It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Scientists, Military Officers, and Actors are among new 9/11 research organizations

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:59 PM
reply to post by Ciphor

Star post, good reminder to all those debunkers.

Who knows what technology they used to bring the towers down? After all, the U.S. government has other/better technology available to them which aren't to the public, it's common knowledge. Secrets aren't secret unless their secret.

We don't know what we don't know.

edit on 11-9-2010 by jonnyc55 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:24 PM
reply to post by Ciphor

If making buildings fall perfectly on their footprint straight down was as easy as causing an explosion anywhere on the mid section of a building... then why have all these demo experts been spending millions and months to rig buildings to do this? Wrapping each support beam with explosives etc. Seems like now we should just start imploding buildings by rigging jet fuel explosions on the sides of them. I mean I know this has never brought down a building before, in the history of humanity, and was previously considered a horrible idea, but 3 buildings went straight down on 9-11 like this. Why aren't we investigating this new cheap way of implosion? Doesn't make sense eh?

I completely agree with you there Ciphor.

In fact, the proof that buildings can be demolished in this way should soon be forthcoming, if it doesn't exist already.

It will be tremedously cheaper to give the building specifications to an organization like NIST, who can model the bulding in their computers, tweaking the positions of small fires and minor damage untill they strike the combination that initiates global collapse.

This method should rightly become the new norm in the near future.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:27 PM

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by Perseus Apex

* * * *

Maybe we should start reminding them who they work for; who pays their salary; and who can put together enough votes to take away their powerful jobs and big pay days.

There will have to be a concerted effort put forth in a very deliberate manner to wake these clowns up and get their attention as to what we expect them to do in order to keep their jobs.

* * * *

Federal judges have life tenure. In other words, once appointed they are a federal judge for life unless they commit an impeachable offense.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:37 PM
I actually despair at the derailing course this thread has taken.
The OS guys here have been pretty much up to their usual "hunting in packs" tactics in ridiculing any form
of reason. Their dedication to monotonous reply surley goes beyond the normal debating prowess of normal folk.
GenRadek you seem an intelligent bloke , but if a can say, have no concept of steel verses fire.
Imagine this :- a Blacksmith goes to work and starts up his coal/coke fired furnace. Knowing it`ll take a few hrs to get up to full working temp, he goes off to town to get some stuff. Hey, he meets up with an old sweetheart and they spend some time together, finally remembering his urgent job he rushes back to work.
Is he ?
A) expecting the fire has burnt thru the thin 1/8 " thick sheet metal container holding the coals, and because this fire-pit was bolted to the builing frame, the heat has travelled thru and weakened the whole building which has by now collapsed into a smoldering (for about a month) ruin.

B) in a panic, the blacksmith rushes into the bulding brandashing a water hose and liberally sprays everything,
causing a plume of steam no-one has seen since the days of the old railway loco`s.. Only to find that furnace frame is still intact, although a bit twisted from the sudden uneven change from hot to cold.

C) the thin sheet metal container has absorbed all of the intense heat and has maintained it`s shape, and the coals and fuel have given up and died down.

D) slinks his way back to work cos he knows his boss is gonna get on his back as it`s obvious (C) is the outcome and the customer is all over his ass for the job he was expecting.

GenRadek and you other obedient flunkers. have you guys got any concept of working with thick structural steel ?
You do know how long the Buncefeild Oil Refinery fire raged on for, a seemingly inexhaustable amount of
explosive fuels burnt for days and again the metal deformation of the container tanks was only due to the fire services extinguisher hoses. Not from melting the (sheet) metal.

You want to start with one item for a thorough investigation. Start with the 100 + story steel stuctures, and how they can collapse straight down into a pile shorter than a 3 story building.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:18 PM
The sheer amount of emotional charge in the arguments of debunkes ought to be enough to cast a shadow on the legitimacy of their points. While I agree, many 9/11 "truthers" (and a large percentage of conspiracy theorists in general) tend to peddle some wacky bullsh!t like holographic planes, space lasers, ghosts did it, or what have you, but that doesn't discount the fact that the official story contains about the same amount of obscenity as far as reason is concerned. Anyone who really cares about the nature of the truth will be a dispassionate observer open to new evidence and ideas instead of defending their ego program with semantics and rather laughably obvious appeals to the ethos of a delusional culture. The question to ask yourself is do you find it difficult to disassociate from your identification with one group or another and only take the empirical factors of it into consideration? If so, I feel the truth is more far away than we realize.

