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.

 

Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

page: 28
24
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) (Edit by NAM: who was fired for asking questions about the steel he was involved in testing and certifying as it related to the twin towers), made a post back in January of 2008 at 9/11 Blogger showing that the floors of the WTC that had the fire-proofing upgraded, matched almost exactly to the floors that were impacted and failed in both towers:


I have done no research on this but here is what comes to mind.

If he was fired he may have been on the right track.

Maybe the "fireproofing" was thermite.

Maybe the "fireproofing" was a honing device.

If the planes did in fact target the fireproofing floors then it was an extraordinary feat of navigation. Quite beyond the capability of passenger jets. It would be a job for a guided missile. Not a piloted craft. The plotters would not have relied on hijacked passenger jets because they might miss.

Maybe the 4th "hijacked" plane was suppose to hit WTC building 7.

I know of evidence that a credible witness at the flight 93 crash site (PA) reported seeing what she described as an object that to me must have been a guided missile. It was so low I think she ducked. She then watched it rise and go over a hill out of site. Then came evidence of an explosion including smoke.

The air traffic controllers who saw the pentagon "plane" on their radar assumed it was a military craft because of its extraordinary speed and maneuvering.


edit on 13-12-2013 by leostokes because: add ATC info


If indeed passenger planes hit the targets, they must have been remotely controlled. There is evidence that the technology exists for a remote control person (on the ground? in the air?) to take over control and fly a passenger jet neutralizing the cabin crew.
edit on 13-12-2013 by leostokes because: add remote control planes




posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

leostokes
The air traffic controllers who saw the pentagon "plane" on their radar assumed it was a military craft because of its extraordinary speed and maneuvering.


edit on 13-12-2013 by leostokes because: add ATC info


And did you bother to read their entire quote? They thought it was a military plane because you don't fly a commercial plane like that because it would make the passengers uncomfortable.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Zaphod58

leostokes
The air traffic controllers who saw the pentagon "plane" on their radar assumed it was a military craft because of its extraordinary speed and maneuvering.


edit on 13-12-2013 by leostokes because: add ATC info


And did you bother to read their entire quote? They thought it was a military plane because you don't fly a commercial plane like that because it would make the passengers uncomfortable.


Ok. I do think that was part of their assumption.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


Remotely piloted by a fighter pilot, nothing else explains it, what was and what can still be observed, leo. A type of robot plane with hardened structures, better engines, not filled with people but fuel and incendiary, piloted by some satanic asshole from the "shadow government". No other conclusion may be drawn. It was therefore remotely piloted, and no one was on board that aircraft, if we are to presume that said satanic asshole from the MIC and Intelligence network didn't himself perform a kamikaze suicide, whoever was flying that plane was nothing less than a fighter pilot, from a distance and wherefrom makes no difference when from a land based or air based platform or both, the intricate complexities are irrelevant, merely proving that it was not and could not have been old flight 175, N612UA - to sell as part of the overall psyop, the causal mechanism of the total destruction of the buildings, first, the building hit lower.., an hour later, (with firemen putting out the fires or just about to start) and then the other building, hit much higher, in the exact same manner a half hour or so after the first one - "we were attacked!" (first tower, could be an accident, but both, that's an attack), planes hit, the buildings collapsed.
Evil genius of sorts, but once recognized rendered absurd, ridiculous, brutal and insane as the absolutely self evident truth of the matter, in hindsight, looking back in the rear view mirror, including the entire historical context we now inhabit as a result "post 9/11" or better yet as they like to call it the "post 9/11 world" and what we have left, when the Big Lie falls apart, is a REAL HISTORY and the whole context of it moves through the history of the beginning of the 21st century, where the data is also in, and the model holds up right to the 9/11 war games operations, and this wicked "slight of hand" before the watching world.

Proof of CD is therefore the basis of this argument and thesis, beginning with that and then working backwards through the REAL causation in terms of the physical realities of the event itself (like the buildings exploding from the top down to within 4-6 seconds of absolute freefall in nothing but air, again, self evident).

