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.

 

9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

page: 17
283
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gando702

This page kinda turned me away from the demolition theory. Check it out. I would normally ask people to have an open mind, and that actually should be the NORM, unfortunately, the internet creates a bunch of egos that refuse to ever change their mind, because for some reason that indicates the person is wrong...but whatever. Pretty childish in my opinion. Check it out: www.tms.org...



I've seen this one too, and it is pretty good.

But there is one thing you need to take into account, if we assume that the bolts of the floors gave way. The center support column should have stood. The issue is not about the floors, and wether there is so much air between them. The issue is ...

* pulverisation of the close to entire cement mass

* collapse of the central column.

For the collapse to happen this way, the central columns have to give way. The weak point on every floor, is the joint, where the floors are connected to the central column and the outer structure. That the floors falling down, brought down the central column, and didn't break this weak point ... is the suspect. It didn't do this just on some place, it did this symmetrically all the way down.

So, either the building was constructed to collapse this way, if under certain stress ... or it was brought down this way.

There is no other alternative, anything else is just argueing the obvious.

An 8 m/s acceleration when the structures fall, is so close to free fall, that you can literally ignore any resistance. This is building failure ... not due to terrorism, or controlled demolition meant to save the containing areas.

Run it through your head .. see the building tilted to the side falling, yes I can understand the fall of the floors below ... but as they fell, the weakest part should give way, but each floor should provide significant resistance. Each floor should break at it's weakest points, the joints, where the outer joints are the weakest ones. Which means, any natural fall ... should make the fall have quite a tall bare skeleton rising up in the air. And even though they say it's mean to hold 200 MPa wind blowing, you can clearly see the upper structure bending as it falls and then turning to rubble ... in the end ... it's not a complete structure that is falling, it is debree ...

And, even if we ignore all that ... there is nothing that accounts for all the small microscopic debree ... there is absolutely nothing natural about that.

Finally, you have 3 buldings falling this way ... in a very structural manner. Go and search, how many buildings have you seen, or know of, that have had an earthquake disaster, or any other disaster, bring them down in a controlled manner, imploding on themselves? none, that's how many. And here, you don't have just one ... you have THREE at the same time, in the same place.

There is only one answer to this riddle, they were either brought down or constructed to fall under certain stress.

I can certainly understand building the structure to collapse under certain stress, after all ... tall buildings need to be, at one time or another. But this isn't due to terrorism ... and that is the entire issue here. You can argue this or that, and find excuses to WHY the united states was having an exercise, NATIONWIDE concerning terrorism on the same day UBL attacked. Maybe UBL was just lucky, or the american people just unlucky ... hell, maybe you have one bad thing happen, and two ... but this isn't just one thing, or two. This isn't just a single bad thing, this is a total collapse ... followed by a total world economy collapse. Everything collapses .. and just, magically ... a lot of depts, charges, investigations ... just happen to be at the EXACT locations of the attacks. What? Is UBL helping out the bush administration, to sweep lost trillions under the carpet? Just like he just happens to come out of his hiding and babble to the world, threats of mass destruction, just in time to save the bush administration in their attempt to get a go-ahead for invasion world-wide? Oh, he's just stupid, right? Everything he does, just happens to work in favor of the bush administration?

No, sorry ... natural events, don't happen that way ... only controlled, calculated events, happent that way.

We're not just talking about one collapse, or one incident, we are talking about a total failure in all departments. Followed by a complete failure of the public, to demand action and repremendation, for the failure to defend the people.

If we assume, that all of the things said officially is true ... then UBL is not this very smart guy. But the US, and it's fellow western countries, are totally incompetent personell, that can't even provide minimum protection, and totally fail to react coherently to an impending attack, but are capable of bringing down the entire world economy, and lock its own citizens in protectivie custody, due to their own incompitence.

Acceptable scenario? NO, I don't think so ... this isn't a conspiracy theory, this is failure to properly identify the enemy, and properly analyse the threat.


edit on 14-9-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Load is evenly distributed, essentually, to minimise ... achilles' heels... in a building's integrity.

You drop that much weight on bolts and they WILL break. No bolts are designed to withstand that kind of pressure... same with welds... the mass (plus it's acceleration) was EASILY enough to break steel bolts and welds.

