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.

 

I DON'T CARE about HOW 9/11 happened, I CARE about WHO did it!!!

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
1.

What about the MIT investigation?
What about the perdue investigation?
WHat about the northwester investigation?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What about it?


2.William Rodriguez was in the building and testified there was a massive explosion in sub-basement before planes hit the building. Seismic evidence shows explosions 14 seconds before the alleged plane hit the North Tower and 17 seconds before any alleged plane hit the South Tower. Seismic data is from Columbia University.

sites.google.com...







1. you make the claims that SCIENCES proving that it was impossible for the WTC towers 1 and 2 to have collapsed from plane impacts and fire.

Those are SCIENCES supporting the plane fire theory. Please don't say that SCIENCES prove something when SCIENCES have published conflicting reports.


2. You should see my website regarding researching the WTC towers.

"Don't use websites like 911theories.com or debunking911.com or other truther or debunker sites as a source EVER. Too many of them are filled with quotes taken out of context or biased information (some have outright lies or 100% non expert opinion). The best sites will always site their sources which will link to a site (or book) that has nothing to do with truthing or debunking 9/11 theories and you can read the article or publication that the quote was taken from. " Now your source 911newworldorderfiles is almost the same as 911conspiracytheoryfiles.

I notice how, WITHOUT CITING IT'S SOURCE it claims that the seismographs show explosions which is an outright lie.


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

There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers"
-Lerner-Lam

Protec also had seismographs which showed no signed of explosions confirming the quote from someone who is part of the observatory

www.implosionworld.com...

Mary Tobin, senior science writer
www.popularmechanics.com...


Two seperate seismographs reading the same or very similar data have both been quoted to refute claims that there were explosions prior to the collapse of the twin towers.

Your view seems to support nano thermite and explosives. Do you think that both nano thermite AND explosives were used? Or do you think that just nano thermite was used? Or do you think that only explosives were used?

I really wish the truthers would finish their research and put forth one theory as to what was used to demolish the WTC towers. It takes credibility from the truther movement when I've heard :

Demolition theories that i've heard:

1. Demolition via explosives
2. Demolition via thermite
3. Demolition via nano-thermite
4. Demolition via thermate
5. Demolition via nano-thermate
6. Drone airplanes with bombs in them
7. Missles
8. No airplanes at all
9. Top secret demolition technology that we don't know about
10. Energy weapons (FIRE THE LAZER)


Debunker Theory

Buildings were damaged either by 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplanes or falling debris from the twin towers which removed some fire insulation. The buildings were then set on fire and because the fire insulation was removed from damage the steel was allowed to be heated and weakend from heat and then they collapsed.

The studies I have linked from Northwester, Perdue, and MIT support that the WTC tower 1 and tower 2 debunker theories are possible.

Tower 7 is a shade of grey for me. The silverstein comment to the general effect of "'They' made the decision to pull it and the building collapsed". The BBC reports that WTC 7 had collapsed when it had not. The speed of the collapse (wtc 1 and 2 fell slower than free fall speed and wtc 7 fall speed is debated). The fact that there were so many videos and angles of the twin tower collapse and damge to the twin towers but not many videos of the damage and collapse to WTC 7 to be investigated.

I call on every truther to review the seismographs! Watch the collapses! YOU HEAR NO EXPLOSIONS! Watch a demolition or 10! BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS!


I want to have one UNIFIED supported turther theories! I don't want a third of the truther experts suppoting explosives, a third of them supporting nano thermite or thermate and a third of them supporting energy weapons or top secret demolition technology.




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
I still have questions about the events of 9/11, but I'm convinced that the full truth of these events will never be known, and certainly won't be found on the internet.


Do you trust the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

Do we need to know the full truth? Don't we know enough?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by subject x

Originally posted by Mary Rose

6. Office fires burn at low temperatures of 600-800 dF. Steel melts at 2750 dF. Jet fuel is an ordinary hydrocarbon; its maximal burning temperature is 1200 dF in open air. Neither jet fuel nor the burning contents of the buildings could have caused the towers’ steel structure to buckle or fail.

In reference to the above quote, I found this interesting bit when researching blacksmithing.


