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.

 

The Top Four Arguements Against The 911 Conspiracy

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
hmmm...now that i look at it...maybe i am taking this a little too objectively




posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Bombs Heard in the Twin Towers

Forget all of the videos and photos of the collapse of the World Trade Centers for a minute. Let's talk about an aspect of 9/11 that we've all glossed over: sound.

The following earwitness testimony indicates controlled demolition of the Twin Towers:

Firefighter stated "it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight" (page 4; original is .pdf; Google's webpage version is here)

Paramedic said "at first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop -- thats exactly what because thought it was" (page 9)

Paramedic captain stated "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode the popping sound and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building" (pdf file; Google's web version is here).

Firefighter “heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator . . . [then] another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I’m thinking, ‘Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here . . . .”

Police officer stated "you would hear a loud boom go off at the top of tower one. As the building continued to burn and emergency equipment kept on responding stirring up the dust and debris in the streets. After approximately 15 minutes suddenly there was another loud boom at the upper floors, then there was a series of smaller explosions which appeared to go completely around the building at the upper floors. And another loud earth-shattering blast with a large fire ball which blew out more debris and at that point everyone began to run north on West Broad Street." (page 5, which is page 2 of a hand-written memorandum)

Police officer stated "we kept hearing explosions that would shake the whole room" Fire chief from a nearby town heard a "high-pitched noise and a popping noise" right before the collapse of the South Tower

CNN producer stated "every few minutes you'll hear like a small sort of a rumbling sound, almost like an explosion sound and another chunk of it will come flying down into the street"; same producer stated "there was just a huge ... [explosion? word apparently erased from original CNN video] and enormous pieces of debris just falling - one right after the other"

Highly-reputable astrophysicist wrote in an email that, immediately before the collapse of each of the twin towers, he heard explosions and low-frequency rumbles (he also uses the phrase "demolition-style implosion")

Firefighter stated "I ... started to hear that rumbling sound again. I looked up, and the first thing I saw was the aerial on the top of the tower just rocking one way and rocking the other way, and all of a sudden there it goes"(pages 14-15)

British newspaper stated "some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled."

NYC firefighter stated “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”

georgewashington.blogspot.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Great work Solgrabber, and as I'll point out before anyone chooses to derail this.

The sound of the building coming down was a roar, because for each floor to make its individual boom, would mean resistance and allowance of individual sound cycles, but the building fell so fast, that simply didn't happen.

Carry on.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by misguidedprophet
GET OVER YOUR 2 Y.O. IQ AND GET OFF OF WELFARE PLEASE (its you that are hurting our economy, not the fuel tycoons) -- if you think you are so smart, why is it that you claims are based on highly objective information not subjective (if you know the diff)???


Why do I feel like quoting Dan Akroyd right now?

Why do wish I could applaud some one for nothing other than getting their username spot on?

I don't know who you are talking to, but it doesn't matter anyway, because this


GET OVER YOUR 2 Y.O. IQ AND GET OFF OF WELFARE PLEASE (its you that are hurting our economy, not the fuel tycoons)


adds nothing to this discussion and is an attack on the posters of this thread. So stop it.

Now - why in Heaven's Gate would you want us to view the facts of 9/11 SUBJECTIVELY instead of OBJECTIVELY? (which you apparently don't know the difference between)

Masisoar,

This speed with which the towers fell (not including WTC 7) do show resistance. The calculations have been done in another thread. We still have over 6 seconds of fall time to apply to resistance. With that said, and taking into account there should be some type of distinct sound for each floor collapse, it would be logical that floor collapses would have been distinguishable near the beginning of the collapse, but then the fall would have reached a sufficient velocity to where I'm not sure you could have heard the distinct floors. And that appears to be about how people describe it...distinct boom boom booms near the beginning followed by the continuous roar. That makes sense to me irrespective of what caused them to fall.

[edit on 8-15-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Valhall & AAC good discussion, its posts like these with testomonies etc that make me remember why i used to lurk for AGES and eventually join ATS, "WELL IN" as we say here in Cov.

I remember watching SKY news that day and being unable to comprehend what was going on it all seemed to realistic and it took a good 20 mins for me to realise what i was seeing was!

AND then i saw the towers fall or what ever you want to say happened to them. Now im no expert but i do have an aptitude for physics and there is no way they collapsed due to the aircraft strike. Straight away i thought that they had "pulled" them for safety reasons, hell i even went home telling my parents that they didn't fall due to the aircraft, controlled demolisions destroyed the towers.

