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.

 

Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

page: 10
137
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaWhiz

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by SavedOne

Originally posted by TupacShakur
OK then start by watching these interviews:


Again, my point is that many if not all of these may indeed be in the field just like I am, but that does not make them experts just like I am not. I am an architect with nearly 30 years experience and several high-rise projects as I said above (and as I've repeated in many other threads not related to 9-11, feel free to look in case you think I'm making it up just for this occasion). This does not make me an expert on the WTC collapses. Nor does it make my peers experts. The only "experts" would fall under two categories:

1. Those intimately involved in the design and construction of the projects (and they have been completely silent, probably for legal reasons).

2. Those who are experts in the field and have engaged in a full study of the drawings, specifications, field reports, test reports, submittals, etc. etc. etc. for the projects. These wouldn't start out as experts, but could become experts if allowed full access to all the documentation. They should also interview the construction personnel involved to get the full picture- IE, were connections made per the drawings or were field modifications made, etc.

Again, not saying the conspiracy is true or not, just pointing out that these people are expressing personal and not professional expert opinions unless they fall under one of the two above categories.


I'd have to agree with him, If you don't have access to ALL of the information, then your not an expert. Experts are objectives and shouldn't have to speculate, not that I'm saying I think the OS is true, cause it most obviously is not. I do think that when you have so many "professionals" that is people working in a relatively same field, that they do have something to contribute. But look we already destroyed all the evidence, all we can do now is speculate as to what happened....


So basically what you both are saying is if you don't have all the information, even if the information is a proven first time event, that no one can be an expert? I would love for the both of you to please state how this is possible considering the fact that this is notably a "first time event"!
And in going by your so called logic, doesn't that mean that everyone on the official report given is also Not an expert? They had access to the same information, didn't they? Then, also by your logic, doesn't that make the Official Story and Report nothing but theory, conjecture and opinion?
Please follow your rules of logic before you reply or it will be consider hipocracy.


And this is why this whole issue is so messed up... it's peoples inability to think critically. There are probably a good hundred or more accounts on this site that are literally operated by a few individuals whose entire job is just to muddle issues and keep people thinking in the grey zone. People have abandoned logic, they have lost the ability to think critically and they're up against a PR campaign which is fueled by millions, if not billions of dollars a year.

This crap will never be resolved until intelligent people with power and capability grow in a spiritual sense and start to understand the difference between what is right and wrong. A few people like JFK in the White House would literally change the world.
edit on 14-1-2012 by Sandman80 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by csulli456
 


Yeah WTC7 wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. Is one of the only three skyscrapers to collapse from fire damage in history collapsing not important or something? It didn't get hit by a plane or anything, but whatever, they just felt that it wasn't worth mentioning.


The Commission was charged " to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the Sept 11 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks" etc....

www.9-11commission.gov...

It wasn't part of its mandate to make a detailed damage assessment but WTC 7 had its own discrete NIST report.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pteridine
 


No, if there are only two choices and we can deduce that one is incorrect, then the other must be correct.

If the towers could not have collapsed naturally from gravity, then there must have been another energy involved, regardless of whether you can find evidence for it, or what your opinion is.


You assume that the towers could not have collapsed from impact and fire. No one has shown this to be true and the search for explosives has not led to any evidence suggesting such. Hence, once must conclude that they did collapse from impact and fire



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pteridine
 


No, if there are only two choices and we can deduce that one is incorrect, then the other must be correct.

If the towers could not have collapsed naturally from gravity, then there must have been another energy involved, regardless of whether you can find evidence for it, or what your opinion is.


You assume that the towers could not have collapsed from impact and fire. No one has shown this to be true and the search for explosives has not led to any evidence suggesting such. Hence, once must conclude that they did collapse from impact and fire


Taking into account other fires in skyscrapers and even planes crashing into them... no other buildings have collapsed. Let alone two in one day and a third... that wasn't even struck by a plane... yet these buildings, two of which were designed to take 'such impact' go down...

