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.

 

The NYPD lied.

page: 13
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

a good conspiracy.


Can I point something out to you all here.

Sometimes words are used because they express a train of thought. At other times words are used because they bolster up an ingrained idea about something.

This is something I noticed about the oft repeated phrase 'We all love a good conspiracy'. The definition of conspiracy is two or more people covertly plotting a harmful act. So a conspiracy involves harm which cannot be viewed as good. It may be necessary to cause harm in defence against attack, but it is then a necessary evil, it doesn't become good.

When they tell you something is a good conspiracy, it is an attempt to short circuit your brain. They are saying 'good bad'. Remember that when you hear a conspiracy described as good. There is no good conspiracy. This is word magic. Return it to its rightful owner.




posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by Furbs
A clump of material.

Is it concrete? That is what the placard says.
Is that a gun? That is what the placard says.

Concrete was powderized.

Water was being used to fight fire.

Gypsum is liquid at a far lower temp than steel.

Powdered concrete mixes with water becoming free flowing sludge that picks up a dropped gun. This gun and water/powder hits the gypsum, cooling the gypsum and steaming the water. Gun gets trapped in the hardening powder/gypsum mixture. Is found and goes to live in a museum. Is immortalized by septic in a thread that is now over.


Yours is a rational explanation for the exhibit, yet the police didn't use those words, did they? They gave the impression that the fires were so intense the CONCRETE MELTED LIKE LAVA. Nothing about powdered gypsum or any of the more reasonable explanations. They opened a MUSEUM EXHIBIT and specifically pushed the CONCRETE MELTED LIKE LAVA lie.


"Fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path."


This is where the entire conspiracy logic starts to fall apart.

1. If people said they saw a plane, they were mistaken.
2. If police said concrete flowed like lava, they were lying.

(Mistakes can be made by anyone.)

Why couldn't a police officer have seen what I described and related it in a manner that is consistent with the evidence? I believe the account is accurate to what the police witnessed, a flowing river of concrete powder that hit gypsum and cooled the gypsum.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


well, I still dont necessarily believe it. The info seems sound, but I still have my doubts.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by RicoVig
reply to post by septic
 


well, I still dont necessarily believe it. The info seems sound, but I still have my doubts.


Sure, that's understandable...it's the whole concept behind the big lie; they don't get any bigger than 911.


“All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation....”
- Adolf Hitler

Source



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Kester
The reason the NIST conclusions are called the official story is because NIST is a government agency. Official means relating to a public body. There is no definition of official that I'm aware of that simply means 'best'.


When for example a university comes with an alternative explanation that is better, to me that is "official" enough to call it the "OS". As far as I know there is no government agency deciding which explanation is official and which is not. In that sense there is no official explanation.


You seem to be missing the point here. Official in this context means relating to a public body. The government is a public body. The story proposed by this public body is the official story. To narrow it down for the sake of convenience, NIST, being the government agency supplying the technical explanation of the WTC Disaster, have provided the official story. The inadequacies of the NIST investigation are clear to anyone who examines at least the FAQs. I encourage everyone reading this to study the FAQs found at wtc.nist.gov. That's the old address but it will get you straight there. Pay particular attention to questions 13 and 22 in the second set of FAQs. Question 13 tells you the investigation only covers the impacts and fires, not the disintegration of the buildings. If you thought the disintegration of the buildings had been officially investigated think again. You will have to draw your own conclusions as to why the official technical investigation has failed to investigate the disintegration of the buildings. Their own view is it simply isn't necessary. If you thought it had been investigated you obviously thought it was necessary based on what you saw on television. Question 22 tells you there has been no official testing of the steel for explosive residue. There is no mention of testing the rest of the building remains. When you hear that no evidence of explosives has been found bear in mind there has been no publicised official attempt to test any of the building remains for explosive residue.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
ATTENTION

Please discuss the TOPIC, not each other. Further off-topic, rude, ill manered or baiting posts will be rewarded with a posting ban of at least 72 hours.

Thank You.

~Keeper
ATS Moderator

edit on 12/21/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Furbs
 






This is where the entire conspiracy logic starts to fall apart.

1. If people said they saw a plane, they were mistaken.
2. If police said concrete flowed like lava, they were lying.

(Mistakes can be made by anyone.)

Why couldn't a police officer have seen what I described and related it in a manner that is consistent with the evidence? I believe the account is accurate to what the police witnessed, a flowing river of concrete powder that hit gypsum and cooled the gypsum.


No, this is where the OS faithful will stoop to any depth to rationalize the evidence staring you in the face. Your masters think you're an idiot and you'll believe the fires were so hot they melted concrete (and steel, except for firearms, but aaahhh....!), and when busted with their hands in the cookie jar, like a good house slave, you defend them.


What you can't seem to get your head around is that no part of the official story, if you want to call it that, requires steel or concrete to have melted.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





What you can't seem to get your head around is that no part of the official story, if you want to call it that, requires steel or concrete to have melted.


