why cant everyone just accept the facts!

this is regarding 911 because it seems that subject will never die on ATS. why cant some of the members here just accept planes were crashed into the building and the force of the crash cause the building to fall????
dont forget conspiracy people, those planes have fuel tanks... if those tanks get bashed around from crashing into a building they can explode quite violently especially when running.

why cant some of you just accept the planes cause it to fall not bombs in the tower not a ufo attack just the planes? i can accept it.

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
this is regarding 911 because it seems that subject will never die on ATS. why cant some of the members here just accept planes were crashed into the building and the force of the crash cause the building to fall????
dont forget conspiracy people, those planes have fuel tanks... if those tanks get bashed around from crashing into a building they can explode quite violently especially when running.

why cant some of you just accept the planes cause it to fall not bombs in the tower not a ufo attack just the planes? i can accept it.

Wrong forum for 9/11 posts, and your new insight has solved the whole issue, we can stop posting about it now. Thanks for your informative fact supported dissertation.

ok i wasnt sure where to post it and you dont need facts when the truth was nationally broadcasted. ill give you my own facts if your so demanding.

lets go backward in time, the plane hits the wtc, the plane nocks off essential support colums near the top... once the plane is inside the tower there is not enough support for the rest of the tower above the plane, the result? down goes wtc. how hard is it to believe really?

[edit on 23-3-2006 by worksoftplayhard]

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
ok i wasnt sure where to post it and you dont need facts when the truth was nationally broadcasted. ill give you my own facts if your so demanding.

lets go backward in time, the plane hits the wtc, the plane nocks off essential support colums near the top... once the plane is inside the tower there is not enough support for the rest of the tower above the plane, the result? down goes wtc. how hard is it to believe really?

[edit on 23-3-2006 by worksoftplayhard]

Ya down goes the towers at free fall speed. And what about tower 7.

Give up nightmare. The OP will never be convinced. Surely all the engineers and physicists that are assailing the official story every day have nothing on this poster.

For me, the planes MAY have done it.

However, the big picture is this - I believe without a doubt that WTC7 was demolished and the plane was shot down in Pennsylvania. Those two cannot be denied.

With that much going against the official story it means one cannot lay too much faith other parts of the story. With 2 lies in the official story, any more could be possible.

It is my opinion that there is much more to 911 than we're told, but it is can only be speculated right now.

I don't know if WTC 1&2 were demolished, but it seems possible. Evidence is not conclusive, but there is enough to consider the possibility.

We don't really know what happened, but for one to believe the official story is someone that hasn't done enough research with an open mind.

Most of the conspiracy theories of 911 are rotten bologna, but some offer a possibility.

I have watched every video I could find and picture I could see for a building that fell like WTC7 from earthquakes, fire and any other cause besides demolition. I found not one. They ALL either fell sideways or fell partially.

With that, it allows for the POSSIBILITY that the same MIGHT have occured in 1 and 2 as well.

If folks want to believe something, they can find evidence to support their views - on both sides. However, if one researches without being on a side, a clearer picture will emerge.

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
why cant some of the members here just accept planes were crashed into the building and the force of the crash cause the building to fall????

Sorry, this is incorrect. If it were true that the force of the crash cause the buildings to fall, then they would have fallen immediately after the crash.

If they fell due to planes hitting them, then they fell as a result of conditions brought about by the crashes, not the force of the crash itself.

I know, nit-picky, but if you're gonna come out swinging at "conspiracy people" it would behoove you to get your verbage straight. At least then you'll come off as having done your homework.

Oh yeah, and the explosive capacity of jet fuel has little to do with whether or not said fuel is being consumed (by the engines) at the time of explosion.

That said, I pretty much agree with you.

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard

dont forget conspiracy people, those planes have fuel tanks...

No *kidding* sherlock. I am starting to believe the whole story now.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by The Links]

Mod Edit: Pleased don't bypass the profanity filters with creative spellings. Thanks.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Thank God for blinders, otherwise everyone would have to think for themselves.

Lets try an experiment, Hijack a plane, fly it into the sears tower, and see if the building next to it falls all by itself. (does this constitute promoting an illegal act? if so, sorry)

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
this is regarding 911 because it seems that subject will never die on ATS. why cant some of the members here just accept planes were crashed into the building and the force of the crash cause the building to fall????
dont forget conspiracy people, those planes have fuel tanks... if those tanks get bashed around from crashing into a building they can explode quite violently especially when running.

why cant some of you just accept the planes cause it to fall not bombs in the tower not a ufo attack just the planes? i can accept it.

Maybe some of us are not brainwashed into believing everything the media tells us.

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
you dont need facts when the truth was nationally broadcasted.

LOL.

