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.

 

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

page: 8
121
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Ciphor
 


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


I'm sorry but that is not all it proves. I implore you to do some research on the stages of steel. This is not a difficult subject to find material on. We have been working with steel for a long time. Molten Iron is not produced purely by rising the temperature of steel to 2700 degrees. This was tested and proven to be molten iron (with other trace elements I will not get into as most don't understand them) by not just independent study, but also by NIST. With chromium no longer present the possibility of the molten iron being present from hot fires alone is completely ruled out. Not to mention a massive amount of sulfur was found within the molten iron. NIST has an explanation for this however, and since we do not need this to make our argument continue to be valid, I will dismiss the sulfur all together.



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




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by gaslaugh123
 

O you mean the OS facts? my God man i sure am against every word said in that report, an as you can see im not alone far from it!



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by The Baby Seal Club
 


OK, you have an investigation of the points you listed. What do you look for and where? I'd guess that you might want the independent investigators to look in email files, NSA intercepts, phone records, etc. The decision is yours. Be specific but realize that you can't have everything so you will have to be clever.

Then you have to decide how to handle the results. You may find that there is no direct involvement by the Administration in the attacks but rather a coverup of gross incompetence perpetrated by Bush appointees that led to the attacks being successful. What would you do for each scenario and how would you do it? Assume you have access to the press and the USAG. How do you play your cards?
1. No involvement, no coverup of incompetence.
2. No involvement but coverup of incompetence.
3. Some kind of involvement.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I know you did not ask me, but I have an answer for you. If you are inquiring purely on terms of a conspiracy, and not the facts of the buildings collapses, then I would say the single largest pieces of evidence that something was conspired would have to be this fact.

NORAD Stood down. Just this alone is subject to questions. for a super military force as strong as ours to have complete failure protecting the pentagon and huge financial buildings, something is seriously wrong.

You cannot argue "they were commercial planes, how could we expect an attack like that?"

It is fact that we had been preparing for this exact type of attack for a long time.

Now that alone is enough to raise many questions. You add to these facts the fact that NORAD was standing down because it was on the same day, performing a wargame incase planes were flown into the trade centers and pentagon is, wow.

This is not impossible. But when you crunch the numbers of how unlikely this is? We have a better chance of jumping and hitting the moon then NORAD had of being engaged in a training exercise to stop the exact type of attack that is happening on the exact day.

That's all just good and fun though. Proving a conspiracy is a troublesome task. This thread I believe is about a re-investigation, not proving a conspiracy. Let's stay on track.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


Sulfur lowers the MP of iron. There is no proof of molten iron and if molten iron did exist, it would not be as a result of the Jones thermite fantasy. Thermite reacts quickly and cools like any other metal unless there is an additional heat source.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no proof of molten iron


Liar.


Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron


www.fema.gov...



I say "liar" because there is NO WAY you have been a member here this long and still don't know this.


Save your infamous semantic bickering, which I know you could carry on to infinity. There is no point. Your statement has been debunked.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

Oh sure pteridine you might very well get a new investigation that runs into the same problems that the 9/11 commission ran into. And there are limits to any investigation because these things are still beholden to the laws of the land (e.g. constitutional rights).
But that also doesn't mean that just because there might be problems, that we should just lay down and accept the OS as it is. The OS is flawed...badly.
This is not a scientific experiment where we must first produce a hypothesis of what happened (like what dereks insists we must do). This would be a new, more powerful, independent investigation into the events of 9/11 whose results could eliminate a lot of the questions people have.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by flamingmonkey
reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks
 


Can I verify that they don't have special info?

Well, none of them claim to and if you read a lot of those statements you'll see, over and over again, when I saw it on TV, or read about it on the internet... I have yet to see, anyone claim special knowledge... if you see such a claim, please link me to it.

As for using famous people on your website and cheery picking out of context quotes, and then putting them on a website called:

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth (some thing Clarke isn't in to)

And then link to his statement, via a link labelled "Current Signatories".

