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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   



What evidence are you talking about and who is waking up? That is the point of this thread. The only people waking up are generally young, impressionable people between the ages of 18-31. A demographic and alot if you have bought into it. You see, if you are ingrained with the thought that the government is evil then you will listen to anyone who then states that the government is evil. Non-critical thinking.



Actually you are wrong. I don't fit into your assumed demographic (can you provide stats for that assumption?), I am not that young or impressionable and there is a lot of evidence and even more questions that suggests that it did not happen the way we are told it happened, also it was actually 9/11 that woke me up, it was 9/11 that led me into the rabbit whole and taught me critical thinking and not just bleating with the rest of the sheep. Prior to discovering what actually happened I was happily following the heard in utter ignorant bliss thinking all was as it should be in the world... 9/11 has woken a lot of people up and will continue to do so.

I have given up waiting for the truth to come out... for me it has, as it has for millions of other people. You will either wake up one day or continue to follow the heard, it's your choice.

I don't know what happened that day for sure, no one does. What I do know is the OS doesn't stack up - we do not have any where near enough answers to the myriad of questions and until we do, we are being lied to - I'd say not swallowing the sh!t the msm/government feed us and keeping an open mind, either way, was critical thinking.




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 






Please watch the whole video instead of a still that just shows damage? Kind of like finding the obscure line in a book to fit your theory.


You asked me not to hijack your thread, and then you taunt me? I can fill up your thread with proof if you'd like.

The book is not "obscure" simply because you have never read it. I linked to the book, and the readers are invited to read it. I gather you're looking for a two minute video as a valid source.

Here is the footage from which I grabbed the still, this is on my youtube page. I was showing a still shot to show the damage to the tower that was neglected in the NIST report. Since the report did not reflect the reality of the first strike, my point was clear that this should shed doubt on the rest of the report.






I see a huge impact.


Good...so do I.



There would not be severed columns there because the plane did not strike there.


Who's talking about severing anything? What about "heavy", "moderate", or "light" damage? There was a huge fireball. NIST shows no damage at all. That's still accurate enough for some folks, but it sure seems like a glaring flaw in a supposedly scientific study.






The resulting explosion has to go somewhere so the first place would be the closest to the impact. Path of least resistance as you guys always say?


Fine, so how is the path of least resistance through a bunch of concrete floors and through a wall on the other side of the building? Did the fireball just sweep through without causing any damage?



It is not as if it is ab explosion 20-30 floors below...that would be odd.


It looks like it's a good dozen floors below the impact point...so I guess that's not odd by your count.



That picture also does not support the JASSM either....


Who's talking about missiles? I'm talking about the NIST report being shy on damage in their report...focus, focus.




Also, which footage did the still come from...which brother?


From my own copy of the "9/11" DVD, the Filmmakers' Commemorative DVD Edition, directed by Jules and Gideon Naudet and James Hanlon, released in 2002.

And I'm not your brother. If you're trying to say something, spit it out.


edit on 1-9-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   




I am not taunting you or calling you my brother. I was asking which Naudet brother took the video you showed as a screenshot.

You are also using a slide that is not from the final report. this is however explaining the damage you say they do not address. It is on page 24 of the Final NIST report. Section 2.5. The picture was showing the immediate damage to the structure. The report is done in stages and described in detail.

www.nist.gov...

Check it out....I would venture to guess you have never read the whole thing.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 





I am not taunting you or calling you my brother. I was asking which Naudet brother took the video you showed as a screenshot.


My bad for misunderstanding...I thought it was common knowledge Jules Naudet filmed the first strike.




Congratulations ! You are reading the one 9/11 website with a hope in hell of getting us somewhere : one with some actual hard documentary (literally) evidence behind it —and one that names names. You won't find the Illuminati in this one ; you won't find the claim that no planes ever hit the Trade Center, because I don't believe that ; you won't find your time wasted with "proofs" of demolitions carried out by folk who are never identified, even by speculation. Step 1 : anyone interested in 9/11, no matter what your views on who did it, should already have a DVD copy of the film "9/11," directed by Jules and Gédéon Naudet and James Hanlon. If you think you're an expert on 9/11, but you don't have that film, you're not.

www.frankresearch.info...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



You are also using a slide that is not from the final report. this is however explaining the damage you say they do not address. It is on page 24 of the Final NIST report. Section 2.5. The picture was showing the immediate damage to the structure. The report is done in stages and described in detail.


I don't know how much more immediate you can get when it was all the same explosion.

I use that first image because most people are like you and want the whole story in a nice little package that is easy to understand. There's nothing nefarious about it.



Check it out....I would venture to guess you have never read the whole thing.


I have read the whole thing and it is nothing close to reality...they make assumption on assumption to explain how it "could" have happened the way we saw it on TV. Where do they surmise only 15 percent of the fuel ignited? How can they tell that after describing the wings getting sliced by the tower's exterior columns, and atomizing the jet fuel, which somehow didn't fully ignite in the huge fireball shown in the IMPACT video?

