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.

 

You just can't debunk this

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
The core of the WTC Towers is the strength of the building. If someone did plant explossives in the buildings to be undetected.... where do you think they would hide them?

Elevator Shafts
en.wikipedia.org...:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangment.jpg




posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I have two points I'd like to make:

1) There are many things in buildings that can explode if it gets hot enough. Concrete will explode and the aircraft were heavily loaded with fuel. The fires weren't only on the floors where the aircraft hit. Fuel flowed throughout and down the building. Once the floors where the worse damage occured began to buckle, there was no way the building could continue to support the weight.

2) If I lived in a country where I believed my government deliberately planned to kill 3000 of my fellow countrymen, I would denounce my citizenship and leave. My question for those Americans who believe in this conspiracy is: Why are you still here?



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
The 2nd point first, It's your duty as an American to question, especially the government. O.k. - I'll just leave it at that for now.

Your 1st point would seem that you haven't done your research so I'll do my best to give you some data to work with:

Science is your friend....

www.unsolvedmysteries.com...



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
At this point the "debunkers" just have their blinders on. They don't want to accept that this could happen in the "land of the free" (who ever told you that is your enemy).

What's up wit WTC 7? obviously planned.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudCanadian
It's totally obvious the US government planned everything


Is it?
"Totally...obvious"?
About as "obvious" as what, exactly?
Your simply making an absolute, stereotypical, and opinionated statement.
Nothing more, nothing less.




I seriuosly don't know how anyone can still go along with the "official" story. People are fools.

You mean "people are fools" to the point of simply spouting absolute, stereotypical, and opinionated statements? How ironic, huh?
Your proofs and evidences are where exactly to disprove the "official" story?
People and conspiracy theorists have been attempting to debunk the "official" story since the incident in 2001 occurred, and quite frankly, the best that they have been able to do is raise a number of good questions and at least one decent alternative hypothetical. Other than that, its a matter of serious debate, for if such was as "obvious" as you assert such to be, government heads would have rolled a long time ago.

So please, spare me your absolute, stereotypical, and opinionated "obvious" and "people are fools" mentions. Using them in the fashionable way that you do does to justifiably convey your superior, all-seeing, and all-knowing insights. 9/11 will simply go down in history as being a very tragic occurance, joining the ranks of Kennedy's assassination, among other governmental conspiracy related type myths and stories........"obviously" and "obvious," huh?





seekerof

[edit on 10-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Amen to that promomag! Just because I love America doesn't mean I can't ask questions. I don't have to shut my eyes and blindly believe that everyone in the White House loves me, and tells me the unaltered truth.

You really have to look at the third tower collapse. Fell straight down, just like the other towers, without a big airplane crashing into it. Now that, my friends, raises some big questions.

Those 3 buildings collapsed near perfect. Now, if there was terrible engineering oversite, then I would like some hard evidence to back it.

Also notice that the top of one tower started to lean, but "still" the rest of the building ended up falling straight down. In my eyes it would seem like the top would have continued to fall off in an independent sort of way, making the collapse, let's say, less than perfect. But the levels below it somehow still managed to fall neatly down.

Troy

[edit on 10-3-2006 by cybertroy]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   
my company was in the south tower, lower floors

we moved to midtown after that day

we may have to go back down later this year.

freaking cruel bastards....



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I'll bite..

THose 'explosions' are natural gas lines and electrical componants of the building that exploded, this has been stated numerous times in books, reports and online, yet for some reason people still continue to belive the inital reports of the survivors. Read 102 minutes, the story of the survivors of the WTC, and you will get a first hand accoutn of what was going on. People reported explosions becasue they did not know a plane hit the building,that is where the reports of explosions came from. They are in the Port authority and 9/11 transcipts. You are basing your arguement of the confused ramblings of people that were trapped in the towers. THat is the only proof.

WTC 7 suffered the same fate. Debris from the crashes and the collapse casued fires that reached the basement of the WTC 7 and burned for hours,. along side gas storage and lines inthe basement. Building burned or over 7 hours, it was evacuated and it collapsed.

2 planes hit the WTC, they collapsed taking the lives of close to 3000 people, It is not a conspiracy. I love how these tapes or something similar comes up every few weels and someone thinks they solved the mystery. There is no mystery.

THe 9/11 commision was actually a very good read, you should try it.

Again, I ask howver, where is the smoking gun that explosives were used? Is there any physical evidence?


I am asking out of curiosity, it seems pretty clear that the explosions happened pretty high up in the building, they are visable on tape. I could see natural gas lines, does anyone have blueprints or other evidence to show how high gas lines went in the tower and where they were?

