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: 9
283
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Finally some proper evidence of how 9/11 was an inside job, this is irrefutable evidence. ATS never seeks to amaze me




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by OG_SWAGGA_KING

Luckily, they inevitably listened. Just as the last crew drove four or five blocks away he says he heard “a loud boom.” He was outside, directly below the buildings.

“I looked up, and the building was starting to collapse. And I said to myself, ‘You idiot — you‘re the one who said this building’s going to collapse and you put yourself right underneath it!’”



This guy survived not only being trapped in the first tower collapse, but also the second tower collapse as they were trying to get him to the hospital.



edit on 12-9-2011 by longtermproject because: Truther's never prosper








So u dont buy the thermite story. What about the bombs in the buildings. This guy heard a loud boom right before they came down. What was the BOOM?


The boom my friend was sthe sound of the supports snapping under the intense weight that they were not designed to hold.... Heck a simple physics game like Bridge builder should be enough to show you what happens when a critical support is removed.... the whole thing comes down ....

the problem I have with most of the truther BS is every person in the world thinks they are an Engineer.... If someone funds a full scale test of a tower/plane strike with the same setups, and it doesnt fall, I will own up to being wrong... until then, come up with something better than Joe Bobs hill billy experiments...
edit on 12-9-2011 by longtermproject because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
Then, there are those who mindlessly accept everything the TV tells them is reality. I have a hard time believing people from an 'Al Qaeda' or OBL would be capable of rigging up the twin towers and building 7 given the amount of time and planning that goes into destroying a structure like that. Not to mention building 7 houses the CIA, FBI, DHS, NSA, etc.

There was no DHS on 9/11/2001. Here is the official tenant list for building seven (NCSTAR 1A):


Citigroup
U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency
U.S. Internal Revenue Service
New York City Mayor's Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
First State Management Group
The Hartford Insurance Company
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Teleport, Metropolitan Fiber Systems
Citigroup
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Provident Financial Management, American
Express
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
U.S. Secret Service
American Express


Apparently, there were no FBI or NSA offices, either.
edit on 12-9-2011 by FurvusRexCaeli because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Thanks, Tupak. This past weekend was depressing as hell. The media whores went balls to the wall for three days, and they seem to find an unending supply of nitwits to back their lies, but people like you give me hope. They've got to know that if enough people see presentations such as yours, they're not going to be able to keep a lid on this much longer. I still believe they've underestimated the power of the internet, and that it will be their undoing. Still, I'd have someone else start your car for you, because they don't like what you have to say.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I simply cannot buy the official story, TPTB must think we are all morons to believe that those planes were solely the cause of those buildings collapsing. What about WTC 7 ? they want us to believe that it simply collapsed from it being near the other two? I mean c'mon, I hope that one day someone comes forward, or someone in a position of power slips up, and says something they did not mean to. Like Donald Rumsfeld, when he was talking about the Shanksville plane being shot down...what a moron





posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I remember watching the news that day with my dad.They started talking about reports that wt7 had collapsed.Minutes later they showed a live shot of the collapse.I really cant think of a time when i have been so instantly confused.My dad said that since of wt7 that we will never hear the end of this no matter what happens.When he said that i said no this will never stand as an explanation we are not that gullible.There was never any question in our minds that this was anything other than demolition.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pstrron
 


To keep my post to a minimum, congratulations on this acticle or post!

I merely want to add to this portion of your post.

"it's more of a denial of the government being capable of doing such a deed"

Why is it limited to those within our government having been involved.

Think about the first WTC bombings under Clinton....

whatreallyhappened.com...
Be sure and click on the video portion at the bottom where it says...CBS NEWS report about FBI foreknowledge of the World Trade Center bombing.

Mossad link to 1993 WTC bombing?
whatreallyhappened.com...

Al Qaeda's Chief of Ops has startling background.
www.rense.com...

Mossad link found!
www.americanfreepress.net...

It's also mentioned in that info about a link to the missing man from the Murrah Federal building.

I have no problem with Bush and company being blamed, believe me. These people however are International Globalists with no committment to the USA.

Just my two cents worth.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
I know NIST even reported building 7 came down at free fall speed for the first 8 stories. That means the building went from motionless to free fall instantly.

No, they didn't.

12.5.3: In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face, as seen in Figure 12–62. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 7 ft.


www.nist.gov...

