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: 8
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Even with evidence right in front of them the debunkers still deny it.That's why people think they're working for the government.




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Even with evidence right in front of them the debunkers still deny it.That's why people think they're working for the government.


There is a strong line between having doubt and having evidence. What you and the truthers have is a strong sense of DOUBT in the situation, not evidence. If you think you are 100% sure about your position, then you are taking it on faith, not on evidence.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
There is a strong line between having doubt and having evidence. What you and the truthers have is a strong sense of DOUBT in the situation, not evidence. If you think you are 100% sure about your position, then you are taking it on faith, not on evidence.


No you got it backwards. There is NO evidence that any of those buildings collapsed from fire.

Physics tells us this is impossible. The final outcome of all 3 collapses contradicts the OS. WTC7 landed in its own footprint, as evidenced by the outer walls being in top of the debris pile post collapse.

You can disagree with those claims but its not the point, why should YOUR opinion of the collapses be the deciding factor for a new investigation.

If there is doubt to an explanation then an alternative explanation should be researched, nothing at all wrong with that unless you have some personal reason to not want a new investigation.

If the police used your logic the jails would be full of innocent people.
edit on 1/30/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
There is a strong line between having doubt and having evidence. What you and the truthers have is a strong sense of DOUBT in the situation, not evidence. If you think you are 100% sure about your position, then you are taking it on faith, not on evidence.


No you got it backwards. There is NO evidence that any of those buildings collapsed from fire.

Physics tells us this is impossible. The final outcome of all 3 collapses contradicts the OS. WTC7 landed in its own footprint, as evidenced by the outer walls being in top of the debris pile post collapse.

You can disagree with those claims but its not the point, why should YOUR opinion of the collapses be the deciding factor for a new investigation.

If there is doubt to an explanation then an alternative explanation should be researched, nothing at all wrong with that unless you have some personal reason to not want a new investigation.

If the police used your logic the jails would be full of innocent people.
edit on 1/30/2011 by ANOK because: typo


THINK AND REFLECT

Seriously, did I say half the crap you just accused me of believing and/or endorsing in your post?

"I" wouldn't mind a new investigation. I personally don't feel there HAS to be one, but it would not be any skin off my back for there to be another investigation.

As for the evidence about the buildings, that is apparently OPINION, because otherwise ALL those respectable institutions wouldn't have written papers and changed their building methods after 9/11. I would like to meet the physics that truthers talk to, because it sounds like he's a fairly strange guy who not only twists the facts, but draws conclusions that make no sense.

I hear FOOTPRINT FOOTPRINT all day long on these forums, but what you fail to realize is that you are saying literally "If a collapsing building falls anywhere near itself then it was demolitions." I point this out because EVERY ONE OF THE BUILDINGS landed outside their respective footprints, damaging other buildings. Yes, even WTC 7. But when I point this out, guess what I hear: "But even planned demolitions wouldn't protect the surrounding buildings completely. Debris has to fall outside the footprint."

THEN HOW IS THAT FALLING IN THE FOOTPRINT IF IT FELL OUTSIDE THE FOOTPRINT!!!!!!!!!

It really fills me with notions that humans cannot think logically whenever I visit these forums.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I hear FOOTPRINT FOOTPRINT all day long on these forums, but what you fail to realize is that you are saying literally "If a collapsing building falls anywhere near itself then it was demolitions." I point this out because EVERY ONE OF THE BUILDINGS landed outside their respective footprints, damaging other buildings. Yes, even WTC 7. But when I point this out, guess what I hear: "But even planned demolitions wouldn't protect the surrounding buildings completely. Debris has to fall outside the footprint."

THEN HOW IS THAT FALLING IN THE FOOTPRINT IF IT FELL OUTSIDE THE FOOTPRINT!!!!!!!!!


You obviously have no experience with controlled demolitions.

Do you really think 'in its own footprint' is that literal? Do you really think every controlled implosion demolition is so perfect that no building debris will ever fall outside the footprint? What were you saying about logic again?

