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.


Somone debunk or explain this please.

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by sp00ner
That 'sliver' that's standing in the bottom pic is the exterior wall, not the 'core'.

I wonder, why are you the only person suggesting this? Do you know something that we don't?

Those things sticking up in the air there are box columns. If you watch the video footage showing the whole thing, you can see very clearly that those are box columns, and not the perimeter columns linked together with spandrel plates and all of that. The box columns in the core didn't have spandrel plates, unlike the perimeter columns, and neither do those columns that are still sticking up in the air. They're also farther apart and spaced just as the core columns were, and not as the more closely-linked perimeter columns were, which again had spandrel plates connecting them.

And you also have the problem of WTC2's core also staying put, and it's even more obviously not the perimeter:

[edit on 22-5-2006 by bsbray11]

I love when someone illustrates my point. First move was to attack the person, not the facts. Keep trucking guys. This is why people don't listen once you attack the person you've already indicated that your mind is made and anyone who doesnt agree is foolish. I'll save my breath.

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by sp00ner
Becuase that shot of the sliver of wall standing there is in about 100 different places. Video, photos, etc...

Er, because it's in so many images, it's a set of perimeter columns? Incorrectly spaced and without spandrel plates? I don't understand the logic.

First move was to attack the person, not the facts.

Yeah, the facts came after what you're claiming was a personal attack.

I admit that it was a rhetorical question, but I think it was a legitimate one, too. I don't know of anyone that's looked at those pics, knowing the spacing and etc. of the core columns, and interpretted the remaining structure as perimeter columns. They're obviously not. And again, you can watch the original footage for a clearer view of what exactly that structure consists of. It's in 9/11 Eyewitness, and I'm positive that you can even find short video clips extracted from that documentary to show the spire in particular.

[edit on 22-5-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Tasketo
Ok... This is something that cant be ignored. Somone please explain to me wtf this is

Sure, the glass is blowing out because of a sudden increase in air pressure do to the face that hundreds of tons of mass was suddenly compressing it. And yes, i understand that this isnt a giant glass tube, but then again, if it was, more would be breaking. Aid, like water follows the path of least resistance, and that lead to the stress points in the video. I don't think this mean that their isn't more to the story than we know (probably as lot more), but I don't think this proves anything.

This would look like a series of explosions, because many thousands of square feet of air was suddenly compressed, and when the windows blew it explosively decompressed.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by baddaddy]

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:40 PM
Wow, everyone theory's are so insane, did so many of you fail physics, fail math, and fail commen sense. Do you need your eyes shoved wide open to realize the truth? I can see that most of u do, well guess what today is ur lucky day. Ill be posting a very very very long post in about an hour, i have to go hunt down links and post some of my own.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:04 PM

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Mrknighttime32

Like blowing up their own ships

Well because it wasnt to start any old war, it was to start the war on terrorism, one they say will last 100 years. it needed to be a spectacle nobody would be able to forget.

Plus thats the way psychopaths work, the more they can get away with the more they feel in control, the more power they feel they have demonstrated and taken from raping society.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:12 PM
To start off i would like to address the reasons for blowing up our own buildings. May not make sense at first, but really think about it.

  1. To start War on Terrorism
  2. To rally the people to war(like stirring up a hornets nest)
  3. To sell military contracts like no other
  4. To make their own personal stocks in Military Arms corperations skyrocket
  5. To pass the Patriot act prt 1, 2, and the Victory act, both of which give them more control and takes away our rights.
  6. To go to war with Iraq for oil (Bush's first oil company was started up with the help of Osama's brother)
  7. To slowly course us into Martial Law

-Hmm, you ever hear of the Wolf in sheeps clothing?

-This reminds me of the time Hitler burned his own captial building down to ralley the Nazi army, Sound familar?
-I must say, The Pentagon and the WTC werent the only targets. Did u know the US and Isreal tried to destroy our own boat? The USS Liberty

OK, Now that lots of reasons are thrown out there with some ideas to get ur head wondering and having it pulled out of ur u know what? Lets debunk what really happened.

Theory: Planes hit the WTC, Coverup is terrorists did it.
Fact: Planes hit the WTC, Demolitons destroyed it.
Theory: Fires caused the steal to weaken and collapse the building
Fact:Fire didnt destroy the building, i dont care who says it did, they are retarded and the word Steralization comes to mind. Dont belive? Well luck for us, some Firemen tapes were realsed before the FBI covered it up quickly. Sometimes u just need to see to belive.

