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.

 

911 - A View From Across The Pond

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I think that this is the first time I've actually written something in this forum, but now that it's calmed down a bit, I'd like to make a few points.
These are just my point of view, and I have no agenda regarding 911, apart from an interest in the debate as a whole. I've also read a head to head debate that was very good indeed.

I'm naturally a skeptic, but having said this, I try to approach things with an open mind.

What I've seen and read in this forum has led me to reach no conclusion whatsoever.
There are threads which contain good information, but which provide no solid evidence.
There are threads which I find pretty implausible, and which contain nothing but vitriol for those unwilling to "see the light".
This goes for both sides of the argument.

There's something to be said for the speculative arguments, in that the more reasonable ones at least have the benefit of helping look at things from a different angle.

Maybe my skepticism is a cultural thing, in that it didn't happen in the UK - but don't forget, there have been many more bombings/acts of terror (if indeed that's what happened) in the UK than there have in the US - not just about 911, but for the last few decades.

My own view of government is that neither of our respective governments could organise a drunkfest in a brewery - that's not to say they couldn't try, but more that they couldn't keep it a secret for very long.

There are also people who have made a living from 911, either from the conspiracy side or from the no-conspiracy side - I'm sure you can tell me who they are.

So here goes - from a skeptic with an open mind - I'm willing to hear why, or why not this was a conspiracy.

Convince me.




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Yes, it was a conspiracy, because conspiracy is defined as an agreement to carry out a crime by two or more people.

What I wonder is how complex of a demolition could al Qaeda pull off under our noses, exactly?


Here's what "officially" collapsed the towers (from NIST):




The steel trusses supporting the floors sagged, and somehow thereby exerted enough force to pull in the exterior columns, without failing the relatively weak connection to them first, and despite the spandrel plates holding the exterior columns together on the outside.


Here's an actual construction photo:




Are the floors really going to pull in those exterior columns before the connection itself breaks?


I think any serious thought put into the last little bit of text will show you that something's not right if that's supposed to explain the towers that I've seen being blown out in all directions:




So, how complex of a demolition could al Qaeda pull off? In a building complex established by two Rockefellers?


Another diagram:



[edit on 7-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


So, how complex of a demolition could al Qaeda pull off? In a building complex established by two Rockefellers?

[edit on 7-8-2007 by bsbray11]


I dont know what I find more frightening.
The fact that they did fly planes into the WTC or so many peoples dismissal of the possibility that Al Qaeda could have done it.

NEVER underestimate your enemy.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Here's something else to consider:




Ok, so you have floors pulling in the outer columns, then falling onto the next floor, and pulling in those columns, etc. without failing the connections, so that the perimeter columns can be deflected so the collapse can continue.

Three things I would point out, are that this theory doesn't explain what happened to the core (which was the most robust part of the building, in the middle, and appears to have symmetrically and instantly failed as soon as the collapses began), at what point the truss connections would actually fail (none remained connected so far as I'm aware), and where are all the floors at the bottom of the buildings?




All that was left in WTC1's footprint was a small part of the core still standing:




This is what pancake collapses actually produce:




And this is what a licensed, professional structural engineer, Charles Pegelow, of some 30 years of experience as a structural engineer, has said about pancake collapses in steel buildings:


Charles Pegelow: As far as the pancake theory, that's not even applicable to steel structures. Actually, I think it seems like, some of the stuff I'm seeing is that NIST is sort of backing away from that theory now.

First of all, it's a fully-welded structure. You may get deflections, and settlement, but you wouldn't get an immediate collapse on a floor unless you took out all the columns at the same time. …

There's been a lot of disinformation going around. One is that these weak bolts fractured and fell apart. Yeah, there was bolts holding both ends of these trusses in, but those are what's called erection bolts: you initially have to hook it together. And then afterwards, they come in, on the seat of the joist, which is most of the time just two angles back to back, you go in there and you run a seal weld around it. So these are welded up. …

So this pancake theory is something that doesn't hold up. It's a phenomenon that doesn't happen in steel structures. Pancake collapses happen mainly in certain types of concrete construction, and this is not all concrete, just certain types. And this is where you put your columns in, and you pour a slab, and around these columns you've got a pocket. And once its cured, by two days, you come in and pour another slab. And then you lift these slabs up, one by one, you see the pockets, the columns sliding in them, and then once you get them up there, then you tie them off to the columns.

