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.

 

This is what I remember

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I keep looking, BoneZ. Just not seeing it as you describe. Not saying you're wrong, but it looks like it disintegrated.

So what, the magical space beam weapon is like a Maglite Flashlight and the beam was tightened to just the tiny area of the core so that only the core could be disintegrated and nothing around it?

Give me a break. Nobody is falling for it. Nobody, anywhere in the entire 9/11 truth movement falls for anything Judy Woods or her accessories puts out.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
This is laughable. People are really still going on about a conspiracy in 9/11?? - jeez... this was 10 years ago, YES TEN years ago!! You conspiracy fruit cakes need to seriously play a different tune. Why not focus your attentions on something more productive?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by routerboy
This is laughable. People are really still going on about a conspiracy in 9/11?? - jeez... this was 10 years ago, YES TEN years ago!! You conspiracy fruit cakes need to seriously play a different tune. Why not focus your attentions on something more productive?


Whose sock puppet are you?
Can you not see the irony in you being in the 911 forum telling people to stop posting in the 911 forum?
Can you suggest something conspiracy theorists should focus on, that is more productive?

Incidently, people still discuss many aspects of history that are far older than 911 (JFK, JFK. jr, roswell, the holocaust, etc)
What is the correct time frame for discussing historical events? 1 year? 2? 5? Help me out here.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by routerboy
 


Looking behind to avoid being stabbed again, metaphorically speaking, is something I could consider productive on the long term.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OllyP
 


There's no problem discussing historical events as long as you stick to the facts. It is very distasteful to the poor citizens that lost their lives on 9/11 to be going on about conspiracy theories.

Would it be appropriate if I started saying that the Jews actually got abducted by aliens rather than the actual true facts of the holocaust? That would be very distasteful wouldn't it.

So please, have respect for that tragic day in September 2001 when we are the targets of a terrorist organization.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by routerboy
 


Problem is this event was never fully investigated, and unlike the Holocaust, those responsible weren't tried in a international court.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by lambros56
Sorry mate but dont accuse me of deliberate disinformation.

No, but you're peddling disinformation that has been debunked years ago. This disinformation was created by the likes of Judy Wood et al.



Originally posted by lambros56
Look at the video.....where did the dust come from?

Oh, I don't know, maybe from a 110-story building that just collapsed and left tons of dust on the whole pile and in the air, including those core columns.








See......there you go again, labeling me.
Did i mention DR Judy Wood ? NO

When was the core column turning to dust debunked ?
Point me to it.
Change my mind for me.
I dont claim to know how those buildings came down but i do know a helluva lot turned to dust.
I believe Richard Gage has come closer than most but i still think something else was used and it certainly wasn`t two planes.

I still think the core column in the video and in photos turns to dust.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by routerboy
It is very distasteful to the poor citizens that lost their lives on 9/11

It is very distasteful to the victims of 9/11 and their families for someone as unresearched as yourself, to pretend to speak for them, or pretend to know what is or is not distasteful to them.

Some of the victims families have made their own documentaries, have their own TV commercial circulating in New York as we speak. The victims families have their own voice and they have already spoken long before you have pretended to speak for them.



Originally posted by routerboy
to be going on about conspiracy theories.

You do realize that belief in the "official" version of events is also a conspiracy theory? See, NIST used guesses, calculations, and made-up computer models in an attempt to explain how three WTC buildings collapsed. Furthermore, it says right at the beginning of the NIST report that their report cannot be taken as factual, nor be used as evidence in a court of law. Their report is a theory. That is all.

Now, all it comes down to is which theory you want to believe in:

1.) A theory from an agency that gets its funding directly from the government.

or

2.) A theory from professionals who have no vested interest other than seeking the truth about what happened.


The engineers that designed the towers knew that the structure would remain after the fires were put out. History has also proven that every other highrise structure has remained after fires were put out.

Your cheerleading for the official theory will get you nowhere. It was proven wrong long ago by more professionals that are against the official theory, than support it.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56
Did i mention DR Judy Wood ?

I see you put "dr" in front of her name, and in all-caps. She is not deserving of the title. She doesn't even know what the hell she's talking about when interviewed without her numbers, calculations, and "theories" in front of her. She has to have "her" material in front of her, otherwise, she's clueless. Exactly like someone is feeding her the disinformation and she hasn't studied it or memorized it. She has to have it in front of her to even quote any of it.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



I don't know... I looked at that several times and tried to see the core columns and no matter what I tried to see, it sure looked like disintegration, and not just dust shaken off as the column fell. I'll look again, but I doubt I will see that on yet another viewing.


