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.

 

Alternative 9/11 Theories

page: 10
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Hmmm once again.
And we have been over this before.
No massive structural damage.


Why do you ignore the facts fomr the source that state their was nore structural damage then the WTC buidlings.

Do you need photos since it seems you have a hard time understanding words ?




posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Do you need photos since it seems you have a hard time understanding words ?


Why do you constantly insult the intelligence of other posters that disagree with your interpretation of data?

No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
wtc.nist.gov...



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You had best cut out the insults for one sitting here and threatening mod action.

The plane didn't have to come through the outer wall completely unscathed to cause damage. Of course parts are going to break off, hell the plane didn't survive it's trip through the building. since it obviously didn't come out the other side. But to say it couldn't have caused damage because of that is UNBELIEVABLY stupid.

If you try to sell something based on smoke and mirror tactics and BS childhood school yard insults don't expect me to buy, boy.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
@Everyone
That'll do thank you. One more insult, personal attack or off-topic shove will result action. If you can't keep it decent, then don't post. We have a strict policy about posting in the 9/11 forum, and if you can't keep to it, the last resource will be staff action.

PLEASE KEEP THE DEBATE CIVIL! Attack the post not the poster!


[edit on 5-5-2008 by Gemwolf]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Why do you ignore facts about the buildings strength to withstand multiple impacts from planes?

The structural engineers who designed the both the towers carried out studies in the 60's to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.


"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."


A white paper released on February 3rd, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph, a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11.


"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."


Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.


"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."


Peace

CR



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Realist
 



Why do you ignore facts about the buildings strength to withstand multiple impacts from planes?


Why do you believe everything one group has to tell you?




The structural engineers who designed the both the towers carried out studies in the 60's to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.


Ah yes. The classic designer claims invincibility if we started a conspiracy theory based on the fact the designer claimed whatever was invincible.
Then perhaps the US or some other government sunk the Titanic?
Since we are believing such claims and taking them as gospel. There are a few other instances of claims of perfection turning out to be horribly wrong but at this early hour I am afraid I can't remember them.



A white paper released on February 3rd, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph, a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11.


And the design could have been sterling as far as anyone in the 1960s knew but haven't one or two thinks we thought in the 1960s that was correct turned out to be wrong? Didn't they think asbestos was still perfectly safe back then?



Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.


And of course no construction company has EVER cut corners by using cheaper materials and perhaps cutting corners. And admit it?
*please note sarcasm*






[edit on 5-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Unfortunately just like with my thread, the trolls are ruining this one with their inane BS. Now we have a new poster popup and we'll soon be hearing about holograms, anti-matter bombs, etc... We all know who this person is.

I'm honestly tired of posting the same info over and over and then hear that I have never posted it. I'm sure everyone else is getting worn down by the same problem along with the circular logic, off topic diversions to avoid being wrong, etc...

I think the trolls goal is to batter us with a storm of stupidity until we get tired and leave so they can declare victory.

Is there any way we can have an invitation only thread on ATS?



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Jfj123,

Sorry to crash your party. At least now I understand what your ‘alternate theories’ are.

You postulate that planes crashed in the buildings, damaged them and then burnt them into collapse with their jet fuel. Well, why didn’t you say so?! This is a truly groundbreaking, never heard before view point! Albeit kind of similar to the original, official account of events. But hey, that’s alright. Indeed, you seem to have sprinkled a dash of LIHOP into the story as well.

In said scenario, cause and effect are a little bit out of wack. WTC-1 (North Tower) was ‘hit’ at approximately at 8:46 AM and powderized at 10:28 AM after 102 minutes. Depending on which ‘official report’ there are various times floating around. WTC-2 (South Tower) was ‘kamikazeed’ at 9:02 AM and vaporized at 9:59 AM after only 56 minutes. It didn’t last as long because the firemen (Chief Palmer) were able to rig up an elevator and reach the upper floors much quicker than expected.

