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: 11
137
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman80
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.


Why should anyone believe a mentally unfit person making stories up?


Lindauer was found mentally unfit to stand trial in two separate hearings


www.washingtonpost.com...
www.seattlepi.com...
www.foxnews.com...




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman80
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.


Taking into account skyscrapers constructed like the WTC that have had large planes crash into them at high speed and burned we have two collapses.
The paint-on thermite keeps resurfacing even after that theory has been skewered from one end to the other.

If this was an "inside job" as you say how do you think it would be done? Have you ever planned a miltary operation? The first principal is to minimize moving parts and keep things simple at each step. Make sure the plan can't be tracked back to you. Involve as few people as possible.
Here's how it would have been planned:
1. Allow the hijackers to think it was their idea.
2. Allow the hijackers to train as pilots.
3. Allow the hijackers to get to the plane.
4. Make sure no air marshalls were on the planes.
5. Allow the planes to hit targets.
6. Stand back and let things happen.

The complicated Rube Goldberg plots are just for entertainment and minor bilkings of a few suckers who really need a conspiracy. No planner would have put explosives in the buildings because explosions are obvious and wiring 100+ stories would have far too many risks of discovery.

Get smart. Think for yourself. Ask questions. Question the truther sites.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


You're a liar. I just checked all of those pages, and not one mentioned WTC7. In fact, the report ends on page 567, and you said 570.

Spoor is a confirmed liar who knowingly spreads disinformation in the very same post that he ironically said this:

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

See for yourself everyone. Check out those pages that he cited. I think it's safe to say you've lost all credibility. In fact according to the ATS Terms and Conditions, you should be banned!

15). Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.


Do you really think I'm that stupid? Did you think you could just pull some page numbers out of your ass, and that would be the end of it? I really hope that you just had the page numbers mixed up or something, because really, even for you this is a blow below the belt.
edit on 14-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



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

Originally posted by pteridine
How do you know how buildings constructed like the WTC buildings would collapse?


An understanding of how they were constructed, and an understanding of basic physics, specifically the law of action/reaction, angular momentum, and conservation of momentum. What we have been telling you all along.

It's not rocket science pter. You guys don't even address those laws when you make claims as to how the towers collapsed, because you can't without contradicting yourselves.



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

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Sandman80
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.


Why should anyone believe a mentally unfit person making stories up?


Lindauer was found mentally unfit to stand trial in two separate hearings


www.washingtonpost.com...
www.seattlepi.com...
www.foxnews.com...



I've listened to this woman speak for more than an hour telling her story. I then listened to her on radio shows, read articles she had authored, or additional interviews on other networks. I spent a good day researching her story.

And if 9/11 was an inside job. Would they allow her to go to trial? Or would they have her declared mentally unfit?

I won't tell you what to think, but her story is worth investigating and listening to. After you do the research, formulate your own train of logic. Why would she make it up? What would that lead to? Ask, if she was telling the truth, would these things happen? Would they declare her mentally unfit? Logic will take you to some interesting places and help formulate your own belief or disbelief.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Taking into account skyscrapers constructed like the WTC that have had large planes crash into them at high speed and burned we have two collapses.


It doesn't matter.

How did the plane have any effect on the building bellow where they hit? None, so the plane had nothing to do with the complete collapse.

You are confused I can tell, you can't seem to be able to separate the collapse initiation from the collapse itself, and you're not the only one here who can't do that. One well known OSer, seems to think 'pancake collapse' is a collapse initiation.

The plane could have had an effect on the collapse initiation only, as in it supplied jet fuel for the fires, or it severed core columns. But if you look at that with a critical eye, the fire could not have got hot enough in an hour to heat up steel to anywhere near failure, jet fuel or not, and how could the plane have severed massive core box columns after being slowed down from the first impact?

And that is only the collapse initiation, not the collapse itself. One doesn't automatically lead to the other. First there is no evidence on earth that sagging trusses can pull in, or break, the columns they are attached to, and even IF they could there is no evidence that complete failure of the building would result. A critical look at the construction and physics involved say it wouldn't. A floor could hold many times the weigh of another floor to start with.

Anyway your arguments are moot mate. You need to start offering some real evidence, and sound physics, before anyone is going to take you even remotely serious. All you seem to be able to do is tell others they are wrong, without offering anything to support your claims other than what we've already heard, and addressed a million time already (yes it is a million times, +1, don't believe me? Start counting mate).


edit on 1/14/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by spoor
 
You're a liar. I just checked all of those pages, and not one mentioned WTC7. In fact, the report ends on page 567, and you said 570.

Spoor is a confirmed liar who knowingly spreads disinformation...

Confirmed indeed, looked through the report myself and very surprisingly, WTC 7 is not mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission Report, while that building allegedly fell as a result (direct, or indirect) of the attacks on that day. How and why was it excluded from the report entirely? That alone raises questions. If a debunker that knows what they're talking about could please explain this, I'm all ears.

If you're going to come here to "contribute", please bring substance before you do, and without deception (ie knowingly posting false information as has been pointed out above).

For the sake of staying on topic, as someone who has remained largely objective and not biased regarding the events of that day, I think it's highly likely that there was more involved than airplanes in taking down the towers, whether it be from thermite, or preplanted explosives...

