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.

 

To 9-11 Debunkers

page: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Of course, they don't mind looking like total idiots, while laughing their way to the bank at the real idiots... Like I said, it's all part of the con game. The government can't appear to know what it is doing, otherwise its diabolical nature would be blatant.




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins
Buckles may have happened at same time but MIT man even says either accompanied by OR quickly followed by. What do you mean at the same time? The whole building only took seconds to come down. Should it have taken hours to come down? Even controlled demo takes seconds.


Looks to me like ur shooting yourself in the foot here. A controlled demo takes "seconds" because the supporting structure of the building is destroyed/weakened by explosives. There's no way a solid steel and concrete core could crumple in "seconds". I don't think even 20 floors could weigh enough to destroy the 80+ tall core below it in seconds. The so-called experts say it is possible because they are like you, "It happened so it's possible."

As for the "fireproofing being blown away by the blast": I'll be surprised if more than 5 floors of "fireproofing was blown away by the blast". Very weak argument there. I think I read somewhere in this thread about "missing fireproofing" on parts of the core. Sounds suspicious to me.

As for the burning fuel flowing down the core and weakening it: wouldn't whatever remaining fuel there was flow down the liftshafts? There were a large number of them surrounding the core (and not close enough to weaken the core in my humble uneducated opinion).

As for other flammable materials in the building adding to the fuel to weaken the core: I would say the majority of those materials have a much lower temperature than the burning fuel so I can't see how it could have contributed.

I think we also have to consider other options. Right now there's only 2: the planes did it and controlled demo. Another option I think is Star wars technology used to weaken the core, i.e. the planes brought the buildings down with help. Particle, laser-beams, etc.

I have to add again that I know precious little about the science and physics involved so I could be speaking out my nose. Blast my arguments, don't blast me, ok?



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corum
With that it would seem logical that a government capable of orchestrating 911 would have planted W.M.D in Iraq without breaking a sweat, I mean, how easy would it have been? Very easy is the answer. So why didn't they?


a popular argument.
my opinion is that there are still white hats in "the game". once the shadow one-world government workers played the 911 card, there was an inevitable coinciding exposure to the light.
remember valerie plame? that is infighting between the forces of good conscience, and the forces of morally bankrupt power mongers.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Someone in this thread said that the buckling didn't happen, yet it's quite clearly visible. In this youtube video (link posted below) if you look closely you can even see the moment when the perimeter columns snapped before the building comes down. Ignore the arguments about planes severing columns etc, just see the evidence of the building bowing and then snapping.

www.youtube.com...

Bananaman.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bushwig

Someone in this thread said that the buckling didn't happen, yet it's quite clearly visible. In this youtube video (link posted below) if you look closely you can even see the moment when the perimeter columns snapped before the building comes down. Ignore the arguments about planes severing columns etc, just see the evidence of the building bowing and then snapping.


I'd like to know how an angle clip can shear a tubular column completely in 2 places. What's more likely to happen? The clip pulls on the column and shears it where it is connected or shearing it on the opposite end (and throughout) of the column?

Think about a square column tube. How can it shear all the way through the column when the clip is only attached to one face? IMO it would shear where the bolts are and not the entire column. I'd like NIST to actually defend their stance on this.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I keep seeing people writing about how the cores of the towers were not damaged by the aircraft. But then I do a funny thing, I actually read what the people who walked out of those buildings had to say. More than one talk about how the stairwells in each tower were damaged on the impact floors of the towers. What is so strange about that? Well since in each tower ALL THREE STAIRWELLS were IN THE CORES, that means in both towers, their cores had suffered enough damage to make stairwells impassable. Hmmm......outside support damaged...inside support damaged and subjected to fire, stresses caused by load shifting......gee, i wonder why those towers fell.............



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
inside support damaged and subjected to fire, stresses caused by load shifting......gee, i wonder why those towers fell.............


Those towers did more than fall. The scenario you describe wouldn't result in a Complete and Total collapse, as what happened. Those towers were pulverized.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by WeaponsOfMassDistraction
 


Exactly!

