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.

 

Conspiracy theory versus Conspiracy facts of 9/11

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
www.oilempire.us...

Very good read.

Even includes the statement made by Bush at the UN General Assembly on November 10, 2001 about "conspiracy theories".

Enjoy.

[edit on 24-6-2006 by 2smooth4ya]




posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
People hear 'Conspiracy Theory' and roll their eyes like 'here we go again...'

Yet the official version of 9/11 is ALSO a 'Conspiracy Theory' and if you want to roll your eyes at THAT one, go ahead, because its the most IMPLAUSIBLE and OUTRAGEOUS theory of them ALL.

19 Arabs with boxcutters blazed a trail through the center core of our military and economic strength...all the while Cheney is in his bunker issuing 'stand down' orders and Bush is sitting in a classroom reading from a book that is upside down.....

If you REALLY want to roll your eyes and laugh...read the Commission Report on 9/11...that is a real knee slapper.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by fm258

Yet the official version of 9/11 is ALSO a 'Conspiracy Theory' and if you want to roll your eyes at THAT one, go ahead, because its the most IMPLAUSIBLE and OUTRAGEOUS theory of them ALL.


It is? How so? Please clarify yourself here.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28

Originally posted by fm258

Yet the official version of 9/11 is ALSO a 'Conspiracy Theory' and if you want to roll your eyes at THAT one, go ahead, because its the most IMPLAUSIBLE and OUTRAGEOUS theory of them ALL.


It is? How so? Please clarify yourself here.


Because they're using such a spectulative approach based off rigged up computers that set up unlikely parameters to determine a method in which would cause the building to indeed collapse straight down upon itself.

Notice the word ---> Speculative.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
con·spir·a·cy
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators

A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence.

en.wikipedia.org...


A thousand coincidences are NOT natural occurences.

And you choose to say that fradulent tape of Bin Laden was proof then you are more blind than a blindfolded bat with glaucoma, cateracts, with a glass eye(no pun intended)


But come on, you mean to tell me this is Bin Laden(in letter E) from that ALLEGED confession tape:







[edit on 27-6-2006 by 2smooth4ya]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by 2smooth4ya]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by 2smooth4ya]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
The coincidences being:

- The Muslims accused of the terrorist attacks, who had lacked sufficient flight training experience had nailed World Trade Center 1, World Trade Center 2 and the Pentagon in a 1 round shot. They didn't miss and turn around. They nailed each one where they wanted to. Not to mention how difficult that is traveling at the high speeds they were accused of going at.
- They took over planes with box cutters, with the plane's passengers submitting to them, minus flight 93, who knows what really happened.
- World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 fell perfectly symmetrical and in their footsteps despite different damage factors.
- World Trade Center 7 fell symmetrical and was accused of being brought down by a fuel fired by a ruptured deisel fuel tank.
- The collapses of the World Trade Centers mimicked the effects of a controlled demolition.
- There was a brief military stand down in the time frame of the aircraft being hijacked and flying them into the buildings.
- The fires inside the World Trade Centers lacked the efficiency to burn hot enough to cause the flowing molten metal seen oozing from the World Trade Centers.
- The fires inside the World Trade Centers lacked the efficiency to stay as hot as they did for as long as they did, even after rain and the huge amounts of water being dumped onto the debris.
- The tapes that caught the impact of the Pentagon attack were confiscated and nothing vital in respect to video footage has given us an accurate portroyal of what his the building.
- The World Trade Center 1 and 2 fires weren't efficient enough to bring each other down in the 2 hour time frame from the impact to collapse.
- The building seemed to of met virtually free-fall fall times, even as the building's mass was being dissipated and pulverized on the way down, with allieviation of mass, less force, but still continuously and effectively brought down the rest of each other.


There are far more coincidences that are pointed out on websites looking further into the 9/11 issue, but those are some that I feel need to be pointed out. I'm sure more members can point out more.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Here are some more:

*Mohammad passport flying out of his jacket, out of a fiery blast I might add, only to be found on the sidewalk of Mannhattans with small burnt edges.

*Five Dancing "Israelis" caught filming and celebrating the WTC horror only to be detained by police due to their behavior bothering local citizens. They were found with passports(doesn't states who but it's quite unusual to specify this if it belongs to these individuals), boxcutters, money, and pictures of them putting a lighter up the to Towers before the attacks. But that's not the killer part. When the police arrested these suspicious fellas, one of them shouted: "We are not your enemies, the Palestians(sp?) are!!(not exactly but close).