Their story, the official version, cannot be believed in the light of the physical reality itself, neither as it relates to the destruction of the twin towers (and building 7), and, as it also so happens to turn out, not in relation to this plane, which clearly demonstrates to have been, and must have been, a remotely piloted Boeing 767 SUPED-UP or simply put, modified, military variant/retrofit of the Boeing 767 with hardened structures and advanced avionics including the remote piloting hardware and interface, a technology that we know was in place at that time. Does this implicate Boeing? not necessarily (but it probably does somewhere down the line). As we know now in hindsight, elements of the military industrial establishment and intelligence apparatus, all the way to the oval office as "bad fortune" would have it, were complicit, as we've seen from the resulting resistance to inquiry and (Zelikow led) cover up, and the creation of the public myth in regards to what the public "and the shared relevant political community" "think" of "believe to have happened, even if not necessarily true" (Zelikow, pre-9/11). "Like a myth but without the negative connotation that the word myth, might evoke".

A big lie in other words, nothing more. A tool of propaganda and an agenda to "take over the world".

And it didn't really work, either, we must keep that in mind very clearly.

And it almost brought the US to it's knees, while the pigs went to the trough financially, and contrived to bring about the greatest bank heist in the history of the world.

The whole thing through and through nothing but an absurd abuse of power, caught red handed by history, even in orchestrating the dastardly deed to "change the world", it's sick and twisted and most everyone is aware of it already, so all we're waiting for is for the truth and history, as reality itself, to become it's own tipping point, even only because it's what's true and real and the only possible conclusion that may be drawn.

To be LIE TO, at this level, once realized and recognized by increasing numbers of people, is extremely empowering, because you also like to imagine who might be paying attention to the information that's being presented, it's not for the "debunkers".. it's for every man, so it doesn't matter what nonsense they try to throw up like gorilla dust to distract, once you've seen it clearly, for what it really is or "was", to nail it down physically beyond a reasonable doubt, that cuts through the fog, right down to the ground, and brings us back to a bright and hopeful September morning.. before any of this happened while never forgetting in memory of those who lost their very lives, what happened there. To have the courage to face it and to never make such crazy power grabs ever again (you know who you are).

The price to our very existence which must be based in truth and fact and reality if we are to be free of the LIE, is by far much too great if we turn our heads away for psychological or purely biased reasons, even those filled with an immense immediate and "already-always" contempt, prior to investigation.




"There is a principal which serves as a bar against all information and proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance.

That principal is called, "contempt, prior to investigation"

~Herbert Spencer, Scientist.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
And here's the other part of this upon examination of which the first one (plane) became suspect or demanded closer scrutiny and analysis.


NewAgeMan

Just LOOK!

The buildings, the STEEL buildings..



Went down, from top to bottom, to within maybe three seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air, alone..




posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
And here in summary is why it cannot have been "flight 175", N612UA.



Vd Limit



Vd is 420 knots for the 767 as set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing.

Here are those limitations, from Boeing...

(pfd) rgl.faa.gov...$FILE/A1NM%20Rev%2026.pdf



Vd explained (including Airbus A380 Flutter Test video)

theflyingengineer.com...



Ok, and here's the part where it gets interesting..

At EAS (Sea Level), over test Vd - let's take a look at the range, beyond Vd, for the Boeing 767, and we'll do it in full 5 knot increments, which is fair, since we're already at and beginning to exceed the threshold limit for fail, and small increments at that point can have grave effects, as the flight testers experienced with the Airbus A320 in the video contained in that link above.

South tower plane
Vd (limit) = 420 (in knots) as EAS (Equivalent Airspeed) = .99 Mach at 22,000 feet

420

425

430

435

440

445

450

455

460

465

470

475

480

485

490

495

500

505

510 knots.



edit on 13-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
And that's not the "hoax", folks, and you know it.

We're in the hoax bin here only because, in post two, in examining the plane, I used and started out with a blurry image to draw an inference or supposition as to the identity of the aircraft in question, which could be misleading if untrue.


Best regards, and Merry Christmas to all,

NAM



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Sorry, NAM, I thought we were on the same side here since I do believe it was CD involved. I just spent a lot of time watching the 3 1.5hr-each videos that cover almost every issue being debated. It was mostly just a review for me, not anything new, since I've been following this for years. I knew as it was happening that it was suspicious. But those long videos would be great if people not so familiar with the issues would spend that much time to get informed (of course they won't). I support (in spirit) the Pilots and Architects/Engineers groups for trying to get the true story.

