Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Hard Truth Of September Eleventh.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh
Yeah - and why were they so hot
The firefighters in the buildings reported that the fires were almost out - shortly prior to the collapse
People were photographed standing in the wounds of the buildings seeking help shortly before the collapse - evidence of raging fires?
An extra element was needed to provide the collapse, the continual smouldering and molten steel

Those people weren't standing where the planes went in. If you widen the shot you would see that.

As far as the fires not being out, I encourage you too look at any videos of it again. Since you seem to have a short term memory. Also study up a bit on how much fuel planes going accross the country carry.



Oh and *757...767
Doesn't matter though. The point still stands. Those other buildings didn't have large passenger planes slammed into them.




posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I'd also like to know what makes people here experts in how buildings that have had jet liners crash into them collapse. People talk about this like it is well known knowledge. Amazing, as I cant remember ever seeing that happen before.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
My 2 cents worth on this: I had a friend in Israel, in the Israeli army at that time. He had plans to come to America in August-September, I was supposed to meet him, however, he wanted me to meet him someplace that I could drive to. He was insistent that I not fly. I thought he was nuts at the time. How did he now it was not an international flight? That just sealed it in my mind that somebody here had to know it was planned.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
I'd also like to know what makes people here experts in how buildings that have had jet liners crash into them collapse. People talk about this like it is well known knowledge. Amazing, as I cant remember ever seeing that happen before.


I couldn't agree with you more!.. honestly


However, what I do know? I do know that thousands of real experts are well aware that no building has ever crashed due to mild damage from falling debris, or the collapse of a modern building caused by a few office fires without the presence of... of.. JET FUEL!.. Get real man.. the perfect pancake implosion of WTC7 was caused by design flaws of diesel fuel generators? How do you justify the collapse of WTC7 when the building fell after suffering a few hours from fires?



Spliff420.. If we we're discover WTC7 was in fact imploded by demolition, if some guy was to have documented evidence that produced some kind of paper trail etc. then would you agree that 911 was an inside job?



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Well, as I said before, I used to think that we were behind it. It wasnt untill reading post after post here, that I ralized that it is just impossible. Now, if someone has official proof, sure, show me..I'm open. But it doesnt exist.

Theres snipits of this and that, accusations all over, but nothing concrete. Just paranoia. I look at the logistics. Theres just no reason to do it. A bill is a bill. It will get passed. They didnt need to kill 3000 people to spy on you. Land value? Sell them. Knock them down at night. Why at 9 am? Go to war with Iraq? Stupidist idea yet. We could bomb them all day, noone here would care. Maybe some college hippie kids, but noone listens to them anyways.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I personally do not believe that the U.S. governement actually conducted the attacks, but the thought had crossed my mind that perhaps they allowed them to happen.

There's nothing like a national trajedy to increase the power of the government. I'm not saying that is what happened, but I wouldn't write off the possibility either. Terrorist plots are discovered and nullified all the time, but it wouldn't be too hard to let one get through if the powers that be thought it was for the greater good of the nation. Similar to how many war supporters feel that the colateral loss of civilians in Iraq serves a greater good - such decisions are made all the time by governments.

I could see some high ranking U.S. politicians thinking that a 9/11 scale attack would create sympathy for the U.S. and allow the U.S. to increase its projection of power without opposition - at least for a little while.

Again, I am not sure that this is what happened, but I do think it is worth consideration. We do know that in the summer before 9/11, there was talk of invading Afghanistan (which I am sure must have been discussed here before...). 9/11 sure would have created global support for that cause (which it did).



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritdancer
My 2 cents worth on this: I had a friend in Israel, in the Israeli army at that time. He had plans to come to America in August-September, I was supposed to meet him, however, he wanted me to meet him someplace that I could drive to. He was insistent that I not fly. I thought he was nuts at the time. How did he now it was not an international flight? That just sealed it in my mind that somebody here had to know it was planned.


oh really? so what became of him? didnt you question him after the attacks? did he just disappear? Are you a traitor to this country? If you know that someone had knowledge of the attacks and didnt do anything, before or after, you are indeed a traitor. Unless its another fabrication....



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hajduk
I personally do not believe that the U.S. governement actually conducted the attacks, but the thought had crossed my mind that perhaps they allowed them to happen.

There's nothing like a national trajedy to increase the power of the government. I'm not saying that is what happened, but I wouldn't write off the possibility either. Terrorist plots are discovered and nullified all the time, but it wouldn't be too hard to let one get through if the powers that be thought it was for the greater good of the nation. Similar to how many war supporters feel that the colateral loss of civilians in Iraq serves a greater good - such decisions are made all the time by governments.

