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 Debunk Discussion... Please Read

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Welcome fellow ATSers.

I would like to open this thread up for discussion to a youtube message I received earlier today in response to some comments I posted on this Youtube video.
You can find my comments on pages 2 and 3 right now.

fo694013 sent me a very interesting email in response to these comments and since I share almost everyhting with you guys, I would like to show you the email and open it up for discussion.
I will also be sending fo694013 an email asking him to join us in this discussion to answer any rebuttals and/or question.
Lets keep it civilized please, as he seems to be a very reasonable person, which is why he emailed me in the first place.

The email is on the following post.

-Odessy

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Odessy]




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   


odessy11,

First of all I would like to say that I am going to send you a message because 500 characters can't accurately explain the information I'm going to give you. My first impression of you from reading your comments was that you were a fairly reasonable person that is perhaps misguided (by Alex Jones maybe?) or otherwise uninformed (I'm not being mean, I was woefully uninformed 6 months ago). That's the only reason why I'm doing this.

Okay (cracks knuckles) I believe you are refering to a PBS documentary called "America Rebuilds" which aired in 2002. During the show there is a segment where Larry Sliverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, speaks about the events of the day. 9/11 conspiracy theorists (now to be refered to as CT or CTers) believe that Mr. Silverstein's use of the term "pull it" is a clear admission that WTC 7 was brought down using a controlled demolition. This, however, is completley untrue. This entire CT is based of the lie that to "pull" is a common term used when bringing buildings down by controlled demolition. In fact, "pull" is not a term used to define bringing a building down by explosives, but it is a term used when a demolition team literally pulls a building down using cable attached to cranes. This method is only used on short buildings (under 10 stories) that usually have been weakened or partially collapsed. This method was used in the demolition of WTC 6 weeks after the attacks during clean-up efforts.

Now onto what Mr. Silverstein meant by "pull." In the documentary Mr. Silverstein is refering to a call he received from FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro. Chief Nigro called at 3:00 pm on 9/11 to inform Mr Silverstein that they could not control the fires in WTC 7 and that the building was in danger of imminent collapse. Chief Nigro said that they were going to "pull" the contingent of firefighters and other personnel back three blocks from WTC 7 for safety reasons. Mr. Silverstein agreed that that was the smartest thing to do. He then says in the documentary that "THEY" made the decision to "pull" the firefighters out, they refering to Chief Nigro. Since he did not explain what he meant by "it" in the documentary, CT's assumed that he meant the building, not the firefighters. In 2005, Mr. Silverstein defined what he meant by "it" during the documentary. So,basically this is shoddy research (if any was conducted) and a quote taken out of context....that's all.

As for your claim that no other skscraper has fallen from fire alone, that is true. However, you must take into consideration the extreme circumstance that took place on 9/11. Another YouTuber made similiar claim and I sent him a message. I'm going to copy an paste what I sent him to save me typing it again



Message:

Yes, I know that conspiracy theorists like to claim that WTC's 1, 2, and 7 were the first buildings to collapse from fire alone. This claim in itself is ridiculous because no other building in the world has been hit with 200 ton bullets traveling 490 and 590 mph, rocked by explosions, had 15% of thier support columns severed, with others severely damaged and had thier fire insulation blown off, all before the fires even began to take thier toll. For WTC 7, no other building has had the full wieght of 47 stories on its supports after having the lower 10 floors scooped out 25% into the depth of the building by falling debris and its fires left to burn for 7 hours. Most high rises also have a concrete inner core or concrete encased outer columns or both. The WTC had niether. Conspiracy theorists can ignore these factors all they want, but everything from the fires to gravity, basically, the laws of physics didn't. Regardless of these facts, there are other example of steel-frame buildings/structures collapsing from fire alone, without even a plane hitting them.

In April 2007, section of Interstate 580 collapsed from prolonged exposure to fire.

In 1997, 3 four story buildings at the Kader Toy Factory in Singapore caught fire. All three collapsed from fire alone in under 2 hours.

Dogwood Elementary School in Virginia caught fire in 2000, resulting in much of the steel framed sections to start collapsing in less than 21 minutes.

In 2005, fires broke out on the steel-framed Mumbai High North Platform causing it to completley collapse in 2 hours.

In 2005, the 32 story Windsor Building in Madrid caught fire. Although only the top 11 floors (minus the concrete inner floor) were comprised of a steel-framed structure, all 11 floors collapsed from fire alone.

