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.


911 WTC collapse

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 03:37 AM
Well Said SabbyJ.

Besides. There is no proof left.

posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 04:28 AM

Originally posted by Djarums
There have been (ballpark figure) well over 1,000 posts on this very topic. There's a lot of other interesting stuff going on in the world relevant to ATS so I don't think consistently rehashing the same topics in new threads is necessary..

I sort of agree with you Djarums because this topic has been discussed so many times. There are loads of pages of info on this topic if you search for it. However it's good to keep issues as major as these discussed every now and then becuase they are important. We can't just forget all the evidence that suggests that the public have been lied to by the government in a major way. I'm not saying that there is definitive proof but it sure as hell looks that way. Just search for WTC and you will get all the info you will need.

posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 04:39 AM
Just don't get mad when us new guys drag up an old thread because we weren't there when it was started.

posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 06:30 AM
WTC7 was absolutely a controlled demolition. Its harder to say about the two towers as you can always back up your opinion with the planes hitting those two buildings, but the WTC7 building was a different matter entirely.

posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 09:07 AM
Heelstone hit that on the head. Why if it was the planes hitting TWO towers, did THREE get completely destroyed. There have also been photos posted of seismic disturbances seconds before the collapse of the towers, disturbances equal to those that explosives would cause.

posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 11:42 AM
Here's a link to this topic already cussed a discussed at length by those with politics and emotion and those with scientific background to back up their theories. Its against board policy to post the same stuff again so please take a minute or two and follow the link. You'll be well informed on the subject.

posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 12:59 PM
Jfetch, you're 100% right and I would never want to make anyone new feel unwelcome. I just felt that maybe some folks honestly did not know that these topics had been extensively covered and wanted to encourage them to take a look around some older stuff. It's not just the 9/11 stuff. There's a tremendous amount of great threads that people could find educational. Just gotta take the time to check them out.

posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 01:03 PM
Yes I have to agree that the buildings were brought down with controlled demolitions.

posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 01:19 PM
Was I detecting some ignorance from you there silk? You cant deny that maybe Osama is still working for the US government. Why try to convince him to take the blame when you can order him to. This would also explain our inability to find him: Hes still working for the US. Whether this is true or not we'll never know.

I believe they were demolished, whether by the US or not, I dont know. If terrorists were trying for maximum damage they would have found a way to knock the buildings over completely, not have them collapse on themselves.

posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 04:03 PM
This whole thing of not being able to find certain people really bothers me. I know they aren't run of the mill stupid people, but still we are supposed to possess the most advanced army and equipment and the inability to find one man who's physical appearance makes him stick out like a sore thumb and another man whos face appeared on millions of documents over a few decades really bothers me.

posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 08:38 PM
Thanks for the responses guys. I tried to search the forum, but there was definite information overload. Besides I wanted to post the link to the Chemtrail Central thread. Did any of you read that (I know it is kind of long, but there are some valid points there)

BTW I don't think that there were any controlled demolitions either the towers or WTC7 (which burned out of controll for some 7 hours before it finally collapsed).

posted on Nov, 18 2003 @ 10:41 PM
Here is my thought on the whole WTC issue, I do think Osama was responsible in a way, though I believe the Bush admin knew about this way in advance and waited for it to happen as an excuse for war on Afghanistan. Which would allow them to complete their plans to build a pipeline through the area.

See they had tried talking to the Taliban about allowing them to build the line, even brought members over to america for talks. Either something happened to where Bush screwed them out of the deal, or it just fed their hatred for America is unknown.

Now it could be possible that with Bush knowing of the attack plans to plant explosives in the towers, to ensure their destruction.

This could all be why he doesnt release info on Osama, it may link the Bush admin to intelligence and other incriminating evidence. Or Osama wasnt behind it to begin with, it was done from the inside.