Interesting.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by 2smooth4ya]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar- The Muslims accused of the terrorist attacks, who had lacked sufficient flight training experience had nailed World Trade Center 1, World Trade Center 2 and the Pentagon in a 1 round shot. They didn't miss and turn around. They nailed each one where they wanted to. Not to mention how difficult that is traveling at the high speeds they were accused of going at.


a) How do you know they struck where they "wanted to"?
b) Hanjour (flight 77) missed and turned around.


Originally posted by Masisoar- They took over planes with box cutters, with the plane's passengers submitting to them, minus flight 93, who knows what really happened..


Based on the history of civilian airliner hijackings (pre-9/11), what reason would the passengers have to risk their lives and revolt ... when history suggests the best thing is to sit and keep quiet? There is not one single pre-flight93 instance of passengers revolting against hijackers.


Originally posted by Masisoar- World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 fell perfectly symmetrical and in their footsteps despite different damage factors.


Into their footprints - as in, no other buildings were destoyed, heavily damaged, or affected by the collapses?


Originally posted by Masisoar- World Trade Center 7 fell symmetrical and was accused of being brought down by a fuel fired by a ruptured deisel fuel tank.


The damaged side (that was facing twin-towers) appears to give way first. You stand so accused, building 7. What say you?


Originally posted by Masisoar- The collapses of the World Trade Centers mimicked the effects of a controlled demolition.


Based on all the other instances of skyscrapers collapsing in history - how is it supposed to look when a skyscraper collapses? No dust? No air movement?


Originally posted by Masisoar- There was a brief military stand down in the time frame of the aircraft being hijacked and flying them into the buildings..


Jets were scrambled, they didn't make it. No stand down.


Originally posted by Masisoar- The fires inside the World Trade Centers lacked the efficiency to burn hot enough to cause the flowing molten metal seen oozing from the World Trade Centers...


That would be singular - only WTC 2. A molten material flows for a brief time from the same corner where flight 175 "piled up". Molten aluminum is the most logical explanation ... better to go with molten steel.


Originally posted by Masisoar- The fires inside the World Trade Centers lacked the efficiency to stay as hot as they did for as long as they did, even after rain and the huge amounts of water being dumped onto the debris.


?


Originally posted by Masisoar-- The tapes that caught the impact of the Pentagon attack were confiscated and nothing vital in respect to video footage has given us an accurate portroyal of what his the building.


Normally after such acts of terrorism, vital evidence is not collected. It's usually left behind in order that people can sell it to the media.


Originally posted by Masisoar- The World Trade Center 1 and 2 fires weren't efficient enough to bring each other down in the 2 hour time frame from the impact to collapse.


Most experts disagree.


Originally posted by Masisoar- The building seemed to of met virtually free-fall fall times, even as the building's mass was being dissipated and pulverized on the way down, with allieviation of mass, less force, but still continuously and effectively brought down the rest of each other.


Virtually free-fall times? Plus a few extra seconds ... and?

[edit on 27-6-2006 by vor75]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
After theOperation Northwoods scenario; to think that 911 happened like the official version is extremely naive and to discount all the inconsistencies as merely coincidences smacks of delusion and worship of authority.

The money trail is also quite interesting as well. Who profited from 911?

[edit on 27-6-2006 by whaaa]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75

That would be singular - only WTC 2. A molten material flows for a brief time from the same corner where flight 175 "piled up". Molten aluminum is the most logical explanation ... better to go with molten steel.



At what temperature does molten aluminum glow orange in broad daylight? The most logical explaination would be that the molten aluminum would have flowed out of the corner in a silvery color. Unless it was kept in the spot to be heated to over 1300 F then decided to flow out of the corner. I say over 1300 F because at that temperature aluminum will glow orange in dull lighting. I ask again at what tempaerature does aluminum glow orange in broad daylight?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GriffAt what temperature does molten aluminum glow orange in broad daylight? The most logical explaination would be that the molten aluminum would have flowed out of the corner in a silvery color. Unless it was kept in the spot to be heated to over 1300 F then decided to flow out of the corner. I say over 1300 F because at that temperature aluminum will glow orange in dull lighting. I ask again at what tempaerature does aluminum glow orange in broad daylight?


