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: 50
274
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Here is a link to a previous post in this thread.

That's basically an organized breakdown of this video, broken up into statements, evidence, and facts:

Nobody has attempted to fully debunk this video yet, so I would love if -PLB- or spoor gave it a shot, since you guys sure love to badmouth people that don't believe the official story.




posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 



Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy...

Truer words have never been spoken.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Here is a video (Start at 7:23 if you don't want to watch the whole thing) that interviews several witnesses who claim that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon did not fly according to the official path.


This contradicts the official story, and brings up the question: What knocked over the light poles that struck Lloyd Englands taxi? Here is an interview with Lloyd in which he is confronted with evidence that goes against his story, and he cannot even think of a way to defend himself other than stuttering, denying, and looking stupid.

Lloyds words are in bold:

I'm not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff.

Well I'm not supposed to be involved with this, I don't have nothing.

These people that have all the money....
This is their thing.
This is their event?
This is for them.
Meaning their doing it for their own reasons?
That's right, I'm not supposed to be in it.
But they used you, right?
I'm in it.
You're in it?
Yeah, we came across the highway together
You and their event?
That's right
Well they must have planned it.
It was planned.
So Lloyd, whose taxi was struck by a light pole in an area hundreds of feet from the witness established flight path, is shown photographic evidence that his car is located in a different spot than where the plane flew overhead. He cannot legitimately defend himself, and can only deny those accusations despite the photographic evidence that disproves his claims. Lloyd goes on to admit that 9/11 was planned by people with money, and that he was involved in it and used.




posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 





Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy...


Truer words have never been spoken.


The OS argument is chock full of this kind of trash and suspiciously empty of empirical support for their ideas.

"Debunking" doesn't just mean saying something that, if true, would disprove the conspiracy. You also actually have to prove that what you claim is true in the first place.

For people supposedly supporting the scientific method (what a joke) one would expect at least SOME of their ideas to have SOME connection to the scientific method, however tenuous. Is that REALLY too much to ask for?
edit on 16-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: quotes



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
one would expect at least SOME of their ideas to have SOME connection to the scientific method, however tenuous


This is from a truther, and just look at the "scientific method" in claiming the following were used or happened or existed on 9/11:

Jets carrying pods firing missiles at the WTC buildings
holographic planes,
nano thermite
silent explosives
mini nuclear weapons
beam weapons from outer space
the Jews did it
cardboard boxes demonstrates that the towers could not have collapsed
No jews were killed
The WTC towers were empty
no passengers were killed
The Pentagon had air defence missiles on the roof
A Bush was in charge of security at the WTC
all sniffer dogs were removed

etc etc - all just not true, with zero evidence supporting any of them.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I started watching, it wasn't that interesting. I stopped at the claim that the melting of steel in office fires is impossible and therefore the official explanation can be eliminated. I have yet to see evidence of molten steel. Micro spheres have plenty other sources. The molten substance can easily be aluminum. Eliminating those alternatives without a good reason is not investigating, it is twisting the fact to fit an agenda.

I rather have you present your best argument why you believe its an inside job than you posting some random Youtube video.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 





Jets carrying pods firing missiles at the WTC buildings holographic planes, nano thermite silent explosives mini nuclear weapons beam weapons from outer space the Jews did it cardboard boxes demonstrates that the towers could not have collapsed No jews were killed The WTC towers were empty no passengers were killed The Pentagon had air defence missiles on the roof A Bush was in charge of security at the WTC all sniffer dogs were removed


Most of that only serves to demonstrate one thing: That you like strawmen.

Do you realize the some (if not most) people in the U.S. who believe the official version of events ALSO don't believe in evolution. Shocking but true.

Just because SOME people who believe something also believe something else does not mean that EVERYONE who believes that things believes the other thing. Classic OS logic fail.


Some things I would agree to some degree or another:




cardboard boxes demonstrates that the towers could not have collapsed


It may not be perfect but it certainly demonstrates the principle pretty well and and is a million miles better than the OS'ers best effort at reproduction, which all mysteriously fail.

