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.

 

How can seemingly intelligent people dismiss the eyewitness accounts of hearing explosives?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Well then, by that logic can we conclude that WTC 1 and 2 were not a controlled demolition because 80% of those buildings landed outside the footprint?


Why not? Go for it.

Everyone knows that all controlled demolitions are always the exact same anyway. It must be impossible to demolish any two buildings by different means. They're always done the exact same. Your logic is flawless.




posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Well which is it Bsbray?

You can't have it both ways.

You can't say that the symetrical collapse within it's footprint is proof of controlled demolition on WTC 7, and then turn around and say that the same logic can't be used against the demolition of WTC 1 and 2.

If your going to mock people for not seeing things your way, you should at least be consistent.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
8bitagent,

You can find Howard making the exact same arguments in the WTC Challenge thread over and over, among others. You could probably save yourself a lot of trouble just by looking at those posts. WCIP has nice little images that he posts from time to time, showing these arguments as a merry-go-round, as Howard perpetuates it and keeps the wheel turning here. All this info has been discussed at length already, and you needn't waste your time with it.

For example, the images he just posted show the aluminum facades of the steel columns bent. They don't show buckling steel columns.



As you can see, the aluminum is by no means representative of the steel columns they cover(ed).

Howard's been pretty hypocritical, though, because while he only shows aluminum facades, he's tried to criticize others for doing the exact same thing. Yet he goes on posting the facades as if they were the actual beams anyway.

But even considering that he is actually showing buckling from heat and not just bent aluminum coverings (I seriously doubt this, but just for the sake of argument..), then there are only a few "buckled" columns anyway. How does this lead to collapse? "Well," Howard will tell you, "when the rest of them buckled, the buildings fell!" But by the videofootage, there are no signs of columns buckling inwards before collapse. Howard's response? He'll say the videos are misleading.

Like I said, it's all been discussed before in older threads. Toooo many times.

It boils down to this: there is no definitive proof so far for either case (official explanation or conspiracy), but the official explanation has scientific holes in it that the conspiracy theory does not, ie, squibs and the disappearance of angular momentum, among others.

The rest of it can be argued back and forth all day, like, "it was enough damage," "no it wasn't!," "look at these horrible pictures, ooohh," "well.. your mother is a chimpanzee!".. ;( .. because there are no definitive figures or proofs to settle it either way.

But!, they have nothing on the squibs or angular momentum or the lack of retardation in collapse as the upper buildings' remains rapidly deteriorated. Only pseudo-science and vivid imaginations, like compressed air, or whatever the hell they will try to counter the angular momentum problem with, etc. And that's what it will boil down to, I think.




posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   
LeftBehind,

A) You completely missed (or conveniently ignored) the whole point of my last post to you, being that not every demolition occurs the same freaking way, and

B) I never said those things were proof of demolition. x.x Quit putting words in my mouth.

But, again, if you want to show me any gravity-driven collapse that resulted in a collapse remotely like either WTC 1, 2, or 7's collapse, post away, man, until you pass out.

I'm seriously tempted to click that little ignore button right about now..



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   
HowardRoark, ok I see the WTC 1and2 photos.

Where is the photos of WTC7 that show massive gaping damage?


Originally posted by Boatphone
How can seemingly intelligent people think that the United States government would plan and carry out 9/11??




How can seemingly seasoned people like Bush and Rumsfeld think that they could fool us into thinking Iraq bought Uranium, had weapons of mass destruction, ties with al qaeda, was an imminent threat to the US and was a part of 9/11? Whose the conspiracy theorists?



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Unfortunately, after the second tower collapse, anyone with a camera was basically cleared out of the immediate area. Most of the photos of the south face are obscured by the thick smoke from the fires burning in the building.

there are photos of some of the damage, but not all of it. Most of what is known about the extent of the damage comes from the eye witness accounts of the firemen, like I posted above.

How can seemingly intelligent people dismiss the eyewitness accounts of the extensive damage to the south face of WTC 7?





posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
B) I never said those things were proof of demolition. x.x Quit putting words in my mouth.