I could see some high ranking U.S. politicians thinking that a 9/11 scale attack would create sympathy for the U.S. and allow the U.S. to increase its projection of power without opposition - at least for a little while.

Again, I am not sure that this is what happened, but I do think it is worth consideration. We do know that in the summer before 9/11, there was talk of invading Afghanistan (which I am sure must have been discussed here before...). 9/11 sure would have created global support for that cause (which it did).


Global support to invade Afghanistan?? LOL...Not a chance. We could have easily went in there and did as we pleased. The rest of the world knew what was going on in there and were to chicken s*** to do anything (as usual). No need to kill off 3000 of our own people.

As far as letting it happen, I disagree. I just think that they let it fall between the cracks as they were busy worrying about who Clinton was screwing.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020

Global support to invade Afghanistan?? LOL...Not a chance. We could have easily went in there and did as we pleased. The rest of the world knew what was going on in there and were to chicken s*** to do anything (as usual). No need to kill off 3000 of our own people.


I disagree. It's true that the U.S. "could" have still done whatever they wish, they would not have been able to envoke NATO unless they were attacked. Using NATO to occupy and do peacekeeping/reconstruction in Afghansistan has allowed the U.S. to allocate more resources to Iraq.

And I stand by my assertation that the global community would have opposed an Afghanistan invasion without 9/11. What was happening in Afghanistan was small compared to Iraq yet the vast majority of the world was against that, and look at the effect it has had on anti-Americanism world wide. I think that is what the U.S. would have wanted to avoid in Afghanistan assuming that they did allow 9/11 to happen.

Of course, can point out that Bush still invaded Iraq with most of the world against it, but I think he miscalculated how quickly the world's goodwill about 9/11 would wane.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Quote: "Global support to invade Afghanistan?? LOL...Not a chance. We could have easily went in there and did as we pleased. The rest of the world knew what was going on in there and were to chicken s*** to do anything (as usual). No need to kill off 3000 of our own people."

Yes but Afghanistan is one thing - IRAQ (that Republican Wet Dream) was quite another! All of the reasons that were given to the Public as to why we went in were BUNK! Personally I don't think it was Primarily for OIL - or that we felt so Bad for the Iraqi people (the Moral Argument)! I feel that it was just another Diversion - More Pay back for 9/11! What if Afghanistan was ALREADY on the Invasion List *BEFORE* 9/11? What if the main reason why we went there was Opium & Heroin Production - not because we Love the Afghanis?

What if our Defense System failed on 9/11 - so to hide the Fact that the Gov Dropped the Ball on 9/11 they Pushed the Button on Afghanistan (Blaming 9/11 on Bin Laden & Al-Queada)! Then they got everyone Revved Up for *Round Two* (IRAQ) - which many felt that we should have finished the Job in 1992 & Removed Saddam back then! The U.S. Desired to Protect our Oil Flow - Protect Israel & get More Pay Back from the Perceived Enemy - "Radical Islam". So when all of the Stated Reasons for the Iraq Invasion Imploded, all they had to say was "Remember 9/11". That is why we went to Iraq again & why we are still there!

I guess it had to be done - but all of the B.S. Lies to the Public about WMD & all that - that just made me sick! Why can't they just tell us the TRUTH from the start?


[edit on 18-4-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
We dont need to know everysingle detail they do. To many facts ands things get confused. Ask yourself this.

Did Saddam smile when he heard about 9/11 ?

Is the world a better place without him or his sons?

nuff said..



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
Spliff420.. If we we're discover WTC7 was in fact imploded by demolition, if some guy was to have documented evidence that produced some kind of paper trail etc. then would you agree that 911 was an inside job?

Ok, let's say undeniably true documents come out stating that WTC7 was imploded by demolition.

.....So what?

Reports are that it was more damaged (from the debris) than they first thought. Plus the fires were going on for hours. It was a condemned building anyway. Where's the conspiricy in tearing down a building that needed to be and would have been torn down?


dh

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by syntaxer
Spliff420.. If we we're discover WTC7 was in fact imploded by demolition, if some guy was to have documented evidence that produced some kind of paper trail etc. then would you agree that 911 was an inside job?

Ok, let's say undeniably true documents come out stating that WTC7 was imploded by demolition.

.....So what?

Reports are that it was more damaged (from the debris) than they first thought. Plus the fires were going on for hours. It was a condemned building anyway. Where's the conspiricy in tearing down a
building that needed to be and would have been torn down?


