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.

 

Let's Face It We Were ALL Duped

page: 2
53
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   
My friend, in your opening line:

"Never in the history of steel enforced buildings, has one of them ever collapsed due to structural damage from fire, EVER. "

You completely lost me. Fire brings down a metal building somewhere in the world about ever day. I am not saying that I swallowed the official story, but some of your blanket statements are just plane wrong. I have been a contractor for over 35 years and I have seen them fall. They fall from fire, they fall from being over loaded, and they fall from structural damage. In the case of the twin towers they suffered from all three.

I am suprised the towers stood as long as they did. I don't know about building 7.




posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3
My friend, in your opening line:

"Never in the history of steel enforced buildings, has one of them ever collapsed due to structural damage from fire, EVER. "

You completely lost me. Fire brings down a metal building somewhere in the world about ever day. I am not saying that I swallowed the official story, but some of your blanket statements are just plane wrong. I have been a contractor for over 35 years and I have seen them fall. They fall from fire, they fall from being over loaded, and they fall from structural damage. In the case of the twin towers they suffered from all three.

I am suprised the towers stood as long as they did. I don't know about building 7.


Sorry, but I don't believe you.

Metal buildings falling everyday? You sure about that? I have seen one building fall due to structural problems. That was in China. It was a reinforced concrete structure. A portion of it fell, but all of the four points of the structure were still in place. It fell in the middle in a weak spot.

This was before construction finished, so glad it happened before it was done.

Fire brings down a steel based structure within hours? Come on...what are you smoking? Thermite maybe?
edit on 24-12-2016 by gator2001 because: gramatical error


With your expertise, could you look at the videos of the towers going down, seeing the plooms coming out of floors before the implosion? It doesn't make sense.

If anything, the towers should have broken apart and fell on their own. Not down within. There was steel on the under floors that were not affected by the upper heat.
edit on 24-12-2016 by gator2001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 01:13 AM
link   
i'd say there were alot of us that straight off the bat saw it for what it was, especialy when the shills came out in droves on yahoo chatt to eventualy shut down private rooms then move on to youtube and shut down or shout down any conversation contrary to the official story.
even on here threads pertaining to the actual existance to organised shills were infact shouted down and shilled until it was released that government funded internet disruption was a "real" thing, but of course not to this topic and not here and not really anywhere :|



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3
My friend, in your opening line:

"Never in the history of steel enforced buildings, has one of them ever collapsed due to structural damage from fire, EVER. "

You completely lost me. Fire brings down a metal building somewhere in the world about ever day. I am not saying that I swallowed the official story, but some of your blanket statements are just plane wrong. I have been a contractor for over 35 years and I have seen them fall. They fall from fire, they fall from being over loaded, and they fall from structural damage. In the case of the twin towers they suffered from all three.

I am surprised the towers stood as long as they did. I don't know about building 7.


If you see an image of the destruction from above, it becomes clear why building 7 fell. It was in the impact zone of a colossal debris field. Multiple buildings were gutted -- buildings no one ever mentions -- because ten ton bombs of metal and concrete rained hellfire on them from above.

Building 7 was weakened enough that it fell eventually.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: PLAYERONE01
i'd say there were alot of us that straight off the bat saw it for what it was, especialy when the shills came out in droves on yahoo chatt to eventualy shut down private rooms then move on to youtube and shut down or shout down any conversation contrary to the official story.
even on here threads pertaining to the actual existance to organised shills were infact shouted down and shilled until it was released that government funded internet disruption was a "real" thing, but of course not to this topic and not here and not really anywhere :|


And of course, the hallmark of any decent conspiracy theory is that any attempt to argue against it is immediately interpreted as an attempt to cover it up.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   
3 buildings should not have fell at free fall speed into their footprints. It doesn't seem plausible without controlled demolition.

WTC 7 is very suspicious. How can all 23 columns all fail at the same time. Just not possible. How can it come down a near free fall speed without it being demolition. It's just not plausible. If WTC 7 fell because it's structure was weakened by the force of the towers collapsing then a force that powerful would have leveled all the surrounding buildings.

