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: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

If you are so bothered about groundhog day why have you been debating 9/11 for all these years?

It's been the same questions asked, and the same topics investigated/researched for all this time, but that has not stopped you going over the same subject matter. If you're so bored of 9/11 then why are you still participating?


You should already know why- with every new generation of new recruits "discovering" the snake oil those damned fool conspiracy web sites are churning out, there comes the responsibility of the rest of us to explain all over again why it IS snake oil. The only real faux pas the newcomers have committed is that they are ten years late to the party.


Nothing has been 'debunked' as you say, an opinion by some like yourself doesn't mean something is officially debunked! It'd take a whole lot of independent unbiased experts to actually debunk something properly. NIST/FEMA etc have debunked nothing, their reports are biased, as are your views because you are not open minded to anything outside the 'official story'.


It has already been established by William Rodriquez' own testimony to NIST that fireballs from the initial impact travelled down the elevator shaft, pushed the elevator down into the basement where he was, and severely burned the occupant which he later rescued. It is likewise already established that Rodriquez NEVER SAID HE HEARD ACTUAL BOMBS GOING OFF. All he said was that he felt explosions below him. The part about their beign actual bombs has been falsely added to Rodriguez' testimony. That has been pointed out more times than I can count so if you are claiming anything to the contrary, you will be lying.

I post this again for the benefit of the new generations who are just discovering these internet myths now. There is no shame on their part for being suckered by the damned fool conspiracy web sites; they are merely the fresh victims in their con. It's the aiders and abetters who willfully repeat such propaganda despite the massive amount of information proving it to be false that I object to.




posted on May, 28 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by exponent
 

No offense friend, but Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are not interested in talking to you, whoever you are.



..but on the other hand, Pilots for 9/11 Truth ARE eager to talk to you, and they've proven at the cost of their own credibility not too long ago. Their antics here on ATS made them a sterling example of a "damned fool conspiracy web site", as the moderators will tell you.

That sock puppet poster claiming to be a 20 something year old brunette girl in a blue corset did seem to have an unnaturally extensive knowledge of aircraft engineering well beyond her years...it was the ATS version of Anakin Skywalker supposedly being able to build a professonal grade racing machine out of a pile of garbage when he was twelve years old. Right.
edit on 28-5-2013 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
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.


Well seeing as you have been unable to prove that, then I doubt you would be able to in a formal debate. But if you really want to be embarrassed, then go ahead and set it up mate.

Now remember though you have to prove that sagging trusses can pull in columns, and you have to explain why the connections didn't fail first. Proving trusses can sag is all you've done so far, and we already know that, you are making the massive uneducated leap of faith, and assuming they would put a pulling force on the columns. Then you have to explain why the connections were the weak point during the collapses, but not when they pulled in columns. Then you need to explain how the core failed, and I don't mean just words, I want to see evidence that the core could not stand without the floors.

I can easily explain, and show evidence, how that is not possible, and remember I don't care if you dismiss my evidence because it's not about you, it's about the readers of the thread.


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.


Hmm so all you can do is appeal to authority. How do you know what they are telling you is the truth? Because people in authority never lie?


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.


You have not shown how it works. No one can prove sagging trusses can put a pulling force on columns. You just make a complete leap of faith from sagging trusses to sagging trusses can pull in columns.

Something that is sagging can't put much of a force on anything, especially something designed to hold it's weight 4-6 times over.

Yet I can show you a PDF that shows what happens when beams and trusses sag, and it doesn't say they can pull in the columns.

Here is my reply to that PDF, that was supplied by PLB, who misunderstands what it means, just like you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You have not shown anything that contradicts my reply to you and PLB. Just lot's of "look at this paper", without any indication as to what I'm supposed to be looking at.

With your reply to this reply why don't you just lay out all your proof in one easy to read, and understand, reply that leaves no question as to your point? Because so far you have done nothing but offer lip service.

