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.

 

Experts: 'Explosives Did Not Destroy Skyscraper in Sept. 11 Attack'

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Spider_117
 


Interesting. I have a certification in Drafting technology from the University of Alaska.. But they never showed us anything like that.. Where are you taking your coarse? I ran my own business for a while (freelance) and still sometimes do jobs on the side. But right now I'm working full-time on a military installation as a contractor.. There's money to be made in drafting. And I noticed alot of it is making a good name for yourself.

-ChriS




posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
There was no 2 minute delay. But you won't address that having been called on it.

Instead, to point out a spelling error. Incredibly juvenile.


Really? I think believing outlandish theories with no evidence is rather "juvenile" myself. As for the two minutes comment, I didn't have my stop watch at the time, but you know when you're in the middle of that it feels like eternity. But the towers did start to get what I would call "top heavy," I could be wrong in this regard, but from my recollection the towers did have a crumbling effect towards the top of the towers before giving way fully. Perhaps I'm thinking of the tower not falling completely in a downward motion, and the tops of the towers having a "toppling" effect.


Originally posted by GhostR1der
reply to post by yellowcard
 


Are you for real? I'm training to be a commercial pilot. In these things called planes that I fly around in we have these things called radios which are MANDATORY. The plane would be not legally in the air without one as you MUST have clearance to taxi, let alone take off one of those things at a controlled aerodrome.

Let alone the rest of the techno gizmos they'd have in airforce one..

What disinfo hole did you crawl out of? Go back into it... damn.


Communications with the "tower" and communication with the White House are two seperate things.

"After departing the Booker Elementary School, President Bush experiences problems trying to communicate with the White House. On his way to Air Force One, he is unable to get a secure phone line to Dick Cheney, and has to rely instead on using a borrowed cell phone. According to the CBC, even this cell phone doesn’t work. Lee Hamilton, vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, claims the difficulty is because the members of Bush’s entourage, all suddenly trying to call Washington, create a “communication jam.” [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; New York Times, 6/18/2004; Observer, 6/20/2004; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 9/10/2006] Yet after boarding Air Force One the problems continue, despite the plane’s elaborate communications equipment. Bush will later tell the 9/11 Commission “that he was deeply dissatisfied with the ability to communicate from Air Force One,” and that “this was a very major flaw.” Thomas Kean, chair of the Commission, says Bush’s inability to communicate with the White House is “scary on both sides because the president is the only one who can give certain orders that need to be given.” [NBC, 4/4/2004; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 9/10/2006] Some time before 11:45 a.m., Bush’s senior adviser Karen Hughes tries calling him through the White House switchboard. In a shaky voice, the operator tells her, “Ma’am, we can’t reach Air Force One.” Hughes is very frightened as, she says, “I never had that happen before.” [Washington Post, 1/27/2002; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 9/10/2006]"

Why would Bush lie about communications when he knew that Cheney had given an illegal order...that's a much more legitimate question than asking if it were an inside job...a bigger question would be like "Why did Cheney not want Bush to have access to his executive power during 9/11? and why did Cheney give a shoot down order unlawfully?", ANYHOW, why would we have phone records that show that Air Force one couldn't be reached by the White House?


Originally posted by MaynardisGod
wow you my friend are sad, every legit architect and engineer in this country will tell you how foolish you are, its impossible for fire to melt steel, why the hell do you think the military uses thermite to cut through steel? because ITS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. You need 2600 plus degrees to melt or even "weaken" steel, anything below 1500 is completely harmless to Steel Girders/Pilars.

"New pheonomenon" or "the only excuse we can think of in order to try and shut up the massive 9/11 truth movement."

