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.

 

The Anomalies

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 





Then I let disco suck me into a sniping match


which is so easy to do with an emotional topic such as this....you have no need to explain your position past the point of demanding their supporting evidence. I found when I drifted it was because of trying to further explain my position, but we don't need to explain anything....they do.
They are the ones whom need to take the 'authoritative' position on this, [which does not include bullying an agenda]....yet the authors of those official claims pushed refuse to.

....sorry for the confusion....

if you have not looked yet, go read some FDNY transcripts...

a month after the event, the FDNY took it upon themselves to hold sworn testimonies of what they heard, saw and felt on 9-11...
Out of 503 FDNY sworn transcripts.

10 support the "official" seeing the building pancake...

300+ report booms and other loud, "boom, boom, boom" sounds they can not distinguish occurring from office fires.

118 report very large, concussive explosions, NOT associated with office fires, but that they associated the collapse with, directly referencing controlled demo going off throughout the towers, underground, & outside the towers minutes before and during both collapses, "we never got that close to the building, the explosion blew, and knocked us all over"

The City took the transcripts after they were finished, went through them and blacked out what most FDNY heard, saw and felt that day....why remove 'witnessed' events if there is nothing to hide, this was just an office fire. Did they see 'terrorists' escaping from the plane???
It took two years of Court with the City of New York before they were released through the FOIA. They 'blackened-out' most, but they didn't get them all...Angel Rivera in particular....

Angel Rivera was charged at 9:10 to take a crew into WTC3, the Marriott hotel to make sure all were evacuated....he reports many bombs going off INSIDE the hotel minutes after entering before any tower fell...the stairway they went up only moments earlier, had the first three flight blown out below them, trapping them on the fourth floor...


here is a short synopsis....

"when we hit the 19th floor, something horrendous happened. It was like a bomb went off. We thought we were dead. The whole building shook. The brick coming out of -- the door to the hallway into the hotel blew off like somebody had thrown it all over the place. It shook all over the place. We were thrown on the floor. We looked inside the lobby after everything calmed down, and everything was collapsed."

(pg5)..."The building was still shaking and we're still hearing explosions going on everywhere, so we decided let's get out of here. We ran all the way down to the fourth floor where we ran out of stairs. There were no more stairs. We met on that floor, and we were all safe. We were all like-we could have been over here. What happened, we looked out of the window of the hotel, the wall, practically, because the window was all blown up. There was no way out. The only way out was the roof rope."


(pg7)....First tower falls-
"and then the most horrendous thing happened. That's when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous explosion. I still can hear it. Everything shook. Everything went black. The wind rushed, very slowly [sound], all the dust, all the-and everything went dark. We were rolling all over the floor, banging against the walls. I thought I was alone. I thought I was buried alive."

(pg.9)....Second tower falls-
"When the second tower came down, we had no idea what was going on. We thought another plane, another bomb, another as a second device. We thought, this is it, we are dead. When that happened, as I told you before, everything was black. It was like being
inside a storm or volcano or something, something horrendous. We said we're going to die."

(pg10)....So finally we found out where there was a beam. Maybe God put it there. It was an enormous beam about 20 feet away from us that was against the building but to the level where we were, like it started where we were, all the way to the ground. One of the guys said, "This is our way out." So we all went that way.

amazing story from him.......




posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Sremmos80

Then I let disco suck me into a sniping match


I'm not sure why you blame me, or indeed characterise my responses to you as part of a sniping match. I simply refuted your misconceptions, to whit

- that America didn't care or need the WMD excuse to go into Iraq, despite (as you yourself showed) creating a huge intel operation to suggest they were there

- that Osama bin Ladin was in Iraq, or that this was claimed

- that the US was not interested in finding WMDs, just the means of their production

- that an agency that can get its navy to bomb their own HQ, blow up the WTC, plant DNA and fake crash sites, and disappear planeloads of people, can't stick a few tins of biological agents or a missile in a desert