WTC 7 was 48 stories tall, that is a lot of building to land in its footprint. Miraculously the majority of it did.
Photo's don't lie, only people do...



See the outer walls sitting on top of the debris pile? That can only happen one way...


Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

If buildings fell so easily into their footprints then why would it require such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it?

Simple physics proves it could not happen like that from a natural collapse.



It really fills me with notions that humans cannot think logically whenever I visit these forums.


I will agree with you there...



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
What you and the truthers have is a strong sense of DOUBT in the situation, not evidence. If you think you are 100% sure about your position, then you are taking it on faith, not on evidence.

Like Anok said, you've got it backwards. It is the debunkers (or trusters if you will) that are taking it on faith that the official theory is the correct theory. You don't question the official theory because you take it on trust and faith that you're being told the truth by your government and its agencies.

Truthers look at the evidence and base our hypotheses on that evidence. There is no faith when it comes to 9/11 truth. Either the evidence suggests one thing, or it suggests another. There really is no in-between.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


What your photo fails to show is that the building was 47 stories tall and fell into the debris pile that you see just on the upper-left edge of the picture. This is significant if you consider the way the building collapsed. The un-damaged side of the building collected in the footprint while a large portion of the building fell South.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
 


What your photo fails to show is that the building was 47 stories tall and fell into the debris pile that you see just on the upper-left edge of the picture. This is significant if you consider the way the building collapsed. The un-damaged side of the building collected in the footprint while a large portion of the building fell South.


No it didn't, that is a complete fallacy.

You can see ALL four outer walls on top of the debris pile. If what you say is true then AT LEAST the west facing wall would be under the debris pile, and outside of the footprint.

The video that sparked this claim is actually showing the outer east wall falling inwards after the buildings center has collapsed. It does NOT show the WHOLE building, let alone the building leaning to the west.
Pay attention to details, that pic shows everything, pics don't lie people do.

Try again...
edit on 1/30/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Aussie humour break time....



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 

Quote
"You still need an ignition source, whether it is a detonator or a chemical catalyst. So, again, for the WTC to have been demolished by your super-duper thermite, you would either need a detonator OR a few dozen people willing to die hanging out in the inner core of the WTC to use a catalyst.Wait.....scratch that....a few hundred or so people for three buildings."

You know, I see your point.

Mr. Newton . So the apple hit you in the head and you tell me it was gravity. Tell me, what was the trigger for gravity? If you can't explain that, I guess that lump on your head didn't happen.

edit on 31-1-2011 by beijingyank because: humor

edit on 31-1-2011 by beijingyank because: Needed the quote for clarity and force



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by beijingyank
reply to post by vipertech0596
 

Quote
"You still need an ignition source, whether it is a detonator or a chemical catalyst. So, again, for the WTC to have been demolished by your super-duper thermite, you would either need a detonator OR a few dozen people willing to die hanging out in the inner core of the WTC to use a catalyst.Wait.....scratch that....a few hundred or so people for three buildings."

You know, I see your point.

Mr. Newton . So the apple hit you in the head and you tell me it was gravity. Tell me, what was the trigger for gravity? If you can't explain that, I guess that lump on your head didn't happen.

edit on 31-1-2011 by beijingyank because: humor

edit on 31-1-2011 by beijingyank because: Needed the quote for clarity and force


You are just evading the issue. You called vipertech out for mentioning det cord and said it wasn't necessary with " nano-thermite" but you can't apparently say what alternative trigger you had in mind..



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Alfie, "What's it all about" is not important. The trigger could have been from many sources like electric, laser, heat...it evades the most important fact which is the scientific proof. There is no ifs, buts or maybes about it, military grade nano thermite is found in the 911 dust.

That in itself is enough to point the finger at the Neocon Bushniks and their army of Cass Sunstein disinformation artists and say, "the jig is up boyz."



