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.

 

AE911 Engineer does for Free what NIST (Feds) couldn't do with Millions

page: 10
133
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


The same criteria could be said to apply to truthers also , as a lot of the 'facts' and 'proof' that most of them put forth has been proven to be false numerous times .
Funny , how your definitions were said to apply to only those of us that disagree with your theories .
Sounds like disinformation at it's finest .


The criteria applies to anyone spreading false information. Unfortunately, sure, "truthers" might unknowingly spread false information. But, what cannot be false is that SCIENTIFICALLY, there are enough anomalies and contradictions to the "official story" as to make it an "official FALSEHOOD."

The science, the physics speak for themselves. "Debunkers" instead dismiss the facts because they've already made up their minds. "Don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind," is a popular quote to illustrate this mindset. The fires, alone, weren't hot enough to compromise steel. No steel building has ever collapsed from fire, regardless of the cause. Further, WTC7 collapsed without any significant structural damage? Please examine the science and you will see the contradictions. WTC7 is the smoking gun that reveals the entire operation is NOT as it seems based on the "official" story.

Looking at photographs of the Pentagon attack, alone, proves that a large passenger jet did NOT impact the site. Where is the debris? What about the physics involving a passenger jet so close to the ground for so far across the lawn? Where is the debris? Aluminum does not cut through steel easily, if at all. Wings don't vaporize into invisible particles.

There are questions that to this day have not been properly answered, nor will they ever, most likely, properly be addressed. And the reasons why I applied the definitions to those who accept the "offical" story is because it is FILLED WITH MORE HOLES THAN BABY SWISS CHEESE. But, if you look at the first definitions, they apply to anyone.


The same criteria could be said to apply to truthers also , as a lot of the 'facts' and 'proof' that most of them put forth has been proven to be false numerous times .

---You see, you have (probably) unknowingly revealed the ULTIMATE GOAL OF DISINFORMATION AGENTS: to ***OBFUSCATE*** or ***CONFUSE*** the issue. If I were a disinformation agent, I would pretend to be a "truther" and put the most outlandish strawman theories out there in hopes of muddying the waters and making the truth cluttered with so much confusion that the average person might say, "Those guys are nuts." I don't doubt that some of the more outlandish "truther" theories have been spun by disinformation agents.

---Because people like YOU can then use those outlandish theories to "debunk" the real ones. It's like playing mental chess, and our government has chessmasters on its team, and they get WELL PAID to sit at desks and do what you are doing now. I'm not saying that you are necessarily a disinfo agent; there is simply no way of proving that. I am simply stating that if you aren't one, then you've fallen into a mental trap of which you may not be aware. There is an escape:

....Look at the SCIENCE. For only there can you know what the truth is. The truth is in the evidence. The physics. Not the ramblings of supposed truthers or "debunkers."


[edit on 20-8-2010 by GhostLancer]

[edit on 20-8-2010 by GhostLancer]




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


See this is what I am talking about with the "debunkers" or "truthers". They don't listen.

I am not talking about collapse initiation. I AM talking about pieces of steel being in a corrosive environment (which is what the OP is about).



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


WTC7 and the twin towers collapsed because Mies van der Rohe's glass box was not designed to go through this stuff. I don't care what quotes people have from the designers. Glass boxes do not stand to these forces. That's simple fact.

The resources, temperatures, and forces at work were more than enough to create thermite like reactions on the steal, bending the steel, and allowing a large square chunk of the tower to crush what's bellow it. See my posts of simulations about it a few pages back.

WTC7 started collapsing for quite some time before its initial collapse and many photos show the gaping holes on its main structural supports. That plus a collision from above plus fires plus thermite would bring it down.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


LOL

Just like my cousin doesn't want to believe our government could do such a thing and he finds ways to believe the official story.

This is one of many videos that tell the truth. People just don't want to listen.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
This is one of many videos that tell the truth. People just don't want to listen.



I suppose that the video I showed of a thermite like reaction with gypsum wall board is false then? Are you listening?

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Hey Nutter, who was at the WTC preparing the stuff in your videos?

In case you didn't notice the difference, you are trying to say it happened at the WTC without human help.

