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.

 

There's not ONE piece of SOLID evidence that the destruction of the WTC's were terrorist attacks!!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by esdad71
The fires on the lower floors came from the initial impacts of the jets. Many people cite only the elevator shafts which few connected from top to bottom due to design. Ventilation shafts were found to also carry the explosive fires and smoke throughout the building after the impact. This was shown the fire in the 70's also which is how it spread.

Many people were killed in the elevators and on specific sky lobby floors.


First of all, I wasn't stating that I didn't believe that these fires could have been caused by the fuel. I was asking if these fire were being fought along with the fires in the upper floors. Please quit putting words in my mouth....thank you.


What the hell are you talking about? Putting words in your mouth? Griff, buddy, why the rage?


Also, nothing is made up. You can go look it up.
Ventilation shafts were used by the fire to travel and also supply oxygen. If you suddenly have a large explosive reaction 'inside' of a building, the force of the reaction would be pushed through any opening it can find, such as ventilation/communication shafts, elevators and stairwells.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by esdad71]




posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

What the hell are you talking about? Putting words in your mouth? Griff, buddy, why the rage?


No rage...just must have read it differently than you ment. Peace....again no rage.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
the force of the reaction would be pushed through any opening it can find, such as ventilation/communication shafts, elevators and stairwells.


Wrong. It will flow through the path of least resistance... basically the giant hole in the sides of the towers.

The HVAC had fire dampers... ask your boy ROARK. The "communication shafts" (?) were fireproofed at all openings after the first fire... Stairwells and elevators have doors...



[edit on 19-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Wrong. It will flow through the path of least resistance... basically the giant hole in the sides of the towers.


And the floor roofs/trusses, as they collapsed. I wouldn't imagine the roofs of the floors being crushed remained intact and airtight either, considering steel beams and concrete dust was flying out of them.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Wow, three pages on, and all we have is a rehash of older threads.


IS the original poster, Trauma, planning, at any point, to even bother to explain what he consider's 'solid evidence'? I mean, thats what the contention was over in the first place, and apparently confesions, admissions, tape, physical documents, and physical remains aren't enough, so what is physical evidence?



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
FIrst, I described path of least resistence, but I think we are going off in another direction. I am not talking about the collapase, but the initial impact. Also, I am not positive, but I was pretty sure that the newer fireproofing and other measures supposedly implemented after the 93 bombing did not reach retor fitting on the higher floors.

And yes, again, a rehashing as the original poster seems to have had their fun. too bad, I was waiting for him him to give me some SOLID evidence it was not terrorists.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trauma

So please, where's the proof?

I agree with you totally...but where's the proof that it WASN'T terrorist attacks?
We could go on and on, back and forth reciting quotes from sites and adding links to other sites and what-ever, but neither side can ever prove itself to be totally correct...ever. It's just one theory against another.

I personally think the U.S. was totally behind this....I also think they were behind the Kennedy assassination and they were deliberately covering up the Roswell incident....this is ALL old news and the 9/11 thing will become old news too....

This isn't the first, and it deffinately won't be the last wretched thing the american government 'unleashes' on their own people.....but those futur incidents will NEVER be proven either. Nobody will believe it and even less want to...it's too nasty to think about such things to most people....americans want to live like what they see in sitcoms; everyone has a big beautiful house and they're all hilaroius comedians!.....even the lil' children...




posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
This is just all worthless banter!!! 9-1-1 conspiracy nuts are'nt going to change their minds regardless of the "ACTUAL" evidence placed before them. Conversely, those of us that indeed KNOW what happened that fateful day will not change our minds regardless of the constant circumstantial evidence, coincidences and inuendos stated on this website. So, that kind of makes all this back and forth stuff sort of mute doesn't it?



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnowItAll
This is just all worthless banter!!! 9-1-1 conspiracy nuts are'nt going to change their minds regardless of the "ACTUAL" evidence placed before them. Conversely, those of us that indeed KNOW what happened that fateful day will not change our minds regardless of the constant circumstantial evidence, coincidences and inuendos stated on this website. So, that kind of makes all this back and forth stuff sort of mute doesn't it?


agreed....



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
IS the original poster, Trauma, planning, at any point, to even bother to explain what he consider's 'solid evidence'? I mean, thats what the contention was over in the first place, and apparently confesions,


you mean bin laden confessing he didn't do it? (as i 'PROVED' with SOLID EVIDENCE earlier in the thread)


Originally posted by Nygdanadmissions,


by who? 'fatty' CIA dupe bin laden?


Originally posted by Nygdantape,


you mean the low budget 'hollywood' false flag tape?
or is there something else i'm not aware of?


