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.

 

RT news 9/11 truthers attend Treason in America conference in pennsylvania

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaya82

i guess all these fire fighters ERT people and paramedics are all dumb crack pot conspiracy nuts hey as they are not experts in controlled demolition?

pull your head out your anus for once



Excuse me?!? I just finished posting an eyewitness account from a fire fighter reporting the fires in WTC 7 were burnign out of control and causing structural deformation, and he knew right away it was going to fall...and YOU are claiming I should "pull my head out of my anus for once" and listen to the eyewitness reports of the firefighters. How are you showing I'm wrong on anything?

Stop being so mindlessly servile to these damned fool conspiracy web sites for once.




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Did I mention Jesse Ventura! He's very credible too.

As I say, you guys have assembled a crack team of highly respected international spokespeople. Ex-wrestlers, drug-addled sitcom stars, antisemites (Ahmadinejad does think the holocaust probably wasn't real, so I stick by my epithet), who will you get next? The favourite in my book is Tonya Harding.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by kaya82

i guess all these fire fighters ERT people and paramedics are all dumb crack pot conspiracy nuts hey as they are not experts in controlled demolition?

pull your head out your anus for once



Excuse me?!? I just finished posting an eyewitness account from a fire fighter reporting the fires in WTC 7 were burnign out of control and causing structural deformation, and he knew right away it was going to fall...and YOU are claiming I should "pull my head out of my anus for once" and listen to the eyewitness reports of the firefighters. How are you showing I'm wrong on anything?

Stop being so mindlessly servile to these damned fool conspiracy web sites for once.
You say there is no evidence of bombs or controlled demo yet nearly all of those eye witnesses say they seen and heard explosions take place at various levels of the building red and orange flashes at eye level my 19 month old son could comprehend the notion that this requires further investigation yet you cherry pick what suits your fairy tale i believe in science and pysics you still believe in the tooth fairy. I will continue to seek the truth but thanks for throwing in that ever sso famous quote you love to shove down our throats it amuses me and iv hada rubbish day so thanks



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by kaya82

i guess all these fire fighters ERT people and paramedics are all dumb crack pot conspiracy nuts hey as they are not experts in controlled demolition?

pull your head out your anus for once



Excuse me?!? I just finished posting an eyewitness account from a fire fighter reporting the fires in WTC 7 were burnign out of control and causing structural deformation, and he knew right away it was going to fall...and YOU are claiming I should "pull my head out of my anus for once" and listen to the eyewitness reports of the firefighters. How are you showing I'm wrong on anything?

Stop being so mindlessly servile to these damned fool conspiracy web sites for once.
You say there is no evidence of bombs or controlled demo yet nearly all of those eye witnesses say they seen and heard explosions take place at various levels of the building red and orange flashes at eye level my 19 month old son could comprehend the notion that this requires further investigation yet you cherry pick what suits your fairy tale i believe in science and pysics you still believe in the tooth fairy. I will continue to seek the truth but thanks for throwing in that ever sso famous quote you love to shove down our throats it amuses me and iv hada rubbish day so thanks


So you mean to say that the sound of an explosion can only be demolitions and that flashes at the base of the tower can't be shattering glass reflecting light or something? I mean, the tower collapsed top-down. There was no indication of destruction from the bottom at all.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Shattering glass reflecting light? Really?????

Sub basement explosions prior to plane impact? Whats that? Please dont say jet fuel



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Excuse me?!? I just finished posting an eyewitness account from a fire fighter reporting the fires in WTC 7 were burnign out of control and causing structural deformation, and he knew right away it was going to fall...and YOU are claiming I should "pull my head out of my anus for once" and listen to the eyewitness reports of the firefighters. How are you showing I'm wrong on anything?


Hmmm saying something is going to fall, and it collapsing symmetrically into its own footprint are two different things.

Seeing as NO steel frame building had ever collapsed due to fire prior to 9-11 how could they have made the claim WTC7 was going to collapse? How would they know if it had never happened before? There was no precedence to make such a claim.

I know you like to pretend all building collapses are the same, they're not. When the outer walls are sitting on top of the collapsed building there can only be one conclusion...