For everyone who still doesn't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, I will not feel sorry for you when you realize in the next few years that was an inside job, you should and you WILL feel like the worst and most ignorant person in the world when you realize you were tricked by the powers that be

Why was the patriot Act ALREADY written before 9/11, and passed within weeks of the attack? Pretty obvious

Wait till the 9/11 cyber attack, we already had a 9/11 internet patriot act written, just need a big event to make it pass through our congress


Really? Every "legit" architect and engineer? Haha, that's the funniest thing I've heard all day
The Patriot Act (which is a blatantly Unconstitutional Act) was not written before 9/11 the ideas of it existed before 9/11 but no such bill existed prior, the ideas stemmed from prior terrorist attacks (such as the bombing of the WTC). It's so funny when people with no expertise claim they have expertise or cite people with no expertise...it's always hilarious. The same people said there were two bombs in Oklahoma City, and were proved wrong by scale tests and scientific analysis.


I have said this before, there may have been people who knew and profited from this, but I guarantee it was not a government act. Did Cheney have an underlying motive? It's possible...and 9/11 was definitely exploited...but the actual event is quite obvious... that 9/11 was a bunch of pissed off Middle Easterners, because we were on their land, enforcing our rules, and breaking theirs....and guess what... we still are. 9/11 was a result of our stupid foreign policy, and lack of cultural understanding...not some government cover up. I'm sure there will be more attacks because of what this administration has done in the Middle East, we have bred a new generation of terrorist by our own fighting. It is reasons like that, that made me support Ron Paul for President, among other things.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by yellowcard]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard

I have said this before, there may have been people who knew and profited from this, but I guarantee it was not a government act. Did Cheney have an underlying motive? It's possible...and 9/11 was definitely exploited...but the actual event is quite obvious... that 9/11 was a bunch of pissed off Middle Easterners, because we were on their land, enforcing our rules, and breaking theirs....and guess what... we still are. 9/11 was a result of our stupid foreign policy, and lack of cultural understanding...not some government cover up. I'm sure there will be more attacks because of what this administration has done in the Middle East, we have bred a new generation of terrorist by our own fighting. It is reasons like that, that made me support Ron Paul for President, among other things.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by yellowcard]


interesting. all this time i thought that the US was a great millitary superpower. but apparently quite vulnerable to angry cult members from the other side of the planet. not a nation, not a millitary force, not a superpower, not an economic giant...some angry arabs. well hell, if they can do all that damage against us so easily, we are in a lot of trouble if say a whole country decides to hate us.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Just for discussion. I found it quite interesting the reporter saying wtc7 had fallen while it was clearly visible over her left shoulder. And Silversteins 'pull it' a dead ringer.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by hikix
 


Proof? I don't see proof anywhere. People believing without experience are fools of proof, eventually fooled by something. Don't trust the orthodox, use your own intuition if you have any! Anyway, no matter if the spinklers worked or not, steel buildings do not collapse on fire and little structural damage. Especially those steel buildings that have been designed to withstand.

All the best,

-v

[edit on 23-8-2008 by v01i0]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by re22666

interesting. all this time i thought that the US was a great millitary superpower. but apparently quite vulnerable to angry cult members from the other side of the planet. not a nation, not a millitary force, not a superpower, not an economic giant...some angry arabs. well hell, if they can do all that damage against us so easily, we are in a lot of trouble if say a whole country decides to hate us.


Well, when you grow up and decide to face the real issues and faults in our foreign policy instead of making stuff up...well, then we can begin to heal America, until then...and until we take a stand against the idiots in Washington...we will continue to be attacked by "angry arabs." I guess it takes a military force to hijack jets...I guess it takes a military force to suicide bomb...I guess it takes a massive military force to tie us down in Iraq and Afghanistan
. How can you be so ignorant as to ignore so many things that are a result of our policies. If someone was occupying the U.S...wouldn't you be pretty mad? And wouldn't you try to hit them as hard as you could...I think the answer to that question is more than obvious...and why do you keep getting starred for un-insightful posts? That bothers me, that people are so blind that they support a thoughtful circle jerk. The government isn't bringing down America, the people are bringing down America. It's salvageable, you just need to stop living in la la land.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by yellowcard]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard

Originally posted by re22666

interesting. all this time i thought that the US was a great millitary superpower. but apparently quite vulnerable to angry cult members from the other side of the planet. not a nation, not a millitary force, not a superpower, not an economic giant...some angry arabs. well hell, if they can do all that damage against us so easily, we are in a lot of trouble if say a whole country decides to hate us.