It's so obvious, based on the accelation of the collapse, that this wasn't a demo... in other words, the time it took to collapse each floor gradually, but consistantly decreased... that's essentially impossible to mimic with a demo... uniform acceleration across dozens of floors... it's not in any way something faesible with thermite burns or hundreds of invisible inauble timed explosions... it's a fantasy...

edit on 14-9-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Load is evenly distributed, essentually, to minimise ... achilles' heels... in a building's integrity.

You drop that much weight on bolts and they WILL break. No bolts are designed to withstand that kind of pressure... same with welds... the mass (plus it's acceleration) was EASILY enough to break steel bolts and welds.



That we agree on.



It's so obvious, based on the accelation of the collapse, that this wasn't a demo... in other words, the time it took to collapse each floor gradually, but consistantly decreased... that's essentially impossible to mimic with a demo... uniform acceleration across dozens of floors... it's not in any way something faesible with thermite burns or hundreds of invisible inauble timed explosions... it's a fantasy...


Ok, let us assume there are no explotions ... let us assume, that the explotions heard, were steel breaking and falling ...

But as you stated, gradual fall ... does not account for the central column, total collapse.

I will bow to "no demoliton", in which case I say the building was constructed to collapse under certain stress. Or, the building simply failed ...

You have one bolt failing, which means the mass will seek this failure point and make other points of the structure having less stress. No matter how you try to argue this, you have always the natural failure, seeking out the weak point and minimizing loads on other points ... this is what causes buildings to fall aside, leave a single skeleton afterwards, etc..

This is the only case, in the entire Universe, where there is a controlled symmetrical failure ... nope, sorry, not unless the structure was built, to collapse in this manner.

That is the whole issue that is being argued ... any natural disaster, would not cause it ... symmetrically, controlled, structurally ... unless by design.

I can be exceptionally generous, and say .. it's not a conspiracy. Some 19 hijackers, hijacked planes and flew them across the US, they were able to do so because the US had a NATIONWIDE terrost attack simulation, so were basically not monitoring this stuff. Mr. UBL just happened to attack on this particular day. God probably told him the secret, like he did Noah. One jetliner flew into the first tower, and no fighter jet was scrambled ... it was just human error, of the most widely prepared nation in the world. 15 minutes later, another aircraft flew into the next world trade center. Several others were flying across the country. The president was in a meeting, looking at kids, so as commander in chief he didn't have time to act or respond. He first saw this on TV! The first building collapsed do to immense load on it, and fell upon itself ... lucky for the rest of New York, it did it like this and didn't topple over .. it couldn't topple over, because it was built to withstand 200 MPa winds. But the top most part of the towder DID topple over, but LUCKILY the building collapsed before it could just crash into everything below ... and just out of sheer GOD FORSAKEN luck, this top most section just PULVERIZED so it didn't cause much collateral damage.

Wow ... only a retard would believe this stuff.

edit on 14-9-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


First I never said that "gradual fall ... does not account for the central column, total collapse"

It accounts for it perfectly well... you still haven't done the googling suggested.. I can tell because you're still making VERY uninformed comments about how the building was engineered... C'mon man... either dson't believe things you don't have proof of, or at least don't argue positions you don't understand... OR... when you get called on something, go research it to make sure you have the correct information...

You're still arguing points which aren't based on a proper understanding of the situation.

As for the rest of your argument, that's not really how things collapse, one bit at a time... what actually happens is things snowball and the failure can be one bolt or 10 or 100. Structural engineers know this and try and "over build" but no one can REALLY plan for # like what happened on 9/11.

Look, what you need to do is go read up on how the load was actually distributed in the towers... if you get your head around it this will all make a lot more sense.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I'm just gonna thank TupacShakur for dissecting some of the video presented by www.ae911truth.org

I've taken time to look at your thread and I think you have made an epic attempt to highlight the problems we have with the OS.

Kudos my friend!



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Gando702
 



You could have just posted the video, instead of replicating all of the information in the video...most of it verbatim.
Nah dude if I just posted the 2 hour video, at least 50% of people wouldn't even watch the whole thing before commenting.


