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

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
english.peopledaily.com.cn...

After watching videos experts say that it was not the damages inflicted but the big fire followed in destroying the two towers.

After watching videos? hmmm....

I thought at one time you said the fires were not that large, and burning out. Yet these experts say the fires were large enough to bring down the buildings on their own?

[edit on 30-3-2008 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
The statement you are quoting from was dated June 10, 2002.

So are you saying he lied then, or that they just contridicted themselves?

Originally posted by Disclosed
I thought at one time you said the fires were not that large, and burning out. Yet these experts say the fires were large enough to bring down the buildings on their own?

I am just posting facts and evidence from the sites as i do research.

As stated trying to find the truth of what really happened.



[edit on 30-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
The statement you are quoting from was dated June 10, 2002.

So are you saying he lied then, or that they just contridicted themselves?

Neither.

It is quite apparent that once they got all the facts and evidence, they were able to make their conclusions: That it was a combination of the plane impacts, and resulting fires, that started a chain of events that led to eventual collapse.

That is proven by their final report.

We shall soon see whether the FBI and NTSB final reports agree as well.

Originally posted by Disclosed
It is quite apparent that once they got all the facts and evidence, they were able to make their conclusions:

All of what facts and evidence, they did not even do any testing on the steel for explosives or chemicals? They did not recover any steel from building 7. The model they did even concluded impact and fie would not casue the collapse.

So what facts and evidence did they have to support the theory of impact and fire?

Yes i would like to see how people like you are going to try to back peddle and come with all kinds of excuses if the FBI and NTSB reports come out with something different then the official story states.


[edit on 30-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Funny how the Director of NIST agreed that no other steel buildings had collapsed from fire.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So what facts and evindence did they have to support the theory of impact and fire?

The NIST reports are available to the public at this address:

wtc.nist.gov...

They will explain what facts and "evindence" they used to support their theory of impact and fire.

Originally posted by Disclosed
They will explain what facts and "evindence" they used to support their theory of impact and fire.

I am going to be like others on here. I asked for the facts and evidence not the site.

Oh and what about the fact that the model did not conclude that impact and fire could have casued the collapse?

wtc.nist.gov...

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I am going to be like others on here. I asked for the facts and evidence not the site.

I'm sorry.....I did not realize your computer did not have the ability to link to other sites. The links I have provided to the NIST and other sources seem to work just fine for others.

plus, I won't link the entire site in a post...it would violate forum etiquette here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don't copy and paste entire pieces of content from other websites. In many cases, if that content comes from a news source, such activity is copyright infringement. In addition, it makes no sense to duplicate something here that exists elsewhere. If you see something that should be discussed here, just past the first one or two paragraphs, then the link. We may deleted these posts without warning, and if you are found to repeatedly engage in this activity, your account could be suspended, or penalized.

Let me know what you are looking for, and perhaps I can U2U you the information.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
It is quite apparent that once they got all the facts and evidence, they were able to make their conclusions

How can they conclude that planes contributed to the collapse of the towers, when they don't have the facts or evidence to identify that planes were involved?

Originally posted by Disclosed
They will explain what facts and "evindence" they used to support their theory of impact and fire.

NIST doesn't actually present any solid evidence.

So when you say:

Originally posted by Disclosed
The links I have provided to the NIST and other sources seem to work just fine for others.

there is a problem, in that, just by linking to the NIST report (which is all you can do; I know you haven't actually read it ), you don't really know what you're talking about. You just assume NIST does, and it's so easy just to copy and paste a link when you already think you're right. Which is the mistake you make. But you have no way of knowing any of this, because you have no idea what is or isn't in the report.


I say to you, NIST ultimately doesn't provide proof of their theory (and their theory doesn't even attempt to explain global collapse, only initiation).

Prove me wrong, and find your (their) supposed evidence and post it here.

If I'm right, you won't be able to find any real proof. Because it's just not there. Come on, how hard can this be?

Originally posted by Disclosed
Let me know what you are looking for, and perhaps I can U2U you the information you are looking for.