And this is where sometimes there's problems. They're not tied off secure enough, or a lot of times these accidents happen at construction and by the time the last one gets there it falls down, but you understand they're not even connected to the columns except by some construction jacks at time. And then of course, the other times they get collapses, they had a lot of these in Mexico during the '70s on apartment buildings during earthquakes, so I don't know, I just have a feeling that their concrete wasn't mixed right, they cheated on as much rebar as they needed, or something like that. But anyway, that's a conventional pancake collapse. It doesn't happen in steel buildings.

Jim Fetzer: And Charles, when it's all said and done, don't you have a stack of floors there on top of one another, which is the reason it's called a "pancake"?

CP: Yeah. Yeah, they just, you're right. They just pancake down. Now, they're all busted up, but they don't turn to dust.


www.911podcasts.com...


There's also an organization of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that currently has 135 full architectural/engineering professional members and 248 other members. The user "Griff" here is a member of this organization if I'm not mistaken, and he's a civil engineer himself.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
That's a good point, and one that I've read before.
But one thing bothers me - official reports. I'm sure we've all seen/read official reports that can be construed as considerably wide of the mark. The report into the JFK shooting is one that immediately springs to mind - but this (to me at least) suggests incompetence rather than conspiracy.

I'm also curious to know why some are so sure of government complicity in this.
Yes they had the means, and the opportunity, but the motive is where it falls down IMO.

I was also under the impression that al'qaeda didn't perform a demolition, but flew planes into the towers - although some assert that the planes were under some kind of government control and it was part of the act, in order to make the "demolition" the fault of something else.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
The towers were just that, towers with a skelton or shroud.


The top of the tower as it collapsed tilted almost 40 degrees before giving out and dropping straight down. As the building tilted and fell it destroyed the outer facade and pushed/ejected the core columns away from the building.



[edit on 7-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
But one thing bothers me - official reports. I'm sure we've all seen/read official reports that can be construed as considerably wide of the mark.


"Wide of the mark" doesn't apply when you work further into the details -- there is no "mark" that works but controlled demolition.



Yes they had the means, and the opportunity, but the motive is where it falls down IMO.


Where I "fall down" is how you really think you know enough about the reality of world politics to be able to even decipher the underlying motives. Someone who stays glued to the TV for their news and information 24/7 would have some major worldview problems to resolve before being able to guess a motive for 9/11 having been an inside job, I'm sure.

Science doesn't consider this, because it can work around it, and give you solid information independently without having to worry about those kinds of things.



I was also under the impression that al'qaeda didn't perform a demolition


I was being sarcastic in the last post.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
That's a good point, and one that I've read before.
But one thing bothers me - official reports. I'm sure we've all seen/read official reports that can be construed as considerably wide of the mark. The report into the JFK shooting is one that immediately springs to mind - but this (to me at least) suggests incompetence rather than conspiracy.


So let me put this into perspective for you budski.
You think the JFK report is wrong, but you accept the 911 reports as true.

Who could have covered up the killing of JFK and why?
Obviously it had to be a pretty well organized, tight knit group of conspirators to carry out not only the assination of the president of the United States, but then to be able to cover it up so well afterwards.

The perps never did get caught budski. They killed our president and covered it up and got away with it.
Now fast forward four decades.
The same perps that killed JFK are still around.
As a matter of opinion, its the same core group responsible.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
1

[edit on 7-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo

So let me put this into perspective for you budski.
You think the JFK report is wrong, but you accept the 911 reports as true.



Well, I never actually said that. I said that official reports suggest incompetence rather than conspiracy - and from what I've read in this forum, I include the 911 report.

Governments are always quite likely to resort to croneyism when picking the people who write an official report, and if you pick someone based on political affiliation (primarily) rather than expertise (secondary) then you're going to end up with a botched job.

Are there any creditable, unbiased, independent reports that are available?

I also never said that JFK was a conspiracy, merely that the report was flawed.



originally posted by bsbray11
Where I "fall down" is how you really think you know enough about the reality of world politics to be able to even decipher the underlying motives. Someone who stays glued to the TV for their news and information 24/7 would have some major worldview problems to resolve before being able to guess a motive for 9/11 having been an inside job, I'm sure.