People can waffle on all day about how much the planes damaged the core of the buildings, (BTW the plane that hit WTC 2 didn't hit the central core, so where does that leave your assumption Swamp?) but it really doesn't matter as a gravity fed collapse, caused by prior damage (plane impacts), fire or not, would not cause pieces of the outer structure, weighing in the tons, to be ejected up to 600 ft away.
It would not cause all the buildings interiors to turn to dust. It would not have caused the buildings to overcome friction/resistance to allow a run-away global collapse that ended in seconds. Basically it wouldn't allow physics to turn on it's rear end...No matter how fast you spin it.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by WeaponsOfMassDistraction
 


Exactly!

People can waffle on all day about how much the planes damaged the core of the buildings, (BTW the plane that hit WTC 2 didn't hit the central core, so where does that leave your assumption Swamp?) but it really doesn't matter as a gravity fed collapse, caused by prior damage (plane impacts), fire or not, would not cause pieces of the outer structure, weighing in the tons, to be ejected up to 600 ft away.
It would not cause all the buildings interiors to turn to dust. It would not have caused the buildings to overcome friction/resistance to allow a run-away global collapse that ended in seconds. Basically it wouldn't allow physics to turn on it's rear end...No matter how fast you spin it.


Sorry, but its not an assumption, it is a statement of fact based on the witness accounts from the people who managed to find their way down in each tower that day. So, again, you can stick with conjecture on conspiracy sites. Ill stick with the words of the people who lived through hell that day. Both cores were damaged.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Sorry, but its not an assumption, it is a statement of fact based on the witness accounts from the people who managed to find their way down in each tower that day. So, again, you can stick with conjecture on conspiracy sites. Ill stick with the words of the people who lived through hell that day. Both cores were damaged.


Seeing as supposedly the cores were made mostly of elevator shafts and drywall, I'd assume there would be considerable damage. It does not indicate how severe the damage to the columns was though. Sorry, eye witness statements in this case doesn't tell us the extent of structural damage to the core columns. In fact if there was significant structural damage, how did people escape to begin with? Just saying.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Ill stick with the words of the people who lived through hell that day. Both cores were damaged.


You know it's really not what the witnesses say, it's how you interpret it.

As Griff pointed out, damage to the elevators and their shafts does not equate to damage to load bearing columns.

Be even so, again damage to load bearing columns still doesn't explain the points I noted in my last post. The damage you want there to be doesn't fit with the result we all see anyway. You are failing to see this point. You want so desperately for the official story to be correct you completely fail to see that the official claim doesn't fit the result we can all clearly see.

Ignoring all the anomalies that cannot be easily answered without looking beyond the official story won't make them go away. So far I have yet to see anyone sufficiently explain these physical anomalies.

[edit on 14/9/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
IMO it would shear where the bolts are and not the entire column. I'd like NIST to actually defend their stance on this.


To say further here. It's my opinion that the angle connections would shear before the columns would. Especially throughout the entire column, not in one place but 2. But, I could be missing something and if anyone has an explaination that makes sense, please let me know.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   


Be even so, again damage to load bearing columns still doesn't explain the points I noted in my last post. The damage you want there to be doesn't fit with the result we all see anyway. You are failing to see this point. You want so desperately for the official story to be correct you completely fail to see that the official claim doesn't fit the result we can all clearly see.


No, what I "want" is for people to pull their heads out of their butts and quit believing everything they read on the internet. Everyone talks about how corporations are making a killing on the war....how about the killing that people like Alex Jones et al are making on 9-11 conspiracies?



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
how about the killing that people like Alex Jones et al are making on 9-11 conspiracies?


Not nearly as much as Rudulf Guliani. Look into how much he is paid to even say 9/11.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   


No, what I "want" is for people to pull their heads out of their butts and quit believing everything they read on the internet. Everyone talks about how corporations are making a killing on the war....how about the killing that people like Alex Jones et al are making on 9-11 conspiracies?


Please...
Alex Jones is probably barely a millionaire, whereas; these war profiteers are making trillions. War is the greatest racket the world has ever seen.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, what I "want" is for people to pull their heads out of their butts and quit believing everything they read on the internet. Everyone talks about how corporations are making a killing on the war....how about the killing that people like Alex Jones et al are making on 9-11 conspiracies?


What has that got to do with my post? I don't get my info from Alex Jones, I can come to my own conclusions thanx.

How about you try the same and come up with some answers to what I was saying, instead of trying to blow it off by claiming because Alex Jones might have said the same thing it must be untrue? Well guess what, you don't need Alex Jones or NIST to use your own common sense, knowledge and research. Try it!