Please come on, obfuscators
WTC7 was out of the main debris area
Other buildings closer to 1 and 2 had chunks of the buildings fall on them, had serious fires and didn't collapse
A demolition rigging takes weeks and couldn't have been done in a few hours
The videos of the WTC7 show a classic crimp in the center of the roof line of the building as the central support columns are taken out, and the building collapses inwards



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   
If the government wanted to destroy WTC7 why not just crash planes into that building...WTC7, come on......


dh

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
If the government wanted to destroy WTC7 why not just crash planes into that building...WTC7, come on......

Because WTC7 was the command center for the whole operation
That's why it had to be destroyed later



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Quote: "We don’t need to know every single detail they do. Too many facts and things get confused."

I disagree! How will we hold "Them" Accountable in that case? I don't think that we have done a Very Good Job of this since 9/11! This is how things like *FASCISM* get started you know! Democracy works with a
WELL INFORMED Public that gets the Chance to Debate & possibly Dissent before they Vote! We have had LESS & LESS of this & MORE & MORE "Sheepism" lately!

Quote: "Did Saddam smile when he heard about 9/11? Is the World a better place without him or his sons?"

So you decided to fall back on the "Evil Dictator" argument huh? Sometimes when you cut off a Monsters Head - all that happens is that another one grows back in its Place!


[edit on 19-4-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
I do know that thousands of real experts are well aware that no building has ever crashed due to mild damage from falling debris, or the collapse of a modern building caused by a few office fires without the presence of... of.. JET FUEL!.. Get real man.. the perfect pancake implosion of WTC7 was caused by design flaws of diesel fuel generators? How do you justify the collapse of WTC7 when the building fell after suffering a few hours from fires?


And these real experst also know thatthere are significant differences in the structures of other buildings that have undergone catastrophic fires.

BTW, it was longer than a few hours, WTC burned for close to 7 hours before it collapsed. Do you know what the New york building code calls for in terms of sprayed on fire protection in a building such as WTC 7? Hint: fireproofing is rated in "hours."



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunofone
someone else tried to imply that design differences were the reason that the wtc failed and the windsor tower didnt--they were both made of concrete and steel period


No they were not. The only concrete used in the WTC towers were the concrete floor slabs. There was no strucutral concrete used as columns in these buildings.

The Windsor tower, on the other hand, had a core area built with reinforced concrete columns, while the perimeter columns were steel only. These collapsed, while the core area did not.

Therefore, you are comparing apples to oranges.




the facts are the designer himself minoura yamasaki claimed the buildings were designed to take multiple hits from 707's which contain "more" potential energy that 767's


Man you just like to keep going further and further out on that limb, don't you?



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
No wierdy.. Your the one that's sad, but I digress. I don't want to stoop to the flame troll level.


...and yet you did. Sad isn't it?



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
At least I was not the first one here to call something sad. I'm pretty much ignoring the post of a few people but I have to rebut something HowardRoark posted. You stated:

"There was no strucutral concrete used as columns in these buildings"

Wrong I'm afraid..
(And I noticed you mispelled structual even though I'm sure I've done worse in the spelling dept.)

Look at the following link and read carefully.

hawaii.indymedia.org...

In particular:

"The system of design of the World Trade Center Towers is called tubular framing, since the perimeter frames of the building are designed to act as a cantilevered tube in resisting lateral forces. This design concept (the so-called tube within a tube architecture) has been employed in the construction of many of the world's tallest buildings. These include the John Hancock Center (1105 ft), the Standard Oil of Indiana Building (1125 ft) and the Sears Tower (1450 ft). In fact, it is the standard design for tall buildings. Vital to the structural integrity of these buildings are the composite floor slabs. In fact, if the floors were not composite, the buildings would eventually collapse.

Eagar totally ignores the fact that the floor slabs were composite (that is, studs or projections from the steel beams were embedded in the concrete slab) preferring to believe the fiction that the floors just rested upon the beams supporting them. "

HowardRoark, when you say "The only concrete used in the WTC towers were the concrete floor slabs" you are simply wrong. Those slabs were COMPOSITE which means they had steel in them.. Steel from what you might ask?? Steel from the supporting COLLUMNS..

Instead of spinning things to fit your opinion why don't you post facts. I've got plenty other links to impirical data to support my premise. What about you? I have a few questions for you since you seem to know so much about the construction of the former world trade center and the windsor tower. Look at some pictures of the windsor tower after it burned. Explain to us exactly what is still standing and what it is made out of and how it compares to the cores of the world trade center 1 and 2?? And what exactly burned away again? (What was the perimeter REALLY made of?) ALSO, in the world trade center CORE, any steel that wasn't part of a COMPOSITE structure, what was it covered with? (I know this already but I want to see what you have to say. Please back up your "claims" with some facts with links.

[edit on 23-4-2005 by TxSecret]






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join