Really then what was this?


Originally posted by bsbray11Yes, ladies and gentlemen, and this is why Building 7 came down perfectly symmetrically, right onto its footprint, streamers and all, just as a controlled demolition would.


Oops.


I guess you better ignore me for bringing up your own contradictions.

That would be the adult thing to do.

All I did was point out your flawed logic, if that makes you want to barf and then ignore me, it's no skin off my back.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
For example, the images he just posted show the aluminum facades of the steel columns bent. They don't show buckling steel columns.
As you can see, the aluminum is by no means representative of the steel columns they cover(ed).

Howard's been pretty hypocritical, though, because while he only shows aluminum facades, he's tried to criticize others for doing the exact same thing. Yet he goes on posting the facades as if they were the actual beams anyway.




Once again, I have to point out the total lack of logic in bsbray11’s claims.

In the above he claims that the picture I posted only shows the exterior columns coved buckling inward. What he doesn’t tell you is that those aluminum columns covers were directly connected to the steel structure.



Cross Section Through Exterior Box Column. The numbers in the figure denote: 36 – Steel column, 38, 39 – Fire resistant plaster, 40 – Aluminum façade, 42 – Window glass, 43 – Window frame.

As you can see, if the aluminum façade can be observed as having buckled inward, then it is pretty obvious that the steel column behind it has buckled inward also.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What happens when you have a mist of jet fuel falling down an enclosed elevator shaft that ignites? you get a fuel air explosion

Ever make a spud cannon?



Seriously, that's beside the point.
You don't KNOW what happend. All you do is take guesses at what could happen IF, without looking at any of the evidence, oh yeah, you got a few eye-witnesses saying there weren't any explosions, so it must've been a fireball.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How can seemingly intelligent people dismiss the eyewitness accounts of the extensive damage to the south face of WTC 7?


...or ignore the countless witnesses and firefighters who heard explosions in WTC 1&2, the seizmologist graphs reading explosions before the collapses, etc.

Isnt it convenient that none of the WTC 7 photos out there show any structural damage, and instead only a few office fires?

I wonder if say, one day in a barrage of tears George Tenet comes on tv for an emergency press conference and says sobbingly "Elements of the government were in on 9/11, and I have the proof", would people still be calling it all conspiracy theory, outlandish?



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
So, let me TRY and get this straight.

Terrorists flew planes into buildings. The fire from the jet fuel weakens the structures support beams and cause the twin towers to collapse. We retaliate against terrorism.

OR


Bush wanted oil. Somehow convinced a bunch of saudis to KILL themselves by flying planes into buildings. Then detonated bombs "hidden" inside the towers around the 10th-15th floors. This explosion freakishly caused the tower to start collapsing at about 100 stories HIGHER.

OR

Bush wanted Middle Easterners DEAD because he's racist. He orders his men to smuggle bombs into the WTC towers and is going to blow them up and then blame it on Saddam Hussein. Then a gift from heaven comes to Bush, terrorists fly planes into both towers. At this moment an agent of evil whispers into Bush's ear in a classroom full of children. Trying to hide his smile in front of all the cameras, he knows that when the bombs explode he won't have to "create" a story. However, a few superior intellects see through his evil plan and post it on this web site.

An experiment was done recently in Loch Ness. About 100 'sane' people were asked to stand for a photo shoot. Little did all these people know they were being set up to see how the average person perceives things during a sudden and dramatic event. On the opposite side of the lake an underwater team filled a tree trunk with hellium and let it rise up out of the water and then it rapidly sunk again. Over 80% of the people said it was the Loch Ness Monster, even describing in great vivid detail on how it's head looked around before grasping for air and submerging.

Over 80% of these people saw/heard something that was completely false. Yet 30 - 40 people out of how many other people saw/heard a bomb explode? A thousand? 2 thousand?



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent

the seizmologist graphs reading explosions before the collapses, etc.


What are you talking about?

there was no siesmic evidence of explosives.

Did you read the original reports I linked to?

Please do so and tell me exactly where there is evidence of explosions before the towers collapsed.