How can the wings be sliced by the towers like knives, and yet still SEVER most of the tower's steel? See the problem here? They try to cover up the uncover-able with a whole lotta physics and other gibberish, but end up saying nothing and calling it a day. How many of their engineers were inside the towers to see where the columns were heavily, moderately or lightly damaged, eh? Their report is a lie.

edit on 2-9-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I did not ask for myself who shot the video. I just wanted to know where picture came from meaning which brother took the shot and how long after the impact. I have watched the video also. I do not see anything off kilter. They saw things that day no one should have to see. You are also trying to say it is multiple floors below the initial impact zone but it is not. This is exactly like the pictures from across the bridge that you have brought up that are supposed to match and do not.Very close but not quite. It is an optical illusion. If you are filming up at an angle the perspective is hard to judge. Take a closer look and you should see what I mean. It is a simple mistake.

Your opinion that the NIST report is not close to reality is just that, an opinion. Now, since they created voer 35 new requirements for new construction do you also feel they are not needed to implement? Your statement tells me that you have not read the entire final report. If you did you would not have asked some of the questions you did, you would know the answers.The questions you are asking at the end of your thread are the questions that were answered. Those are the very things that needed to be established to create a theory of how this could have happened and then try to prove that theory with the research which they did.

As far as damage, it would be expected that at the point of entry you would see the outline of a plane, which you do. Any picture shows that. Not multiple missiles but an airliner that was filmed by your Naudet buddies. They also do not try to hide anything with physics jibberish but if you do not understand it, just say it. Do not throw it away. The members of NIST do what they do as a profession. This was not an appointed board or review or research project. You cannot just dismiss something because you simply think it is a lie. I can dismiss an explosives theory because there is no 'evidence' but what you are doing is simply ignoring something that could change your feelings regarding it.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


The NIST did not have engineers inside the buildings to inspect the damage. They are giving their opinion, and you are accepting it as all the proof you need. It is not my opinion that their report is crap, their own report proves it.

Good luck limiting your scope of inquiry and waiting for the truth to smack you upside the head; I find it more effective to search for it.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Yankee451
 
Your opinion that the NIST report is not close to reality is just that, an opinion. Now, since they created voer 35 new requirements for new construction do you also feel they are not needed to implement? Your statement tells me that you have not read the entire final report. If you did you would not have asked some of the questions you did, you would know the answers.The questions you are asking at the end of your thread are the questions that were answered. Those are the very things that needed to be established to create a theory of how this could have happened and then try to prove that theory with the research which they did.


The 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

It says nothing about the center of gravity of the broken off and tilted top portion of the south tower.

I don't even understand how they could miss talking about things so simple and obvious without doing it deliberately.

psik



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

A report that you have repeatedly admitted that you never read.

It says nothing about the center of gravity of the broken off and tilted top portion of the south tower.

Trying reading it. What did you do - search for "broken off center of gravity"?

I don't even understand how they could miss talking about things so simple and obvious without doing it deliberately.

We know you don't understand. There seems to be a lot you don't understand including the concept of reading a report to know what's in it.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

The 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.
A report that you have repeatedly admitted that you never read.

It says nothing about the center of gravity of the broken off and tilted top portion of the south tower.

Trying reading it. What did you do - search for "broken off center of gravity"?

I don't even understand how they could miss talking about things so simple and obvious without doing it deliberately.

We know you don't understand. There seems to be a lot you don't understand including the concept of reading a report to know what's in it.


We notice that understanding is beyond your capacity. If I claimed I had read it could you prove I had not?

But it is easily searchable and in 4 years no one has found the total for the concrete and specified what and where it is, so it appears that reading the whole thing is not necessary.

Searching on "center of gravity" and "center of mass" is easier than searching on "concrete". They show up far less often.


psik



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



But it is easily searchable.....


No its not. A lot of the information is contained in images that are not searchable. Hint.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
My take on the analysis of the WTC jetliner impacts on 9/11: The fuel laden jetliner's were the catalyst for the bringdown of the WTC's twin towers.

I believe that their was a lack of fireproof insulation on the steel beam's, near the top floors of the WTC's twin tower's. [Can somebody back me up with facts on my assertion. - thanks]

Structually speaking - They were two perfect jet impact's that would bring the twin tower's down: Not to high and not two low.

The center of the buildings elevator's and stair well's, were the critical support points of the twin tower's. Once the jet impact's destroyed these, at that elevation; the resulting fuel fire melted the surrounding steel girders and I-Beams, which collapsed the floors, unto itself at the impact point's.

The undamaged top floors carried enough weight and momentum two bring the two twin tower's down.

