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.

 

9/11 Eye Witness: I Watched A Few Of Them (Bombs) Explode!

page: 10
59
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
[

Originally posted by FDNY343
Why have none of these "researched" people written ANY paper in ANY language

They have. It's called Journal of 9/11 Studies.



I'll reply to the rest of the useless drivel that you post, but I wanted to address this first.

JONES is LESS than a vanity journal. It was created by truthers for truthers.

It's peer-review is next to useless. It's other conspiracy minded folk, speaking on other conspiracies.

Kevin Ryan ( who has "published" at JONES) is a water tester. When he "publishes" about nano-thermites and such, we know that his "education" is fairly useless.

Here's another one.


Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report: A Study in Theoretical Adequacy
Anonymous and F. Legge


ANONYMOUS??? What kind of journal does that? No respectable journals, that is for damn certain.

Here are the co-chairs of the journal.

Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, and Steven Jones


And guess who "publishes" most often in that "journal"? Yep. Kevin Ryan and Frank Legge.

Sorry, that is more of a circle **** than a journal.


Also, a little tidbit of info for you.

I tried to submit a discussion of one of the papers there. I was denied. Why you ask? Because I wasn't "invited". That is NOT the way a RESPECTABLE journal operates. Not one bit.

Conclusion: Garbage vanity journal. Lower than Bentham on the respect scale.




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Oh yeah, well I submitted some drivel blah blah blah to it and they turned me down because I didn't know what I was talking about. Proof of anything you posted above would go along way buddy. Is that you Dave?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Oh yeah, well I submitted some drivel blah blah blah to it and they turned me down because I didn't know what I was talking about.


No, not drivel, but well researched, fact based science.


Originally posted by budaruskie
Proof of anything you posted above would go along way buddy.


Sorry, not happening. I value my privacy.


Originally posted by budaruskie
Is that you Dave?


Nope, not Dave. I do have a "V" in my name though.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Forgive me for casting the same doubt on your unproven claims as is always the case for statements made by supposed "truthers". If I said I had done the same and Popular Mechanics turned me down for not being invited, undoubtedly I'd be mocked and asked for proof.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   


Sorry, not happening. I value my privacy.


I guess that explains why you support, defend and promote the Official Story, which was directly responsible for the UnConstitutional Patriot Act, which was directly responsible for the loss of complete privacy for 350 million people and counting.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


You mean the same 350 million people that: facebook, myspace, twitter, text, blog, etc about every single second of their life for the whole world to see? Who yak on their iPhones about every intimate detail on the bus, train, sidewalk, mall, store, etc?

Give me a break about "invading privacy". Everything is already out there for the world to see.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


You mean the same 350 million people that: facebook, myspace, twitter, text, blog, etc about every single second of their life for the whole world to see? Who yak on their iPhones about every intimate detail on the bus, train, sidewalk, mall, store, etc?

Give me a break about "invading privacy". Everything is already out there for the world to see.


Laughable.
The young and naive do this.
The sheep that think nothing is wrong with country or its government do this.
Not EVERYONE...as you stated. (350 million)
Besides, it goes way deeper than what one is 'willing' to share than the information that TPTB take.

I notice you DIDnt argue the point Sphinx made though.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


You mean the same 350 million people that: facebook, myspace, twitter, text, blog, etc about every single second of their life for the whole world to see? Who yak on their iPhones about every intimate detail on the bus, train, sidewalk, mall, store, etc?

Give me a break about "invading privacy". Everything is already out there for the world to see.


Fine, why don't YOU post all your credit card details for us??
you know the Government is allowed to track them useing the vague rules of the Patriot Act right??

BTW, I'm not on ANY social network sites because I like my privacy..
It should be as simple as a choice..
The Governmebt takes that choice away...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Forgive me for casting the same doubt on your unproven claims as is always the case for statements made by supposed "truthers". If I said I had done the same and Popular Mechanics turned me down for not being invited, undoubtedly I'd be mocked and asked for proof.


No, we would ask you why you are submitting a discussion on a paper to a magazine.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


Sorry, not happening. I value my privacy.


I guess that explains why you support, defend and promote the Official Story, which was directly responsible for the UnConstitutional Patriot Act, which was directly responsible for the loss of complete privacy for 350 million people and counting.


Ok, if that is what you want to believe, I am cool with that.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   



Here is the rest of that quote that was CONVENIENTLY left out.

We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.



graphics8.nytimes.com...

Page 6 BTW.





My question is: who was he talking to that they could determine this by January 25, 2002, even before all the debris was sifted through?

But it seems it was even determined even earlier than that.

Father John Delendick
graphics8.nytimes.com...

"He said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even. As we've since learned, it was the jet fuel that was dropping down that caused all this."


What and how did they learn by December 6, 2001 that it was the jet fuel and not bombs? This is even before all the fires were put out at ground zero.

But it seems it was determined even before this.

intelfiles.egoplex.com...

"Within 90 minutes both towers -- structurally weakened by the intense heat of the flames -- collapsed"


How did they learn this by October 2nd. just one day after FEMA started going through the debris at Fresh Kills? On the same day that mysterious "vaporized" columns were being reported?

www.nytimes.com...

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."


On October 2nd, was it a consensus that jet fuel fires would "vaporize" steel?

But it seems it was determined even before that.


911research.wtc7.net...


"It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building," said Mr. Hamburger, chief structural engineer for ABS Consulting in Oakland, Calif. Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated, "I was very surprised," said Mr. Hamburger. The buildings "certainly did not do as well as I would have hoped."


How did they determine there were no detonations just 8 days later, on September 19, 2001, even before rescue operations were ended?

So my question is: how did they come to this conclusion with out looking at all the evidence first?

Maybe the above article explains it:


"By now it is accepted wisdom that the Twin Towers collapse was inevitable -- the result of extraordinary trauma followed by extraordinary fire."


Accepted wisdom... just eight days after such an unprecedented event. No investigation.... no looking at all the evidence first. That truly is amazing to me.
edit on 6-2-2011 by NIcon because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2011 by NIcon because: changed a nine to an eight



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Also, I'd like to point out that, in the Wall Street Journal article in my post above, the CONCLUSIONS:


"It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building," said Mr. Hamburger, chief structural engineer for ABS Consulting in Oakland, Calif. Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated, "I was very surprised," said Mr. Hamburger. The buildings "certainly did not do as well as I would have hoped."

and

"By now it is accepted wisdom that the Twin Towers collapse was inevitable -- the result of extraordinary trauma followed by extraordinary fire."


come BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION:


"Their investigation, conducted pro bono on behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers, will begin when the rescue and recovery effort ends, and last as long as 18 months. They will examine precisely how and why the towers fell, and what -- if anything -- might be done to mitigate the damage of similar disasters."



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   


Not sure if this has been posted already.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join