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.

 

10 Years later and still waiting for the Truth...

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


What does this mean and how does it apply to this thread. I do not want this derailed into another debacle. Can you please try to do that?




posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
When are people going to give up these delusions about THE TRUTH and accept that in the REAL WORLD there is usually a significant degree of uncertainty?

We can KNOW that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up.

We may be able to KNOW that it was impossible for airliners to have destroyed the buildings.

But that does not necessarily mean we can know what really did destroy them much less who.

But if most people understood airliners could not do it then the search for the truth could be much more focused without so much bullsh# rhetoric.

psik



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


This thread should have been named “why you believe in the OS of 911.”
As Bones stated, you believe in government faith, as if powerful people in our government do not lie.
You can believe in what you want to believe, but don’t try to sell the OS “proven lies” as truth to people who have research the subject. We are not all ill-advised as some of you think we are.
Since your thread (OP) is only your opinion and lacks any credibility such as sources to back your assumptions, you shouldn’t continue to insist the government word is the only truth to 911 without proof. What has the government given the American people for facts, NOTHING! As Bones said just their words.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Yankee451
 


What does this mean and how does it apply to this thread. I do not want this derailed into another debacle. Can you please try to do that?


Oh good grief, just read what I was responding to. I was agreeing with the poster who said no one in power can be trusted who doesn't acknowledge 911 for what it really was...false flag.

Don't worry, I'm not going to talk about stuff that makes you uncomfortable...you know, like the truth.

Carry on in the dark fellas.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Why not? I asked how long you would wait and what are you waiting for? It is 10 years later and there is no 'new' story or truth. Only what happened that day. I have no faith in anything except myself to make an informed decision.

The problem is most people understand that planes, that hit buildings going over 550 mph, may cause a building to collapse. This is why the new Tower 1 has been built the way it is.Solid concrete interior. 20 floors about the ground floor. It is solid as a rock. The WTC was not.

How long are you going to wait to find that there is nothing new? It is a simple question. What would it take for you to say...wow, I guess there were no explosives and think maybe this is also all distraction because it was not built as strong as it could be. Where are those lawsuits against the engineers, anyone who made changes or updated the structure...etc ...etc...



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by esdad71
 


This thread should have been named “why you believe in the OS of 911.”
As Bones stated, you believe in government faith, as if powerful people in our government do not lie.
You can believe in what you want to believe, but don’t try to sell the OS “proven lies” as truth to people who have research the subject. We are not all ill-advised as some of you think we are.
Since your thread (OP) is only your opinion and lacks any credibility such as sources to back your assumptions, you shouldn’t continue to insist the government word is the only truth to 911 without proof. What has the government given the American people for facts, NOTHING! As Bones said just their words.


No, the title is what it should be and is appropriate to the questions. I believe in no faith and you would know that if you read my thread and not someone who responded to me. That is part of the problem right there. You have a preconcieved notion of what happened so you do not allow yourself to let anything else in.

You are deciding for everyone that the US gave us no evidence. What do you call the PENTTBOM investigation? truly dissect why they did not perform due diligence. Were all of those interviews staged? What about the other plans that were broken after implementing DHS? These things happened and there is no denying it. No physics involved here.....



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I already know the truth. The difference between me and a lot of people is that I don't need the "Official" truth. Truth is truth...screw the details.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 





The problem is most people understand that planes, that hit buildings going over 550 mph, may cause a building to collapse.


I don't think that's the problem.

Good luck waiting for the truth.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
It took me a spell to dig this up. It came from a friend of a friend... and I am still not sure who wrote it, whether it was someone that they knew or if it was one of those emails that get forwarded on and on and on and on...

But, no matter because I think the story is reflective of a lot of us.

NOTE: I did edit out the name of a city that was mentioned in the original copy. I don't make any claims to the ownership or authenticity.

ATS Mods: If the following text violates any rules (I don't think it does), then please remove it and not me, lol.

- Redoubt

...




In 2009, I was working on a construction crew in [west] Georgia. Each and every morning, we'd all meet at the Waffle House, have coffee, a spot of breakfast and then load up in the foreman's truck to go to the work site which was about a 30 minute ride.

On one of those mornings, I brought a few DVDs of the video, Loose Change, and gave them to my work buddies. I told them to watch it and let me know the next day what they thought.

Come the next morning, I walked into the Waffle House and those guys were already there waiting. We hardly ever all got there on time but on this morning, they were all there ahead of me and already seated. I walked in and they just stared at me.

Then my boss stood up, handed me the DVD I had given him the day before and said, "I didn't watch it." Then one by one, my work friends each handed theirs in as well, and each told me that didn't watch the video.