You are correct that 1300 degrees F is sufficient for molten aluminum to be iridescent. 1300 is well within the temperature ranges suggested by NIST for these fires (maximum ~1800 is hot spots).

You also suggest that the Al should be silver .... or you think I am implying the Al "waited" to be iridescent before pouring from the tower.

Consider a couple of possibilities:

How long was the molten material pooling and 'glowing' before it emerges?

Was the glowing molten material slowly eating it's way toward an opening for some time (through piled up debris)?

The material emerges a few moments before the collapse of WTC-2 ... does some local, precursory structural instability in WTC 2 (bowing, leaning, sagging) suddenly allow a pool of glowing molten material to pour from the opening?

[edit on 27-6-2006 by vor75]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
You are correct that 1300 degrees F is sufficient for molten aluminum to be iridescent. 1300 is well within the temperature ranges suggested by NIST for these fires (maximum ~1800 is hot spots).


Steel glows orange in those ranges also. Do you see any steel glowing orange in or around that area or anywhere else in the building?


You also suggest that the Al should be silver .... or you think I am implying the Al "waited" to be iridescent before pouring from the tower.

Consider a couple of possibilities:

How long was the molten material pooling and 'glowing' before it emerges?

Was the glowing molten material slowly eating it's way toward an opening for some time (through piled up debris)?

The material emerges a few moments before the collapse of WTC-2 ... does some local, precursory structural instability in WTC 2 (bowing, leaning, sagging) suddenly allow a pool of glowing molten material to pour from the opening?


I've actually suggested this same thing only with the thermite (molten steel) finding it's way out of the building to explain why a thermite reaction was in the exact spot of the impact zone. I was mocked with....wouldn't something that hot melt through everything like a hot knife through butter. So, the same goes for the aluminum.

Yes, 1300 F is when aluminum becomes iridescent in low light. I asked at what temperature does it become iridescent in broad daylight.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GriffSteel glows orange in those ranges also. Do you see any steel glowing orange in or around that area or anywhere else in the building?


I cannot see any steel, glowing or otherwise.

Flight 175 piled up in this corner, becuase it struck off-centre. It's a good candidate for a local "hot spot", it appears to be a "hot-spot" in the videos (based on the fire activity), and it's also the only place from which molten material emerges.

Molten aluminum is the most logical possibility.

Why is molten material observed no-where else before collapse? If thermite reactions were going off all over the place, why do we only see evidence of a thermite reaction in the same location where 175 piled up?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75

a) How do you know they struck where they "wanted to"?
b) Hanjour (flight 77) missed and turned around.


A) What are referencing to? The possibility they were aiming for other targets, not the ones they hit?
B) Missed and turned around? Since when has this been an established fact.

Buddy, the World Trade Centers were their target and as for the Pentagon, he was going in to hot and heavy and that's why it was almost missed, but he still nailed it. The white mark on the Pentagon lawn that was there prior to the crash was interesting.


Originally posted by vor75
Based on the history of civilian airliner hijackings (pre-9/11), what reason would the passengers have to risk their lives and revolt ... when history suggests the best thing is to sit and keep quiet? There is not one single pre-flight93 instance of passengers revolting against hijackers.


Give me a break, we're talking about small blades, how much live risking is that. lol.



Originally posted by vor75
Into their footprints - as in, no other buildings were destoyed, heavily damaged, or affected by the collapses?


You're twisting it a bit, you know what I meant and it's pretty obvious to anyone that's ever seen the videos that debris fell around the surround area of the World Trade Center, that was a very pointless argument. What are you trying to get at.


Originally posted by vor75
The damaged side (that was facing twin-towers) appears to give way first. You stand so accused, building 7. What say you?


Haha, that causes the whole building to fall down simultaneously. Yeah okay.


Originally posted by vor75
Based on all the other instances of skyscrapers collapsing in history - how is it supposed to look when a skyscraper collapses? No dust? No air movement?


Foolish statement, shame on you. Not all high rise buildings are constructed the same and when they collapse, there could be different reasons for why they fall, giving different types of collapses.


Originally posted by vor75
Jets were scrambled, they didn't make it. No stand down.


Way to pass that off. Do you even know the characteristics surrounding that argument or are you just making a general statement?


Originally posted by vor75
That would be singular - only WTC 2. A molten material flows for a brief time from the same corner where flight 175 "piled up". Molten aluminum is the most logical explanation ... better to go with molten steel.