HEATING METAL

Temperatures can be judged by observing the colour of the metal as its temperature rises. This can only be learned by practice. The following guide uses terms typical of a smith's workshop.

Black heat (about 550-630°C). No red colour visible except faintly in the dark.
Dull red (about 680-740°C). Used for easy well-radiused bends in mild steel and for forging high-carbon steels.
Bright red (about 850-900°C). Used for simple forging operations, such as bending metal over the anvil, light punching and hot chiselling.
Bright yellow or near-welding heat (about 1 100-1200°C). The principal forging operations are carried out at this temperature, including drawing-down, upsetting, preparing scarfs for welding and punching heavy sections. High-speed steel is forged at this temperature but high-carbon steel must be kept lower.
Full-welding heat (about 1 300-1 500°C). If the blast is correct, the fire clean and compact, a few white bursting sparks will begin to appear. This indicates the correct temperature for welding most grades of mild steel. The surface of the metal appears to "sweat" in the fire.
Brilliant white heat (about 1 500°C). Used for welding wrought iron only and is much too high a temperature for other steels.
Note: A temperature of about 740-850°C is the range for hardening most carbon-tool steels before tempering.

source

From this it is plain to see that steel becomes weakened and is able to bend at much lower temperatures than it's melting point, which could easily cause a loss of structural integrity. For whatever it's worth...

I still have questions about the events of 9/11, but I'm convinced that the full truth of these events will never be known, and certainly won't be found on the internet. Any new investigation would be pretty pointless, as the physical evidence is long gone, leaving nothing tangible to investigate. Sad, but true.


The debunker theory that 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplane crashes and fire caused WTC 1 and 2 to collapse is a widely accepted theory which has been supported by many experts and science.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

In a word, no.

Although I'm sure they have the best intentions, they weren't there taking readings and gathering data as it happened, so at best their material is just their opinions. Informed opinions, maybe, but still just opinions. They didn't get the opportunity to analyze the rubble before it was removed, so all they have is guesswork. A shame, I know, but there you have it.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 

True, but you can find just as many experts that believe otherwise.
I'm not equipped to say who's right and who's wrong on the issue.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
reply to post by iamcpc
 

True, but you can find just as many experts that believe otherwise.
I'm not equipped to say who's right and who's wrong on the issue.



That's true. Yet people can say "The WTC towers were demolished" and ignore all of the experts and evidence that support the airplanes damage + fire and people can say "The WTC towers were NOT demolished" and ignore the experts and evidence that support truther thories.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by subject x
I still have questions about the events of 9/11, but I'm convinced that the full truth of these events will never be known, and certainly won't be found on the internet.


Do you trust the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

Do we need to know the full truth? Don't we know enough?



I trust that a lot of people signed a petition to have a new investigation. I don't know what good it will do. I guess the first umpteen investigations were not good enough.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Why is the fact that the BBC prematurely reported the collapse of WTC 7 a "shade of grey " for you ? What do you think it implies ?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Scanning this thread I can see that the 9-11 truth movement cannot succeed no matter what they do, no matter how objective they are, how thorough they are, how smart they are - if the general public expects them to prove their case in the manner that a prosecutor does when he/she stands up in court.

Hopefully, the majority of the public is not looking at it that way.

Hopefully, the majority of the public is using their own common sense and focusing on keeping their eye on the ball of avoiding being fooled by the agenda behind false flag attacks.

What's important is not letting that agenda come to fruition.

[edit on 5/18/2010 by Mary Rose]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Scanning this thread I can see that the 9-11 truth movement cannot succeed no matter what they do, no matter how objective they are, how thorough they are, how smart they are - if the general public expects them to prove their case in the manner that a prosecutor does when he/she stands up in court.

[edit on 5/18/2010 by Mary Rose]


I disagree. I think the truth movement could adopt one unified demolition theory. I think the truth movement could get enough experts and do it's own independant investigation to refute the ones done by MIT, PERDUE, and NORTHWESTER.

The truth movment could also stop making outlandish unfounded claims like the ones quoted earlier in this thread. If you're presenting your case and the first thing you say is 1+1=5 (no steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire) then you're off to a very bad start. The truth movement needs unity which it's not getting because of so many sources of horrible or inaccurate information within the truth movement.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
The truth movement needs unity which it's not getting because of so many sources of horrible or inaccurate information within the truth movement.