I just stood there, not knowing what was coming next. Then one guy said to another, "Did you see that game last night?" The reply was, "Yeah. Who won?" Then everyone laughed understanding exactly what was meant.

It took me about 24 hours to figure it out.


...



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Yankee451
 
The problem is most people understand that planes, that hit buildings going over 550 mph, may cause a building to collapse. This is why the new Tower 1 has been built the way it is.Solid concrete interior. 20 floors about the ground floor. It is solid as a rock. The WTC was not.


The north tower plane was doing 440 mph. The south tower was 550.

They may have been able to take down buildings less than 50,000 tons but buildings over 400,000 tons no way.

Some idiots have just decided that that is what they prefer to believe. One floor assembly weighed more than triple the weight of a plane. So more than 100 floors plus the weight of all of the steel necessary to support those floors.

TEN YEARS of idiocy.

psik



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I question why you believe there were explosives? Because it looked like a demolition or becuase there is evidence for a demolition.

Ever heard the following expression: "If it walks like a dog and barks like a dog, it must be a dog."

Not only did the 3 WTC collapses look like demolitions, they sounded like demolitions according to numerous witnesses.


There is also plenty of evidence for demolition: ejections of dust debris; audio recordings of the explosions; witness testimony.

  • Ejections
    Ejections of dust/debris were seen on all sides of the towers' collapses, just below the collapse fronts. Some ejections were even seen 40-60 floors below the collapse fronts. Ejections of dust/debris have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions as they are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated.

    But on 9/11 and 9/11 only, those ejections are theorized to be something totally different and never-before seen in any building collapse before or after 9/11, despite the sounds of explosions happening before and during the collapse of all 3 WTC buildings.


  • Audio recordings
    There are several audio recordings of explosions at the WTC before and during the collapses of all 3 WTC buildings. NIST blatantly denies the existence of those audio recordings, but they've been publicly available for many years online. Some of the audio recordings are corroborated by witness testimony.

    Which brings us to:


  • Witness testimony
    Not only has about one-quarter of the surviving first responders testified to explosions and explosion sounds at the WTC, there are also several survivors and by-standers that also have reported explosions before and during the collapse of all 3 WTC buildings.



    Originally posted by esdad71
    The 9/11 commission was not a white wash. Because a few members stated, after they were given additional funding, that enough was not done does not mean it is worthless to read.

    Even if one member came forward claiming it was a white-wash or a failure, that would raise eyebrows to the credibility of the report. But several members have come forward stating as much. That ruins the credibility of the commission and anything that was written in the report.



    Originally posted by esdad71
    The NIST report did not have to test for explosives. It is there to find out why the structure may have failed and how to make sure it does not happen again.

    NIST's goal was to determine how the structures failed. Part of determining how those structures failed includes testing for incendiaries and explosives if there is evidence for either. As I've already stated, one-quarter of first responders reported explosions and explosion sounds, and several first responders and other credible people reported seeing molten steel. It is negligent to not test for incendiaries or explosives when so many witnesses have reported otherwise.



    Originally posted by esdad71
    Last I checked AETruth had 1,547 people in that field who came forward. You are choosing the minority because it fits your theory.

    How is that a minority? Can you post the names of at least 1548 architects, engineers and scientists that have come forward supporting the "official" theory? If not, then Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is the majority of all architects and engineers that have come forward publicly one way or the other.

    You are automatically counting the ones that have not come forward as supporting the official theory and you can't do that. That's like giving the presidency to the opposite candidate if 1547 people voted for one person, and the other 100,000 didn't vote at all.



    Originally posted by esdad71
    Planes hit the WTC and they collapsed. You cannot deny this.

    Nobody is denying that. The 9/11 Truth Movement is questioning how those buildings collapsed.



    Originally posted by esdad71
    However, this was a natural and un-aided process. This is because there is no physical evidence.

    There doesn't have to be physical evidence for demolitions. Just because there isn't physical evidence, doesn't mean you discount the rest of the theory. There is plenty of other evidence in the form of audio, visual, witness testimony, and forensic evidence that the collapses were aided by explosives and incendiaries.



    Originally posted by esdad71
    There is nothing in Science that dictates that towers should not fall the way they did on 9/11. Nothing.

    Actually, there is. Buildings cannot fall through the path of greatest resistance at or near free-fall without assistance.

