Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

page: 17
137
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Hey Thermo,

Since I know you won't respond with anything substantial, I'll help you out by putting what you're advocating into layman's terms.

What your proposing with your Exceptionally THIN "explosive" paint is less energetic than a sparkler. You know, those things many kids play with at Christmas or on the 4th of July. Maybe you've noted that they didn't even burn through the wire the stuff is attached to. No, it just created a bright sparkling reaction that got hot and burned very bright. Exciting, huh?

You need to explain how that can burn through structural steel as a beginning. That's just the first step, so fire away and tell us all how that worked to aid in a CD of any of the buildings in NYC on 9/11. Good luck!




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
which is precisely why I listen to the 1,600 professional Demolition experts, Chemistry professionals, Engineers, and Architects who individually have signed a statement saying 9/11 was accomplished using explosives.


Care to link us to this statement signed by 1,600 "professional Demolition experts, Chemistry professionals, Engineers, and Architects" stating 9/11 was accomplished using explosives?

No, I did not think you could, just another "truther" lie from you.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
So lets see what do we have after 10 years of trutherism.

We still have people that believe random thuds and booms mean explosives were used as a "controlled demolition."
We still have people that believe that regular office fires cannot reach temperatures high enough to soften steel in short periods of time.
We still have people that believe no planes hit the WTC.
We still have people that after 7 years, still have no idea what the 9/11 Commission Report was suppose to do and erroneously believe it was about the collapses of the WTC.
We still have people believe that high power explosives can be silenced and yet be powerful enough to turn acres of floors into dust and throw hundreds of tons of steel horizontally.
People still believe that the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11" are "experts" in anything related to the events of 9/11 and yet completely ignore the fact that it all started with a THEOLOGIAN that created his new religion.
People still believe that somehow, people can rig up explosives without a soul noticing.

And best of all, truthers bring back all of this nonsense again, after its been thoroughly debunked, and present it as brand new!!!!


There is more to come folks, stick around. I got a million of em!
edit on 1/18/2012 by GenRadek because: comma



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
So, we also have people that believe literally any person, firefighter, police, rescuer, eyewitness, etc mentions of hearing an explosion or something going boom, it defacto means explosives were used and is ample proof/evidence. However, when those same people mention something about instability issues of the building, fires out of control, severe damage, leaning, tilting structures, plane parts laying around, jet fuel fed fireballs, creaking of the structure, sagging trusses, etc (anything countering the 9/11 truth nonsense) it is ignored, shuned, claimed to be mistaken, or not reliable, or inexperienced, or uneducated, or not to be believed because it is a lie, etc etc etc. So when one firefighter says he heard something go boom, its is proof of demolitions, but when the same firefighter mentions the building's structural integrity is shot and is in danger of collapse due to the fires and damage, he is wrong wrong wrong and lying through his teeth or he is sorely mistaken/stupid/etc.

As to WTC7:

People like A&Efor9/11T use deception constantly, and lie, or distort the facts or convienently leave out important info. And yet, the gullible believe their tripe to be gospel and accept it without question. They purposly cut out the first 6 seconds of WTC7's collapse. They claim there were small to no fires in WTC7. They lie and claim that fires cannot affect steel quickly. They leave out the damage accounts of WTC7. They use no audio for the WTC7 collapse to cover up the fact that there are NO SOUNDS of detonations consistant with detonation sequences.

AE9/11T has many lies on its website. Too many to list. Its almost disgusting that people call them experts. Expert snakeoil salesmen maybe.

The videos,
oh boy.

with gems like this:

At 29:20 in the video, an experiment done by British Steel in 1995 is shown that tested how steel beams that supported the ceiling would behave during office fires. The steel beams sagged over time, but the building did not come close to collapsing. There have been many other times that fires have burned in skyscrapers, yet none have produced a collapse. While the structure of those skyscrapers weren't identical to that of WTC7, the fact still remains that a steel-framed skyscraper has never collapsed due to fire damage until 9/11.