Pictures don't lie, only people do, Dave.


edit on 3/1/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Dave, I wouldn't worry too much about Anok. He has posted the same photo more than once and still hasn't figured out that it confirms that WTC 7 tilted towards the Tower debris pile (i.e. it WASN"T symmetrical) as it fell.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Dave, I wouldn't worry too much about Anok. He has posted the same photo more than once and still hasn't figured out that it confirms that WTC 7 tilted towards the Tower debris pile (i.e. it WASN"T symmetrical) as it fell.


Ridiculous. There is only one way the outer walls of a building can end up on top of the collapsed building, that is by implosion demolition...


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.

science.howstuffworks.com...

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.


The so called leaning to the west came from ONE video in which you can only see that one wall, not the rest of the building, what you are really seeing is the wall fall inwards as the center of the building collapsed ahead of it. All four walls fell inwards, as evidenced in the pic where I highlighted the walls for you. That is classic implosion demolition, it can not happen from a natural uncontrolled collapse due to fire. If it had really fell to the west then, at least, the north and south wall should be outside of the footprint and the west wall under the debris pile that would have fell on top if it, not the other way around.

edit on 3/1/2011 by ANOK because: forgot link



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Ridiculous. There is only one way the outer walls of a building can end up on top of the collapsed building, that is by implosion demolition...


Gotta hand it to him folks, he sticks to his guns when all available evidence proves him wrong. The only way that the North wall ends up on the top of the pile, is if the building is collapsing to the South. The south wall was UNDER the pile. Again, only confirming that the collapse was not symmetrical, but that the building collapsed towards the South.

You mention the video that you claim is only showing the North wall falling into the building. Look at ALL the videos, it is clear that the North wall isnt acting as you claim it does.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


What is you opinion on the 1,100+ professionals that say the buildings did not fall from fire or planes but demolitions? And btw the NIST report says #7 fell at free fall speed any clue as to how?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Gotta hand it to him folks, he sticks to his guns when all available evidence proves him wrong. The only way that the North wall ends up on the top of the pile, is if the building is collapsing to the South. The south wall was UNDER the pile. Again, only confirming that the collapse was not symmetrical, but that the building collapsed towards the South.


No the south wall is not under the debris pile, you can see all FOUR walls on top.

Also the walls should fall outwards, path of least resistance, UNLESS the resistance is first removed, which would be the interior that collapsed first as evidenced by the 'Penthouse kink'. Classic implosion demolition.


You mention the video that you claim is only showing the North wall falling into the building. Look at ALL the videos, it is clear that the North wall isnt acting as you claim it does.


Hmmm please present this videos. It is obvious from the post collapse pictures that all four walls are on top of the debris pile, so it's obvious that all the walls fell inwards after the center was dropped as in classic implosion demolition.

If you can't see this is a far more logical explanation than fires caused, for the VERY FIRST TIME, a steel framed building to collapse, and not just collapse but collapse into its own footprint then you are clueless or in complete denial. A natural collapse would have looked more like all the other buildings that day that were damaged but only partially collapsed.


edit on 3/1/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GunzCoty
 





What is you opinion on the 1,100+ professionals that say the buildings did not fall from fire or planes but demolitions? And btw the NIST report says #7 fell at free fall speed any clue as to how?


Professional........wrestlers? Theology professors? people who have only looked at conspiracy websites? We should ask you how you feel about all the professionals who state that they did not see ANY evidence of explosive devices, save the large airplanes that crashed into the Towers. You know, the professionals that were on the scene that day. (cue the tired old practice of posting comments that suggest that an explosion, is a bomb)

As for WTC 7, I would again point out that the report is an educated guess. Without data collection devices in and around the building NO ONE will ever know exactly what failed when, that lead to the collapse. Although the videos DO suggest that the interior of the building was failing for quite a while before there were obvious external failures.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


What have you looked at, 911 myths?

How about looking at a physics book, especially Newtons laws of motion.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kaya82
 


What sub-basement explosions prior to impacts?

Oh you mean the explosions AFTER the impact! I can see how that can be confused.


be sure to go over the actual facts about that, and see just how well you got suckered by those damned fool conspiracy sites, and their effortless ways to twist and skew accounts just right.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by GenRadek
 


What is you opinion on the 1,100+ professionals that say the buildings did not fall from fire or planes but demolitions? And btw the NIST report says #7 fell at free fall speed any clue as to how?