That's quite a statement, but you really have no idea what I do or don't know about the political nature of the world.
I'm not going to get embroiled in a slanging match, but it's a bit presumptuous to say the least to assume what I do or do not know.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Are there any creditable, unbiased, independent reports that are available?


That'd be NIST's. Theirs was supposed to be, anyway. FEMA did a preliminary kind of report, NIST did the big one. Those have been the only two groups allowed to view the evidence or the structural documents.



That's quite a statement, but you really have no idea what I do or don't know about the political nature of the world.


And neither do you! That's the point. It's not presumptuous, it's just how it is. You'd have to know it all to be able to gauge how much you really know now. But science is based on repeating patterns, where the patterns are reliable enough for us to duplicate ourselves if it comes down to it. That way we can be sure of what we say.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

That'd be NIST's. Theirs was supposed to be, anyway. FEMA did a preliminary kind of report, NIST did the big one. Those have been the only two groups allowed to view the evidence or the structural documents.


So the only report about this is a government appointed one?

I don't see how they can achieve anything other than a biased report in that case.

And the evidence and structural documents are not available - so all the threads in this forum are at least somewhat speculative, because all the evidence is not available.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Budski, fellow Brit here and long term 9/11 truther.

If you're looking for a motive then read Michael Ruppert's "Crossing The Rubicon" book. This will show you how the need to address an impending energy crisis is the crux behind most geo-political discourses that have taken place over the past 7 years. The latest is the attempt by the Russians to claim the North Pole, i.e. the easy oil is running out! (see Peak Oil)

Once you understand how oil underpins every aspect of our modern lives you'll realise some will act as "patriots" to protect the interests of their country and their country's way of life.

"The American way of life is not negotiable" - Dick Cheney

He was not talking about Islamists "hating our freedoms", he was saying that America is not going to slow down its use of oil. The US administration believes it has the military means to ensure an secure energy future for the time being.

"Until you change the way money works, you change nothing" - the worst of it for us is that people can still make money even when oil reserves begin to decline. For some, it may not be profitable to slow the decline in the use of oil. At the current rate we'll go off a cliff, but at least someone, somewhere will make a killing...

[edit on 7-8-2007 by uknumpty]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Are there any creditable, unbiased, independent reports that are available?


The official reports sometimes prove both sides of the story I think. . .


Originally posted by 2PacSade
In the NIST 2004 " preliminary " report, page L-51, it states;


The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis,
would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:
• An initial local failure due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, which supported a large span floor area of about 2,000 ft2, at the lower floors (below Floor 14) of the building,
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse bringing down the interior structure under the east penthouse, and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.


Emphasis mine, but where has this " classic progressive collapse " ever happened before or since???

I believe the correct answer to this question is in ONLY in a controlled demolition.

The most profound thing I got out of this hypothesis is the fact that if someone WANTED to initiate a total collapse one would only have to perform the following;


A vertical collapse appears to have occurred after interior columns 79, 80, and/or 81 failed.


This vertical progression causes a horizontal progression which in turn causes total collapse. No need to wire the whole building with expolsives!

According to NIST's own hypothesis, it would be this easy. If this is so then wouldn't this answer questions like;

" If this was a controlled demolition then why didn't anybody find DET cord/blasting caps/etc. during the cleanup process?"

You can read the whole report here

And for those of you that state this building didn't fall into it's own footprint;


The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. From aerial photos, the debris visible on top of the pile is mostly façade structure. This failure sequence suggests that the interior of the building collapsed before the exterior.


NIST does not agree with you. . .

How can anyone state that it would have been impossible for someone to have performed a CD on this building and not get caught when NIST is directly telling you how easy it could have been done?


2PacSade-



From a thread here

Hope this helps. . .

2PacSade-



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
And the evidence and structural documents are not available - so all the threads in this forum are at least somewhat speculative, because all the evidence is not available.


Not really. Most information is already available. NIST isn't even trying to say it was column failure that did it so proving how redundant the buildings were would do little good, either. Really, there's nothing to prove or disprove on "this side", because NIST never did the testing to verify their hypothesis in the first place. It remains a baseless assertion.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join