And yet they ignore the fact that WTC Towers had steel trusses which get affected by fire much more rapdily and WTC7 was burning nonstop for 5 hours +.

And the lie is repeated over and over again that WTC7 fell in 7 seconds. What about the penthouse? That doesnt count? And where oh where are the accounts from WTC7 that people heard a series of detonations prior to collapse? I have read or heard NONE.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
To the OP:

I have gone over this entire thread and your initial post, and I am sad to say, saddened, by the amount of erroneous content in your posts. A good 99% of what you posted has already been addressed and/or debunked. Much of it has been explained in easy to understand terms and examples, and yet you still insist to repeat the erroneous and incorrect assumptions. It makes me wonder whether you are truly interested in the truth, or not. Why must you repost false or incorrect information? It would take an entire thread to re-address all of you posts, since there are so many erroneous comments and posts.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

No, I did not think you could, just another "truther" lie from you.


He would be referring to this...

www2.ae911truth.org...

'Truther lies'? How ironic when it's you who is trying to make people believe in lies, that being the OS.

There are no 'truther' lies, only questions. A 'truther' has nothing to gain by lying. You think we're here just to 'win' an argument with you lol? You all act like this is personal. Is it eh?

If you want to talk about liars, start with the CIA, the 911 commission, the pentacon.

Evidence that the CIA lied to the 9/11 Commission

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

TOO MANY 9-11 COMMISSION QUESTIONS STILL UNANSWERED

Senator Dayton: NORAD Lied About 9/11



edit on 1/18/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


The bottom line on this thread is that there is no explosive evidence, no matter how you spin it, and the 'experts' speaking out must be experts in something other than explosives and explosive demolitions. None has proffered the number, size, and location of explosive charges nor how they were place or integrated. A few 'mission impossible' scenarios have been advanced but as soon as details are requested, the perpetrator disappears behind a curtain of fallacious argument or just disappears, altogether. You would think that if they were so expert and so certain of demolitions that a detailed theory would be advanced to be tested. That they have not been able to do so speaks volumes about their level of expertise.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
And yet they ignore the fact that WTC Towers had steel trusses which get affected by fire much more rapdily and WTC7 was burning nonstop for 5 hours +.


And yet you still fail to realise those points make no difference.

You can repeat garbage like that all day, it's not being ignored, no one is buying it any more.

No matter how long it was on fire WTC 7 did not collapse in a way consistent with fire. It's collapse mimicked an implosion demolition perfectly, and implosion demolition from fire is impossible.

WTC 7 landed in it's footprint Gen, you can't explain that away with your 5+ hours of fire. The building wasn't even anywhere near fully engulfed. The Windsor tower, regardless of what you think, is a good example of what a building looks like fully engulfed by fire, regardless of whether it collapsed or not.






posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ANOK
 


The bottom line on this thread is that there is no explosive evidence, no matter how you spin it, and the 'experts' speaking out must be experts in something other than explosives and explosive demolitions. None has proffered the number, size, and location of explosive charges nor how they were place or integrated. A few 'mission impossible' scenarios have been advanced but as soon as details are requested, the perpetrator disappears behind a curtain of fallacious argument or just disappears, altogether. You would think that if they were so expert and so certain of demolitions that a detailed theory would be advanced to be tested. That they have not been able to do so speaks volumes about their level of expertise.


I have never claimed there is evidence of explosives (even though there is). Only that when faced with two choices, natural collapse or controlled collapse, one has to be correct. If it can be proved that fire could not have caused the collapses, then another energy had to have been involved, QED.

I do not have to show you evidence of 'explosives' to prove fire did not cause the collapses.

So, you can not prove the towers collapsed from fire, you can only claim it must have been fire because there is no evidence of explosives. Your thinking relies on ignoring logic, and common sense.

All you need is to understand basic physics, and your whole argument falls apart like a WTC building on 911, explosively.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



I do not have to show you evidence of 'explosives' to prove fire did not cause the collapses.