Under no circumstances were ‘outsiders’, in this case emergency personnel, allowed to reach the ‘crime scene’, the area of ‘airplane impact’. This, because they would have immediately discovered the true cause of all the mayhem in the twin tower tops — smoke machines and bombs. They would have found all kinds of stuff. Everything except for aircraft parts.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


agreed wizard. This thread seems to not have been started to discuss alternate theories, it appears to be started to discuss the collapse of WTC's. jfj engaged in my conversation, but appears to have no more interest. Wraoth just dismissed the website cooperative research as pure hearsay which is very telling of his motivation.

Wizard I know what your theory is, and due to new rules, we aren't allowed to discuss it anymore or we must find the 1 thread to post in. I want to ask you what do you fell about the hijackers. Was that story entirely made up? Also, if the WTC's were rigged, why do you suppose they didn't just demo them right after impact? What was the idea behind letting them stand for a while before they brought them down? An immediate collapse would have cause more deaths and more ire.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by RomanMaroni
 


Howdie, RomanMaroni. I didn’t know they served chestnuts (maroni) in Rome.

Someone’s going to squeal about us discussing your questions — but it can’t be helped. For sake of efficiency it must be done here, right below your post. Besides we are talking alternative 9-11 theories, just as the thread title states.

Yes, the hijackers are entirely made up. They’re just names pulled from a computer database. This database happens to be called ‘Al-Qaida’ and is purported to be located on computer hardware sitting in a building belonging to the Islamic Bank of Development in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. This nicely explains why nearly all the ‘hijackers’ were Saudi. None were Iraqi, but we blamed Iraq anyways and conquered, err pacified their country anyways. But that’s a minor detail.

The whole story of 19 hijackers is ridiculous. Oddly, nineteen seems to be a magically ominous number of sorts. There were nineteen ‘hijackers’ on 9-11. And there were initially 19 ‘shampoo-bombers’ in the London 2006 summer plane bomb scare. (That number was only later upped to 21 suspects.) It just makes you wonder — who thinks up this stuff?? Whoever’s doing it, is not very intelligent.

The 9-11 orchastrators didn’t take down the WTC’s right away precisely because — as you mentioned — this would have caused more deaths. The 9-11 cabal was nice enough to try not to kill more people than they thought necessary. The time allotted after the ‘plane impacts’ was designed to allow for evacuations. They couldn’t hold back/save the 300 firemen from going into and staying in the buildings because those guys have an innate hero and desire-to-save-lives mentality which makes them impossible to restrain.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Why do you constantly insult the intelligence of other posters that disagree with your interpretation of data?


I usually treat people that way they treat me. I have been insulted by people that believe the official story since i first came on here and other foums simply becasue i am trying to find the truth and some of the evindece i find questions the official story.

Most people that beleive the official sotry do dnot want to to hear anyhting that might be different then what the official story teell them happened.


No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.


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 5-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
You had best cut out the insults for one sitting here and threatening mod action.

But to say it couldn't have caused damage because of that is UNBELIEVABLY stupid.


You and your buddys should practice what you preach.

If the plane was shredded as it came through th outter wall how could have caused much damage.

Several reports state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Why do you believe everything one group has to tell you?


Well you seem to believe everything NIST tells you.

NIST states in this report the buidlings survived the plane impacts.

www.nist.gov...

Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires. NIST previously reported that the towers had significant reserve capacity after aircraft impact based on analysis of post-impact vibration data obtained from video evidence on WTC 2, the more severely damaged tower.





[edit on 5-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Sorry but you can scream structural damage all day long.

Asymmetrical damage will NOT cause symmetrical collapses.

You want to ignore simple physics, that proves global collapse cannot be caused by fire and or asymmetrical damage.

Plane impacts and fire will not overcome the forces of physics no matter how hard you want them to.

Sorry but fire and plane impacts does not explain what happened to WTC2 and it's 'angular momentum' problem. It does not explain the lack of friction/resistance. It does not explain what happened to the central core. It does not, just like NIST, explain the global collapse of 3 buildings.

It's not me ignoring facts, it's you...



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


What you don't realise, as obviously you have no construction or engineering experience, is the design of the outer walls itself is what would allow damage without collapse.

