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.

 

A question for 911 deniers, what about the NIST report was so conclusive and convincing for you to d

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Instead of complaining about the medium; how about addressing the fact that the NYPD helicopter reported the buckling columns prior to collapse ?




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
as a skeptic of the OS I find it somewhat plausabile. I have not read the OS report but I understand the jist of why the Towers seemed to implode but a better discription would be pancaking ..... the problem I have is that the support colums failure which appears to start the pancaking but what made the interior support colums fail? The fire was NOT hot enough ... funny how all buildings interior support columns fails at one time! THAT US NOT POSSIBLE because what you are saying that even the support columns on the oppsite side of the building failed at the same time the columns on the impact side?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Nutter
 


Instead of complaining about the medium; how about addressing the fact that the NYPD helicopter reported the buckling columns prior to collapse ?



Actually, I didn't see a direct quote from the NYPD helicopter personell. What I did read was a reporter reporting (in 2004 I might add) that they said this. I.E. Hearsay.

Also, why not take your own advice and stop saying journals like Bentham are debunked because they take money, or Steven Jones, or AE911truth? But, nah, that would actually mean you have to think and really debate the issues.
edit on 17-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by kaya82
 



do what the op asks prove it was caused by fire and planes instead of bitching makes you look silly


I have a better idea ... You prove that it wasn't caused by fire and planes . That's how this works see , you are the accuser , therefore the burden of proof is on you .

And stop posting sarcastic one-liners , it makes you look silly . And immature .
its not a one liner its a genuine question. If uv no desire to answer the op question why bother?im not gunna prove anything to ou i this thread as this would be off topic. Theres hundreds of threads onthis forum that proves the towers were not brought down by fire



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Please dont debate on here, leave this thread to the 911 deniers to piece toegether their version of the accounts on why the towers fell.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


This is the closest we actually get to a direct quote.


According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said.


Notice it is Dr. Sunder saying this? I believe every word he has to say.

Shouldn't this radio transmission be on record somewhere? Why do we only hear of the second hand hearsay from a man whom most of us don't trust already?

Please provide the actual radio transmission.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Please dont debate on here, leave this thread to the 911 deniers to piece toegether their version of the accounts on why the towers fell.


Maybe if they would start piecing together instead of attacking everyone else, we could get somewhere?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by kaya82
 



Theres hundreds of threads onthis forum that proves the towers were not brought down by fire


Funny , I've not came across one single thread that actually PROVES that the towers were not brought down by planes and fires .

Could you be so kind as to link JUST ONE thread that PROVES this ?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


If we are going to take NYPD radio transmissions as fact:


NYPD Police Radio Transmissions on 9/11 Discuss Truck Bomb Between 6th and 7th on Kings Street


radicalfilms.co.uk...

Also. This is the closest quote I can find attributed to the NYPD helicopter pilot.


In under an hour after it was attacked, the south tower would fall.

"We tried to get the message across that the writing is on the wall -- the north tower is probably going to come down," Semendinger recalled. "Everybody should get out."

Thirty minutes later, it also collapsed.


www.cbsnews.com...

Notice no mention of bowing steel columns? Also notice that he states "probably" only because the second tower had already collapsed?

But, I wait for the transmission with an open mind.







edit on 17-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Did you read my original posted links? It directly quotes the NIST report that is pertinent to the fire. Per Cassius request, I won't add anymore of my opinion, but you requested just one thread with "proof" and I provided it earlier. It will take some thorough reading, and little bit of technical knowldege to understand the jargon, but without saying too much, I believe it satisfies your request.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Here are the links again.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Cassius666
 


This post is pretty detailed and links directly to NIST report.

This was a follow up post

You can follow the subsequent pages of that thread to learn more.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Please dont debate on here, leave this thread to the 911 deniers to piece toegether their version of the accounts on why the towers fell.


Why did you feel the need to open a thread to ascertain what "911 deniers" believe ? There are NUMEROUS threads that you could have found this information in .

If I want to know what your take on 9/11 is , I simply go to your profile and see what , if anything , you have posted about it .

You actually expect us to roll it all up into one post ? Okay , Islamic terrorists hijacked planes and used them as weapons and flew three of them into buildings , killing lots of people . Two of those buildings collapsed as a result of the plane impacts and damage sustained from the fires . A third building collapsed as a result of collateral damage .

Foreign , as well as domestic intelligence agencies , knew that something was in the mix beforehand . Red -tape and inter-agency bickering caused the intelligence not to be acted upon . Someone(s) dropped the ball , in a BIG way .

