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.

 

The simple reality of 9/11, what we know and what we don't

page: 19
91
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Ah so just because it wasnt fully loaded, that makes it that much less significant? Ok,


My real point was not so much that it wasn't fully loaded but that you CLAIM that it was to emphasize your point and expect people to believe such emotional drivel.

That just shows the unscientific and propagandistic methods being used to "debate" this event.

DEBATING Newtonian physics 41 years after the Moon landing is RIDICULOUS!

psik




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


The NIST engineers may be lacking when it comes to chemistry.
Thousands of tons of sulfur were available in the drywall dust [gypsum] and the high temperature corrosion would have occurred during the underground fires.


pteridine - you're either an expert in these matters or you're parroting someone else's conclusions. So let's have your credentials, your sources or your silence!




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by airspoon
 

What we do know:
Terrorists struck at innocent American citizens.

What we don't know:
Where is Osama Bin Laden. Dead? Alive?

Nothing more to examine.


You have an excellent talent! You can type with your eyes shut and your hands over your ears while repeatedly saying "I'm not listening."

Just like several other contributors to this thread, you're ignoring a hell of a lot of evidence to maintain your simplistic opinion.

For more info, please see my earlier post.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnJasper

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


The NIST engineers may be lacking when it comes to chemistry.
Thousands of tons of sulfur were available in the drywall dust [gypsum] and the high temperature corrosion would have occurred during the underground fires.


pteridine - you're either an expert in these matters or you're parroting someone else's conclusions. So let's have your credentials, your sources or your silence!


Any chemical conclusions are mine; I don't parrot. The sources for the chemistry are my library.
Reduction of the CaSO4 to sulfides in the underground fires will allow formation of the eutectic phases that will cause lowering of the melting temperature of steel. Additionally, hydrolysis of the species formed during CaSO4 decomposition will form strong acids that will further erode metal.
The evidence for underground fires has been posted in several places and is, in fact, the only explanation for the long-term heat.

[edit on 8/12/2010 by pteridine]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by JohnJasper

pteridine - you're either an expert in these matters or you're parroting someone else's conclusions. So let's have your credentials, your sources or your silence!


Any chemical conclusions are mine; I don't parrot. The sources for the chemistry are my library.
Reduction of the CaSO4 to sulfides in the underground fires will allow formation of the eutectic phases that will cause lowering of the melting temperature of steel. Additionally, hydrolysis of the species formed during CaSO4 decomposition will form strong acids that will further erode metal.
The evidence for underground fires has been posted in several places and is, in fact, the only explanation for the long-term heat.

[edit on 8/12/2010 by pteridine]



So neither credentials, sources nor silence! That's ok because I can now just ignore you without worrying that I didn't give you a fair hearing.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


You aren't the first person to fall victim to the misleading nature of this "TM" crap.


You completely dismiss the evidence of Barry Jennings who survived explosions within WTC 7 before the other 2 towers fell...


I quote that from a post, where a YT video followed. Looks good (??) at first, and seems like it is convincing...until examined with some rationality.....But in a frenzy to BELIEVE in a 'conspiracy', the "TM" hucksters will spread any nonsense, even out of order, and unconnected, in order to innuendo drop all the way --- that is the very basis of the claims, in every "truth" effort.

Let's look at the words you wrote, to introduce that clip. They are quoted above.

Barry Jennings heard "explosions" within the WTC 7 building, and if you're correct, this occurred BEFORE the South Tower collapsed. Correct?

Can you see why this is, I think, unrelated to any "controlled demolition" devices in WTC 7??

"Before the other two Towers fell..." Pay close attention to the time frames, here. And, THEN try to claim that those explosions that Jennings heard were....what? Some alleged "proof" of planned "demolition"??

More than SEVEN hours before the collapse of Building 7? :shk: Seriously?

What other things might have been exploding, can you think? Given that, by now, the two Towers 1&2 had already been HIT by the airliners, not yet collapsed. What kind of things were going on in that World Trade Center Complex of buildings, as a result?

I leave those open for YOU (and readers) to research....and caution everyone----to not rely on the "TM" websites (which, I noticed, is where just about all of the citations in many people's posts come from).