This article capitalizes on the sentiment rather nicely.

edit on 11-9-2010 by Gygar because: Spelling

edit on 11-9-2010 by Gygar because: Article

edit on 11-9-2010 by Gygar because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-9-2010 by Gygar because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-9-2010 by Gygar because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:03 PM
reply to post by flamingmonkey

What's important though, if you wanna be honest and aren't just doing this to argue, is that claiming that they look like demos is FALSE. And claiming they look SO much like demos that it is a kinda of "proof" is especially false.

The fact that the collapse of WTC7 'looks' like a contolled demolition is aknowledged by the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations:

An interior failure would explain the appearance of a "controlled" collapse with a relatively small debris field, as seen with WTC 7.

BTW, There is a much better youtube vid that lets you compare the collapse of WTC7 with known controlled demolitions:

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by aethron
Sorry pteridine, but it's not that the "collapse-didn't-look-right."

It's that the"collapse-exactly-mimicked-a-controlled-demolition."

You know when they demolish a large building, engineering and explosive experts carefully case the building out. They determine where to place explosives, the quantity of explosive needed, and a timing pattern of detonations that will cause the building to fall in the desired manner, which is a rapid collapse into its own footprint.

How are we supposed to believe a randomly collapsing skyscraper could so closely mimic an event that we know takes a great deal of expert planning and preparation to accomplish?

Of all the ways WTC7 *could have collapsed, it just happened to collapse according to the stages of a flawlessly executed cotrolled demolition?


Did you see or hear any of those carefully timed explosions that exactly mimicked a controlled demolition? When did all this preparation and planning take place? Were the precuts and cabling placement done without anyone noticing? Explosives placed without anyone noticing? How flawless was the collapse? Did parts of #7 strike any other buildings on the way down?

If the demolition was carefully done and only destroyed a key beam, there would be no difference between that and a collapse due to failure of that same beam.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:10 PM
reply to post by CannotGoHome

Problem here. The steel in buildings 1, 2 and 7 did not just warp and bend. They melted into massive iron puddles that lasted for WEEKS. Eye witnesses on the scene doing the rescue effort all 100% saw RIVERS of molten iron flowing below. You can reasonable argue that it is possible for office temp. fires to weaken a frame and cause it's destruction (however unlikely it is). However you cannot argue that normal office fires can cause a reaction that leaves behind molten iron. This is impossible, as the temp. required to MELT, not weaken, steel is 2700 degrees.

Again remember, 11+17= 2014.This is the math NIST would like you to use. I personally like the standard math. Where 1400 - 2700 = 1300. A rather large remainder yes?

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:16 PM
I would like to Condolences to US people & those families of killed & survivors of 11 September… I don’t know what we should called this kind of Crimes in 21 century. I think human reach to the end of history…
As you know discovering large volumes of electrodes in the territory of WTC by doctor "Steven Jones" and others in March 2009 indicated that a specific type of electrode produced by nanotechnology was reason of collapse in WTC towers. Also American Geological reported recently” There was smithereens heat of molten iron in the dust after collapses of towers”.
Using MINI NUKE first in WTC than iraq and than

So who has nanotechnology Ben Laden or Israel?

There are many evidences proven 9/11 designed by Mossad just for controlling Middle East specially Iran by attacking the Iraq & Afghanistan.
Also by this tragedy Israeli force US Gov to obey all their devilish orders without any rejection…
So As long as US Gov allows Israelis interfering or controlling US Macro Policies we should expect more tragedy in future. however Israelis are all around in US !!!! US foreign policy, US Parliament, US Media, US Market & US trading, US banking and even here in ATS...

edit on 11-9-2010 by Prof. Twister because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:21 PM

Originally posted by MickC
Good post _BoneZ_ , Thank you.

Reply to post by pteridine who invites posters to:

'Pick your best area to investigate and state what exactly you would investigate.'

'best area'?... you are kidding right!

There are so many obvious lies that choosing a 'Best' is going to be difficult.
(list omitted)

I'd like to add this to the lists of questions:

If an airliner struck the Pentagon, why was there not an additional hole where each of the two massive jet engines was mounted on the jetliner's wings? How could the massive jet engines have been sucked into the center rather than create an additional hole on each side of the center hole.

Each jet engine is far more massive than the center of an airliner's body. The jet engines had far too much momentum to have suddenly swung in toward and enter through the center hole.

Perhaps I missed it these past nine years, but I have never read, seen, or heard an adequate explanation of this anomaly.

