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: 22
10
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Ok so what you are saying is that for the simple reason that the planes hit the towers and because they (planes) started the fires

then the plane have to be directly resposable for the colapses??

i will conquer and agree with that under the assumption that the plane and fuel combined did doo significant damage to the surrouning floors

no dought abou that


but worst case senerio, would be just those floors affected would have maybe collapsed (i dought it )

but none bellow the flames or palne damge would have been effectd directly by the damge or flames only would have only indirectly effected, them .
falling on top of the floors below would be the idirect result ,but if u had read the other post u would have undestanded that


the buildings where progresive buildings meaning they got lighter as they went up ,

So what dose that mean? well the floors below where progressively stonger

basicly the floors below would have slowd the lighter floors above ,

evenyualy there would have been no energy left to keep bustin threw the stroger floors below

the bottom of the building did hold all 1300 floors above it since it was built in 1973 .

it was made to hold itself up all 100,000 tons of itself.

all 8.6 million square feet , was held up pround for a long time .

with wind forces pushing on its 200 foot wide wall all day generating much greater forces then most can imagine

the floors above and below had nor fire or structual damage

and no open air flame rushing down an (hermaticy seald elevater) a thousand feet up could have even come close to gnerating enough heat to weken 6 inch thick beams in the basement

u have to rember the very top was insignificant as far as weight to the very bottom beams 1/4 inch plate versus 6inch plate

6 inch plate is 24 times stronger than 1/4

the top was 1/4 inch and progressed up to 6inch inch in the basement

and the steel at impact site was in the 3 to 4 inch range


i dont know how to explain that any better i wish someone else could




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima, I copied and pasted from your source, the link you provided, and after reading it I only gained even more proof that the towers collapsed due to the impact and following fires from jet fuel. You, your link, your source, proved that to me. Facts. Facts that you linked to. I didn't just pick out a suitable part, I picked whole quotes that disprove what you claim the same link proves. That is maddening. I see why the other guy gave up now.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
Ok so what you are saying is that for the simple reason that the planes hit the towers and because they (planes) started the fires

then the plane have to be directly resposable for the colapses??


Funny how people just believe that because planes hit the towers that they casued it to collapse without even looking at any facts or doing any research.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
and after reading it I only gained even more proof that the towers collapsed due to the impact and following fires from jet fuel.


Well then you need to read it again becasue it cleary states that the planes did not casue enough damage to casue the collapse.

Also i have many other facts and evidence from reports that state that the majority of jet fuel was burned off outside the buildings and what was left burned off quickly.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   
outside face was alluminium facing , covering 120 2 inch thick beams from top to bottom
that made up the outter ring of beams

the center was 46 beams from thinknesses varing from 6 inch thick in the basement to 1/4 thick at the top



[edit on 23-3-2008 by plasmacutter]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Funny how people just believe that because planes hit the towers that they casued it to collapse without even looking at any facts or doing any research.


by doing research, they will find the truth...

That the plane impacts, and resulting fires, started a chain of events that led to the eventual collapse.

...as proven by the NIST, FEMA and 911 commission reports.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
by doing research, they will find the truth...
...as proven by the NIST, FEMA and 911 commission reports.


Yes, i agree they will find the truth that the NIST, FEMA reports contridict each other when it comes to things like testing on the steel.

Also the people on the 9/11 commission have stated they did not have enough time or money to do a proper investigation.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Hi,

a noob here. A mate saw this thread and immediately thought of me, so I joined. I have done a huge amount of research into this, sorted that crap from the facts from the deliberate misleading tricks etc and distilled much truth. While a lot of questions still remain, the simple truth is that 911 was a 100% inside job.

It took me a long time to even consider this possibility, but the mountain of evidence I found, both direct and circumstantial, is so huge I am embarassed at having bought the official story for a few years.

In the fullness of time, I am sure to post 100's of vital clues here, but I will start with my 3 favourites:

a) The Pentagon - the damage to it was in line with a cruise missle hit or similar; no wings, engines, tail section etc were found and no damage that would have been caused by these

b) The twin towers fell at free-fall speed. So if you were at the top when collapse began, and threw a bowling ball straigh ahead of you, you and the ball would hit the ground together. Only was this is possible is by using carefully pre-planed explosives to blow the floors out so there is no deceleration

c) (I love this one!) The BBC reported the collapse of Tower 7 25 minutes before it happened. There exists no scenario to explain this apart from pre-planted explosives an d someone either through error or guilt sent the press release early

Some links:
The actual BBC footage
www.youtube.com...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
911scholars.org...
stj911.org...