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by beijingyank
 


The thing is that " military grade nano thermite " is far from proved so some other evidence like detonators, cord, wireless receivers would help you out. Trouble is there is no evidence of any of that either.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
 


What your photo fails to show is that the building was 47 stories tall and fell into the debris pile that you see just on the upper-left edge of the picture. This is significant if you consider the way the building collapsed. The un-damaged side of the building collected in the footprint while a large portion of the building fell South.


No it didn't, that is a complete fallacy.

You can see ALL four outer walls on top of the debris pile. If what you say is true then AT LEAST the west facing wall would be under the debris pile, and outside of the footprint.

The video that sparked this claim is actually showing the outer east wall falling inwards after the buildings center has collapsed. It does NOT show the WHOLE building, let alone the building leaning to the west.
Pay attention to details, that pic shows everything, pics don't lie people do.

Try again...
edit on 1/30/2011 by ANOK because: typo


I'm not sure what you're meaning here. There is a great deal of smoke in that picture which is obscuring any clear picture of what is lying to the south of the debris. The debris I do see does not add up. I see maybe half the building there of the undamaged portion. The way you're talking is about the outer east wall falling inwards, which makes sense if you recall the damage to that part of the building on the lower end, and that actually matches up with NIST's simulation, does it not?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



I guess it's a damn good thing that READING COMPREHENSION skills are not a prerequisite for posting on this site


I would agree and feel that your reading comprehensions skills are sub-par, but thank god you and I and everyone else actually do have the opportunity to come to this site and discuss different issues. I feel that you constantly skirt my direct questions or purposefully misinterpret my statements in order to ultimately avoid admitting anything. Case in point, you still refer to "my 1st image" in the previous thread as a picture that it is not, and have not shown in anyway why it doesn't show what I claim it shows, nor did you in any way prove that the 2nd picture "isn't legit". Making unsubstantiated statements and running from evidence is something I've seen you do here in many threads for a long time, so I don't get all worked up over it anyway; its expected.

Regarding the fireman here is what you said,

As for the firemen , not one single one of them obtained a sample of the alleged "molten steel"


I asked someone else if fireman are ever supposed to gather evidence while fire-fighting. You answered with...

I NEVER , NOT ONCE , said , or implied , that it was the firefighters responsibilities to gather samples . NEVER


Maybe I am twisting your words or don't understand your impressive intellect, but it seems pretty straightforward that YOU DID, IN FACT, SAY OR IMPLY that it was the firefighters responsibility.

edit on 1/31/2011 by budaruskie because: oops

edit on 1/31/2011 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


You are in denial and remind me of a guy fascinated by crop circles, the Abominable Snowman, and ET's among us.

Advanced military grade nano thermite in the 911 dust is unimpeachable.

End of story, the jig is up.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by beijingyank
reply to post by Alfie1
 


You are in denial and remind me of a guy fascinated by crop circles, the Abominable Snowman, and ET's among us.

Advanced military grade nano thermite in the 911 dust is unimpeachable.

End of story, the jig is up.


You sound just like the fools from NIS who investigated the USS Iowa accident in 1989. From the chemical residues they found and analyzed they declared it was a bomb, and it wasn't. They entered the investigation with a predetermined conclusion that it had to have been a bomb...and made the findings fit their theory. Just like Jones.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



YOU DID, IN FACT, SAY OR IMPLY that it was the firefighters responsibility.


Ummm , NO , I did not , there you go again with that issue of reading comprehension .

I said the firemen did not obtain a sample that would prove it was indeed molten steel , MEANING that whatever they saw cannot be proven to have been molten STEEL .

Now , put your money where your mouth is , and show where I said or implied that they SHOULD have obtained a sample .

You are lying , bottom line .



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Gzuz! "not one single one of THEM". Who is THEM? You know as well as I do that you were saying exactly what I said you were. You did also say you didn't believe it was molten steel, but that is a separate issue. Grow up and own up and we can move forward.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



You know as well as I do that you were saying exactly what I said you were.


Nope , you fail . You are doing nothing more than lying when you say I said something I did not say .

Either show where I said it , or concede that you are wrong , and get over it .



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join