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.
Originally posted by NWOwned
OMG, it's 2012, you're not all still going on about "Controlled Demolitions" and "Collapses" are you? Seriously?
At any rate, it's a new year and so I'm trying to look at 9/11 again with fresh eyes after taking Christmas off.
What occurs to me now is a thought, and that is, that the popular 'slips' of the tongues, i.e. "Pull it.", "Flight 93 shot down.", "Missile." were no such unconscious accidental slips at all!
Take Lucky Larry's infamous and much quoted/discussed "Pull it."
Let's say the towers were not Controlled Demolitions at all and that therefore looking for the evidence of it would prove futile. Why then that's perfect you see? You know it wasn't Controlled Explosives so you can throw in a Demolition term like "Pull it" 'by accident', by careless mistake etc. But, not really. It's perfect. No one is ever going to find any evidence of CD so if you let it 'slip' it just looks like that's what it REALLY was, when in fact it was no such thing... Clever, very clever. No?
I mean, why just assume it's a 'slip' (as everyone thus far has done AFAIK) and not that it was intentionally said?
Now you're going to ask me, "Well, if it wasn't Controlled Demolition, why try to indicate that (ultra cleverly) if the Official Story says 'Gravity Collapse'." Right? Why?
Why try to muddy it with a slip? A slip that clearly leads in the direction of CD?
How many of you think, or have ever even considered the possibility, that Lucky Larry said "Pull it" on purpose?
Cheers, and Happy New Year!
Originally posted by spoor
Originally posted by impressme
such as there were no explosion, there were no remote control aircraft, and there was no demolition at the WTC and so on…
you "forget" how the real world works,
"Those making silly claims have to back those silly claims up"
Which truthers are unable to do, so all they can do is make sillier and sillier claims about 9/11 not based on any facts at all!
Originally posted by malcr
reply to post by TupacShakur
NIST is basically telling us that the building below it ceased to exist for the first few seconds of the collapse. But unfortunately for them, universal physics concepts don't cease to exist. Things don't just cease to resist the forces that are acting upon them. Otherwise it would be a blatant violation of the action/reaction law of physics. If floors fall down, they would be braced by the floor directly beneath it, and this would cause delay. To call NISTs refusal to acknowledge this and explain how it happened bad science would be a massive understatement.
If there was a controlled explosion to remove the floors to allow for free fall then all the floors have to have been removed at the moment the building collapses correct? If so how can a controlled explosion remove all the floors without showing any "blow out" through windows. Not one single window on any floor shows any sign of their being an explosion on that floor. Unless we are asked to believe that the explosives used were able to remove concrete and steel structures.....quietly
Originally posted by RSF77
I never could understand how a few terrorists hijacked a plane full of people, but that's just me. Seems like the dumbest plan anyone ever came up with, really who would've thought of this? That and if you watch the video of the tower coming down you can literally see some kind of explosives going off ahead of the falling structures, some of that "falling debris" looks rather suspiciously like a line of explosive charges as well.
I'm not an expert on this, but it smells fishy... it always has.
wow, 'proudbird' is trolling hard in this thread!
The controlled demolition of Landmark Tower in North Texas provided a stark reminder that WTC Building 7 and the twin towers could not have been brought down by any other means than planned implosion.
Originally posted by malcr
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And then there are the (3.) ejections of dust/debris:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fe5c6d1e9293.jpg[/atsimg]
The towers exhibited all four signs of controlled demolition as outlined above. But, I'm going to add a fifth sign: smoke coming off the ends of columns due to just being severed with explosives.
You are having a laugh! Come on. How come all the footage I look at on Youtube NOT ONE shows any debris being ejected as shown in the above still ? How come , on that right hand still, the debris just happens to be ejected at the most easily photoshopped CORNER against a plain background. How come the side of the building (with the windows and weakest area ie glass) shows NO sign of ejected debris? How come the corner facing us (far harder to photoshop) has no debris being ejected?
NB the lower the resolution the easier to edit hence why I have concentrated on the right hand still. Anyone with photoshop or gimp(me) can create the left hand effect!
Sorry but that is a doctored image (and no doubt the video). You have been conned.edit on 14/1/12 by malcr because: spelling
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by _BoneZ_
If a theory that the towers were explosively demoed is postulated, then the theory should contain possible ways it was done so as to test those possibilities.
I see you are still avoiding this and don't want to face up to the fact that no one in the truther movement is able to come up with even one possibility other than the usual hand waving and obfuscation, as you are doing. When pressed for details, it turns out that there aren't any. Apparently, either no one in the organizations promoting the idea of controlled demolition is competent enough to actually describe a possible method in detail or they realize that they really have no case. It appears as though there is no foundation for such a theory other than the beliefs of the deluded few.
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by 4hero
OK....here's some detail for you. It also directly points out the LIES from the so-called "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth".
Don't be fooled by the shenanigans of "AE for 9/11 Truth".
Originally posted by 4hero
Originally posted by Reheat
Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Reheat
You will never throw people off because the evidence speaks for itself!
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Reheat
Are we here to debate, or just appeal to authority?
You expect us to take the word of NIST?
Hello! Do have any idea why we're having this discussion?
I'm getting a feeling the 911 forum is just where the lazy incessant debunkers gravitate too, because they never really put much effort into it, and whenever they run out of ammo they just appeal to the same questionable authority that the debate is all about in the first place. Lazy or dense, I can't make up my mind?
Originally posted by 4hero
Dont use what is already known to you as your guide. This is the government we are talking about, they have secret technology that we dont know about. Conventional methods we know of were probably not used.
So what if someone got their 6's and 9's muddle up on one occasion!
Originally posted by R_Clark
reply to post by pteridine
Dr. Judy Wood has done the most comprehensive forensic analysis.