I am prepared to explain and defend all aspects of all events on 911 - I have done a vast amount of exploring and peicing together. Of course I dont have all the answers - I have no idea what really happened to FLight 77 - it certainly did not hit the pentagon.
93 was shot down.
It was one of the two things that went wrong on 911, and in truth very little did. There was no incompetence here - it was masterfully planned and executed.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by hmmmbeer
 

Firstly welcome to ATS


Try the search function here and I'm sure you'll find hundreds of posts here dealing with those very things and much much more. The free-fall theory is not correct if you watch any video of a collapse as pieces of heavy debris outside the building definitely reach the ground faster than the internal collapse does.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by hmmmbeer

a) The Pentagon - the damage to it was in line with a cruise missle hit or similar; no wings, engines, tail section etc were found and no damage that would have been caused by these

... I have no idea what really happened to FLight 77 - it certainly did not hit the pentagon...


Does your research extend to examining the wreckage of flight 77 strewn all over the lawn in front of the Pentagon, and the large amount of debris from F77 pulled out of the building following the crash?

Catherder did some research on this a while back, and here's the thread he started, in case you've not studied it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(as an aside, in a recent podcast Skeptic Overlord nominated the above as his all-time favorite ATS thread).

Here are some of the eyewitness accounts, most of whom watched F77 as it flew towards its target, and some of whom watched it impact the Pentagon:

www.geocities.com...

Now if you want to convince anyone GENUINELY interested in the truth of what happened in Washington on 9/11 that some object other than F77 was flown into the Pentagon, a good place to start would be to produce research of this caliber and post it here so other members can see it.

If you could post:

1. Unambiguous and verifiable photographic evidence of the wreckage of a 'cruise missile' at the site

2. Convincing proof that the research done by Catherder (and many others) including all the photographs taken on 9/11 of Boeing 757 wreckage at The Pentagon site was forged or fraudulent

3. An alternative 200+ eyewitnesses who will swear they saw a 'cruise missile'

4. Convincing proof that the hundreds of eyewitnesses who SAW F77 WITH THEIR OWN EYES strike the building are either lying or mistaken (I have personally interviewed 2 of them, as I knew them personally for 20 years, and there is absolutely no question of any doubt in my mind that they watched F77 from their SUV fly over at an altitude of no more than 150ft seconds before it struck The Pentagon)

5. Explain where the 'cruise missile' was launched from, by whom, under whose orders, what was its flight trajectory and what was its serial number - please

6. Explain to us all where F77 and its crew and passengers are, exactly

Then we might take this claim seriously.

Otherwise, it's just more bollocks (sorry, Brit expression) from the 'Truth' movement, which is characterized in the popular mind as determined to ignore all real evidence and just invent stuff to further a political agenda.




93 was shot down.


Proof please, likewise. Not speculation. We're past that stage, and we're sick of it. Shot down by whom, on whose orders? Details. Proof. Post it. Now.

Pretty please.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
5. Explain where the 'cruise missile' was launched from, by whom, under whose orders, what was its flight trajectory and what was its serial number - please

Please supply the serial numbers that confirm the alleged wreckage from AA77 was indeed that of flight AA77.

See, asking for serial numbers works both ways.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I knew this would not be easy....

Please watch this clip:
thewebfairy.com...

to all those who claim there was plane wreckage at the pentagon - please provide any evidence of this (or better, a video of a passenger plane hitting the pentagon)

OK, some more interesting facts. The face of the pentagon that was hit had been recently upgraded and was the strongest face (and thus the poorest choice for a terrorist). The face on the river, which was on its supposed flightpath, was where the big boys were and would have been a simple natural target. The hit section housed few people, but those included the investigators of the missing $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld announced the day before.

And could someone please please address the BBC report. Thats a smoking gun thats warm till this day. Have you all seen the Tower 7 collapse? Again at freefall speed, with demolition squibs, and the centre kink and whossh onto its own footprint.

Next topic can be the asbestos in the towers, the occupancy level (< 50%) the request with NYC council to demolish the towers, Marvin Bush (yes a Busg brother) running the security company of the WTC complex, the total blackout the weekend prior to 911, removal of sniffer dogs etc etc.

