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.

 

99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 26
274
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


There is only one way for 2million tons of steel/concrete can be disingrated perfectly with in its property. USING EXPLOSIVES... i dont understand why you think its impossible that demolition is out of the question. demolition is an art ,literally,, you can demolish a tower to fall in so many ways. how you discount the demolish theory is mind-boggling.




posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I can debunk every single one of your conspiracy theories that you're president has fed you based on your Sig.

signature:
"Nine-eleven was NOT an inside job, it was an Osama Bin Laden job with 19 people from Saudi Arabiav(7 of which are alive that non-U.S. media ended up tracking down), they murdered 3000 Americans and others foreigners including Muslims and we look like idiots (would be a rather small understatement but not in the context that Mr. Clinton is using it in), to deny that the people who murdered our fellow citizens did it, when they are continuing to murder other people around the world.(yet how many lives has the War on Terror caused along with other foreign U.S. policies around the world)" - Pres. William Jefferson Clinton

If you have any questions, refer to my post on 25 with all the testimony from numerous people.
edit on 28-6-2011 by Subbam because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2011 by Subbam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Since the topic of jet fuel is gettings lots of attention, I have a simple question for both truthers and official story believers: When the plane slammed into the buildings, and exploded, what exactly do you think caused that explosion?

I believe the explosion was the stored jet fuel from the airplane igniting, and once it exploded, there goes the jet fuel. I don't see how a portion of the jet fuel can ignite and explode, while a couple more thousand gallons seperate from the rest of the jet fuel and spread on the inside of the building. Just something to think about.

To me when I see the plane hit, that massive fireball is the jet fuel exploding, and I can't imagine how any would be left over to douse the inside of the building and ignite. I think the fires inside of the towers were started by the jet fuel fireball, but if there's no jet fuel left over from the explosion, wouldn't that fire just be feeding off of whatever is in the building and not the vaporized jet fuel?

That brings up another question: If most if not allof the liquid jet fuel was lost in the fiery explosion, how could the remaining amount of jet fuel fall from the towers, land inside of WTC7, and ignite it? I think the falling debris caused a plain old fire inside of WTC7, I just don't see it as possible that enough jet fuel can fall from the towers while on fire, and land inside of WTC7 without burning out before it hits it.

Also, vipertech0596, I didn't forget about or ignore your post back a few pages, I got an exam to study for so once I'm done with that I'll get right back to you.
edit on 28-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


OK, i'll say it again. Lets say it does damage the core ,,in fact let say it completely goes thru the core, severs it completely,,,or lets say it decapitates the whole top of the tower.. it still wouldnt make hoot of difference to the rest of the building. in construction the strongest part of a tower is the foundation. mind you the foundation was completely disinagrated.. the lower you go the stronger the concrete and the thicker the steel. ARE HEARING ME? The mixer of concrete is stronger on the 5th floor compared to the 89th floor. Just on that alone is proof the plane and the gravity concept is false. i urge you to take a construction class .



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


I understand your frustration, but however think of how frustrating it is for the person taking in this information. They will all come around eventually, it's only a matter of time, however that time and when they come around cannot be forced upon them.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


OK, i'll say it again. Lets say it does damage the core ,,in fact let say it completely goes thru the core, severs it completely,,,or lets say it decapitates the whole top of the tower.. it still wouldnt make hoot of difference to the rest of the building. in construction the strongest part of a tower is the foundation. mind you the foundation was completely disinagrated.. the lower you go the stronger the concrete and the thicker the steel. ARE HEARING ME? The mixer of concrete is stronger on the 5th floor compared to the 89th floor. Just on that alone is proof the plane and the gravity concept is false. i urge you to take a construction class .


So the tower managed to stand up despite having a "completely disinagrated" foundation?

