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 thedman
Congratulations young Jedi - You have rejected the dark forces of the TRUTH. The TRUTH is strong and difficult to resist....
Originally posted by backinblackTHREE seperate maneuvers that highly trained pilots could NOT perform more often than not...
Originally posted by demonseed
I wont repsond to any of that. If you have something debatable, i will see it.
If you have any evidence that contradicts what im talking about, i also want to see it. Remember, i was at truther. But for me, the truthers arguments are actually a huge fallacy. So please just present some solid evidence that contradicts anything i have mentioned above and i will gladly listen.
edit on 20-11-2010 by demonseed because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by demonseed
At this point, there are too many 9/11 conspiracy theory loopholes that in all honesty add up a million times worse than even the "official" story.
That's where real research and knowledge comes into play. When someone does real research, they can easily weed out the loopy "theories" like no planes, nukes, holograms, CGI, DEW, etc.
Originally posted by demonseed
Who in the hell orchestrated this thing?
Easy: The same people who orchestrated "Operation Northwoods" which would have used similar tactics and had similar outcomes.
Originally posted by demonseed
hijacking 4 airliners(along with convincing TSA agents to go along)
Really? Did you really say this? Have you actually done any real research into 9/11 at all? The TSA wasn't formed until after 9/11 and directly as a result of the "hijacked" planes.
All I can say is "wow" to that statement.
Originally posted by demonseed
this is NOT the first time a building collapsed due to fire.
Of course it's not and nobody has said otherwise. But 9/11 is the first and only time in history that a steel-structured highrise has collapsed from fire. And not just collapsed, but collapsed globally and completely to the ground. Oh, and THREE times in one day, by the way. A feat that controlled demolitions have only ever accomplished in the past.
Originally posted by demonseed
Buildings in heavily populated areas are built in a way that they collapse inward.
I noticed you didn't post a source for this claim, but I don't agree with the accuracy of your claim. Suffice it to say, the towers didn't collapse inward, but outward because they were blown from the inside out.
Originally posted by demonseed
it simply indicates that buildings that lose a large amount of structural integrity will most likely fall onto their own footprint.
Except that the towers did not lose a large amount of structural integrity. In fact, the damage from the plane impacts was minor. According to NIST's own numbers, there was only 15% of the structure in the impact zones that was damaged. That leaves 85% of the structure on the four floors of impact, completely intact and undamaged. That is not a large amount of structural damage.
Originally posted by demonseed
Why in the world would the penthouse fall into the footprint of the building if its being demolished?
Why in the world would the building fall straight down if the penthouse on one side of the building fell? Usually, buildings fall toward the side that's damaged, not straight down. The penthouse falling into the building isn't going to cause every single column across the entire building to fail simultaneously.
Originally posted by demonseed
If you told me that aliens fired a laser beam to bring down the building, i would believe that over explosives.
It's absolutely disgusting that you would even say or believe in such a thing.
Originally posted by demonseed
We are also talking about a LOT of weight, causing the building to collapse faster as it progresses.
Collapsing faster is one thing, collapsing in free fall, even for 2 seconds of a 6-second fall, is very damning evidence. Natural collapses don't cause buildings to fall in free-fall with zero resistance. The only thing in the world that can take out the resistance is explosives.
Originally posted by demonseed
There are also no signs of explosives being used throughout the building.
Then you haven't done much research into controlled demolitions. But don't feel bad, most other people haven't either. There are controlled demolitions that look and sound exactly like the towers and WTC 7.
Originally posted by demonseed
After watching countless controlled demolitions, NONE of them looked anything remotely close to the collapse of WTC 7.
Then you didn't really watch "countless" demolitions. There are plenty that look even remotely close. Kinda like this one:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif[/atsimg]
Looks pretty damn close to me. Oh, and let's add the south tower in the mix as well:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/379570d95fd1.jpg[/atsimg]
Originally posted by demonseed
The only people hearing explosions are the people inside of the buildings, yet for some reason people outside recording cannot hear them?
Are you kidding me? You can't be serious. Either you (again) haven't done the least bit of research, or you're being dishonest. I made a short video with a few of the many witnesses that heard the explosions:
www.youtube.com...
Originally posted by demonseed
There is still no concrete proof that there was a controlled demolition.
Really? I think witnesses in my above video described the sounds of a controlled demolition pretty well. And if that's not enough, did you even read the First Responder Oral Histories? There are many firefighters that saw flashes coming from the lower and middle floors of both towers while the buildings were collapsing above. They also said the flashes were going "up, down and around" both towers and had "popping or exploding sounds" associated with the flashes. That is yet another sign of controlled demolitions.