Cars that were burned and destroyed in the immediate area were TOWED to those other remote locations as part of the recovery efforts . The "majic passport" survived the destruction , along with TENS OF THOUSANDS of other paper products , as well as identification and personal effects of other passengers that was ALSO recovered .(why is it you people turn a blind eye to this fact ?) .

Personal effects and identification of passengers was found at the Pentagon . AS WELL , there is more than ample proof of AIRPLANE wreckage being recovered from the Pentagon .

I would be more than happy to answer individual questions that you may have . Just don't expect me to give you a blanket explanation for my opinions and beliefs .



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Just to pick you up on your comment about the BBC prematurely reporting the collapse of WTC 7.

You say you cannot accept that it was an error. That is in fact what the BBC say; they got a false report from Reuters.

So what is the alternative explanation ? Are you seriously suggesting that a foreign news outlet was given details by the perps as to what would happen ? Isn't that, in the nicest possible way, insane ?

And could such a time-table have ever been created in the first place ? The whole time-line that day depended in the first instance on the times planes took off; which we all know is always unpredictable.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I couldn't get that worded quite the way I wanted it. I do believe the BBC received a false report from Reuters. I do believe Reuters made a mistake in sending it. I believe there was scripting involved, and one document got out a little prematurely. I believe some officials knew WTC7 was coming down well in advance, either days before the attack, or maybe just immediately after WTC1 and 2 came down. I have been in Emergency Planning situations, and they get as much done ahead of time as possible. Somebody scripted that press release, and then it mistakenly got sent to Reuters and the BBC. The question is when did it get scripted, and by whom? That is a lynchpin in the conspiracy theory. It might have been an overzealous and overprepared aid, but it might have been much more nefarious.

**************************************************************
On another note, this is one of my favorite comparisons out of all my posts, in all the threads on this subject. It logically shows how it is impossible to believe both the WTC story, and the Pentagon story. They are mutually exclusive. If one believes fire brought down the towers, then it makes it impossible to believe a plane hit the Pentagon, and vice versa.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 17-12-2010 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
OP, your intention was good and I am sorry to say that you will never get people to stop arguing and allow the other side to piece anything together. It just wont happen on this subject.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd

the obvious, that two planes hit two skyscrapers and then three skyscrapers were completely destroyed to the ground


That is it in a nutshell . Now , was that so hard to admit ?


That's not the whole story, which is why, if you include the whole sentence you are quoting you would see I am asking what has been proven besides those things. For example there is no proof that the fire and planes alone led to those 3 buildings being destroyed. If you want to quote me honestly and in full you can save yourself the confusion and making me have to repeat myself like I am talking to a child. You are not a child, you can read what I posted, before butchering it and pretending I'm saying something that I'm not.


Planes hit the towers , towers collapsed as a result of the damage incurred from the impacts and the subsequent fires .


And where is the proof of that? That's what we've been asking since the OP. You are only now getting around to stating your opinions as fact. YAWN.

The ranting doesn't constitute proof, either. Come on, man. Either you have some proof or you have no right coming on here and trying to preach your opinion like it's some kind of gospel.
edit on 17-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Instead of complaining about the medium; how about addressing the fact that the NYPD helicopter reported the buckling columns prior to collapse ?


Any buckling could have been caused just as easily by thermite eating through columns or some of the many reported explosions severing internal columns and causing overloading of the remaining columns. Where is the proof that the fires and planes alone caused this buckling?

If anything, NIST debunked that theory when they recreated the perimeter and truss setups in their lab, put them under intense heat for an extended period of time, and no buckling occurred like their hypothesis predicted. So if it's not there then where else could the proof for this theory possibly be? THERE IS NONE!



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Scripting? Days in advance?

The BBC said got the story that WTC 7 had collapsed from Reuters who said that it came from a local source

by early afternoon was known that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, this was confirmed when FDNY established
collapse zone around building and cleared the area around .

In all the confusion that date it got garbled . Story was released without first confirming it

Why do truthers want to concoct elaborate conspiracy fantasy.....



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Scripting? Days in advance?

The BBC said got the story that WTC 7 had collapsed from Reuters who said that it came from a local source

by early afternoon was known that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, this was confirmed when FDNY established
collapse zone around building and cleared the area around .

In all the confusion that date it got garbled . Story was released without first confirming it

Why do truthers want to concoct elaborate conspiracy fantasy.....


Why not??
After all, what you are saying is just an opinion..
Everyone is entitled to their own...




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join