Whatever the truth is, Im sure the Trans-Afghan Pipeline has something to do with it.

posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 08:28 AM
I recomment that everybody locate and download a video of thw WTC 7 collapse. You will not beleive what you are seeing. It is not seen very much. A steel building falling into it's foundations when it wasn't even hit by anything? Doesn't add up really does it ?

posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 08:33 AM
If it was a controlled demo, then why even bother with the the first bombing of the WTC..

[Edited on 11-19-2003 by sirCyco]

posted on Nov, 19 2003 @ 08:54 AM
Well, as someone educated in materials engineering and construction, I won't argue any points about whether Bush knew or who flew the planes but I can tell you that no other forces were needed to bring the buildings down.

We've seen fire cause the collapse of steel buildings before not that it melts the beams in the literal sense but intense heat cause metal fatigue and the added pressure of load trying to redistribute after key memebers were destroyed pushed stresses and strain beyond tolerance. If building 7 burned for 7 hours, then its withstood most fire rated material's expectation by 6 hours probably because its retardant system wasn't damaged that badly and likely kept it under control for a little while. The key with towers one and two was the likely destruction of the fire retardant system on the floor which collapsed. Even if the floors below were 100% in tact when the weight above fell upon them, there was no way they could withstand that. Likely the siesmic readings were from the instant that all that load was transfered to rock (consolidated glacial till in that area) before it overloaded the transfer device which was the structure itself.

Now, I won't get into elasticity/reslient modulus and compressive/tensile/and elongation properties of steel or masonry but they all play an important role in explaining the failure of the structure. There are limits to what we can get materials to do and we must work with those principles when we design a building or bridge and we know that if these properties are surpassed, failure is a real possibility.

posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 04:09 AM
Its just so hard to say yes or no to the subject. There are so fishy things about the whole attack, but I doubt that the government would fake all the Osama videos, or even form an alliance with Iraq for the purpose.

My theory is that Bush just wanted to start a war, to be a hero. He knew that the attacks would happen before they did, but he didnt do anything to stop them cos he wanted everyone to hate Iraq's and Muslims, to give him a valid reason to have a war.

In my opinion....he would of been a much bigger hero if he stopped the attacks, not egged them on and made himself out like a complete fool.

posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 06:18 PM
Building 7 didn't burn for seven hours. There was hardly a broken window in the whole building. It dropped like someone tore the guts right out of it.

posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 07:01 PM
Though the way the twin towers were built may have something to do with the appearance of controlled demolition, it doesn't explain how WTC 7 looked afterwards.

And to the people who like to talk about melting steel -
It takes temperatures of at least 3000 degrees to begin to melt steel. I am not aware of jet fuel burning anywhere near 3000 degrees. I may be mistaken, and if so, please enlighten me so I don't sound like a complete idiot.

And at any rate, the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. I'm not an aircraft expert, never claim to be, but how much bigger can a 747 be?

posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 09:16 PM

At 5:20 PM, September 11th, 2001, a 47 story steel frame skyscraper in Manhattan underwent a swift, systematic, straight-down collapse. In a matter of seconds, the immense 600-foot tall structure was transformed into a small pile of rubble lying almost entirely within the building's original footprint.

The building is variously known as Building 7, WTC 7, or 7 World Trade Center. Despite its address, it was across the street from the superblock containing the rest of the World Trade Center, and was of a different architectural style and age than the 6 other WTC buildings.

The cause of the collapse has never been determined. FEMA's Building Performance Study, the only government document that addressed the collapse of Building 7 in any detail, stated:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. ... Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
By the time FEMA's report was published, the remains of Building 7 had been almost entirely destroyed, nearly all of the structural steel having been expeditiously removed and shipped to blast furnaces overseas. Without the physical evidence of the structural steel, such research, investigation, and analyses would be impossible.

posted on Dec, 4 2003 @ 10:29 PM

Originally posted by THENEO
It was a controlled demo for sure.

Otherwise a heck of a lot more people would have died from those craft crashing into the buildings.

were there any other explosions besides the two planes hitting the towers? nope. ask anyone who was there. it was anything but a controlled demo.

new topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in