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.


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

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:33 AM

Originally posted by esdad71

The WTC did not have to adhere it code. As the Port Authority was a bi-state agency, the towers were exempt from New York City building codes. This is known if you read the history of the towers, or just google it. Your choice.

Wrong. As an engineer myself, I know there are more codes than just the NYC building code. No matter what, a building HAS to be built according to some code. BTW, most codes are the same....but anyway, if you are suggesting that because the towers weren't built to NYC code that they were built with faulty materials, faulty workmanship, etc. you are very wrong. If you have any experience in the construction field you'd know what quality control and quality assurance was. From what I have read of your posts...I don't think you do? BTW, there's a thing called the means the International Building Code (IBC). That code supercedes ALL other codes...unless the other is STRICTER. So, when you state that the towers didn't have to abide by NYC code, you can be assured it was built according to the IBC. The IBC overules any other code UNLESS the other code is more STRINGENT.

I am searching, trust me, but what is wrong with the links i provided? One goes to NIST so you cast them both off?

Not sure what you are addressing here but will get back to you when I can see the rest of the thread. BTW mods and 3 amigos...can we at least make it so we can see what we are responding to? I mean, I know it's a thing with band width and all but it gets confusing when I'm trying to respond to someone and because it is " This is a long topic, click here to review it." I can't see what I'm responding to unless I have a big quote...which you guys hate there an easy way to see what I'm responding to unless I hit the back button? Serious question.

I am aware of all the references you made also, thanks.

Thank you!!

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:40 AM

Originally posted by esdad71
I would hope that you would have read them both entirely,

Sadly, I have to I haven't read them yet. I will (if I remember in the's 1:30 AM here...boy I need a life other than the bar, work and here).

and gives you insight.

I hope it does...that would be great.

the difference between the 2 of us is not that I will not concede if wrong, I would. I do not have a closed mind, trust me, because if you showed me proof I was totally wrong tomorrow I would admit it. However, I feel that the evidence I have read, and digested tells me what I beleive. Sorry about that.

Why be sorry? I'm not sorry in my views...I would hope you are not in yours. I'm not one to try and take away your opinions....much opposed to that.

I was talking about the Bin LAden tape released today/yesterday. Bush stated that once and here is context that one line was taken from

My bad...didn't hear about this until now...comments to come.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:43 AM
Lets Face it the Corporate "News Media" is on a total lock down. They will tell you what THEY want you to believe - but if you question them then they will call you "Stupid" or some such non-sense (as was recently done by a Fox News Anchor - Gibson I believe). They will say ohhh you Internet people are all conspiracy freaks - it is not a credible medium they will say - then plug their web site "" or "".

What NBC News is doing with their series of reports on what happened on 9/11 (with correspondent David Schuster) is ridiculous! Apparently they know all of the Hijackers Names & have pictures of them - they know which hijackers were on which planes & which targets they crashed into (like the Pentagon - ahem, ahem) - yet they don't know how they got into the country - don't have any video of them at the airport showing what flight they were getting on - they don't know exactly where they were in the country - but they DO know that they had a hard time speaking English - but they don't know if there were any American Citizens helping them out!!! OF-COURSE there must have been some U.S. Citizen(s) that helped them out!!! Unless of-course they are just making all of this crap up.

If you were a flight school instructor & one of these guys like "Atta" said to you that they wanted to learn to "take off but not land" wouldn't that set off alarm bells in your head? Apparently it didn't set off alarm bells in George Tenet's head. What a Disgrace - what a Failure. Lets make sure it never happens again! Lets fight the enemy Within as well as without. Lets talk about why they hate us - & here is a news flash folks - it is not because of our "Freedom".

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
If you were a flight school instructor & one of these guys like "Atta" said to you that they wanted to learn to "take off but not land" wouldn't that set off alarm bells in your head? Apparently it didn't set off alarm bells in George Tenet's head.

This is actually a good point about Tenet. I suggest watching a frontline special called darkside. Google frontline darkside and you can't miss it. Maybe the whole thing that everyone was lying about was to cover Tenet's arse? Nah, living in DC...I know that is not what people here do...they will cover their own arse before risking their livelyhood for someone else. But, it goes deeper here in's more of I'll cover my own arse...even if it makes you DIE.....seriously...I hate it here because of this.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:04 AM

take a look at this video, pretty interesting.