Theory: Air pressure caused those implosions. Right...and im a flying pig.
Fact: They were controled demolitons.
When a building of that size starts a pancake effect the resistance gains as it falls floor by floor, thus eventually stopping it after about 20 floors of falling, but in order to keep the pancake in effect. Key areas must be weakened to prevent resistance overpowering weight. Thus the building keeps falling. Now when building of that size supposedly gets air trapped inside and it blows out symetrically out of tiny areas, well u obviously never took any science classes or blew up things when u were younger. Air pressure would cause the whole floor to implode and it would be every floor all the way down, cause each floor would have air build up. You say it goes out weakened spots, yes it does, and no window in that building was specifically weakned more, thus they would all be the same in theory and all would go at the same time(the whole floor).
Also i would like to add to the resistance theory that the core was only weakened in the blast area, not the rest of the building, thus that would of caused great resistance if it hadnt been weakened by something...say demolitons?
As the video addresses, if it was really that hot up there, how the firefighters saying they had very little fires and how were the people standing in the scars?

I do like the point that someone said above, (me being an EMT and a Icident commander in a moch disaster) You would have never sent ur men in unless u thought it was safe and had "all ur bases covered"...meaning u sent noone in unless you had facts that the place was not going to fall by itself. For example you dont send ur men into a burning building thats already collapsing or you know will collapse. He sent his men in because he knew that the fires were undercontrol. He didnt expect to the bulding to have bombs.

Edit/note: Watch the Youtube videos, i put them together myself from some various documentries and videos(including a couple of alex jones)

[edit on 5/23/2006 by ConfederacyOfUnity]

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:52 PM
Good post Confederacy. You got a WATS vote...

Anybody who thinks the gov wouldn't do what they did on 9-11 needs to read the 'Operation Northwoods' plan...

9-11 was just an updated, modernised version of this 1962 plan...

[edit on 23/5/2006 by ANOK]

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 04:02 PM
well thank first wats vote...nice (maybe more people should vote me

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 04:09 PM
i think you missed one confedaracy, the buildings had to be removed anyway.
They had some structural prolem if iremember right and also they were full of asbestos.
I think they worked out the huge cost of removing both buidings piece by piece.
guess it wasnt pretty

may have had somethign to do with it, its not like the owner didnt profit from the whole debacle

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 04:46 PM
adam, techically i missed it your right, but i really didnt cover that area...but i will. See the guy who owned most of the building..well not owned but was a main shareholder in most of the buildings actually only owned one of the buildings two months before...i belive it was building 6, either way he then bought the majority of the shares for all the buildings in the complex for like 27mil or 270 mil this is probably not accurate but either way it was a alot...well when the two towers fell he got the insurance claim for 7 BILLION dollars...well i hate to say it but i think anyone here would blow up their own buidlings for say...6 Billion dollar MINIUM profit...then say "Terrorists" did it
(THERE i cover the finicial part of it....hey if u want a subject or part of the 9/11 you want me to cover just ask, because theres so much)

[edit on 5/23/2006 by ConfederacyOfUnity]

Just so you know they would eventually have to be removed like you said, so why not make a profit on it?

[edit on 5/23/2006 by ConfederacyOfUnity]

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 07:39 PM
I think there is another point to think about. Charges used in demolishing a building used on the corners is because the corners of the structures were the strongest. However, if anyone watched the documentary of the construction of the Towers, you would notice that the strongest part of the buildings was the center. I saw someones response in relation to this. And he/she is perfectly correct. The center beam would be mostly intact while possibly the rest of the building fell. In essence, there would be a centrlized beam still standing way up if ever the towers would collapse because of a plane crash. However, that isn't even plausible because there is no way in hell that a 747 could take out that size building. Get real... The notion is absurd. Now this may explain the squibs in the center area windows. The structural support is located in the center, so if you were to demo the building, you would have to work at the support.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 07:41 PM
Why are you 9/11 debunkers keep beating the dead horse over and over again? You folks flattened that thing since 9/11/2001 over this little nonsense theory called "controlled, rigged demolitions".