..what will most poeple assume?

Let's see, I'll go to: www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org...

And then click: " Current Signatories".

And hey look, it's Wesley Clarke!

If you wanna pretend that's not leading or dishonest (it's both) then I don't hink you're willing to play fair.

If the govt put Stephen Jones on their Scientist that agree with the official story you guys would be rightfully rip#.

Here, you justify it.

In fairness you were right about Jim Webb, I meant (misremembered) Max Clelland. Also on there, also not a Truther.

Finally, why would the org boast about the numbers if numbers have no significance?

And they do, endlessly.

Again, as have been pointed out millions of times, these guys are essentially dishonest and generate propaganda, in the technical sense.


Okay, here is the list you get when you select "Current Signatories"

www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org...

Military Officers who have signed the "U.S. Military Officers for 9/11 Truth" Petition.
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD
Former Director
Advanced Space Programs Development
Former Head, Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean
U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology
U.S. Air Force (ret)

Lt. Col. David Gapp
Pilot and Former President
Aircraft Accident Investigation Board
U.S. Air Force (ret)

Col. Michael Harley
Chief of Standardization,
Strategic Air Command Wing and
Aircraft Accident Investigator
U.S. Air Force (ret)
Commander Ralph Kolstad
Fighter Pilot
Former Air Combat Instructor
U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School
U.S. Navy (ret)

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski
Former Political-Military Affairs Officer
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Former Member of the staff of the Director
National Security Agency
U.S. Air Force (ret)

Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford
Fighter Pilot
U.S. Marine Corps (ret)

Lt. Col. Jeff Latas
Combat Fighter Pilot and Former President
Aircraft Accident Investigation Board
U.S. Air Force (ret)

Col. Thomas W. Mcguire, Jr.
Command Fighter Pilot
U.S. Air Force (ret) Commander Ted Muga
Aviator
U.S. Navy (ret)

Col. George Nelson
Aircraft Accident Investigator
and airplane parts authority
U.S. Air Force (ret)
Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS
Command Fighter Pilot
U.S. Air Force (ret)

Lt. Col. Debra B. Simmons, MD
Physician
U.S. Army (ret)

Col. James Uhl, MD
Physician
U.S. Army (ret)

Col. Ann Wright
Officer and Former U.S. Diplomat
U.S. Army (ret)


Where is Wesley Clarke in that list?
(1.Or Clark as is written on the website)

Where do you find Max Clelland in that list?

When you click on this link: www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org...
You get this : Military Officers who have made public statements questioning the official 9/11 account.

Scrolling down you find Wesley Clark and Max Clelland who are clearly not claimed to be signatories


Notice the difference between the two headings?

One says: Military Officers who have made public statements questioning the official 9/11 account.
and the other says: Military Officers who have signed the "U.S. Military Officers for 9/11 Truth" Petition.

I'm absolutely sure if either felt they were being misquoted or their statement and image were used against their permission they would have a legal case to have it removed.


edit on 11-9-2010 by The Ghost Who Walks because: 1.Not trying to be pedantic about spelling, (honest!) and added Max Clelland



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Ciphor
 


Sulfur lowers the MP of iron. There is no proof of molten iron and if molten iron did exist, it would not be as a result of the Jones thermite fantasy. Thermite reacts quickly and cools like any other metal unless there is an additional heat source.


First I would like to remove your suggestion of Jones thermite theory. I stick to facts and no speculation. The molten iron is a fact. If it was caused by a thermatic reaction or not is yet to be determined.

I'm actually very glad you replied in this manner. As the main purpose of my posts was not to educate or discuss the validity of the claims, they are trust me, as the guy above has shown everything I have posted is actually confirmed by our governments investigations.

My purpose was to show how the debate is structured and how can I help my fellow Americans out in exposing your argument for what is, purely speculation with zero factual grounds.