I think it might be you who needs the construction class.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Throwing back insults obviously isn't furthering your view neither. Watch the videos I posted on 25 and any other question that you may have I will answer them in a civilized manner. My mind is open to being changed at any moment, however from what I see, the case makes itself. However, that's my conclusion, do your reserach to come to yours.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


There is only one way for 2million tons of steel/concrete can be disingrated perfectly with in its property. USING EXPLOSIVES... i dont understand why you think its impossible that demolition is out of the question. demolition is an art ,literally,, you can demolish a tower to fall in so many ways. how you discount the demolish theory is mind-boggling.


Hardly mind boggling. You only need a tiny bit of critical analysis

a) these were heavily occupied buildings, chock full of tenants, engineers, security, electricians, custodians, inspectors, etc etc etc, many of them actively inspecting every nook and cranny for metal fatigue, rust, water leakage, and whatever. All it would take is ONE, O-N-E ONE person to notice something weird going on or discover one of these demolition charges to upset the whole apple cart

b) these were gigantic buildings, and there were TWO of them, so the support infrastructure for an operation to not only deliver and rig the towers with CD, but keep them secret from the occupants, security, inspectors, etc, would be every bit as immense as building the things to begin with

c) the NYPA security was actively on the lookout for saboteurs trying to sneak in and plant explosives ever since the first bombing in 1993, and they had their own contingent of bomb sniffing dogs (one of them, names Siruis, was killed in the attack)

c) Every controlled demolitions job has to follow the exact same procedure or else it isn't controlled demolitions- they're just bombs. Critical support columns are cut near the bottom and the whole upper section falls down. This is NOT how the towers collapsed, but instead they began collapsing at the point of impact of the planes, which irrefutably means there's a direct connection to the plane impacts and the collapse, whether you care to admit it or not.

Let's face it, you have zero experience in explosives and controlled demolitions, you have zero experience in architectural design, you have zero knowledge of what was even going on in the WTC on a day to day basis, and the only reason why you even believe the towers were brought down by secret controlled demolitions is because you read somethign on some damned fool conspiracy website that it was a controlled demolitions. The incidents involving the hijackings, the towers collapsing at the point of the plane impacts, the fact that the buildings were was heavily occupied, the fact that it was already bombed in 1993, all of those inconvenient facts, just disappear out of your memory like they never happened out of political expediency.

Sorry, but I have to rely on critical thinking and I can't brush ugly facts I don't want to deal with under the rug the way you people do.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
i truely believe that it was really an inside job... war equal money and USA is about to be in WWIII



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


There is only one way for 2million tons of steel/concrete can be disingrated perfectly with in its property. USING EXPLOSIVES... i dont understand why you think its impossible that demolition is out of the question. demolition is an art ,literally,, you can demolish a tower to fall in so many ways. how you discount the demolish theory is mind-boggling.


Hardly mind boggling. You only need a tiny bit of critical analysis

a) these were heavily occupied buildings, chock full of tenants, engineers, security, electricians, custodians, inspectors, etc etc etc, many of them actively inspecting every nook and cranny for metal fatigue, rust, water leakage, and whatever. All it would take is ONE, O-N-E ONE person to notice something weird going on or discover one of these demolition charges to upset the whole apple cart

b) these were gigantic buildings, and there were TWO of them, so the support infrastructure for an operation to not only deliver and rig the towers with CD, but keep them secret from the occupants, security, inspectors, etc, would be every bit as immense as building the things to begin with

c) the NYPA security was actively on the lookout for saboteurs trying to sneak in and plant explosives ever since the first bombing in 1993, and they had their own contingent of bomb sniffing dogs (one of them, names Siruis, was killed in the attack)

c) Every controlled demolitions job has to follow the exact same procedure or else it isn't controlled demolitions- they're just bombs. Critical support columns are cut near the bottom and the whole upper section falls down. This is NOT how the towers collapsed, but instead they began collapsing at the point of impact of the planes, which irrefutably means there's a direct connection to the plane impacts and the collapse, whether you care to admit it or not.

