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.

 

A simple FACT about 9/11 thats CANNOT be debunked!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I am for one tired of hearing people say that the 9/11 theories have been debunked when all that has been offered is an alternative opinion that has serious flaws in the facts. You can't for one say that the 9/11 theories have been debunked unless you crash another 747 into another skyscraper with same type of beam structure and have it fall freefall style in less than two hours also.




posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revelmonk
I am for one tired of hearing people say that the 9/11 theories have been debunked when all that has been offered is an alternative opinion that has serious flaws in the facts.


I know this may be a little off-topic, but some people need to read this several times and let it sink in, because you are absolutely right.

People sometimes claim this or that has been "debunked", when in reality, it's exactly how you say: another possibility is simply offered.

For example: The molten material seen flowing out of WTC2 was orange- to white-hot, and though NIST claims it was aluminum, aluminum will not glow so brightly, especially in broad daylight, except when heated to extreme temperatures similar to what would be required in iron or steel.

A "debunker" may come along and say, "Oh, that was just a melting oxygen generator!" (Because I'll give most of them the benefit of the doubt in not realizing how stupid the aluminum argument is). Proposing that the molten material is from a burning oxygen rather than thermite ISN'T A DEBUNKING. It's just MORE SPECULATION.

That being just one example, of course. But anyway, thought I'd reinforce that, because it really is ridiculous how some people seem to form horribly illogical views on what is conclusive and what isn't.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Wrong.

There was physical damage to the building from the collapse of the adjacent WTC 1.


That's not much better than arguing semantics, HowardRoark, because that SW corner damage was far removed from any major structural components, not that it was a deep gash anyway, and there is no evidence of any other damage, besides some light scathing of the very roof parapet.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Are you serious?

Please explain how this







www.911myths.com...

Can in any way be twisted around to fit this statement.



because that SW corner damage was far removed from any major structural components, not that it was a deep gash anyway, and there is no evidence of any other damage, besides some light scathing of the very roof parapet.



How can you possibly tell from pictures showing almost the entire south side covered in billowing smoke, and video clearly showing smoke pouring out of most of the same side, that the damage was "removed from structural component". How can you tell that there is "no evidence of any other damage" when the entire side of the building is on fire?


Because obviously the majority of the south side is burning, why else would there be so much smoke? Government planted smoke bombs? Light damage?

Right


UDM

posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
After the '93 bombings wan't there a big gash too?
Also, if 7 fell why did WTC 4, 5, and 6 stand for most of the day. Note they did get damaged and were burning, and like 50% or so of the buildings was gone.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

I don't believe WTC 7 was hit by any parts of the plane.

It was hit by parts of WTC 1 when that building collapsed.


Your right. It was caught on fire by the other building when it collapsed.










posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
what i dont understand, is how did this whole conspiracy theory of bombs, missile planes etc begin. who thought "hey, maybe this wasnt just a terrorist attack, and it could be a big plan that involves the government and a big cover up" Going along the lines of conspiracies, how do we know, that all the information that we dredge from the web, isnt placed there by people working for the government, and wanting us to find it. surely, if the government didnt want us to find all this information and glean ideas and thoughts that they could possibly be involved somehow, that they would subpoena all the sites that had this information on. you cant tell me that they dont know its all there. they have specialists (i would imaging) who trawl through all these websites.

i dunno, but something seems fishy here. i know conspiracies are all about ideas and methodolgies behind certain things, but i belive that the government wants us to think other things. could they maybe be trying to hide something else under all this?

just MO. feel free to squash that theory!



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
There was a thread about the "Pull it" argument awhile back on ATS. Someone in the demolition industry told us that "Pull it" always meant pull down the building, as in bring it down. Larry Silverstein probably knew what it meant, since I'm sure he works with engineers, etc. seeing as how he owns alot of properties. Apparently, firefighters know this, too, at least according to the industry expert.

The BBC says that 5 of the hijackers are still alive, living in Europe, and they want their names cleared. The BBC is about as reliable news source as you'll get.