"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
It is a common know fact that seizmologists are IMMEDIATELY called in after a natural disaster or terrorist attack to assertain if our government is planting explosives to kill more Americans. These government officials are blood thirsty monsters that want the body count to be as high as possible. Seizmologists are the little peoples last defense against a corrupt and evil bunch of creatures.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
If this is true, they failed at the WTC. They could have had a MUCH higher body count if they waited until later in the day, instead of hitting it in the morning when they did.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Seriously, that's beside the point.
You don't KNOW what happend.


Bingo!

Finally, a point upon which we can all (most) agree.

YOU don't know, either. So, it's inaccurate to say that any of these statements are true, because when all's said and done, we just don't know.

"The government concocted the entire thing"
"The government is in on it"
"They're hiding evidence because it shows their guilt"
"The government didn't do it"
"The government might have known something was going on, but didn't stop it"

(Ok, that last one has more evidence than the other four, it seems, but you get my point)

That's why we keep asking questions.

Because we just don't know.



[edit on 14-9-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I think the government is very lucky that still people will beleive there must be a very good explanation for it all. The fact it has so many loose ends and the fact that there is so much speculation as well as proof is perfect to give the illusion that it could have would have happened.

All these diabolical things that are happening are truly masterpieced, and some credit is deserved, after all. It unfolds like a good horror book that you cant put down.

And its always sprinkled with doubt.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Shroomery

Seriously, that's beside the point.
You don't KNOW what happend.


Bingo!

Finally, a point upon which we can all (most) agree.

YOU don't know, either. So, it's inaccurate to say that any of these statements are true, because when all's said and done, we just don't know.

"The government concocted the entire thing"
"The government is in on it"
"They're hiding evidence because it shows their guilt"
"The government didn't do it"
"The government might have known something was going on, but didn't stop it"

(Ok, that last one has more evidence than the other four, it seems, but you get my point)

That's why we keep asking questions.

Because we just don't know.


I agree, but when discussing the fireball it is my word (wich is backed up by evidence) against 'your' word (wich isn't backed up by evidence), and I'm not talking about eye-witnesses.
This is the case for alot of facts that are simply untouched by the official story and in most cases left out.

So, 1000 coincidences or one logical story that would fit perfectly in the history of the US? It's up to you ..



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I seriously wonder what kind of paranoid dillusional lives some of you people live. You make up and believe almost or all conspiracy theories. You take rumors, theories and circumstantial oddities, then combine with others like yourselves and "CREATE" PROOF or FACTS.

You seem to refuse EVIDENCE and DOCUMENTED PROOF and FACTS that has been put in front of you on your t.v. screens. Yet, when some screaming lunatic yells something bizarre you believe THAT in a heartbeat.(and yes, i do literally mean "SCREAMING LUNATIC", as in literally "screaming" and COMPLETELY disconnected with reality, which would seem you people are heading to).

Eye witnesses say they heard a loud noise before the towers collapsed AS IF it SOUNDED LIKE A BOMB. Therefore IT MUST HAVE BEEN A BOMB, RIGHT? Is this how you people think, am i with the program here? Or could it have been something simple like an elevator cable snapping from the sheer heat of the jet fuel causing it to drop some 100 stories down the shaft and then SMASHING into the basement floor sending the noise travelling upward and out broken windows. Hmmm, i wonder what that would sound like???



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faust
Yet, when some screaming lunatic yells something bizarre you believe THAT in a heartbeat.(and yes, i do literally mean "SCREAMING LUNATIC", as in literally "screaming" and COMPLETELY disconnected with reality, which would seem you people are heading to).


Funny, but your post is so full of ALLCAPS, that the only one who seems to be screaming around here is...well...you.




posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faust
I seriously wonder what kind of paranoid dillusional lives some of you people live.


What exactly is it that you're doing here?

Why don't you just take a hike if we are lunatics, because, you seem to be caring pretty much about us.

And BTW, you're a real comedian for accusing us of being detached from reality and in the next line stating that you get your information from tv.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join