The code enforcement came about due to safety requirements and fireproofing that I read about.

This is a person who testified before NIST(sorry). This is what I was referring to when I talked about codes. About the safety features, and even the design of the WTC. I didn't mean the entire thing was shoddy. I thought in testing they stated that the steel used was fine, but there was never any fireproofing. The man who invented the fireproofing, Levine,

As far as the IBC, I do know that they mandated a change post 9/11 about fireproofing min 3 hour protection. Most of the changes in code are from what was learned during 9/11 to make sure it never happens again.

Here is another good one

Now, read Levines warning scroll down..

He stated 30 years ago, a fire above 64 would bring down the towers...

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:12 AM

Originally posted by esdad71

As far as the IBC, I do know that they mandated a change post 9/11 about fireproofing min 3 hour protection. Most of the changes in code are from what was learned during 9/11 to make sure it never happens again.

Still looking at your videos you mean that the IBC has changed since 9/11? I'm pretty sure for a fact (we don't have the newest IBC but we don't deal with fire) that the IBC has changed? If it has....I will willing ly take bake my statements.

[edit on 9/8/2006 by Griff]

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:17 AM
I'm going through the "building the world trade center" link and I just noticed something. At 1 minute 15 seconds they show a guy "tying wire" on the concrete floors. I thought that the so called "light wieght" concrete floors weren't reinforced? If they were....there is NO WAY that they broke up into dust with just gravity alone...thanks esdad for reinforcing (pun intended) our side.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:27 AM
Its sort of like the kennedy assassination in the way that the government's "officical" reports (magic bullet theory lol) defy laws of physics. The Super Duper Incredible jet fuel fire made such a big explosion part of it traveled forward in time and ended up in the basement (the maintenance guy who witnessed a burnt man running from an explosion in the basement right before the planes hit).
After the planes hit it then melted each piece of the structure on every side evenly.. and each floor collapsed with no resistance at near free fall speed.
But wait! The Super Duper Incredible jet fuel was so hot that it came BACK through time and ended up in WTC 7 that evening.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:27 AM
I've seen rebar in that video too as they lay floor slabs, but it was suggested to me that this only meant that they were evening it out or something.

But, do you know how the mechanical floors were reinforced, and the bottom-most floors?

Those aren't trusses you see linking the core to the perimeter.

Notice here that there are also I-beams laying around, on top of the trusses. Judging by the relative height of the building in the background, core columns would still be very massive at this point in the structure, and they aren't perimeter columns either.

And this is from the clean-up at GZ. Look at the concrete on those I-beams.

These are probably from the lowest floors, but could also have been from the reinforced mech floors.

I would also not be surprised if rebar were in the floor slabs vs. the nails FEMA shows. I think FEMA does not account for some significant amount of steel in the buildings, but I can't remember exact numbers. Little things like this just make me wonder, though.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:39 AM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Little things like this just make me wonder, though.

Me too and I'm really getting sick of not having the privelege of seeing the construction documents (blueprints in laymens terms...but more importantly...the specifications...specs have sooo much more info than the drawings themselves....and BTW even states in the specs how, where, why, and by whom the steel is made by...this is the engineer who designs the building who states this stuff....not an insignificant contractor). I don't care what contractor you are NOT getting by with shotty material etc. on MY inspections. Period.

Edit to add: Because my future would be on the line in that, no engineer is going to let shotty material be built on his/her site.

[edit on 9/8/2006 by Griff]

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 07:57 AM

Originally posted by esdad71
Who do you beleive than Slaps? Who? If you do not believe anything from NIST, FEMA, Silverstien, ACSE, 9/11 commission or any other supporter of the official theory, who is it you believe in?

It is not a matter of what I believe... It is a matter of what I DO NOT believe and that which can be PROVEN untrue. I will believe in the results of a full, unimpeded,impartial investigation.

Originally posted by esdad71
You never quote any facts or answer questions, you jsut continue to ask them. That is an easy way to never have to work too hard, but gets a little tiring for us answering your questions.