But these airspeed argument seem goofed up. I understand the basic point you're trying to make (planes can fly faster at altitude due to thinner air; no disagreement there). But ... 510 knots is not the EAS, it is the actual speed (of course, you could argue with that source, but I see questioning that as a separate argument and just stipulate both planes were going fast) and it is subsonic. If your numbers are correct and that equals an EAS of 722 knots at 22,000 ft, then yes if the plane had been going at 722 knots at that altitude, that would be supersonic. But the actual speed of 510 knots at sea level is not even close to supersonic. Do you not see that? Maybe we are just looking at it differently, but IMO you can't claim the plane was traveling at Mach 1.anything so why bring that up? If you try to claim that speeds in the 420-510 knots range are supersonic/mach 1.something then I'd have to agree with the debunkers on this one issue. If you are just trying to show (a) a 767 commercial jet could not really have been going that fast or (b) that it had to have been a modified look alike to go that fast, then leave out all the mach/supersonic calculations since the 420 and 510 numbers are all subsonic. That's the best I can make my point, and it's way more than I usually say/write.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by toidiem
 


It was just a bit of a misunderstanding.

I presented the argument very clearly in my reply with regards to EAS and Vd (dive speed limit). It's about airspeed. No one was suggesting that the plane was travelling at supersonic speed, at Sea Level, it's an equivalent airspeed, which at higher altitude, like the two indicated examples of 22,000 feet and 35,000 feet IS or would be, supersonic +. This only hammers home the point of the equivalent airspeed at Sea Level whereby, an EAS of 510 knots = 722 knots or Mach 1.19, at 22,000 feet, and at still higher altitude of 35,000 feet, 915 knots or 1.38 Mach. Same relative airspeed, same forces, same pressures, same aerodynamics factored.

It (510 knots equivalent airspeed (KEAS) at Sea Level) is an absurd and ridiculous airspeed when one considers that the Vd limit on the Boeing 767 is 420 knots (EAS), as per the graphs above from Boeing's stress testing aka "flutter testing" of that aircraft, which involves first wind tunnel then flight testing for certification. This is not the operational speed limit, but the outer limit beyond which there is a high probability of structural failure.

What Zaphod58 showed with his examples is that, at higher altitudes, the very farthest reaches of what's possible, for an unmodified commercial aircraft to fly (and survive without experiencing flutter and breaking apart) is something nearly approaching, or just barely reaching Mach 1 (at high altitude) ie: .99 Mach at 22,000 feet, which is the same airframe dyamic pressure as about 425 KEAS, with the fastest dive speeds being, for Egypt Air 990, in an uncontrolled dive, .99 Mach at 22,000 feet and another example cited by Zaphod involving a steady dive from 45,000 to 30,000 feet for a similar type aircraft which reached a peak spead of 1.01 Mach before shutting down at risk of experiencing flutter (and breakup), and that was at a very high altitude. At 35,000 feet the EAS, at 510 knots (at Sea Level), again, IS 915 knots or 1.38 Mach. (which is absurd, but true)

To "get this" you have to understand the meaning of EAS for Sea Level and what that means in terms of an equivalent airspeed at higher altitude, combined with the Vd dive speed limit, which is 420 knots (EAS) for the Boeing 767, which is why I ran the count at 5 knot increments, up to the EAS speed (which is the same as actual speed or TAS at Sea Level, and groundspeed) of 510 knots, which really is the equivalent airspeed of high altitude over-Mach, not just by .01, but .19 at 22,000 feet, and .38 at 35,000 feet.

Airspeed, equivalent airspeed, because planes fly though air and air is very different at low vs. high altitude, thus the EAS as a calibration yardstick to get an idea of the aerodynamic pressures involved at low vs. high altitude.

