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.

 

What is The Reason Behind 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ephrin
hi cameron fox,

Of course there was dust from the first collapse!
But ca. 15 sec. before the second collapse there is a NEW BIG SMOKE on the ground. I watched it again and again! There is no other explanation that there wer huge ground-level explosions prior to collapse No.1 and No2. The smoke came from the space between the towers near to WTC3 (Marriot Hotel). Why do you think the people filming the vid pointed the camera to this area prior to both collapses.


Hey Ephrin...

"Huge Ground Level Explosions" would have had recorded some type of siesmic activity and it didnt. Where are all the witnesses to these "HUGE GROUND LEVEL EXPLOSIONS" There were several Field Seismographs in the area on 911 and ALL of them were consistant with appropriate readings that support the NIST report. NONE of the spikes would justify a bomb.




posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
for those floors that it damaged I can see. But 90 or so floors weren't damaged so something else would have had have taken out those joints and bolts. And the heat wasn't that bad to melt steal because there are pictures of people standing in the holes the airliners made. and minutes after they crashed into the building.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jinsanity
There's even an alternate angle camera shot of the first tower. No smoke is seen at ground level because of other buidlings in the way but there is a few rumbles which could be explosives going off, the camera shakes quite a bit then the building collapses in free fall.[edit on 2-12-2006 by jinsanity]


Jin, Sorry but your posts are getting WORSE. Im at the point where I am going to stop responding. LAST time. STOP lying and posting FALSE STATEMENTS.

The building did NOT collapse at Free fall. Everyone in here knows it. Even the pod people.

Do research prior to posting.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 69decepticons
Is it possible that the large aircraft striking the building could have damaged thousands of bolts?


It wasn't just bolts, it was welds. The bolts are called "erection bolts", for actually erecting the building. Afterwards, the connections are welded.


But even if it was just bolts, the plane impact itself only caused oscillations in the building, ie moving around minutely. How would this fail bolts? Have you ever been around a structural bolt, or have a sense of how tightly they're put on? Welds aside. These things don't just fall apart from moving around a little. The buildings were designed to take hurricane winds without any failures.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jinsanity
for those floors that it damaged I can see. But 90 or so floors weren't damaged so something else would have had have taken out those joints and bolts. And the heat wasn't that bad to melt steal because there are pictures of people standing in the holes the airliners made. and minutes after they crashed into the building.


Jin... yet ANOTHER LIE ! No one has EVER claimed the steel was melted!! What report are you reading? I suggest you read the NIST report and some FACTS. you are grasping and POSTING lie after lie all day. IT has been proven that your posts all day have been pure garbage filled with LIE after LIE



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
the building didn't collapse in freefall? I suggest you look at some pictures and videos in slow motion and pay attention to debris from the top of the tower.

Are you blind? How can you not see that 9/11 was an inside job?



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
The building did NOT collapse at Free fall. Everyone in here knows it. Even the pod people.


WTC7 did, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for you. Only when the towers collapse at free-fall, it would be a problem?

The towers, btw, were not far behind free-fall in their collapses, and were for a moment AHEAD of free-falling debris that was ejected and still accelerating. There was a thread that conclusively showed this posted a while ago. It's as if the collapses didn't have to accelerate, and remained at a constant velocity the whole way down.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
hi cameronfox,

do you know who operates this seismographs. I don't. the NIST people are part of the cover-up too... Trust your own eyes. I do...

I know that the smoke in the vid can't be a video manipulation. I know that it was there.

Why do you think the FBI needs months to release surveillance vids from the pentagon hit? Why are they so careful? They check every single frame of the vids they release. Why this caution. I mean they are comletely innocent, they have nothing to hide. Evil Osama did it.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Grrrr.... Jin... here PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read it.


How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.


wtc.nist.gov...

I hope you read the entire page. You may learn something.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by 69decepticons
Is it possible that the large aircraft striking the building could have damaged thousands of bolts?


It wasn't just bolts, it was welds. The bolts are called "erection bolts", for actually erecting the building. Afterwards, the connections are welded.


The heat from the fire could easily cause any weld to fail.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ephrin
hi cameronfox,

do you know who operates this seismographs. I don't. the NIST people are part of the cover-up too... Trust your own eyes. I do...

I know that the smoke in the vid can't be a video manipulation. I know that it was there.

