Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

History Channel Special: "The 9/11 Conspiracies" August 12, 2007

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   

I sincerely doubt there were rooms in the WTC that were open for rent.


This is wrong, The towers were costing the PA alot of money, alot of office space was vacant in the 2 buildings and so on..

They also stated that the towers were out of date and would cost a few billion to take down and start over..

Soon after that statement was made 9/11 happened...

Stop talking bs.. Its getting old..

[edit on 8/4/2007 by ThichHeaded]




posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

I sincerely doubt there were rooms in the WTC that were open for rent.


This is wrong, The towers were costing the PA alot of money, alot of office space was vacant in the 2 buildings and so on..

They also stated that the towers were out of date and would cost a few billion to take down and start over..

Soon after that statement was made 9/11 happened...

Stop talking bs.. Its getting old..

[edit on 8/4/2007 by ThichHeaded]


Wow, you proved one thing I said that isn't even vaguely important wrong so apparently I'm talking BS, sweet.

So where's your proof that it was demolition other then "well it could have been demolition, so it must have been" when I provided MANY sources that prove my side of the story. Seriously, I have not seen A SINGLE scientific source ever on these forums from any respected engineer from a journal. Seriously, provide me with one. I'm still waiting. I think I asked for one back on like page 2.

Please, I'm begging you, find me a single one.

Also, still waiting on any proof that the pancake theory and the theory in all my sources that I have posted earlier and in another thread are "atrocious" as another forum member described them as.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by ccaihc]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc

The fact that the theorists are confined to paranoid people on the internet and not ANY serious amount of scientists/engineers(sorry an english major is not someone who should be involved, sorry scholars for 911 truth or whatever your name is) should be enough proof that nothing happened. If it was SO obvious then perhaps it would be in the news more often, or more people would be noticing it without thinking, "that's bull#."

There is always a simple explanation for everything, it's never the convaluted theories that people think of. Sorry.


I'm sorry, you finally wrote the wrong thing IMO. The idea this is confined to "paranoid people on the internet" is over the top. You sir or maam are an *******!!!!!

[edit on 8/4/2007 by infinityoreilly]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Crap I wrote earlier



Wow, you proved one thing I said that isn't even vaguely important wrong so apparently I'm talking BS, sweet.


Oh so I bust you in a lie, now you want to tag me for it?

How about this Pancake theory came about by FEMA after 9/11. There was no such thing ever considered to anything remotely possible like that before. There was never a pancake collapse ever mentioned prior to 9/11/01.

Demo:

Ok let me see. Living in a steel country I know a tad bit about steel.. YA SEE!! It was thrown down my throat by all the old people.

They would run metal at 3000F For melting. Nobody has ever said it took 1500f to melt steel.

On a stupid question after 9/11 I asked an old steel working if I can melt steel at 1500F or make it weak. They laughed in my face on how stupid that sounded..

So you tell me.. Do these wackjob know what they are talking about?? You know working at U.S.S. Steel for countless yrs.. 20+ to be exact..

They laugh in my face at talking about make steel brittle at 1500f..

Why don't you go crawl under the P.O.S. rock you came from. To any normal person 9/11 was to my detailed to have the building just fall due to some fire and fuel..

Not even the towers. Pentagon, Flight 93.. You know where the whole plane just disappeared??

Things that happened before and after that makes one suspicious of things..

But you can talk all the $hit you want.. just when someone tags you dont get stupid and fire back.. you thats what it makes you look is stupid..

Thanks for the warn Mods.. I proudly wear it for stupid people who think they know everything..

And a simple exsplaination would be good in normal science to show us how the towers collapsed on 9/11 Particualrily WTC 7..



[edit on 8/4/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
i once found a site on the internet where it showed how weak steel was, at different temperatures....i cant find it now because searching "the melting point of steel" brings up conspiracy sites saying the fires were much cooler than the melting point of steel. it doesnt need to melt, just weaken.

also the bomb that caused a hole 30 meters wide, across 4 levels, in the basement of was circa 1300lbs....so two of those in the basements of each....2600lbs..but those are concentrated bombs.......it happens to be my belief that the muslims put bombs in the WTC basements....

and as far as hiding something this large (the 911 conspiracy)....as soon as it was found out the fbi knew the 1993 bombing was going to happen....they got anal raped by the media....

p.s....i added in the across 4 levels....