Well, when you grow up and decide to face the real issues and faults in our foreign policy instead of making stuff up...well, then we can begin to heal America, until then...and until we take a stand against the idiots in Washington...we will continue to be attacked by "angry arabs." I guess it takes a military force to hijack jets...I guess it takes a military force to suicide bomb...I guess it takes a massive military force to tie us down in Iraq and Afghanistan
. How can you be so ignorant as to ignore so many things that are a result of our policies. If someone was occupying the U.S...wouldn't you be pretty mad? And wouldn't you try to hit them as hard as you could...I think the answer to that question is more than obvious...and why do you keep getting starred for un-insightful posts? That bothers me, that people are so blind that they support a thoughtful circle jerk. The government isn't bringing down America, the people are bringing down America. It's salvageable, you just need to stop living in la la land.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by yellowcard]


i guess the reason i get starred is because i do not completely contradict my own point in one single post.
first of all, yes i do think it should take much more than 19 guys with boxcutters to get inside our country, kill 3000 citizens and take down 3 buildings, as well as attack another. i think that this country brags of it's military might to the point where anyone should be skeptical either of
-that military might
-the story that it can be so easily penetrated.

more to your point.
you say it is perfectly plausible that it happend that way because they would have good reason due to our foreign policy right?
i do not disagree at all. i believe our policies have made some passionate and powerful enemies.
so those policies made people hate us so much that they came here and did that to us?
am i following you so far?

then you say it is not the US government that is taking this country down, it is the people.

what? i dont write foreign policy. do you? my neighbors dont, my friends dont. who is in charge of foreign policy? hmmmm who made those hijackers so mad that they came here with razor blades and killed over 3000 people? i am pretty sure that is the government.

so if i am right, it is the governments fault.
if you are right, according to your explanation, it is actually still the governments fault.
unless you think we all collectively dictated foreign policy and the government is sitting back in shock that we can override them and go piss off arabs all on our own.

[edit on 8/23/2008 by re22666]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by re22666
i guess the reason i get starred is because i do not completely contradict my own point in one single post.
first of all, yes i do think it should take much more than 19 guys with boxcutters to get inside our country, kill 3000 citizens and take down 3 buildings, as well as attack another. i think that this country brags of it's military might to the point where anyone should be skeptical either of
-that military might
-the story that it can be so easily penetrated.

more to your point.
you say it is perfectly plausible that it happend that way because they would have good reason due to our foreign policy right?
i do not disagree at all. i believe our policies have made some passionate and powerful enemies.
so those policies made people hate us so much that they came here and did that to us?
am i following you so far?

then you say it is not the US government that is taking this country down, it is the people.

what? i dont write foreign policy. do you? my neighbors dont, my friends dont. who is in charge of foreign policy? hmmmm who made those hijackers so mad that they came here with razor blades and killed over 3000 people? i am pretty sure that is the government.

so if i am right, it is the governments fault.
if you are right, according to your explanation, it is actually still the governments fault.
unless you think we all collectively dictated foreign policy and the government is sitting back in shock that we can override them and go piss off arabs all on our own.

[edit on 8/23/2008 by re22666]


The people elect the government officials
Bush re-elected...Clinton re-elected...Ron Paul ignored by the people, Obama's rhetoric eaten up by the masses, McCain represents the Republican Party even though he has no Republican values...so are you trying to tell me that people in our county don't need to take responsibility for their own actions? Isn't THAT contradictory? Isn't the very idea of the expansion of government BECAUSE people don't want to take responsibility?