I believed they were brought down by demolition for a LONG time. However, I've seen a few websites and read a few things that changed my mind about them. But then again, I consider myself having a VERY open mind. There are lots of thing that don't add up about the events of 9/11, but the buildings collapsing (except 7) aren't an issue for me.
That's fine man. It's just really hard for me to look at the 10 characteristics of a CD that matche up with the collapses of WTC7 and the Twin Towers and say "Those weren't brought down by explosives".



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Gando702
 



You could have just posted the video, instead of replicating all of the information in the video...most of it verbatim.
Nah dude if I just posted the 2 hour video, at least 50% of people wouldn't even watch the whole thing before commenting.


I believed they were brought down by demolition for a LONG time. However, I've seen a few websites and read a few things that changed my mind about them. But then again, I consider myself having a VERY open mind. There are lots of thing that don't add up about the events of 9/11, but the buildings collapsing (except 7) aren't an issue for me.
That's fine man. It's just really hard for me to look at the 10 characteristics of a CD that matche up with the collapses of WTC7 and the Twin Towers and say "Those weren't brought down by explosives".


For someone like me, who has almost his entire day taken up by class, homework, and work, 2 hours is a major commitment.

I would like to know, however, what industry created the "10 characteristics of a CD." How can an analysis which actively ignores factors influencing the building come to the assumption that demotions had to be used? What kind of demolition was it? Was there any trace left of the explosives, if they were there? Seriously, where is the proof?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia


I would like to know, however, what industry created the "10 characteristics of a CD." How can an analysis which actively ignores factors influencing the building come to the assumption that demotions had to be used? What kind of demolition was it? Was there any trace left of the explosives, if they were there? Seriously, where is the proof?


I don't know how top secret military operations happen either


How can anyone in civvy street explain how secret military services use modern technology ?

I have no idea how advanced these organisations are regarding anything whatsoever


Government, military, secrets, technology..........Who knows???
edit on 14-9-2011 by zerozero00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerozero00

Originally posted by Varemia


I would like to know, however, what industry created the "10 characteristics of a CD." How can an analysis which actively ignores factors influencing the building come to the assumption that demotions had to be used? What kind of demolition was it? Was there any trace left of the explosives, if they were there? Seriously, where is the proof?


I don't know how top secret military operations happen either


How can anyone in civvy street explain how secret military services use modern technology ?

I have no idea how advanced these organisations are regarding anything whatsoever


Government, military, secrets, technology..........Who knows???
edit on 14-9-2011 by zerozero00 because: (no reason given)

One of the classic bits of truther logic fail:

You can't prove it because the secret baddies used secret technology.

This is the equivalent of religious faith. And it's certainly not rational.

The absence of evidence for demolition is NOT evidence of secret technology. It is evidence that the buildings were NOT destroyed through a controlled demolition.
edit on 14-9-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
One of the classic bits of truther logic fail:

You can't prove it because the secret baddies used secret technology.

This is the equivalent of religious faith. And it's certainly not rational.

The absence of evidence for demolition is NOT evidence of secret technology. It is evidence that the buildings were NOT destroyed through a controlled demolition.
edit on 14-9-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)


I completely agree with this. If there is no known way for it to be done, it is not rational to cop out and say it was a secret technology no one has ever heard of. You must look at what is available to you. Once you're able to prove that a technology exists is when you can have it be an explanation, but if you don't even have an idea what might have been used, then you do not have an answer, you have a denial of an explanation and a question.

It is not proving the OS wrong to say that you think there might be another explanation. It is simply saying that it could potentially be something else. It is up to the Truth Movement to discover what the "something else" is, and if they cannot come up with anything coherent, then the OS stands as the most correct possibility.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

Originally posted by zerozero00

Originally posted by Varemia


I would like to know, however, what industry created the "10 characteristics of a CD." How can an analysis which actively ignores factors influencing the building come to the assumption that demotions had to be used? What kind of demolition was it? Was there any trace left of the explosives, if they were there? Seriously, where is the proof?


I don't know how top secret military operations happen either


How can anyone in civvy street explain how secret military services use modern technology ?

I have no idea how advanced these organisations are regarding anything whatsoever


Government, military, secrets, technology..........Who knows???
edit on 14-9-2011 by zerozero00 because: (no reason given)

One of the classic bits of truther logic fail:

You can't prove it because the secret baddies used secret technology.

This is the equivalent of religious faith. And it's certainly not rational.

