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.

 

WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer.

page: 21
32
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


If it does not make the noise, then it is not an explosive. An explosive is something that explodes, and the explosion is what causes the noise.

If it were to be thermite, then it would not be an explosive. It would be more along the lines of a chemical reaction. Still, without proof of the charges, there is no story.

The elements were already present within the tower to mix aluminum and rust in the dust. What is not clear is whether there were actual charges anywhere.

I have an open mind, but my brains have not yet fallen out. I need evidence to say conclusively one way or the other.

Also, I admit that I make mistakes. I make mistakes often, and I own up to them. For example, I was skimming the fire article, and missed the part where it said that in broad fires, the temperatures varied widely, but that the difference in temperatures still led to deformations within the steel.


Now you're just splitting hairs for the sake of arguing. Troll behavior.

Good day.


Ah the truther equivalent of pouting and stomping off when bested.

So to you, the fact that thermite sounds nothing like a stck of TNT or C4 exploding is "splitting hairs"? Its no wonder the truther movement is regressing.




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Gando702
 


So why did they fall straight down into themselves?

Its common sense that something that large would not fall FREE FALL SPEED into itself.

But hey, as they say, ignorance is bliss.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ka119
reply to post by Gando702
 


So why did they fall straight down into themselves?

Its common sense that something that large would not fall FREE FALL SPEED into itself.

But hey, as they say, ignorance is bliss.



Oh man, the "Wheel of Ignorance" spins around again. This is getting pretty tiring. For the trillionth time, the buildings did NOT....... let me repeat that for the hard of hearing.............. DID NOT fall at free fall speed.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by ka119
reply to post by Gando702
 


So why did they fall straight down into themselves?

Its common sense that something that large would not fall FREE FALL SPEED into itself.

But hey, as they say, ignorance is bliss.



Oh man, the "Wheel of Ignorance" spins around again. This is getting pretty tiring. For the trillionth time, the buildings did NOT....... let me repeat that for the hard of hearing.............. DID NOT fall at free fall speed.


They fell at near free fall speed, if you trust the recordings. Something impossible in the
real world if the official account is true. So we have a contradiction. If the official account is
true, then the official account cannot be true. Where do we go from here?
Any way you hang it, the offficial account is not true!

All the contradictions are calculated and encouraged by the real perpetrators.
All is rosy for them as long as people don't start questioning the veracity and genuity of
the recorded footage.
How angry would you be if you found out that all these years you were duped and
hoodwinked by virtual reality cartoons?
I was pretty cheesed when I found out!
And then to find out that most of the 'victims' were in fact computer generated identities
with no basis in reality. Wowser! I hit the roof!

But it feels better to know
About Our Complete Perception Deception.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh man, the "Wheel of Ignorance" spins around again. This is getting pretty tiring. For the trillionth time, the buildings did NOT....... let me repeat that for the hard of hearing.............. DID NOT fall at free fall speed.


Uh oh. Yet another poor guy trapped inside his perfect world.

Well, you keep on believing everything you are told, ill stick to common sense.




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So to you, the fact that thermite sounds nothing like a stck of TNT or C4 exploding is "splitting hairs"? Its no wonder the truther movement is regressing.


'Truther' movement is regressing?

Well someone hasnt been paying attention..

Did you see the polls on ATS about 9-11? Majority believes something fishy went down.

Regressing. Ha.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Gando702
 


I am like the total opposite, for years I would see the shoddy evidence that many truthers put out there and think "this is total BS" but there were still many things i could not understand, explain or just did'nt make any sense at all. Even right after 911 when we were going to war with those countries that had nothing to do with 911, or how there were no military air support on that fateful day over DC or NYC, or why the EPA and federal government let the brave rescuers into that area knowing full well that the air there was toxic, how they lied afterwards stating they had no foreknowladge that terrorists would ever use an Airliner as a weapon or even that any attack was imminent on that day, How there were multiple practice operations going on that day, with drilling for terrorist hijackings and even attack from the former soviet union. All that and i still thought it was unlikely that the US government was involved even though i still thought it was possible. Not until I heard a recent interview with former CIA/DIA asset Susan Lindauer and how she tryed to stop the Iraq war and was locked up by the federal government using the Patriot Act! For any of you that have any doubts as to the validity of 911 as being a false flag attack then you need to google her and see her recent video taken this past august and if you still are'nt convinced then there is nothing left that will convince you that 911 was a false flag attack to empire build and take away the rights of americans! If this is the case Good luck with your deluded existence!



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Gando702
 





If the firefighters recall seeing it at the base, I believe them. After all, they are experts in building fires and the like.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
Do you care to comment on the anomalous shadow cast by the building seen in the right hand
bottom corner of this photograph, when compared to the rest of the shadows cast?


Do you care to explain how pics like that are generated exactly?

Can you provide the original pics to prove these are fake?

Here are some more 'faked' pics...





















Every pic of WTC 7 on the net has been faked? Where are the real pics then genius? All you're doing is showing your desperation to support the OS against mounting evidence to the contrary. You admit we're right about the physics, so now you have to claim the evidence is fake, with no proof as usual. Do you really think people will take you seriously?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by smarterthanyou
 


Does that mean you will also take them seriously when they mention that WTC7 was burning end to end and up and down, tilting, leaning, creaking, making strange noises, and had a surveyor transit put on it to track its slow creep, leading up to collapse?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ka119

Originally posted by GenRadek
So to you, the fact that thermite sounds nothing like a stck of TNT or C4 exploding is "splitting hairs"? Its no wonder the truther movement is regressing.