You mean the motley crew at A&E9/11T?



Sorry but a group of "professionals" that is headed by a theologian, trying to prove demolitions, sounds more like a cult. Dr. Griffin is a theologian. Please tell me how that makes him qualified to speak about technical and engineering topics that are more for advanced persons like at NIST, ASCE and AEI? why havent the hundreds of thousands of actual professionals at these three (examples) organizations spoken out agianst the NIST reports, or how are they all wrong?

How does an interior home designer have the qualifications to comment on 110+ floor skyscraper egineering? How does a bachelor's degree in chemistry make someone a "professional"? Have you ever looked at the actual list? i can maybe count on ONE hand the amount of actual "qualified" persons that may have some experience to talk. But then again, it doesnt mean squat what the "title" is, because in every profession, there will ALWAYS be crackpots. Life and history has proven that many times. This is just another one of those times.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


What have you looked at, 911 myths?

How about looking at a physics book, especially Newtons laws of motion.


I have to agree with you here Anok.

The people who are attempting to conceal the truth here *have* to ignore WTC7’s freefall speed of collapse as reported by NIST. Why?…Because this clearly violates extremely well known laws of physics.

For an object to fall at freefall speed, there has to be *no* resistance underneath it to impede its movement.
WTC7 possessed a welded and bolted steel skeleton of great strength. The vast proportion of this mesh of steel girders was undamaged.

But the top of the building falls at freefall speed, as if this enormous mass of structural steel does not exist.
It’s like a massive hole opened up under the building, and the building is dropping into the hole.

WTC7 was obviously an expert demolition job. It’s the elephant in the living room.

The video evidence shows WTC7 collapsing with it’s roof hardly leaving the horizontal plane, and its walls hardly leaving the vertical plane. In other words, it fell straight down along its entire breadth and width simultaneously. WTC7 was supported by 25 central and 58 peripheral support columns, all of which would have to have been undermined simultaneously, otherwise the building would have collapsed asymmetrically.

Only expertly placed and timed explosive could possibly achieve this result, which would also explain the thunder-like sound captured on audio immediately preceding the visible collapse.

In fact, almost all footage of WTC7 on 9/11 shows flashes in the building throughout the day, starting even before the Towers had collapsed. Eyewitnesses in and around WTC7 also reported explosions occurring throughout the day. These were probably explosions to progressively weaken the building in preparation for the grand finale.

So if one of the anti-truthers here can explain how the building could randomly collapse symmetrically at freefall speed without violating the laws of physics I will start to consider their opinions seriously.
(I’m not holding my breath though )



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by aethron
 


There was a hole... a big twenty story hole. It's in the darn reports about WTC 7 and it's not any kind of secret.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by aethron
 


There was a hole... a big twenty story hole. It's in the darn reports about WTC 7 and it's not any kind of secret.


Oops,I apoligise then. I wasn't aware their was a twenty-story high cavity underneath WTC7.
Wow! ...What did they use it for?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by aethron

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by aethron
 


There was a hole... a big twenty story hole. It's in the darn reports about WTC 7 and it's not any kind of secret.


Oops,I apoligise then. I wasn't aware their was a twenty-story high cavity underneath WTC7.
Wow! ...What did they use it for?


I can't even believe I'm responding to this. I'm getting a headache from the retardation...

THE DEBRIS FROM WTC1 IMPACTED WTC7 AND CAUSED THE DAMAGE. I apologize for the caps, but come on! The firefighters on scene described it very well! Stop being ignorant!



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


When i said the 1,100+ professionals i meant the engineers and architects (as stated in the op video). I should of said that in the first place sorry.

Ps I would like your opinion as well as how the plane that hit the pentagon can penetrate about 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete intact (never mind the small hole and lack of a hole/s from the titanium/steel engines)?

Being that its a plane and not a bunker buster bomb? Yet the planes that hit the towers did not have the same effect?

Just your opinion is all i ask.
edit on 3/1/2011 by GunzCoty because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join