- that the US didn't care about its reputation or power in the world


By the way have you noticed how Russia has implied that its invasion of Crimea is justified by US precedent in Iraq? And how that has muted the US response? How the US has lost the authority to launch a robust rejoinder to Russia? This is all in part a result of the failure to find WMDs in Iraq and therefore justify that invasion.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Well I did say that I let you suck me in, I see that as me taking the blame but I guess you see that different. Feel free to go back to the begging of this and relive you 1 liners after you quoted maybe 1 or 2 sentences from my post if need a refresher.
It then progressed you to replying to every sentence individually rather then to the response as a whole which forces me to respond the same way... Hence the sniping match

I did say that I believe they could have fell back on 911 itself to get into Iraq because again the US was being spoon fed the fact that Hussen may have OBL AQ connections. I can not help that the mass media, at times backed by officials, here has no problem promoting such false claims but it did happen was used to rally the nation around the idea of an invasion.

I said the intel was all about the production of WMD as well as the basis of the invasion. So if they were faking to save face wouldn't they need to fake what they claimed?
It was you that came up with the nuke getting found by bob, not mine, stop claiming such.
That hypothetical situation was created by YOU.
I did say that if they wanted to go that route they would have to prove where it and others are being produced yes, but not that if they found a nuke in iraq that it would go unnoticed.
From my understanding a nuke can be traced back to where the uranium was enriched, so would they not need a nuke that showed the same uranium that Iraq was capable of producing?
I still doubt that a few canisters and a missile proves a country is producing and stockpiling WMD, again that is what the Intel about. The stockpiling and production of the WMD's

Yes I am willing to believe the US had their hand in the 21st centuries pearl harbor and that the limitless black budget played a vital part. I do not see how the lack of physical WMD disputes that in anyway...


Again if you want to talk loss of american power, especially in regards to Ukraine and that show going on over there feel free to create a thread and I promise I will comment on it.




posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





I'm not sure why you blame me, or indeed characterise my responses to you as part of a sniping match. I simply refuted your misconceptions


refute with what???

distractions...
the "anomaly" of 9-11 is not WMD's.....it s the LACK of supporting evidence of the claims PUSHED as truth.....but oh no, lets NOT discuss that and focus on something totally irrelevant, rather than the claims regarding the sciences of 9-11.





creating a huge intel operation


who cares...it's NOT relevant to the sciences of 9-11 and collapse of three buildings.




that Osama bin Ladin was in Iraq, or that this was claimed


who cares...it's NOT relevant to the sciences of 9-11 and collapse of three buildings.





that the US was not interested in finding WMDs, just the means of their production


who cares...it's NOT relevant to the sciences of 9-11 and collapse of three buildings.




that an agency that can get its navy to bomb their own HQ, blow up the WTC, plant DNA and fake crash sites, and disappear planeloads of people, can't stick a few tins of biological agents or a missile in a desert


who said it's an "agency"...oh, YOU did.

In Gov. service as in Military, you take orders and act without question...it only takes a select few to control everyone.





that the US didn't care about its reputation or power in the world


nor does it now.....seems the leaders here don't care what we, [the people], think.....and THAT is the problem, which will soon be taken care of...




By the way have you noticed how Russia has implied that its invasion of Crimea is justified by US precedent in Iraq?


right after Chevron signed a deal to start 'shale-oil' production this spring in Crimea.
We went into Iraq to protect the oil companies, to keep them pumping while we changed Regimes. That is why Putin moved his troops in BEFORE we do....wouldn't you?

there is a name for people whom continually distract from specific points.....but I can't say that here cause no one has a backbone to call it like it is.

so, care to discuss the anomaly of WTC7???

like how the fires present removes 105 vertical feet of structural resistance globally in WTC7, *BEFORE* 1.74 seconds, [when the kink forms], so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, GLOBALLY and UNIFIED IMMEDIATELY following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds......

