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.

 

Face to Face with Dr. Niels Harrit: "There is no doubt that this building was taken down in a contr

page: 11
20
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluesman1955
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Three Buildings Collapsed In Their Own Footprint. Have You Ever Seen Controlled Demolition Of Huge Buildings ?


Not personally, no, but I've seen enough video of controlled demolitions to see right away the towers weren't controlled demolitions. Towers one and two began collapsing near the top, at the points of impacts of the planes, and collapsed downwards in a domino effect, while the interior of WTC 7 collapsed internally before the exterior did in an inside-out pattern. No Controlled demolitions job anywhere on the planet has ever demolished a building in such a bizarre manner.

The question therefore is really, have YOU seen controlled demolitions of large buildings?


Talk About Weirdness.


Talk about weirdness is right- can you name even ONE case where someone was able to successfully rig an occupied building with controlled demolitions without anyone noticing what was going on nor leaving any remains of demolitions behind? No you can not. If your conspiracy claims can't get past that without having to rely on armies of make believe secret agents planted everywhere, then they can't even get out of the gate.

it's obvious you're only seeing what you yourself want to see here.




posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


but I've seen enough video of controlled demolitions to see right away the towers weren't controlled demolitions.


Dave, the fact is the WTC were blowing to pieces by demolition, your eyes are fooling you, your pretending again. If you think heavy steel beams being blasted over 500 feet in every direction represents a building just falling down, then I would suggest you show proof that all buildings made of steel and concrete that “just fall down” and blast their hundred tons of steel support beams over 500 feet in all directions. Do you have an answer for this? Perhaps magic was being used? When objects just fall down they do not fall outward and upward.

edit on 20-5-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluesman1955
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Have You Ever Seen Controlled Demolition Of Huge Buildings ?



Not personally, no, but I've seen enough video of controlled demolitions to see right away the towers weren't controlled demolitions.


In other words I have no experience and am in no way associated with building demolition but I can still categorically state that....


No Controlled demolitions job anywhere on the planet has ever demolished a building in such a bizarre manner.


LOL, hilarious


The question therefore is really, have YOU seen controlled demolitions of large buildings?


So now I have proven my case I'm going to turn the argument back on the questioner.

LOL, great entertainment Davo, keep it up.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by zimishey
 


en.wikipedia.org...

Let's just say that it was proven, 100% proven that a controlled demolition had taken place. Physical evidence and forensic evidence that shows without any doubt that it was a demolition job.

Now, a new conspiracy arises. WHO. Considering that in 1993 the WTC was bombed by Al Queida trained terrorists, and that the intention during that bombing had been to knock one tower onto the other thus bringing down both towers and killing thousands, instead they killed 7 and injured thousands, if the plan was to continue until they succeeded in taking down these two American Iconic Buildings, it is my opinion that the next 8 yrs could have been spent not only planning the plane attacks, but to infiltrate the buildings themselves, and install explosive devices to be detonated - coinciding with the plane attacks, to ensure success.

There is no proof of who might have installed explosive devices, none.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Evidence of a "controlled explosion"?
What is that?
Windows blowing out a few "floors" below the falling structure?
Explosions or "booms" heard as windows blew out below the falling structure?

Do people realize the WTC towers were mostly "hermetically" sealed, save for air conditioning ducts and the elevator shafts? None of the windows were able to be 'easily' opened; they'd have to be broken with much force.

Now, shove a rather conformative mass down a sealed shaft and what happens?

Pressure builds up in front of the "mass" and as the pressure builds up, the weakest points succumb to the pressure and blow out: windows pop from their frames and dust, dirt and debris exit through those holes, newly created by the windows' failure. The visual result would be windows failing, starting at the top and ending at the bottom... windows blowing out a few (or even several) floors in advance of the structure above, the result of pressure building up within the structure as the portions above fell down... but I think I already said that.

You can verify my claim with a simple experiment consisting of ice cream "Push-Ups", drilling some holes and sealing them with Scotch tape, and compressing the "pop".... If you did it right, built it the same as the WTC towers were built, with separations (a.k.a. "floors") between holes, you'd see Scotch tape blowing out, in sequence, as you pushed.