    On top of that, history has shown time and time again that office fires have never cause steel-structured highrises to collapse, let alone totally and completely. And three times on one day, and one day only in history.





    edit on 31-8-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



  • posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:47 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by -PLB-
    The real evidence we have is jetliners hitting buildings, buildings burning, and buildings collapsing. Anything added to that (RC planes, explosives etc) lack any evidence to back it up.

    Then you not only don't know what constitutes as "evidence", but you also haven't looked at the actual evidence.

    Evidence comes in the form of:

  • Media - including audio, video recordings, and static images or papers.

  • Physical evidence - which includes forensic evidence.

  • Witness testimony - which is the number-one form of evidence in a court of law.


    As I stated in another post, and if you have read the First Responder Oral Histories and other witness testimony, you would know that about one-quarter of first responders reported being affected by an explosion, or heard explosion sounds.

    On top of explosions, there are other signs of controlled demolition, as reported by first responders and other people. Several first responders saw low-level flashes going up, down and around the towers as they were collapsing above. There was popping or exploding sounds reported associated with those flashes.

    Several first responders, survivors, and by-standers also reported timed, synchronous "booms" as all three WTC buildings collapsed.

    The above is more than abundant evidence of controlled demolition when added to the audio and video recordings of the collapses, and the fact that all three buildings collapsed at or near free-fall which is not possible without the aid of explosives.



    Originally posted by -PLB-
    So far for me the "OS" is by far the best explanation available. It does not require additional theories that lack evidence.

    Actually, the official version of events is only a theory and cannot be proven. There was no DNA tests of the hijackers revealed to the public, nor the chain of custody of the DNA for testing. That means you have to take their word based on faith that they're telling the truth.

    The NIST report deliberately did not test for incendiaries or explosives despite the audio, visual, and witness testimony to the contrary. NIST also admits that the majority of evidence it used to come up with their report cannot be revealed due to "non-disclosure agreements", which means you have to take NIST's word based on faith that they're telling the truth, despite being caught in so many lies and having their report easily debunked.

    So you see, there is no "evidence" for you to believe the official theory. No definitive evidence has ever been presented. All you're doing is taking their word for it and you are using faith to believe them.



    Originally posted by -PLB-
    Additionally, I find a scenario where people in power are incompetent much more likely than a scenario where people in power are next to omnipotent.

    But some people from another country with very limited resources, and far less resources than the military industrial complex, are near-omnipotent to pull off such an operation with near-military precision? Even when the military industrial complex has written a similar plan before?

    You can't possibly be serious.



  • posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:54 PM
    link   
    reply to post by psikeyhackr
     


    I asked for some civility and you insult me by calling me an idiot because i do not agree with you. I mean, did you even read the post or did you see it was me and start writing. I will be the later.

    You see, I actually read and try to respond to post and I am also not afraid to debate it...
    ..but this was a simple thread that it is 10 years later and what are you looking for? There is no truth. If there was, I would believe it. I have said time and time again if I saw proof that I would say it was a coverup. I am not blind. But, I will not follow something that has no evidence, and that is explosives.

    As far as science/construction/engineering...it all existed. I disagree that if it looks like it then it must be true. I mean, that is what you are stating is wrong with those who feel what happened that day was two planes hit and eventually 3 buildings collapsed from damage and fire. That is what we saw so it must be true. You see, this is the circular argument which allows you to never had to have proof but still add 'flame'' to the fire.

    I simply want to know why you are still waiting for proof that would have come and is not going too it would seem...you are clinging to the 1% of the 1% of what may have happened...if there was physical proof....
    edit on 31-8-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



    posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:33 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by esdad71
    reply to post by psikeyhackr
     


    I asked for some civility and you insult me by calling me an idiot because i do not agree with you.


    I didn't call you an idiot.

    I said "some idiots believe". I don't know or care what you believe.

    Insulting you does not interest me in the slightest.

    psik
    edit on 31-8-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



    posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:51 PM
    link   
    reply to post by psikeyhackr
     


    Yep. They were mountains of steel.


    Planners designed the towers to withstand prolonged winds of 150 miles per hour, a severe condition that New York has never experienced. That kind of wind would give each tower a thirteen-million-pound push the equivalent of being smashed by a large ocean freighter.


    From the book published in 1999 “Twin Towers : The Life of New York City's World Trade Center."
    Page 81

    edit on 31-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



    posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:27 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Yankee451
     


    Why do you choose an obscure line from a reference book instead of a quote from the designers themselves?

    How about any of these guys...The Port Authority's Engineering Department served as foundation engineers, Joseph R. Loring & Associates as electrical engineers, and Jaros, Baum & Bolles as mechanical engineers. Tishman Realty & Construction Company was the general contractor on the World Trade Center project. Guy F. Tozzoli, director of the World Trade Department at the Port Authority, and Rino M. Monti, the Port Authority's Chief Engineer, oversaw the project.