When heavier stuff comes crumbling down HARD and FAST, the remaining stuff below feel the air and debris pressures raining down on 'em, which can result in some sprouting "explosions" in some pockets of the whole structure, which you 9/11 debunkers keep interpreting them as "controlled, rigged demolitions".

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 07:59 PM
Pawnplayer, could you per chance explain that beautifully sheered cut at the support beams? Or maybe you could at least tell us why at least 70 million people believe that we are being lied to and wants a new investigation. Or maybe proffesors, and explosive engineers, and hundreds of other scholars show so much insight to the inacuracies of the explanations presented by the commission? Or maybe you should put your blinders back on. Life would be so much better eh? Do you really think this many people are proud to sense this as a wrongdoing? By our own Govt? That's really sad if you do. I can for one say that I always stood behind Washington. But now, after reading, and seeing so much and actually cerebral enough to understand that you are the lemming. That's the best thing you could say. Cause you fit that bill to a T> Anyway, you go on living your fantasy, and I guess I'll stay concerned, and connected to the harsh reality of things that I certainly don't want to do since I have a life of my own. But, without people speaking up for you lemmings, we'd be in a world of trouble. Maybe, just maybe, we at least can prevent another tragedy similar to that. And if you do want to endeavor in facts, I have two words. Loose change.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:06 PM
This is my first post, and I have a few comments and questions. I have to also appologise that I didn't read all the posts in this thread. When I got to page five and I was still reading about compressed air, and then some silly argument about which floor the freakin fireman was on, I skipped to the last page.

First, I'm not an american. In fact, I've never even been to America, so I had no idea that there was even a hint of a conspiracy theory (apart from some mandy moore documentary about bush and bin laden) until earlier today.

At first, the compressed air theory made sense for the reason mentioned earlier about dropping a book between a bunch of papers. There's nothing air-tight around the book, yet it still forces air to move. What I didn't like about that theory was that only one window per side blew out. HIGHLY unlikely. And further reading convinced me otherwise.

What I found interesting was when I watched the first video of the original post. ( )
At around 9 seconds (on my media player) - moments BEFORE the collapse, one or 2 of these "squibs" are visible to the left of the building. Then, the building starts to collapse. But there's more. With fires being almost out (according to the fireman IN the building), huge explosions and building-wide fireballs can be seen just below the collapsing "line" for a few seconds before the debris and smoke engulfs it, and it's no longer visible. Where does this fire come from? It's definitly NOT jet fuel.

When all this happened, I remember wondering how a building of this size could completely collapse all the way to the ground. I'd expect a whole lot of floors to have remained intact. But it didn't and it didn't only happen to one building, it happened to both. Both buildings were completely flattened. Someone mentioned that his/her mother shattered an ankle when she bumped her foot, and as unlikely as it sounds, the conditions were just right. How likely do you think it is that she bumps her foot, shattering her ankle and in the fall, bumps the other foot and shatters that ankle, too? Sure conditions might have been right, but it's incredibly unlikely that conditions would have been right for both buildings, and the "terrorists" happen to attack both building at exactly the right time.

And what struck me as odd was the fact that there was such little damage to the surrounding buildings. What they also mentioned at the time was some bombing at the WTC years before that blew a five-storey hole in the basement. If the structural damage at that location was not sufficient to bring down the buildings, why would flying an airplane into (virtually) the roof do it?

After reading these posts, it does make sense that it could have been a controlled demolition, even though that theory opens up another can of worms: How DO you get enough explosives in a building like that, and set them up in the correct strategic points without raising suspicion?

Another question is about it being cheaper (or more profitable) to do this. I don't know, but was the blow to the american economy not a lot more the 7 billion? Just asking. It seems senseless to me to do it for monetary reasons.

Like I said, I only heard of this today, and drew a lot of questions from what I read in the last 2 hours. You guys are so fortunate! Our government is way to "slow" to come up with stuff like this.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:42 PM

Originally posted by bixarrio
How DO you get enough explosives in a building like that, and set them up in the correct strategic points without raising suspicion?
Another question is about it being cheaper (or more profitable) to do this. I don't know, but was the blow to the american economy not a lot more the 7 billion? Just asking. It seems senseless to me to do it for monetary reasons.
Like I said, I only heard of this today, and drew a lot of questions from what I read in the last 2 hours. You guys are so fortunate! Our government is way to "slow" to come up with stuff like this.