Any of you OS defenders have a scientifically supported explanation of this anomaly? (I won't call you OS believers because I doubt that you believe it.)

edit on 9/11/2010 by dubiousone because: To correct grammar and spelling

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:27 PM
reply to post by Ciphor

All molten metal puddles proves is that underground fires are hot.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:19 PM
All this evidence of lies and (very piss poor) deception by idiots that believe their so important. Your not you bunch of "dick heads". Your quite pathetic or is it demented and sick. You whores of evil that live in this white or is it BLACK house of evil. Now answer the dam question. This building that fell from what (?)...a fire...I saw it. He who contends to follow his ignorance...are they blind or possessed with evil (?) The facts and truth has spoken our congress and our president (small p) are simply obvious (to those that see) LIARES in chief.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:33 PM
There is a laundry list of problems with the offical 9-11 story. Some are as speculative as the science used to judge the collapses, and some are flat out fact.

The problem this discussion has is the debunkers will draw you into a discussion about the speculative problems that can never be proven false or true as they are based on perception. I.E. "The building LOOKS like a controlled demolition". I can HEAR the explosions going off. These items could be argued for life times without resolution on either side

Logic leads you to one place. Avoid the arguments that have no resolution and stick to facts that have been proven by our brilliant minds.

Fact: Flight recorder for all planes had them clocked at speeds far greater then commercial planes are capable of traveling at sea level where air is much thicker. The data was obtained from the traffic towers as well as flight recorders, officially released and 100% confirms the speeds were too great, especially given the tight banks. This issue has been brought up in AIAA conferences by Dwaine Deets, a leading aerospace expert. 510 knots before impact was the official speed of the plane before impact. It was banking while traveling at this rate, raising further eyebrows. The plane would have literally been torn to pieces at about 400 knots, if not sooner. Remember, these planes are made out of light material to allow for flight to even be possible with a full passenger payload. Air is thinner higher in the atmosphere, this is why planes go that high, so they can go faster and reach destinations quicker. If they all stayed at sea level we would have some long flights, and it might not even be practical compared to land/sea travel.

Fact: In the rubble molten iron was found for weeks. This has yet to be explained or addressed properly. Discussing the office temperature fires weakening the structures is irrelevant when a bigger issue is available that cannot be argued off with an office fire. Why play advocate to something arguable when you have something much less debatable available? It's like using a knife when you have the option of a nuclear bomb.

Fact: The speeds of the collapses from original video footage was analyzed and determined to be near free fall speeds and what we would expect to see if the building encountered zero to no resistance on it's way down, NIST Agrees with this. None of the theories given by NIST or any other government agency have addressed this fundamental problem with the pancake theory, as the pancake theory suggests the weight of the falling floors crushed each floor below 1 by 1 on it's way down. The process of crushing would drastically slow the speed of the falling building. Also a problem is brought up of how with so much force coming down fighting force on its way down it was able to remain upright without being tilted to the north east south or west. For this to work we must throw asside any ideas of the random way nature acts, and believe that for each floor of this building during the collapse, all structural supports (30 something inner, 50 something outer supports? For each floor.) broke at the exact same moment. This would need to repeat over and over for each floor. If the collapse started to cause breaks to be uneven in anyway on its way down it would snowball after 10-15 floors and the building would topple instead of coming straight down. This is studied and observed and Known physical scientific fact. If you would like I can link you some of Einsteins papers on gravitational consequences. Reading these might put some of you back in reality.

Let me give you an example. If I build a 20 foot tall tower out of tooth picks, and take and smash one side of it with a bat, do you think it will A) fall straight down on itself or B) topple over starting at the weak point that I smashed with a bat? You would feel pretty dumb to answer with A wouldn't you? I know I would.

Really the idea that you can weaken a 4 point structure at 1 or 2 points and cause a chain reaction that destroys all 4 points evenly is.. indescribably unlikely. Now you need to understand NIST is not suggesting this massively unlikely task happened once, or even twice in one day but THREE TIMES!

Logic tells you how unbelievably unlikely this is. You are not fighting 911 truthers with any argument to these facts. You are fighting Einsteins theories of relativity. I would like to see one of you argue it on the physical level instead of the emotional level of how you feel about it.

One more thing to note. In order for the top 20 floors of the building to pulverize the 90 something floors below, the 20 floors would need to stay intact the whole duration of collapse to continue crushing (pancaking) the floors below with it's weight. Remember this pancake theory is based on the physical belief that the massive weight of the floors above the weakened point were pulled down by gravity. Now I ask. Were the floors above the damaged sections of the building built out of a stronger material? If not, then when gravity forced the above floors to collide with the below floors, why did the above floors not get destroyed and were allowed to travel down through 90 floors of the same exact building material? For every reaction there is an equal or greater reaction. Everyone remembers that right? How does this fit in with this physical law. The floors above and below would be destroyed equally, or close to equally as they are comprised of the same materials. Yet again however NIST wants you to believe that 20+20 = 9

None of these items I have presented are debatable to any degree. They are all proven. The facts are available anywhere.