Sorry, but since we all know that you cannot prove this negative than it is your burden to prove the affirmative - that is to say you must present evidence that something other than the observed events of 9/11/2001 caused the collapse. Good luck with that!



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
And yet they ignore the fact that WTC Towers had steel trusses which get affected by fire much more rapdily and WTC7 was burning nonstop for 5 hours +.


And yet you still fail to realise those points make no difference.

You can repeat garbage like that all day, it's not being ignored, no one is buying it any more.

No matter how long it was on fire WTC 7 did not collapse in a way consistent with fire. It's collapse mimicked an implosion demolition perfectly, and implosion demolition from fire is impossible.



Why not? Where does it say in your magic handbook that it should fall a certain way when on fire, and a certain way when demoed? I have yet for you or anyone show me any eyewitness accounts of any series of detonations ocurring prior to WTC7's collapse. Or a video. One video would be nice with actual audio of a series of detonations clearly audible. I have to see an implosion that used high power explosives and were silenced prior to collapse.



WTC 7 landed in it's footprint Gen, you can't explain that away with your 5+ hours of fire. The building wasn't even anywhere near fully engulfed. The Windsor tower, regardless of what you think, is a good example of what a building looks like fully engulfed by fire, regardless of whether it collapsed or not.





If you call partially landing on Fritterman Hall destroying it, damaging the Verizon Building next door, and falling across a street in its footprint.....


Windsor Tower had its steel collapse and fail from fire alone. That is a fact. Within two hours. It didnt colapse due to the core which WTC7 didnt have.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


How about you explain how it can happen, OK? Not just you think it could happen, but how.

I have explained many times why it wouldn't, so why do you need to keep asking me? Learn to read, instead of the constant game of playing ignorant.

The proof WTC 7 landed in it's footprint is the outer walls being visible on top of the rubble pile, regardless if some of the rubble hit other buildings. No implosion demolition is perfect, some rubble will escape the footprint.


Why does it all have to be so black and white for you eh?

edit on 1/18/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, but since we all know that you cannot prove this negative than it is your burden to prove the affirmative - that is to say you must present evidence that something other than the observed events of 9/11/2001 caused the collapse. Good luck with that!


What negative lol? It's called deduction genius. If fire and gravity couldn't do it, proven by physics, then it must have been another energy, regardless of whether there is evidence for it.

Can't any of you actually address the points being made, instead of all these usual nonsense distractions?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


No ANOK, you havent given a real answer. Your responses of "cant happen according to N3rdL" or "it fell through the path of most resistance" are not applicable.

You said it fell into its footprint, when obviously it did not.

And where exactly does it say in the demolition handbook that the outer walls are suppose to be on top? because I've seen demolitions where just the roof is on top. Uh oh ANOK.

But then again, in order for CD, you need demolition charges going off. Where are they ANOK?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ANOK
 


The bottom line on this thread is that there is no explosive evidence, no matter how you spin it, and the 'experts' speaking out must be experts in something other than explosives and explosive demolitions. None has proffered the number, size, and location of explosive charges nor how they were place or integrated. A few 'mission impossible' scenarios have been advanced but as soon as details are requested, the perpetrator disappears behind a curtain of fallacious argument or just disappears, altogether. You would think that if they were so expert and so certain of demolitions that a detailed theory would be advanced to be tested. That they have not been able to do so speaks volumes about their level of expertise.


I have never claimed there is evidence of explosives (even though there is). Only that when faced with two choices, natural collapse or controlled collapse, one has to be correct. If it can be proved that fire could not have caused the collapses, then another energy had to have been involved, QED.

I do not have to show you evidence of 'explosives' to prove fire did not cause the collapses.

So, you can not prove the towers collapsed from fire, you can only claim it must have been fire because there is no evidence of explosives. Your thinking relies on ignoring logic, and common sense.