I'm going Howard on this one.. XD

lets go backward in time, the plane hits the wtc, the plane nocks off essential support colums near the top... once the plane is inside the tower there is not enough support for the rest of the tower above the plane, the result? down goes wtc. how hard is it to believe really?

Pretty hard, considering that the towers didn't fall right after the impacts. Therefore the impacts were not the only cause.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Lets try an experiment, Hijack a plane, fly it into the sears tower, and see if the building next to it falls all by itself.

(does this constitute promoting an illegal act? if so, sorry)

This may just happen; you never know. And it probably is "illegal" now, but by this point I don't really respect any of this country's laws, except for the ones against murder. And our leaders don't respect those, so..

Check this out:

The circle of real-estate moguls is small. Two members of the group that was bought out of the Sears Tower deal also are part of a partnership headed by developer Larry Silverstein that owns office leases on the destroyed World Trade Center. Four months before the Sears Tower deal, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site, allowed the Silverstein-led group to get back its original $125 million investment in the leases, providing the group capital to deploy elsewhere. The group retained its right to control all 10 million square feet of office space at Ground Zero.

Source.

So now Silverstein's involved with the Sears Tower.

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
dont forget conspiracy people, those planes have fuel tanks...

How much have really thought about this? Not too much I would guess

For a start did you happen to notice those nice big fire balls when the planes hit? That's your fuel from your fuel tanks burning. Fuel is not like a solid object, it burns and evaporates very quickly. In other word most of the fuel never even made it inside the buildings.

How do you explain building 7 with your fuel theory? No plane, no fuel, minimum damage, small fires the NYFD didn't even feel were bad enough to bother with at the time. Did this majic fuel not only survive the initial fireball but fly all by itself over to building 7?

Ya gotta look at the BIG PICTURE dude! The only theory that isn't full of HUGE holes is controlled demo.

But anyway thanx for proving that the general public is more than willing to believe anything they're told by the gov, no matter how redicularse, without even the slightest effort to think for themselves. The govs population control and conditioning dept must be very proud of their work.

Originally posted by ANOK
[

How do you explain building 7 with your fuel theory? No plane, no fuel, minimum damage, small fires the NYFD didn't even feel were bad enough to bother with at the time. Did this majic fuel not only survive the initial fireball but fly all by itself over to building 7?

This is simply not true. The FDNY was evacuating the WTC prior to the collapse of tower 2, which caused damage to the WTC. There was natrual gas and other substations under WTC 7 which aided in the fire. The tower took over 30 seconds to collapse according to NIST. The information is there, you just need to look deeper.

Originally posted by godservant
I believe without a doubt that WTC7 was demolished

www.abovetopsecret.com...

what is your opinion about those quotes?

Originally posted by esdad71
This is simply not true. The FDNY was evacuating the WTC prior to the collapse of tower 2, which caused damage to the WTC. There was natrual gas and other substations under WTC 7 which aided in the fire. The tower took over 30 seconds to collapse according to NIST. The information is there, you just need to look deeper.

The NIST report has been de-bunked to my satisfaction, so don't even go there.

30 seconds to collapse? Have you seen the vid? Time it!

No amount of natural gas, or diesel fuel, or substations is gonna cause a 48 story building to collapse in classic demo style. If it did why do they bother with carefully planting explosives to bring buildings down?

The damage to WTC 7 was also not enough to bring the building down in a controlled style demo, think about it. Watch the video of it collapsing.

And what about what silverspoon, er silverstein said?

'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'

We all know what pull it means by now right, or are you gonna argue that old tired laim one too?

Here is a picture of building 7 at 3pm on September 11, two and a half hours before it collapsed. The lower portion of the building is darkened from the reflection of the other smaller building across the street. The only fires are on the 7th and 12th floors and are so small they could have been put out by the office sprinkler system.

www.prisonplanet.com...

[edit on 23/3/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

Here's your WTC 7 damage...

That's not a picture of WTC 7, so what's your point?

[edit on 23-3-2006 by HowardRoark]

oops DOH! wrong pic sry, damn and I can't find the right one now.
Thanks for pointing that out howward.

Someone must have it, anyone??

Pretty hard, considering that the towers didn't fall right after the impacts. Therefore the impacts were not the only cause.quote from bsbray11
---------------------------
oh so what do you think really happened? what do you think someone rigged the towers with explosives without being noticed? how does a person sneak dynomite inside a world trade centre, rig it out of view, and know when the time will be to set it off? just the thought of it sounds like balogna.





[edit on 24-3-2006 by worksoftplayhard]

Dude seek and you shall find. That question has been answered a billion times on ATS, we don't need to keep re-hashing what can only be speculated on.

We don't know how it was done and probably never will, that doesn't mean it wasn't possible and doesn't diminish the evedence that it was controled demo.