It is too lazy, I feel.....merely nodding vigorously in agreement, simply because of a pre-conceived BIAS in the first place. This is indicative of a lack of critical independent thinking. And proper evaluation of the facts --- separating from what are sometimes merely innuendo, and speculation that are disguised as "facts".

Beware of the slick-willies who slap many of these things together...they play fast and loose with the truth ---after all, it is "truth" that the "TM" is after, right????



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnJasper

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by JohnJasper

pteridine - you're either an expert in these matters or you're parroting someone else's conclusions. So let's have your credentials, your sources or your silence!


Any chemical conclusions are mine; I don't parrot. The sources for the chemistry are my library.
Reduction of the CaSO4 to sulfides in the underground fires will allow formation of the eutectic phases that will cause lowering of the melting temperature of steel. Additionally, hydrolysis of the species formed during CaSO4 decomposition will form strong acids that will further erode metal.
The evidence for underground fires has been posted in several places and is, in fact, the only explanation for the long-term heat.

[edit on 8/12/2010 by pteridine]



So neither credentials, sources nor silence! That's ok because I can now just ignore you without worrying that I didn't give you a fair hearing.


You asked about sources and references and I provided them even though your request was rude.
Most of the chemistry is common knowledge and doesn't need web links. I have, on occasion, provided references to printed material but that confounded a few readers. Many of the ATS members are under the illusion that if information is on the web it must be valid and if it doesn't show up in an easy search, it doesn't exist. I expect that readers will search out what they need or ask for more clarification.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


* * * in a frenzy to BELIEVE in a 'conspiracy', the "Debunker" hucksters will spread any nonsense, even out of order, and unconnected, in order to innuendo drop all the way --- that is the very basis of the claims, in every "debunker" effort.

* * * *
It is too lazy, I feel.....merely nodding vigorously in agreement, simply because of a pre-conceived BIAS in the first place. This is indicative of a lack of critical independent thinking. And proper evaluation of the facts --- separating from what are sometimes merely innuendo, and speculation that are disguised as "facts".



Nicely said, Weedwhacker. Notice, that I replaced "TM" and "Truther" with "Debunker" in the quote from your post. With these alterations we can all wholeheartedly agree.

The accusations you debunkers toss at those searching for the truth and for accountability and punishment of the real perps apply to you and those committed to your crusade of blocking the truth from ever being known.

Was it a "truther" or a member of the administration in power who first warned Americans and the World that they ought not dare to question the official version of what happened on 9-11 and that if they do they are with the fall guys who had been offically designated as the scapegoat terrorists well before that horrible day.

So many of the posts on this thread from the self-appointed or paid debunkers, though adding nothing to the debate, beautifully display the vacuous nature of the debunkers' and OS'ers' agenda and position.

[edit on 8/12/2010 by dubiousone]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by JohnJasper

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by JohnJasper

pteridine - you're either an expert in these matters or you're parroting someone else's conclusions. So let's have your credentials, your sources or your silence!


Any chemical conclusions are mine; I don't parrot. The sources for the chemistry are my library.
Reduction of the CaSO4 to sulfides in the underground fires will allow formation of the eutectic phases that will cause lowering of the melting temperature of steel. Additionally, hydrolysis of the species formed during CaSO4 decomposition will form strong acids that will further erode metal.
The evidence for underground fires has been posted in several places and is, in fact, the only explanation for the long-term heat.

[edit on 8/12/2010 by pteridine]



So neither credentials, sources nor silence! That's ok because I can now just ignore you without worrying that I didn't give you a fair hearing.


You asked about sources and references and I provided them even though your request was rude.
Most of the chemistry is common knowledge and doesn't need web links. I have, on occasion, provided references to printed material but that confounded a few readers. Many of the ATS members are under the illusion that if information is on the web it must be valid and if it doesn't show up in an easy search, it doesn't exist. I expect that readers will search out what they need or ask for more clarification.



Pteredine, it seems you always do this. In fact, he asked for credentials and references and your response is more of your typical retort saying that "oh, I can't be bothered to do that, go do it yourself".