I could keep going. All of these happened within the last ten years (except the toy factory in Singapore). So to say that the WTC buildings were the only steel-framed buildings in history to fall from fire (they did not, it was a combo of the plane impacts/fire) is ridiculous. As for the firefighters, I cannot say why they weren't fighting the fires, but I can make a logical guess. They were more than likely concerned with the rescue of the people in the upper floors of the WTC towers. According to eyewitness, some firefighters did fight the fires, but those tasks were scrapped in favor of rescue attempts and in the case of WTC 7, because of low water pressure and fears of building collapse. I think just the immensity of the disaster overwhelmed the emergency services.

End of Message


Finally, you say that an Air Force bomber hit the Empire State Building in the 50's. I think you are refering to a B-25 bomber that struck the Empire State Building in 1945. However, you must realize that a 767 weighs 10 times as much a B-25. The 767's on 9/11 were also traveling twice as fast (490 and 590 mph) as the top speed of a B-25 (230 mph). Using the formula to figure out the kinetic energy of an object you come to the conclusion that the 767's struck the WTC's with well over 40 times the energy of the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building. A B-25 is 51' long with a wingspan of 67'. A 767 is 159' long with a wingspan of 156'. The 767's struck the 55% glass and 45% steel exterior of the WTC towers creating a gash 156' across. The B-25 struck the concrete exterior of the Empire State Bld creating a gash 18' across (that's right the Pentagon wasn't the first time in history that a plane created a hole less than the full length of its wingspan). Most importantly the B-25 was low on fuel and created only small fires which burned out after only 35 minutes (remember the WTC towers only collapsed after burning intensely for 56 and 102 minutes respectivley).

In closing (I feel like I just wrote a term paper), I just hope that I have helped you. 6 months ago I was convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. However, I made the mistake of only watching "Loose Change" and "Zeitgiest." Then I started listening to Alex Jones. After doing some of my own research I began to realize how Dylan Avery (maker of Loose Change) and Alex Jones are frauds. They have blatantly lied and misled people to cash in on the conspiracy craze. Most CT's can either be easily explained or are so unlikely that they are laughable, but cannot be proven one way or another (example: media foreknowledge of 9/11). I think most CTer's believe that 9/11 was an inside job and try to find evidence to prove themselves right. However, this is not how hypothesis's are proven. You must come up with a theory and try to find evidence proving it wrong. This is how the scientific method works. Please, just look into 9/11 beyond these phonies. If you wish I can send you links to where I have obtained all the information I have given you. If you have any more questions I would be happy to steer you in the right direction. Debunking 9/11 CT's has become something of a hobby for me


Take care and God Bless,

fo694013



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
One unanswered question I would like to open up is the passport of the supposed terrorists they found, in all the debris of the WTCs.
How could the passport possibly have survived?
How are some of these hijackers still alive? or is that part a lie?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Please send me his e-mail adress so i can send him a nice meassgae back about how wrong he is about the "PULL IT" thing.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Originally posted by Odessy
One unanswered question I would like to open up is the passport of the supposed terrorists they found, in all the debris of the WTCs.
How could the passport possibly have survived?
How are some of these hijackers still alive? or is that part a lie?

To tell you the truth, I can't explain the discovery of the hijacker's passports in the debris of the WTC towers
Logically, it does not make sense that the passports would survive. Could they have been planted by the FBI as evidence? Yes. Could it just be a shocking coincidence? Yes. Who knows?


As for the hijackers still being alive, I do have a theory about that.
This theory is not one of the pillars of the 9/11 conspiracist belief system, but more often it's thrown in as an afterthought--"Oh, yeah, in addition to everything else, the hijackers are still alive." Usually the people who throw it out there (the claim is made by the Loose Change people, by Alex Jones on his infamous Prisonplanet.org site, www.truth911.net, www.911lies.org, and others) include it as an "oh, by the way" that usually comes at the end of a lengthy dissertation about the most popular theories (contolled demo etc.)

Most of the conspiracy websites cite a single source for this theory: a BBC report dating from September 23, 2001, citing confusion in the initial stages of the FBI investigation of the hijackers' identity. That original report is still preserved on the web and you can find an example of it here: www.prisonplanet.com...