To say the someone with some box cutters couldn't hijack a plane is pretty ignorant. That would have to assume that the people on the plane knew they were going to slam the planes into buildings...that would have to assume that the people on the plane knew the full scale of the attack...that would have to assume that people had no fear of their lives, because they were outnumbered...no, the people on the plane (excluding 97) thought they were going to be held hostage, and if they cooperated they would come out alive. Were it two people per plane...then you'd have a case...but it was a high enough ratio on the plane vs passengers to take control. If a group of 5 tried to rob a bank with knives...do you think they would succeed? I have no doubt in my mind they would...

[edit on 23-8-2008 by yellowcard]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidMirage

Originally posted by yellowcard
I don't this will keep "truthers" from making things up with false science...there was enough proof already, but this will be buried I'm sure...


Stop calling them "truthers"! They are liars! Agenda driven liars and not a damn thing else!


iv'e got my fingers crossed you dont have a rack detonation any time soon



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Fire in a skyscraper in Venuzuela burned for 17 Hours.




Fire WTC 7 after just 6 hours btw as you see there really isnt much of a fire




Even fixed news says this is the first time in the world a skyscraper has failed due to fire. The fact is THREE skyscrapers failed because of fire 3/3 not to mention. So what our government is telling me that our construction is not up to par with countries like venuzuela, spain, ukraine, or south Africa? Im not a smart man but I can show you 15 skyscrapers all on HEAVY fire that do not collapse like all three WTC. Im sorry Im not buying it.

Yellowcard sorry man this is a government agency do you really feel they would come out and tell us hey the government did this or allowed this? No it would be like the SS going on TV in the 40s and telling everyone they were exterminating Jews. Im not what you call a "truther" but I do not buy all government propaganda that is fed to me and right now there are some real gaps in the evidence the government has given us or lack there of.


To say the government doesnt lie or we should trust what they have to say is quite comical. The fact is they have lied several times before so they have lost my trust. This is why big government does not work. Hell we have a government to this day coming out and saying we have very little inflation and that we are NOT in a recession. Yeah I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
Fire in a skyscraper in Venuzuela burned for 17 Hours.

Even fixed news says this is the first time in the world a skyscraper has failed due to fire. The fact is THREE skyscrapers failed because of fire 3/3 not to mention. So what our government is telling me that our construction is not up to par with countries like venuzuela, spain, ukraine, or south Africa? Im not a smart man but I can show you 15 skyscrapers all on HEAVY fire that do not collapse like all three WTC. Im sorry Im not buying it.
[edit on 23-8-2008 by mybigunit]


That's flawed logic, those fires weren't caused by a massive jet slamming into the sides of them. The landing gear of those jets are incredibly strong, that and jet fuel shot down the elevators. People on the ground floor elevator came out of the elevator on fire...You can't compare a fire caused by an electrical spark to a fire started by a jet with nearly a full tank of jet fuel and landing gear that could easily slice through support structures because of it's velocity. C'mon mybigunit I know you can see the stark differences between those two events, it's not even comparable. There are are missing parts of the 9/11 puzzle, but they exist because of our government's incompetence. No one wants to take the blame for one of the worst disasters on American soil, in history. You know how Washington is...no one is held accountable...and that's exactly why the 9/11 Commission report got nearly nothing done in holding anyone responsible...it's just government bureaucracy.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by yellowcard]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard
If someone was occupying the U.S...wouldn't you be pretty mad? And wouldn't you try to hit them as hard as you could...I think the answer to that question is more than obvious


The U.S. was not occupying the countries that the U.S. has blamed the WTC scenario as stemming from.

Sad thing is, your scheme to turn this away from WTC into politics seems to have worked.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by yellowcard
If someone was occupying the U.S...wouldn't you be pretty mad? And wouldn't you try to hit them as hard as you could...I think the answer to that question is more than obvious


The U.S. was not occupying the countries that the U.S. has blamed the WTC scenario as stemming from.

Sad thing is, your scheme to turn this away from WTC into politics seems to have worked.


