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.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 18
10
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Buildings NOT of the configuration or the exact damage of the TWIN TOWERS.


But what about buidlings that had longer lasting fires and more damage and still did not collapse?




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


and frome some of them , they lookd also as to have thinner steel too , i might add

would make them less likely to dispurse the heat as fast as WTC buildings could

So your builds should have colapsed

IF the WTC colapsed your buildings should have also

i see your point along time ago

[edit on 23-3-2008 by plasmacutter]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You obviously misinterpreted it.
Why would I say something like that IN SUPPORT of a theory I find to be rubbish?

You know my stance by now.
Or should.


[edit on 23-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But the reports state that the buidlings withstood the planes impacts.

Plus i have shown steel buildings that had longer lasting fires and more structural damge then the WTC buildings and did not collapse.



I agree with those reports and we've all seen that the buildings did survive the initial impacts and managed to stay up long enough for the majority of occupants to escape them. But they only lasted about an hour or so.

How many 110 story buildings have been deliberately attacked by planes the size of 767s?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
You obviously misinterpreted it.


Well you said it. You still have not answered about steel buildings having longer lasting fires and more damage and still did not collapse



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Was tat yor point man ??



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


No.
I did.
Selective memory?
Thats telling on other things as well.

Allow me to repeat.



Buildings NOT of the configuration or the exact damage of the TWIN TOWERS.


Do I really need to explain this one?

[edit on 23-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

www.prisonplanet.com...

you all have seen this right


[edit on 23-3-2008 by plasmacutter]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I agree with those reports and we've all seen that the buildings did survive the initial impacts and managed to stay up long enough for the majority of occupants to escape them. But they only lasted about an hour or so.


But report state the buildings withstood the planes impacts, and not just from the intial impact, that they should have kept standing.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 

i doubt your sincerity in this issue. you are requiring solid evidence BEFORE an "independent" investigation starts, to answer the most pressing questions, that has the majority of americans believing this was an inside job. we as americans have a duty to question our government and it's practices of secrecy and vagueness. to have the most poignant questions, not answered to the full satisfaction of the majority of americans, and to spend the time and effort involved in this approach, furthers a distrust in the government. therefore...that IS your proof. it is not up to us, as average americans to prove incompetance or corruption. we pay our representative government officials quite well, to speak and act for us. they must fear us and not the other way around. they are the ones that need to be called into question for their lack of a detailed, indepth, and NON-POLITICAl explanation to questions that are asked , not the american people that are trying to make sense of the inconsistantcies of the late and underfunded 9/11 commission. 50 million dollars were spent on the shuttle disaster investigation, and it was up and running in less then 60 days. the 9/11 commission took 445 days to convene and spent 23 million dollars. shuttle lose of life? 7...9/11 loss of life? 3000. are you achieving some clarity in this matter? apparently you accept the moral charecter of the wealthy and powerful without question, but a history book will tell you otherwise. but what are you worried about? its been almost 7 years and the demonstrations and marches have died down, the public has relented to pat answers from our government....mission accomplished

[edit on 23-3-2008 by jimmyx]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Yes because reports are inevitably right...
I hope you saw the sarcasm in that but recent events led me to wonder.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Buildings NOT of the configuration or the exact damage of the TWIN TOWERS.


I still want to know want you ment by this statement.

"And doesn't blowing out the supports mean your essentially damaging the structure???? "

What or who blew out the supports ?


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Yes because reports are inevitably right...
I hope you saw the sarcasm in that but recent events led me to wonder.


Yes, reports can be right if verified by other reports, facts and evidence.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima do I need to finger paint EVERYTHING for you?
I know your not as much as a simpleton as you are acting right now.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Ultima do I need to finger paint EVERYTHING for you?
I know your not as much as a simpleton as you are acting right now.



I still want to know want you ment by this statement.

"And doesn't blowing out the supports mean your essentially damaging the structure???? "

What or who blew out the supports ?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

u all should read from top to bottom



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


1) As I told you that wasn't a statement about the WTC being a controlled demolition. Dang your looking really silly right at this very moment.

2) Here is where I explained it to you the first time.


You say no steel building has been brought down by structural damage and fire.

I responded in different words with "every building ever demolished in a controlled fashion IS collapsing due to intentional structural damage.".

You know. Demolition charges causes structural damage which then makes the building fall down.
See the logic?
Or do I need to give up you and your thus far rhetoric as little more than lost causes?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by plasmacutter
 


Already did but thank you man.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
u all should read from top to bottom


You need to read the following from a firefighter site and maybe learn something.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.


[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


i agree with all what u are say why the nasty tone ??

i was helping u out with my post dude read it in confirmed what u said



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by plasmacutter
 


He couldn't get past where you said I had a point.........




top topics



 
10
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join