However, there's a curious thing about this report. Not only has it never been corroborated, but in at least two cases it is clearly dealing with cases of mistaken identity. Take Abdelaziz Al-Amari, for instance, who is pictured in the BBC report. Not only does the picture of Al-Amari in the BBC report not even remotely resemble the Abdelaziz Al-Amari named and pictured in the 9/11 Commission Report, but the report very plainly states that there are at least two men with the name "Abdelaziz Al-Amari" who have nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Could it be that "Abdelaziz Al-Amari" is a name that more than one person in the Arab world happens to have?

Let's take another name listed in the report, Khalid Al-Midhar. The report shows a picture of a man purportedly with that name and says, "there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive." No sources, no corroboration, nothing. And the man pictured bears no resemblance to the Khalid Al Midhar who is accused of hijacking American Airlines Flight 77.

As for Walid Al-Shehri, the hijacker prominently pictured at the head of the story, there is no legitimate question that he is dead and that the BBC report was simply talking about a different person with the same name. More info here:
www.911myths.com...

Since this single BBC report came out more than 7 years ago, I have found absolutely no additional news reports following up on the "mistaken identity" claim. Indeed, the only other "hijackers are still alive" claim that derives from anything other than this single BBC story, is this one, an AP report detailing an interview with hijacker Mohammed Atta's father--who never once claims that he has seen his son since 9/11/01, merely that he doesn't believe he would do anything like that.

Don't you think it's a little odd that the entire "hijackers are still alive" claim derives from one unreliable press report, which came days after 9/11 while the investigation was still going on? Furthermore, if these people were framed , don't you think they would have come forward by now? I know I would be attempting to clear my name. I think this CT is a bit of a stretch to be legitimate. I just want to remind everyone that this is just my opinion. Hope this helps



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
ULTIMA1,

I dont need to give you his email (which I wouldn't do anyway), he is joining us in the the discussion.
His account name is fo694013.

 


fo694013,
Thanks for joining us, and for your thoughts on the whole situation, I know its slow right now, but I'm positive you will be asked a lot of questions soon enough.
Thanks again.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Am I under the impression that no 9/11 Truthers want to give their opinions on to why you think 9/11 was an inside job???
We have an entire forum dedicated to this subject and a willing ex-Truther willing to share his knowledge and try to de-bunk our claims...
I think this is the perfect opportunity to test our knowledge...



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Well fo694013,

I think that maybe you've convinced everyone here at ATS.
No one has anything to say.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Odessy
 



I think that maybe you've convinced everyone here at ATS.
No one has anything to say.


fo694013's message reminded me of that funny satirical play "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You".

It would be better if this person were to jump into any number of threads discussing the points he/she mentions. Most of them, if not all of them have been the subject of exhaustive discussion both pro and con.

Why would anybody want to rehash it all here for Sister Mary?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please send me his e-mail adress so i can send him a nice meassgae back about how wrong he is about the "PULL IT" thing.



im just very curious here ultima. is your contention that "pull it" IS a demo term based on reading stuff online OR have you spoken to a number of people who are in the industry who are willing to go on the record as saying that "oh yeah, we use the term 'pull it' all the time in reference to dropping a building with HE"?

just looking for some clarification, cuz in the Army demo jobs, if someone says "pull it" in reference to setting off HE its in reference to pulling the little ring on the time fuse igniter, but not as a generic term for all demo shots. we prefer "fire in the hole" (even when there is not actual hole) lol



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 



Dude we have been thru this a million times..

We know what it means..

Silverstein stated "Pull it" Which some say destroy the building. others say pull out.. wtf where they pulling out? Dead carcasses??

Really the fire fighters where out of 7 before he said Pull it....

That is all..

And the term is used in demo for bringing a building down.. You can search youtube for someone who called Controlled demo and asked them what "Pull It" meant.. they stated it means to bring it down..

::EDIT::

reply to post by Odessy
 


Or nobody gives a crap to answer cause its been talked about a million times.

::EDIT END::

And the rest of this crap has been talked about a million times. Try a search and join the discussions there.


[edit on 6/27/2008 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
why ThichHeaded, you sound so hostile.
not everyone knows everything you do, not everyone has chilled in the 9/11 forums for as long as you, not everyone has read everything as much as you...
you are just THAT good!