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

[falling tower debris did NOT assist in the collapse of 7]

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

what does SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance of FREEFALL is NONE of the gravitational energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else do we see those SAME numbers as seen in the global unified acceleration rate of 7, [9.8m/s^2] ????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"


but you do not seem to care about this.....do you.

because we have an official claim from 2008 NIST that a "brand new never before seen physics phenomenon" did this....NOT explosives.....'WHEW!!!...so everything is alright....had me a little nervous there.


2005 NIST scientific investigation did not find any reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11...

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm


yet 2008 NIST is allowed to *IGNORE* their own scientific investigation, and claim fire did, not only caused collapse, but did so as *NO OTHER* building has done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
vimeo.com...

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating, ....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has *NEVER* been a collapse like WTC7".

and the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they *REFUSE* to release the data that *TELLS* the models what to do...


THESE are the anomalies of 9-11.....why don't we FOCUS on this....and you can stick your WMD's.....well......



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


You can focus on what you like, as can I. I'm pretty sure you're not going to change your mind and neither am I, so a discussion is pointless.

I merely make the observation that at the moment everything progresses as though I'm right and you're wrong. So you need to get a bit better at whatever it is you're doing to change that. And I'm not sure that shouting at people on an internet message board is doing anything other than bolstering your self esteem.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





So you need to get a bit better at whatever it is you're doing to change that.


actually, it seems YOU need to educate yourself to even understand what I am talking about. I am posting facts from 2005 NIST and known taught science. What do I need to get "better" at?
...besides maybe tolerating ignorance and shillyness...




shouting at people on an internet message board is doing anything other than bolstering your self esteem.


whom is "shouting"?

if I use caps it's to stress a point.

so tell me, what is preventing you from discussing that ACTUAL day of 9-11????

that is when the 'anomalies' occur....if your not going to focus on the theme of the thread, then why are you here???
to distract from it?

come on pal....the 2005 NIST found 105 vertical feet of global unified acceleration EQUAL to g. [2.3 seconds of global unified acceleration starts when the kink forms @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0s.]


can you tell me the difference between a steel frame building occurring a natural gravitational collapse and that same building occurring global unified ACCELERATION EQUAL to g.?

can you tell me how fire created the conditions to ALLOW acceleration EQUAL to g. BEFORE 1.75 seconds.....as it must do.

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130 "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.


edit on 11-3-2014 by hgfbob because: oops...



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

hgfbob


actually, it seems YOU need to educate yourself to even understand what I am talking about. I am posting facts from 2005 NIST and known taught science. What do I need to get "better" at?


You need to get better at advancing your claims. That is if you care about what you presumably consider to be an unpunished mass murder.

Because at the moment the world proceeds as though I'm right and you're wrong. The mainstream has largely accepted what I say and looks at your views - which it rarely does - with a sort of humorous contempt.




so tell me, what is preventing you from discussing that ACTUAL day of 9-11????


Nothing. I've argued about them a lot, but I've found that people rarely change their minds so now I choose not to. I'm not duty-bound to provide you with any kind of discussion. And as I say, if you consider that a victory then it is the hollowest kind, since your opinion remains marginalised and your culprits uncaptured.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





You need to get better at advancing your claims.


they are not "MY" claims as YOU like to insinuate....they are YOUR facts!





Because at the moment the world proceeds as though I'm right and you're wrong.


wrong, it just 'proceeds'....the main-stream-media is the only obstruction keeping this from dinner conversation at every American household....you know that.....when ever any mention questioning 9-11 is made on the air, they blow it off, LAUGH, and proceed to equate that to LocNess, BigFoot, UFO's....NEVER addressing 9-11 on the merits of SCIENCE and FACTS!

as far as you go....lmao....you're a [-insert word-]





The mainstream has largely accepted what I say and looks at your views - which it rarely does - with a sort of humorous contempt


they don't accept science or facts, they PUSH agenda, as YOU do here....