The absence of evidence for demolition is NOT evidence of secret technology. It is evidence that the buildings were NOT destroyed through a controlled demolition.
edit on 14-9-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)


He he
Ok i'll bite
I was humouring you btw


If any of you OS believers deny the evidence for Thermite or thermate provided by www.ae911truth.org Then I'm not going to do it am I?

I'll leave that work to the professionals thanks


Take a look and you might get a little educated while your at it
edit on 14-9-2011 by zerozero00 because: tidy up



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

It accounts for it perfectly well... you still haven't done the googling suggested.. I can tell because you're still making VERY uninformed comments about how the building was engineered... C'mon man... either dson't believe things you don't have proof of, or at least don't argue positions you don't understand... OR... when you get called on something, go research it to make sure you have the correct information...



Oh, I read it all ... yes, its pretty good. Until it comes to the point on how the stories collapsed. Yes, I see the floor support pieces. NO, they can't fall apart this way. The columns would fall of at the outer post, and you would essentially have a skeleton left ... a broken skeleton. The weigh supporting central columns, cannot break the way suggested ...

They break apart, as if by design ... and that means, they break apart by design. It's as simple as that.

This isn't just one building ... if it was, yeah ok ... this isn't the Kennedy assination, where you can simply put it in the vault and deny the public access to it. This is the World Trade Center ... and it didn't just collapse, the entire world economy collapsed. This isn't something you can burry in a pile of bull, or rubble. The pile of rubble you are trying to burry this in, is over a million people with mutilated infants ...

I'll say it again, repeat myself over and over again. Iff this was not a controlled scenario, there is no way the buildings could collapse the way they did. The central part, has to fall prior to the exterior for it to fall this way ... and since the central part is what holds up the weight, it could not, unless brought down, or design to. The site you cited, explains it very well ... except it fails totally, to explain the central columns. In every scenario thinkable, the collapsing towers would leave a skeleton central column standing ... it didn't, and that isn't just something to suspect. IT IS DIRECT EVIDENCE.

And I understand the feeling that you don't want this to be the case ... you WANT it to be NON CONTROLLED. In reality, you are DESPERATE that it is NON CONTROLLED. Because basically, over one million people were murdered over it ... so people will believe it and desperately need to believe to have a mental excuse for those horrors, just like a christian believes in god, or a muslim believes in Allah·

edit on 14-9-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


You can say things over and over and over and still be wrong. Repitition doesn't make you right.

Like I've said, I have repeatedly seen you make uniformed statements about the design of the towers. IT's hard for me to take your anaylsis seriously when I KNOW you don't know what you're talking about.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by zerozero00
 


AE911 is such a silly orginisation that doesn't represnt any meaningful group of experts.

Much of there work has been debunked and their leadership gets paid a pretty healthy salary to keep up the whole charade.

Here. Here's one of the Engineers that signed up:

www.etcorngods.com...

His enginering background is VERY impressive!

Now here's what he believes about 9/11:

www.etcorngods.com...



The reality is, if you dig a bit, that AE911 is an EXTREMELY FRINGE group. Their "work" is often dishonest and debunked, by other engineers.

Their membership represents 1/10 of 1% of active Engineers in the US. That's one in 1000 active Engineers. But of course, a significant number of the signees are retired Engineers... ad that number into it and it's more like one in 10K Engineers... add, All the Architects... then make it worldwide... it quickly becomes something like 1 in 50K or more...

In summary, they're fringe kooks who often are dishonest.

Stick with them at your own peril.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akasirus

Originally posted by jplotinus
Finally, just a word about holograms. The technology exists. The explanation helps to resolve the conflict among eyewitnesses. Most who were verifiably present and who had an obligation to be alert, almost invariably report seeing a fireball and hearing an explosion. They do not report seeing a jetliner. One can ask, how could they have missed seeing a jetliner 1000ft(+/-) above their heads; and, how could they not be certain they heard the characteristic sound of a jet, especially one zooming in at 500+mph? However, to account for the minority of known eyewitnesses who claim they saw some sort of plane (small, large, missile, etc.), the hologram postulate has merit.