Are you kidding? Osama Bin Laden openly said he did not like us on Saudi soul, and during the Kuwaiti invasion the Saudis picked the American army over Osama's protective services...Saudi Arabia is home of the most holy monument in all of Islam. Get your facts right. We attacked Afghanistan because they were housing Osama. We invaded Iraq because our government is stupid. 9/11 was caused by our policies, that is hardly turning anything away from the WTC, it's confronting the very cause.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by yellowcard]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 



Flawed logic is thinking a plane hit wtc7


just wanted to point that out lol


[edit on 23-8-2008 by TaZCoN]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by yellowcard
If someone was occupying the U.S...wouldn't you be pretty mad? And wouldn't you try to hit them as hard as you could...I think the answer to that question is more than obvious


The U.S. was not occupying the countries that the U.S. has blamed the WTC scenario as stemming from.

Sad thing is, your scheme to turn this away from WTC into politics seems to have worked.


Actually we have bases in ALL the countries that the people came from. You might want to recheck that. On top of this the intelligence meddling in the middle east like overthrowing elected foreign governments and killing off important people does not make us look good.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 


There wasnt a plane that hit WTC7 keep that in mind. Also if the government took some responsibility and put all the info out there instead of dodging and weaving there may not be as strong of a movement I agree. Im part of no movement I like you feel that our policies over seas have caused us to face what we have faced BUT that still does not mean there isnt some real inconsistencies and a lack of evidence in the 9/11 report and the newest report just released. Like I pointed out earlier I dont trust the government AT ALL. They have lied way to many times in the past 60 years and there is a TON of money being made right now because of 9/11 and like the ole sain goes..."follow the money"



[edit on 23-8-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
Actually we have bases in ALL the countries that the people came from.


I see a big difference between "having bases in all countries" and "occupation of a country".

Not to disagree with your premise of intention, I am all over ATS posting about "what if we DID just get out of those countries, which is what the extremists (and civilians) have screamed for?"

[edit on 23/8/08 by Misfit]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
The fact is Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was a creation of our own CIA, so to say that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were po at the U.S. is irrelevant because you're 9/11 conspiracy theorist can come back and say he was a tool of the CIA.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard


The people elect the government officials
Bush re-elected...Clinton re-elected...Ron Paul ignored by the people, Obama's rhetoric eaten up by the masses, McCain represents the Republican Party even though he has no Republican values...so are you trying to tell me that people in our county don't need to take responsibility for their own actions? Isn't THAT contradictory? Isn't the very idea of the expansion of government BECAUSE people don't want to take responsibility?

To say the someone with some box cutters couldn't hijack a plane is pretty ignorant. That would have to assume that the people on the plane knew they were going to slam the planes into buildings...that would have to assume that the people on the plane knew the full scale of the attack...that would have to assume that people had no fear of their lives, because they were outnumbered...no, the people on the plane (excluding 97) thought they were going to be held hostage, and if they cooperated they would come out alive. Were it two people per plane...then you'd have a case...but it was a high enough ratio on the plane vs passengers to take control. If a group of 5 tried to rob a bank with knives...do you think they would succeed? I have no doubt in my mind they would...

[edit on 23-8-2008 by yellowcard]


the people stopped electing government officials when bush was appointed president by the supreme court. or do you not pay attention. you could say he won the second time but that would ignore that massive convictions over electiong fraud that are on the books that went down in order to keep the very man who was not elected the first time in office. so please do not tell me that george bush is my fault. sorry i could not hand deliver my vote to well, who? the government is in control and that is that.

i never said men with boxcutters could not hijack a plane. this is typical debunker logic to over-simplify. i said 19 men with boxcutters could not acheive all that was done that day. not by coincidence, not by luck, not by criminal masterminds and all the money in the world. not here in america with the best and the strongest and the smartest and the bravest and the super best at everything.

if you want to blame people for what george bush does, i seriously suggest you go back and see who was voted president by the people that year.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join