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.

 

PROOF 9/11/01 was an inside job

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Not only was there a fire, there was a bombing in 1993.




Twelve minutes later, at 12:17:37 pm, the bomb exploded in the underground garage, generating an estimated pressure of 150,000 psi.[9] The bomb opened a 30-m (98 ft) wide hole through four sublevels of concrete. The detonation velocity of this bomb was about 15,000 ft/s (4.5 km/s). Initial news reports indicated a main transformer may have blown, not realizing a bomb had exploded in the basement.


en.wikipedia.org...




posted on May, 27 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
nvm
edit on 5/27/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
With all the proof in the world (let's assume we have it) that this was an inside job, and a very special infrastructure was in place to cause/allow it to happen; the real issue at hand is to prosecute those who caused this. That's where the real infrastructure will be. Nobody has been formally arrested, and nobody ever will.

There is a very carefully planned structure of non-accountability. That is where this battle will eventually be won and lost.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by spooky24
Same old thing over and over.

CARL SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTION KIT

You can't start at point A walk on water to point B then with dry feet try to have a scientific discussion.

How were Bush and Chaney able too?

Get 64,000 Kg's of explosives into each building. Requiring 8 charge relays per floor, over 150 miles of wire with a team of 18 experts 3 weeks to do the job consisting of over 600 cuts to the sub and super structure for placement of charges in a building that is never empty. Maintenance, security and cleaning staffs of 600 or more employees occupied both towers during non business hours. Complete radio silence for last 8 days of preparations. Forgetting, of course, that the micro-manager from hell John O'Neill was in charge of security.

Until any kind of plausible explanation of how this was done is offered, engineering reports, YouTube videos, wordplay from witnesses and any other hologram theories are just self disillusion fodder.

At one time it was thought that a House or Senate panel might take up the issue of the Bangkok-Kuala Lumpur- Los Angeles-San Deigo travels of wanted terrorist before the attack during President Obama's lame duck year before the election cycle began.

With the way things are now that will never happen. It's over and there will be no other investigations by the Government or anyone else.

Tell the world how they did it.

OR

Find something else to fantasize about.
edit on 25-5-2013 by spooky24 because: (no reason given)


Where did you get those crazy figures from? Please do provide a source...

Watch this video to see that it does not take all those resources to bring down a building.

There was an unprecedented power-down, just before 9/11, and a team could have rigged the crucial areas of the building during this period. It may have been done over a longer period, and the power-down was a key period in the placing of explosives.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 


Hmm seeing as you think it took no explosives for the towers to collapse, why do you insist if it was a controlled demolition it would take any explosives at all?

Don't you see the contradiction in that claim? It had to be a natural collapse, because controlled collapse would take too much explosives?




posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

There was an unprecedented power-down, just before 9/11, and a team could have rigged the crucial areas of the building during this period


No there was not actually, that is just a silly truther claim not based on any fact.

You ignore the fact that no one noticed the tonnes of explosives being carried into the building, holes bashed in the walls and km of wiring needed all went unnoticed....



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce
You ignore the fact that no one noticed the tonnes of explosives being carried into the building, holes bashed in the walls and km of wiring needed all went unnoticed....


Yeah, like they were walking around with sticks of dynamite in their hands.


This has to be the most lame 911 excuse there is.

So you can explain how sagging trusses can pull in columns, and IF they could do that why the connections didn't fail first?

Because if you can't then what alternative is there than some kind of "explosive" being used?

Your incredulity doesn't change physics, and the real evidence for explosives is in the physics of the collapses, not in any explosive sounds, or ejections, or evidence of explosives at all.

If a man dies from a bullet wound you don't need to see or hear the gun to know what killed him. In fact a well trained pathologist doesn't even need to see the bullet.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Your incredulity doesn't change physics


True, and your lack of knowledge of physics shows in your claims about 9/11

There is no evidence whatsoever for any explosives being used 9/11, if explosives were used why did no one notice them being laid or notice them when they went off....



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
This is all the proof I ever needed -



One day before 9/11/01.....On 9/10/01....Rumsfeld admits 2.3 TRILLION MISSING FROM MILITARY BUDGET!



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce
No there was not actually, that is just a silly truther claim not based on any fact.