    There are 2 instances that describe what they could withstand...

    1. In designing the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707, which might be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark airports.

    2. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)actually mentioned a white paper that described the impact of a jet at 600 mph , They did investigate it.


    Also, look into the Vierendeel trusses or the fact that When the WTC was designed it needed to meet code standards from the 30's. Not to high tech.



    posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 09:17 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by esdad71
    1. In designing the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707, which might be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark airports.

    Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold the horses. Everyone keeps throwing Leslie Robertson's name around like he was the lead engineer of the WTC project. Leslie Robertson was a nobody as far as the WTC was concerned. He was a right-hand; an assistant. Leslie Robertson was responsible for the sway-reduction features of the towers.

    John Skilling was the lead engineer, along with his firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson. John Skilling and his firm contracted Leslie Robertson to assist with the WTC project. Robertson didn't become partner of Skilling's firm until after the completion of the WTC project.


    Leslie Earl Robertson (born 1928) was one of the chief structural engineers of the World Trade Center in New York, which was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks and was responsible for the design of the buildings' sway-reduction features.

    and


    As an "up-and-coming engineer", Robertson was contracted by Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson (WSHJ) to participate in the design of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (1966–1971), his first high rise construction. In 1973 Robertson was made a partner and WSHJ was renamed Skilling, Helle, Christiansen, Robertson.
    Source: Wikipedia



    Originally posted by esdad71
    2. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)actually mentioned a white paper that described the impact of a jet at 600 mph , They did investigate it.

    That white paper was an analysis done by the Port Authority which concluded that the structure of the towers could withstand a jet traveling at 600 MPH (the top speed of the B707), and impacting at the 80th floor. John Skilling's firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson did their own analysis which was 1200-pages and included over 100 drawings and diagrams that basically concluded the same.



    posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 09:32 PM
    link   
    reply to post by _BoneZ_
     


    Correct. It could withstand a strike. However, it does not state that it would survive a strike, does it? When designing the building they would want it to withstand the impact so that it could be evacuated. They also do not state it could sustain the ensuing fires or what the actual damage would become. Only that it would survive the strike. I am actually surprised that they lasted so long and that one was not actually knocked into the other. I think they get a thumbs up in the engineering department for that. The design allowed for the survival of 1000's who could have perished.

    Leslie Robertson was involved in the project and would be better to give example than the author of a WTC table book was why I mentioned him directly. For you to pass on the comments of one of the chief structural engineers and was eventually a partner in Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and..... Robertson. Is that someone who you feel is not qualified to speak about the WTC? He has a copy of the blueprints if you write him and ask nice...he might send you a copy.



    posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 09:33 PM
    link   
    How amusing, because the designers of the WTC claimed they” over designed” the WTC for such incidents. Either way, these engineers know for a fact that the airplanes did not take down the WTC. People who want to believe they did, want to believe that’s what happened, that’s like believing in the tooth fairy, because it is a myth, just like the OS of 911, it is a myth and nothing more. The government wants you to believe in their lies so that they can continue to carry out their treasonable acts . The real terrorists are our politicians in the Bush and Obama administration that helped carried out this false flag attack 911and helped hide the truth. You might even make the claim the is no evidence to this ridiculous claim, however all the evidence stops at the Bush administration front door and points directly to Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Lisa Condi Rice, Carl Rove, and many more powerful people in the Bush administration who were caught lying through their teeth about everything concerning 911. The real terrorists walked away scot- free and they spit in the faces of anyone who dares to question their accountability.

    The fact is these powerful politicians might have gotten away with their treasonable act in the world of the living; however they have a rude awaking coming when they die. They will be shown the UN imaginable pain and suffering that they chose to inflict on the innocent in NYC and around the world.

    edit on 31-8-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



    posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:09 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by esdad71
    reply to post by _BoneZ_
     


    Correct. It could withstand a strike. However, it does not state that it would survive a strike, does it? When designing the building they would want it to withstand the impact so that it could be evacuated. They also do not state it could sustain the ensuing fires or what the actual damage would become.


    We are supposed to judge physics and engineering on the basis of semantic crap?

    Why don't we have the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level specified? Soon we will be able to say that the physics profession could not demand such simple information for TEN YEARS.

    Physics without data or physicists too dumb to do physics?


    psik



    new topics

    top topics



     
    7
    << 1  2    4  5  6 >>

    log in

    join