At this point I would link the hundreds, and I do mean hundreds of images of molten iron, the NIST test results of the analyzed molten iron, as well as a list of first responders testimonies (here in the logical world, when you have 100+ eye witness accounts, it holds a lot of water), but someone beat me to it.

It's not that there is no evidence of molten iron, it's that there is nothing but evidence of molten iron.

I implore you to do more research before you challenge these facts. You will make a quick fool of yourself as you have displayed already.


edit on 11-9-2010 by Ciphor because: Why do I have to explain my edit?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
I say "liar" because there is NO WAY you have been a member here this long and still don't know this. Your statement has been debunked.

Oh they know it. They don't care. They're not here for facts or truth. They're here to derail, deride, and peddle the official conspiracy theory no matter what. After all, the Obama administration want's to infiltrate and ban conspiracy theories altogether.

There is an agenda going on and there are a few names in the 9/11 forum who will continuously peddle the official conspiracy theory without regard of the facts or evidence. There is absolutely nothing you can tell them. They are payed and/or programmed to say the same thing over and over and no amount of facts will ever change that because that's not what they're here for.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
I say "liar" because there is NO WAY you have been a member here this long and still don't know this. Your statement has been debunked.

Oh they know it. They don't care. They're not here for facts or truth. They're here to derail, deride, and peddle the official conspiracy theory no matter what. After all, the Obama administration want's to infiltrate and ban conspiracy theories altogether.

There is an agenda going on and there are a few names in the 9/11 forum who will continuously peddle the official conspiracy theory without regard of the facts or evidence. There is absolutely nothing you can tell them. They are payed and/or programmed to say the same thing over and over and no amount of facts will ever change that because that's not what they're here for.






If you are so sure of this, then why are you playing into it? Why are you derailing your own threads by giving any validity to their invalid points?

It's simple my patron friend. State the facts and discuss the facts, and only the facts. Stay away from his speculation and theories. As well as others. People trying to fight on our side but really they do more harm then good by allowing things to be turned into a debacle.

They need you _BoneZ_. We don't need them. The facts stand alone. It's all they have, us arguing with them. They have no facts, no science, no logic. Just a million ways to argue anything. Everything can be argued. Can everything being argued legitimately? Of course not. However that does not stop the argument and you getting sucked into it though does it? Then what do you have? Who have you convinced now? Do you really want to convince someone who shuns critical thinking so easily? Throws logic out the window? I say let the fools be fools. Talk to the intellectuals that already have understanding as I am now. But when you stand on the street yelling back and forth at the fool for yelling, how do you now look? Anyones opinion who matters will have either a) done their homework, or b) have no problem researching something to find out for themselves.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks
 


I already exaplined the Clelland thing.
My point is that they've vreatea website called military officers for 9/11 truth, they've created a subpage called signatories and put Wes Clarke on that page.

Yes, they did put a label on the subsection, pointing out that the people on the signatories page weren't all signatories, but the damage is done.

IT's leading, it's OBVIOUSLY leading in fact and that makes it doshonest.

SOOO much of their approach is dishonest as well, so I;ve stopped giving them any benfit of the doubt.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
the other thing, and this is just shocking, is how a huge number of so called "Truth"ers are willing to say, "I don't know what happened, but that doesn't stop me from believing something".

In other words, "I am doing exactly what I ciriticise everyone else for".

How many posts start with, "I dont' know anything about physics, but..." or, "I dont' know how they brought down the towers, but...".

That means you're operating, not on fact, but on faith, in your own ideology.




edit on 12-9-2010 by flamingmonkey because: whoops



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


Photos like this?





posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 



Originally posted by Section31
More people want to open up Pandora's box.

Even though conspiracy theorists are trying to prove one thing, I wonder how much chaos will erupt when they find out their beliefs are all lies?

I guess we will have to wait and see.


"Let us have the truth though the heavens fall" Dr Herbert M. Shelton

I'm for opening the box. It will be worse than what we have now because then we'll have to do something about the criminals running the USA.