At least this experiment always works. Which is a good start.



nano thermite


So we are back to claiming that it doesn't exist at all again eh? you fail to prove one thing so you just revert back to some other random position?



A Bush was in charge of security


As far as I am aware a relative was in charge of the company in charge of the security. So roughly speaking, yes.

What does this have to do with science?



all sniffer dogs were removed


Again, what does this have to do with science? Does really matter if it was ALL or some or most or many?

Nobody is saying that such a fact alone would PROVE anything, but your claim that the fact that if it is false it would DISPROVE anything is another example of OS logic fail.
edit on 16-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01

A Bush was in charge of security


As far as I am aware a relative was in charge of the company in charge of the security. So roughly speaking, yes.


Very wrong, he was NOT in charge of the company, nor did that company have the security on 9/11 - this is how truthers work, keep repeating much debunked lies!

What does this have to do with science?


all sniffer dogs were removed

Again, what does this have to do with science? Does really matter if it was ALL or some or most or many?


It just continues to show how truthers constantly tell lies

But truthers have shown that they are not interested in the truth!



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 





Very wrong, he was NOT in charge of the company, nor did that company have the security on 9/11 - this is how truthers work, keep repeating much debunked lies!



I think you need to consult your dictionary as to the meaning of the word "lie" again. If you think that I am mistaken in my facts it is sufficient to point to evidence that actually proves that I am mistaken, I will gladly revise my position.

Just saying nuh-uh doesn't qualify though.
edit on 16-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: s



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



I stopped at the claim that the melting of steel in office fires is impossible and therefore the official explanation can be eliminated. I have yet to see evidence of molten steel.
Evidence of molten steel. That links you to a post earlier in the thread with dozens of witness testimonies claiming to have seen molten steel, as well as photographic and video evidence. I'll go ahead and embed some of the pictures and videos though.



So we have dozens of witness testimonies, several pictures, and a video of it dripping from the south tower. Do you trust all of that evidence, or this guy?:



Micro spheres have plenty other sources.
Plenty of other sources that you didn't name....Great debunking. I've got one: thermite.


The molten substance can easily be aluminum.
Find me a historical precedent where an airplane crashed and the jet fuel turned the aluminum frame completely molten. Besides, molten aluminum is not bright orange, it's silver with a slight pink or orange hue at best.

Molten Aluminum:





Molten Steel:


Tell me, which molten metal more closely resembles the one dripping from the tower?

NISTs explanation:

"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."
Since NIST conducted no experimental confirmation to back up their speculation as is typical with them, Steven Jones did those experiments himself. At the bottom of this paper are videos in which aluminum is mixed with solid inorganic materials, and it looks nothing like the uniformly bright orange molten metal seen dripping from the tower.

We have a bright orange molten metal dripping from the tower before collapse. Jet fuel is incapable of burning at a high enough temperature to turn steel molten, so NIST speculated that it was molten aluminum mixed with solid inorganic materials, however independent experimentation proved them to be wrong. Since molten aluminum is not bright orange, and also since there is no historical precedent in which burning jet fuel turned the aluminum frame of an airplane completely molten, it's obviously not molten aluminum. The presence of molten steel combined with iron microspheres and active thermitic material in the dust all indicate that a thermitic reaction occured, and a thermitic based controlled demolition would be consistent with the laws of physics-defying collapse of the two towers.


Eliminating those alternatives without a good reason is not investigating, it is twisting the fact to fit an agenda.
But I have eliminated those alternatives, I've done my research. In fact if you would have done a quick YouTube search you would have found that molten aluminum is indeed silver and not orange. So really by just taking NISTs explanation as fact without researching it yourself, especially since they conducted no experiments to back up their claim, telling me I'm not investigating is pretty ironic, wouldn't you agree?

Now watch the rest of the video and debunk the rest:

Here's a link to a post that has the video organized into statements, evidence, and facts, with links to all of the experiments that the video refers to.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I only see glowing steel. How did the witnesses determine it was molten steel and not molten aluminum? A possible source for micro spheres is fly ash. And lastly, those experiments with aluminum are just silly. They either do not state temperature or they drop it on a huge heat sink. Didn't we already go over this by the way?