If you don't believe that our govt would do any such evil thing, google "Operation Northwoods".

The official 911 theory put forth by the govt. is just that, another theory. It has tons of holes in it, much more so than just about any other 911 theory I've heard.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
you won't get a textbook demolition from throwing random debris at a building, which is what happened at WTC7. Controlled demolition inc. and the likes should be out of a job. It takes months of careful planning to make a building collapse into its own footprint.

Perhaps next time controlled demolitions want to take a building down they should just throw some large rubble at it, or fly a plane into it. Whats the point in months of planning when we could just fly an plane into a building and it will take care of itself an hour later.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by UDM
After the '93 bombings wan't there a big gash too?
Also, if 7 fell why did WTC 4, 5, and 6 stand for most of the day. Note they did get damaged and were burning, and like 50% or so of the buildings was gone.


Because WTC 7 had a unique design. It was built over an existing electrical substation. Furthermore, neithr of those buildings had the extensive emergency generator systems and fuel piping inside them that WTC 7 had.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
First, Operation Northwoods was a 'suggestive report' that was never put on the presidents desk. If anything, Northwoods could be associated with the assasination of JFK, but it was an operation that never happened. Currently there are numerous think tanks whose job it is to give scenarios, but they are not implemented.

Second, the fire in WTC 7 was initiated from the damage of the WTC collapse. I am not sure what 'minor damage' is to some people, but a gash 18 stories high with ensuing fires to me is 'major structural damage'. Also, look into the changes of the WTC that were made after the construction as HRoark has described, and you we find that it was modified for upgrades to the struture itself.

Third, the fire grew as the day progressed. and got worse. This can be veirfied by eyewitness reports from the firefighters on scene. As the day progressed, they pulled the firefighters as not to add to the casulaty count that was growing with the missing FDNY.PA and NYPD as well as the occupants of WTC 1 and 2.

Also, if the WTC 1 and 2 were bought down ,why would the same individuals have not bought the WTC 7 down at that point, as it would have been a better cover story than allowing pictures to be taken to 'show the damamge' and allow speculation.

Finally, the reason that the disinfo is out there for WTC 1 2 and 7 is so that people do not investigate the fact we shot down Flight 93, and then in the following months the plane that 'exploded' over Rockaway was not investigated further either. Look at the toolbooth footage of that plane and it clearly shows an explosion, not a jet caught in a wash. It is a smoke screen. If those incidents were exposed, it would have crippled the airline industry further, and the general public would have flipped that we shot down a civilian aircraft.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I've said it once and i'll say it again, never in the history of buildings has a steel core building colapsed, the 2 twin towers were built to sustain multiple airplane crashes, yet on 9/11 not only the twin towers fell, making history by steel core buildings colapsing,yet WTC 7 fell suposely 'cause of a located fire.These buildings had steel cores even if the external structure was to come down the core would never ever fall or colapse and even less 3 on the same day,that's a new guiness record.

[edit on 27-10-2006 by your_evidence]



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
They were not 'designed' to withstand multiple airliner hits, they were built to withstand a possbile 707 striking it if lost after take off or prior to a landing in adverse weather conditions. It was not designed to with stand a 767 going in excess of 500 mph.

Also, review the design specs of the towers, where it was inner core colmuns that held suspeneded floors that were attached to outer columns. It is a very very unique design for it's time and was designed for commercial space and a few colums as possible to extract as mcu hsq footage as it could.

The collapse is a precedent that was set and hopefully we never see it again. Jsut because something has never happened before does not mean it cannot.

911research.wtc7.net...

the closest thing you will find is the partial collapse of this tower, with similar contruction of perimeter columns and lack of fireproofing, howver the core is reineforced concrete, not steel as the WTC, which more than likely saved it from total collapse.

[edit on 27-10-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
The thread poster is correct about WTC7. It's the single clear smoking gun about 9/11 (though the lack of images of the pentagon 'plane' deserve attention). Silverstein said 'pull'. That means demolish. After he said he meant 'pull' the firefighters, but I've read there were no fire-fighters in WTC7. There were a few fires, but that type of building has burned for days without falling.