[edit on 4-8-2007 by wenfieldsecret]

p.s.s....tried to clarify the middle paragraph...i hope you understand what i was saying....

[edit on 4-8-2007 by wenfieldsecret]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 06:01 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
I don't expect much, but is this the first time 9/11 conspiracies have been on television other than being mocked by conservative comedy shows and political pundits?


The bbc did a botch job of doing a docu on the subject. All we can hope for if it is a hit piece, it at least does it in a proper way, and does a professional job. The bbc version was just rubbish.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

This is wrong, The towers were costing the PA alot of money, alot of office space was vacant in the 2 buildings and so on..

They also stated that the towers were out of date and would cost a few billion to take down and start over..



No ThichHeaded...you are wrong. Sorry but at the time of the attacks the WTC complex was enjoying a whopping 97% occupancy level. I'm not sure where you got your figures from that a lot of office space was available. Please provide a reliable source if you can.

Here is part of a notice that was released when Silverstien took over: (please explain to me why he would destroy this)


During the last decade, the Port Authority has vastly increased the value of this public asset through effective management and by emphasizing service to tenants. Occupancy, at about 97 percent, is at a historic high. Asking rents for offices and retails shops have doubled in the last five years. And the Mall at the World Trade Center has become one of the country's most successful shopping malls. It was this excellent record of managing the complex that now allows the Port Authority to realize the enhanced value of the complex through this privatization agreement.”


www.panynj.gov...



How were the towers out of date? Is the empire state building out of date? Since when do we demolish 110 story skyscrapers and "start over?"



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

Originally posted by Valhall

Is this because in order to stop being close-minded and consider there was more damage to those buildings than the plane impacts you would be seen as thinking "the government did it"? Well, that's just downright myopic. There is circumstantial evidence that the cell who flew those planes into those buildings may have had ancillary cells that were able to access those buildings. And NIST's findings PROVE that the central core fell straight down ahead of the outside walls which requires something catastrophic happening to the base of the central core.


What??

Where is this proof??? I have never heard this...




What are you asking for? The proof I state is in the NIST report of the central core falling downward ahead of the top of the building? Yes, it is in there, and we have discussed several times in several threads on this board. The outer floor truss hangers (on the perimeter walls) failed in shear DOWNWARD. The inside floor truss hangers (on the central core columns) did not fail. In fact, the NIST stated the handful of damged inside truss hangers they did locate were damaged by impact in the debris pile.

This is but one major point of several that I take great issue with the NIST work on the tower investigation. They present data and then draw conclusions in opposition to their own data.

Please give me the dynamics of a collapse that will shear the outer floor truss hangers in a downward shear while maintaining the central column hangers and DOES NOT include the central core falling ahead of the perimeter walls.

I'll wait with great anticipation on your failure model.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
How about this Pancake theory came about by FEMA after 9/11. There was no such thing ever considered to anything remotely possible like that before. There was never a pancake collapse ever mentioned prior to 9/11/01.


Huh???? ThichHeaded?? where are you getting your information from??? Pancake collapses have been around since the construction of buildings. Typical pancake collapses were and still are caused by diferent reasons, one being earthquakes.

www.restoringearth.co.uk/.../pw3.shtm
This site shows you about Pancake collapses caused by earthquakes.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov/.../18/18_361_slide.shtml
Shows a collapse during an earthquake

nisee.berkeley.edu...

Some more pictures of a pancake collapse.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
How about a pancake collapse due to fire??



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
How about this Pancake theory came about by FEMA after 9/11. There was no such thing ever considered to anything remotely possible like that before. There was never a pancake collapse ever mentioned prior to 9/11/01.