"looks at my views"???...I have NO views, I have taught science and FACTS from the 2005 NIST....YOU have NO science OR facts to support the 2008 HYPOTHESIZED official claims, NO ONE does, it's just a BULLIED agenda with MADE-UP science, so if you can not convince the masses through known SCIENCE and FACTS, what make you think anyone else can?????

oh yea, right now, you USE the peoples TRUST against them....that might have worked days gone by..

too bad for you those days are LONG gone..



I quote taught science and SHOW how the OFFICIAL claims ignore them through THEIR OWN WORDS!!!....YOU refuse to respond.....and then proceed to post regurgitated bile, attempting to discredit me INSTEAD of the information......respond to the information.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





You need to get better at advancing your claims


lets see.....I quote KNOWN facts from the ONLY entity bestowed by Congress to find out HOW and WHY three buildings fell on 9-11....2005 NIST, with their 10,000+ pages, and NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE that states the FIRES PRESENT allowed collapse x3 as CLAIMED in 2008 by the NIST HYPOTHESIS crew whom IGNORES their own 2005 science, to create NEW SCIENCE so these buildings can fall.
***********************************************
2008 NIST claims claim fire did, not only caused collapse, but did so as *NO OTHER* building has done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
vimeo.com...

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating, ....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has *NEVER* been a collapse like WTC7".

and the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they *REFUSE* to release the data that *TELLS* the models what to do.
***********************************************

see...ALL from the 2005 NIST report.....

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


...now.....WHERE is the SUPPORTING EVIDENCE the fires present failed the steel to ALLOW collapse to occur?

that IS the official claim.....WHY is there NO supporting evidence within those 10,000+ pages?

...cause it DID NOT OCCUR from those FIRES PRESENT!

gee..PROVING FIRE negates the notion of Explosives huh!!!!!

yet, they assert an OFFICIAL claim in 2008 that "NO explosives or accelerants were used to assist"????

stemming from a 2005 SCIENTIFIC investigation that NEVER TESTED to determine either way.....

"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

So.....NO scientific testing or investigation to determine "NONE, were there" in 2005, so WHAT do they do??????

they watch UTUBE!!! to scientifically DETERMINE none the ENTIRE day.....just by watching 26 SECONDS of collapse video!!!!!

[NCSTAR1A 4.3.4] Basing the decision of "No explosives or accelerants were used" on videos that were recorded at the time of collapse.

lol.....really scientific huh!!!

they forgo ALL science, to watch utube for 26 seconds.......THAT is the ONLY scientific evidence against the use of explosives or accelerants.....oh yea.....'accelerants' do NOT make noise, they accelerate a process......yet an official claim of NONE.

"noise", [BOOM], which the National Fire Protection Agency does NOT even consider a necessary element in the description of an explosion....but out of CONVENIENCE and the fact NO ONE knows this, NIST '08 chooses this path.

Explosions,N.F.P.A.18.1 - General:
“…Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.”

exactly what we see x3!


so.....tell me bout FIRE!



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




What truthers then do is take these anomalies and a preconceived notion that 9/11 was a “inside job” and put them together.


uhm......WRONG again....why are 'truthers' here?

to ask questions and DEMAND the supporting evidence of the already in-place claims pushed as truth.

and guess whom supplies the answers of those questions.....ANYONE touting the official claims pushing them as truth.





As such for my logical mind I can only say with confidence that the “official theory” must be the correct one as it is the one that can explain most of the facts.


[shakes head].....wrap your logic around these facts
bunker

fact one.....the 2005 NIST scientific investigation charged by Congress to find out how and why three buildings fell on 9-11 did NOT find a reason why.....there is NO science what-so-ever within that 10,000+ page report to show and support the PUSHED claims that fire and impact damage fell these three buildings on 9-11...[though it seem you have plenty of
Bunker sites that LIE about what the report states...lol....'TELLING' all what the reports really mean huh!!!!!..yea right.]

from the 2005 report...