You guys bring this crap on yourselves. Stop using speculation as an argument in a duel of science. Use science. Stop saying it looked like a controlled demo. Looking like something means nothing in terms of evidence. You can tape cardboard all over a car and paint the board, make it look like a rhino. People walking by will say, that's a rhino. But it is a car. Fighting over speculation is terrible when the subject is the death of thousands. Use your heads. I know you are smarter then this, you are just caving in to feelings of frustration. Rising above is a sure goal to victory. Don't let science get dragged through the mud of speculative clutter.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:36 PM
reply to post by pteridine

Okay pteridine, you asked for a starting point for the investigation. While I still say that you can't just stick to only one point, and not include the rest, I would like you to start by re-investigating the beginnings and birth of the investigation and 9/11 commission itself. In other words, let's investigate the investigation.

9/11/01 - 4 commercial (half filled) airliners are hijacked in the US (never happened before). 2 of these planes then slam into the WTC, causing the collapse of both towers, and 1 plane crashes into the HQ of the US military. The other plane crashes into a field in Pa.
Results for the day: 3000+ dead, billions of dollars in damage, and a nation in panic.
Bush's response: We don't need an investigation but instead just give me the Patriot Act and then get outta my way.

Unfortunately for Bush, pressure was growing opposition to the Patriot Act. Some members of congress were outspoken critics of the act.
Result: Anthrax attacks. The attacks came in 2 waves starting on Sept 18. The 2 waves though carried 2 different types of MOs. But still the attacks worked and congress passed the Patriot act.
(Just as an interesting side note: The Bush administration began taking Cipro which is a drug used to combat anthrax (among other things) on...wait for it...September 11th 2001).

At the same time pressure was growing for an independent investigation. Bush said no. WHY???? Why not an investigation???
Finally after too much pressure a commission was appointed on Nov. 27th 2002.
Questions about the commission:
1) Why the original appointment of Kissinger as the head?
2) Why did Cleland resign in 2003 saying the white house is covering up?
3) Why did Clinton and Gore NOT testify under oath.
4) Why did Bush and Cheney testify together and not under oath. What did they say?
5)Why did the commission have limited subpoena powers?
6) Why have the 2 chairmen of the commission said the the commission itself was "set up to fail"? And what exactly do they mean by that?
7) Why have members of the commission said that NORAD lied?
8) What misstatements were said by the pentagon and the FAA that caused the members of the commission to consider investigating those 2 bodies for obstructing justice?

I think that should be enough of a start to consider pressing for a new and independent investigation.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:36 PM

Originally posted by gaslaugh123
All this evidence of lies and (very piss poor) deception by idiots that believe their so important. Your not you bunch of "dick heads". Your quite pathetic or is it demented and sick. You whores of evil that live in this white or is it BLACK house of evil. Now answer the dam question. This building that fell from what (?)...a fire...I saw it. He who contends to follow his ignorance...are they blind or possessed with evil (?) The facts and truth has spoken our congress and our president (small p) are simply obvious (to those that see) LIARES in chief.

Your post contributes zero fact or science. You are merely expressing a lack of emotional control.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:37 PM
reply to post by dubiousone

I didn't ask for a laundry list of questions or gripes. That could go on forever; "The sneaky Government won't publish the chemical analyses of every bolt in the WTC. They are hiding something."

I asked what you would investigate that you think would provide the best evidence of hidden conspiracy. You have a few, but if you like the engine problem with the Pentagon plane. What would you investigate? Close up photos of Pentagon damage? Engines recovered from the Pentagon?
What would you look for? Matching serial numbers? Final locations of the engines?

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:38 PM
Some one wants us to really hate Muslims right now. They NEED us to hate them. They are stirring the pot. We are being set up. Don't buy it.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:43 PM
reply to post by gaslaugh123

Theres something very wrong with you! i dont understand a single word you just said!

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:44 PM
reply to post by Asherah

"US" an who are you referring to when yea say us?

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:44 PM
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

Oh my God....the facts have no meaning? You speak as one who has his head burried up his A**. That is what becomes so hard to believe. Are you even sembient (?) excuse my spelling but their is NO excuse for your ignorance.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in