It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Try this out -- it could be fun (9/11 WTC)

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:30 PM
Ok, here's the idea:

On this thread, argue seriously for 9/11 theories that you don't actually believe!

For example, if you think the WTC was demolished, argue that it fell naturally. If you think it fell naturally, argue that it was demolished. I want this thread to focus on WTC issues -- if you want to experiment with other aspects of 9/11, I would absolutely love more threads to further expand upon this idea.

The idea is that we'll be forced to see things from a different point of view, and thus come to understand each other's arguments more clearly.

But remember, you have to argue seriously here. No sarcasm, or submitting to the other side of the debate on this thread (since hardly anyone actually drastically changes their opinions on these issues).

[edit on 10-4-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:39 PM
You sound like my debate teacher. But there's a difference because the natural-falling side of the case is basically like the magic bullet theory. You'll sound silly no matter what you try. "The bullet went through more than 5 points but still has no scratches what so ever". You can't say that with a straight face, sorry.

I avoided sarcasm, touche.

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Vinci
"The bullet went through more than 5 points but still has no scratches what so ever". You can't say that with a straight face, sorry.

Well maybe whoever's on the silly side will realize this.

I'll start, I guess.

The WTC Towers basically had two kinds of support columns: core columns and perimeter, or exterior columns. There were 47 core columns in the center of each building, and the better part of 200 perimeter columns were on the outsides of each floor. These two parts of the structure were linked together by floor trusses, which supported the loads of each floor, and held the concrete slabs.

While the fires in the towers may not have been intense enough to sufficiently damage the major load-bearing columns, the trusses could have been sufficiently heated and began to fail. After enough trusses failed on a single floor, that floor's load could no longer be supported and the floor fell downwards onto the floor below it, knocked that floor out, and so on and so forth all the way down the building. At the same time, the exterior columns lost lateral stability from these trusses falling inwards, and also collapsed. This is evidenced by the buckling of exterior columns observed in the buildings before their collapses.

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 11:23 PM
Um you want us to argue seriously for the side we DON'T believe? Ok I'll try...

Yeah I think the WTCs were attacked by muslim extremists. I definitely believe terrorists were able to highjack an airplane with little pocket knives. I also think the authorities hiding information to do with 911 is for the good of all. Bush is a caring compassionate christian who loves Jesus and wants to make the world a safer place with his war on terror in Iraq. Bush did not use 911 as an excuse to attack Iraq and take their oil; he did it because he cares about human lives. The WTCs collapsed as fast as they did because of the airplanes; it wasn't because there were hidden explosives inside the buildings. Bush is an honest man who would never lie to his people about anything to do with 911; the American people should trust their president unconditionally.

How was that?

Bush + Beer =

posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:39 PM
I had more in mind the more technical arguments for the collapses of the towers. They're constantly splattered back and forth in the 9/11 forum, and by now, I don't think anyone's even thinking about what they're saying anymore. Just repeating the same stuff. So that's why I made this thread.


log in