The people in power are evil and answer to no one.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: PLAYERONE01
i'd say there were alot of us that straight off the bat saw it for what it was, especialy when the shills came out in droves on yahoo chatt to eventualy shut down private rooms then move on to youtube and shut down or shout down any conversation contrary to the official story.
even on here threads pertaining to the actual existance to organised shills were infact shouted down and shilled until it was released that government funded internet disruption was a "real" thing, but of course not to this topic and not here and not really anywhere :|


And of course, the hallmark of any decent conspiracy theory is that any attempt to argue against it is immediately interpreted as an attempt to cover it up.


The official story is the real conspiracy theory worth our ridicule:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: PLAYERONE01
i'd say there were alot of us that straight off the bat saw it for what it was, especialy when the shills came out in droves on yahoo chatt to eventualy shut down private rooms then move on to youtube and shut down or shout down any conversation contrary to the official story.
even on here threads pertaining to the actual existance to organised shills were infact shouted down and shilled until it was released that government funded internet disruption was a "real" thing, but of course not to this topic and not here and not really anywhere :|


And of course, the hallmark of any decent conspiracy theory is that any attempt to argue against it is immediately interpreted as an attempt to cover it up.


The official story is the real conspiracy theory worth our ridicule:

www.youtube.com...


yeah, yeah. I know.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   
lol It's like Truther Bingo in here. Have we had energy weapons from space yet?



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Nickn3
My friend, in your opening line:

"Never in the history of steel enforced buildings, has one of them ever collapsed due to structural damage from fire, EVER. "

You completely lost me. Fire brings down a metal building somewhere in the world about ever day. I am not saying that I swallowed the official story, but some of your blanket statements are just plane wrong. I have been a contractor for over 35 years and I have seen them fall. They fall from fire, they fall from being over loaded, and they fall from structural damage. In the case of the twin towers they suffered from all three.

I am surprised the towers stood as long as they did. I don't know about building 7.


If you see an image of the destruction from above, it becomes clear why building 7 fell. It was in the impact zone of a colossal debris field. Multiple buildings were gutted -- buildings no one ever mentions -- because ten ton bombs of metal and concrete rained hellfire on them from above.

Building 7 was weakened enough that it fell eventually.



I guess what they mean by it dropped in to its own footprint that footprint covers 4 blocks around the building. Even the arena was damaged as well as many boats. But people ignore the damage those building did falling down.
edit on 12/24/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: gator2001

I don't smoke anything, but I do know a bit about the industry,

During the winter of 93, we lost 4 building here in Knoxville from snow load. One was a 33 thousand square foot Lowes Super Center. Lowes lost 3 buildings that week and several carpet mills came down in Dalton Georgia. All of that damage was from a heavy snow. The towers damaged from impact, over loaded with the weight of a fully loaded airliner along with the burning fuel to weaken the steel would surly bring down the building.

One other thing. Heated steel becomes soft and ply-able, that is why a blacksmith heats steel to bend it. I am not that strong, but I have heated 1" rebar and bent it many times.

In conclusion you spoke of a steel reinforced concrete building in China. A concrete structure, like a parking garage is a whole different type of construction. The Twinn Towers were all steel fraiming with truss supported floors and a lite gypcreet poured in place deck. The heated steel framing was weaked by the fire and collapsed from the weight of the airliner. Once a single floor let go, along with the shock loading on the floor below created a domino effect that brought down the rest of the building.

I don't expect you to believe me. Yet, I have seen many building fall in my career and even worked on reparing or replacing a few of them. Of them.
edit on 24-12-2016 by Nickn3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

I am not surprised, building construction usually is based on a latticework steel structure. If the lattice is damaged it will fail under its own weight.
If one I beam twist or bends from side loading it could loose 90% of its structural integrity, thus creating additional stress on additional framing.

edit on 24-12-2016 by Nickn3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   
It makes me feel like a fool now, but I bought that "official conspiracy theory" for twelve years, or so, before I saw James Corbett's "9/11: A conspiracy theory" in under five minutes.

It was a perfect length, because I was convinced going into watching it that it was just another silly Internet video. Well, this little 5 minute video changed me forever. I knew within 30 seconds that I had been taken for a fool.

Walk up everyone! Time to change things.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: muSSang

If you remove structural engineering, and all physical evidence completely, there is enough economic evidence, in put offs, in the stock market, that proves anything short of the buildings collapsing would have result in loss for wall street. This was both in the Airline companies, and the Companies that were hit by the Planes in the buildings.


Had it been a normal day, all these record breaking investments would have flopped. Instead people became Millionaires.