A previous poster did the same thing and said "no there's not". I provided a witness name and proved them wrong. Now, here you are saying "no there's not" and calling it a "silly truther claim".

Scott Forbes discusses the power-down.
www.youtube.com...

Gary Corbett discusses the power-down.
www.youtube.com...


There, you have two individuals' testimony discussing the power-down on the weekend before 9/11.

What we need to do at this point is find out why someone would falsely claim there is no evidence when two witnesses say otherwise. And why it's a "silly truther claim" when there are actual witnesses to the contrary.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
On 9/10/01....Rumsfeld admits 2.3 TRILLION MISSING FROM MILITARY BUDGET!


Except it was announced well before 9/11, and he never said it was missing....



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There, you have two individuals' testimony discussing the power-down on the weekend before 9/11.


So only 2 people had some small power outage to their floor, which happens all the time in high rise buildings - the lifts were still working, the Top of the World Trade Center Observatories on its 107th and 110th floors was still open to the public.... the bomb sniffing dogs were working....
edit on 27-5-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Ok, well "yes" implies actually providing something then.

You really need a link to tell you that fires can cause flashes and explosions? Really? Is this the level that we've sunk to?

I would feel less aggravated if you didn't immediately shift the goalposts:

All fire-induced collapses exhibit flashing going up, down and around the building like would be seen in a controlled demolition? All fire-induced collapses exhibit explosions or timed "booms" as they're collapsing like would be seen in controlled demolitions? Really?

Only one person reported 'flashes going around the building' and you might notice we have video footage of this not happening. They most likely saw breaking glass as the building began to collapse. This has confused other truthers too who believed explosions were going on outside the building.

To give you an example of a mechanism to make flashes and explosion sounds on a ridiculously small scale you can look here:

This is a single pole and small electricity supply, and yet it exhibits flashes and 'timed' explosions (they're not timed but cherry picking is easy, the explosions you're claiming don't appear to be timed either)


Can you provide all of these fire-induced collapses that exhibit these characteristics please? While you're at it, please provide a fire-induced steel-structured highrise that has completely collapsed to the ground as well. Oh, and 9/11 doesn't count.

What's this BoneZ? Asking for evidence you know doesn't exist? How do you justify this sort of dishonesty?

No building the size of the WTCs has ever collapsed. Few buildings are collapsed with glass (and therefore some ability to pressurise air significantly) intact. However, in verinage demolitions you can indeed see a large lateral ejection as the two floors compress:


There are no explosives used here, just a collapse, but the fact you see dust shooting out the side in jets should be undeniable.


He says "about" ten. It was nine according to "9/11 Eyewitness". Close enough:

How is this 'close enough' when the actual number in 911 Eyewitness appears to be seven. Furthermore there are a lot of witnesses to this event (The collapse of WTC2) that state different numbers.

like it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came


I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions.… At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out.… I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar


I heard ‘boom,’ an exploding sound, a real loud bang. I looked up, and I could see the Trade Center starting to come down


So what is it? 9? 7? 3? 1?

Lets also quote the part you intentionally left out from your quote:

At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

What's that? Your own witness disagrees with you but you cut out the part of his statement that does? Once again this is very dishonest debate. You don't even mention that your witness who apparently saw flashes going up/down/around the building was nowhere near it.


Nobody is denying the sloppy production of the video, but you haven't proven the noises are wind. I've done enough video editing, and am experienced enough of a human being to know what wind noise sounds like on a microphone.

What possible reason can you think of to apply a high pass filter at under 150hz? Are you telling me it's just a coincidence that the two tracks of apparently the same event are so different? Are you telling me that Rick sold a 'raw' video with 'no editing' for no reason at all?

Come on BoneZ, this is ridiculous. You admit yourself it's been badly edited, but somehow still trust it over videos a hundred metres from the base of the towers.


This sounds nothing like wind noise. Not even remotely. I have two different high-end sound systems, both with subwoofers. Those explosions are noticeably far away, echoing across the Hudson river

There are no echos and 'this sounds like explosions' after the audio has been edited? Yeah I don't find that particularly convincing.


I guess that will be your opinion then. When listening on two different sound systems, there's no wind audible anywhere in the entire movie. It's not surprising since there were light winds forecasted for that day anyway.