Im sure the debunkers on this thread will ask for proof, well i don't have any but sometimes we don't need to dig around and look for answers, maybe we look to hard sometimes.

Clear as day, Watch the way the towers fell, they both fell in the same fashion, two buildings struck in completely different ways, collapsed in exactly the same way!

Im not saying this was a huge gov project or that people other than terrorists orchestrated the whole thing, but there is no element of doubt in my mind that the towers collapsed due too a controlled demoltion!

I'll go do some research, and see if anything makes me think otherwise, i doubt it very much though!!!



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I have just read this article very interesting indeed not sure how the peole who have contibuted to it check out but we'll have to see, anyway heres some food for thought

WTCTRUTH PDF



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Howard,

I cannot get any more simplistic. Vessels exchangers who cares?

My point is simply this, an emplyee in the building said he heard and explosion underneath him, that is THE POINT. It was not a boiler or a steam exchanger, he thought that's what is was (WATCH THE VIDEO).



I guess that you miss MY point. You are putting a great deal of value on the claim that, to paraphrase: “a building engineer heard and explosion and he thought it was a boiler explosion.” I pointed out that there are a couple of problems with this that put this whole statement into question. Rather than try to address this and to determine the actual accuracy of the claim, you have endeavored to distract and divert the issue.


As it stands right now, as I see it, there are a couple of possibilities here.

First, it is possible that you misheard, or misremembered the exact quotation or statement that was on the video. If this is the case, then you should be able to recognize this and admit it. At any rate, the only person this affects is you.

You initially claimed that this person was a building engineer an title that imparts a fair amount of technical expertise and knowledge of the building’s operations. Now you have downgraded him to being a mere “employee.” Which is it?

The second possibility is that the you have quoted the video correctly and that it does indeed state that a “building engineer” though that there was a boiler explosion in the basement. In this case, the video itself is clearly wrong. If this is the case, then the follow up question is obvious: What else is wrong in the video?



Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Why dont you answer the questions I posed? Or are you not permitted to address those main points? Governement job says no to the good stuff huh? Keep on fighting the nafarious fight!



I will answer the questions that I see fit to answer when I see fit to answer them. In the mean time, I will continue to point out the absurdities in your claim, in spite of your pathetic ad hominum attacks.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Actually the specific comment from the video was thus:


Willy, a janitor who worked in the World Trade Center for 20 years was in sub level 1 when the North Tower was hit.

"And all of a sudden we heard boom! And I thought it was a generator that blew up in the basement. And I said to myself: Oh my God, I think that's the generator." "And I was going to verbalize it, and when I finished saying that in my mind, I hear boom!" "Right on the top. Pretty far away. So, it was a difference between coming from the basement and coming from the top. And thats..., everybody started screaming. And a person comes running into the office saying: Explosion, explosion, explosion! He had his hands extended. And all the skin was falling from under his arm. All the way to the top of the fingertips. And it was hanging from both arms. Hanging and hanging. And then I looked at his face and he was missing parts of his face. And I said: What happened? What happened? And he said: The elevators, the elevators.



www.ccdominoes.com...


So right away we see that it wasn’t a building engineer, but super janitor, Willie Rodriguez.

Now the biggest problem with his claims is that they have changed and grown more expansive over time.

This is what he said on 9/11/01

I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.


transcripts.cnn.com...

There is a big difference between a “rumble” and a “boom”

Personally I think his statement made on 9/11 where he used the term “rumble” is a LOT more valid then any statements made after he started getting paid by the 9/11 CT crowd to make public appearances.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

First, it is possible that you misheard, or misremembered the exact quotation or statement that was on the video.


Do you know how stupid you sound commenting on whether I'm wrong about something that you could easily prove wrong (if I actually was wrong) just by watching the video? You don't even realize how simple you look right now. Your arguements aren't befitting to the truth of our discussion. Think.




I will answer the questions that I see fit to answer when I see fit to answer them.



Okay, now this is the most sense you've made yet.



AAC



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
How can I misinterpret a building engineer say, after the plane hit, I hear a series of explosions that I thoght was coming from the basement. I thought it sounded like a boiler blowing up. This testimony along with OTHERS that I have not mis understood, tell of a different story. Sounds like these explsions could have weakened the base structure, allowing it to fall.


Did you misinterpret what was said? Yes, you did, because you got the facts wrong.

Furthermore, As I have shown, Rodriguez’s claims on that are shown on that video are inconsistent with his earlier statements.

How would you interpret his original statement?


I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Howard,

That was lame. Did you watch the film or find that source from the interent. I've read it before, but it has nothing to do with our conversation.