Maybe need to LOOK HARDER or get EYES CHECKED

After the floors had collapsed the steel work of the central core remained standing for several seconds afterwards
before falling

Again think pencil standing on end - without lateral support from rest of structure lacked stability



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 



I still think the core column in the video and in photos turns to dust.


I guess there's your answer right there - you think the columns turned to dust. And now you're asking that someone "debunk" what you percieve. The onus is on you to first prove that what you think happened actually happened. Based on the review of that proof, then a reasonable argument can be constructed. Simply posting the words does not constitute a presentation of fact.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Bin Laden construction was involved with the architect of the towers.
philebersole.wordpress.com...

The damage expected from 35 degree swept back wings is not consistent with the damage described below:












thewebfairy.com...#



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

That image shows the aluminum cladding (or siding) being pushed off of the columns. The cladding was likely pushed out due to the explosive ignition of the jet fuel.



Originally posted by Yankee451

There are no columns twisted to the right. I see some aluminum cladding that could be twisted to the right, but again, you are showing an image that was taken to the right of the WTC, and thus the columns that are pointing in will give you the illusion of them pointing slightly to the right. Again, this comes back to Photography 101 that I gave you a link for earlier in this thread.



Originally posted by Yankee451

I fail to see what you're pointing to that was not mentioned in the NIST report.



Originally posted by Yankee451
thewebfairy.com...

That's one of your first mistakes right there. Quoting or taking any information from the web fairy disinfo site.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


The web fairy site is where I took the screen shots.

The analysis is mine.

The cladding on the top right, pushing out, not in. Most folks who claim the damage is consistent with a wing tip proclaim the damage punches in. The evidence proves otherwise. The punched out panels would have been done by the wingtip anyway, slicing through steel columns like a hot knife through butter. We know that's not possible, don't we?

The NIST map of the damage is included in my post. Note it does not mention the damage shown in the Naudet film.

The close up shot of the damage certainly does show left to right dings in the columns. The cladding is gone, exposing the dents. The dents also line up with the scarred corner also shown on my post. The dents can be seen from different angles and are not a trick of the light.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



The cladding on the top right, pushing out, not in.

You really need to get a better understanding of how things are put together. Nobody thinks the cladding was "pushed out". The impact caused the lower end of that section of cladding to be disconnected, resulting in the cladding only being secured on the top end. The differentiated tension caused the bottom section of the cladding to protrude from the building columns. Pretty simple that, people generally don't need something like that explained to them.

Most folks who claim the damage is consistent with a wing tip proclaim the damage punches in.

No, only you use words like "punched".

The evidence proves otherwise.

The "evidence" only proves your poor word choice, nothing else.

The punched out panels would have been done by the wingtip anyway, slicing through steel columns like a hot knife through butter. We know that's not possible, don't we?

Like a hot knife through butter? You're the only one claiming that so why don't you prove it? Everyone else sees the results of a violent, high speed impact between a stationary structure and another structure moving at almost 60% of the speed of sound. You want to keep using that "hot knife through butter" metaphor, thats your call, but its not fooling anyone.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


You gonna tell me how your sister saw all this again?

Maybe you can look at the dings to the left and tell me how a wing sawing from the inside out can dent columns from the outside in?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



You gonna tell me how your sister saw all this again?

She went down that morning to return a birthday gift at one of the stores in the World Trade Center. She lived in NYC at the time. Why don't you believe anyone in New York saw this happen? Are you that disconnected?


Maybe you can look at the dings to the left and tell me how a wing sawing from the inside out can dent columns from the outside in?


Dings? Sawing? You really need to get in front of a dictionary.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by lambros56
 



I still think the core column in the video and in photos turns to dust.


I guess there's your answer right there - you think the columns turned to dust. And now you're asking that someone "debunk" what you percieve. The onus is on you to first prove that what you think happened actually happened. Based on the review of that proof, then a reasonable argument can be constructed. Simply posting the words does not constitute a presentation of fact.



The guy said it had been debunked years ago.....I asked him for proof.
I don`t have to prove anything.
The video tells me it turns to dust.
You have your opinion.....I have mine.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56
The video tells me it turns to dust.

The video is not telling anyone anything. YOU are telling yourself that the steel is turning into dust, all without showing any proof of any such technology that can do such a thing.


Come on. Read your posts and then ask yourself: Did I REALLY say that?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Check out my thread that the OP's theories somewhat mirror.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 20-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join