Really, demolition is the simplest explanation. Occam's razor. You can build epicycles to explain it away if you wish.

[edit on 27-10-2006 by rizla]



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Thank you, bsbray, for the correction.

Ill correct this case of semnatics.

WTC7 is the first SKYSCRAPER made of steel and glass in history to collapse due to just fire.

There.




Wrong.

There was physical damage to the building from the collapse of the adjacent WTC 1.



Man, I hate coming into a new thread and posting without reading all of the responses but when I come across someone who is obviously blinded by illogic I have to make a statement.

My friend, are you an architect? An engineer? Physisist? Even a scientist? These fields may give you a much better grounding in trying to make your point.

The true question has to be asked then. It's not about the fire or damage (which I could go on and on about). It's about why a building collapses so quickly without ANY resistance at ALL.

First, the towers should have never fallen as quickly as they did. Second, the second tower hit should have collapsed to the side and at an angle, NOT straight down. Just look at the impact and the damage. Third, there has NEVER been a building made of a steel skeleton structure that has collapsed from ANY fire before until these three did.

They were built to sustain a collision of such. Jet fuel burns MUCH to quickly to sustain a fire of the type needed to even begin to weaken the steel.

What are my qualifications? I have worked as an CAD engineer for major structures. I also have family members that work at Boeing and know a bit about jet fuel. It burns hot and fast. The initial explosion would have consumed roughly 90% of it. The remaining 10% would have been gone within a few minutes at the MOST. Just look at the fires. They were not HOT burning fires after the initial impact. They were slow burning. Even the fire department chief that made it to the 72nd(? maybe 74th) floor stated he could knock it down with just two lines. JUST TWO LINES. Do you not think he is an EXPERT in his field? He knows what he is talking about after decades of fire fighting. For a fire that was supposedly BURNING SO HOT to weaken and melt steel I just find it hard to believe that two lines could have knocked it out.

Okay, you got me on the pedistal which I was trying to avoid.

Anyway, look at the logic and physics behind the collapses. Boy, whoever pulled this off sure was hoping for us 'common folk' to simply accept and swallow what we were told. There is something called resistance my friend. Steel has a certain resistance level. Were the bottom 70 plus stories of steel damaged? I mean, a PLANE hit the building so that means that hundreds of thousands of tons of steel MUST have been damaged from the impact.

Ask yourself this. Why didn't the people report a massive shaking and swaying then from the impact? They said it was a loud explosion and it did shake a bit. But the reason it didn't just massively move around was because it was BUILT TO TAKE IT. So this alone shows how sound the majority of the building was after the impact. The fire? You saying it melted ALL of the support structure from the top floor to the bottom? I know this is probably a scary thought for you to digest my friend but it all points to demolition.

Ten seconds is what it took for the buildings to fall. That's FREE FALL. Simple science tells you that. That means that there was NOTHING under the collapsing floors to slow it down. Instead it GAINED speed. That's just not possible. Same with building 7. How convenient that it fell when 3, 4 and 6 were MUCH more damaged and were still standing.

Okay, done ranting.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Where is the evidence of demolition, and also, demolition involves 'complete destruction, where as there were a few floors of the bottom of the structure left. How could this be if explosives were used on the groud floor.

If you apply Occums razor, damage from falling buildings and then ensuing fires is easier to apply.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Are you serious?

Please explain how this







www.911myths.com...

Can in any way be twisted around to fit this statement.



because that SW corner damage was far removed from any major structural components, not that it was a deep gash anyway, and there is no evidence of any other damage, besides some light scathing of the very roof parapet.



How can you possibly tell from pictures showing almost the entire south side covered in billowing smoke, and video clearly showing smoke pouring out of most of the same side, that the damage was "removed from structural component". How can you tell that there is "no evidence of any other damage" when the entire side of the building is on fire?


Because obviously the majority of the south side is burning, why else would there be so much smoke? Government planted smoke bombs? Light damage?