So, are you ready to answer the direct questions yet. Or are you still trying to win the he said she said game?

AAC



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
It has everything to do with our conversation.

You posted a statement about a “building engineer”

I questioned you about the statement and provided evidence that your paraphrasing of the video was wrong.

Furthermore, I also provided evidence that the statements that your were talking about were INCONSISTENT with the original statements made by that particular person.

I find it interesting that you are quick to provide your “interpretation” of the later statements, but are mum on the issue of the statements that he made ON 9/11/01!

It seems that you are reluctant to admit that you made a mistake.


If you want to move on from this issue, then you are going to have to stop trying to change the topic and address it.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   


Well I guess that's the battle isn't it Mr_Pointy, you can hold onto your opinions and I'll choose to hold onto mine, whether you choose to believe them or not. I feel that in part there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, on enough levels to make me disgusted. You continue to shoot out," Masisoar I need evidence Masisoar, you can't prove that", and indeed there are some things I cannot prove but I make assumptions off reasonablility.


I don't care about your opinions, I care about facts and evidence, you have provided none. I have backed up my statements with evidence, Silverstien was talking about the firefighters when he said to 'pull it', you just said 'it was obvious' providing no evidence beyond that. On the fires you keep giving me your unsupported opinion that the fires were small and should have been put out by the spricklers. I gave you evidence, through video and quotes, that the fires were massive.




For WTC 7, I don't feel the building should of came down, in fact, I know it shouldn't of came down as it did, as there is no proof of extensive fires produced around the base of the building, do you see what I'm getting at? Your photo provides there were fires up that area of the building, contained in areas, because they cannot be seen, but nevertheless they were not rampant across the base, which is what is needed to gradually heat the the columns and unhopefully cause the collapse.


Once again I see you refering to photos when I said specifically I'm talking about a video, and quotes from the firemen that went inside the building, just because you ignore them, doesn't mean they'll disappear.



When it's clearly evident there weren't extreme fires around the base of the building, if you use the photo of WTC 7 being smoky, why? It doesn't support why it fell though, but that there were fires, not that I submit to you and say there were massive fires.


Again you ignore the video and quotes.



On my comment about concrete, pulverized, not just broken.


Again you haven't shown this to be true, even if it is, it will still only mean that it was caused by the collapse its self.



Haha but now I see the ignorance in your argument, HOT spots, molten material, want to know your ignorance? Because the fires wouldn't and shouldn't of gotten that hot, there was no way an office fire or a hydrocarbon fire can do that, or cause traces of evaporated steel.


House fires routinely get hot enough to melt aluminum, and you still have provided no evidence of molten steel, much less evaporated steel.



Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.


Did you seriously just give me an article from the APF, the holocast denying, nazi run newspaper? I've run across this quote before, did you know it's second hand, and how would they even know how to tell if something is molten steel or another metal like aluminum.



A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. [New York Times]


He said they 'appear to have been partly evaporated', but has no confirmation. Neither of you quotes have links to actual articles, which are essential if you want to be taken seriously.


Side note, the videos/clips I showed in my thread before were in support of my reason for a controlled demolition, how could the squibs themselves be produced? Odd...


Except only 1 has 'squibs' and they after the collapse starts, which mean they couldn't have caused the collapse.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Pointy, I respect your position, these are all opinions, because just like the evidence we CTs have, it refuted by your evidence, and your evidence is refuted by CTs evidence. Do you see the problem?

Please answer these questions.

1). Why did Bush say he saw the first plane hit when everybody knows that isn't true?
2). Why did Pentagon, NORAD and FFA lie to 9/11 commision?
3). Why won't they release the tape of a supposed 757 hitting pentagon? (they released a rudimentary one that shows nothing)

Answer these and then I will post more. You can even ask me questions if it makes you feel good.

AAC



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
1). Why did Bush say he saw the first plane hit when everybody knows that isn't true?
2). Why did Pentagon, NORAD and FFA lie to 9/11 commision?
3). Why won't they release the tape of a supposed 757 hitting pentagon? (they released a rudimentary one that shows nothing)


4). Why are there NO photos of the "massive crater" and "raging infernos" in WTC 7 even though it stood all day long?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
1). Why did Bush say he saw the first plane hit when everybody knows that isn't true?


Who cares.



Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
2). Why did Pentagon, NORAD and FFA lie to 9/11 commision?


There is no evidence that anyone lied, certainly things were presented in a way that minimized the shortfalls of that morning. This is only human nature.



Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
3). Why won't they release the tape of a supposed 757 hitting pentagon? (they released a rudimentary one that shows nothing)

Maybe because no tapes exist.



Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Answer these and then I will post more.
AAC


Don’t bother if you aren’t going to answer my question to you.

How do you interpret Rodriguez’s original statements made on 9/11? Do you think that these original statements indicate that there were bombs in the basement?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Who cares.


Many people care if their elected president is lying about the crime of the century.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
There is no evidence that anyone lied, certainly things were presented in a way that minimized the shortfalls of that morning. This is only human nature.


Not quite HowardRoark...


A new book by 9/11 commission co- chairmen Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton outlines repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and Federal Aviation Administration.

They write, "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11. But it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue."

Untrue, the military's original timeline of United Flight 93. The military said FAA notified NORAD of a hijacked plane at 9:16 a.m., 47 minutes before the plane crashed in Pennsylvania. In fact, the military found out three minutes after the plane crashed. And equally untrue, the government's timeline for American Flight 77 and details about fighter jets scrambled to intercept it.

The book also alleges government officials weren't forthcoming with the investigation and it took interviews and subpoenas to shake loose valuable information.



Originally posted by HowardRoark
Maybe because no tapes exist.


The Walmart near my house has TWENTY ONE cameras pointed in the front parking lot alone... MAN... they must have a trillion dollar budget, national secrets, top officials to protect and emotional value to their building.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   


Read Professor Jones's Opinion on WTC 7


Not that crackpot again. Try again if he ever submits his papers to be peer reviewed.



www.debunking911.com...


You can find what the experts at the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering has to say about his paper, and there's a link to what experts have to say about him.



Again I quote this, why? Because their conclusion is that debris/fire was low probability of bringing it down, but if that's the case, HOW did the building fall then.


You link a quotes saying it's possible then ask if it's true then how did it happen.



You should find information in that if you choose to look Mr_Pointy. World Trade Center 7 shouldn't of collapsed, and that's obvious beause the building's based, where it was accused of being weak, wasn't engulfed in massive fires, so how could you get weakening?


The people that were there say otherwise, it was obvious to them that the building had massive fires, was damaged by debris, and was near collapse.



I'll put the burden of proof on you, how do you get temperatures that hot? For them to get that hot you need a fire to produce the energy or heat, or SOMETHING to produce the energy and heat to cause those temperatures.


There was a fire, as shown by the video and eyewitnesses. I found this which shows that the water pressure was dangerouly low than day, meaning the sprinklers and hoses couldn't put it out. 911myths.com...



But you choose to ask: Where's your evidence that WTC 7 feel at free fall, that's been spread across the internet like a wild fire if you would of chose to find it but here:


It's hard to tell exactly how fast it came down from the videos, the bottom part is never seen. That just shows how long the other parts fell, the penthouse that had collapsed 6 seconds before shows that there was massive internal damage. Controled demolitions destroy the core to take the building down, for WTC7 fires weakened the core until it collapse, how is that any different.



Personally though at this point, I know your stance, and I know you'll fight this til you gain whatever it is you seem to looking for. An ego trip, proof of your ignorance, whatever it may choose to be, I say good luck to you in your endeavor, but for your information, you haven't yielded any proof to change my mind, and that's not a statement of ignorance, but a statement of reasonability and proof.

Ego trip, I'm not the one that believes I have found out this grand conspiracy that few people know. My proof of your ignorance is the you continue to ignore the evidence i present, you said it was obvious that silverstien order the building demolished, but when i showed you that you belief made no sense, you just kept repeating it. You have yet to provide any reasonable evidence yourself.

This is what a real demolition looks and sounds like:
www.break.com...
note the difference from WTC7:
1. Explosive charges are louder than the collapse
2. 'Squibs' appear before collapse, not after
3. Flashes, none for WTC7



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
*SNIP*

BTW, Who answers "Who Cares?" To a question that is the most suspect.


I have nothing to say to someone that doesn't have the capacity for comprehension. Good luck in the future...

AAC

Mod Edit: 9/11 Forum Posting Guidelines – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 15/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Many people care if their elected president is lying about the crime of the century.


Do you think it was a deliberate lie or just a misstatement?





Not quite HowardRoark...


A new book by 9/11 commission co- chairmen Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton outlines repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and Federal Aviation Administration.

They write, "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11. But it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue."


Like I said, human nature. Is it right? No. Is it proof of CYA? Possibly. Is it proof of a conspiracy to commit the attacks? No.



The Walmart near my house has TWENTY ONE cameras pointed in the front parking lot alone... MAN... they must have a trillion dollar budget, national secrets, top officials to protect and emotional value to their building.


You counted them, Why?

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 15/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join