And what about flight 93? Can I please see any wreckage? It was shot down (blown up!) and so no wreckage. Can I please have some evidence that it crashed into the grounf intact as per the official story?



[edit on 23/3/2008 by hmmmbeer]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
U do realize that a flame has to be maintaind at atleast 2800 F to keep stell molte right??

U do realize that once the flame reaches 2600_2750 depending on its carbon content it will solidfie ?? and turn what ever color the corrasponding temp is right ??

Sounds right


And U do realize that if just one or 2 beams became glow red and lost 50% of there strength there is 40 others to take the stress load off the weak beams ? and 120 outer beams to also help??

You're making the assumption only 1 or 2 beams "glowed red". You're also assuming the planes that slammed into the building didn't destroy ANY beams. If you review the Purdue University video, you'll see quite a few beams destroyed by the plane impact alone.


U do understand that right?

Still yes.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
Because if u did i realy think u would answer ur own questi, im not saying the fire didnt get hot enough to create some stresses ,

Excellent so we agree that the fire was hot enough to weaken structural steel.


but it clearly wasnt hot enough to bring any beam that day to a molten state ,and keep it molten after it fell 1000 feet and cooling all the way down.

But you gave a very reasonable explanation of how it could have.


This wasnt sheet metal this was high grade structural steel rated to withstand a temp of 2000 F for 2 hours without fire pfoofing

And it is believed the fire proofing was blown off.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
And rember they where progresive buildings they got lighter as they went up,

So to be fair the steel around where the both planes hit was in the 3 to 4 inch range the 6 inch was way way down at the basement thats where the heavy heavy stuff was


Id suggest to all watch the( makeing of the twin towers an american icon)

It is just so friggin amazing the amount of concrete steel rebar sheet rock data wire paint that was in the building

Hell each floor was an acre(40,000 square feet) try to keep that heated and cooled and then do it 109 more times.

Very good point about how much weight would need to be transfered to just a few beams that were not damaged.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
U do realize thermal images from above where taken and the hottest temp was said to be 1750 F well below 2800 F.

When were they taken and by what means? Just curious. Thanks.


and yes im aware of objects creating black smoke ,

But the fact remains a non conrolled cant maintain a continuious heat to keep a 2800 F temp. no fuel can create 2800 F in open air eviroment,

But it really wasn't open air. You had an enclosed area with high velocity winds pushing through almost like a blacksmiths furnace.


and lead in its molten state is not red ,it would start to turn to vapor .

Here's a photo of lead in it's molten state
newsimg.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
www.investigate911.com...

do U agree this is still molten and if so


If it were a liquid metal, it wouldn't sit atop the rest of the rubble, it would pour through it into the ground. Obviously the metal is red hot but not actually molten.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Well to start, we don't know that the steel got red hot AFTER the building collapsed. It may have been red hot before and then been buried after the collapse.


There are no reports of the fires getting hot enough to cause the steel to get red hot.

Just because there were no reports from in the center of the fire, doesn't mean it didn't happen.


I do research and post facts and evidence, if they go against the officail story thats not conspiracy.

Then what is it? You say the government is lying. They say they are not. If you were to find info proving they were lying that would be considered a coverup by individuals within the government to hide something-POOF a conspiracy.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
How many airplane (of a compariable type to the 747) collisions with a building in mid-air have you had to deal with in your time as a whatever?


Well for one the planes that were supposed to have the towers were 767s not 747s. You should at least be able to get the planes right.

Good point but doesn't answer the question.


Second there was a b-25 that hit the Empire state building.

Please show relative mass and speeds also including structural components, fuel, etc.. so we know this is a valid comparison.


Third, i have shown several times steel buildings that had longer lasting fires and MORE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE then the towers and did not collapse.

I'm sorry I missed these posts. Could you refer back to them for me? Thanks.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


LoL!!!!!
Yes try to completely bypass the fact that the Empire State Building is of a vastly different design than the Twin Towers with that.

LoL!!!!!!
Nice try.
But not nice enough.


Might I suggest that since Ultima brought up this comparison, lets let give him an opportunity to prove they are similar incidents. What information would he need to provide to you to convince you they are similar incidents? That would be fair, wouldn't it?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join