IF trusses or beams can pull in columns then there should be a precedence for this somewhere, where is it? You put up or shut up. 'Shut up' being what you want me to do, isn't it einstein?


edit on 5/28/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



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

Originally posted by ANOK
Well seeing as you have been unable to prove that, then I doubt you would be able to in a formal debate. But if you really want to be embarrassed, then go ahead and set it up mate.

Now remember though you have to prove that sagging trusses can pull in columns, and you have to explain why the connections didn't fail first.

Easy. I already have if you'd bothered to read.


Proving trusses can sag is all you've done so far, and we already know that, you are making the massive uneducated leap of faith, and assuming they would put a pulling force on the columns.

Well you see I understand how to read graphs so this won't be a problem.


Then you have to explain why the connections were the weak point during the collapses, but not when they pulled in columns. Then you need to explain how the core failed, and I don't mean just words, I want to see evidence that the core could not stand without the floors.

I can show it, but you won't be able to understand it or argue against it, so be it upon your own head.


I can easily explain, and show evidence, how that is not possible, and remember I don't care if you dismiss my evidence because it's not about you, it's about the readers of the thread.

Your 'evidence' seems to be a paper about beams that you don't understand.


Hmm so all you can do is appeal to authority. How do you know what they are telling you is the truth? Because people in authority never lie?

If you're about to suggest that worldwide engineering groups are somehow 'in on it' then I'm just going to laugh even harder.


You have not shown how it works. No one can prove sagging trusses can put a pulling force on columns. You just make a complete leap of faith from sagging trusses to sagging trusses can pull in columns.

Something that is sagging can't put much of a force on anything, especially something designed to hold it's weight 4-6 times over.

How much force can a chain put on something?


Yet I can show you a PDF that shows what happens when beams and trusses sag, and it doesn't say they can pull in the columns.

Yet I can show you a PDF by the same authors which states explicitly that they do. Why do you keep refusing to read it?


You have not shown anything that contradicts my reply to you and PLB. Just lot's of "look at this paper", without any indication as to what I'm supposed to be looking at.

With your reply to this reply why don't you just lay out all your proof in one easy to read, and understand, reply that leaves no question as to your point? Because so far you have done nothing but offer lip service.

Because now I have the honour of shaming you in a formal debate and that will be much preferable.


IF trusses or beams can pull in columns then there should be a precedence for this somewhere, where is it? You put up or shut up. 'Shut up' being what you want me to do, isn't it einstein?

Actually I'd like it more if you put up, but you don't understand what you're talking about so I guess there's no other choice. What sort of precedence are you expecting? Are you gonna pull a BoneZ and insist that I must show you a collapse like the WTCs despite that never occurring before in history?

I'll PM the moderators to set the debate up



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
The problem here is quite simple. You are debating with so little information that it does seem repetitive-the same 5% of the evidence is constantly rehashed-in meaningless videos and word play.

There are about 320,000 documents relating to 9/11 in the National Archives-less than 5% of those are publicly displayed on the internet. I know this is a huge shock too so many however the internet is not the base of information you think it is.

The digital capacity to alter documents, images and videos renders the displaying of archives a mute point in terms of research and it is universally accepted that if you really want to understand these events you will need to seek out the declassified information yourself.

If you want to amuse yourself by twisting and turning what little there is on the internet more power to you but understand that your audience is very small and always will be.

The hard files I have on 9/11-about 6000 pages in 9 folders-all surround the events in San Diego, along with the forensic reconstructions from the radar returns and flight data (visual witnesses testimony) about Hani Hanjour's high speed dive into the Pentagon.

There are problems with this data and how the eyewitnesses that saw the dive differ from the government supplied data. It's puzzling to say the least and I believe the redaction done to the data has to do with security concerns within the beltway-not some bizarre plot.