That is not correct.
www.youtube.com...
Final report by NIST shows 2.25 seconds of free fall published in November, 2008. NIST had to admit it since they were called out on it at their hearing in August, 2008. They only originally said it did not, now they have had to admit the fact based on evidence. Just google the term 'NIST admits free fall'

edit on 12-9-2011 by Merlin Lawndart because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
somebody back in the comments said something about scientific method. this manner of logic has nothing to do with scientific method. this way of thinking involves coming to a pre conceived conclusion and then lining up all you evidence to reflect that pre conceived conclusion.

just like somebody back in the comments said "i've seen all the evidence." my question would be "how did you do that? how did you inspect the Ground Zero site, the Pentagon, the field in Pennsylvania? where is the location of the warehouse where these remains are stored and who allowed you to inspect them? what credentials and/or education do you possess that has allowed you to gave you clearance to examine this evidence?"

then it would be, "oh well i didn't examine the evidence, i just saw some youtube videos."

it's like talking to a wall. evidence has nothing to do with anything. scientific method has nothing to do with anything. it's all about some guys in a backroom website discussing something they have no education to discuss in any kind of coherent or scientific way.

but that's America. I sorely wish these people could be put in a courtroom with all the specialists they need, all the scale models they need, right in full broad daylight, and prove with they say.

but that would never happen and if they were given the opportunity, they'd find a reason to not show up.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
there is one way to prove it. Build a replica of one of the towers and fly a remote controlled 747 into it.

if theres no collapse the truthers are onto something.





edit on 12-9-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Yeah I suggest that we take the money Dick Cheney made from Halliburton in the Middle East, and use it to build a full-scale models of the Towers and test it out.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Though I'm still quite new, and come here little, I was drawn back by the finding of this post off the site. This post was awesome! I added you as a friend, as anyone willing to take the time to put this research together is someone worth knowing, and whose info is worth following. I tried to send an email, but too much a newbie I guess, so posting here, and though I thanked you in my reply to another poster felt it better to reply directly.

I also was impressed with the deletion of the commenter who went overboard, the last time I was here that was one of the things that discouraged me, was seeing too much posting like that. It's one thing to want to deny or not believe in information being posted, it's another to back up your denials with facts. Something that never seems to be done, especially in the case of 9/11.

Congratulations,
Kelly E. Griffin


reply to post by TupacShakur
 





posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
Then, there are those who mindlessly accept everything the TV tells them is reality. I have a hard time believing people from an 'Al Qaeda' or OBL would be capable of rigging up the twin towers and building 7 given the amount of time and planning that goes into destroying a structure like that. Not to mention building 7 houses the CIA, FBI, DHS, NSA, etc.

There was no DHS on 9/11/2001. Here is the official tenant list for building seven (NCSTAR 1A):


Citigroup
U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency
U.S. Internal Revenue Service
New York City Mayor's Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
First State Management Group
The Hartford Insurance Company
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Teleport, Metropolitan Fiber Systems
Citigroup
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Provident Financial Management, American
Express
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
U.S. Secret Service
American Express


Apparently, there were no FBI or NSA offices, either.
edit on 12-9-2011 by FurvusRexCaeli because: (no reason given)

I double checked and you are right, I got a couple wrong. The CIA, DOD and Secret Service were in that building, however. I believe my point still stands. I still don't believe 'Al Qaeda' would be able to bypass the security of those buildings to perform a controlled demolition.


]



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


I bet someone could build a scale model out of wood or aluminum and fly a correctly scaled model of a 767 into it. I bet it don't collapse symmetrically.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Okay so I have now had the chance to go through all the threads and as I first thought the evidence you have provided is excellent and extremely informative. A Brilliant thread and one that I will ask anyone questioning the OS to take a look at and make up their own minds.

I would also encourage them to take a look at all the comments left by ATS subscribers just to see the hatred from the OSers, who have bought into the lies and deceit from their own Government and the MSM.

I too wouldn't have believed it unless I did further research, but the research I have undertaken leads me to believe that this was way beyond a bunch of arabs with little flying experience, taking control of commercial airliners and flying them with pin point accuracy into the Twin Towers.

And as regards the Pentagon, well I know that the OP hasn't touched upon this, but as many times as I have taken a look at the only footage released by the authorities, I just can't see a plane!!

Once again thanks OP, a lot of work I know, but extremely worth it none the less.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
great post! very informative research done here
we are living in some pretty crazy times



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Excellent research, I applaud you for your enormous effort to wake up the sleeping, Ten years later and we are still as a nation sleeping, in a coma, just not there.... Sadly I know in my heart, we were lied to, by the Media, Government, and many many other agencies out there. No one during those first few investigations ever got too close to the truth, if they did, they were dead. the truth will never be heard, if it ever is, this Nation is done with, Contaminated by its own evil within.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



I think the planes were a part of the psychological devastation. Just seeing the buildings crumble unannounced doesn't really compare to all eyes in the nation being glued to the TVs, watching the videos of the planes crashing into them over and over again, seeing the smoke pouring from the towers, and then when everybodys watching they crumble to the earth.

