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: 16
2
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


To be honest with you jtj I expect nothing less.
Especially from this individual. As I have dealt with him in the past.
It shows in the fact I am not flinging such infantile insults to cover my position.

Not to mention the fact that the statement is enormously FALSE.
The "truther"s on this board call anyone who does not agree with them sheeple or just plain stupid as common practice.

Yet I have repeatedly said I think there is room for doubt on the government's actions.
Just not for the collapses of the buildings themselves.

And if they can't even get my stance right and through their heads. Well you can guess.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]




posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Oh and Griff.
Go here about your FALSE claims about the Titanic.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 12-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   
But I brought up earlier how I think the collapse may have been helped by poor construction as well as possibly some engineering faux pas, but passable should one relax standards. Here are some historic other examples.
The Tacoma Narrow's Bridge
I35W Mississippi River Bridge
The Sunshine Skyway Bridge
And I would imagine this one was designed to take a collision. Rather short sighted of them if they did not.
Sampoong Department Store Collapse
Due to poor construction and design.
Different I think in that the US government as slightly more oversight on US buildings particularly ones in NYC I would imagine. Also considering NYC is one of the US's primary cities, I would imagine that any failure or screw up has some nasty implications for at least a few people with some power and a lot to lose should such knowledge get out like this.
Hyatt Regency walkway collapse
Also poor design and implementation. But this one passed a government inspection none the less.

There are many more. Shall I post them?
So tell me again why we should trust implicantly in claims about the Twin Towers?

[edit on 12-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
But I brought up earlier how I think the collapse may have been helped by poor construction as well as possibly some engineering faux pas


Collapse? What collapse?

WTC-1 and 2 were turned into dust (mushroom) clouds. WTC-7 had its mass imploded away. And the entire center mass of WTC-6 was displaced into nothing leaving a giant circular hole of emptyness.

Shoddy construction doesn't cause 'things' to disappear.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
That is a good point Wizard, I was just going to start a thread about that. The towers did not collapse, by definition. Collapse implies fall, falling does not blow concrete and steel beems into nearby buildings. www.truememes.com...

NIST Avoids the Big Question



The official theories have all been based on the a priori assumption that the Towers "fell", so the NIST investigation was left only with the task of trying to explain how each building became "poised for collapse". I've been amazed that they have been able to get away with such an egregious example of cart-before-the-horse analysis. Before jumping ahead to formulate hypotheses for "collapse initiation", they first must prove that the Towers DID indeed collapse! But since this has already been pre-established by category placement, few seem to notice that they have "overlooked" this step.



Unfortunately, whenever anyone talks about how the Towers "collapsed" or why they "fell", they are unwittingly (or wittingly) giving credence to these unproven assumptions and are perpetuating the incorrect categorization of these events. The directors of the NIST investigation would no doubt prefer that we all join them in their assumption that the Towers "collapsed", but this is, in fact, the crux of the matter and the REAL question. I therefore believe that we should not allow our choice of language to obscure this point.



The NIST report tells how the towers' global collapses initiated, but I don't recall anybody ever showing/proving that the towers DID collapse. NIST seems to have assumed the towers collapsed and based their report and fitting of evidence on that assumption.
And you know what they say about assumptions, assuming is the the mother of all f...ups.
A report based upon assumptions, is just well, another assumption.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Visual evidence shows that they did in in fact collapse. Your digging deep into the semantics bag now.

The crux of the issue is whether or not explosives were used to MAKE them collapse. I don't think they (explosives) were and others agree with me. Others disagree with me and still other agree with them. Because regardless of how they came to be in the state that caused them to collapse it was STILL a collapse.


Unless you believe that was a hologram as some do about the planesl, but then I would have to wonder if men in white lab coats and padded rooms were in your future.


[edit on 12-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Visual evidence is precisely what proves that the four WTC buildings (1,2,6 and 7) DIDN'T collapse but were somehow annihilated through other means.

Too much of the construction materials were simply no longer there at the end of their 'destruction process'. This leaves only one possible explanation for where all the steel, concrete, glass and evething else inside those huge buildings went -- into the dust clouds covering Manhattan.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Which visual evidence shows a collapse? All I ever see is a huge cloud of dust and debris going everywhere.
Which one is a collapse and which is an explosion?





