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.

 

9-11 challenge

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I think this would be an interesting challenge: for those that believe that there was a government conspiracy behind 9-11, give your single best reason, piece of evidence, or argument. The same for the debunkers; give your best particular reason for accepting the official version. Then, after a good number of posts have been offered pick what you perceive to be the best piece of evidence given by someone of the other side and critque it; tell us why it's not enough to change your mind.




posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
There are plenty of 911 threads here on ATS so you can get reasons and opinions of all kinds.
There is so much information out there the government can't dispute it they just avoid and or lie about it.
What do you think and why?

But as you brought it up, Buildings, people computers furniture and what ever else do not turn to dust when the fall down.










This is what happens when a building collapses from a cause other than controlled demolition.

Not very similar to WTC 1, 2, 6, & 7




PULL IT


And this is what happens when they are demolished.



[edit on 13/8/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Good post Sauron!

The fire wasnt producing enough heat to make construction grade steel support columns (all 47 of them between 2-3 feet in width) fail, all at the same time to make the buildings fall in there own footprint. The fires were burning deep red and were producing black smoke, meaning it was an oxegon starved fire. This means the energy was nearly used up. Other than structures bought down in controlled demolitions, these three buildings are the only steel framed skyscrapers, in the entire history of high rise buildings, to have suffered total collapse.

Here are some pictures to illustrate how low the heat of thoses fires was.




Notice in the first pictures the shade of red from the fires, also notice the black smoke. Now take a look at the woman looking out through the gaping hole left from the 767. If a fire is burning hot enough to forge 47 steel columns, not far behind where this woman is standing, she would not be alive.

The building fell nearly the speed of freefall, as if each floor below the one that was falling was being blown apart just before they met. As though there was a complete absents of resistance. Buildings never collapse like this unless they are being demolished with explosives.

Also look at the pictures Sauron posted. They were being turned to dust before it even got to the halfway point of collapse. Where is the weight needed for the "Pancake theory" to keep going. Seems it would have stopped at that point, dont you think?

Edit for spelling

[edit on 13-8-2005 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
If their really was some government conspiracy to fake a terrorist attack, don't you think they would be smart enough to demolish it in such a way that it looks like a typical building that collapses from say a terrorist attack. I mean if they went to all the trouble to fake it then don't you think they would have had it collapse to avoid conspiracy theories such as this. Plain and simple the towers were architecturally DESIGNED to collapse in on themelsves in the event of destruction.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baphomet79
If their really was some government conspiracy to fake a terrorist attack, don't you think they would be smart enough to demolish it in such a way that it looks like a typical building that collapses from say a terrorist attack. I mean if they went to all the trouble to fake it then don't you think they would have had it collapse to avoid conspiracy theories such as this. Plain and simple the towers were architecturally DESIGNED to collapse in on themelsves in the event of destruction.


They bought them down with controlled explosives so that the ONLY buildings that came down were the ones they wanted to come down...

The buildings owned by Sliverstein...

He made money from this, he got rid of buildings that contained asbestos.
And the corporations/government got their war in Iraq and a good few years of "fear control" material to keep the population begging for protection....(they had to do something with the cold war over and all).
I think a lot of back scratching was going on.
Seeing as how the corporations are the ones really in control, the gov merely does it's job as dictated by the corporations.

The deal between Silverstein and the gov didn't cover buildings he didn't own...Money lost...Maximize profits...

Don't underestimate what lengths some people will go to to protect the "beast". Especially when the beasts' time is running out (major recession soon).



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan


Here are some pictures to illustrate how low the heat of thoses fires was.




Notice in the first pictures the shade of red from the fires, also notice the black smoke. Now take a look at the woman looking out through the gaping hole left from the 767. If a fire is burning hot enough to forge 47 steel columns, not far behind where this woman is standing, she would not be alive.


[edit on 13-8-2005 by LoneGunMan]


Explain why dozens of people JUMPED to their deaths.

People were jumping because of extreme heat. If they needed oxygen, they wouldn't have been jumping; they would have just remained hanging out the windows.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Mine would be that three skycrapers imploded because of fire in one day.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Don't forget that when a company demolishes a building they take about a month to plan it out. Tower 7 fell in a few hours so to bring it down as beautifully as they did in such a ridiculous time span they had to have had the explosives already in place. There is not enough oxygen inside a building for a fire to reach the required temperature to melt steel. The tower that fell first was the one where the impact was imperfect and most of the jet fuel exploded outside the building.

On September 9'th and 10'th a company was there to install some wiring, they could have easily disguised wire explosives as cat5 cable. They said they found a passport of one of the hijackers that managed to find its way from the guys pocket, through a massive explosion onto the pavement unharmed. Later the guy was found alive, as were many other suspected hijackers and the story dropped out of the sky faster than a fat man carrying a piano.

The man who designed the towers said that they were built to withstand multiple plane impacts. Yet one plane was able to bring down each tower and within minutes, this is just so ridiculous. If the damage was so severe the top would have just rolled off, there is no way the entire building would fall so gracefully down. I could go on for hours but there is no point, we have paid skeptics on this website.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   
I noticed I had a total brain@$&# and spelled oxygen wrong (wasnt a typo either just some sort of mental regression, I used to spell it that way when I was a little kid) but now I cant edit my post!



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by consprtrkr
I think this would be an interesting challenge: for those that believe that there was a government conspiracy behind 9-11, give your single best reason, piece of evidence, or argument. The same for the debunkers; give your best particular reason for accepting the official version. Then, after a good number of posts have been offered pick what you perceive to be the best piece of evidence given by someone of the other side and critque it; tell us why it's not enough to change your mind.


As I see it there are presently two theories as to what happened on 9/11. Some here will accept the government version as explained in the 9/11 Commission Report. Others maintain our government participated in the attacks and planted bombs in WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

My position is there was no government participation in the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2 and no military stand down. I do however believe the government has created a cover-up of key events.

I maintain fighters from Otis AFB arrived upon the scene in NYC at 9:03 AM, fired a missile at Flight 175 as it was crashing into WTC 2. The missile missed its intended target and hit WTC 6 creating a massive explosion and crater. This explosion also damaged the south-west corner of WTC 7. A demolition team was brought in later that afternoon and pulled building 7.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   

The fire wasnt producing enough heat to make construction grade steel support columns (all 47 of them between 2-3 feet in width) fail, all at the same time to make the buildings fall in there own footprint.


There wasn't need for that. The floor was damaged so bad it wasn't able to provide enough horizontal support to outer walls. Outer walls bended inwards and it started the whole collapse. Falling steel beams and other stuff broke through floors below, and outer wall was left whitout horizontal support.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by msdos464

The fire wasnt producing enough heat to make construction grade steel support columns (all 47 of them between 2-3 feet in width) fail, all at the same time to make the buildings fall in there own footprint.


There wasn't need for that. The floor was damaged so bad it wasn't able to provide enough horizontal support to outer walls. Outer walls bended inwards and it started the whole collapse. Falling steel beams and other stuff broke through floors below, and outer wall was left whitout horizontal support.


What bs. The columns extended beyond single floors. You could take out the concrete slabs of many floors in a row, if not all of them, and the building would still stand just as well as it did with them, and maybe better since they weighed so much.

btw - I'm back from a week away.

[edit on 14-8-2005 by bsbray11]







 
0

log in

join