I post many facts, far more than most here. I question the governments story because all of their reports and actions are SUSPECT and everyone knows it. I do not support a "Full Alternative Theory" but I do know that FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 Comission have lies, omission, distortions, etc. I know officials are covering thing up, I know the PNAC agenda and none of this makes sense... I attack the offical story and do not think any alternative theory is 100% correct yet as the evidence is being witheld.

Originally posted by esdad71
Now, I believe the video evidence on the NOVA sight which directly takes from NIST does a good job of explaining the collaspe, in layamns terms even. Does everyone in this thread truly think that NONE of it fits or makes sense? None of it, becasuse if that is true, there is no use in using keystrokes.....

you have it BACKWARDS... The gov't story is not allowed to have ANY HOLES... the burden of proof lies upon THEM to be 100% accurate. They have FAILED at our expense and it is time for a REAL investigation with all of the concealed evidence released.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:02 AM
Slap nuts
I agree, with the one exception:
if they show a true national security reason for holding back evidence...
but even in those cases, that evidence (of a secret program, or secret security feature) should be revealed under gag to an INDEPENDANT investigation committee...

Because without some allowance there (for state secrets) the truths will never be known by anyone who holds our interests at heart, and the distrust that those obvious lies have caused so far will continue to fester forever (like the JFK assination, Iran/contra, OKC Murrah

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:27 AM
Someone should tell the idiots at Time magazine that "conspiracy theories" wont go away because:

1. There are numerous inconsistancies and suspicous details in the offical account.
2. The government has covered up and witheld information from the 9/11 Commision and other investigators.
3. There are too many coincidences
4. Many of the details known about 9/11 make no logical sense and require blind acceptance of the government.
5. We have gone into a state of perpetual warfare because of the attacks, yet have accomplished nothing.
6. The government has a poor track record with truth and moral behavior, and its not like they have not been involved in other shady operations.

Maybe the conspiracy theories will go away when we actually get some answers not insulting to our intelligence.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:49 AM
BTW, there was a respond to the writer link...

I dont know if it did any good at all to write them, cause here is what they replied with: (from times editor supposidly)

Dear Reader: (even though i used my real name)

Thank you for writing. We welcome timely, insightful reactions to
material we have published, and we can assure you that your
observations found an attentive audience among the editors. Should
your comments be selected for the column, you will be notified in
advance of publication. Again, our thanks for letting us hear from
you. We hope that you will write again should you discover something
of particular interest in the news or in our reporting of it.

Best wishes.

TIME Letters

An auto response... I have actually had the authors of articles write back from other press groups personally... apparently not with TIME... I guess no one there actually has the TIME to do so...
sorry, that was a lame joke... I'll do better next time.

BUT! it never hurts for them to at least see the email count coming in regarding that article... maybe they would clue in after they get more responders than actual buyers of time.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:29 AM
I just sent a letter to the editor of time magazine, hopefully it'll go through. Heres what I wrote.

Dear Editors of Time Magazine,

I have recently read your article on the attacks of 9/11 and the conspiracies that soon followed. I myself am, as you call us, a "Conspiracy theorist," although I would prefer the term critical thinker. After all, is that not what we do on both sides? We all have the same goal, of discovery what happened on 9/11, and while we may disagree in our theories, that goal is still the same. You take a heavy-handed stance on us, at times, insulting us by claiming we live in a "different world" then you. Are we that much different, after all, both theories on what happened on 9/11 are conspiracy theories. The official story is that it was a conspiracy from Osama Bin Laden and nineteen hijackers with box cutters and nominal training and experience in aviation. Even though the government states that this is what happened, it is still a conspiracy theory. It's what they believe happened, note keyword is believed.

If you take a quick trip on the Internet you'll notice that the FBI has Osama Bin Laden on the wanted list, but not for 9/11. They even have come out to state that they do not have conclusive proof that Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11, aside from his conflicting video tape of a man that resembles Bin laden, albeit chunkier and writing with his non-dominate hand. So even the government is not 100% positive that Osama Bin Laden actually was the mastermind behind 9/11. If we were not in a state of anger and sorrow, would we have so haste fully jumped on the chance to take him down? After all, is not the burden of proof placed on the prosecutor? Innocent until proven guilty, correct?