During each collapse, the explosion's were probably the result of the steel girder's and I-Beams snapping at the bolt's.
edit on 2-9-2011 by Erno86 because: spelling

edit on 2-9-2011 by Erno86 because: typo

edit on 2-9-2011 by Erno86 because: typo

edit on 2-9-2011 by Erno86 because: added a word



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by esdad71
 


The NIST did not have engineers inside the buildings to inspect the damage. They are giving their opinion, and you are accepting it as all the proof you need. It is not my opinion that their report is crap, their own report proves it.

Good luck limiting your scope of inquiry and waiting for the truth to smack you upside the head; I find it more effective to search for it.



I do not think Dylan Avery was in a building nor has any experience with engineering/physics/Structural engineering but you take his word as god's. That argument is lame man. Really.

They did not give opinion, they gave results of their research. You are giving opinion so stop with the deflection. ok? You are waiting for the truth to smack you and that is the point of the thread. You can sit there, cover your ears and scream NO NO NO NO NO NO but it does not change the fact it was a well researched and well documented project that lead to many revisions in the building of future skyscrapers...what have you done lately?

So, since you are still waiting, where are you searching for it?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


But everything else is garbage, right? Take the time and you can calculate the estimated concrete. You talk about this like it is the missing link. You have to do leg work farther than google search....

and again, what is it with your and concrete....



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by esdad71
 


The NIST did not have engineers inside the buildings to inspect the damage. They are giving their opinion, and you are accepting it as all the proof you need. It is not my opinion that their report is crap, their own report proves it.

Good luck limiting your scope of inquiry and waiting for the truth to smack you upside the head; I find it more effective to search for it.



I do not think Dylan Avery was in a building nor has any experience with engineering/physics/Structural engineering but you take his word as god's. That argument is lame man. Really.

They did not give opinion, they gave results of their research. You are giving opinion so stop with the deflection. ok? You are waiting for the truth to smack you and that is the point of the thread. You can sit there, cover your ears and scream NO NO NO NO NO NO but it does not change the fact it was a well researched and well documented project that lead to many revisions in the building of future skyscrapers...what have you done lately?

So, since you are still waiting, where are you searching for it?


I never mention Dylan Avery; I don't know why you did.

I have read the NIST report several times. If you think it reflects reality and you're so sure of yourself that you don't need to explore other options, then we're done here, aren't we? Your quest for truth is complete.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I have no quest for truth, you just do not have a way to actual prove your beliefs. That is why I am asking what it will take for someone who believes the 'truth' to realize that they have been incorrect.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Correct. It could withstand a strike. However, it does not state that it would survive a strike, does it?

I think the definition of "withstand" probably includes surviving:


withstand -
1. Remain undamaged or unaffected by; resist: "designed to withstand winds of 100 mph".
2. Offer strong resistance or opposition to (someone or something).


That means if it can withstand winds of 100 mph, it can survive winds of 100 mph. If the buildings can withstand the impacts of jetliners, they can survive the impacts of jetliners.



Originally posted by esdad71
They also do not state it could sustain the ensuing fires or what the actual damage would become.

Actually, the 1200-page analysis done by John Skilling and his firm, Worthington, Skilliing, Helle, and Jackson, did state what would happen:

John Skilling in 1993:

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed... The building structure would still be there.


Now, why would he say such a thing? Because steel-structured highrises don't collapse from fire.



Originally posted by esdad71
I do not think Dylan Avery was in a building nor has any experience with engineering/physics/Structural engineering but you take his word as god's. They did not give opinion, they gave results of their research.

And Dylan Avery gave the results of his research. Just as I have done with my research.

NIST did give their "professional" opinion as to what caused 3 WTC buildings to collapse. As was already stated multiple times, NIST engineers could not physically inspect the damage to the towers before they collapsed, so all they could do is guess at how many internal columns got damaged or severed. And that's all anyone can do whether it be NIST, Dylan Avery, or Joe Smith. Therefore, the NIST Report is not factual. Even says so right at the beginning.



Originally posted by esdad71
That is why I am asking what it will take for someone who believes the 'truth' to realize that they have been incorrect.

Nothing. There is absolutely nothing on this earth that can make me realize that I have been incorrect all these years. Hope that answers your question sufficiently.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Explosions in an office fire are to be expected and in no way evidence for demolition charges.

You are correct. However, there were explosions 60-80 floors below the impact zones no where near any kind of fire. You could write off the pre-collapse explosions in both towers as coming from the fires only (even though witness testimony proves otherwise), but witnesses seeing flashes going up, down and around both towers with popping or exploding sounds, witnesses reporting timed/synchronous booms, and ejections of dust/debris prove otherwise.



Originally posted by -PLB-
There is a very extensive video and audio record from that day, none show these signs of controlled demolition you talk about.

Actually, they do.

For example:



and




And see the white smoke coming off the ends of these steel columns on the left below?