Now as for electrical lines, I fail to see how they could explode, or explode with enough force to damage the infrastructure. Not that I am an expert on the topic, but I would be interested in further information on that as well.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   
It was not with enough force to cause the explosions, they occured as they were falling.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   
wtc 7 was not hit by any plane. the official version has it collapsing from small fires from the material contained in the building at the time. doesn't anyone have anything to say that larry silverstein admitted on tape that we was in on the decision to blow up wtc 7 tower with the fire chief? in a court of law barring almost any other evidence, that would be pretty strong. had he ever been charged with murder you can bet they'd be playing that video in the court. if YOU were on the jury would you write off that piece of video or add credence to a prosecution case? in any other case, in a simple murder trial f/i, wouldn't that be the key piece of evidence that would quell any fears to send a guy to the chair, a taped video confession of his crime?

i cannot believe that anyone could believe the official story after watching that. people just don't want to believe what is in front of their faces, that's all.

i'm not going to argue dust clouds and pancake theory with an mit prof. i don't have the background. but i can tell you, i have seen building gas risers and electrical risers, and the material contained in them is nothing in comparison to the material found in a concrete encased steel structure. the thought that this could have caused the collapse is laughable. imagine a gas line, maybe 10" say, filled with gas, running to any possible heating equipment on the roof. that is a lot of gas you'd say. then put that against even 1 of the huge steel columns encased in solid highly spec'd concrete, and it isn't much. maybe you're not aware of this, but concrete samples are routinely taken out for independant testing at approved labs for stress testing while buildings are being erected to ensure it is within specs. steel beams and re-bar are encased in concrete as the building is erected. it isn't visible. if you inspect a high rise building of this type, you can't actually see any steel anywhere. all you see is concrete.

as for the electrical risers, there is a lot of potential contained in them. you can see the power from an explosion. but i've seen many such explosions first hand being an electrician and it is localised. a hole blown in a door, or a wire blown clear. fuses blow or breakers trip before extensive damage is done, years and years of study has gone into that. breakers and fuses are properly sized for bus bars and cables. they are tested and approved by inspection authorities.

maybe the tank of deisel for the back up generator? well, that would be in a sealed dedicated room in the basement. maybe if you've never had much exp with this before it might seem plausible. but deisel simply doesn't ingnite that way. it is a pretty safe fuel to store.

flammable materials stored inside an office tower, or any source of ignition for that matter is a tightly controlled subject. electrical rooms are cleared of any debris as soon as it is noticed in any building i've worked in, for just this reason, and in a building where there are bomb sniffing dogs with security guards it is unbelievable that they'd be storing anything flammable.

wtc 7 coming down from fire caused by the materials contained in the building is a huge whopper. and the chance that this huge irregularity were to happen right next door to 2 other buildings, the first and the second to ever come down from fire is beyond remote. how big was that fish? it was THIS big.

wtc 7 was a controlled demolition 100% certain. who did it and why can't be answered before this fact is clear in everyone's mind. but it is a fact.

rick



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   
My favorite part was the absolute denial of the 47 reinforced support girders that supported the towers. The 9/11 commisions official report was "what girders?" That's just rediculous, and a bold faced lie on the governments part.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
The part that gets me, and I'm knew to being got, is that they hauled away all of the steel and melted it down without testing it. Please explain why this was done?

Then again, there are more things that get me, why was all the concrete turned to fine dust? Not a chunk or a rock. I've seen homes on the local news that exploded from a gas line and the foundation was still there. Wood and brick and household furnishings are still quite visible. Of course more gas would mean a bigger explosion but more building should then equal less damage. How much gas would they have to be pumping into that place for it to come crumbling down into a fine dust? Also, it looks like more than one explosion. It seems one huge explosion would've ripped through all the gas in the line.

Or, even more questions...wouldn't they shut the gas off because there was an active fire burning in the building? I'm not a scientist or a gas'ologist. Just trying to figure out a few things and see where folk stand.

Then, you've got the 911 report that just openly denies that the building had 47 steel gurders supporting it. What was left was hauled away--so we are back to the beginning. Why didn't they even test the steel? Why was it shipped out and melted down? No one can say for sure anything because there were no test done...you can either believe or disbelieve the official story. We have nothing more than mere theory and speculation because that is how the government chose to run the investigation into the most terrible attack on American soil--ever.

Silverstein said they pulled building 7. That's on tape. It was a controlled demolition--he admitted it. That's all the proof we have--everything else is theory.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   
You guys need to do some research. and must read the 9/11 commission report.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
As I believe The commission's report stated that Fire is a LOW Probability to take the buildings down.. In case you missed that point I will say it again.

A LOW PROBABILITY



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by promomag
The 2nd point first, It's your duty as an American to question, especially the government. O.k. - I'll just leave it at that for now.



Originally posted by cybertroy
Amen to that promomag! Just because I love America doesn't mean I can't ask questions.


Asking questions is one thing. Drawing conclusions based on weak and circumstantial evidence is quite another. You conspiracy theorists are drawing conclusions.

I ask this question: IF there was any chance that the bush administration was behind the attacks; don't you think the Democrats would be all over this? Don't you think they not only would be screaming "IMPEACHMENT" but prison as well?

The government couldn't keep a lid on their prized anti-terror tool: The monitoring of telephone and intenet exchanges under the Patriot Act.

If the government was behind the attacks it would have required coordination on the magnitude of several hundred people; who are also Americans!! Don't you think their involvement would have leaked by now?