Let's face it, you have zero experience in explosives and controlled demolitions, you have zero experience in architectural design, you have zero knowledge of what was even going on in the WTC on a day to day basis, and the only reason why you even believe the towers were brought down by secret controlled demolitions is because you read somethign on some damned fool conspiracy website that it was a controlled demolitions. The incidents involving the hijackings, the towers collapsing at the point of the plane impacts, the fact that the buildings were was heavily occupied, the fact that it was already bombed in 1993, all of those inconvenient facts, just disappear out of your memory like they never happened out of political expediency.

Sorry, but I have to rely on critical thinking and I can't brush ugly facts I don't want to deal with under the rug the way you people do.


Dave, like I said earlier, watch the movies on post 25 that I put up. Like I said in the other post to the other fellow, I'd be happy to answer any of the questions that you may have following you watching them. Never settle for what anybody tells yourself, you have your own mind, do your own thinking and your own reasearch and you can there for make a clear conclusion and as I said, never settle for any other persons conclusions, they'll lead you in false directions.
edit on 28-6-2011 by Subbam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Subbam
 


I know ,your right... The problem is, there is a reason why we are not taught LOGIC in school. Logic is a single form of thinking. It doesnt need science,physics,medicine,math,faith,technology ,history and emotion. which all those things can be manipulated by man.. And please dont think i am taking a shot at physic and science but if someone doesnt know physics then one could twist whatever and that person is helpless with no other choice but to accept with what they are fed by the controlling source. Hence all the people who think 14 arabs by themselves brought down 3 massive steel/concrete structures.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

You seem to think that a plane hitting a building at 550+ miles an hour is going to have little effect. Total nonsense. I don't need to have a detailed grasp of complex physics to know that it's not going to have a negligible impact on what happens next.
The irony among official story believers posts is just killing me. You speak of physics to back up your side of the story, yet the official story violates two laws of thermodynamics! Making it impossible! Watch that third video posted by Subbam on Page 25.

Simply put, the calculations of the energy required to bring down the towers in the manner that they fell is 100X greater than the energy released by the impact of the airplane. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. The plane crashing into the building, as well as the fire that followed, is only 1% of the energy that was needed to bring down the towers. How can that be logically explained? How can the impossible be made possible? Controlled demolition.

The second law of thermodynamics is also broken by the official story, the heat flowing uphill from a jet fuel fire can't allow steel to reach the 3000 degrees required to form molten steel.

On top of that, during the collapse all three towers were in free-fall, meaning that there was no resistance from the mass underneath it, which is impossbile.

So in reality physics actually debunks the official story of a plane hitting and destroying the building, it doesn't back it up. Epic fail on your part.

If anybody has a problem with the above analysis, take it up with this guy:

edit on 28-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by Subbam
 


I know ,your right... The problem is, there is a reason why we are not taught LOGIC in school. Logic is a single form of thinking. It doesnt need science,physics,medicine,math,faith,technology ,history and emotion. which all those things can be manipulated by man.. And please dont think i am taking a shot at physic and science but if someone doesnt know physics then one could twist whatever and that person is helpless with no other choice but to accept with what they are fed by the controlling source. Hence all the people who think 14 arabs by themselves brought down 3 massive steel/concrete structures.


You are completely riight dilly1. But imagine the mind shock it is to other person that has been indoctrinated through such a vicious propoganda campaingn that's been staged against them their entire life. To see the that the protectors are really the offenders is a really mind shattering experience to some, for they don't want to accept the concept that not everything is not what it seems, but however the best way to do it is through positive reinforcement. I know they get hostile every so often but like I said, it's because they're trying to digest something big.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Subbam
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Throwing back insults obviously isn't furthering your view neither. Watch the videos I posted on 25 and any other question that you may have I will answer them in a civilized manner. My mind is open to being changed at any moment, however from what I see, the case makes itself. However, that's my conclusion, do your reserach to come to yours.


What insult?