That's what happens when explosives or incendiaries sever steel columns.



Originally posted by -PLB-
What I accept as real evidence is actual video footage that contains audible explosions

You can hear the audible pre-collapse and during-collapse explosives being detonated in this video series here:


Google Video Link


The above is Part 1. I'm sure you can find Parts 2 and 3 there as well.

One thing you'll notice while watching the video is the amount of pre-collapse detonations. Especially in the South Tower:



I'll give you an example of a first responder corroborating the above explosions:


"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. We then realized the building started to come down." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]


So here, we have audible pre-collapse explosions on video, corroborated by a firefighter down to almost the exact number of pre-collapse explosions. What more could you possibly need?



Originally posted by -PLB-
together with visible blasts

We have visible blasts in all videos of the towers' collapses:



We also have the results of those blasts in the form of white smoke coming off the ends of the steel columns posted in the picture earlier in this post.



Originally posted by -PLB-
leftovers of the charges in the debris

You don't have to have the actual physical devices to prove something. There are murder convictions all the time even though the physical murder weapon was not found, or even if a body is not found to even prove that person was murdered.

But you got everything else in the form of audio explosions and visible blasts, added on top of the multitudes of witness testimony.



Originally posted by -PLB-
We have a handful of eyewitnesses claim to have seen something that looked a bit like something that could be explained as demolition charges. I call that extremely weak evidence.

It could be conceived as weak evidence if left alone. But you have to put the other pieces together with the flashes which includes the audible explosions and the visible blasts.



Originally posted by -PLB-
So we have to go with the most likely explanation instead.

And which "most likely" explanation would one go with?

1.) For the first time in the history of steel-structured highrises, not one or even two, but three collapse all in one day due to fire.

or

2.) The buildings were brought down with explosives as evidenced by the visible blasts, visible flashes (according to witnesses), audible explosions, and timed/synchronous explosions (according to witnesses). All of which are associated with controlled demolitions, and none are associated with fire-induced collapses.

Not much of a choice there when all of the evidence is put together.



Originally posted by -PLB-
Whatever these witnesses saw, they are either mistaken or they are describing something else.

That doesn't work in the real world. One, or possibly two witness could've been mistaken. But multiple witnesses seeing flashes? Even multiples more first responders, by-standers and survivors hearing the timed/synchronous explosions? Or the hundreds of witnesses hearing and being affected by explosions in those towers from top to bottom? Sorry, not a chance.

Witness testimony is the number one form of evidence in a court of law. You don't get to call all of them "mistaken" just because you don't like the consequences of what they have said.





edit on 2-9-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


You think it can happen and you believe in an alternate to what really happened. There is nothing wrong with this but thank you for at least answering my question.

I have also read the other paper you refer and there is nothing that says it would NEVER collapse. It says that it would withstand the strikes. This would mean that you should have enough time to evacuate the buildings and if there was not significant damage in the ensuing fires it may stand. Even if you want to use the word survive, cars are designed to help you survive a crash but with enough internal bleeding it would not care. You would survive and may die hours later. This analogy fits.

As far as something being the first time, it is called a precedent. It is not out of the ordinary. It happens all the time. When it does ,it becomes a baseline for what can happen. This is why NIST did their investigation and provided suggestions for change. This is what the world is supposed to do, look at a tragedy and try as hard as you can to have it not happen again.

As a side questions, Would you like to see a new independent investigation?
edit on 2-9-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-9-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I have also read the other paper you refer and there is nothing that says it would NEVER collapse.

If you're referring to the White Paper from the Port Authority, it says exactly that:


The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

I've highlighted the important parts above.

Anyone and everyone that has any substantial experience working with aluminum and steel already knows that the bodies of aluminum jetliners could not do any damage to the massive fortress that was the cores of the twin towers. The only parts strong enough and heavy enough to do any damage to the core columns would be the landing gear and the engines. That's it. Hence why the two above analyses conclude that there would only be minor damage to the structures and no collapse.

Even NIST's own preliminary numbers concluded that there was only minimal damage to the structures from the plane impacts.



Originally posted by esdad71
As far as something being the first time, it is called a precedent.

Precedent, coincidence, whatever. If it happened once in one day, fine. But three times in one day and never before or after? Sorry, the probability of that is so astronomically high.



Originally posted by esdad71
Would you like to see a new independent investigation?

I think that goes without saying.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Your evidence is questionable and circumstantial at best. Lets review it:

Audio:
No corroboration with any other audio source
Edited by a truther
Plausible alternative explanations
Image:
Jets were accelerating, not possible when it came from an explosion.
One building collapsing similar as another building is not evidence of CD, that is a fallacy.
General:
No correlation between visible "blasts" and audible "blasts".

This is not real evidence, and it would not hold for a second in court. This is only evidence for someone who wants to believe, not for a skeptical mind.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join