The truth movement is infiltrated and it will always be infiltrated, so I think the best thing for the public to do is understand this, use their own common sense, and not wait for the 9/11 truth movement to prove anything to them.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by iamcpc
The truth movement needs unity which it's not getting because of so many sources of horrible or inaccurate information within the truth movement.


The truth movement is infiltrated and it will always be infiltrated, so I think the best thing for the public to do is understand this, use their own common sense, and not wait for the 9/11 truth movement to prove anything to them.


Yes but often times common sense is influenced by inaccurate or untrue information or quotes. My friend is a hardcore truther. He believes that anyone who gives testimony or information to support that the use of explosives, thermite, nano-thermite, thermate, nano-thermate, high energy weapons, or top secret demolition technology were used to cause the collapse of the WTC towers are telling the truth and that it's that fire and damage could not have caused the collapses.

He says firefighters confirmed explosives (without citing a source). I cite a source in which wtc firefighters gave their names and were interviewed and said they found no evidence of explosives (pen and tellers bull# episode). His response is that pen and teller and it's production crew are satanic as well as the claiming that interviewed firefighters were all bought and are lying (without citing a source). I point to independant investigations by teams of experts at MIT, Perdue and NORTHWESTERN which offer evidence that it was possible for the wtc towers to have collapsed from damage and fire. The professors and MIT, Perdue, and NORTHWESTERN, according to him, are all liars (as well as being paid to lie) and part of the conspiracy (without citing a source).

Calling a WTC firefighter a liar when he says there was no evidence of explosives and accusing him of part of the coverup is almost like saying he is responsible for the murdered his fellow firefighters. Something I don't believe happened. I don't believe that you could pay firefighters enough money to lie and cover up the murder of their fellow firefighters (their friends).

The one thing I can say for certian is that the more people that must be involved and remain silent for a conspiracy to be true the less likely it is. If a million people have to remain silent or outright lie then it's not a conspiracy. One person out of the million would not want the blood of thousands of innocent people on their hands and come clean.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


It implies that the BBC made a mistake. In EVERY major news event, there are mistakes made by the media...normally in their haste to scoop the competition. FDNY had been saying that they were sure that WTC 7 was going to fall, someone garbled it and reported it as it had already fallen.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Hey GoodOlDave, you're finally right!

But unlike yourself, there's no agenda except the truth.

This is exactly why I know the details of your own conspiracy claims better than you do, and yet only 1 out of 100 of you ever actually read the 9/11 commission report.

Would that be like the Warren Commission Report?
Wait, I'll bet you're one of the few who still believes in the Magic Bullet Theory even after E. Howard Hunt made a deathbed confession to his son that the CIA murdered JFK. His son also immediately recognized his father as one of the "three tramps" photographed on the grassy knoll.

Then there's RFK, MLK, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Oklahoma City, TWA 800, Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" -- the list goes on and on.

How gullible are you, anyway?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
He says firefighters confirmed explosives (without citing a source).

Is an FDNY firefighter saying "clear out -- there's a bomb in the building" good enough for you?



OMG, the evidence for 9/11 being an inside job is SO overwhelming, I can't believe ANYONE still defends the Official Fairy Tale.

I'm convinced that some people just can't handle the truth.


[edit on 5/18/2010 by GoldenFleece]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Alfie1
 


It implies that the BBC made a mistake. In EVERY major news event, there are mistakes made by the media...normally in their haste to scoop the competition. FDNY had been saying that they were sure that WTC 7 was going to fall, someone garbled it and reported it as it had already fallen.



I agree but I was intrigued to know why iampc thought it constituted a "shade of grey".



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by iamcpc
He says firefighters confirmed explosives (without citing a source).

Is an FDNY firefighter saying "clear out -- there's a bomb in the building" good enough for you?



OMG, the evidence for 9/11 being an inside job is SO overwhelming, I can't believe ANYONE still defends the Official Fairy Tale.

I'm convinced that some people just can't handle the truth.


[edit on 5/18/2010 by GoldenFleece]


Bombs and demolition charges are two different things. If you're going to believe that it was a top secret demolition then the demolition charges would have been hidden. You're not going to walk in the building and see demolition explosives all over the place are you? Isn't it the truther theory that it was a secret demolition?