That's why I produced a spectrograph of the low frequencies. It's clear there is a continuous noise with a very similar waveform going on throughout the entire first clip. This noise has been suspiciously cut out of the later clips. Why don't you care about this?



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce
True, and your lack of knowledge of physics shows in your claims about 9/11


And yet you cannot point out my "ignorance", just like you can't explain how sagging trusses can pull in columns.


There is no evidence whatsoever for any explosives being used 9/11, if explosives were used why did no one notice them being laid or notice them when they went off....


The fact that all three buildings collapsed to their foundations is proof explosives were used. I don't need anything else.

Unless you can show trusses can pull in columns? Why can't you do that? Why are you wasting time trying to discredit me when you could be proving your claims, and me wrong? What is the point of you replying at all if you have nothing to offer to the discussion?



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Not to mention, Rick says the wind was at his back. If he was behind his camera, his body would be blocking those light winds from hitting the microphone anyway. Every single thing is stacked against your magical wind "theory". It's not happening.

Oh the guy selling you the DVD that contains special evidence that nobody else managed to capture is telling you that it's definitely real evidence? Well that convinced me.

No, no it didn't.


What you haven't done, and what I and others have repeatedly asked you for, is to:
  • Explain how your magical wind knows to start blowing during the entire length of all three collapses, and then stops.

  • Provide some evidence of a fire-induced collapse (not 9/11) that exhibits all the signs and characteristics of controlled demolitions (flashes, booms, ejections), but that aren't controlled demolitions.

  • It doesn't, it blows constantly as I have told you multiple times. It is completely edited out of later clips and simply amplified in the earlier clips. That's what that constant low frequency sound is.
  • You know and I know that no building of that size has ever collapsed before, so it's like asking me to prove the Hiroshima nuke by showing you a HD video of a nuke before it



Until you provide the requested information or evidence, anything else you say is moot. Pointless. The pre-collapse explosions in the south tower are corroborated by at least one witness

And contradicted by more than one. You can ignore everything I say BoneZ but one of these days you're going to have to figure out why it is that there's no public uproar, that 911 conspiracies are confined to dying forums and one or two charlatans.


and the pre-collapse explosions just before the north tower collapsed are corroborated by the disturbance in the smoke coming from the building.

Wow the straws just get smaller and smaller.


Unless you have anything new to add to this discussion that resembles a broken record, then this conversation ends here.

Fine with me. You've moved goalposts, asked for evidence you know doesn't exist and quoted your own witnesses out of context. If you think that this is how reasonable debate occurs then you've got a lot to learn.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
And yet you cannot point out my "ignorance", just like you can't explain how sagging trusses can pull in columns.

ANOK I have shown you this now more than 10 times. You keep pretending the posts don't exist. Stop embarrassing yourself. If you feel so confident in this position then here:

I challenge ANOK to a formal debate. I will advocate the position that fire can damage trusses in the WTC, cause them to sag and put an inward force on columns. This force is sufficient to deform the wall inwards until it collapses

Put up or shut up ANOK.


The fact that all three buildings collapsed to their foundations is proof explosives were used. I don't need anything else.

Well CTBUH, Arup, NIST, istructe etc etc all disagree with you. So yeah you can believe it on your own if you like, just like the UFO believers do. Nobody cares.


What is the point of you replying at all if you have nothing to offer to the discussion?

ANOK you've repeated the same point in 20+ posts despite being shown how it works by me endlessly. Stop being hypocritical and face the facts.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   


There was an unprecedented power-down, just before 9/11


Dates, times and floors that sections of either building were in 'power down' mode. I'm not going to be insulting however this is about as silly as an explanation that anyone can put fourth.

I did provide a source of the demolition figures.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   
That is ridiculous. Everyone knows that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Besides, who would have the manpower or resources to attempt such a thing?



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Although I agree there was a legitimate motive to the 911 incident, I am not sure that it was set up. I am certain that someone knew there was a possibility of something major happening to the trade center though. I think our government agencies could have stopped this event. It was if they wanted to let it happen so the agencies would be deemed more necessary and get more future funding. This is just an opinion and it has possibilities and I feel probabilities of being real.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Even John McClain used a truck to destroy a helicopter.

Even though it's a movie, the script is hardly as ridiculous as the official story.

Trained assasins would barely be able to pull it off... With boxcutters nonetheless. They think you're an idiot for wanting to believe this.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join