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


The concept of "Credentials" on an anonymous website is odd. I can tell you about my credentials and experience but what would that really mean? Who would believe the self-published credentials of an anonymous poster? I do not condone argument from authority and expect no one to be swayed by it. I would prefer to let the arguments I make stand by themselves and not influence people, unduly. This brings forth ideas and scares no one away because because of an advanced education or a lifetime of experience.
You have noted that I offer to mix it up with Jones' supporters. This is because his argument from authority without technical knowledge rankles me. Any competent chemist can toast Jones' paper but not many read ATS or care about those who have been snookered by bad science. Jones gives science and scientists a bad name and I don't like it.
As to the ubiquitous demands for web references; if I use the web, I'll reference the site. If I use a book, I'll reference the book. If I think something is "first principles," such as 'carbon burns in air' there is no reason to find a website that says carbon burns in air.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


Feeble attempt to, in absence of a rational rebuttal, just use the schoolyard tactic "I'm rubber, you're glue", by altering a person's posted words??? :shk:

Next, further down, your lack of rationality is apparent...or else, this run-on sentence is just poorly structured, rendering it a bit hard to follow?


Was it a "truther" or a member of the administration in power who first warned Americans and the World that they ought not dare to question the official version of what happened on 9-11 and that if they do they are with the fall guys who had been offically designated as the scapegoat terrorists well before that horrible day.



??? I'll see if I can de-construct, and clarify:


Was it a "truther" or a member of the administration in power who first warned Americans and the World that they ought not dare to question the official version of what happened on 9-11...


You tell us.

..."warned"...of what, exactly?
I do not recall any 'warnings' that no one "ought not dare to question" ( ? ) anything related to 9/11.

Where to people make this stuff up? In the basement?

Oh...wait....maybe if I re-read this bit:


...and that if they do they are with the fall guys who had been offically designated as the scapegoat terrorists well before that horrible day.


Is this referring to that moron (Bush)'s statement that went something like, "You're either with us, or against us." ??

Seriously? You think this is relevant...how, exactly? Because, as I recall, that was said for an entirely different reason, and different context.

Again, I haven't seen nor heard ANY instance of ANY sort of 'official' government source edicts to not "question" anything. In fact, just the opposite has occured, hasn't it??

There are the reports, brought up often (and misconstrued as to intent) by the "truth" seekers on this site, who post about some Commission members who were unhappy with certain aspects of the 9/11 review they participated in. ( See...I make run-on sentences too...
)

THAT is yet another "innuendo bomb" that they drop...when in fact, the gripe that is being mentioned was about the POLITICAL impediments that stymied some attempts at investigation...those are NOT such a big 'secret', it's the sort of thing that happens when people try to "cover their ass" in order to keep their idiotic ineptitude that led up to a disaster from being made public....


But, that aside....this bit is the most troubling, IF it is really an opinon held, and it shows clearly the level of reality dis-connect in some people's minds, and the fact that they've surely strayed well down, too deep down the rabbit hole that the dozens (hundreds??) of unconnected "TM" claims have made, and been morphed and massaged, until no resemblance to "TRUTH" remains:


....the scapegoat terrorists....



WHA??? Oh, that is the most troubling, yes indeed....most troubling.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JohnJasper
 



You completely dismiss the evidence of Barry Jennings who survived explosions within WTC 7 before the other 2 towers fell...




Let's look at the words you wrote, to introduce that clip. They are quoted above.

Barry Jennings heard "explosions" within the WTC 7 building, and if you're correct, this occurred BEFORE the South Tower collapsed. Correct?



Your research skills are alarmingly bad as you just quoted my comments above and then completely screwed them up in the next few paragraphs. Do you know the difference between "survived" and "heard?" Did you watch the video?

Perhaps you think the late Barry Jennings was making this up?

A bomb going off in WTC 7 (follow closely, this could get complicated!) before the other 2 towers fell implies only that a bomb was planted in WTC 7.



Can you see why this is, I think, unrelated to any "controlled demolition" devices in WTC 7??


Now this doesn't prove anything especially that the building was rigged for controlled demolition but it does raise serious questions about the official version of how WTC 7 collapsed. His testimony should have been heard by the investigators and acted upon accordingly.



What other things might have been exploding, can you think? Given that, by now, the two Towers 1&2 had already been HIT by the airliners, not yet collapsed. What kind of things were going on in that World Trade Center Complex of buildings, as a result?