If you are seiously convinced of the criminal activities of the government; why don't you write your Senators and Congressmen? Why don't you hire some lawyer(s) to persue the government's involvement in 911 (the ACLU would love to take on this kind of case--AND THEY WOULD DO IT PRO--BONO if the complaint was legitimate)? You believe your government is behind one of the biggest attack on this nation's soil and the best you can do about it is cry on a conspiracy BBS? PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!
WEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OUTRIGHT UN-AMERICAN!!!! If the gov't was behind the attacks, REAL Americans would never allow them to get away with it. So you believe what you believe. I say: SHOW ME THE MONEY!!! Do something about it.


[edit on 11-3-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by promomag
The 2nd point first, It's your duty as an American to question, especially the government. O.k. - I'll just leave it at that for now.



Originally posted by cybertroy
Amen to that promomag! Just because I love America doesn't mean I can't ask questions.


Asking questions is one thing. Drawing conclusions based on weak and circumstantial evidence is quite another. You conspiracy theorists are drawing conclusions.

I ask this question: IF there was any chance that the bush administration was behind the attacks; don't you think the Democrats would be all over this? Don't you think they not only would be screaming "IMPEACHMENT" but prison as well?

The government couldn't keep a lid on their prized anti-terror tool: The monitoring of telephone and intenet exchanges under the Patriot Act.

If the government was behind the attacks it would have required coordination on the magnitude of several hundred people; who are also Americans!! Don't you think their involvement would have leaked by now?

If you are seiously convinced of the criminal activities of the government; why don't you write your Senators and Congressmen? Why don't you hire some lawyer(s) to persue the government's involvement in 911 (the ACLU would love to take on this kind of case--AND THEY WOULD DO IT PRO--BONO if the complaint was legitimate)? You believe your government is behind one of the biggest attack on this nation's soil and the best you can do about it is cry on a conspiracy BBS? PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!
WEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OUTRIGHT UN-AMERICAN!!!! If the gov't was behind the attacks, REAL Americans would never allow them to get away with it. So you believe what you believe. I say: SHOW ME THE MONEY!!! Do something about it.


[edit on 11-3-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]




"IF there was any chance that the bush administration was behind the attacks"

Well, to be fair, Operation Northwoods was kept secret for 40 + years.


If you were to SOMEHOW get the mass media to address the molten steel, squibs, demolition of WTC7, numerous fire fighter / news reporter / WTC worker accounts of explosions on the lower floors shortly before the collapses....along with the 9/11 Eyewitness audio + footage.... then heads would definitely start rolling.

The Miami Herald and Utah's Deseret News have already picked up the story (Early February, 2006).

[edit on 11-3-2006 by noto]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by noto
Well, to be fair, Operation Northwoods was kept secret for 40 + years.


Operation Northwoods was a "what if" plan put together by the JCS and was shot down by civilian leadership (Kennedy administration). The Generals who conceived the plan were removed from the JCS. All this during a time when it would have been relatively easy to successfully pull off this plan. Also, there were only a few people involved with the formulation of this plan. The 911 attacks would have required the cooperation fo several hundred people.

In my view, all this is alll moot as Usama bin Laden Himself took credit for the attacks. But, of course, everyone knows the gov't conspired with UBL to carry out the attacks



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
By the time I had watched the first tower fall I just knew it was an inside job.

Within a few hours, the news that the bright orange passport belonging to one of the hijackers, not only managed to survive where the black-boxes did not , but was discovered and noticed ammid the total chaos a few blocks from groud zero, left no shadow of a doubt.

However I think this cutter-charges theory is a red herring.

It must be appreciated that an large amout of energy would have been released when the main support columns failed, for whatever reason, in WTC 1 and WTC2

This release of energy would be explosive in nature.

It should not be too difficult for anyone skilled in physics to calculate the approximate velocity of the shock-wave gas and debre, moving away from the point of initial collapes and determine if it would thus explain the ejections of debree and gas from lower down in the buildings as they colapsed.

Furthermore, the columns appeared to first fail at or near the impact point of impact of the purported aircraft.

To be able fly the aircraft into the very place where the main cutter charges were placed seems unlikely even for computer controlled flight.

WTC 7 is a different story.

.....................................................................................................

"At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft..........

.....the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will be made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status, The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan"


Source:

THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENCE



Complete document can be downloaded from THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVES at George Washington University

here:
www.gwu.edu...



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
A. The burden of proof is not on him. Unfortunately, it's on those of us who claim that the official story isn't true.


I disagree. It's supposed to be our government's job to protect us from things like this. They did not and they have still yet to explain some major problems in what they have offered thus far.

If it were the debunker's job to prove something, people could claim all kinds of ridiculous nonsense in all walks of life and be correct until proven mistaken. In many cases it's not very easy to prove things incorrect because the information given is fragmentary. This is case with things like the 9/11 Commission, and NIST. They still have to establish their cases with some logic and hard evidence.

Even our courts assume innocent until proven guilty. Why should this be any different? They have to show that their case is right before we have to debunk it, and they haven't even given us that.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Can you prove otherwise?


Yes! I can. On September 11th, 2001 I saw two planes hit the world trade center in New York City.


Me too. I guess my convictions are also true, then.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join