Good post bixarrio

As for getting the explosives in the building it wouldn't have been that hard, if you had people working on the inside for you...

Marvin Bush, G.W.'s brother, was on the board of directors, and a big shareholder for the company (Securacom) that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines, and the DC airport up till 2001. It was backed by a private Kuwaiti-American investment company, who's records were not publicly available.
The company changed it's name right after 9-11...Hmmmmmm?

There are recorded power downs in the buildings the weeks prior to 9-11.
Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the buildings...

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

See, with someone working on the inside, like a younger brother
would make the job of installing bombs quite possible...

Silverstein saved himself billions by not having to renovate the complex to remove asbestos, and of course he made 7 billion in a nice insurance pay off.
Silverstein also made a fortune in his early years buying 'sky-scrapers' and demolitioning them. Hmmmmmm?
And ppl say he doesn't know the correct use of "Pull It"? Haha!

Pls read about 'Operation Northwoods', then tell me the gov is too slow to come up with this stuff...Don't be fooled by their public face, it's a deception...

Lot of things make you go Hmmmmm

[edit on 23/5/2006 by ANOK]

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 12:25 AM
Maximus, thanks for supporting my facts. you explained the center beam quite well, as for pawn player...the air theory is wrong..please read my post above, i already debunked that. When air is forced down it goes outwards at all places but not just 1center place alround the building. My post above debunks lots of questions, if u have more ill be willing to debunk them :

[edit on 5/24/2006 by ConfederacyOfUnity]

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 02:17 AM
I dont know, i have an open mind about a lot of things....but to me these 9/11 conspiracies are really pushing the limits of sanity and are kind of offensive if u think about it. To me it seems like people are grasping at nothing reaching for answers that they want to hear. The problem that i have beliveing these theories is that i cant not belive what my eyes saw and my common sense tells me.

A plane filled almost to the brim with fuel hit a building. I mean we are talking about thousands of pounds of burning jet fuel here. I'm sorry but all common sense tells me that hey theres a huge burning fire...this could definatley melt steel especially since it was burning for close to an hour and cause the buildings to collapse.

Weren't you guys watching when the towers collapsed? They started collapsing from the places that were burning..not from the middle or becuase of some bomb. The planes were the bombs. Fire fueled by that much gasoline eventually will melt steel. Steel is far from invincible and something burning what 2000 degrees hot? Thats gonna melt eventually. That is basic physics my man.

Stuff we see in pictures, could be anything really. I belive that yes Bush screwed up and he could have done a lot of things differently..and the war right now is stupid. But saying bombs were in the building and it was all some covert military operation to me is bogus. I know what i seen with my own 2 eyes.

I dont know guys...i think you just need to accept what happen and take it for what it was...a horrible act of terrorism...not some big government rigged showcase...

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 03:01 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
Pls read about 'Operation Northwoods', then tell me the gov is too slow to come up with this stuff...Don't be fooled by their public face, it's a deception...

Lot of things make you go Hmmmmm

Oh, you misunderstood. I meant OUR government. The one from the country I live in. I mean, we have a former deputy president taking a shower after having unprotected sex with a HIV+ woman to avoid contracting the virus himself. "Slow" enough? Our president stated on national (possibly international) television that HIV does NOT cause AIDS. "Slow" enough?

We do have several "conspiracies" and "conspiracy theories" from our previous government, and everything that happens today (more than 10 years later) still get's blamed on the old "regime".

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 08:04 AM
Spawwwwn... see, that's the problem. People see what happened and cobble together an explanation that seems reasonable but isn't based on science. Yes, there was tons of jet fuel. But you see the thing is, all substances have a maximum combustion temperature --- whether you have an ounce or several hundred tons. Jet fuel can only burn so hot and it's maximum attainable combustion temperature is determined by the amount of available oxygen --- not the amount of jet fuel. As a matter of fact, the presence of too much jet fuel actually causes the fuel to burn cooler becuase there isn't enough oxygen. This is evident in the black smoke immediately after impact. It's like running your car engine too rich. Fuel:air ratio is too high.

NIST's own findings say the inner columns reached temperatures nowhere near the forging temperatures of steel and only a small percentage of perimeter columns did. This is NIST's own findings.

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in