Originally posted by Nygdanphysical documents,


haven't seen any. unless you mean the note from mike vreeland, that he wrote in prison pre-911, which was sealed in an envelope and given to the guards, which detailed foreknowledge of the attacks, and was trying to warn authorities, and which was later unsealed in court?
or do you mean passports that defy odds, or korans and flight training manuals that defy common sense by being left EVERYWHERE.

(although i haven't actually 'seen' this note, it is a matter of official provincial court records, ie. pretty solid)


Originally posted by Nygdan and physical remains


physical remains? arabs from the pentagon autopsy report, maybe? what physical remains do you mean?


Originally posted by Nygdan aren't enough, so what is physical evidence?


he never said 'physical', he said SOLID, which implies a chain of custody, no alternative explanation for it, no possibility of faking, etc.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
you mean bin laden confessing he didn't do it?

More like KSM et al confessing that they did it. Again, what do you consider to be solid evidence, since we are rejecting all recordings and statements and physical evidence as 'probable propaganda'??



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
More like KSM et al confessing that they did it. Again, what do you consider to be solid evidence, since we are rejecting all recordings and statements and physical evidence as 'probable propaganda'??


You mean after they kidnapped KSM's kids and held them until KSM admitted it? Or do mean in August and October of 2002 when he wasn't "officially" captured until March of 2003? Or would it be when he was tortured in the secret CIA camps? Is this the "solid" evidence you claim? I could make you claim that you were little miss tuffit if I did that stuff to you.

Valhall is the one who gets credit for all this.

I think this info is all under the "Bush said explosives" thread....I'm not totally sure. Some was rehashed in the "when was KSM captured" thread.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trauma
One thing that always got me was that if the terrorists were knew so much about us, why would the hijackers upon approaching the pentagon not just simply crash into the front of the pentagon and inflict the most damage, instead of performing an impossible turn and hitting the tough side.


Nobody expect (some) CTers claimed the turn is impossible. The crew of Ronald Reagan Intl. tower just claimed the maneuver to be uncommon with a civillian plane because unsafe. Airliners usually do fly very stadily to prevent any passanger breaking something as that costs money.
And "simply crashing" isn't as simple. the steeper the angle, the harder the attack. Even in the times there were specialised dive bombers, novice pilots were advised to attack from a shallow angle or low altitude as it was more likely they'd hit.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
An even better question would be why did they risk getting shot down during all the extra time it took to complete the maneuver? Did they maybe know they wouldn't?


With what? If there were fighters already in the area, they knew it doesn't matter whether as they'd be intercepted far enough. And if there weren't fighters, or were just incoming, probability they'd manage to locate them and fire during the turn wansn't so large. And Pentagon doesn't have fixed AAA or SAM's capable of such a defence.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I agree Tuccy.

They also found in the recent documentary from Holland that the manuever was able to be performed. They had an inexperienced pilot on a simulator and I think he managed to hit the pentagon (hard manuever and all) like three times in a row. This is all hearsay on my part because I haven't watched the documentary yet.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
If you'd find something (say a link or so) to that experiment, can you post it, please? Never heard of it, might be interesting



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Nygdan
More like KSM et al confessing that they did it. Again, what do you consider to be solid evidence, since we are rejecting all recordings and statements and physical evidence as 'probable propaganda'??


You mean after they kidnapped KSM's kids and held them until KSM admitted it?

I take it then that you reject anything as evidence then?


Is this the "solid" evidence you claim?

Heck yeah. The vids, the documents, the admissions, indeed, the fact that al qaida declared war on the US and attacked it, that it ran a international terrorist organization, and fronted the money for the hijackers, yep, thats pretty solid evidence.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I actually do believe that terrorists did plan and do 9/11 Nygdan. All I'm saying is you can't say a confession will under torture is "solid" evidence. I'm sorry...like I said, I could make you think you're little miss tuffit if I put you through all that torture/kids being kidnapped and all.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
when torture is used to gain 'evidence', it is no 'evidence' of anything except human puppetry most vile.
america is torturing people.
it's wrong.
it's evil.

say anything you're told, nothing else.
it works.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
To all, please forgive me, this is my first post, as I am new to ATS. From what I've seen and read, I'm probably going to get attacked for what I'm about to write, but, here goes.

I have been going through all of this "babbling" and I wonder, Do any of you live or work here in New York? - I do.

Did any of you witness first hand what happened here? - I did.

I can't believe that some of you people think our government was involved in this.

I visited another thread here on 9/11 and it goes on for pages. Do you people realize your arguing over a moot point?

Not one of you has ever stated that you witnessed this first hand. Not one of you can be seen running from the buildings. Not one of you came home 7 hours later covered in crap like I did.

And no one here has said anything about the people who died on that day.

I don't think I'll be on this site very much because I don't like what I've seen or read. I am disgusted.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join