You have a video of that? Will be waiting...



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


A human making it does not necessitate a human to make it. That all could happen naturally via variable temperatures and scattering materials. That's what happened. If a human makes a knife out of rock, that does not mean that a river and a good rumbling can't make a knife also



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
A human making it does not necessitate a human to make it. That all could happen naturally via variable temperatures and scattering materials. That's what happened.


Are you sure you aren't the conspiracy theorist? First you assert it could happen on its own, with nothing to back up that assertion at all, and then say that IS what happened, based on the exact same thing. That was an awfully quick and simple conclusion wasn't it, Mr. Maxwell?

So let's slow it down:

1) Show me what you have to support your claim, that the stuff in your videos forms naturally, without human help. Where have you seen this happen before?

2) Show me how you think you or anyone else has proved that this is "what happened" at the WTC complex.



If a human makes a knife out of rock, that does not mean that a river and a good rumbling can't make a knife also


How often do rivers make knives then? Because I've never seen it, or even heard of it.

If a policeman finds a knife in a river, and a dead body near the same place, he'd really have to be stupid to think the knife was a coincidence and just formed by the river against astronomical odds. Unless you think drywall-thermite or whatever it is forms and knocks buildings down every day.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
about jennings
He doesn't say juliani or his staff where there...
Here is what he does say:

BARRY JENNINGS: Well, I'm just confused about one thing. And one thing only: Why World
Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I'm very confused about that. I know what I heard. Iheard explosions. The, the, uh, explanation I got was: It was, uh, the fuel-oil tanks. I'm an old
boiler guy. If it was the fuel-oil tank, it would have been wiped out of the building

portland.indymedia.org...
guess thats why you didn't post a quote just an obfuscation...
why clutch at straws?
Oh wait,,, I KNOW!

and there is not a Huge difference between a structural engineer and an electrical engineer:
much of their training is common before they specialize.
the guy worked intimately with the other engineers and the building so he was an expert on the scene while posters here are what in comparison?
lol:
But one thing is for sure: the engineer is calling for an independent investigation by the proper experts..
now why would anyone have a problem with that....
Oh Wait I know!

Mine gott man

Im not making you up am I?:

Im not going to have to start posting in Pictures just for you guys am i ?


Ps dry wall thermite forms all the time thats why no other steel framed buildings have fallen at near free fall speed into their own footprints on their own from fire...

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Unless you think drywall-thermite or whatever it is forms and knocks buildings down every day.


Again. This is the problem around here. No one listens anymore.

This is not about collapse initiation. This is about how the two pieces of steel found could have gotten that way.

The gypsum thermite experiment is just as valid as the original OP experiment. I. E. it hasn't been proven one way or the other.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
Ps dry wall thermite forms all the time thats why no other steel framed buildings have fallen at near free fall speed into their own footprints on their own from fire...


You are putting the chicken before the egg. We are not saying that natural drywall thermite caused the collapses. We are saying that a 110-story building grinding itself to the ground would cause these elements to mix. In some areas, this mixture was volatile and caused a natural thermite like reaction in some areas. Causing some steel to corrode and possibly even melt.


[edit on 21-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Shredding the WTC 7 files?

lol and how would this work exactly in a time of hard drives?Plus don't you think somebody would notice the files missing and say something?Taking down wtc 7 makes more sense.This way the files(and the building) were destroyed by "fire" and no one would think about the files being destroyed on purpose so no investigation would take place.If files were just shredded people would notice them missing and wonder why...c'mon people this is so obvious.

How does a steel and concrete building fall with no resistance?

How did 110 floors "collapse" in 10 seconds?

Why didn't the buildings fall over?

So many questions.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by dragnet53
This is one of many videos that tell the truth. People just don't want to listen.



I suppose that the video I showed of a thermite like reaction with gypsum wall board is false then? Are you listening?

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Nutter]


unless you have a different, new video, you don't have that actually. The one you were pushing in my thread had powdered ingredients of wallboard.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
unless you have a different, new video, you don't have that actually. The one you were pushing in my thread had powdered ingredients of wallboard.


Let me know how much wall board that was found that wasn't powderized.