Let me put it this way..
510 knots is the airspeed claimed for "UA175". So, those who believe a standard, unmodified 767 can fly at 510 knots near sea level (and remain stable/controllable), MUST also accept that the same unmodified airplane can fly, (even in an uncontrolled dive?), at 722 knots at 22,000 feet.... or Mach 1.19. (almost Mach 1.2), which is a Mach .2 faster relative airspeed than Egypt air flew at it's fastest in an uncontrolled dive @ .99 Mach (at 22,000ft), which again corresponds to an EAS (at Sea Level) of about 425 (I might have said 420 before). It is also the speed at which that aircraft experienced structural failure (engine flew off) at lower altitude, which as Zaphod58 pointed out occurred during an attempted pull up, and thus, to demonstrate the point here about what may be possible, and what cannot be possible..

- the GIANT margin in the count up, from the Vd (dive speed limit set by wind and flight testing) of 420 knots EAS, for the Boeing 767, all the way, in 5 knot increments, to 510 knots (at Sea Level = EAS +/- negligible difference from groundspeed) - the recorded level flight speed of the south tower plane.

420 (Vd limit, by stress/flutter testing), 425 (which is .99 - Mach 1.0 equivalent airspeed and pressure at higher altitude of 22,000 feet),
430, 435, 440, 445, 450, 455, 460, 465, 470, 475, 480, 485, 490, 495, 500, 505, 510 (= 722 knots at 22,000 ft or Mach 1.19, or 915 knots and Mach 1.38 at 35,000 feet).

I hope that helps, even though I thought I explained it pretty well in my reply, and I do know what you're saying, but it was a misconception, because the EAS is only supersonic, at higher altitude where the air is thinner - and of course we all know, and have seen by the examples, that (unmodified) commercial aircraft were never built for supersonic speed, at any altitude, and that at best, in dives from high altitude, whether controlled or uncontrolled, they can barely touch Mach 1, or an equivalent of something around an EAS (at Sea Level) of 425 knots.

This doesn't even address the notion of controlled level flight at such a speed and altitude.

No need to reply we don't need to keep going around and around, but it's helpful I think because everyone needs to understand and come to grips with the implication of this both as a historical fact, supported by radar as reported by the NTSB and with independent groundspeed verification by observation, at 586mph, which is almost exactly the same, at 509.22 knots.

It really was going that speed in other words, while maintaining controlled flight. It was, therefore, a modified Boeing 767 and not "flight 175". No other conclusion is possible.

Even "truthers" have a hard time with the truth sometimes and are inadvertently drawn into being a debunker, because there's something about this where it never occurred to anyone, that it could be so simple, and straightforward.

This is no longer really a "theory" but a fact.

It's not a hoax (this thread). What they tried to sell everyone and support in the official story cover-up is the hoax and most everyone knows that, but we have a hard time agreeing on the nature of the conspiracy, which contains unknown variables, something the evil genius bastards were obviously counting on to uphold their lies.
It goes against our programming, so it takes a strong mind and will to, having researched it, to really get it, and share it in a way and a manner that's comprehensible and founded in physical reality and scientific understanding.

I've seen it (this investigative inquiry) drive other people stark raving mad, just look at the "no planers" for example. They've intuitively understood that a hoax was perpetrated, but somehow their mind is drawn away from the truth and into poisoning the 9/11 well of truth, for others it's an insistence that we must venture in the land of speculation and conjecture and theorizing, which is distracting, when what we're really looking at here is cold hard reality, nothing more.

History will grab hold of these issues some day, and people will take another look, by examining the same information we've been examining, and digging into the historical record at places like the History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline.

Not trying to be snarky at all, just very clear, and disciplined, given what's at stake here and what we're really looking at, so please don't take my long meticulous replies the wrong way, thanks.

Best Regards,

NAM


edit on 14-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



Does this implicate Boeing? not necessarily (but it probably does somewhere down the line).


People at Boeing either did the modifications for the military (CIA?) or at the very least figured out on their own that the planes were modified. They have elected to remain silent. Their loyalty is to the federal reserve.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by toidiem
 



But the actual speed of 510 knots at sea level is not even close to supersonic.


If I am speaking out of turn, just ignore my post. Is not the stress on the airframe at the lower altitude (and hence denser air) the same as if it were going supersonic?