Your saying that a pancake collapse was never mentioned before. I showed you there has been. Then you move the goal posts by saying..."By Fire".

And I will say no way...since no building (skyscraper) has totaly collapsed due to fire alone. Which of coarse is not the case in the WTC collapses.

Also, can you please address my post in regards to the occupancy levels at the WTC prior to 911?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Your saying that a pancake collapse was never mentioned before. I showed you there has been. Then you move the goal posts by saying..."By Fire".


He didn't 'move the goal', he just had to point it out because even though 'by fire' is implicit when talking about the WTC collapses, apparently you weren't taking it into consideration when making your remarks.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Also, can you please address my post in regards to the occupancy levels at the WTC prior to 911?


I am working on this..

The problem with so many CT freaks is there is to much garbage out on the intraweb to find anything decent.

Not making fun of anyone..



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
ThichHeaded,

Here is an article from the New York Times:


Commercial Property/Downtown; At the World Trade Center, Things Are Looking Up

''In January 1997 we had about an 80 percent occupancy rate,'' said Cherrie Nanninga, director of real estate for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the complex. Twenty percent of 10.5 million square feet of space is 2.1 million, which would be a substantial building by itself.

But as a result of the last year's work, Ms. Nanninga, said the complex is over 90 percent occupied and expects to it reach the 95 percent mark by the end of the year. That, she said, would be about as full as the center is likely to get, since there is almost always someone moving in or out. ''Ninety-seven percent occupancy would be full,'' said Ms. Nanninga, whose name is pronounced NAN-in-gay.

query.nytimes.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by danx

He didn't 'move the goal',


On a couple threads, i believe he has stated that the term never existed in the past. I could be mistaken. the point i was makings...is that even IF he was talking about fires.... this would not be realistic for the WTC collapses becasue it was not ONLY fires that caused the collapses.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
And it wasn't planes either... So what was it??

OK I might be thinking the low occupancy on 9/11. So I call that my shot of being stupid..

The cleanup in the towers I do find however is this..



In New York City, obsolete buildings are infrequently saved, whatever their historical or architectural interest. Most often, they are simply torn down and replaced. The only thing that saved the Twin Towers from demolition was the fact that they were filled with asbestos, which would be released into the air if the buildings were destroyed by controlled explosions. In 2000, the Port Authority calculated that it would cost $1 billion -- i.e., much more money than the Port Authority could afford to spend -- to remove the asbestos before the buildings were destroyed. And so the Port Authority was stuck with the Twin Towers, that is, until 26 April 2001, when it found a consortium of business interests (Westfield America, led by Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building at 7 World Trade Center) that was willing to lease the property. Supposed to last for 99 years, the $3.2 billion lease mandated that the Port Authority continue to pay taxes on the property. "This is a dream come true," Silverstein said at the 23 July 2001 celebration of the lease's signing. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."


So I call myself on the occupancy till further notice.. But I could have swore I seen low occupancy before.. I might be mistaking tho...



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


this would not be realistic for the WTC collapses becasue it was not ONLY fires that caused the collapses.



Okay, at least we're starting to agree on something.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I want to point out something tho however..

I thought while we are in this forum 9/11 forums... When we talking about things about The towers pentagon and other things. We should automatically assume a few things..

1) Towers fell due to planes hitting them and the fire brought them down.
2) Wtc 7 fell due to fire.
3) Everyone should at least be half ass'ed clued in on the official story.


So if someone said pancake collapse never occurred before I would automatically assume ok he must be talking about fire in the towers or something..

I wouldn't be thinking..... Hmmmmmm.. Ya know He is talking about earthquakes..

see my point..



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
ThichHead...

Don't try to sway your false statements to make ME look bad. Heck even your post above is false.

I was proving the pancake collapses are and were possible before 911. You stated they never were. I went with your argument that you were talking about pancake due to fire "alone". I stated that indeed this has never happened. And to this day still hasn't.

Your above posts states that WTC7 fell due to fire. That is not accurate, and you know it. There is no offical statement or report that WTC7 fell from fires ALONE.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join