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




I only see glowing steel. How did the witnesses determine it was molten steel and not molten aluminum?
Maybe because they know that molten steel is bright orange? I just showed you proof that molten aluminum is not orange, it's silver. The witness testimonies don't describe some glowing metal, they describe fully molten metal if you would have actually read them.

Here are a few:

…the rattle of cascading debris, the ominous groaning of weakened structures overhead, or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.
-- William Langewiesche, American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center, North Point Press, New York, 2002, p. 32.


In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel

-- Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc., maker of the GlobalPoint Global Positioning System receiver used to track debris and/or human remains recovery locations in the pile. (Trudy Walsh, “Handheld App Eased Recovery Tasks,” Government Computer News, Vol. 21 No. 27 a, 9/11/2002. Archived at 911research.wtc7.net... )


...seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. ‘It was dripping from the molten steel,’ he said.

--Joe “Toolie” O’Toole, Bronx firefighter and recovery worker. (Jennifer Lin, “Recovery Worker Reflects On Months Spent At Ground Zero,” Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 29, 2002. Archived at 911research.wtc7.net... )



You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel– molten steel running down the channelways, like you were in a foundry– like lava.

--Firefighter Captain Philip Ruvolo



A possible source for micro spheres is fly ash.

In an industrial context, fly ash usually refers to ash produced during combustion of coal.
Maybe if the airplanes were coal-powered I would buy that



And lastly, those experiments with aluminum are just silly.
Your ignorance astounds me. At least I actually have experiments to back up my position, you're bashing the very experiments that NIST was too incompetent to perform themselves.


They either do not state temperature or they drop it on a huge heat sink.
Fine, if you don't trust the several YouTube videos of molten aluminum and an experiment that debunks NISTs theory that the molten metal was aluminum mixed with solid inorganic materials, then find your own experiments that back up NISTs theory.
edit on 16-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Molten aluminum can be silvery but also glowing yellow, depending on the temperature. Proof:

www.youtube.com...

It is of course no coincidence that you did not post this video, even though it shows up as one of the first hits on Google. Are you still holding to your position it could not have been aluminum?


One more thing: Fly ash is also produced by burning other things. Additionally, fly ash is sometimes used in concrete. Other things and concrete were both present in the WTC.
edit on 16-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



Molten aluminum can be silvery but also glowing yellow, depending on the temperature. Proof:

www.youtube.com...

It is of course no coincidence that you did not post this video, even though it shows up as one of the first hits on Google. Are you still holding to your position it could not have been aluminum?
Yep:


Where is NISTs experimental confirmation? Why didn't they get airplane parts from a scrapyard and burn them in jet fuel to confirm whether or not it's molten aluminum?

Seen from NASAs infrared imaging spectrometer:
WOW, that's a lot of molten aluminum from just two airplanes, huh? Wait a minute, see WTC7 at the top there? Now how did the molten aluminum which came from the airplanes jump from the top of the twin towers into the basement of WTC7? That is quite interesting.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
On which level(s) was the molten metal spotted? Towards which part of the building? Center, corner? If there was molten metal, it must have eventually cooled, correct? How long did it take the molten material to cool? Before or after cooling, was a sample taken of this material to be tested? If not, whose decision was it NOT to test this compelling piece of evidence? Any video or photographic evidence of the cooled molten metal?

If the accounts of the molten material are factual, one can speculate that it originated from the melted steel of the inner core columns. Somehow, those massive inner core columns were liquified (sorry NIST, no "unsually large jet fuel" can do that), as this would account for the lack of steel recovered at the site. The Greek guy, George S. from ABC News, did an on scene report about this after 911 raising concerns about the lack of steel being trucked from the site.

Since the WTC's foundation went down a minimum of eight stories (probably much deeper, since all of Battery Park City was built on landfill from the original WTC excavation site), the massive amount of molten steel from the inner core could have easily made its way down to these lower bowels to their final resting spot, being reclaimed by Manhattan's bedrock. This is the only plausible explanation for the molten metal and the alarming lack of steel recovered at the site.