Think about it. Concrete is much stronger than wallboard. The concrete was powderized, therefore, we can safey assume that most of the wallboard was also powderized.

Unless you've seen evidence of them pulling out large sections of interior walls (made from gypsum wallboard) from the debris?

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
And let me know how much pulverized WTC was in the experiment you linked to.

There wasn't any.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 





nothing to back up that assertion at all


A few pages back I showed what I am talking about. How quickly you all forget.

Simulations that anybody can run show that it can all happen on its own.

There is nothing spectacular about 9/11. A iron glass box got hit by a plane, the conditions created chemical reactions to destroy the structure, and then it fell.

How many knives get made naturally? Quite a lot. Take a stroll down to a river in the western US. You'll find sharp rocks everywhere.

9/11 inside job bullocks is nothing more than a distraction to make us all look retarded. The truth is the government did probably let it happen, but to say they did anything is silliness. More like a lack of action. The wars that followed were not planned. They were just the fruit of an event that the government took advantage of.

That's what the government does. They sit and wait until something happens to justify a war and then act. Do you honestly think they could have planned 9/11 but not go to war with Iran by now? Hell you could easily justify a war with China that would be a legit long profitable war. But nope.

At the end you have to look at it with common sense. 9/11 brought no profits. No war has been profitable. Nothing was gained other than a new puppet state for future usage. So you have to ask. Why go through all that work to gain nothing and be hated? The government did not plan anything. No explosives were used. Nothing was expected. Very likely he government stopped caring in hopes something would occur so they could justify a new war. To which they got their request, but failed to have a good war.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
And let me know how much pulverized WTC was in the experiment you linked to.

There wasn't any.


If that is what makes the experiment legit, then the OP's experiment doesn't have any of the pulverized WTC in it either, making it null also. So, which is it? Can we extrapolate building materials or not?


[edit on 21-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


I started out as a 'truther' . My first reaction upon hearing the live coverage of the events that day was that there was no way in hell that 19 individuals could have pulled this off against the most powerful nation on the planet .

I held that view for several years . I searched it and researched it but , my pre-conceived opinions kept me locked into 'inside-job' theories .

Eventually , I realized that none of those theories had been sufficiently proven to the point of showing facts and solid evidence .

With that in mind , please don't assume that I am just a blind follower of the 'OS' .

I have posted links time after time proving some of the theories to be questionable and even false in some cases .

But , you know what ? Truthers ignore what I post and very rarely do they even respond to the information I put forth . I think I may even have a link posted in this thread that hasn't received one single response .

Seems to me that if something is posted that can't be denied , then the best way that truthers can deal with it is to simply ignore it .

Engines WERE found at the Pentagon that matched AA77.
Passenger I.D. WAS found at the Pentagon .
Passenger remains WERE recovered at WTC.
Passenger I.D. WAS found at WTC .
WTC7 WAS damaged and burning .
It WAS possible to fly the plane into the Pentagon , regardless of 'ground-effect' .
The angled cuts at WTC WERE made by cutting torches during clean-up .

All of the above has been proven , so why do truthers ignore it when I post sources to validate these ?

These are FACTS that cannot be disputed but , when I challenge the false theories being posted , I am totally ignored . Then the same false theories get posted again in another thread . Over and over and over .

I am not against a new investigation . I have no problem with that . I have a problem with lies and theories being perpetually posted while ignoring the truth that is already available .

When I present anyone with evidence that proves their claims to be false and , they methodically ignore the truth that I offer them , I can only have contempt for such an individual .

What really ticks me off about those who ignore and refuse to acknowledge the truth when it is shown to them is that they have the nerve to call themselves a Truther .

So , if you make a post saying that the sky is falling and I reply with a post proving to you that the sky is not falling , and then you continue to say that the sky is falling , then you fit the criteria of disinformation .

[edit on 21-8-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
The question nobody answers(besides "truthers")and they keep dodging is,what pulverized the concrete?

Let's see the experiment for that!

We all know it wasn't the floors above because they exploded outward to dust,that means there was no pressure from the above floors so what pulverized the concrete?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Why do you suppose people don't believe those "facts"?




top topics



 
133
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join