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.


WTC lease holder admits WTC7 was intentionally demolished !

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:41 AM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No, it is insane and irrational to believe that the hundreds of thousands of people with the requisite training, experience and knowledge that have studied the collapse and that have come to a common consensus on the mechanisms of the collapse are wrong and that you, with no formal training in engineering, physics or architecture somehow now more than they do.

I am sorry if that is a bit insulting, but it is true.

Your belief that the collapse of the buildings was some how deliberately caused is not based on any scintilla of fact whatsoever. It is totally based on your belief in underlying conspiracies. You believe in the conspiracy first and then cast about looking for evidence to support your theories. When the evidence does not pan out, Whoa, its another conspiracy.

[edit on 20-7-2004 by HowardRoark]

actually, i do have formal training in physics and architecture(a little), DOH! this times that equals that. you need numbers for hardcore physics. geusstimatin' physics says, not enough heat. not enough instantaneous directional force from above. there should be evidence of vector forces in the action of the collapse, if it had gone according to the official lie. that is to say, twisting and turning. the bottom literally dropped out of all three buildings. they were vaporized.
it's a crock, and if 90% of the engineers in the usa say it's true, than i'm moving to a bungalow, cause they don't know fudge all about tall buildings.

i know many others in the real world who have training in these fields agree with me. it's not that these people are being silent. it's that they are not being published. it's also, that most are too lazy, scared or apathetic to even care. there is also a frustration in many factions of 'formal' educatees with the whole system of overspecialisation(bucky fuller, for example, now THAT was an engineer) and indoctrination. higher education is no longer about thinking, it is about rotely spewing out rethoric. double super ditto for media.

some of the biggest idiots i've ever met on a construction site are the 'engineers' and architects. they believe what's on paper over what's clearly standing in front of them. they will tell you there is enough room, because the drawing says so, nervermind, that you're standing there with a measuring tape. they will tell you it was strong enough, when it is clearly collapsed already.

p.s. i don't know why i like you , howard, but i really do. nothing you could say will insult me. i have no ego and i repect your opinion.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:51 AM
Roxdog, I have also noticed how no one has made a comment on the boarding passes, and it does seem a little fishy. However, I have seen stills of the security cameras from the airport. It clearly shows some, not all, of the hijackers that are sopposedly still alive. So are you saying that these hijackers were caught on serveilance cameras at the airport on 9/11/01 but didn't get on those planes?

Another thing, Arab names are failry common and until I see a current video of these guys who are suposedly still alive, I am convinced it is a Arab equivalent of John Smith saying I am still alive.

Also, I don't think the FBI makes a practise of having fingerprints on file of people that don't even reside in the US. Meaning, if those terrorists had not committed a crime in the US, why would the FBI have their prints on file? Besides, say they produced the boarding passes with prints on them, how can anyone prove whose fingerprints they are anyway?

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:56 AM

Originally posted by billybob
some of the biggest idiots i've ever met on a construction site are the 'engineers' and architects.

This has to be one of my favorite comments on this board. HA! That is simply laughable. How do explain all of these buildings that we have everywhere? These so-called idiots designed and overs saw the building of all of these edifices. I really can't stop laughing at this comment.

The biggest idiots I have ever met at the construction sites are the construction workers. That is why they have a job where they use their hands, cuz they can't use their brains. Laughing ... so....hard...must...leave

Edit: spelling

[edit on 7-20-2004 by nyarlathotep]

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:12 PM

Originally posted by nyarlathotep

Originally posted by billybob
some of the biggest idiots i've ever met on a construction site are the 'engineers' and architects.

This has to be one of my favorite comments on this board. HA! That is simply laughable. How do explain all of these buildings that we have everywhere? These so-called idiots designed and overs saw the building of all of these edifices. I really can't stop laughing at this comment.

i've met a few doozies. foremen aren't workers. buildings are not designed from scratch every time. there are standards that have proven effective. my point is that a piece of paper is not a brain. you can have one without the other. you can get paper without a brain, and you can have a brain without paper. this is not oz.

i'm happy i made you laugh.

physics? (click me)That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concretein each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction. That estimate implies the energy sink of concrete pulverizationwas on the order of 135,000 KWH per tower, which is already larger than the energy source of gravitational energy. However, the size of this sink is critically dependent on the fineness of the concrete powder, and on mechanical characteristics of the lightweight concretethought to have been used in the towers. Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:15 PM
I am not an engineer, but I am well aware, what they are "allowed" to say, and what are the things to be really quiet about. If there is something especially about such event, that made it possible to start a war, it is not necessarily should go to the public.

My point is: those engineers could be lieing, if they are ordered to do so, or else...

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:22 PM

However, I have seen stills of the security cameras from the airport


posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:24 PM

It clearly shows some, not all, of the hijackers that are sopposedly still alive

Not the pictures you are referring to. Those only show Atta and his roommate.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:25 PM

Arab names are failry common

Are the same names with the same faces also as common?

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:26 PM
Anyway, the damage caused by the second plane was less, than that done by the first one. It is because the perimeter columns damaged in the second attack, were closer to the inner core, so there was less load on the damaged side. The plane hung up un the concrete slabs sideways, not in the core like the first plane did. Therefore, the core survived the crash mostly. As people were looking outwards the hole, possibly the heat was not that intense. If anyone has seen airplane burning, could see, that it is not that big fire. Especially, if that plane is covered with huge mass of concrete, disabing the oxygen rich burning.

There are plenty of examples of steel structured buildings burning. Good example is the NATO attacks over Milosevic regime. Their main building, a sixty storey skyscraper was fired out several times, the building completely burnt out, but it did not collapse. The big question now: which causes more damage? A blast from a bomber, or a Boeing with 30000 litres of fuel?