"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possible to make any statements about it's quality"


Fact two....WTC7 hit by neither a plane not falling tower damage to cause it to collapse, is the first building in history to SYMMETRICALLY collapse from small fires in a UNIFIED descent for 105 vertical feet equal to g. for a 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.

as found by the 2005 NIST.....


NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."



The NIST WTC7 report also has a Fig 3-15 graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. can ya SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

what does ALL SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval, "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL".....NONE of the gravitational energy would be available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning that any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of the structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass we see ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

can you tell me where else ON EARTH do we see those SAME numbers seen in that symmetrical unified rate of acceleration, 9.8m/s^2????
Sure ya can, YOU can go open ANY reputable science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"


FACT THREE!!!!!

2008 NIST is allowed to *IGNORE* their own 2005 scientific investigation, and claim fire did, not only cause collapse, but did so as *NO OTHER* building has done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST 2008 technical briefing....

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures." Shyam Sunder


don't worry, ya don't have to sit through the video....there is a PDF transcript you can follow along with on that same page below the video....that quote is on page 34 of the transcript....

you also need to remember that this tech briefing was when they were TRYING to HIDE the found FFA by their earlier crew......forcing Shyam to say this at the briefing........found on page 16....

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

well seems Shyam is 'unwillingly' supporting the TAUGHT science part that mass accelerating equal to g. can do NO work.

so they bring in a 'brand new never before seen physics phenomenon called "Low Temp Thermal Expansion"



"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."



....and a claimed new kind of "thermal expansion" is the cause...'hypothesized' cause....new science they refuse to prove through science....where warm steel at ONE end of the building, globally removed 105 vertical feet of structural mass within 1.74 seconds to allow the unified FFA @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0s.





when it comes to 9/11 even those of us who believe the official narrative should accept that we do not know everything that happened that day


lol...ya mean stick your head up yer own ass and ignore ALL we were taught because they say so?......really, YOU want to live like that.......





Now they present an “alternative theory” based on these anomalies


I thought that statement was so pathetically hilarious.......for all they/YOU have to do is to PROVE the ALREADY official claims PUSHED as truth....proving the in-place claims NULLIFIES all other claims......

to this day, left undone....the authors of the pushed official claims refuse to prove them.....and any so-called PEER REVIEW of the official claims is WORTHLESS....why, because the authors of the official claims REFUSE peer review...so how does one peer review unreleased data variables that tell the models what to do, how to behave.....specially since that is the ONLY evidence they have pushing the claims.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco




I'm not duty-bound to provide you with any kind of discussion.


uhm....this is YOUR THREAD!!!!!


in other words.....you will lie, and when confronted with FACT showing the LIE...you turn mute.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob


uhm....this is YOUR THREAD!!!!!


in other words.....you will lie, and when confronted with FACT showing the LIE...you turn mute.


Wrong yet again. The thread is not mine.

I'm beginning to see why you fall for this stuff. You don't even check the most basic details.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco




I'm beginning to see why you fall for this stuff. You don't even check the most basic details.


you are SOoooo predictable!

lets see, all these posts to you....so which one to respond to????....the post dealing with the topic of discussion, complete with links and sources showing direct complicity within a Gov. organization.......or the post totally irrelevant to the conversation and wrong, put there just for that purpose.


edit on 6-7-2014 by hgfbob because: typo



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
OSOTC, I understand what you are trying to convey. And I would say that if there were truly anomalies, ie things that actually seem strange as opposed to unexplained, I would agree with you that I would need to be open minded to them.

For example; there really is no hard evidence as to how exactly the hijackers entered the cockpits and took over the planes. Most likely they attacked at a time when a pilot was coming out or they used a flight attendant to gain entry. This may go down as unexplained but it is certainly not an anomaly as there can be a multitude of perfectly legitimate explanations for how they commandeered the plane.

And let's look at your example: Mike Walters NEVER stated he thought a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. He merely described AA77 as such because that's what it reminded him of. I believe Walters has stated on multiple occasions that he saw and identified the PLANE as an American Airlines. He never truly thought it was a missile and I am not aware of anyone who believes it to be such.