And the numerous independent reports that have led many to believe nano-thermite was found amidst the dust and wreckage... this would be the so called "evidence suggesting such" maybe?

Or is it that you would need an official government agency or investigation to state such?

Well, if 9/11 "was" an inside job... one might assume that such government agency or investigation would never work in a conflicting manner. IF it was an inside job, don't you think they would do EVERYTHING in their power to make sure it stays that way.

Think for yourself. Ask questions. Question authority.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman80
And the numerous independent reports that have led many to believe nano-thermite was found amidst the dust and wreckage... this would be the so called "evidence suggesting such" maybe?


Care to show us these "independent reports"?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pteridine
 


No, if there are only two choices and we can deduce that one is incorrect, then the other must be correct.

If the towers could not have collapsed naturally from gravity, then there must have been another energy involved, regardless of whether you can find evidence for it, or what your opinion is.


You assume that the towers could not have collapsed from impact and fire. No one has shown this to be true and the search for explosives has not led to any evidence suggesting such. Hence, once must conclude that they did collapse from impact and fire


What search for explosives? NIST themselves said they did not look. What a weak attempt at debunking..

Also there is a lot of evidence that these types of building will not collapse under long exposure to extreme heat. And when they do fall they do not collapse they way these did. Google it up bud.
edit on 14-1-2012 by WhereAreTheGoodguys because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Yeah WTC7 wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report


Except of course it was mentioned - but facts have not stopped "truthers" telling lies and making up stories.

Anyway let us look at the purpose of the commission:


To answer these questions, the Congress and the President created the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Public Law 107-306, November 27, 2002). Our mandate was sweeping.The law directed us to investigate “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission


www.gpoaccess.gov...

but "truthers" think research is visiting silly conspiracy theory sites, and coming up with sillier and sillier conspiracy theories!


"Anyway" I still don`t see any proof to your claim. Where exactly can you show me inside of the commission report is there an explanation for that of the collapse of Tower 7? Can you show me because I would really like to see. It`s amazing how you can skip through these threads blasting anyone with half an iota of intelligence as you continue to contribute nothing more then a programmed robot could contribute.

I lived in NYC and I know people who were at Ground Zero on that faitful day. I know people who died, their lives ended because of the actions that were perpetrated against their innocent lives on that very day. I know people who worked trying to find survivors and I know that the cops and firemen who were there either completely question the events, or are like most people, can`t begin to comprehend the sinister reality if what we were told is far from the truth.
I know my reality and I know it well. I`m not an idiot (in general) and I haven`t been into conspiracies at any time in my life prior to this past decade. I was like every concerned American when this first happened. I wanted those monsters to pay with their blood for what they did to my city and what they did to my fellow countrymen. I was really pissed and very concerned at the same time. But now, I really don`t know who to blame. What I do know is that there is a load of crap being spewed about certain information and it just doesn`t add up. The math is not there. If the towers fell at nearly freefall speed due to airplane impacts and burning jet fuel then what is the explanation for Tower 7 which fell in the exact same manner yet was not hit with airplanes and had no jet fuel? It`s a conundrum and it`s the biggest whole in the official story that anyone can see.

You can continue to argue about whose ideas are crazier but the facts will always be facts so again I ask, who has an explanation for Tower 7`s collapse? (There isn`t one that doesn`t spell conspiracy.)
edit on 1/14/2012 by csulli456 because: clicked reply before I was done



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Care to provide me with a single quote from the 9/11 Commission Report that has "World Trade Center 7" in it?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Sandman80
And the numerous independent reports that have led many to believe nano-thermite was found amidst the dust and wreckage... this would be the so called "evidence suggesting such" maybe?


Care to show us these "independent reports"?


I should also mention the importance of people doing their own research... but sure, I'll give some of my time for this.

---
Good one...
www.youtube.com...

Good overall data from 911research site
911research.wtc7.net...

Another video...
www.youtube.com...

Ok, that's five minutes of my time. If people do their own research, they might be surprised how much information is readily available to help them make their very own 'independent critical decision!'