Hey another person did the same thing to me so i am returning the favor. You people that believe the official story demand evidnece but do not want to post it when asked so now i am going to be just like you and the others on here and demand you show the evidence. If you say you have evidence lets see it not the site.

Also you did not respond about the NIST model that failed to show impact and fire casued the collapse?



[edit on 30-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by bsbray11
NIST doesn't actually present any solid evidence.

Well i have also shown that the NIST model did not show impact and fire casued the collapse.

reply to post by bsbray11


Well, I'd reply and post evidence of a conspiracy if I thought there was a conspiracy.(Since that is the topic of this thread) But since I don't believe there IS a conspiracy....this is the wrong thread to post it in.

Wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by Disclosed Well, I'd reply and post evidence of a conspiracy if I thought there was a conspiracy.(Since that is the topic of this thread) But since I don't believe there IS a conspiracy....this is the wrong thread to post it in.

Sounds like another excuse to me. You people that believe the official story are real good at coming up with excuses why you cannot post evidence.



[edit on 30-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Good points and counterpoints are raised by all concerned but they tend to cancel each other out and demonstrate the lack of any solid evidence to date of an alternate conspiracy to the 'officially' proposed one of suicidal hijackers intent on damaging western economics and culture.

Prior to coming to ATS less than a year ago my major questions were related to those hijackers and the incredibly rapid indentification of them and their affiliations via the all too convenient location of incriminating evidence. The macro symptoms of the attack (planes crashing & buildings collapsing etc) I still feel are just that IE symptoms while the actual disease causing them is far deeper and more covert & manageable for those who would want it kept that way (if 'they' exist that is).

I'm still looking but the trail is getting very cold by now.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm still looking but the trail is getting very cold by now.

No, the trail is not getting cold. There is information coming out, but it does seem to question the official story more then support it.

First responders speaking out.

Information from FOIA request.

E-mails to companies that were at Ground Zero.


I am doing a lot of reseach and have some good resources.



[edit on 30-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Disclosed
Well, I'd reply and post evidence of a conspiracy if I thought there was a conspiracy.(Since that is the topic of this thread) But since I don't believe there IS a conspiracy....this is the wrong thread to post it in.

LOL, cop out!

U2U me what I'm asking for then.

Originally posted by bsbray11
LOL, cop out!

U2U me what I'm asking for then.

Do not expect much from Disclosed. He has already agreed that a lot of the actual evidence has not been released.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

I will say this just once.

Stop discussing each other and discuss the topic itself.

Some of you have met me in other forums, I think you know that I mean what I'm saying. It ends here, one way or another.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Were the buildings constructed in the same manner as the WTC buildings?

Did those buildings have jetlines crash into them at over 400mph?
[edit on 29-3-2008 by Disclosed]

Yes, the buildings were all made of steel just like the WTC buildings.

They may have used steel but were they built and designed the same way? That's the real question.

We are talking about fires in the buidlgins since most of the reports state that it was mainly fire that brought down the WTC buildings.

I haven't read that. The plane impacts created a lot of structural damage.

Oh and do not forget no plane hit Building 7.

This is true but wasn't bldg 7 actually damaged by being hit by another building?

The buidlings i have posted had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buildings and did not collapse.

So what you're saying is that the fires in the other buildings caused more structural damage then a jet liner hitting a building. So you are also saying that indeed fires can cause severe structural damage.

Originally posted by jfj123
That statement is completely illogical. As example, if someone is run over by a car and they cannot identify the car, we don't know if they were really hit by the car??? Come on

If you are going to claim certain planes hit the buidlings you should be able to come up with the evidence that these planes hit the buildings, otherwise its only an opinion and not fact.
Would you like me to post photos, videos, etc.?? Because those things are evidence that SOME TYPE OF LARGE PLANES HIT THE BUILDINGS. Regardless whether or not we can identify the exact flight number, we can identify the approx. size of the planes and approx. speeds. I really don't understand why this is so hard to get