All you need is to understand basic physics, and your whole argument falls apart like a WTC building on 911, explosively.


It can't be proved that impacts and fires could not have caused the collapses. You have to show evidence of explosives or DEW or something that you claim did cause the collapse. We are certain of impact and uncontrolled fires so those are proved. The burden is on the claimant if anything else is claimed.
It would seem that your partial understanding of basic physics is what is preventing you from understanding the event or being able to argue your points coherently.
Why haven't the 'experts' in the videos been unable to postulate anything other than the most general scenario of "Explosives did it because we think so?"
edit on 1/18/2012 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 
Maybe because all the debris was hauled away?

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.*

Sort of hard to examine evidence in that case, yes?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Sek82
 

Perhaps you should contact Protec Services.

Here is from a paper they authored.




In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site. Our teams took thousands of photographs and personally examined untold amounts of debris, including countless structural elements from WTC 1 and 2. While these photographs and video recordings were not originally intended to specifically prove or disprove evidence of explosive demolition, they do provide substantial visual evidence that relates directly to this analysis and place us in a position to speak first-hand of conditions on site rather than relying on outside testimony or hearsay.


It's not like they wisked the steel off to China in the middle of the night.

You should read the entire paper found at implosionworld.com. It's only 12 pages and addresses many of the myths found right here.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
he would be referring to this...

www2.ae911truth.org...


Except of course that does not state

who individually have signed a statement saying 9/11 was accomplished using explosives.



'Truther lies'?


Yes, as confirmed by you above!


A 'truther' has nothing to gain by lying.


Then please explain why they continually lie!



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
great thread. Much info...truther or "non-truther".

I don't know if it was explosives, big foot, bad weather (wasn't), or natural collapse. What I can say, from my lowly rednecky, unproffessional, unexperty point of view, is that it all looks suspicious. Suspicious enough to warrant a new investigation. If these people, the truth movement, think for whatever reason, that their questions have not been answered, and there is some evidence that something was just not right (Bushes ties to Bin Ladens, Silversteins insurance policy, a trillion dollars missing Pentagon budget which is not accounted for because a plane conviniently hit that part of building where the records were), and I'm not talking about the actual towers collapse or the building seven, or the pentagon crash, then why not give it to them?

There are too many questions...even for me. I'm so far away from America, but this incident has impacted much of the globe.

Nowadays...to think that your/my government is not lying to you, would be pretty naive. There is a new God, and it's called PROFIT. All presidents, senators, and whatnots pray to this god, and obey this god. You would be lied to constantly to keep the profit in the hands of few, the mighty. This is not a conspiracy, sadly it's a fact.

Truth has become the unwanted child in todays world. Presidents will swear that they didn't do it (Clinton) blatantly, under oath, in front of the cameras...do you think others are different? And what about afterwards...cought commiting purgery...was he punished? No...he travels the word and smiles, cuts ribbons and enjoys a leisure life. In some countries they even built monuments of him...the horror.

So...why not spend some money to assure the doubting public of the veracity of the official story? Truth needs no cover...needs not protection. If the OS is true...than it would no doubt stand up to an indepentent investigation, and...you would gain popularity points with the public, and the matter would be closed once and for all. You could address all future questions by simply stating...."two investigations were made...one independent...the matter is closed".

It seems pretty straight forward to me...this is the incident that changed the world in a way...it should be very much investigated. We need to set the record straight. This is going to be in the history books people...should we teach our kids history of which we ourselves are not sure of ?

ps. sorry for typos and grammar...English is not my first language.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
a trillion dollars missing Pentagon budget which is not accounted for because a plane conviniently hit that part of building where the records were),


Except of course that did not happen like you claim...


Truth has become the unwanted child in todays world


Well, we are not getting much from you with the above blatant lie...


should we teach our kids history of which we ourselves are not sure of ?


YOU are not sure of? Well, when you post such lies like above no wonder you are not sure!
edit on 19-1-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
137
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join