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.

 

Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

page: 14
6
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I would not be surprised if (as some have speculated) Bin Laden died either shortly after 9/11 (or even before). However, that would raise a lot of interesting questions. Such as why Obama would fake it and continue on the Bush agenda as though it was all true.




posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Several of the Pakistan area newspapers reported OBL's death in December 2001 from natural causes related to his poor kidneys. Benazir Bhutto talked about his death just weeks or months before she was assassinated.

Even Bill O'Reilly reported his death in about the same time frame.

My theory regarding Obama's story is that it was meant to change the subject.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

archive.boston.com...

Not long before she was assassinated. So here, she thinks OBL is still alive......



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

No, I don't believe that someone wired the building. I've studied the evidence. There was no "mystery" bombs used. It was damage and fire caused by the impact of 2 767 airliners.


You believe this story is true, because they said it was most likely what caused both towers to collapse.

When a scientist claims something, and it can be replicated, then the scientist will attempt to replicate it, which shows that his claim is either true, or is false.

And what the research scientists who studied the collapses of the towers NEVER said, what nobody would understand about any collapse, except the research scientists, and a few others......

The entire structure of these buildings, started with it's scaled down version...a model(s).

Everything was understood about the towers, years before they were built.

It was studied for structural damage, and massive, intense fires, and titanic winds, storms, and even combined them, in worst case scenarios.

The buildings were engineered for any sort of plane impact, at any speed, why'd any designers expect all the pilots would slow their planes down to landing speed, if they haven't a clue they're about to plow straight into a building? Sheesh!



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
The main point is that the tower collapses are completely replicable, which would prove the buildings would never even get close to any sort of 'total collapse'.

Nobody will ever replicate it, because they know it's impossible. It's only possible with their farcical computer models.


Not hard to grasp this point.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Kinda like they studied the Tacoma Narrows and designed the bridge after planning for all the variables right? I mean, engineers never make mistakes or assumptions right?

The funny part is, even after we have had other examples of steel frames collapsing ONLY because of fire, there are still so many people who cannot accept that fire and massive damage killed the Towers.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   
There has never been a collapse like that, ever before, or ever since.

Not even close.

Anyone can try an prove it, but who wants to try and replicate an impossible collapse?



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

There has never been another instance of a terrorist flying an airliner into a building either. But, I can point to other collapses caused by fire alone......



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
There has never been a collapse like that, ever before, or ever since.

Not even close.

Anyone can try an prove it, but who wants to try and replicate an impossible collapse?


Never before, never since, and yet we are supposed to believe that it happened to 3 different buildings, on the same day, in the same city block, under most mysterious circumstances.

It is irrational to accept the NIST explanation, even for a layman like me.

That several similar buildings have caught fire and burned for many long hours while NOT collapsing confirms the lie told by NIST.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And we are supposed to believe that the first successful complex and sophisticated top down CD of a high rise building and the first successful CD of a building over 47 floors were carried out twice in one day by systems needing precise timing that would have been destroyed by wide spread fires and jet impacts that cut elevator cables and fire water mains.


Then for those to think the listed items above were carried out with slow and inconsistent burning thermite?



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Why is it so very hard for you to understand that the buildings that day, suffered heavy damage AND unchecked fires before they collapsed? And that a building that only catches fire is a laughable comparison on your part?



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

That's not difficult for me to understand. Indeed, I've understood it since it first happened.

But I am informed enough through study to know that the guys who designed and built the structures are on record saying that they had planned for the potential of an airplane collision, in part by a similar collision by a B-25 into the Empire State Building.

That is, being smart guys, they knew there was a risk of being struck by a wayward airplane, and designed accordingly.

Indeed, the structure absorbed the strike, as designed.



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Just by way of a change from this endlessly and fruitlessly rehashed argy-bargy, I'd like to propose a little test for the 'controlled demolition' theorists.

You claim that there is no other example of a steel-framed building undergoing progressive collapse due to fire.

Can you provide another example in which a similar building underwent a professionally-controlled explosive demolition that started near the top of the building and worked its way down?



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Being smart by comparing a relatively small, very slow moving aircraft hitting a building with stonework and interior load bearing walls to a high speed widebody airliner slamming into a building with just steel and no load bearing walls? You call that being SMART??????