---------------------------------------------------------------
reply to post by Six Sigma
 



Originally posted by Six Sigma
Really? "hard" evidence? Care to share that "hard" evidence?
...
9 years. Please put up your hard evidence. You will be the first.


Six - the hard evidence has been posted ad infinitum. Theories abound to make sense of it. Some theories such as nano-thermite are obvious anti-truth disinformation tactics. You can tell because when they're discredited by hard evidence, the promoters keep pushing them religiously (as in "it's impossible but I have faith in it.")

The hard evidence needs to be heard in a court of law and then judged on it's merit. Debunkers are not a court of law so do not count. Theories are just that and do not count.

When you slander the search for truth and justice, you slander the constitution, the flag, the forefathers (i.e. MLK, JFK, Lincoln to name a few extremely well known ones) who died trying to fight the criminals running this country from long ago.

Should Bush, Cheney, Rumsfelt and co actually wind up in court (yes, I can dream,) perhaps you and the other OS faithful will be happy to stand with them and show them your support.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by flamingmonkey
the other thing, and this is just shocking, is how a huge number of so called "Truth"ers are willing to say, "I don't know what happened, but that doesn't stop me from believing something".

In other words, "I am doing exactly what I ciriticise everyone else for".

How many posts start with, "I dont' know anything about physics, but..." or, "I dont' know how they brought down the towers, but...".

That means you're operating, not on fact, but on faith, in your own ideology.




edit on 12-9-2010 by flamingmonkey because: whoops



One problem. You have zero understanding of the context of words and how important context is. Allow me to educate you kiddo.

If I say "I like to kill beers at bars"

and you quote me saying "I like to kill"

You have taken me out of context and are making an attempt to fool fools.

Is it far fetched to assume you're talking about my post? I read through the whole thread and other 9-11 threads and my post was the only one to start off with a statement about physics. So you must be referencing below...


I said it like this, full context so your twisting of words is easily viewable.

"I wont dare pretend I'm a physicist, because I'm not. But I will say one thing. The laws of physics are common knowledge."

But you said it like this "I dont' know anything about physics, but..."

I never said I didn't know anything about physics. Not being a college educated physicist, and understanding the very basic laws of physics are 2 completely separate things. Did you really have trouble separating that easily understood difference?


Also, When I say I don't know what brought the buildings down. That is me being honest. Me then following that with my thoughts or ideas is not a statement that I know what I am saying. Simply a statement expressing my opinion from the information I have gathered. As long as they are clearly separated, there is no reason a single posting cannot contain your feelings on fact vs. personal opinion. What is wrong with not knowing what happened and your brain drawing a conclusion anyway? Is the conclusion posted as fact or opinion? The relevance of fact vs. opinion is very important here. Yet you make no distinction between the two. Why have you overlooked something so defining?


Originally posted by flamingmonkey
reply to post by Ciphor
 


Photos like this?




lol your cute when you try.

The photos and fema.gov doc were already posted. You saw them, but maybe your slow and need things repeated 2 or 3 times so here it is again special order for someone very special!

www.fema.gov...

For those who refuse to actually read source material, I will take a quote from the end of this to help you along in finding peace with simple logic.



C.6 Suggestions for Future Research
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.


www.fema.gov...






edit on 12-9-2010 by Ciphor because:
edit on 12-9-2010 by Ciphor because: Why do I have to explain my edit?




posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


This is pure ridiculousness.

I ALSO would like to see BsuhCo in jail. but that doesn't mean I have to believe in CTs around the WTC.

The "evidence" isn't hard, and many people that are genuine (not shills) believe in # like nano-thermite.

This post is a huge fail, man.

Thinking BushCo needs to be in court =! 9/11 was an inside job.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Ciphor
 


Out of context eh?

You mean like putting Wes Clark and Max Clelland on a 9/11 truth website, even though they don't agree with your movement?

Cute photo huh?

