It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by samkent
I was referring to the arguement that the truth movement is insignificant and disappears when you Osiffers turn off the computer
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Danbones
Danbones, if only you knew what the 9/11 Commission was for. Its only been repeated ad nauseum hundreds of times by people like me and others, and yet, you guys still cannot get it right. I mean, get with the program chief.
I guess I have to again, straighten out the FACTS:
9/11 Commission was to investigate the events leading up to 9/11, the response during 9/11, and what transpired after 9/11. It was to investigate the intelligence failures, inter-agency rivalry, bureaucratic red-tape, incompetence, and many other missed, ignored, or unreported red-flags. It was to investigate how the responded to the attacks, the emergency procedures that went into effect, and how well the emergency services worked, and what failed.
Yeah, if you look at it like that, I do believe we weren't told the whole story. I want to know who fouled up, dropped the ball, and caused the deaths of over 3000 US citizens. Let us be honest, do YOU want to be the one to take the blame for 9/11?
Let me repeat this as well for those hard of hearing:
the 9/11 Commission was NOT responsible for investigating the impact, fires and collapse of the WTC buildings. That was left to ASCE and NIST and FEMA.
The ASCE/FEMA Investigation
Incredibly, no investigation was funded as the site was cleaned up. A group of volunteers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), many of whom had also participated in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation, started an investigation with limited resources. FEMA eventually took over the ASCE's investigation, and named it the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). Months after the attack, frustrations with failures of the investigation were expressed in a congressional hearing.
NIST's Investigation
It was not until long after the Ground Zero clean-up was completed that an investigation with a multi-million dollar budget began: NIST's 'Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation' was funded with an initial budget of $16 million. If the problems with FEMA's investigation enumerated in the Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center earn it the description of a farce, then the conduct of NIST's investigation earn it the description of a cover-up. NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers shows that:
NIST avoids describing, let alone explaining, the "collapse" of each Tower after they were "poised for collapse." Thus, NIST avoids answering the question its investigation was tasked with answering: how did the Towers collapse?
NIST describes the Twin Towers without reference to the engineering history of steel-framed buildings, and separates its analysis of WTC Building 7 into a separate report. By treating them in isolation, NIST hides just how anomalous the alleged collapses of the buildings are.
NIST avoids disclosing the evidence sulfidation documented in Appendix C of the FEMA's Building Performance Study 1 This unexplained phenomenon was described by the New York Times as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
NIST has refused to publish the computer models that its report imply show how the fires in the Towers led to "collapse initiation".
Originally posted by hooper
Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by samkent
I was referring to the arguement that the truth movement is insignificant and disappears when you Osiffers turn off the computer
You don't even have to turn off the computer. If you look back through the threads you'll find a poll where even on this forum they couldn't get better than, I think, 80% that think 9/11 was an "inside job"! I mean, if you can't muster better than 80% here, what do you think it looks like in the wider world??
80 twenty and likely most of the national OSers are here
but the amount of truthers here is miniscule compared to the national world wide population
hmmmm
again
but the amount of truthers here is miniscule compared to the national world wide population
Originally posted by samkent
Why is it that when I turn my computer off the truther movement disappears?
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro. America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
Originally posted by zorgon
Originally posted by samkent
Why is it that when I turn my computer off the truther movement disappears?
I imagine its because when you look at the computer its right in front of you kinda like this
If you took off those blinders you might see the truth
There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it.
"If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual, that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us."
Originally posted by dejavooo
reply to post by burntheships
NEVER MIND the plane vanishing whats the object entering from left to right @ 2:42 just above the radio mast
at high speed??
That's funny, I thought someone previously mentioned that the fire-proofing was sub-standard and way too thin?
Landfill eh? Some was "recycled" too. Under heavy guard, carted away. Like I stated earlier, forensic explosive people can detect ...oh what's the point? You have your answers and defend your scumbag government as many people here in Holland do the same. Sheeple will be sheeple and rulers like to rule...
Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C...
...Temperatures of objects
It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.
Originally posted by LaBTop
No, I was answering the last post above my post, where someone went on about a hole that opened up and coal layers in it were lighted by burning tower debris. CAPICE?
Ask them, when they filled it with concrete. How should I know?
Now that's the main question, was it molten by some unknown excessive energy source, was it all the time since erection of the Twin Towers laying under there?
WHY WAS IT NOT FILLED UP WITH CONCRETE IN THE 70ies ?
I have no photos from the WTC 7 basements cleanse operation.
On September 12, 2001, Peter Jennings interviews Marlene Cruz, a carpenter injured in one of the pre-collapse explosions in the WTC-sub-basement level B long before the planes hit the towers. She was the first casualty of 9/11 admitted at Bellevue Hospital. Cruz is a living witness whose testimony proves that pre-planted explosives were used to weaken the foundations of the towers as part of a well-planned controlled demolition
Do a search on ATS, use : "LaBTop WTC 7" or "LaBToP WTC7"
I think I know more about certain WTC 7 subjects than you.
Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by wmd_2008
All fine and well, but it still does not explain the powdering of the complete building. Or am I missing some fundamental force of nature? I mean, you can see in the footage that the whole thing literally turns to dust, right?