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
Just by way of a change from this endlessly and fruitlessly rehashed argy-bargy, I'd like to propose a little test for the 'controlled demolition' theorists.

You claim that there is no other example of a steel-framed building undergoing progressive collapse due to fire.

Can you provide another example in which a similar building underwent a professionally-controlled explosive demolition that started near the top of the building and worked its way down?


I assume you're only referring to the twin towers, since WTC 7 was a classic CD, started from the top, then down.

The towers were not demolished like WTC 7, or any other classic CD's. The towers were specifically rigged to collapse within the so-called 'plane impact zones'. They collapsed downward, afterwards, at (nearly) free-fall speeds, which is like all CD's are designed to do.

WTC 7 used conventional explosives, like other classic CD's have used.

The method(s) of CD for the twin towers was, obviously, entirely different. When you see people trudging through streets blanketed with almost 14 inches of dust, from two immense steel/concrete structures being pulverized into 'dust', in around 15-20 seconds... you might have a clue that they didn't use conventional explosives!

No building can turn to dust like that by conventional explosives, alone. It requires far more powerful energy to pulverize it into particles of dust. The method used is held in secret, of course, although it doesn't matter what it is, since nothing else COULD cause it.


So you might ask - who would have known if the two planes would impact the floors where the buildings were set up to start the CD's?

By using remote-control planes. I think it would be done with holographic-type images of planes, though. This explains why they knew where to start the CD's, precisely, for both towers. They just detonate explosives when the planes 'impact' the buildings at those points.


But the main point is that buildings cannot pulverize into powder by any sort of fires/impact damage, or by a total collapse, caused by fire/impact damage.

Show me where they've pulverized buildings into dust, in ANY other collapse. Show me a source to proof that it has ever been done.

NIST could not explain how this collapse is possible, using real world situations. Nobody knows of any other example of it, in history. It is impossible to replicate the collapses, as they found out.

Anything else?



somehow



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

So that's a "no", then.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

Being smart by comparing a relatively small, very slow moving aircraft hitting a building with stonework and interior load bearing walls to a high speed widebody airliner slamming into a building with just steel and no load bearing walls? You call that being SMART??????


When a plane hits into the side of a building, through the exterior face, which doesn't support the structure, and cuts through into interior office walls, which don't support the structure, either.......the structure would have lost none of it's structural support, yes?

If the towers DID have load bearing walls, the planes would have weakened the structure much more, as load-bearing walls would have been destroyed. So you call that being smart?


The columns were supporting the structure, in fact. Central columns, mainly.

If there were 10 planes hitting each tower, they would not have collapses. The central columns would support the building, same as before. The exterior face takes the main impact force, and the interior walls, less force, as the force dwindles away to nothing.

The columns were nearly untouched, as shown in the NIST reports, which confirms the planes didn't damage the structural supports. Damage was supposedly one of the main causes of the collapses, which is proven false with their own samples! Ironic, indeed.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Terrorists set off bombs in the WTC basement in 1993.

Terrorists flew planes into the WTC, in 2001.

NIST does not even consider it possible for explosives to have been planted in the WTC.

Not by terrorists, anyway.


And that's who did it, those crazy Arab terrorists, okay??



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596
Frank A. deMartini, Manager of WTC Construction and Project management, said that the two towers were designed to withstand impact by a fully loaded Boeing 707 and NOT collapse


That authoritative statement, plus the ludicrous, incompetant NIST investigation of the events leading to the destruction of the two towers, is why there are so many people who cannot accept that office fires lasting little more than an hour and damage that the towers were designed to withstand destroyed them.

Quite apart, of course, from all the smoking gun evidence of controlled demolition (firemen reporting hearing rapid, successive explosions typical of demolition charges, demolition squibs appearing in windows many floors below the level of destruction, anomalous seismic spikes BEFORE the South Tower was destroyed, etc, etc).

There is nothing funny about why so many problems with the official explanation make people reject it. It's deadly serious.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 05:28 AM
link   


why wouldn't Osama bin Laden/al-quaida/Taliban have taken that opportunity to really drive home their idea of how evil the we ST is by simply saying "we didn't do it."


"orbital plane"



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join