So we can see that with a little further digging your "anomaly" is not one at all. and it has been my experience that this can be applied to each and every conspiracy theory claim surrounding 9/11.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

OSOTC, a perfect example of an anomaly that is not really one. Simple misdirection or half truths on part of the CTers. As I have pointed to Bob, in the next paragraph they explain that they had very limited amounts of samples to work from in the fire zones and no conclusions should be drawn from this.

See? No anomaly. Simple quote mining on their part that is easily cleared up with a modicum of research.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968




As I have pointed to Bob, in the next paragraph they explain that they had very limited amounts of samples to work from in the fire zones and no conclusions should be drawn from this.


and as I have repeatedly explained to Canty.....putting in a disclaimer AFTER THE FACT because the scientific investigation does not go your way, does what for you?

and then I say, PROVIDE the representation from within these 10,000+ pages that show this so-called high temp WTC steel that gives direction to a LATTER hypothesis crew it did fail , to officially claim it did to cause collapse.

to which he cant.....and we see it for what it is.....Simple quote mining on their part that is easily cleared up with a modicum of research.

2005 found NO scientific reason for collapse x3.

enter 2008 NIST claims new science they refuse to prove through science.

how bout we focus on the OS
bunker.....and prove it.....don't just post, "THEY DID"!!!!

hey Canty...take that 'disclaimer', and reread it to your self again.....now look at the official quote from the 2008 NIST...


"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."



seems just after the 2005 NIST not finding any failed steel, the PTB were disturbed enough to put in that disclaimer saying pay no attention, in a pathetic attempt to claim there was high temp fire there that did all that work.....

now it seems as they now went in the opposite direction, USING the found LOW TEMP STEEL!!!! of the original scientific investigation....to hypothesize 'brand new never before seen physics phenomenon occurring ONLY on 9-11.....never before or since.!!!!!

WOOHOO!!!!...the new science is here!!.....the new science is here!!!

....hows that working out with the ones whom actually know that official claim exists?

yea, I get comments all the time saying..."I didn't know.....thank you!!!"...

you can't argue the fact they are on VIDEO stating this new science.

there is a PDF transcript right below the video on the same page......that quote is on page 34.

something else Shyam states while TRYING to HIDE the found FFA with their NEW SCIENCE......he says as a matter-of-factly.....

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"


that quote from him is on page 16.....in response to and trying to make fun of the High School Professor whom just asked them WHY, no mention of the easily measurable FFA in WTC7 was mentioned in the rough draft of the WTC7 report....saying it's impossible to achieve FFA within a steel framed building.....

well, since the cats out-of-the-bag, they decide to put it back in the final report on WTC7, BUT keep their same pathetic scenario, calling it a new physics phenomenon.

that did this...



NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968




there really is no hard evidence as to how exactly the hijackers entered the cockpits


actually.....WHO CARES!!!!

the 2005 NIST found minimal localized damage to each tower from said impacts....less than 15%.

and was NOT a factor in the collapse of the towers...so technically, the hijackers FAILED!


the hijackers are pawns for the AGENDA of WAR!!!!!!

only there to incite anger



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob


and as I have repeatedly explained to Canty.....putting in a disclaimer AFTER THE FACT because the scientific investigation does not go your way, does what for you?

It keeps conspiracy theorists from quoting your report out of context for their own agenda.


But this discussion is continuing in the "What about WTC 7?" thread. It is best suited for there.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968




It keeps conspiracy theorists from quoting your report out of context for their own agenda.


lmao....oops, NO Canty....YOU, supplying SUPPORT and SHOWING does that......WHERE is it????

seems you are forever only telling of it.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

If I have this right, you are saying that you deliberately posted an inaccurate post accusing me of lying to see if I responded to it.

This is one of your 'tactics'? Can you really not see why almost nobody believes you? Why your ideas are little more than a laughing stock?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join