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.

 

TIME: Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnowItAll
While we're both engineers, we ARE NOT forensic engineers. There is a difference.


Actually, I do do some forensic engineering work on building envelopes. So, being an engineer, you don't find the collapses a little bit strange? Can you tell me what happened to the angular momentum of the cap of tower 2? Can you explain how a central core made of 47 collumns (laterally braced seperate from the floors) could have disintegrated? Thanks for sharing.




posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Knowitall.

Since you are also a structural engineer, can you tell me if my theory makes sense to you? My theory is thermite was used to sever the core columns in probably 3 strategic places....the basement foundation, the first third and the second third. Would this not cause the building to fail at the impact zones while shearing the outer floor connections and also while keeping the inner floor connections intack...virtually pulling the floors down with them. There's more but that's the jist of it.

BTW, what do you make of the Jim Fetzer interview of the Structural PE who disbelieves the official theory?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Sorry know it all, but this isn't a case of hyperbole. The statement was made that it could have been pulled of by much fewer people that everyone thinks, then the number jumps from hundreds to thousands, all in an attempt to convert the disbelievers. If I said that billions of people believe the gvt had a hand in it, how quick would someone stop me in my place?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
In all honesty Griff, I can no more tell you what happened that day than I can tell you about the man in the moon. I haven't seen/reviewed any detailed evidence to either refute or support either way. So does that mean something sinister ocurred that day? I do not believe that it does. If you choose to believe that explosives and detenators were wired without anyone seeing that, or moreover, none of the personnel involved have told....more power to you. I suppose that if your "evidence" weren't examined in a vacuum, then it would probably tickle my fancy and encourage me to look further. However, my fansy isn't tickled, as I simply cannot believe the premis of the theory.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
KIA,
So you follow the official story because you trust the people who told it to you? The news, and the bush administration?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Just curious, how many CIA agents work in secret in other countries? Spying, surveillence, in some cases, assasination.

Do they come out and proclaim to the world what they do? no. Do you know why? theres things called gag orders and Non-Disclosure agreements.

See these things make it so that a person can be prosecuted if they disclose said information. And in the case of the CIA, they would be hauled off to levenworth, no pass go, do not collect 100 dollars.

Now, its not like people aren't talking either. Did we not have one of Bush's OWN administration members at one point proclaiming that it was an inside job? Do we not have the testimony of the individuals in Able Danger saying that we infact knew about the terrorists, where they were, what they were doing, and they were ordered to wipe the memory banks clean?

So you have people with potential gag orders andNDA, facing potential arrests, coming out and claiming things. That shows some deep belief that what they are saying is true, enough to risk theyre careers, theyre freedom ,and potentially theyre lives, over it.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Rasobasi420....
So let me understand this...Involvment:
1) Airlines;
2) FAA;
3) Department of Defense;
4) FBI;
5) CIA;
6) Secret Service;
7) Numerous Civilians;
8) FDNY;
9) NYPD;
The list can go on and on....And no one has spilled the beans?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar


Do they come out and proclaim to the world what they do? no. Do you know why? theres things called gag orders and Non-Disclosure agreements.



Oh come on now....no one has EVER violated gag orders or NDA's????? That's what lawyers are for. I'm not stupid people.
No...I do not believe the official story because someone has told it to me. The prevailing belief here is ALL and I repeat ALL based on circumstancial evidence. There are no hard facts,no missing airplanes, no missing passengers. If you all went to court on this evidence, the judge would dismiss in 5 minutes. All circumstancial!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   
What is funny (actually kinda sad) is when oppsing facts are presented (i.e. Popular Science) all the CT's complain and make up that the magazine is a disinfomation agent of the administration.

Many facts have been presented agianst the CT'ers theories from the collapse of the towers to a plane hitting the pentagon.

But since these debunk the CTer's it is obviously not true.

For the supposed engineers on this board........what makes you more qualified than the numerous structural engineering and physists (sp?) who have time and time again proven the the towers were not blown up with thermite or other types of explosives?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Ferret,
Thank you....
100% correct. See, here's the problem, the CTers work on total convenience...that is to say, (and this is your point), in order for their game to work they must accept the premis that the government was willing to kill to fulfill some sort of agenda. Then when presented with hard factual evidence to the contrary, then its all disinformation and government "powers that be" and "string pullers" that are wagging the dog....The cters will no more accept hard, reasonable evidence than I will accept their evidence of convenience. To do otherwise, would render boards like these useless....and oh the $$$'s that would be lost then!