Of course none of this information, or my own interpretations of it, will ever be posted on the internet. Perhaps it may be cited in a book someday-in a form that can't be altered-but I would never expose myself to person who would alter the work for their own fantasist need for attention-as has been done to so many others. This histrionic need for attention, without ever even considering the professional careers that were destroyed, has drove not only the government, but persons who analyze data for them to close ranks and basically seal off information for so called 'truthers'

These tactics-by individuals wanting to capitalize on the moment and sell books-have basically left all avenues of information locked down. I know things about events at ground zero that would shock you in the extreme. The official soil and debris collections-there are 12 samples and the results are in the Archives-are very disconcerting and somewhat troublesome even for a such an event that was so catastrophic and as it's put-a new and unknown event produced results that are difficult to explain by even the most well respected scientist.

Be that as it may all truthers are stuck with there nanothermite dust taken off a railing of an apartment building two weeks after the event because no researcher is going to give them any real information-and the Government will never allow them into the Archive to even look for the results-because of how they have acted in the past-either to sell books or to satisfy their own social shortcoming by seeking attention-and not caring the least about who they destroy in the process.

So, post your videos, play with your engineering reports, your sound graphs, misquote and garble the words from first responders and any other pranks you think will get attention however the 'truther movement' imploded itself by cutting off all information it might have been able to use.

Got no one to blame but yourself



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
When an ex-CDI professional says WTC7 is a CD, I am inclined to pay attention.
In that video he made some compelling statements and clearly he knows exactly what he is talking about.
Curiously no debunker's ever takes him on.

See the proof is in WTC7, which leads us to the next two buildings......

edit on 29-5-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
When an ex-CDI professional says WTC7 is a CD, I am inclined to pay attention.
In that video he made some compelling statements and clearly he knows exactly what he is talking about.
Curiously no debunker's ever takes him on.

See the proof is in WTC7, which leads us to the next two buildings......


If you're referring to the CD professional I *think* you're referring to, it's ironic that you mention only his opinion of WTC 7. It's likewise his opinion that the towers DID fall from fire induced structural collapse. That's been pointed out more times than I can recall as well.

You do know this is the definition of "cherry picking", right?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
When an ex-CDI professional says WTC7 is a CD, I am inclined to pay attention.
In that video he made some compelling statements and clearly he knows exactly what he is talking about.
Curiously no debunker's ever takes him on.

See the proof is in WTC7, which leads us to the next two buildings......

edit on 29-5-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


The Head of Controlled Demolition Inc. is clearly not impressed with speculation that WTC 7 was a CD.

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Guys it not just the guy from CDI, Danny Jawenko said the same thing.

Now who is cherry picking ?

As for the President of CDI it's not in his best interest to be advocating 9/11 is an inside job, so it comes as no surprise that he would defend the OS on WTC7.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Guys it not just the guy from CDI, Danny Jawenko said the same thing.

Now who is cherry picking ?

As for the President of CDI it's not in his best interest to be advocating 9/11 is an inside job, so it comes as no surprise that he would defend the OS on WTC7.




So the President of Controlled Demolition Inc gives practical reasons, from his lifetimes experience, why WTC 7 was obviously not a CD and the only thing you can come up with is " he is in on it".

That excuse has been so over-used by truthers that it long ago lost any credibility. How big is this conspiracy that not a single soul has confessed to having any part of in nearly 12 years ?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Guys it not just the guy from CDI, Danny Jawenko said the same thing.

Now who is cherry picking ?

As for the President of CDI it's not in his best interest to be advocating 9/11 is an inside job, so it comes as no surprise that he would defend the OS on WTC7.


This isn't cherry picking. It's circular logic. You make up the accusation that WTC 7 was a secret controlled demolition. When shown that the president of CDI doesn't believe in these controlled demolition tales you turn round and make up the accusation he's in on it. If it could be irrefutably proven he was speaking the truth you'd just turn around and make up some other accusation about sinister secret agents infiltrating CDI who are feeding him false information. And so on and so forth. That isn't proof of anything. You're just continuously restating the original unsubstanciated accusation of coverups in different terms in order to prove itself, whch is a logical fallacy. Using circular logic you can argue forever that the towers were destroyed by anyone you want up to and including leprechauns.