Do a search on ATS?
have you tried it?
You come up with all sorts of things.

besides, now that fo694013 has joined us, i wanted this thread to me more like a Q&A with rebutles...

instead of getting so snippy, why dont you educate me?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
im just very curious here ultima. is your contention that "pull it" IS a demo term based on reading stuff online OR have you spoken to a number of people who are in the industry who are willing to go on the record as saying that "oh yeah, we use the term 'pull it' all the time in reference to dropping a building with HE"?


1. We have the statement from the fire chief that he evacuated the firemen early in the day BEFORE the phone call. So the "PULL IT" comment could not have meant to PULL the firemen.

2. The term "PULL IT" means to bring down a building. It does not mean it has to be with "HE".



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
why ThichHeaded, you sound so hostile.
not everyone knows everything you do, not everyone has chilled in the 9/11 forums for as long as you, not everyone has read everything as much as you...


Maybe people should do research before posting something that they do not know much about.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Please stick to the topic of the thread. 9/11 Debunk Discussion... Please Read
Remember Courtesy Is Mandatory

Thank you,


[edit on 27/6/2008 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Perhaps you can explain to me why the footage taken from the hotel and service station, as well as the other cameras at the pentagon was witheld from us the public?

For someone to flip flop on the 911 crime, well it doesn't add up to me. I can understand a disbeliever flipping to believe the conspiracy it was. But I( cannot for the life of me get a believer flipping to the official story).

Perhaps this is case in point of disinformation being used to convert someone from belief 911 was an inside job to not.

I'd like to know if in your heart everything about what you have been told about 911 still sits right with you, because if only a small part of you smells it as a conspiracy, then you should investigate that.

If you watched Zeitgeist, surely you cannot dismiss the 3rd part about the NWO and how they have used 911 to take away your countries freedom step by step?

Love beats, raise your vibrational frequency! Yeah!

Z



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I'm not in to 911 a great deal - but when the owner of a building says ''pull it'' and a 47 story building collapses into its footprint the same day - there is something strange there.

I'm not in to 911 a great deal - but when the chief firefighter says ''pull it'' (or advises his men out due to fire) and a 47 story building collapses into its footprint the same day - there is something strange there.

I'm not in to 911 a great deal - but when a Larry Silverstein purchases the lease for the WTC over Vornado Realty, even though VR bid 50 million more and were adjudged to have won the 99 year lease, VR pulled out at the last minute (7 weeks prior to 911) and LS got the contract (with separate terrorism incidents insurance cover), I would be happy to argue that something was strange there.
Larry Silverstein

My thoughts.

Breifne.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Maybe people should do research before posting something that they do not know much about.


Seriously?
I know A LOT on the subject, I just haven't visited EVERY thread on ATS answering EVERY question I have...

I honestly can't believe your going to tell me how to act...
when did the 9/11 forums become so aggressive?
you guys need to chill out a little bit, lets work together, who cares if you have to reiterate a point?
if you dont feel like reiterating, then post a link, post something useful, dont criticize another member.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
if you dont feel like reiterating, then post a link, post something useful, dont criticize another member.


Thats very funny, since that exactly what most of the beleivers do.

They do not post links and they criticize everyone that does not agree with them, maybe others are getting tired of the way the believers are acting.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Thats very funny, since that exactly what most of the beleivers do.

They do not post links and they criticize everyone that does not agree with them, maybe others are getting tired of the way the believers are acting.





... I'm not a believer... but I'm not sure what you mean by believer?
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE GOVT STORY ABOUT 9/11

is that clear enough for you?
if you check my messages on youtube, which i provided a link for in the OP, you would know that.

omg, do you feel smarter for trying to degrade people online?
way to not make people feel invited.
way to make people NOT listen to you.

 


I just found this little video about building 7 and the term "pull" for demolitions.
fo694013, you said that,


In fact, "pull" is not a term used to define bringing a building down by explosives, but it is a term used when a demolition team literally pulls a building down using cable attached to cranes. This method is only used on short buildings (under 10 stories) that usually have been weakened or partially collapsed.


But, please refer to 2:50 in this video:

The construction crew clearly states that they are pulling WTC 6

EDIT TO ADD:
after watching the video again, the building does seem to be already weakened and under 10 floors, so we definitely need something solid to see what the term "pull" means.
either way, the other facts, besides that term alone, still seem fishy

and, apparently firefighters left the building at 11am, the building did not collapse for another 6 hours, so he couldnt have been referring to the firefighters.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by Odessy]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join