Some individuals with questionable observation powers, if not motives, are claiming most of the steel from the WTC buildings was recovered from the site. This is utter nonsense, since this video alone gives one an idea of the ridiculously low debris pile. At around the 5:00 mark, workers are walking around the pile with no problem. There is other photographic evidence which also verifies the ridiculously low debris pile.



All the steel from both twins (a whopping 220 stories) would have easily left a debris pile 250-300 feet high. Do you know what type of scaffolding, rigging and heavy equipment would have been required for the iron workers, riggers and machine operators to safely cut and remove all that mangled steel? Do you know how long this cleanup operation would have taken compared to how long it actually took if most of the steel had not melted? All you see in that video is a couple of tower cranes, a front loader and some trucks.

The video also shows steam rising from several ares in the pile. No doubt this is the molten metal cooling within the earth. Not exactly Old Faithful, but hey, it's there.

There is 911 researcher Dr. Judy Woods who believes in the dustification of steel theory. My question is why go through the trouble of dustifying steel (is that even possible?) when you can zap the steel to a temperature where it liquifies. After that, you have gravity do the rest, by taking the molten steel down to the excavated grave site, which just prior to collapse served as the massive foundation for the Towers.

Sure there was a significant amount of dust from the collapses, some even estimating two thirds of the weight of the rubble amounting to dust. This, no doubt, resulted from the asbestos, shattered glass, blown concrete and a number of other respiratory carcinogens from the building materials floating through the lower Manhattan air and finding permanent lodging, attaching into people's lungs. Nice way to repay all those on site workers for their hard work and dedication.







edit on 16-7-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Here are the flight paths of the aircraft as drawn by the witnesses in National Security Alert:

Officer Chadwick Brooks:


Officer William Lagasse:


Darius Prather:


William Middleton Sr:


Donald Carter:


Darrell Stafford:


As you can see none of them match the official flight path, making the light pole damage impossible. This matches up nicely with Lloyds interview in which he admits that 9/11 was planned, and that he is involved because he was used. Plus the lack of damage to the hood of his car is suprising and seemingly impossible considering that a several hundred pound light pole landed on top of it and smashed the windshield.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


So your line of reasoning is that NIST didn't do tests with aluminum airplane parts, therefore the only possible explanation is that it was molten iron as result of a thermite reaction and therefore it was an inside job. Well that looks a like a perfectly normal line of reasoning to me (for a thruther).

And whatever that image is supposed to show it totally unclear to me.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Black body radiation PLB, if the temperatures were hot enough to turn aluminium that color you would have the same problem as if was molten iron.

Besides it is not just the color but the behavior of the material which indicates the very high surface tension and low reflectivity of molten iron and not molten aluminium.

Also fly ash



consist[s] mostly of silicon dioxide (SiO2), which is present in two forms: amorphous, which is rounded and smooth, and crystalline, which is sharp, pointed and hazardous; aluminium oxide (Al2O3) and iron oxide (Fe2O3). Fly ashes are generally highly heterogeneous, consisting of a mixture of glassy particles with various identifiable crystalline phases such as quartz, mullite, and various iron oxides. Fly ash also contains environmental toxins in significant amounts, including arsenic (43.4 ppm); barium (806 ppm); beryllium (5 ppm); boron (311 ppm); cadmium (3.4 ppm); chromium (136 ppm); chromium VI (90 ppm); cobalt (35.9 ppm); copper (112 ppm); fluorine (29 ppm); lead (56 ppm); manganese (250 ppm); nickel (77.6 ppm); selenium (7.7 ppm); strontium (775 ppm); thallium (9 ppm); vanadium (252 ppm); and zinc (178 ppm).[5]

edit on 16-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

So your line of reasoning is that NIST didn't do tests with aluminum airplane parts, therefore the only possible explanation is that it was molten iron as result of a thermite reaction and therefore it was an inside job.
You sure do love to spin things and try to make people that have a different opinion than you look crazy, but we both know there's much more to it than that. For one, what experiments did NIST do to back up their theories? Because that's all they are is theories, no more than the theories I present, however mine are typically backed by evidence and experiments that you sure love to ridicule.

