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.

 

Interesting photo of ground zero

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by hgfbob
well..isn't that what the "official HYPOTHESIS", is....someone in LOVE !


No, not really. For one thing, we know that planes had hit the towers, we know there were fires burning within them, and we know what properties office fires have. We do NOT know there were controlled demolitions anywhere in the building, we do NOT know there were nukes in the basement, and we do NOT know there are orbiting secret laser weapons. It seems to me we need to take the available facts first, and then see what end conclusion best makes the facts come together. We should NOT come up with a sexy sounding scenario first, and then add or subtract the facts as we see fit to get them to conform to the preexisting scenario.


impacts that caused 14.5% asymmetrical structural damage, and was NOT the cause of the towers collapse.



The "fires brought down the towers" scenario may be controversial, but they're a hell of lot less controversial than armies of secret gov't ninjas romping around skyscrapers planting concealed explosives without anyone noticing anything, or super weapons noone has seen before that violate the laws of physics.


the HYPOTHESIS is, FIRE brought ALL 3 down....where is YOUR proof?
you have NO actual WTC steel that PROVES the fires present CAUSED the compromise of the vertical steel support...lol..and the ONLY avenue left for YOU to PROVE anything...is with the DATA that NIST used to arrive at their HYPOTHESIS....DATA they STILL refuse to release. 68,000 files of the data they fed into their computer to get their DESIRED results.

a HYPOTHESIS that can ONLY be based on common office products, basic hydrocarbons in a non pressurized environment....that EVERY structure fire in the WORLD experiences EVERYDAY...why have we STILL not seen anything like this phenomenon, anytime in HISTORY...before or after 9-11?




for it surly does NOT have PROOF to back it up.

The ONLY thing keeping the OS afloat, is the LACK of knowledge by the American people....The FACT that there is absolutely NO evidence to support it....just an agenda.


The HYPOTHESIS of WTC7, MUST be based on ONLY...common office hydrocarbons...the SAME fuel ALL office fires feed.



Nope. It's ALSO based upon the fact that falling wreckage from WTC 1 destroyed the power grid and cut off all water to the fire suppression systems in WTC 7, which allowed it to burn out of control to begin with. If you can supply an example of any other office fire that was allowed to burn out of control as in WTC 7, by all means please do so.


lol...are YOU still watching RK Owens video....video that even NIST disproved...falling debris did NOT initiate collapse in WTC7.

Oh...and go read the the first few pages of the FEMA report, where they discuss that very subject....they bring up the McCormick bld, the Broadgate Phase 8 and the Cordington testing.....ALL go AGAINST what happened in 7

much hotter fires, much MORE fire, for a longer duration........and...what happens....tell me...




you are so pathetically funny



I really don't care if you think I'm pathetically funny, whether I'm stupid, or whether you think I kick pregnant dogs. All I care about is whether you can prove anything I post here is incorrect.


how about PROVE the most BASIC...the OS...DUH!

show the proof that the steel failed like it did for the first time in history to cause the symmetrical total global unified collapse of the towers at the CONSISTENT near free fall speed we all saw....after 56 min of spot fire

and the PROOF that WTC7 fell from fire ALONE, [NCSTAR1A-3.2] "It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"]. which caused it to have a free fall ACCELERATED symmetrical total global collapse, as soon as the kink forms at 1.75 seconds into the collapse.

The facade of 7 is attached to the perimeter vertical support.....it will not stand on it's own, it is a non-load bearing structure, and will not support itself, nor will it support one end of every roof truss that sits on the perimeter vertical support also.

What is the agent affecting EVERY perimeter support at the SAME time to get the result we all see...if it's NOT fire. Acceleration EQUAL to gravity was measured from a point on the facade, that WE SEE symmetrically globally, descending, 'ACCELERATING', from 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds of the collapse.




posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by hgfbob
 


Saying something over and over does not a fact make. Check out the links in my signature and look at all the evidence.


evidence....you have WTC steel that SHOWS it failed from the fires present?...GREAT...let NIST in on it so they can finally have some PROOF....and not just a FACT-LESS HYPOTHESIS.


This is not just hot air. This is various sources of information all saying the same thing. "The towers collapsed without the help of explosives." Like I've said in the past, this doesn't mean I suddenly believe the government is all nice. I know they lie and cheat and kill, but I just can't blame them for the specific part of 9/11 about the towers physically collapsing.


and you will never know unless you learn what it takes for a phenomenon like this to occur...remaining ignorant make you as guilty as the ones involved.......



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


I don't understand what you are saying here. You seem to be saying that you think NIST had no evidence to support their belief, and therefore it's controlled demolition by the government.

How would that work? Don't you have to provide at least as much evidence as the NIST report provided? For example, please provide some evidence which is as convincing for the controlled demolition side as this picture is for the 'damage + fire' side:




posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by hgfbob
 


I don't understand what you are saying here. You seem to be saying that you think NIST had no evidence to support their belief, and therefore it's controlled demolition by the government.

How would that work? Don't you have to provide at least as much evidence as the NIST report provided? For example, please provide some evidence which is as convincing for the controlled demolition side as this picture is for the 'damage + fire' side:



You seem to have it all wrong....I don't need evidence...I have NO claims....I have QUESTIONS.

NIST has a claim
NIST has a HYPOTHESIS

in BOTH debate and Law, those who assert, MUST prove


NIST claims the WTC steel failed from the fires present.....Prove it
show the WTC steel that PROVES those characteristics....ALL found evidence PROVES the opposite

NIST gave an Official Gov. claim that "NO explosives or accelerants were used"...Prove it
show the testing that leads to that determination...

NIST relies on a HYPOTHESIS as PROOF.....a hypothesis that they REFUSE to release the DATA on, as to how they arrived at their...hypothesis...

lol..and WHAT does that pic show???



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


If you more than glanced at the report, they did do tests and such to prove their hypothesis. If you claim to have proof of the opposite of their claim, then it kind of does rest on you to prove that their work was flawed. They spent millions of dollars investigating the towers. Did that money just go into their pockets, or did they allocate at least a few dollars toward actually doing scientific work? Just because they signed non-disclosure agreements with certain aspects of their evidence, probably on the basis of protecting identities and such, they are accused of foul play.

Poor arguments man, poor arguments. There's a difference between having questions and downright accusing someone of fraud. You need to prove that they are at fault.

Also, btw, that picture proves that the trusses on the inside of the tower were bowing downward. The lines are not straight all the way up the tower.


edit on 2-10-2010 by Varemia because: added a bit



new topics

top topics
 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join