And even then, how do we trust a investigation into this matter is its a non-independent research council? In a investigation of an arson, do you let the person whom owns the home also lead and run the investigation? The World Trade Center was full of government agencies and places of business, especially in World Trade Center Building 7. The one that mysteriously fell, with only two floors on fire. The Madrid building in 2006 lasted for 24 hours, and didn't even partially collapse, yet the Building number 7 collapsed in under 7 hours? There was no plane crash in that building, and barely a fire, just two floors. And it fell at free fall speed, into itself like a controlled demolition.

And to step away from the actual collapses, and just to look at the investigation, The 9/11 commission had only $15 million dollars of budget to spend on investigation. Note hat this was an attack on America, killing 3,000 American citizens, and threatening the economy and the defense structure. Is that not more important then say the Clinton Whitewater scandal investigation, which received a little over $50 million dollars? How can a commission make an accurate and reliable conclusion when they had a pinched budget, they're evidence was melted down in China, and they couldn't even obtain a blueprint of the buildings they were supposed to be accurately investigating? They received pages with large chunks of blacked out lines, and got a complete runaround by the government when asking to obtain research materials. NIST does not even have they're story straight yet; it used to be a pancake theory, and now they say it didn't happen, and its trusses instead. How are we supposed to fully trust the judgement of a government investigation that's barely funded and received little support in materials and blueprints?

We aren't making this stuff up, you've seen it with your own eyes, we were all there that day, whether we were in New York City or watching on the television that day, we all seen the buildings go down, we all lived through it. We're just trying to understand it better, we look at things critically, we find omissions, we dig for the truth. The Commission may be right, nobodies denying the possibility, but with all the inconsistencies, the withholding of information from the government, the omissions of information in the 9/11 commission report, and the many coincidences that occurred before, during, and after 9/11; we simply feel that there needs to be an independent research program, away from the governments hand, with full release of documents and evidence, and a detailed investigation on what really happened.

Were not so much different, and I'm sure I'd speak for all "conspiracy theorist" out there, in the 9/11 commission or otherwise, when we tell you that we do not live in a "very different world" as you put it, we live in the same one, we just ask that we all look at things a big more critically. We are all working for the same goal, we are working to find the truth, for resolution, to deny ignorance, and to find closure for the people that died on 9/11.

Thank you,
Michael V.
A "Conspiracy Theorist"

[edit on 9-8-2006 by WolfofWar]


posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:00 PM
Roger that Wolfofwar...
I agree..

What a miracle it will be when this turns up in that paper/magazine you send it to..Or atleast affect some people outthere...


[edit on 8-9-2006 by Ram]

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:17 PM

Though I don't agree with previous assements you've made...I have to admit that you wrote a well thought out letter describing your 'point of view'.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:24 PM
The lower floors of the WTC were constructed differently than the upper floors. The towers were built in 3 stages, or sections. I do remember reading that the lower floors were built a little thicker than the upper floors for specifc construction reasons. I too have seen those pictures and was curious at first.

There was a difference in thickness and the way the supports were handled, i jsut do not remember what floor it went up to, whether it was the first sky lobby or not. I'll try to find somehting on it.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:13 PM
If you haven't yet read this article, don't waste your time. The main idea is that anyone who questions the official story is either a non-thinking half-wit or a lunatic, as usual. The ironic part is that it mentions a poll which reveals over a third of Americans believe there was government involvement or purposeful negligence.

It's not just the questions being raised on forensic evidence by the truth movement that are waking people up. The motives behind the attack, whatever faction caused it, are being revealed as dark visions of the future are coming to fruition. The Kennedy assassinations theory is a bad analogy because those were acts of political retribution whereas 9/11 was used as a pretext for illegal war, propaganda, enabling fascist policies, etc. The Reichstag fire is a far more comparable event, and we know what happened to some of those mentally ill German citizens who questioned that event.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:15 PM

36% considered it somewhat or very likely that the government allowed them to happen or carried them out. Likely, not absolutely. They admit the possibility, not think it.

Also we must remeber a very large percent of that are politically driven much like the many posters on this site.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in