Did you notice the independant investigations by MIT, PERDUE, and NORTHWESTERN which gave credible evidence to support the debunker
theories? To say that any side has overwhelming evidence screams to me: (I didn't do enough research)

And yes an FDNY firefighter saying there is a bomb in the building is a powerfull source. You have to understand that there was a LOT of information flying around between rescue crews, first responders, firefighters, police, etc. One person says bomb and then everyone says bomb. So yes. Powerful source. One that can only be refuted by more FDNY firefighters.

And refuted is exactly what FDNY firefighters saying, after the collapses and conspiracy theories, that there was no evidence that explosives were used good enough for you?

The source is the pen and teller bullSH*t episode.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by iamcpc]

[edit on 19-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Alfie1
 


It implies that the BBC made a mistake. In EVERY major news event, there are mistakes made by the media...normally in their haste to scoop the competition. FDNY had been saying that they were sure that WTC 7 was going to fall, someone garbled it and reported it as it had already fallen.



I agree but I was intrigued to know why iampc thought it constituted a "shade of grey".


Well WTC7 was the anomoly. It was not hit by 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplanes. I belive that it was damaged by falling debris from the twin towers and set on fire but it's impossible for me to see, with my own eyes, the extent of the damage from the debris because the side of the building that was damaged was covered in a thick wall of smoke. Also in order to get a good camera angle of the damage one have to be standing on the debri and rubble pile of the WTC towers that had already collapsed.

It could indicate that BBC made a mistake (which they have been known to do). It could also indicate that hundreds, if not thousands, of BBC employees were also in on the conspiracy. As stated the more people who must remain silent about the secret orginazation/government responsible for the MURDER of thousands of innocent people the less likely it is.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Would that be like the Warren Commission Report?
Wait, I'll bet you're one of the few who still believes in the Magic Bullet Theory even after E. Howard Hunt made a deathbed confession to his son that the CIA murdered JFK. His son also immediately recognized his father as one of the "three tramps" photographed on the grassy knoll.


First, I'll admit that I'm not very knowledgable about the details of the JFK assassination, but I do know my guns and I know the only "magic" here is coming from the embellishments of you conspiracy people. I know that the Italian Carcano rifle Oswald used fired an enlongated bullet that was specifically designed to roll and tumble as it hits its target, exactly as it was described in the report. I also know (becuase I've seen it with my own eyes) that when a high velocity bullet hits a soft water filled target it causes a spash effect in the direction that the bullet came from, exactly like the Zapruder film showed, so I KNOW, with no doubt whatsoever, the bullet came from that direction. I stand to be convinced that it was a conspiracy, but the moment you conspiracy proponents try to bulls**t me with details that I know more about than you, I ignore everything else you try to push down my throat.

Second, this is the 9/11 conspiracy forum, not the JFK assassination forum. If you have information that refutes what I posted, fine, then please post it. Don't go dragging the discussion off into completely unrelated topic in the hopes that you have a better chance of outarguing me becuase that's the definition of a strawman argument. All you're doign is admitting that you can't refute whqat I'm saying here, it's just that you don't want to admit it.

I invite you to prove me wrong- did you actually read the 9/11 commission report, as I keep saying you people rarely do?


Then there's RFK, MLK, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Oklahoma City, TWA 800, Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" -- the list goes on and on.

How gullible are you, anyway?


Not very gullible. That's why I always take the information you conspiracy peopel put out with a grain of salt, becuase you people ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS embellish everything you say and manipulate it to make it look the way you want it to. Between, "Silverstein ordered them to pull it", "NORAD was ordered to stand down", "Bush's cousin was in charge of WTC security", and god knows what else, I see right away your intentions aren't to examine the truth, but to sucker us with innuendo, false statements, and circular logic into becoming as unreasonably paranoid as yourself are.

I said it before and I'll say it again- if you conspiracy theorists were to ever examine your own claims in the same stringently high level of critical analysis that you do the 9/11 commission report, you wouldn't be conspiracy theorists, for very long.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by GoodOlDave]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Deep down we all know who did it.

Here is the smoking gun....




[edit on 19-5-2010 by brainwrek]




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join