions over and over and over again and no one can answer them yet they have picked a theory.



You know what is a fact, you making up every excuse to show you cannot support your own claims [color=gold]2343. You just picked a magic number out of your hat and thought we would fall for it. I see more and more OS supporters making up things to try to support their OS lies and here’s the proof.



[edit on 15-5-2010 by impressme]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join