Originally posted by demonseed
But because the floors only hold enough weight to hold "ONE" floor above,
I don't know where you got that information from. The following is from a 1200-page structural analysis by the engineering firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson that built the towers:
The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. All the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
"Live loads" meaning the actual weight on and above. 85% of the columns in the four floors of the impact zones were intact, easily carrying the live loads of the damaged 15% of columns.
Originally posted by demonseed
having 30+ stories fall will give way and cause a systematic pancake collapse. This is not an outrageous claim
It must be an outrageous claim since NIST even did away with the "pancake theory" years ago.
Originally posted by demonseed
poofs of smoke dont indicate a controlled demolition
They absolutely do:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]
You won't find those ejections in any other building collapse except for controlled demolition because they are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated. This is the THIRD proof of controlled demolitions with the witness testimony I provided in my above video, and the flashes seen by the firefighters.
Flashes, booms, and ejections are all absolute signs of controlled demolitions and you will not find any of those in fire-induced or natural collapses. I have challenged trusters for years to prove me wrong, but none have to this day.
Originally posted by demonseed
no sound during the collapse of explosives going off.
As I stated earlier, there are videos of controlled demolitions on the internet that sound exactly like the towers and WTC 7. There are over 1000 different types of explosives that can be used in controlled demolitions. Some are not as loud as others. Some are more powerful than others.
Originally posted by demonseed
If you believe the government "did it", then i want to ask you.. just how in the hell did they do it?
Not a single person can answer that question without speculating. That's why a new investigation is needed.
Explosives alone, especially in WTC 7, proves inside job. WTC 7 was one of the most secure buildings in NYC.
Originally posted by demonseed
Stephen jones with a bag of powder is not evidence.
With each statement you type, you are showing more and more that you either did not do any real, actual research, or you're being dishonest and ignorant.
Dr. Steven Jones Ph.D, along with Dr. Jeff Farrer, Ph.D, tested dust samples and came to conclusions based on lab testing. Perhaps you missed their interviews?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Chemical Engineer Mark Basile obtained a dust sample from the same source as Dr. Jones, tested the dust and came to the same conclusions as Dr. Jones and Dr. Farrer. He independently confirmed that the red layer on the chips was thermitic.
Furthermore, Mark Basile obtained a second dust sample from a museum in NYC, and again found the chips and confirmed that the red layer is thermitic. That's two dust samples, from two separate entities, tested by three separate people, all confirming that the red layer is thermitic, and constructed on the nano-scale.
Perhaps you missed his interview here:
www.youtube.com...
So, your statement "Steven Jones with a bag of powder" automatically shows your lack of research and knowledge into 9/11, and further shows your disregard for any scientific evidence or research into 9/11.
Originally posted by demonseed
Remember, i was at truther.
No, actually you weren't. By your own admission, you were only skeptical about WTC 7 and that's it. That does not equate to you being a truther. There's so much to learn and research about 9/11, and it seems you haven't even scratched the surface.
A real truther would never turn sides without some sort of coercion or threat, because facts are facts and evidence is evidence.
One thing I will say in conclusion, and that I keep saying, is that at the very beginning of the NIST report, it states that nothing in their report can be used as evidence in a court of law or be taken as factual. NIST used guesses, calculations, and made-up computer models to support their report. But all they have are theories like the rest of us. 9/11 was simply Operation Northwoods, upgraded.
So, no matter what side of the fence you stand on, you're still believing in a conspiracy theory.
Originally posted by NationOfSin
Wow OP the fact that you completely ignored BoneZ' thought out replies to most of which you've stated made me literally decide to join the website (finally after all this lurking) to express my disgust.
Yet you continue to say that you wish to debate it intelligently and respectfully?
Bonez replies were among the best to your OP, period.
And by the way I went to a school for recording music (Recording Arts Canada or RAC) and let me tell you that you can't just make anything sound like an explosion, especially as effortless as you make it seem. Your car would sound distorted but it wouldn't sound anything close to a true to life explosion. Thats like saying I can make go "Brooooommmmm" with the lower range of my voice into a mic and it sounds like an explosion...
Really?
Bottom line REPLY TO BONEZ lol
Originally posted by NationOfSin
reply to post by demonseed
Lol..
Am I his representative? No, but in my humble opinion his post completely OWNED you. I say that with a taste of humor of course with respect. I just wanted to see what you had to say to him, considering everything he wrote made you look worse, and uninformed.
It just seemed like you were ducking his response...edit on 20-11-2010 by NationOfSin because: grammer