Thus, the REAL reason why the 9/11 people haven't gotten anywhere with their claims- it's nothing but a gigantic collection of unsubstanciated accusations with "proof" that doesn't prove anything whatsoever. Yeah, it's great for rumor mongers like Rob Balsamo and his "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" groupies but it disintergrates as completely as Jake Lloyd's acting career did after playing that kid in "The Phantom Menace" when it gets even remotely close to a court of law.
edit on 30-5-2013 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


But Dave when what people claim doesn't fit the evidence then something has to be wrong, no?

It doesn't matter what they say, what matters is can they prove their claim.

No one has proven that WTC 7 collapsed from the fires and damage. The outcome of the collapse and physics says otherwise.

So am I supposed to believe known physics, or this guy from controlled demolition who could have been in on it.
You can't prove he wasn't, only be incredulous. Obviously someone had to be in on it, right? Controlled demolitions don't happen by themselves. I think physics trumps your dude.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Controlled demolitions don't happen by themselves.


And no controlled demolition happened on 9/11, as the facts show. The only "evidence" you have for controlled demolition is your need to believe the US government bought down the buildings. You have no evidence for your silly claim at all, just a lack of knowledge about physics and how things work and even less knowledge on what would be involved in wiring those buildings for demolition.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce
And no controlled demolition happened on 9/11, as the facts show.


You don't have any facts mate, we wouldn't still be discussing this if anyone did. How can you prove something wasn't a controlled demolition? Can you tell me that? If Humans put explosives to collapse a building it is a controlled demolition even if it blows it up all over Manhattan, so again how can you prove something wasn't a controlled demolition?

So where is this proof that sagging trusses can pull in columns?

Just keep saying there is proof, is not proof, it's just lip service and pointless.


The only "evidence" you have for controlled demolition is your need to believe the US government bought down the buildings. You have no evidence for your silly claim at all, just a lack of knowledge about physics and how things work and even less knowledge on what would be involved in wiring those buildings for demolition.


Nope not at all, you obviously have no idea what I say on this. I don't talk about who did it, I have no idea who did it, could have been santa claus for all I know.

The evidence we have is the whole damn event. The evidence we have is videos, and post collapse pics.

I don't need evidence to know that sagging trusses cannot pull in columns, that is a physics problem, and thus NIST's hypothesis is nonsense, cannot be proven. If it could then why is it still a hypothesis, why has it not been peer reviewed?

Even NISTs former chief of the fire department wants an investigation of NIST's investigation. Would you not consider this guy and expert?


“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,”


Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

You lot are just wasting your time if you think you can convince anyone of the validity of the NIST report. Your arguments don't help your side at all.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Can I just add a few observations?
1) to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, you have to believe the george w bush is a criminal mastermind!
2) Sure, it looks like demolitions to me, but proof I have yet to find, just an "observation".
3) if someone is really capable of pulling of 9/11 do you really think it would be smart to "out" them with definitive proof?



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vaedur
Can I just add a few observations?
1) to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, you have to believe the george w bush is a criminal mastermind!


No you don't.

But as a capitalist from a capitalist family then he would fit that title quiet well imo. Capitalists have been steeling from, and killing, the working class since the 1750's. Capitalism is a worse criminal system than the Mafia.


2) Sure, it looks like demolitions to me, but proof I have yet to find, just an "observation".


Unless you can prove sagging trusses can pull in columns there is no evidence that trusses sagged and pulled in columns. Something I know can't happen. So what are we left with?

See you don't need evidence, just common sense.


3) if someone is really capable of pulling of 9/11 do you really think it would be smart to "out" them with definitive proof?


Maybe that's not the motivation here? For me it's a physics problem, and one of people blindly supporting your masters.


edit on 5/31/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Even NISTs former chief of the fire department wants an investigation of NIST's investigation. Would you not consider this guy and expert?


“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,”


Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation





Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by cornucopia
 


I enjoyed watching this, thanx for the share.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join