As you have dismissed the falling spire and asked others to provide evidence, I would ask you to support your statement that the technology exists for such a hologram. There is currently nothing that can be proved to exists that is capable of projecting a 3D object into an open air space, especially on the scale and distance as would be required and visible during broad daylight. All current forms of 3D projection are either clever tricks (projecting a 2D image on a half reflective glass, projecting a 2D rendering of a 3D object onto a contoured surface, etc), require a voumetric medium (fog, smoke, etc) or a use specially crafted reflective base and is only applicable on very small scales (like the size of a post stamp, and cannot move outside of the projection surface).

It seems to me you do not believe in the holograph theory, but would still like to keep it available to be able to counter eyewitness reports of a plane. If it is so ridiculous to assume that eyewitnesses wouldn't have seen a jetliner 1000ft above their heads if it was there, wouldn't it be equally ridiculous to assume they somehow missed seeing a jetliner hologram 1000ft above their heads? "This eyewitness didn't see a plane because there was no plane, but this eyewitness saw a plane because there was a hologram."

It doesn't work like that, you can't have it both ways and only use it when it is convenient to support your theory whilst ignoring it otherwise.


It appears the falling spire claim has not been supported. You did not do so. I think the spire merits more discussion. Meanwhile, the state of discussion consists in the visual interpretation that it looks like the spire disintegrated, according to some, like me. That is what it looks like to me. In support of that claim, I have said:
1--There is no 50+ story spire seen on the ground.
2--There was no seismic signal consistent with something that large falling.
3--There was no sound consistent with the claim of falling.

To the above can be added that there was no collateral damage that has been correlated to a 50+story spire falling.

Lastly, and as a matter of bedrock, disputation between us serves solely to underscore the lack of any official, valid determination of what happened having been done by any empowered agency. Instead, what happened has been covered up.

Your hologram claim is disengenuous, in my opinion. You do not acknowledge that high tech military apparatus is generally cloaked in secrecy for as long as possible. It is fallacious, in my opinion, to demand more proof of holograms, while ignoring the proof given, in a context where additional proof runs afoul of secrecy procedures, classified data, security clearance, compartmented information, need to know requirements and whistleblowers who are scared to death.

The proof we do have consists in no fewer than 5 factors as follows (and there are more):

1--Military exercises simulating the hijacking of aircraft and the crashing of them into buildings are acknowledged to have been taking place on 9/11. Even Maj.Gen.Larry Arnold, the person in charge of the exercises, did not know the full extent of what was taking place, as per Lynn Spencer, "Touching History."

2--Most validated eyewitnesses report seeing a fireball and hearing an explosion. Next to none of the validated eyewitnesses report seeing and hearing a jetliner.

3--The image of 1 jetliner projected on national tv was shadowy no matter what angle it was photographed from and did not look authentic.

4--The shadow thingy crashed through steel perimeter beams without slowing or degrading or leaving any identified pieces of wreckage.

5--Some videos have been shown to have been fake, while others haven't been authenticated. Further, there are some videos where no jetliner image is seen at all.

Here are two authentic videos that have authentic witnesses who were present when the North Tower explosion occurred. The witnesses are consistent in seeing and hearing an explosion:

-1:16 Dick Oliver video

www.youtube.com...


-10:00 Dick Oliver video

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jplotinus

The proof we do have consists in no fewer than 5 factors as follows (and there are more):

1--Military exercises simulating the hijacking of aircraft and the crashing of them into buildings are acknowledged to have been taking place on 9/11. Even Maj.Gen.Larry Arnold, the person in charge of the exercises, did not know the full extent of what was taking place, as per Lynn Spencer, "Touching History."

2--Most validated eyewitnesses report seeing a fireball and hearing an explosion. Next to none of the validated eyewitnesses report seeing and hearing a jetliner.

3--The image of 1 jetliner projected on national tv was shadowy no matter what angle it was photographed from and did not look authentic.

4--The shadow thingy crashed through steel perimeter beams without slowing or degrading or leaving any identified pieces of wreckage.

5--Some videos have been shown to have been fake, while others haven't been authenticated. Further, there are some videos where no jetliner image is seen at all.

Here are two authentic videos that have authentic witnesses who were present when the North Tower explosion occurred. The witnesses are consistent in seeing and hearing an explosion:

-1:16 Dick Oliver video

www.youtube.com...


-10:00 Dick Oliver video

www.youtube.com...