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnowItAll
In all honesty Griff, I can no more tell you what happened that day than I can tell you about the man in the moon.


I understand.


I haven't seen/reviewed any detailed evidence to either refute or support either way. So does that mean something sinister ocurred that day?


So, you haven't seen any detailed evidence to support or refute either way but you automatically assumed that the official story is absolute fact without seeing/reviewing any detailed evidence? That doesn't sound like a good way of going about making up your mind either way.


If you choose to believe that explosives and detenators were wired without anyone seeing that, or moreover, none of the personnel involved have told....more power to you.


Obviously you didn't read my posts correctly. I do NOT believe explosives and detenators were wired first off. Second, people DID notice strange things going on...bomb sniffing dogs taken out a week before 9/11, Rodriguez testifying he saw and spoke with one of the highjackers who asked him how many bathrooms there were on a certain floor, etc. Third, I gave you some examples of people slipping up.


I suppose that if your "evidence" weren't examined in a vacuum, then it would probably tickle my fancy and encourage me to look further. However, my fansy isn't tickled, as I simply cannot believe the premis of the theory.


Believe what you want but don't join this site and state your opinion (without even investigating...you said it yourself not me) without backing it up with something. What "tickled your fancy" in the first place to join in this discussion? If you truly are a structural engineer....why wouldn't your fancy be tickled to look further? Denial?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnowItAll
1) Airlines;


Why would the airlines be involved? They did their jobs of telling the FAA about the highjackings.


2) FAA;


The FAA did their jobs of contacting NORAD of the threat....again what involvement of a conspiracy?


3) Department of Defense;


Maybe only Rummy knew....that's one person so far.


4) FBI;


They did their jobs and knew there was a threat. How would the FBI be involved in a conspiracy?


5) CIA;


Same as FBI


6) Secret Service;


This is just rediculus. The secret service guards the president, vice and past presidents. How would they be involved in a conspiracy?


7) Numerous Civilians;


For what?


8) FDNY;


You really think the FDNY would be involved in a conspiracy to murder it's own?


9) NYPD;


Same.


The list can go on and on....And no one has spilled the beans?


So far out of your list I count 1 person. And he HAS spilled the beans. Remember his "slip up"? "and the missle" "shot down the plane" etc.?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Eagle, when asked "Do you think the Bush administration is somewhat or very likely quilt of carrying out the 9/11 attacks" and you answer YES does that NOT kind of imply you think there is a conspiracy involved with Bush to commence or allow the attacks of 9/11??


Rockpuck, my point is that the poll did not say "the Bush Administration". It said "government officials". That means the entire government, including bureaucratic departments such as the CIA, FBI, etc. The original poll question even says "people in the government", not "officials".

I'm saying that you misquoted the original source just to point the finger right at President Bush. The poll question itself allows for a conspiracy at much lower levels.

I think the answers were too broad as well. The only choices were "very", "somewhat". and "not at all". The 20% who answered "somewhat" could have had a wide range in mind.

I agree 36% of the respondents are open to the possibility of government involvement in the plot. But no way do I think you can read that result as "President Bush did it".



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
.what makes you more qualified than the numerous structural engineering and physists (sp?) who have time and time again proven the the towers were not blown up with thermite or other types of explosives?


If you can show me these reports where they prove time and time again, I'll listen to them. Didn't think so because like myself, these other engineers don't have access to the construction documents (plans & specs)...so how are they able to prove this without that vital information? To answer your question. I never stated that I'm more qualified than anyone. That is your assumption of me...not mine.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Take enough time, do your own research, do not think every publication and TV is neo-con agenda, and you will come to the same truth.

On 9/11, terrorists hijacked 4 planes. If anyone is to blame, it is the FAA for not reporting the situation in a timely manner, alone with American Airlines. Research the amount of time lost, and how the scrambled fighters were looking for a plane that had already hit the towers.

There are only 2 true anomolies to 9/11.

1. How did the buildings collapse in the way they did?
2. What really happened to Flight 93?

So, if you examine all the evidence that can be presented that 'cannot' be found on the internet, you should come to the conclusion that due to internal failure, the buildings collapsed. There is a first time for everything, and this was it. 2 identical buildings collapsed after being severed by an airliner. Watch the videos, and watch the sheer power and destruction that was caused. If you have ever been to the WTC, you would know that video does not due it justice as to what a large scale this attack was. 2 uniquely designed buildings, both collapse. WTC 7 burned all day and collasped after hours. It caved inward, due to failure of elevators and the 'penthouse' on the roof.