I think the planes have a much more powerful effect.


Agreed, but you could have the same emotional impact if you simply blew up something like the Statue of Liberty, or some other landmark, vs. crippling your OWN economy. That's where it simply doesn't make sense.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
As others have stated, this is not the scientific method, just a completely unscientific mutation trying to gain credibilitiy under the guise of 'science'. The OP must have mistook 'forming a hypothesis' with 'coming to a predetermined conclusion', and 'gather information and resources' as 'gather information and resources that support my conclusion'.

There is nothing 'scientific' about this. The hypothesis was not tested in a non-biased and reproducible manner. Anyone conducting this same 'experiment' is going to come to different conclusions, because there was no real testing of the hypothesis done, just picking out data that supports preformed notions.

You cannot use secondary research, and in many cases tertiary level research and still in any way call it scientific. Your findings are based on others finding that are in turn based on others research or accounts. There is nothing in this post that you have done that can be replicated consistently and verifiably.

You also didn't analyze the results and draw conclusions. You analyzed your conclusions to find results. To test a hypothesis you have to try to prove it false. That is how you know when you have to reform your hypothesis, when you find a case that shows your hypothesis doesn't fit. You are doing the exact opposite; you are testing your hypothesis by trying to prove it true, which is completely unscientific. That's like having a hypothesis "I can only eat green jellybeans" and then testing it by choosing green jellybeans to eat, instead of trying to eat a blue one.

So if you'd like to research your theory and provide supporting evidence, by all means, please do so. I'm not even saying you are wrong, or at you don't make any valid points. But don't try to elevate your theory up by twisting the scientific method beyond recognition.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by lkpuede
 



somebody back in the comments said something about scientific method. this manner of logic has nothing to do with scientific method. this way of thinking involves coming to a pre conceived conclusion and then lining up all you evidence to reflect that pre conceived conclusion.
Nope, it's used pretty effectively.

We begin with the initial question: What caused the Twin Towers/WTC7 to collapse? Step 1 complete.

Then we perform research and record observations. There are examples of high-rise buildings that were on fire used as comparisons, and the observations recorded basically boil down to fire never causing a steel-framed skyscraper to collapse.

The example that produced a partial collapse was examined, and it was found to be an inaccurate comparison due to the fact that it was framed in steel-reinforced concrete with columns of concrete reinforced by rebar.

Then buildings that have collapsed without the use of explosives were examined, and some observations were made:

They all collapse towards the path of least resistance and fall over. For the most part the building is held together in a recognizable form. The structural elements have not been dismembered from each other. And finally, the concrete has also not been pulverized to dust.


Then buildings that have been exploded were also examined, and the characteristics were noted.

And finally, buildings brought down by controlled demolition were observed. Step 2 complete.

Based on the research of building collapses, the hypothesis that explosives brought down WTC7 was posed. The prediction was made that key characteristics that demolitions exhibit would be seen. Step 3 complete.

The predictions were explored with evidence taken from a wide range of sources: experiments, witness testimonies, photographs/videos, observations, data, and so on. Step 4 complete.

The information compiled was analyzed, and the conclusion that the collapse of WTC7 exhibited many key characteristics of a controlled demoliton was made. Step 5 complete.

After reaching that conclusion, the hypothesis that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition was validated by the evidence. Step 6 complete. This image summarizes it nicely:


Next, the Twin Towers were examined.

Research on the design of the building was done, and the observations that the structure should have acted like a heat-sink, and also that it was built to withstand an impact from a large aircraft were made. Step 2 complete.

Based on those observations, the hypothesis that the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition was posed. The prediction that their collapses would exhibit characteristics of a controlled demolition was made. Step 3 complete.

Just as with WTC7, evidence from various sources ranging from experiments, data, video/photographs, witness testimonies, documentation, and so on was compiled. Step 4 complete.

This was analyzed, and the conclusion that the Twin Towers exhibited characteristics of a controlled demolition was made. Step 5 complete.

This conclusion validated the hypothesis that the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. Step 6 complete. Summarized in this image:


So the hypothesis that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by a controlled demolition was scientifically proven.
edit on 12-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



new topics

top topics



 
283
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join