Regards,


edit on 14-12-2013 by leostokes because: add denser



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


Sure, it may be, but then I wasn't arguing that. It would be more direct to show test results that the plane would break apart at or below the reported speed at sea level; that would make the argument clearer. Anyway, I've said enough on that.

Another issue is that proving this plane couldn't have been Flight 175 in an ordinary 767 doesn't equate to proving controlled demolition of the towers, as the thread title says. It only invalidates one aspect of the official story. There are dozens of details that are fudged or concocted in their official version. And proving one point wrong won't convince official story supporters or so-called debunkers that the whole thing was setup. For these type arguments to ever get traction, we have to present them well, preferably in a way that each point stands on its own merit. Hopefully, that would keep future threads out of the Hoax bin, although lately I've begun to suspect ATS is not interested in the truth, so maybe not. Maybe it's like Jack said, they can't handle the truth.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

toidiem
reply to post by leostokes
 


Sure, it may be, but then I wasn't arguing that. It would be more direct to show test results that the plane would break apart at or below the reported speed at sea level; that would make the argument clearer.

Already did - see Vd Limit


Another issue is that proving this plane couldn't have been Flight 175 in an ordinary 767 doesn't equate to proving controlled demolition of the towers, as the thread title says. It only invalidates one aspect of the official story. There are dozens of details that are fudged or concocted in their official version. And proving one point wrong won't convince official story supporters or so-called debunkers that the whole thing was setup. For these type arguments to ever get traction, we have to present them well, preferably in a way that each point stands on its own merit. Hopefully, that would keep future threads out of the Hoax bin, although lately I've begun to suspect ATS is not interested in the truth, so maybe not. Maybe it's like Jack said, they can't handle the truth.

I don't think that the debunkers and staunch O.S. supporters/believers, are the people we're trying to or need to convince of anything, that would be a fool's errand.

As to the evidence, the two things, the plane strikes, and the subsequent CD of the buildings, go hand in hand, because the former was presented as the sole and direct cause of the latter (what I call the apparent causal mechanism). Also, CD proof which relies on the idea that the planes were the originating hijacked aircraft, has a flaw in it in so far as it (CD) required, by necessity, absolute assurance that the piloting to targets would be successful in every case, even where one building was to be hit lower than the other, to help sell the story that the buildings "collapsed" from excessive weight loading above the impact areas, as a collapse initiation hypothesis. Relying on successful hijacking and piloting to target by pilots the likes of Hani Hanjour (no better) hardly lends credence to the notion that the buildings were demolished by CD, which must have anticipated such unknown variables.

For example, let's say you want to educate a typical O.S. believer, that the buildings were destroyed, not by the plane impacts, but with the use of explosives, they will say something like, "but what about the planes and the damage they caused and the fire that resulted - we all SAW them hit the building(s), what are you saying?!". Which is why I supposed that Bush Jr. stood up at the United Nations and exclaimed "We must speak the truth about terror," Bush said. "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th - malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty." (that could equally apply, and perhaps even moreso, in light of this evidence, to the Philip Zelikow authored official story (O.S.) "conspiracy theory" and "public myth" about 9/11, which in effect boils down to - "planes hit, the buildings collapsed, we were attacked!")

You'll note in examining the NTSB Radar Data Report posted earlier, that they were true and honest as to the facts of the airplane's speed, even pointing out that on leveling the plane then accelerated, to achieve essentially the same speed accrued during the dive (510 knots).


"During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6,000 feet, the aircraft groundspeed remained between 500 - 520 knots. As the aircraft made it's descent to 1000 feet, it accelerated (there goes Zaphod58's hypothesis about the speed at level flight on final approach) and impacted World Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed.

Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175 (pdf)

They just never relayed the truth about what the observation means and implies as far as things like EAS and Vd Limit goes, which is a type of cover-up by omission, without blatantly lying.


Also, this thread ended up in the hoax bin only because of the way I presented the second post in taking a look at the plane, by my use of a blurry photo.

In theory, and hopefully, in practice, I can go ahead and present the new evidence we've uncovered here in a new thread, which by all rights would not be relegated to the hoax bin, unless ATS is as you state, but I think it's just a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and proof" where a single blurry photo just doesn't cut it.