And don't even get me started on the topic of "nano-thermite". How hard can it REALLY be to find molecular Iron (FE), Aluminum (Al), .... meh, Wikipedia says:

Nano-thermite, also called "super-thermite",[1] is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles. This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and much faster.


Read that part "the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles"? So in other words, they're not just "small"... they're "SUPER small". Well, duh. Imagine what happens to Iron and Aluminum when the burn in a fire: iron oxide and aluminum oxide are produced.

We already know there's no way you can look at me, straight in the face, and say there wasn't any iron in the towers, but can you tell me just as straight there was no aluminum? We'll overlook all the probable soda cans... many of the hand rails... but let us not forget all the T-bar that held up the "false ceiling" structures in the buildings. Likely, hundreds of yards of aluminum on each and every floor....

But I have already have heard the arguments and to what extremes people will go. Aluminum oxide as a super-fine (nano scale) powder is proof of nano-thermite.... There were tons of aluminum in either building and burning, a.k.a. "oxidizing" the aluminum would result in "tons" of Al2O, AlO and Al2O3.




Would you assume that the Moon was formed by a controlled explosion just because there is "evidence" that "nano-thermite" is there... meaning Iron Oxide and Aluminum are there?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


One thing you should be aware of is that Wikipedia is open source and is not reliable from an academic perspective. You cannot use it as a source of data in scientific or academic research.

The argument put forth by those who believe in Nano-thermite used as a component of a controlled demolition are not that the individual elements that make up Nano-thermite are present in the debris but that they have coalesced in the collapse into chips of a form of thermite that is patented by the US Dept of Defense. Which is what Dr Jones paper is supposed to state.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wotcher
reply to post by abecedarian
 


One thing you should be aware of is that Wikipedia is open source and is not reliable from an academic perspective. You cannot use it as a source of data in scientific or academic research.

The argument put forth by those who believe in Nano-thermite used as a component of a controlled demolition are not that the individual elements that make up Nano-thermite are present in the debris but that they have coalesced in the collapse into chips of a form of thermite that is patented by the US Dept of Defense. Which is what Dr Jones paper is supposed to state.


I'm well aware wikipedia is not a definitive, academically endorsed source, but here, their references and such are valid. The chemistry and such are accurate.

For what it's worth, I've used thermite and related compounds to perform various tasks related to and including exothermic welding and the like and considering the radio communications facilities provided on each tower, and my experiences with "un-reacted" materials, I would expect evidence of such residues since several ounces of unreacted "thermite" are left behind at every cellular, radio, TV and similar site I've constructed... and from what I recall, there were many, MANY such facilities... but I will not assume you can understand the lengths these companies go to for grounding.

But the most "odd" thing occuring here on ATS is that those who provide logical proofs to theories are ignored and those that stand on the side of ... improbable are rewarded. Good luck to you.


edit on 5/27/2011 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
who planted it and used the OS as the cover up? and then covering it even more with conspiracy theories



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Yeah, I said "ounces" at each site. 10-12-20 sites on a tower equivocates to pounds.

Pounds of materials spread around and found at a "nano" scale equals proof.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker
who planted it and used the OS as the cover up? and then covering it even more with conspiracy theories


Planted what? Materials normally used during the construction of communications facilities like microwave, radio, cellular and such? Towers and the like found on top of the tallest structures in the area?


edit on 5/27/2011 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian

I'm well aware wikipedia is not a definitive, academically endorsed source, but here, their references and such are valid. The chemistry and such are accurate.


You forgot to mention that is your opinion only and not that of anybody else.


For what it's worth, I've used thermite and related compounds to perform various tasks related to and including exothermic welding and the like and considering the radio communications facilities provided on each tower, and my experiences with "un-reacted" materials, I would expect evidence of such residues since several ounces of unreacted "thermite" are left behind at every cellular, radio, TV and similar site I've constructed... and from what I recall, there were many, MANY such facilities... but I will not assume you can understand the lengths these companies go to for grounding.


Making assumptions is flawed reasoning and assuming that I CANNOT understand is just pure arrogance.

