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.


What did you expect?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:02 PM
I've been reading this forum for some time now, and thought I'd ask this question since I haven't found any answers.

If a plane slams into a building, what do you expect to happen? I'm interested in hearing what people actually think should of happened when the planes hit the towers. For example, should the planes have just gone right through? Should they have bounced off?

I'm interested because people come up with these complicated explanations like holograms, hydrogen bombs, pre-planted explosives, godzilla, etc. for explaining the collapse of the twin towers; when the simplest explanation to me would be that the planes did it.

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:28 PM
Mostly I would think that people have problems with the offical story because the Twin Towers were designed to have withstood a direct hit by an airplane. This is a fact that was in wide circulation, especially after the earlier basement bombing of the towers.

The fact that the designers of the tower said that the Towers were safe from being utterly destroyed by crashing airplanes could have lead many to assume that having the Twin Towers collapse as well as another unrelated building was somewhat fishy.

Also to note is that before and after the attacks of 9/11 no skyscraper as EVER utterly and completely collapsed due to fire. EVER. Despite all the popular mechanics assertations into the what caused the collapse the simple fact is that the conditions which lead to the collapse have never been fully explained or replicated in any other event or laboratory experiment.

They can tell us what happened till they are blue in the face, but the simple fact is they have nothing to back it up with other then half-truths which explain parts of the disaster but never form a cohesive series of events.

In most sciences, when a hypothesis has been consistently failed to be replicated in real and laboratory conditions, a new theory is put forth since the old one was obviously false. Apparently in politics and the real world this scientific law does not seem to hold true and a series of half-truths and speculations can be precariously stacked upon one another to achieve a complete truth.

Kinda've akin to throwing out so many theories, assertations and botched scientific models that the general public simply assumes that all questions have been answered simply due to the amount of information available.

Just because they can prove a theory on paper does not mean that it actually works in real life. And sadly to say that in this particular case, not only is the basic theory flawed, but also unsupported by another other event in the world to date. '

"Government Statement" Obviously they fell down due to the burning jet foil, structural damage and simple math that you ordinary plebs wouldn't understand so just take our word for it okay? Come one we're the government, we wouldn't lie to the people who elected us would we?

"Oh and as side note, anyone who disagrees with our airtight explanation for the damage is obviously a terrorists and hates your freedom. So lets not talk about this little incident anymore and focus on blowing the # out of the middle east except for Israel and Saudi Arabia who are shining examples of peace and democracy in a world of evil and chaos around them."

I feel sickened.

new topics

log in