Best Regards,

NAM


edit on 14-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by toidiem
 



Sure, it may be, but then I wasn't arguing that. It would be more direct to show test results that the plane would break apart at or below the reported speed at sea level; that would make the argument clearer. Anyway, I've said enough on that.


Yes I see what you mean. Keep it simple.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by toidiem
 



Another issue is that proving this plane couldn't have been Flight 175 in an ordinary 767 doesn't equate to proving controlled demolition of the towers, as the thread title says.


The 9/11 conspirators plan must have included destruction of the towers and building 7 and the pentagon "budget office" (or whatever it is called). Because of the smallness of the targets and surgical strikes needed to hit the small targets. It seems the targets were carefully selected.

The terrorist creates atrocities to induce panic and get attention for his cause. Keep it simple. Just crash planes into buildings that especially symbolize capitalism like the WTC.

Why go to the extreme of also destroying the buildings? The project needed to insure complete destruction is much greater technically than (the project of) hijack and crash. It seems that the destruction of the buildings could have been their primary goal.

If this was their goal then there is a strong link between fake 767s and the towers destruction.

As you say, fake 767s does not imply destruction by the method of controlled demolition.


edit on 14-12-2013 by leostokes because: grammar



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 






TextNot trying to be snarky at all, just very clear, and disciplined, given what's at stake here and what we're really looking at, so please don't take my long meticulous replies the wrong way, thanks.


Well NAM.....
I think you've made it very clear.
This is one of the best 9/11 threads on ATS and they decide to put it in HOAX.....

I have always believed the planes were souped up remotely controlled and you make a clear case.
You have answered everything thrown at you in a clear and exact manner and I applaud you. For that and all the research you have put into this thread.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 


Thanks leo. In the early years of this research, sometimes a little doubt would creep in and I'd think to myself "what if somehow we're wrong?!"

What the culmination of this thread's research has accomplished as far as I can tell, is to answer that question very clearly, because in matters like this, that are this serious, there cannot be any doubt about it and there is no more doubt in light of the physical evidence.

Proof of CD of the twin towers and building 7, as utterly compelling as it is, isn't complete without this evidence, which really does prove that "9/11 was an inside job" perpetrated by elements of the MIC and Intel/"Security" apparatus, including "elite" policy makers like Zelikow, Gates (who was also on Zelikow's pre-9/11 think tank panel btw) and Cheney, who said at one point "we need to embrace the dark side", among others like Jeb Bush (PNAC member), Rumsfeld, Pearl, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Zakheim, Hauer, the list goes on but it's not that large.

It's a relief in other words, in a way, in spite of the monstrous and horrific nature of the event itself, to realize that we were not somehow mistaken and in error, which would be a terrible thing, given the historical significance and seriousness of this issue - talk about bearing false witness! That's definitely not the kind of thing that I would want to be involved in, and most certainly, otoh, neither would working actively, with knowledge and awareness, and in having access to all this information, to knowingly and willfully try to somehow guard or protect the Big LIE. Now that would be even worse, to both know and yet try to defend something so heinous. In other words for something like this it's important when examining all the data, to be right and thus on the right side of history.

For the sake of the public interest, and that of the ATS membership, I will therefore make an attempt at some point in the relatively near future to bring this research to the fore with a new thread in the appropriate "9/11 Conspiracies" Forum, but presented and done in such a way that it ought not be "hoaxed" unless there's something seriously wrong behind the scenes of ATS i.e.: as some sort of "honey pot" trap, or "memory hole", designed to capture and spin or contain any information that is truly "above top secret", which would really defeat the whole purpose of this website as a viable alternative source of valuable information and content.


"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it, by association." (Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184)

NAM: The type of thing that Alex Jones does quite often in making it all a rather clownish affair, to be taken seriously on the one hand, but with fear and apathy on the other merely "raging against the machine" might also fall into this catagory, as a type of "controlled opposition."


No need to reply at this point because it would be nice to keep this page open and available as long as possible..

In other words, feel free to let this thread "die", or remain waiting, in stasis, as a future historical observation, looking back, in hindsight (maybe even to help set better policy with an appropriate remembrance and recollection, or historical context). Thanks again, leo, for your participation and involvement as well as that of everyone else who's participated, without which we would not have reached this stage in researching and presenting the supporting evidence whereby well-reasoned objection and honest debate and rebuttal, is absolutely essential in discovering what is real and true "beyond a reasonable doubt".