Right


It is easily explained. Look at the color of the smoke. It is a sufficating fire. It is 'smoldering' NOT BLAZING. If indeed this 'smoldering' fire brought down the building then WHY did it ALL collapse? Have you seen video of the collapse? If you haven't then you should. It shows the typical 'crimp' that starts in the middle of the building during demolition and then the WHOLE thing comes down at free fall. If indeed this is the fire that brought it down then don't you think that the SW side would have collapsed leaving the undamaged part of the building standing? I mean, there was NO fire in 75% of the building away from that side.

Your pictures actually help to debunk the debunking of the conspiracy theory here. Read up on fire and smoke and you will see that the color of the smoke will explain what kind of fire is going on.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
"Pull it" meant pull the firefighting operation as in get everybody out. They were talking about the firefighting operation and decided to pull it. Ask a firefighter or any emergency workers. I can't believe people only have 1 definition because it's the one that they want. "Pull it" means get out ASAP!!!

mikell
Been there been pulled



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Right, so this "smoldering fire" lasted seven hours before the building collapsed.

Sure.


As has been talked about numerous times here, dark or black smoke does not mean that the fire is dying.



You do realize that you are looking a 50 story building right, how can a fire covering that many floors and producing such huge volumes of smoke be called "smoldering".

Please show us a demolition where this "crimp" was observed, yet no bombs were heard, and no flashes were seen. The interior collapsed first, which is shown by the penthouse collapsing first, and then the crimp before the rest of the building collapsed.

Why did no one hear the demo charges?



[edit on 27-10-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaolin_dragon
what i dont understand, is how did this whole conspiracy theory of bombs, missile planes etc begin. who thought "hey, maybe this wasnt just a terrorist attack, and it could be a big plan that involves the government and a big cover up" Going along the lines of conspiracies, how do we know, that all the information that we dredge from the web, isnt placed there by people working for the government, and wanting us to find it. surely, if the government didnt want us to find all this information and glean ideas and thoughts that they could possibly be involved somehow, that they would subpoena all the sites that had this information on. you cant tell me that they dont know its all there. they have specialists (i would imaging) who trawl through all these websites.

i dunno, but something seems fishy here. i know conspiracies are all about ideas and methodolgies behind certain things, but i belive that the government wants us to think other things. could they maybe be trying to hide something else under all this?

just MO. feel free to squash that theory!


No squashing of the theory. However, you have to consider this. Do you realize how BIG of a task that would be? Google 9-11 or WTC or terrorist attack on NY, etc. and see how many hits you get. MILLIONS!!! If they all started to disappear do you think that people would stand by and accept that? I mean, we (the U.S. and some other countries) are still supposedly free right? The government's best bet would be to place their own sites with partial truths but to make them look poorly made to try and belittle the theories.

I mean, I don't know if you are familiar with China and their regulations on the Internet within their country. They have put a tight grip on what sites people can visit. Hackers are always looking for programs to cut through the security so people can view these 'illegal' sites according to their government. The people are finding ways around it yet they are also getting tagged by the government. Arrests are being made and examples are being made. Do you really think the citizens of the perceived free world would stand for that? Nope.

Also, what was accomplished by these attacks? Here are the facts:

Silverman made TONS of money on a million dollar investment and now has the right to replace two of the biggest money losers in the downtown area. Now he can build a state of the art complex and actually make some money.

Put options were bought well in advance. An abnormal amount of them.

Massive movements of large sums of money and other various transactions occured in building 7 on the day of. The records were thought to be destroyed in the collapse until a digital recovery company was able to pull up various files from the pieces of the servers and other hard drives found in the wreckage.

Now for the fun stuff. Our government was able to help turn a flailing economy around with the common cure: War. Afghanistan and then later, Iraq. With full support of a stunned and pissed off nation.

The government was also able to push the Patriot Act down our throats virtually stripping away ALL of our privacy with support because we needed protection from acts of terror.

I could go on and on and on. That is what we need to look at. What was GAINED from this act of terror for our government?

Also start looking into financial support for our government from the so-called rich 'private citizens' that benefitted from this event. (Silverman) You may be surprised what you can dig up.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join