Duh!!! I dunno! What could have been happening in the WTC complex that could cause an explosion in WTC 7? Perhaps one of the hijackers survived long enough to throw explosive charges across the street into WTC 7. Maybe he then dropped his passport which would explain how it wound up on top of the rubble fairly undamaged.




I leave those open for YOU (and readers) to research....and caution everyone----to not rely on the "TM" websites (which, I noticed, is where just about all of the citations in many people's posts come from).


Yes, much better to provide no sources at all than to rely on one from a "Truth Movement" website.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by dubiousone
 

...
As to the ubiquitous demands for web references; if I use the web, I'll reference the site. If I use a book, I'll reference the book. If I think something is "first principles," such as 'carbon burns in air' there is no reason to find a website that says carbon burns in air.


What rankles me is people making statements such as "There is no evidence of thermite at the WTC." I'm completely happy with statements along the lines of "Jones' argument fails due to evidence A (, B, C, etc.)

You strike me as someone with a brain and I look forward to the day when you start using it for truth instead of whatever game you're currently playing.

PS: I don't buy the thermite theory myself although I cannot rule out it's use. Large quantities of detcord makes more sense especially as it's the industry standard for controlled demolitions.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by JohnJasper]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Right there....the cognitive disconnect I mentioned...it is evident.

See it yet?

You took the Barry Jennings statement that he "heard explosions"....then YOU immediately labeled those explosions as having been ONLY possible from a "bomb".

Did Jennings say "bomb"? (And, "sounded like a bomb", or any such equivalent, isn't good enough).

What does a real 'bomb' sound like, anyway? I mean, one specifically made to explode, as a destructive or incendiary device.

What OTHER things can explode? I asked that, and you hand-waved away, with silly nonsense.


Is Jennings an expert in explosive devices? I know, I could do the research, but for now, I'm just writing this out...hopefully YOU already know the answer??

Speaking of OTHER things that go BOOM!!, let's see, shall we?:


This one doesn't have a soundtrack (except for the 'dramatic' narration):




These folks might qualify for a "Darwin Award" *** someday!
:



( ***Darwin Awards )

OK...fair enough to say that there may not have been 55-gallon drums of gasoline laying about...it IS interesting, though, when you actually research WTC 7. I seem to recall that there were some DIESEL fuel tanks in the building. Shall I find the links??

(Recall --- there were fires and destruction already taking place, as the Topers 1 & 2 had been hit, remember? WHERE were these "explosions" Jennings heard actually coming from?)

Seeing the point, yet? Relying on this statement, and the few YT versions of it, without proper and full investigation is...well, pointless.


Hmmmm....what else might 'explode', and may 'sound like' a 'bomb'?





Something as small as a PC power supply?:



Any chance that WTC 7 had any fires in the building? (IF what Jennings heard WAS in the building...):



No...WTC 7 wasn't a battery plant...but there were probably a lot of such devices inside, yes?

You can use your knowledge, and think of more....not every example found on YT (or anywhere else) will be exactly like the WTC 7....but with some research, perhaps some likely suspects will turn up that COULD be the culprits....it is a leap of "logic" to immediately think that "bombs" were planted intentionally!

Especially, as (if my point was missed) they "exploded" (per Jennings) so many hours before #7 collapsed. Why???





[edit on 12 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Right there....the cognitive disconnect I mentioned...it is evident.

See it yet?

You took the Barry Jennings statement that he "heard explosions"....then YOU immediately labeled those explosions as having been ONLY possible from a "bomb".


I get your point. Now try to get mine.

Barry Jennings didn't say "heard." He said "Big explosion. Blew us back up to the 8th floor" (11 seconds into the video)

My argument is that his evidence should have been investigated, not ignored by the commission along with numerous other eye-witness testimonies. (Refer back to previous links.)

No. It doesn't prove that there was a bomb but a lot of unexplained explosions - especially those that occurred in buildings that hadn't been struck yet or occurred in the basement of any of the buildings - adds up to suspicious circumstances that cannot be ignored.