Nice try at diversion, I notice you did not actually address what I actually stated.

And I did not actually state what I believed, you automatically assumed that because I questioned the reasoning of someone I automatically must be "agin" them. This is just you making another assumption. Maybe I am on the poster's side, but you don't know that, and obviously don't need to before providing your judgement.


But the most "odd" thing occuring here on ATS is that those who provide logical proofs to theories are ignored and those that stand on the side of ... improbable are rewarded. Good luck to you.


So who is being rewarded here, LOL!

Again another try at diversion, you should note that my posts have not actually stated what I actually believe but because I pointed out the flaws in an argument I am automatically opposed to their thinking. A knee jerk assumption. Maybe I do agree but am simply trying to help another simpatico

Great knee jerk reaction!!!

Again another assumption.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker
who planted it and used the OS as the cover up? and then covering it even more with conspiracy theories
Truthers are really reluctant to answer how the charges were planted without detection, or how they could possibly have survived a plane crash and hour of explosives, then vanish entirely from the rubble. Truthers will point at beams and say they were cut, but never suspicious debris and say it's the remains of a demo charge.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
]Truthers are really reluctant to answer how the charges were planted without detection


That would assume that "truthers" were there to actually see how it was done, would it not?

Or are you asking us to speculate, so we can go in circle-jerks of speculation on top of speculation?



or how they could possibly have survived a plane crash and hour of explosives


You mean hour of fire? Interesting Freudian slip though.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
What I'm seeing here is that the government went to way too much trouble with this hoax. It was obviously not even necessary. They could have just sent a couple RC planes carrying styrofoam cups filled with gasoline into the sides of the buildings, then popped the explosive charges an hour later and people would still believe their preposterous "official story."




posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by 000063
]Truthers are really reluctant to answer how the charges were planted without detection


That would assume that "truthers" were there to actually see how it was done, would it not?

Or are you asking us to speculate, so we can go in circle-jerks of speculation on top of speculation?
It's called a "theory of the crime", or, from my side of the argument, "reducto ad absurdum". Of course, any initial theory would almost certainly have to be modified and refined in light of evidence, but you lot seem reluctant to even take that first step.

The question is entirely rhetorical, of course; the odds of even planting the thousands of explosives successfully in three buildings with over a half-million people daily between them, over a period of months(it would take months, BTW), are so slim that the masterminds wouldn't even implement it in the first place. If they had decided to do so anyway, then that means they're either too dumb to pull it off, or smart enough to also set up a concrete link between Afghanistan and Iraq, maybe even planting a WMD or two to legitimize the Iraqi War.

You can't have it both ways. Either they're really competent or really dumb. Similarly, you lot are willing to speculate about CD, but the second someone asks you for something you can't prove, suddenly there's no speculation going on here, nossir.

Speculating is a vital part of any debate. Speculating to follow the logic arising from one or more premises is what debate is about. Speculating without evidence, however, is not.



or how they could possibly have survived a plane crash and hour of explosives


You mean hour of fire? Interesting Freudian slip though.
Considering that I'm tired and talking about explosives, not really. Also, you didn't actually answer the question.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


Or are you asking us to speculate, so we can go in circle-jerks of speculation on top of speculation?

It's called a "theory of the crime", or, from my side of the argument, "reducto ad absurdum". Of course, any initial theory would almost certainly have to be modified and refined in light of evidence, but you lot seem reluctant to even take that first step.


You can come up with all the OS theory’s, speculation and modified them all you like, however when science is applied to them, none will hold water.

and refined in light of evidence


What evidence are you talking about where science can prove the OS true about the WTC (Pancake theory)?


You can't have it both ways. Either they're really competent or really dumb


Who are you trying to appeal to? I suppose all Truthers are dumb such as eyewitness at the WTC like the NYC Firemen, NYC Police, First responders, WTC office workers who were there in the demolition of the WTC, who survived, and spoke out against the OS, I guess these Truthers are all dumb as well.