I'm sorry, but I'm not really interested in changing your mind. I've done research and I'm satisfied. It's enough for me.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Subbam
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Throwing back insults obviously isn't furthering your view neither. Watch the videos I posted on 25 and any other question that you may have I will answer them in a civilized manner. My mind is open to being changed at any moment, however from what I see, the case makes itself. However, that's my conclusion, do your reserach to come to yours.


What insult?

I'm sorry, but I'm not really interested in changing your mind. I've done research and I'm satisfied. It's enough for me.


The insult you shot back at the other poster.

That's completely fine. However you and I know different about the fact that you have questions, or else you wouldn't be here trying to vigorously defend your views and I'm telling you that it's alright to have questions. As stated earlier, your Sig says a lot about you and it's sad that you're so broken down that you'd trust government documents over your own feeling and instinct. But I don't blame you friend, it's the system you live under. Like I said earlier, it's okay to have questions, however do you not think that those question do not deserve answers?
edit on 28-6-2011 by Subbam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur

The irony among official story believers posts is just killing me. You speak of physics to back up your side of the story, yet the official story violates two laws of thermodynamics! Making it impossible! Watch that third video posted by Subbam on Page 25.

Simply put, the calculations of the energy required to bring down the towers in the manner that they fell is 100X greater than the energy released by the impact of the airplane. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. The plane crashing into the building, as well as the fire that followed, is only 1% of the energy that was needed to bring down the towers. How can that be logically explained? How can the impossible be made possible? Controlled demolition.




I watched it. The guy makes a wrong assertion almost straight away: steel can be weakened by a fire of 700 degrees.

His evidence is highly suspect. The remainder of it rests on a series of suppositions that I don't particularly trust. But then I guess if you want to believe you will.


The second law of thermodynamics is also broken by the official story, the heat flowing uphill from a jet fuel fire can't allow steel to reach the 3000 degrees required to form molten steel.


The molten steel that you've failed to prove was there?

By the way, I love the way you've misunderstood the video and conflated the water metaphor with the heat.


On top of that, during the collapse all three towers were in free-fall, meaning that there was no resistance from the mass underneath it, which is impossbile.

So in reality physics actually debunks the official story of a plane hitting and destroying the building, it doesn't back it up. Epic fail on your part.
edit on 28-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post


The only failure has been your failure to back up your assertions, most notably about molten steel.

If the towers fell in free-fall time how does some debris fall faster than the collapse wave? With your knowledge of physics (gleaned from a couple of youtube videos) I'm sure you'll be able to explain that.
edit on 28-6-2011 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Subbam


The insult you shot back at the other poster.


He suggested I needed a construction class. Amusing, since I worked in construction for some time, and I don't labour under the notion that a skyscraper can stand up with a disintegrated foundation. It wasn't an insult, just an observation.


That's completely fine. However you and I know different about the fact that you have questions, or else you wouldn't be here trying to vigorously defend your views and I'm telling you that it's alright to have questions.


That's nice of you.


As stated earlier, your Sig says a lot about you and it's sad that you're so broken down that you'd trust government documents over your own feeling and instinct. But I don't blame you friend, it's the system you live under. Like I said earlier, it's okay to have questions, however do you not think that those question do not deserve answers?
edit on 28-6-2011 by Subbam because: (no reason given)


I think you might have missed the point of the sig.

But in general I'm not "broken down". And I'm also aware that a preponderance of documentary evidence, from government or not, is generally a lot better than "trusting your instincts". They've built casinos and fortunes on people being willing to trust their instincts.

Since you've chosen to patronise me with some cod psychology, I'll return the favour. You seem like one of those people who gains a tremendous amount of self-worth from the notion that they've somehow seen behind the veil. You're intelligent and discerning, and the proof is there for all to see - the system (which is far too strong for the likes of me) hasn't fooled you. Usually the maintenance of this idea of self-worth is more important than a basic adherence to logic and simple common sense.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

If the towers fell in free-fall time how does some debris fall faster than the collapse wave? With your knowledge of physics (gleaned from a couple of youtube videos) I'm sure you'll be able to explain that.
I'm majoring in Physics and Astronomy, I know a hell of a lot more about physics than you buddy.