Btw, Record breaking isn't hyperbole. It literally broke counter-investment records. Then the data held by the Stock Option Currency Exchange, mysteriously vanished when questioned who placed the bets. Something completely illegal on it's own.
edit on 24-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
Walk up everyone! Time to change things.


Nothing's going to change.

If this was orchestrated they won.
The only question is why they thought it was the best thing to do.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Nickn3
My friend, in your opening line:

"Never in the history of steel enforced buildings, has one of them ever collapsed due to structural damage from fire, EVER. "

You completely lost me. Fire brings down a metal building somewhere in the world about ever day. I am not saying that I swallowed the official story, but some of your blanket statements are just plane wrong. I have been a contractor for over 35 years and I have seen them fall. They fall from fire, they fall from being over loaded, and they fall from structural damage. In the case of the twin towers they suffered from all three.

I am surprised the towers stood as long as they did. I don't know about building 7.


If you see an image of the destruction from above, it becomes clear why building 7 fell. It was in the impact zone of a colossal debris field. Multiple buildings were gutted -- buildings no one ever mentions -- because ten ton bombs of metal and concrete rained hellfire on them from above.

Building 7 was weakened enough that it fell eventually.



I guess what they mean by it dropped in to its own footprint that footprint covers 4 blocks around the building. Even the arena was damaged as well as many boats. But people ignore the damage those building did falling down.


I only lived at the Park Place building across the street, and my room on the 18th floor was ceiling height in ash.

I would still describe the majority of the building to have fallen into it's 'footprint'.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3
My friend, in your opening line:

"Never in the history of steel enforced buildings, has one of them ever collapsed due to structural damage from fire, EVER. "

You completely lost me. Fire brings down a metal building somewhere in the world about ever day.



Reinforced Steel is not just 'metal'. It takes massive heat just to bend it. For the story to match the visual, liquefaction of the steel is necessary. At maximum temperature, AKA inside of the 'jet engine', it only gets to about 1,500F. Normal fire doesn't even reach this heat, assuming it has unlimited oxygen, it can reach 1,100F~

Here's a large piece of Steel heated to 1500F. For the most part it keeps it's shape, and on it's own holds shape without external force.



Here's a rational argument that it doesn't take 2750F to 'Compromise' a Steel structure.



But this rational explanation adds more questions than it solves. Specifically with the way the building fell. Notice him strike straight down with the molten steel, that is 300 Degrees hotter than Jet Fuel in the Engine? It didn't move at all. Yes, he can bend it with his pinky against a wedge. You can also bend a paper clip with no heat at all using a wedge. The resistance is still barely compromised to that downward force with 1800 degree heat as he slams it against the anvil though.
edit on 24-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: searcherfortruth

We were all duped regardless of what we believe to be the truth, we attacked other countries that had nothing to do with it because TPTB wanted to take control of oil and protect the petro dollar under the guise of terrorism, this was a False Flag for many purposes, but all of them involve MONEY and GREED.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
The biggest part of the entire day that immediately made me think the whole thing was an elaborate scheme of some sort was when the BBC reported that WTC 7 had collapsed, when it was clearly visible in the background of their reporting. It only collapsed sometime later.

When news is reported BEFORE it happens, it absolutely has to be a planned event, there's no other explanation.

If THAT part was false, then the official story on everything else that happened that day is called into question.

The second part that makes me question what really happened is that despite a plethora of Government and private surveillance along the approach route, no evidence has ever been provided of how a plane crash made a perfectly round hole directly in the side of the Pentagon, right where the records were being stored for their audit of the missing $2 trillion from their budget, which we never heard of again from the mainstream media. No video footage of the plane on approach to the Pentagon has ever been released, despite massive coverage of the video of the planes hitting the WTC.

I went through Lockerbie after the plane crash (about 2 days later), large crashed planes tend to leave an impact crater and a HUGE amount of debris. Airplane Engines don't just "evaporate in the heat of the crash" as was claimed.

For these two reasons, I call *BS* on a large amount of the official report.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Don't forget that President-Elect Trump made claims against the 9/11 fund that was supposed to be money raised for "small businesses impacted by the event", even though no one would call Trump a "small business" and he even said publicly in the aftermath that he was "lucky, because none of my businesses were impacted by 9/11 AT ALL"

No one's ever investigated this, either.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join