'Truther' movement is regressing?

Well someone hasnt been paying attention..

Did you see the polls on ATS about 9-11? Majority believes something fishy went down.

Regressing. Ha.


There is a difference between "something fishy happened on 9/11" and "9/11 was perpetrated by the govt via secret demolition charges and no planes, and missiles, and secret thermites, thousands in on it, etc etc etc".

I sure as hell believe that we were not told the whole truth regarding 9/11. But that has to do with the ginormous intel failures and bureaucratic bickering and red tape, and stupidity and inept people, rather than secret Rube-Goldberg type of demolition plans.

Oh yes, and FYI? The fact is that the buildings did not fall in free fall. Debris that was ejected out did, but the building did not. Please remove your truther blinders on and tune into 2011. The buildings did not fall in free fall. Hell even some truthers acknowledge this. Sad how you cant even agree on single thing regarding 9/11.


By the way, majority of people believing in a conspiracy regarding 9/11 on a conspiracy site's poll??? SHOCKER!!!!

edit on 9/22/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
They fell at near free fall speed, if you trust the recordings. Something impossible in the
real world if the official account is true. So we have a contradiction. If the official account is
true, then the official account cannot be true. Where do we go from here?
Any way you hang it, the offficial account is not true!


This is one of the things I don't get about people. For the longest time, I saw people such as yourself making claim after claim that the towers collapsed at free-fall speed, claiming on top of that, that free-fall was impossible without controlled demolition.

Then, math was done. I remember, I saw it being done. It was calculated that the towers fell slower than free-fall by a few seconds.

In response, people such as yourself adopt the term "near free-fall speed." You shift the goal post and claim that a different fact means the exact same thing. This is academic dishonesty.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Gando702
 

Nobody should of expected those twin towers to collapse, it's never happened before and far worse fires have been endured by large skyscrapers for days without ever collapsing. You're right it was no accident, those towers were brought down on purpose. WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane and completely collapsed. 3 buildings on 1 day, never happened before, not since.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


A fact is supported by proof. That's evidence that you're showing and is definitely refutable.

Stating that it is a fact does not make it a fact.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


A fact is supported by proof. That's evidence that you're showing and is definitely refutable.

Stating that it is a fact does not make it a fact.


All four outer walls visible on top of the collapsed building is not opinion, it is fact, and only one method of collapse can achieve that, and it's not fire and gravity. The picture itself is proof, why do you think some have now tried to claim that, and all the other WTC 7 pics, are fake?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you understand basic physics, it's not hard to understand why WTC 7 had to be a controlled implosion demolition.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Look how little damadge to wtc 7 neighbours . This is a professional job. No doubt.
Controlled demolitions were used on WTC 7 at 5pm on 911. Fact.

Its quite amazing.


This picture is not fake. Who is saying it is fake? The rubble pile is indicative of a controlled demolition. I professional one at that.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
This picture is not fake. Who is saying it is fake? The rubble pile is indicative of a controlled demolition. I professional one at that.



Originally posted by pshea38

Yes they are all faked Anok!
Did you go through the link I provided above for conclusive proof?

Can you see any problems with these two images that you posted?

You have the physics right for a real world event, but the laws of physics need
not apply to computer generated faked imagery!


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 

i don't believe there are any "non-professional" controlled demolitions =P. if there are, hopefully none are ever done near me!



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by pteridine
 

you're wrong. it isn't in IR, it's in a combination of both.


This report presents results of Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS)



The images (larger area shown below) also show vegetated areas as green. Water appears blue, and the smoke from the fires appears as a light blue haze. White and lighter blue areas are rooftops, roads, and concrete as well as dust and debris from the collapsed buildings. Dust, probably more than a millimeter thick, appears in shades of brown.

i love to catch people in straight up lies. it's been photoshopped.


The accompanying maps are false color images

ahh! i see where you got "false color images" now. seems like you're making up crap in an attempt to confuse. it's sad really. at any rate, the color to temperature still stands.



pubs.usgs.gov...
"The AVIRIS data were processed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena California where the data are calibrated to radiance and corrected for aircraft yaw, pitch, and roll. Acquisition and calibration of AVIRIS data at JPL are under the direction of Robert O. Green. The data were then transmitted to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Imaging Spectroscopy Group in Denver, Colorado, under the direction of Dr. Roger N. Clark. Atmospheric and ground calibrations were applied to derive apparent surface reflectance and maps were then made of surface materials. The USGS imaging spectroscopy group includes Dr. Gregg Swayze, Eric Livo, and Todd Hoefen."
The images were processed. They are false color.

"Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800F".

That is the analysis. "Greater than 800 F" doesn't necessarily mean 1300+C ; that is your claim and has nothing to do with the USGS data. Do you have support for your claim or will you retract it? Have you been caught "making things up in an attempt to confuse?"



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Gando702
 



Hey look another "I was a Truther but no more" thread lol

I see this is the new troll method here on ATS, cool story bro..

Yeah i believe you OP




You make this too easy OP
edit on 22-9-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
32
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join