The molten steel that you've failed to prove was there?
I proved it to you on page 23. 4 images of molten steel. One video of it dripping from the tower. Several witnesses involved in the clean-up proccess claimed to have seen molten steel. You failed to respond to my post on page 23 after I clearly proved its existence to you, so I'll ask the same question again that you ignored:

How about those numerous witness testimonies? Still doesn't prove it to you? So there is video evidence of molten metal dripping from the tower prior to its collapse, photographic evidence of molten metal within the debris, and numerous witness testimonies claiming to have seen molten metal, but you're not convinced? If videos, photos, and witnesses aren't enough then what would prove it to you? Do want me to build a time machine, take you back in time, and show it to you and throw you in it to verify the intense heat?

I have to ask, why do you ignore the evidence? Why did you not respond to the very post that proved you wrong? You asked for evidence and denied the existence of it, so I showed you the evidence that you requested and proved the existence of it. Did you think that if you just didn't respond after reading it, viewing the pictures, and listening to the witnesses, that *POOF*, the evidence would vanish?

I've shown you specifically this evidence multiple times throughout this thread, and denying it's existence is just the highest form of ignorance, delusion, and denial.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


A) wrong!!!! All three building are like a mini Dubai. Always having some type of construction. You have no idea what you are talking about. Again, there is constant construction going on , 24/7. Undected access is very possible .

B) wrong!!! Again... Because there is so much movement in TT's its easily, in small increments , apply whatever needs to be applied. You have know idea how many people constantly go in an out. This was planned a long time ago. This wasn't a one month earlier planned job.

C) you assume and have too much confidence in the NYC police and dogs when they have no reason to suspect someone(s) that is WHITE ,coming in to do mill work or thousands of other type of interior work. There is so many in's and out's,, the police concept is irrelevant. Your assuming the police is looking for a suspicious arab.. You say the police?? Please. That's a joke.


C)again wrong!!! Your not in construction so you don't understand. Yes there is a very strict protocol for demolition. But that's because of safety codes. In this case safety and codes are not involved..DUH.. Demolition is an art ,,, it truly is,, just like designing a building and the process of constructing a tower . You can manipulate the fall of the building how ever you want with the use of explosive. There is an endless amount of ways.



I have 15 years experience in construction, my father and grandfather were Structural engineers. I don't need conspiracy websites. I use simple logic. The 93 bomb attack was a "urea nitrate-hydrogen" compound bomb . The bomb did no structural damage to the foundation. All the steel columns where still intact. You got that genius.



You talk about incidents:

*Hijacking
*Plane causing the tower to. collapse
*building heavily occupied
*'93 bombing

Do nothing in explaining the disintegration of three towers. Your argument holds know weight.



Your attacks don't bother me. Thick skin .



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I think you might have missed the point of the sig.

But in general I'm not "broken down". And I'm also aware that a preponderance of documentary evidence, from government or not, is generally a lot better than "trusting your instincts". They've built casinos and fortunes on people being willing to trust their instincts.

Since you've chosen to patronise me with some cod psychology, I'll return the favour. You seem like one of those people who gains a tremendous amount of self-worth from the notion that they've somehow seen behind the veil. You're intelligent and discerning, and the proof is there for all to see - the system (which is far too strong for the likes of me) hasn't fooled you. Usually the maintenance of this idea of self-worth is more important than a basic adherence to logic and simple common sense.


You've got it wrong friend
I don't have the intention of gaining anything from anybody. I must ask you though, why even post on a board to refute it's claims when you yourself is denying or not even giving the evidence presented forth to yourself a chance? You have some awfully confusing views.. or you yourself is like I said confused.

edit on 28-6-2011 by Subbam because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
274
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join