There's a LOT of valuable lessons to learn from this post. In many ways this is a classic example of the attempt by some Truthers to simply win arguments by browbeating their "opponents".

But, let's look at the specific "points" raised.




1--Military exercises simulating the hijacking of aircraft and the crashing of them into buildings are acknowledged to have been taking place on 9/11. Even Maj.Gen.Larry Arnold, the person in charge of the exercises, did not know the full extent of what was taking place, as per Lynn Spencer, "Touching History."


This is meant to be, "proof" of holograms. It is no such thing. In fact it's completely unrelated in ANY and EVERY way to holograms.




2--Most validated eyewitnesses report seeing a fireball and hearing an explosion. Next to none of the validated eyewitnesses report seeing and hearing a jetliner.


- Again, this is so not evidence of holograms.
- What does "valadated" mean in this sentence?
- Who "validated" them?
- What was their methodology for validating them?
- Where this list of "valid" witnesses?

Finally, most people wouldn't have been able to pinpoint the direction of the sound the plane was coming from, if it was that low in the city... and they wouldn't have been able to see it until it was essentially on it. In fact the MAIN thing that people would have done was heard an explosion and seen a fireball, because most witnesses were in NO position to see a plane flying fast over roof tops.

That being said there WERE many witnesses that DID see it.



3--The image of 1 jetliner projected on national tv was shadowy no matter what angle it was photographed from and did not look authentic.


- OK, first you have no evidence to show a plane was projected (projected onto what is a WHOLE different thing, but...) Using that word, considering you have no evidence is a cheap shot.
- "shadowy" - Define shadowy. Show me footage of other planes flying over manhatten that aren't "shadowy". You have NO reason to make this absurd and completley undefined assertion... and again, a "shadowy looking" plane isn't proof of ANYTHING.
- It "did not look authentic" - Same thing... it looked authentic to all but a few fringers. IT even looked authentic to most Truthers. The only people it doesn't look "authentic" to is a handful of "hologram Truthers". And again this isn't proof of anything, you're oopinion that something looked inauthenic.




4--The shadow thingy crashed through steel perimeter beams without slowing or degrading or leaving any identified pieces of wreckage.


- "Steel perimter beams"? Do you mean the massive skyscraper?
- "without slowing or degrading" do you mean other than disinegrating and blowing up, all while leaving debris over the surround streets in Manahatten? Or maybe you mean the flaming bits of plane reported by MANY witnesses int he towers?

So basically, it did low, it did degarde and it did leave lots of visible wreckage, seen by many eye-witnesseses... I don't know if they're on your verified list though...




5--Some videos have been shown to have been fake, while others haven't been authenticated. Further, there are some videos where no jetliner image is seen at all.


- No videos have been conclusively proven fake... nor willt hey
- others havent been "authinticated"? Who can even guess what sort of insane point you're trying to make with this silly claim
- There's no videos showing no plane where there should be a plane

Basiclly, this is just all insanity.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Tell you what how about you do the googling and present it here...that is something you completely fail on....so one must assume....hmmmm you don't know how....but we here at ats can also be helpful...so lets give it a go...I googled truss seats....and bolts...

I download to my computer.....and then i upload to my ATS account...and then i copy and paste the ATS embed code...and VOILA...

a picicture of a damper with bolts still intact...



hope this helps you to enjoy your stay here at ATS



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


wow... you found one.

How many were there in the Towers?

What floor was that from?

What a ridiculous post.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Btw: before you get all snippy, why not go read the posts I was responding to and see if you think they're factually accurate.... or, do what you truthers always do, glom on to any old BS as long as it supports your beliefs.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


A woman can look like a woman and still have balls just as a building collapsing can look like a demolition. I mean, what else would a building falling be compared too..another building falling? Just because something looks correct does not mean it is correct which is where we go back to your scientific method that is filled with theory and not facts. Two simple facts kill the Truther 9/11 story.

NO physical evidence was ever found. None. Sorry, but JOnes testing, not sent to independent labs, means nothing. I could write a paper and pay to have it published but that does not make it correct.
Not ONE person has stepped forward and stated that they help plant explosives.If you say the government killed them all that is also a fallacy. Why take the risk? Are you saying no one has ever gone back on a NDA? Don;t think so....



new topics

top topics



 
283
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join