Shame that truthers had to resort to faking photos...



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor

Originally posted by flamingmonkey
the other thing, and this is just shocking, is how a huge number of so called "Truth"ers are willing to say, "I don't know what happened, but that doesn't stop me from believing something".

In other words, "I am doing exactly what I ciriticise everyone else for".

How many posts start with, "I dont' know anything about physics, but..." or, "I dont' know how they brought down the towers, but...".

That means you're operating, not on fact, but on faith, in your own ideology.




edit on 12-9-2010 by flamingmonkey because: whoops



One problem. You have zero understanding of the context of words and how important context is. Allow me to educate you kiddo.

If I say "I like to kill beers at bars"

and you quote me saying "I like to kill"

You have taken me out of context and are making an attempt to fool fools.

Is it far fetched to assume you're talking about my post? I read through the whole thread and other 9-11 threads and my post was the only one to start off with a statement about physics. So you must be referencing below...


I said it like this, full context so your twisting of words is easily viewable.

"I wont dare pretend I'm a physicist, because I'm not. But I will say one thing. The laws of physics are common knowledge."

But you said it like this "I dont' know anything about physics, but..."

I never said I didn't know anything about physics. Not being a college educated physicist, and understanding the very basic laws of physics are 2 completely separate things. Did you really have trouble separating that easily understood difference?


Also, When I say I don't know what brought the buildings down. That is me being honest. Me then following that with my thoughts or ideas is not a statement that I know what I am saying. Simply a statement expressing my opinion from the information I have gathered. As long as they are clearly separated, there is no reason a single posting cannot contain your feelings on fact vs. personal opinion. What is wrong with not knowing what happened and your brain drawing a conclusion anyway? Is the conclusion posted as fact or opinion? The relevance of fact vs. opinion is very important here. Yet you make no distinction between the two. Why have you overlooked something so defining?


Originally posted by flamingmonkey
reply to post by Ciphor
 


Photos like this?




lol your cute when you try.

The photos and fema.gov doc were already posted. You saw them, but maybe your slow and need things repeated 2 or 3 times so here it is again special order for someone very special!

www.fema.gov...

For those who refuse to actually read source material, I will take a quote from the end of this to help you along in finding peace with simple logic.



C.6 Suggestions for Future Research
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.


www.fema.gov...






edit on 12-9-2010 by Ciphor because:
edit on 12-9-2010 by Ciphor because: Why do I have to explain my edit?




The rest of my response:

You say: The laws of physics are common knowledge - that's kind of a stretch, but ok, assume they are - that doesn't mean you're understanding of the collapses is correct.

Finally, go read my post which included the Landmark footage and answer that (no truther has of yet).

The towers don't ACTUALLY LOOK like demos.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Hi GenRadek

I posted in this thread earlier in response to pteridine who invited people to 'Pick your best area to investigate and state what exactly you would investigate.'

While pteridine did not respond to the area I picked, you however did provide a answer to the question of why the recordings from around the Pentagon have not been released.

You say:
'Already been done: The website appears to have already expired, but here is the information about exactly what was on those tapes. And BTW, they were not from the "Pentagon" per se. and provide a link to '85 tapes'

Thank you so much for this information. I have been waiting these past 9 years to see these videos/recordings. I intend to spend many hours looking at these tapes that you have seen.

Where they the full unedited tapes? I hope so, because the two pathetic clips that were released by the authorities were dubious to say the least.

I see the LIST you linked states that the video/recordings don't show anything relevant.
Well we will be the judge of that eh?

Just one last thing GenRadek, I notice that your link is to a LIST only.

I would be very grateful if you could link any of the video/recordings as I can't seem to find them available anywhere?

Thank you in advance for your invaluable help in debunking this, it will put my mind at rest on at least this one inconsistency.

Regards
MickC

p.s.
Don't forget the links to the video/recordings THAT YOU HAVE SEEN.



new topics

top topics



 
121
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join