Flight 93, well, there are a few good posts on those. The 911 call that is not released, and the loud bangs prior to crashing. It goes on and on.

There is no conspiracy, just an occurance that was never thought to happen.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnowItAll
I haven't seen/reviewed any detailed evidence to either refute or support either way. So does that mean something sinister ocurred that day? I do not believe that it does.
[...]
However, my fansy isn't tickled, as I simply cannot believe the premis of the theory.


It looks like this sums it up for you, KIA.

According to the above, you haven't looked at specific information to form an argument, and therefore you have no reason to believe that the Towers were rigged. In the same breath, you say you cannot entertain the premise that 9/11 was a conspiracy. So the real issue is not facts of the matter, but how you feel. At what engineering school do they teach that?


And when you point out all the groups that *must* have been knowingly involved in the attacks, you are making so many assumptions.

Take, for example, the FAA. There were military war games going on, on the morning of 9/11. These war games involved aircraft, specifically fighters that were supposed to be over the East Coast. From some testimonies (that HAVE been leaked), radar associated with the FAA was also tampered with, ie false blips as a part of at least one of the war games.

Now, taking the above information into account, it would not be safe or logical to conclude that anyone in the FAA would have to be complicit in the attacks any more than a helpless, confused radar operated or etc. would be. This was because of military interference, or specifically, the war games going on that morning that affected NORAD and the FAA.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

For the CIA and FBI, I do believe there are individuals in those organizations that certainly knew what was going to happen, even if only by fragmented and compartmentalized information, just as some military personnel would have known. The key question is "how many?". Do we know how many? Can we know how many? No, and not really. Considering that investigations that may have revealed what was actually going on would only have to be cut off (which they were, and THIS was ALSO "leaked", albeit it couldn't have been covered-up that well in first place, thus the 9/11 Commission saying "We have failed you."), it would not have to take many officials in this agencies. Only a few, in key positions to terminate relevant investigations. For what else would anyone in these organizations need to know anything?

The people involved in our own government would not have to be nearly as many as the pro-official CT side constantly assert, no doubt with much bias. Foreign contractors, such as special Israeli groups, for example, could have even been implemented for the jobs in which manual labor would be required. Even then, the contractees may have been manipulated into falsely assuming they were doing some sort of electrical or electronic maintenance to the buildings.

These are all assumptions, and not one is any better than the others, though some require great numbers and others very few, so how can you pretend to know who all would've had to have been knowingly involved? How surprising, and more importantly, objective do you think it is that you and so many other pro-official CT's assume HUGE masses would've had to have been in on the whole thing, the whole time?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnowItAll
they must accept the premis that the government was willing to kill to fulfill some sort of agenda.


Do you know how utterly rediculus this sounds? What is war if not a government willing to kill to fullfill some sort of agenda?


Then when presented with hard factual evidence to the contrary


Show me one hard factual evidence that this artcle has stated please.


The cters will no more accept hard, reasonable evidence than I will accept their evidence of convenience.


Evidence of convenience? Oh...you mean like the highjackers passport mysteriously given to a police officer by a man in a suit? Or do you mean Dr. Jone's analysis of the steel to find thermite traces? Which one sounds like evidence of convenience to you? Because to me the second sounds more scientific and believable.

BTW, Thanks for answering none of my questions. If you are a PE then you could have answered at least my first 2 questions.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
griff -


If you can show me these reports where they prove time and time again, I'll listen to them.


How long have you been a memebr to this site? These reports have been linked to the numerous 9/11 threads on this board.

And what do all the CT's say.......

"Everyone who provides facts that don't agree with our imaginary ones, is a agent of bush and cheney."



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I'm not asking you to tell me "it's been posted before". Show me actual studies done by people who have access to the construction documents.

Or do you mean the engineers who came up with the BBC article that said the core was a solid concrete core? Or do you mean the engineers that said that the steel melted? Or do you mean the engineers who came up with the "pancake theory"? BTW, all have been disproven....even by the NIST itself.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Considering I watched the 'pancake' theory in realtime while being half way down liberty street between broadway and trinity heading towards the towers. That's also how I know there were no explosions by thermite.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join