The fact that over ten years later we are still debating these events, in and of itself shows that there are still many unanswered questions.
edit on 14-1-2012 by Sek82 because: changes, here and there



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sek82
Confirmed indeed, looked through the report myself and very surprisingly, WTC 7 is not mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission Report,


Oh dear, I suggest you search by the correct name, 7 WTC.

Now how silly do you feel?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Do you really think I'm that stupid?


Yes, actually. Try looking by the official name, 7 WTC.

Oh dear, there it is....



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


I read through the pages that you cited. It's not my fault you posted the wrong page numbers.

But yes I see that WTC7 is indeed mentioned in the report. Thanks for (sloppily) clearing that up

edit on 14-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
But yes I see that WTC7 is indeed mentioned in the report.


Just like I said, you really should stop posting lies here, and stop believing what the silly conspiracy theory sites say.

This is one of the reasons "truthers" are just not believed when they post silly conspiracy theories, they just make them up!


edit on 14-1-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


To be fair though, this wasn't posted in the OP. Somebody's post just triggered that to pop into my mind, I didn't use that as evidence of anything in the fact-filled OP itself



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Excellent thread.
Nice to see the Official story still being questioned and nice to see you keep your dignity against some obnoxious remarks from some of the OS believers.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


listen 'guy', I've seen the documents that prove that the CIA have in the past brainwashed each other, killed each other, disposed of each other, etc.

They could make a man kill himself without even being aware he was doing it. There are multiple references to these documents on this very site... if you know where to look. hint, search box won't help you.

and please, shut up with your bs debunking. your attempts to appear knowledgeable in the aspects of the topic you are attempting to refute are transparent.

-TF

P.S) to the OP S+F beautiful example of how to carry out & present research on this site and in general, awesome thorough and in depth work. you should be proud and I thankyou for the information & effort.
edit on 14-1-2012 by ThoughtForms because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
woah back up a second. why the hell would they need to control demo the buildings? flying planes into them isn't enough?


seriously if anyone thought that would be a good idea they must be the dumbest people on the planet.
edit on 14-1-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


I asked you what was indeed spoken about in regards to Tower 7? The fact that it is "mentioned" does not mean that the collapse was explained. Do you have any information in your official story explaining the collapse of Tower 7?

The reason I keep asking this same question is because the official explanation of the Twin Towers` near freefall collapse is jet fuel and pancakes. There was no plane that hit Tower 7 therefore no jet fuel to complete an almost freefall collapse of Tower 7.

One last time, show me a quote from your official storybook about an explanation of Tower 7`s collapse.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 
Ah, you were indeed slightly correct in that "7 WTC" was referenced in the 9/11 Commission Report, however only referenced to as a location (and briefly it's evacuation) and it's damage and destruction still wasn't mentioned at all. Still a huge red flag in my book. You disagree? It's poorly explained perfect collapse was not worth including in the 9/11 report, maybe? No... Doing so would shine light on the explosive evidence involved in it's collapse, probably.

Anyway, still a bit ironic that two highrise buildings designed to withstand the impact of fully loaded airliners and remain standing, would collapse so cleanly and quickly after such a short amount of time. I heard that before 9/11, there had never been a highrise building that collapsed from fire - In some cases massive fires that encompassed the entire top half of one building for over twelve hours. Well, there's always got to be a first, right?


To answer your question, I often feel quite silly by my very nature, thankyouverymuch. But don't call me dear, ok?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
....
If this was an "inside job" as you say how do you think it would be done? Have you ever planned a miltary operation? The first principal is to minimize moving parts and keep things simple at each step. Make sure the plan can't be tracked back to you. Involve as few people as possible.
Here's how it would have been planned:
1. Allow the hijackers to think it was their idea.
2. Allow the hijackers to train as pilots.
3. Allow the hijackers to get to the plane.
4. Make sure no air marshalls were on the planes.
5. Allow the planes to hit targets.
6. Stand back and let things happen.

The complicated Rube Goldberg plots are just for entertainment and minor bilkings of a few suckers who really need a conspiracy. No planner would have put explosives in the buildings because explosions are obvious and wiring 100+ stories would have far too many risks of discovery.

Get smart. Think for yourself. Ask questions. Question the truther sites.
.


You obviously have no idea how intel or even how the goverment plans stuff. It is called compartmentalization.

www.truthmove.org...

en.wikipedia.org...(intelligence)

A good example of this is The Manhattan Project.
edit on 14-1-2012 by WhereAreTheGoodguys because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



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.


Been explained numerous times - unfortunately the lunatic fringe refuses to listen

The 9/11 Commission was tasked with investigating the failures of intelligence and aircraft security which
allowed the hijackers to obtain visas, live unmolested for almost 2 years and take flight training, then
to board aircraft with knives, mace/pepper spray to hijack the aircraft. Also investigated was the
confused response of the FAA and NORAD to the hijackings

It was not taked with determining how the buildings collapsed, that was job of FEMA and NIST to determine
the failure modes of why the buildings collapsed

WTC 7 was not part of their commision as its collapse was result of "collateral damage" from debris thrown out
by the collapse of WTC towers



new topics

top topics



 
137
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join