It's a well known type of structure, the mesh similar to honeycomb, it can withstand damage without collapsing. They didn't have to make wild claims it was and is a known entity with that kind of structure whether used for a building or not.

So it's not a stretch to claim it could withstand impacts.

As far as the Titanic that wasn't a wild claim either, unfortunately someone used low grade rivets that snapped. What is the explanation that tells us why the WTC claim failed? Do you have one?
There isn't one, is there? Because the towers did what they claimed it would, it took the impact and remained standing. Even NIST couldn't lie about that one.

You seriously need to re-think this without the de-bunkers bias clouding your judgment.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


Actually, Roman Maroni is a character in the movie Johnny Dangerously. He is the guy who can't curse correctly. He calls people fargin bastages and corksuckers. anyway....

I understand that Al-Queda is the database for CIA trained Mujaheddin fighters during the Soviet invasion, and I think that is where they got these guys to perform the mission. If these guys were just made up, how can the eyewitness accounts of them taking flight training be explained? It's these witnesses that play a big role in me believing what I believe. The fact that Atta wore a lot of jewelery, drank and did coc aine, visited strip clubs and dressed in fancy attire, leads me to believe he wasn't Muslim, let alone a Muslim fundamentalist. Eye witness accounts of Hani Hanjour tell of a man who wasn't Muslim either. The thing that allows me to entertain your theory is the way the hijackers were able to fly straight to their targets manually. This seems to be a big achievement. Then you factor in that they not only found the targets, but they were able to hit them as well, and they seem to be unreal pilots. Again eyewitness accounts say otherwise. But it seems to me to be nearly impossible to hijack with no pilot resistance, go into stealth mode by switching off a transponder, fly for over an hour with no resistance, locate the target and hit it. The thing that troubles me about my theory is the phone calls. The thing that troubles me about your theory is the eyewitness accounts to these guys pre 9/11. But the "nose out" is very interesting, and leads me to believe .... I guess I can't elaborate due to the new forum rules.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Ah yes. The classic designer claims invincibility if we started a conspiracy theory based on the fact the designer claimed whatever was invincible.
Then perhaps the US or some other government sunk the Titanic?


The titanic was never said to be unsinkable by the designers.


The shipbuilders Harland and Wolff insist that the Titanic was never advertised as an unsinkable ship. They claim that the 'unsinkable' myth was the result of people's interpretations of articles in the Irish News and the Shipbuilder magazine. They also claim that the myth grew after the disaster.


www.historyonthenet.com...

The "unsinkable" was started by a White Star Line advertisement.

The engineers and builders of the Titanic NEVER claimed it to be unsinkable. Newspapers and advertisers did.

So, my point is, I'm sick of hearing about the Titanic when Skilling's white paper is mentioned.

Unless we are to believe that reporters know what they are talking about? Reports of secondary devices at the WTC should shut up the debunkers on that account.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


I thought you left when mr. lear left (wink)



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Unfortunately no.
But I say we just put them on all on ignore and talk turkey.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Like I just did... Place on ignore the tiresome, self-righteous, sink any counter threads running counter to their stuff trolls I mean. With mod approval apparently because I thought wantonly derailing a thread was against T&C. But one mod assures me this isn't so.
I am willing to bet they still try to troll me after treading this.


Anyrate, jtj I see where your coming from with the statement they are just covering up for their incompetences but for the best I can see it almost seems like it was allowed to happen for various well known highly beneficial reasons.
Sort of like I think Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen.

1) The complete and utter failure of the Air Force to act in any sort of viable or visible way, due to "exercises" that just happened to be being run that exact day.

2) The fact that a few countries were practically screaming at us that something was about to happen and was more or less ignored.

3) Osama Bin Laden's past dealings with the CIA as an asset. And the fact they never really seemed all that serious about getting the guy.

4) I remember the Patriot Act as being something that was thought was never going to pass before 9/11.

5) And many more.

Sorry I didn't provide sources and will provide them tomorrow if you so wish. It's late and I am eager to at least make an attempt at pushing this thread back in the direction that was intended.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join