If you understood what I am saying, and what you are trying to claim, then you would be debating my points not tying to discredit them.

You don't care if the official story is true, you just want everyone to believe it's true don't you? Why is that? Don't you care about your country and the 3000 that died? Or is your neo-con nightmare more important?

BTW you really think Alex Jones is making a killing compared to the military industrial complex? ROTF! He gives his movies away for free! He doesn't kill, maim and destroy generations of people. But as I've said Alex Jones is just Alex Jones, it doesn't change what happened on 9-11. You must be getting really desperate to try this approach?...

How about concentrating on the actual issue, the collapse of 3 steel buildings in one day from localized damage and sporadic fires? How about addressing the points I made? I'm guessing you can't though from what I've heard from you so far? Lack of research or an agenda?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Wow, pretty vicious personal attack there.

Lets see...where to start.....

A friend of mine was wounded at the Pentagon and another friend of mine lost her cousin in the South Tower..dont EVER question whether I care about those lives. As for my country, Ive spent ALL of my adult life in service to my country, again, you dont have the stones to question me on that.

As for 9/11, even though it is completely illogical, I feel some responsibility. We spent so long assuming, in the face of all evidence, that terrorism stayed overseas. Terrorists attacked and we shot off cruise missiles or made a lot of promises. And we were wrong.

On the night of 9/11, my buddies and I were talking and long before the 9/11 Commission, we pretty much knew what would end up being the results of any investigation. In the 1000s of pages of intel documents were most of the clues as to what was going to happen. However, these pages were scattered on the desks of dozens of departments in several agencies, no one had the full story just pieces. And in the end, human arrogance played a part, no one could POSSIBLY hit us like that anyway, we are the United States We spent so long worrying about the little guys (the ones that actually planted bombs) and pretty much ignoring the people like Osama, Abu Nidal, Abbu Abbas etc...we encouraged them to plan more. Then, when things started to ramp up, our government treated terrorism as a law enforcement activity, its not, you see a terrorist you kill them. But we didnt.

Somalia, the Khobar Towers, the embassies in Africa, the Cole....we either gave up or sent the FBI to try to arrest someone. We acted like a paper tiger, so they took their time, figured out our weaknesses and used them against us. Again, our own arrogance played a part.

As for the towers collapsing....

You say the steel mesh design wasnt compromised? The photos show different. Leslie Robertson says different, he might know, since he helped design it.

Localized fires and minimal damage? Peruse the photos on the "military pictures" thread. Fires raging from one side of the tower to the other on a couple floors and fires raging on other floors, hardly localized...unless you are using the WTC complex as compared to Manhattan lsland......

And while you are thinking it....dont even begin to bring up "the towers were designed to survive an airliner collision" because that would be showing the same type of human arrogance that kept us from seriously considering and figuring out a way to stop an attack like 9/11.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You say the steel mesh design wasnt compromised? The photos show different. Leslie Robertson says different, he might know, since he helped design it.


And yet the on-site construction manager Frank De Martini said “I believe the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing the screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” If you insist we take note of Leslie Robertson (whose story changed more than once) then I'm sure you won't mind me reminding you that by the same token we have to heed the words of Frank De Martini.

Also, please link to some photos that show the steel mesh design WAS compromised. I'd also like to know how you can make such a judgement from photos...



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And while you are thinking it....dont even begin to bring up "the towers were designed to survive an airliner collision" because that would be showing the same type of human arrogance that kept us from seriously considering and figuring out a way to stop an attack like 9/11.


Frank De Martini made that very point. He was the on-site construction manager; I think he was eminently more qualified to make such a judgement than you are. If the on-site construction manager of a massive construction project tells me that a building is designed to withstand a certain thing, I'd tend to believe him, know what I mean? After all, he'd know. The fact that the buildings DID withstand the aircraft impacts until they were brought down by explosives proves he was right...



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
And yet, some of the last words heard from Mr DeMartini before he died in the collapse of the South (i think it was the south) was him calling down to his office saying that as he was looking at the damage, he was positive that at least the top of the building was in danger of collapse............

But franz or fritz...thanks for once again showing the human arrogance that made so much of that day possible. Your blind faith in the statements of the building manager that the towers would survive being hit by multiple airliners are kin to Bruce Ismay believing that the Titanic was unsinkable (the engineers said so)




top topics



 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join