Some good physics on the collapse:
www.truememes.com...

Also, if you haven't done it yet, please read LaBtop's thesis on the seismographs from 9/11. Don't think anyone has tried to debunk it yet and it makes for an interesting read.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 



A cloud of dust and debris is expected.
That is what puzzles me. Why does anyone expect otherwise and feel that points to CD?



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Why is concrete turning to dust and steel being ejected laterally and vertically to be expected from a fall? Can you provide any expamples, visuals to back this up? Every building collapse I have found has an intact building, or at least sections of intact building, none turn to dust and have beams ejecting hundreds of yards away.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Thats not all concrete dust.
As for the 100 feet, prove it.


Every building collapse I have found has an intact building, or at least sections of intact building,


Show me the ones you have found.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
You go first, you made the claim that visual evidence shows collapse.
www.truememes.com... Has a couple examples about half way down the page. Feel free to read the whole thing, makes a good read.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Here, this should make it easy. Spot the collapse:






posted on May, 12 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


How are these anything like the Twin Towers beyond also being buildings that are probly no longer in existence?
You have to do better than this if your going to convince me.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
You are right, they aren't anything like the twin towers because these buildings collapsed, the towers didn't. I am not trying to convince you, though. You are the one who stated the towers collapsed with out providing evidence. How can you prove the towers were not brought down by cd if you can't even show they collapsed?



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I think my comments will withstand your scrutiny.


What comments? Are you talking about the lies you post or the insults?



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Exactly.
I have noticed that when people start pulling out the insults and chest puffing is generally when they are trying to cover a gap.


WOW, that really does sound like the people that still believe the official story.

I mean since their is such large gaps in the official story.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
But I brought up earlier how I think the collapse may have been helped by poor construction as well as possibly some engineering faux pas, but passable should one relax standards.

I work in the construction field and am a licensed builder. Most of my work involves repair of homes and condominiums. I see code violations constantly on both that NEVER should have passed inspection yet somehow did. From my experience there are a few different reasons for this:
1. The inspector knows the builder so they slap the sticker on based only on the builders word everything is ok.
2. The inspector phones it in. See reason 1 for details.
3. The inspector receives monetary compensation for adjusting his inspection to be favorable to the builder (in other words, he lies for money


In the last year I've inspected approx 200 condos and none of them have been to code especially when it comes to fire ratings with attached garages. My point is that poor construction takes place a lot more often then people think and inspectors don't necessarily prevent it. So would I be surprised to hear the WTC's were built poorly? Absolutely not !


Good post by the way !!!



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 



A cloud of dust and debris is expected.
That is what puzzles me. Why does anyone expect otherwise and feel that points to CD?


Because it's more fun to believe that CD, holographic planes, anti-matter bombs, nuclear bombs, directed energy weapons, etc... were involved.


[edit on 12-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Ok.
You lack proof and expect me to believe you when you are just twisting semantics.
Rrrrrriiiigggghhhhhttttttt.
Like I said earlier.
It did collapse.
The difference is the fact that we differ on opinions, I think it caused by accident after the intentional ramming of buildings into it, you think it was caused on purpose.



col·lapse Audio Help /kəˈlæps/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-laps] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -lapsed, -laps·ing, noun
–verb (used without object)
1. to fall or cave in; crumble suddenly: The roof collapsed and buried the crowd.
2. to be made so that sections or parts can be folded up, as for convenient storage: This bridge table collapses.
3. to break down; come to nothing; fail: Despite all their efforts the peace talks collapsed.
4. to fall unconscious or as if unconscious or physically depleted, as from a stroke, heart attack, disease, or exhaustion.
5. Pathology.
a. to sink into extreme weakness.
b. (of lungs) to come into an airless state.
–verb (used with object)
6. to cause to collapse: He collapsed the table easily.
–noun
7. a falling in or together: Three miners were trapped by the collapse of the tunnel roof.
8. a sudden, complete failure; breakdown: The bribery scandal brought about the complete collapse of his industrial empire.

Source: Collapse definition @ dictionary.com



[edit on 12-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]




top topics



 
2
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join