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:27 PM
okay people... why argue about this, we all know what really happened here but for some reason, just affraid to say it, well I will say it :

what, wait a minute what did I say...

that's right, after the attack, God looking down on HIS earth, was saddened that a creation of HIS could do something so terrible that he said to himself, enough is enough and he "pulled it", he brought the buildings down, all of them... the Towers, Bldg 7... to end the immediate suffering.

So now, no more arguing, we all know the real reason the Towers and building 7 fell down.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:29 PM
No one has ever reported a situation like the one we see in the World Trade Center samples, said UC Davis physicist Thomas Cahill, an international authority on airborne particles. The air from Ground Zero was laden with extremely high amounts of very small particles, probably associated with high temperatures in the underground debris pile." "The mass of particles in the very fine mode on October 3, in particular, at our sampling site was by far the highest we have ever seen or seen published," said Cahill, a professor emeritus of physics and atmospheric sciences who has studied air pollution around the world. "It exceeded levels recorded during the oil fires in Kuwait and in downtown Beijing during the coal heating season," he said.
The very fine particles were high in a number of species generally associated with combustion of fuel oil, such as sulfur, vanadium, and nickel, and incineration of plastics and other organic matter. Dr. Cahill said, "Some, such as vanadium, were the highest that we have seen recorded."

high temperatures in the underground debris pile? i thought the building was crushed?
exceeded oil fires and coal heating season? that's one HUGE conflagration to cause such ashes. i thought the building was crushed?

gotta go. se ya soon.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:30 PM
More facts, not myths

Much of what is known about the collapse comes from an analysis of the wreckage and related evidence by the WTC Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), a group of experts--including structural and fire engineers, blast-effects specialists, building designers, and investigators--that was assembled by the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) under the auspices of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The team's investigation yielded an extensive report, the World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations. (The report will be referred to as the FEMA/ASCE report.)

The study team based its conclusions on an analysis of debris, video and photographic materials, first-hand accounts, and other evidence--much of it provided by organizations performing recovery efforts in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, such as the Structural Engineers Association of New York, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other private and government consultants.

To say the buildings werent studied and eye witnessed werent interviewed and that the steel wasnt tested is obsurb.

When the planes struck on September 11, they took out between 31 and 36 of the 59 columns that ran across the face of One WTC and between 27 and 32 columns of the 59 girding Two WTC. Remarkably, neither building collapsed immediately, which experts attribute to the sheer size of the buildings and to the exterior columns' being placed very close together. But ultimately the buildings did suffer a progressive collapse--the domino effect that occurs when one or more support structures fail, causing one floor to fall into the next.

31 out of 59 support beams. Thats more the 60% of the support beams.

According to the FEMA/ASCE report, what eventually took down the towers was the fire generated from the jet fuel that ignited much of the buildings' contents. With the emergency water supply having been disrupted by the impacts, the sprinkler system had no chance to quell the fire.

Or or

You can go read the ENTIRE FEMA report, including studies done ON THE STEEL at:

But then again, this whole report is brought to you by FEMA, the evil organization behind the scenes plotting world domination!

Do your research, read the facts, then you can speculate. Speculating before reading the facts makes you look as smart as the 'alien bird' theory. Especially when you claim to know the facts and so obviously dont.

Can I call this post Debunkage worthy?

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:31 PM
We can look at different viewpoints.

The fact, that God took the souls of those innocent people, os just one, general thing. What we are arguing about, is the details of this event.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:32 PM

Besides, say they produced the boarding passes with prints on them, how can anyone prove whose fingerprints they are anyway?

Umm, compare them to the ones that would have been left all over houses and apartments...the cars they rented, etc. Are you saying that standard law enforecment precedure is just a formality in this instance and doesn't matter?

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:56 PM
consider the possibility that all three buildings (1,2,7) were substandard in their ability to withstand even a modest amount of fuel fire. building 7's performance was especially pitiful, a joke really, as if the heat caused all the floors to slip from their mountings and just pankake down, leaving the unsupported flimsy building shell to cave in on itself. engineering history is full of structures that had an achilles heel, maybe WTC's was heat-prone floor supports.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 01:00 PM
Any sources to your "thesis"? Are you gonna try to tell us that the WTC just wasn't put together very so that explains everything?

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 01:04 PM
Somewhere I read, that the outer perimeter columns were not designed to support weight, but in extreme cases they were able to do that. Their purpose was to keep the outer shell of the building attached to the trusses. The weight support was completely on the inner columns. It is not hard to believe, that those box columns were just unable to support weight, the ones at the ground floor would probably buckle under such load. Still, they are responsible for the stability of the building.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 01:06 PM
SO here again is my very simple challange to all you 'debunkers'
Give me just ONE example of a steel building collapsing due to fire.
Just one....obviously one BESIDES the three buildings that collapsed on 911.


Oh and I have another question for all you 'debunkers'.
Why do demolition crews spend all the time and money rigging buildings to fall in their footprint, when evidently all you really need to do is poor some kerosene in there and you get the same effect as people with degrees and years of experience?

I cant believe the demolition companies have been fooling us all these years, telling us its a science, telling us that one small mistake can cause a building to fall where they dont want it.....
THOSE LIERS! All they really need is kerosene to bring a building STRAIGHT DOWN....It worked three times on 911.
Its a wonder there are any demolition companies in buisiness still.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 01:11 PM
You just might have ended the thread with that post. Nicely put.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 01:20 PM
There is no other collapse due to fire, but there is a lot of buildings caught fire for long time, still they didn't collapse. The WTC buildings were well overdesigned, and they were the only ones that were not supposed to fall even by airplane crash.

An interesting question: Why did both planes (with different speed) stop exactly inside the buildings? It is quite interesting, that none of them was sticking out or flew through the buildings....

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in