Why do you think the FBI needs months to release surveillance vids from the pentagon hit? Why are they so careful? They check every single frame of the vids they release. Why this caution. I mean they are comletely innocent, they have nothing to hide. Evil Osama did it.


Seismographs are operated by different institutions and universities. There are also Filed Seismographs that are used by construction companies when ever major construction work is bewing done in cities. This is to prevent damage to other buildings.

I cant speak for the FBI. So far all the video has been crap. I honestly cant say why they are taking their time.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
the only problem with your theory cameron is that in controlled demolitions the building picks up speeds as the floors continue to collapse for whatever reason. This is consistent with controllem demo's and consistent with the towers collapse.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 69decepticons
The heat from the fire could easily cause any weld to fail.


No, it couldn't, and the fires weren't even spread evenly across whole floors anyway.


Numerous tests have been done in regards to the effects of "uncontrolled" fire upon steel structures (rather controlled in labs, though intentionally created to be as severe as possible).

Even NIST did such a study to test the effects of fire upon the trusses for their WTC report. Why don't we hear much about this? Because they failed to produce any connection or bolt failures in their tests!

Steel warps and sags when heated sufficiently, to extreme temperatures for a hydrocarbon fire, but it will not break, fall apart, melt, etc., and there is and has never been any evidence that it will. All tests show that it only warps, buckles, sags. No instantaneous failures, let alone at connections or bolts.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jinsanity
the only problem with your theory cameron is that in controlled demolitions the building picks up speeds as the floors continue to collapse for whatever reason. This is consistent with controllem demo's and consistent with the towers collapse.


When did this become my theory? This was the theory of over 200 EXPERTS. I didnt write the NIST report. And you obviously didnt read it.

Keep Googling your "911 Cover Up"... im sure your learing quite a bit today.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Just in case you missed it Cam 911proof.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I didnt miss it. And just to help you out. You may be getting warned again.... Your posts are too short. As I mentioned in the reply to your U2U ...That was ALL from the day of the attack. That day if you remember was FILLED with specualtion and Fogs of war. Thats why Bush was flying around for so long. Nobody knew what was going on. The first video was like and HOUR after the Pentagon was hit.

Find me some somewhat recent videos of firemen, policmen, or any other EMS persons saying there were "BOMBS" in the WTC.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
That day if you remember was FILLED with specualtion and Fogs of war.


"Fogs of war"?

You mean stuff like, "Then I heard POP POP POP POP POP POP"?

Yeah man, I can see how just experiencing that a few minutes or hours prior could lead to some really off-the-wall memory problems, right?



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
To me it is obvious that there are groups of people who are doing this for whatever agenda they have in mind.


The agenda is to hide the truth.

The "original" legacy conspiracy theories that surfaced during the first four weeks after the attacks were developed and presented primarily by long-standing and well-informed conspiracy theorists. These tended to be much closer to the truth, if not dead-center, than anything surfacing in the past two years.

More contemporary theories are either put forth by inexperienced youthful "investigators", or professional counter-informationsits -- of which you alluded.

And where are the legacy theories today? No where, that's where. The noise of inexperienced musing and disinformation have successfully hidden what may have been tantalizing glimpses into the truth. No matter the motive of how it was done, it has been exceptionally effective -- and may constitute an entire new avenue of conspiracy research.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Bsbray...Why put words in my mouth? I was speaking mostly of the reports of "Truck Bombs" and Several more UNACCOUNTED planes. Remember Bush was flying around in AirForce One... becasue of FALSE reports.

That day was hectic.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Bsbray...Why put words in my mouth? I was speaking mostly of the reports of "Truck Bombs" and Several more UNACCOUNTED planes. Remember Bush was flying around in AirForce One... becasue of FALSE reports.

That day was hectic.



I wasn't putting words in your mouth. You just offer a blanket rebuttal that doesn't qualify to everything on that page. You're being SELECTIVE in what you're refering to with these posts, and ignoring stuff like the testimonies I'm referring to.


You can't chalk up hearing "pop pop pop pop" to the day being hectic. That is eyewitness testimony to a series of explosions in regular intervals, consistant with several collapse videos and other evidence/testimonies to secondary and tertiary devices and beyond in those buildings.

[edit on 2-12-2006 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join