The molten iron as a result of a thermitic reaction has much more foundation than NIST not backing up their theory, and you know that perfectly as well as I do since I've repeated those things dozens of times, so really why even make that statement? Did you want to draw attention to one detail out of many that I use to doubt NISTs explanation in an attempt to show how gullible I am and how stupid people who don't believe the official story are? I'm really struggling to understand why you would even say that, please explain.

Evidence of a thermitic reaction has more than just NISTs incompetence backing it.

There are the iron spheres and active thermitic material found throughout all of the dust samples, and thermite can produce these. While you may attempt to wriggle out of that piece of evidence and provide some half-ass fly ash explanation and claim that the chips are just hyper-reactive paint remains that burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel and create iron spheres, that's clearly a bunch of BS.

Then there is eutectic steel found throughout the rubble which cannot be explained by a gravity driven collapse, however thermite can produce this as is backed by experimental confirmation (something that apparently isn't praised, respected, not to mention demanded by official story believers, unless of course you're addressing our side of the story, but in a double standard yours seemingly does not require experiments to back it up).
Don't be afraid to watch a 10 minute YouTube video that goes against your point of view, because I've noticed a consistent pattern that official story believers tend to quit watching whatever I present and provide some explanation that it's too silly or something dumb like that. It's simple, just watch the whole thing and tell me what's wrong with it:


Then don't forget the obvious yet commonly overlooked fact that both twin towers collapsed identically despite the fact that they were struck by planes moving at different speeds, containing different amounts of jet fuel, and being different masses.

Then there are the infrared images, conducted by many different organizations, that show large amounts of molten metal in the basements of not just the twin towers where it would be expected if the molten metal was indeed aluminum, but also in the basement of WTC7. How did it get inside of WTC7? Did a huge part of the fuselage manage to fall from the tower while covered in burning jet fuel, land inside of WTC7, and turn molten?
I'm sure there's more that I'm forgetting, but those things should be enough to have even the most intelligent patriotic Americans scratching their heads.

Looking at all of those things, would you agree that there is at least some rationality in noticing the pattern of thermitic evidence and deducing that thermite could have been used to bring down the towers? Or do you still think we're all insane for believeing in a theory that is backed by evidence but not endorsed by the government and mainstream media?


Well that looks a like a perfectly normal line of reasoning to me (for a thruther).
Truther: T-R-U-T-H-E-R, I don't know if you struggle typing that word, but you've spelled it a number of various ways and I'm not quite sure why.


And whatever that image is supposed to show it totally unclear to me.
Let me make it clear for you then: molten metal. There were dozens of people involved in the clean-up who saw molten metal in the basements of the three towers, and those images of the hot-spots, plus the actual pictures showing the molten metal, plus the video of it dripping from the tower make it impossible for any rational individual to deny the existence of molten metal.

I would be open to the theory that the molten metal could be from the aluminum frame of the airplanes since that video you posted shows in certain conditions it can be bright yellow. However since it was also found in the base of WTC7, which wasn't even struck by a plane and suffered very little falling debris damage as well as fire damage compared to the surrounding buildings, combined with all of the evidence of thermitic material leads me to believe that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


And here you are talking about the spheres and "thermite" chips again. Forgot already that those "thermite" chips didn't even burn when put a blowtorch to it. Ah no that was just a minor issue according to you. As for the spheres, so you reject perfectly reasonable explanation number one. Another perfectly reasonable explanation is residue from welding.

As for the reason the rubble was hot, it had little to do with plane crashes. The energy in the combustible materials that was already inside the buildings was much higher. The jet fuel was all burned up in the early stages of the fire on that very day. Just as a side note, the idea that somehow thermite is responsible is another one of the loony theories. Thermite has a very low energy density. The amounts needed would just be absurd. That is why you wont see any truther making an estimate of the required amount of thermite that could be responsible for all that energy. It would make their pet theory look so completely absurd.




top topics



 
274
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join