Best Regards,

NAM


In memory of the victims, the rescue workers and any and all who've ever been victimized by an abuser of power or "bullying", I hereby re-dedicate the subject matter of this thread, in perpetuity.

Never forget.


NewAgeMan
For those readers who wish to know more about the real history of 9/11, you can find it here

www.historycommons.org...

Other than that all we'd be left with would be the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Report, and that's all she wrote as far as the official story or "official" history goes.


Never forget.

In loving memory of Kevin Cosgrove, who was not ready to die that day, and neither were the firemen who were setting out to put out the fire on the 79th floor..



Think twice debunkers about what you're defending or trying to defend, and guard. You may hate me for saying that, but the time always come where a choice needs to be made.

This is not fun and games.

NAM


edit on 14-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 





Well sorry leo a missed comma made all the difference it should have read



Don't want a reply DON'T post anyone can reply to anything, Judy Wood
just


First part was to you saying that I shouldn't reply to your posts the second was just laughing at Judy Wood.

As for my credentials well I haven't seen yours but

Left school first job in the design/drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company
studied structural & civil eng at night school.

30+ years in construction WORKING from basement to roof to walls I am all over structures
seminars to architects/engineers re structural products with recommendations on correct
loading/application & use.

Testing various components over the years from engineering brick/concrete cubes/ structural fixings
and other components sometimes to DESTRUCTION!!!

I can understand why people think the towers are expolding BUT that is not the case it's all due
to the massive amount of energy and dynamic loads generated by the falling structure.

Let's look at the South Tower it was hit around the 78-84th floor so above that impact you had
if we go mid way 30 floors approx, now the concrete alone in those 30 floors would weigh about a
minimum of 850 tons each x 30 = 25,500 that not including any other part of the structure!!!!

That's the same as your Kingdome roof although not in one section BUT dropping from a FAR greater
height.

The kingdome roof was 25,000 tons or 50,000,000 pounds as shown earlier that would generate
around 9 BILLION FOOT POUNDS of impact energy after its 135 foot drop.

9 BILLION YES B I L L I O N !!!! That's an idication of the energy and force in the collapse of
a massive structure.

The real problem is with the internet someone makes an illinformed comment which gets round the
web and it becomes the truth to the internet armchair experts who have no REAL experince of the
subject.

The towers fell because of structural damage caused by the impact,thermal loading due to the fires
and when the collapse iniciated the structure below could not RESIST the MASSIVE DYNAMIC loads.

As for the dust like ie said there is a L O N G list of materials in the structure to cause all
the dust and NONE of it was steel.

Sheetrock, Sprayed on Fire Protection, Ceiling tiles, Paint, dust in uncleaned areas, Glass and of
course concrete from the floorslads and the soot & smoke from the fires ALL of these are IGNORED for
some strange reason by you people when you talk about the collapse.

Plenty of steel visible here click on picture when loaded for a closer view!

Part of the debris field

other pictures here on link below have a look at the second picture compacted floors.

www.stevespak.com...

As for Judy Wood and her DEW weapon please explain HOW that would work what it would use to do
what you claimed happened and most importantly why the is NO evidence of it in use.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

wmd_2008
As for Judy Wood and her DEW weapon please explain HOW that would work what it would use to do
what you claimed happened and most importantly why the is NO evidence of it in use.


This is how conspiracy theorist minds work, you also have to realise they really do not know much physics or have no knowledge of how things work.....

We all know there is zero evidence for explosives or thermite being used at the WTC, so most thinking people would realise they were not used...

But a truther thinks .... there is zero evidence, that means it is a COVER UP and they used secret military nanoo nanoo thermite and silent explosives!

The same for Judy Woods and a DEW, there is zero evidence for it, and as shown truthers do not know much physics so when the see a picture of antenna falling down leaving a cloud of dust behind they claim it is evidence of a DEW weapon! Sad really.

Which is why this thread is in the hoax forum, the OP pushing a hoax!
edit on 15-12-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join