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


So a 47 story skyscraper that would have been the tallest building in 33 states collapsing due to "fire damage" in an unprecedented fashion, which contained several government agency offices, isn't pertinent to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which that buildings collapse was (supposedly) a direct result of?

Yeah and I'm the Easter Bunny.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Thank you for your post. The paragraph "So now you have had the "how it was done" explained to you. Never post here again that no one's ever offered up a plausible narrative. I just did, and here's some more explanation for you concerning why they did it and how they got away with it" is not correct.

What you just did is merely a start and we have had lightweight starts like this before. Now you should post the sizes of the charges, their locations, and total numbers.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhereAreTheGoodguys

What search for explosives? NIST themselves said they did not look. What a weak attempt at debunking..

Also there is a lot of evidence that these types of building will not collapse under long exposure to extreme heat. And when they do fall they do not collapse they way these did. Google it up bud.


How do you know how buildings constructed like the WTC buildings would collapse? Have you googled it up, Bud? Did your upGoogling lead you to some fantasy sites?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Care to provide me with a single quote from the 9/11 Commission Report that has "World Trade Center 7" in it?


Pages: 311, 320, 323, 563, 566, 568, 570.

So you really should not believe the lies put forward on silly conspiracy sites.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Care to provide me with a single quote from the 9/11 Commission Report that has "World Trade Center 7" in it?


Pages: 311, 320, 323, 563, 566, 568, 570.

So you really should not believe the lies put forward on silly conspiracy sites.


Can you post the quote? Does it have any pertinent information? I want to see what it says not what page it`s on.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
none of that bothers me because its too well covered, but what is not covered is where the plane went that hit the pentagon, and why all of the videos at gas stations and intersections were confiscated



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


I said quote.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Yeah WTC7 wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report


Just check the pages I posted and you will see where it is mentioned - you havent even looked at the report!

Just another truther caught lying here - when will they stop? They assume people will not check up on their lies, so they just continue telling them!



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Thank you for your post. The paragraph "So now you have had the "how it was done" explained to you. Never post here again that no one's ever offered up a plausible narrative. I just did, and here's some more explanation for you concerning why they did it and how they got away with it" is not correct.

What you just did is merely a start and we have had lightweight starts like this before. Now you should post the sizes of the charges, their locations, and total numbers.


Instead of speculating on the size and location... perhaps people should look into Susan Lindauer's account on how vans were coming into the WTC garages in the middle of the night for a week and a half prior to 9/11.

www.veteranstoday.com...

Sure, this is just someones experience and they could or could not be lying... but then one is forced to think critically.... and all these other questions 'should' come to mind... Why would she start making this up?

Well, obviously, she is really looking forward to a lifetime of ridicule, pain and lack of employment. Isn't that surely the American dream?

I'm sure Michael Ruppert is operating under a similar condition. And when you listen to him, does he sound awfully uneducated? Does he sound crazy? Listening to him on Joe Rogan's podcast for two and half hours... I don't know... I got a LITTLE vibe that this man is intelligent and well rounded...

Guess I better start thinking critically... (is what people should be saying).

And you are aware that you are spending time on a website with the tagline "deny ignorance" not "encourage ignorance", right?
edit on 14-1-2012 by Sandman80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Just post the quotes!



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by WhereAreTheGoodguys

What search for explosives? NIST themselves said they did not look. What a weak attempt at debunking..

Also there is a lot of evidence that these types of building will not collapse under long exposure to extreme heat. And when they do fall they do not collapse they way these did. Google it up bud.


How do you know how buildings constructed like the WTC buildings would collapse? Have you googled it up, Bud? Did your upGoogling lead you to some fantasy sites?


This comming from a guy who stated that they searched for explosives. Good one. And yes my Googling did help me. Obviously yours did not as you seem to be Making Up Facts as you go .

I will be the first to admit there are some very smart and good debunkers on this site who all seem to jump on 911 topics, but you my good sir are one of the worst. Mabye you should read how to debunk something before you come on here and make stuff up.

Maybe you should read :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and
www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
137
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join