(edited to add these items)



You can use your knowledge, and think of more....not every example found on YT (or anywhere else) will be exactly like the WTC 7....but with some research, perhaps some likely suspects will turn up that COULD be the culprits....it is a leap of "logic" to immediately think that "bombs" were planted intentionally!


Actually No. It's not a leap of logic. The blatant evidence of the controlled demolition of 3 major structures requires a leap of imagination to believe that they were brought down in that manner by the aircraft impacts even with all of the subsequent fire damage.



Especially, as (if my point was missed) they "exploded" (per Jennings) so many hours before #7 collapsed. Why???


Apologies if I didn't properly answer this question earlier. It's not for us to say why? That's why public inquiries are held anytime a serious incident occurs - except of course in the case of 911.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by JohnJasper]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I never saw your response to my rebutting you insinuating that the war games didn't confuse personnel.

There were other sly half-truths and outright misinformation I debunked in the same post. How can you act like you're debunking anything when you shy away from challenging your own debunkers?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Barry Jennings was not alone during his experience in WTC 7 on the morning of 9/11, he was accompanied by Michael Hess.

The idea that he experienced an explosion prior to the collapse of either tower just isn't tenable. According to his testimony he went up to the OED by elevator. However, while he and Hess were in the OED the power went out. He refers to the blank screens and this is why he and Hess had to try and exit by the stairs. It is known that the power went out at 9.59 am when WTC 2 collapsed. Jennings says he made some calls from the OED and then he and Hess started to make their way down the stairs.

They were trapped at the eighth floor by explosion and damage. The obvious inference is that this was the result of falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1 at 10.28 am.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Great post, airspoon. Just thought Id let you know something that came to mind reading this passage from your OP:


Bush initially tried to appoint Henry Kissinger as Executive Director of the commission, but when family members of the victims challenged his appointment and made a condition that he disclose his business partners in the Middle East who might pose a conflict of interest, he quickly declined the appointment.


It's possible you've heard of the seventies BBC TV show "Yes, Minister". In one episode they had to engineer the selection of a chair for a tricky public enquiry. The tactic used was to select someone so wholly unsuitable that when the real candidate was trundled out, he'd look fantastic by comparison.

When I saw Kissinger's name up for the post, I thought, who do they really want?

All the best
r23



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnJasper

What rankles me is people making statements such as "There is no evidence of thermite at the WTC." I'm completely happy with statements along the lines of "Jones' argument fails due to evidence A (, B, C, etc.)

You strike me as someone with a brain and I look forward to the day when you start using it for truth instead of whatever game you're currently playing.

PS: I don't buy the thermite theory myself although I cannot rule out it's use. Large quantities of detcord makes more sense especially as it's the industry standard for controlled demolitions.


"There is no evidence of thermite at the WTC." That is the truth and this is the day you've looked forward to.
Thermite is unsuitable for demolitions because, among other difficulties, its effects cannot be timed.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


A short reply to you WW to avoid further derailing this thread:

I paid attention in the morning hours of 9-11-2001 and have paid attention to this day. I have not forgotten what I saw and heard then nor what I have read, seen, and heard since then.

I clearly don't subscribe to your point of view.

On the scapegoat issue, the near instantaneous pronouncement that the named Middle Easterners were unquestionably the terrorist Islamic perps was astounding. I am not saying none of the individuals on that list were involved in what happened on 9-11-2001. But their designation as the perps was just too quick, neat, and tidy.

You seem intelligent enough to see that as a suspicious element of the government's quick initiation of the obvious cover-up.

Do you support a public investigation by a body with full investigative powers, including the power to subpoena recalcitrant witnesses, grant limited immunity where needed to force them to testify and jail them until they talk regardless of how rich or politically connected they may be? Give it the funding needed to conduct a credible investigation which leads to the identification, indictment, prosecution, and punishment of those who share responsibility for what happened on 9-11-2001?

That's what "truthers" want. We want to know what happened, not merely the official version of what happened. We want consequences for those responsible.

What do you want?

Shall we accept the official pablum? Keep the lid on that Pandora's box for fear of what might be inside? Sidestep this hornets' nest for fear of being stung? Call it history? Let bygones be bygones? Forgive and forget? Go on with our lives and hope for better as we go forward?

What do you want?

[edit on 8/13/2010 by dubiousone]



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join