OH MR VOR! Could you ever so please show me a picture of molten aluminum in broad daylight like that glowing ever so hotly as shown in the picture. Please oh please! Aluminum is a guess at best, logical explanation? Oops.


Originally posted by vor75
Normally after such acts of terrorism, vital evidence is not collected. It's usually left behind in order that people can sell it to the media.


Haha what are you trying to say with this statement?


Originally posted by vor75
Most experts disagree.


Who? Magazine editors? See there's a difference in a speculative way the building COULD of fell and how it actually DID fall. Tu comprendes? Are you saying the fires were indeed fueled efficiently enough to cause enough weakening in such a small time frame to bring down the building like such?

The look at the 250 degree fire traces found on the exterior columns can help piece together the story of how hot the fires were. Were they hotter more on the inside then? Is that so? But we see huge raging fires on the exterior columns. The fire was more fueled efficiently on the outer exterior columns by the oxygen located outside the building. But the fires temps must of been hotter in the inside of the building.. right?

Wait the wind could of fueled the fires on in the side.. the same wind that didn't exist that way enough to make an impact on how the fire was fed.


Originally posted by vor75
Virtually free-fall times? Plus a few extra seconds ... and?


I understand the trusses can't support vertical loads, substantial vertical loads anyway, but the strength of the trusses connecting to the inner core and the outer columns still provided resistance for the building's collapse. At the same time as the building was collapsing, it was loosing mass due to pulverization and also encountering air resistance.. and not to mention an intact core below. There are resistances in the building's collapse, however the pancake seems so strong to bring it down.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75

Why is molten material observed no-where else before collapse? If thermite reactions were going off all over the place, why do we only see evidence of a thermite reaction in the same location where 175 piled up?


I understand your thinking. But using your logic maybe there were thermite reactions and they just didn't show because that particular one happened to flow to that corner because of the floors bowing, sagging ect. I'd still like to know at what temperature aluminum glows in broad daylight.

Is this also aluminum that piled up? Where's the heat source for this?



Notice that is directly above the Y columns which would put it about between 10-15th floor.

edit: err. Y columns not T...darn these big fingers.

[edit on 6/27/2006 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
Steel glows orange in those ranges also. Do you
Why is molten material observed no-where else before collapse? If thermite reactions were going off all over the place, why do we only see evidence of a thermite reaction in the same location where 175 piled up?


Wanna take a look at a possibility, Mr. Possibility. K, we have the plane hitting the building, piercing trusses, and into the inner core, and like.. since it's sort of like logical to put thermite in the core to help weaken it, the plane could of like exposed a gaping hole in the core, allowing the like.. molten metal to leak out and escape.

Possibility? Uh huh uh huh.

Oh quick EDIT: I think a furthermore help to this is that everyone's look at the up above floors and fires, not so much the rest of the 80 floors or so left in tact to see what's up. And if anyone did notice it any if they had the chance to be downtown in the area, I don't think they're going to jump up and be like "oh my god look at the glowing metal coming out" and make a huge deal about it. They probably didn't even know what they were looking at. The point of what I just said, they won't make a huge deal about seeing molten metal pouring out in retrospect of seeing a huge wild fire floors above where they might see it. But this is just getting a bit too speculative and crazy, but still provides good grounds of understanding.

[edit on 6/27/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by zenlover28

Originally posted by fm258

Yet the official version of 9/11 is ALSO a 'Conspiracy Theory' and if you want to roll your eyes at THAT one, go ahead, because its the most IMPLAUSIBLE and OUTRAGEOUS theory of them ALL.


It is? How so? Please clarify yourself here.


Because they're using such a spectulative approach based off rigged up computers that set up unlikely parameters to determine a method in which would cause the building to indeed collapse straight down upon itself.

Notice the word ---> Speculative.


You're joking right?

Notice the words---> finite element analysis.

Look it up.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Finite Element Analysis

Vushta, they had the building parameters set in, what it could hold, what it could take, what it couldn't take. They accounted for the aircraft impacts, and then put up scenarios that they tested, combined with evidence of what was shown to be damaged from fires, etc all together to create their analysis of how it fell.

It's a speculative approach as to what could of happen to cause the buildings to fall the way they did.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Actually the picture you posted looks electrical in nature to me. Main feeder still hot and burning like a torch.

mikell



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Actually the picture you posted looks electrical in nature to me. Main feeder still hot and burning like a torch.

mikell


How do you figure?




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join