Can you spell out the official story for me then, so I can get my head around it? The goalposts keep shifting.

What is the official story, can anyone say? It must have been convincing, we've been invading countries ever since, so what is it?

Are you saying the fires were not hot enough to melt steel and concrete?

Are you saying the videos and quotations of people describing molten steel running like lava are valid or not?

Are you saying it was gravity alone and the fires had nothing to do with it?

Are you saying the fires didn't burn for months afterwards?



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Alfie1
 





What you can't seem to get your head around is that no part of the official story, if you want to call it that, requires steel or concrete to have melted.


Can you spell out the official story for me then, so I can get my head around it? The goalposts keep shifting.

What is the official story, can anyone say? It must have been convincing, we've been invading countries ever since, so what is it?

Are you saying the fires were not hot enough to melt steel and concrete?

Are you saying the videos and quotations of people describing molten steel running like lava are valid or not?

Are you saying it was gravity alone and the fires had nothing to do with it?

Are you saying the fires didn't burn for months afterwards?


I am not aware of anyone, other than truthers, to claim fires at the WTC were hot enough to melt steel and concrete.

I have seen descriptions of molten metal but with no evidence that the metal was steel.

Of course the fires had everything to do with it but it was not necessary for them to burn so hot as to melt steel but simply to weaken it.

Yes, fires in the rubble burned for months.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

I am not aware of anyone, other than truthers, to claim fires at the WTC were hot enough to melt steel and concrete.



Well you're in luck, have you read the OP? The NYPD sure think the fires were hot enough to melt concrete. In fact, it was not just truthers like the police, but these guys too:


Dawkins says. But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains

Source


"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

Source

"Molten Steel, like lava"
Source

www.abovetopsecret.com...



I have seen descriptions of molten metal but with no evidence that the metal was steel.

Of course the fires had everything to do with it but it was not necessary for them to burn so hot as to melt steel but simply to weaken it.

Yes, fires in the rubble burned for months.


So on the one hand you admit to descriptions of molten metal, but then there's no evidence of it. You're starting to sound like me.

Why would you think the fires would only weaken the steel, and not melt it? Who told you it was weakened? Why wouldn't the heat dissipate throughout the whole tower instead of only weakening certain parts of it, and why would weakened steel up top affect the not weakened steel below?

You're just assuming the fire department, police and other claims off molten steel are mistaken?

If everything turned to dust, as seen in the "collapse" sequences what could possibly burn for months?

Was it items like these huge generators?






posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Want to know what happened to all the machines?

Here are pictures of the elevators and hoist motors at the WTC


www.elevatorbobs-elevator-pics.com...



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Of course they'd need at least one working elevator when they planted the dust and explosives. There were something like 254 elevators at the complex. There should be dozens of elevator motors like that one, not to mention the generators...care to point out even one of those HUGE generators? They found an elevator motor...how about some generators?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
they planted the dust


LOL.

This is one for the ages. Please explain.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by intrptr
 

Any one with metal smelting experience can tell you in a heartbeat that this is a picture of slag from the melting of various metals in the basement(?) furnace of 911.


Considering the prime suspects of 911 are likely military, government, business and media, how can we trust the claim the basement was a furnace and fires burned for months?
Much like the lacking photographic evidence of the event, there is not one image of a molten steel river, nor of any cooled pools of steel. Nothing but hearsay, and considering the source, it should be considered just that.

I'm not sure you are referencing the other hearsay, the likely hearsay, or yousay... so to start here is some slagsay...


Slag

Slag, a man-made byproduct of mining and metallurgy, is often made up of metal, sometimes combined with metal oxides and/or sulfides, and many additional components (silica, calcium, etc.).

Because slag is formed by the cooling of melted industrial byproducts, it often displays melt texture, such as flow marks and vesicles (holes or "bubbles" in the surface where trapped gas has escaped during cooling) and can be heavy and magnetic. It may even appear similar to some meteorites, so be wary of this meteorite impostor!

Slag can be found almost anywhere, even in what might be considered “the middle of nowhere”, because it is commonly used for fill in roads or train tracks. This is especially true in states like Arizona, where a rich mining history extends back hundreds of years.

Slag pictures in here at bottom...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 


I don't think I am missing the point here. You just have your personal interpretation of what the "OS" is. You will find that your interpretation is in conflict with many other interpretations. Ask 10 truthers what the "OS" is, and you will get 10 different answers. Most of the time you will get some straw man representation of what most people think happened.

Bottom line is, if the truth movement is not willing to do any proper investigation themselves (for example testing for explosives residue), why do you think anyone else in the world should care? Non-truthers think a theory involving explosives is crazy. If I were to claim that the WTC was taken down by a neutron beam, then sit back and complain that the NIST didn't test for neutron radiation, what would your response be? Agree that yes, NIST should have indeed tested for it? Or say its a crazy theory and if I want to convince anyone I need to come with evidence? You have to realize that to non-truthers, explosives is as crazy as a neutron beam is to you.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join