[color=gold]Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitnesses Recalled Explosions, No Alarms or Sprinklers

The collapses of the Twin Towers were witnessed firsthand by scores of people, most of them emergency responders. The majority of those accounts have been suppressed by the state for years. In August of 2005, the New York Times published the single largest and most authoritative body of eyewitness evidence yet assembled, as a result of winning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. 1 Another body of evidence, which we have yet to examine, is a set of recordings of calls processed by the 911 system on the day of 9/11/01 and released in 2006.

911research.wtc7.net...

These people who testimonies that went on public record that were very credible and the FBI went out their way to hide their written statements. Evidence proves the Truth is the last thing our government wants the public to know.

Similarly, you lot are willing to speculate about CD, but the second someone asks you for something you can't prove, suddenly there's no speculation going on here, nossir.


Speculating about CD?
No speculating needed when it come to the WTC and demolition, we have science that supports what really happened. When we are asked to PROVE what we are talking about we just send all interesting party’s to:
www.ae911truth.org...

There are plenty of technical papers written by many experts, for those who are searching for truth.
The only speculating I see are people who support the OS fairytales.
Speculation is all you can do when you cannot prove that something did not happened, wouldn’t you agree?


Speculating is a vital part of any debate. Speculating to follow the logic arising from one or more premises is what debate is about. Speculating without evidence, however, is not.


Sorry to tell you, but facts are a vital part of any debate and again science beats speculation.
Where did you get your information that the Truth movement does not have any evidence? Perhaps you can post your source to your information that you find so credible.



edit on 12-6-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


So all you have is a post that's empty rhetoric about "science" and "excuses" and ad hominem.

Going "if [fact], then [logic] therefore [conclusion]" is basically what a debate is all about. I started with the premises that there were explosives planted, and that the bad guys who planted them were either competent or incompetent. There is no way for the explosives to be planted undetected, go off without a problem, or be missed by the bomb-sniffing dogs and forensic experts who saw the debris pile.

IM, demo charges are extremely loud, and extremely powerful. Remember, they have to cut steel instantly. At the minimum, they would be loud enough to cause hearing damage on the ground outside the Towers, and audible up to 1/2 mile. The firefighters and police you misquote would exhibit signs of barotrauma. The people who were inside the towers would also have signs of that trauma. Heck, they might be killed at that range. And Truthers claim that thousands of these explosives detonated in less than a minute without any pressure wave, unlike the windows shattered for blocks around by the Oklahoma City bomb, which would've been smaller, along with people bleeding from the ears.

Remember, things explode in fires. Take your average tin of baked beans, pop it in a hypothetical oven, and heat it up. It'll probably explode. If you don't want to risk your kitchen, call your local fire department and ask them if things can explode in fires without actually being explosives. When they tell you "yes", call another department. Call every one you can afford, and they'll tell you that explosions in fires are not necessarily indicative of fires.

Then call a demo company and ask them if people can be hurt or killed if they are feet from thousands of detonating charges, even if it's not pointed at them. They'll tell you yes. Call another company. As many as you can afford.

This is not some sort of "excuse". I want you to actively go and gather facts from the people who would know about these things.
edit on 2011/6/13 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Well there were loud explosions of powerfull charges. Not only do we have whitness testimony, but it has been captured on video. So I do not see the problem you seem to see.
edit on 13-6-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Well there were loud explosions of powerfull charges. Not only do we have whitness testimony, but it has been captured on video. So I do not see the problem you seem to see.
edit on 13-6-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


Granted loud noises but what were they here is an example.




Can you see that metal FAILING makes lots of noise.

Listen to the sound of that crane failing listen to the metal structure of the crane as it fails, lots of things to make a hell of a noise in the WTC buildings!



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Granted loud noises but what were they here is an example.


You know, that only explains the noise aspect of the scores of explosions reported by witnesses. They also caused structural damage (according to Mike Pecoraro, William Rodriguez, Phillip Morelli, Barry Jenkins etc.), and one account of "secondary explosions" going off every 10-15 minutes after both the Twin Towers had already came down (leaving WTC7) even matches with seismic records in the FEMA report. Plus if you just read the witness reports of explosions, there are all kinds of details inconsistent with steel snapping.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join