Hundreds of "squibs" seen in WTC collapse movie, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 05:58 AM by iammonkey

Originally posted by pai mei
reply to post by iammonkey

What kind of a post is this ? I am beginning to suspect something here. Is your post serious ?

if you have anything to say spit it out. then back it up!

[edit on 6/1/09 by iammonkey]

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 06:02 AM by Mikey84

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by Mikey84

I reckon the families of those who have died would want all this rubbish to stop, ever heard of moving on with your lives? Instead of dwelling on the past?

This is a very well known disinfo tactic (applying guilt and nonsense to make them feel ashamed for asking questions.) Nice work!

Don’t imply that certain quotes are mine; I never said that and it's not my quote, again I guess this goes to prove my point that you “truthers” cut and paste what you need to suit your own agenda, usually leaving out facts or important parts.

Again, all the evidence leads to 911 happening the way it happened, there has still not been shown any proof of an inside job – just theories made up from bit’s put together to leave out the important parts.

Mikey

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 06:39 AM by pai mei

There was no investigation. That is why they found no evidence...

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 07:01 AM by Nicolas Flamel

FACT: Al Queda says they trained 20 men to hijack planes.

FACT: Those 20 terrorists boarded 4 planes.

FACT: We all saw 3 of those planed hit targets.

FACT: The buildings colllaped pan-cake style because the fires weakened the exposed iron supports. The floors below the collapse could not take the weight of the floors above them falling on them so they too failed.

NOT FACT: UFOs were flying around the WTC and Men in Black were planting explosives.

CONCLUSION: Americans did not like being caught by surprise so they make up these fantastical stories to make up for their inability to act on intelligence they already had and which Bush ignored.

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 08:06 AM by bsbray11

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
FACT: The buildings colllaped pan-cake style because the fires weakened the exposed iron supports.

First, pancake theory is not a "fact," it's a theory. Second, NIST doesn't even support pancake theory anymore, and I can post a link where they explain this on their website. In short, it contradicts their final hypothesis.

The supports were steel, not iron, and it is also NOT a fact that the supports lost strength from heating. That is also NOT what the "official" reports say. They say thermal expansion of the trusses which led to deflections in the perimeter columns.

I appreciate the effort of trying to produce something a third grader would understand, but you don't really have your facts straight. Not that a third grader would know any better.

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 08:14 AM by Nicolas Flamel

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
FACT: The buildings colllaped pan-cake style because the fires weakened the exposed iron supports.

First, pancake theory is not a "fact," it's a theory. Second, NIST doesn't even support pancake theory anymore, and I can post a link where they explain this on their website. In short, it contradicts their final hypothesis.

The supports were steel, not iron, and it is also NOT a fact that the supports lost strength from heating. That is also NOT what the "official" reports say. They say thermal expansion of the trusses which led to deflections in the perimeter columns.

I appreciate the effort of trying to produce something a third grader would understand, but you don't really have your facts straight. Not that a third grader would know any better.

Yes I know steel is made of iron and carbon, but it is mostly iron. It is true the trusses failed because of the fire, but my points are still vaild. So you really believe that ufos with ray guns and the skull and bones killed all those americans. How old are you? You sound like a 12 year old tbh

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 08:27 AM by bsbray11

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
Yes I know steel is made of iron and carbon, but it is mostly iron.

Lemonade is composed almost entirely of water, but I still don't call it water.

It is true the trusses failed because of the fire, but my points are still vaild.

So you say this other theory is true, but at least two other erroneous and contradictory statements you just made were also true? That the columns themselves failed from strength loss, and that "pancake theory" is appropriate?

I don't really understand how you can assert something that completely contradicts what you just finished posting, and then say everything you've just posted is valid.

So you really believe that ufos with ray guns and the skull and bones killed all those americans. How old are you? You sound like a 12 year old tbh

You're the one posting personal attacks here, and you say I'm 12?

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 10:26 AM by pai mei

reply to post by iammonkey

I said that they used explosives that is why it's like a controled demolition.

You ask this :"why didn't the buildings come down nice and into their own footprint like in a controlled demolition".

To me this is a question from someone who does not think much or you write here just to waste people's time. Maybe you wonder why didn't they evacuate the people like they do in controlled demolitions ?

And in fact WTC 7 did come down nicely into it's own footprint.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by pai mei]

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 03:38 PM by Mikey84

Originally posted by pai mei

And in fact WTC 7 did come down nicely into it's own footprint.

Have you even bothered to look at the evidence? WTC7 did not come down into its own footprint.

Use the search function, please.

Mikey

[edit on 6/1/2009 by Mikey84]

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 04:38 PM by pai mei

reply to post by Mikey84

Yes it did collapse in it's own footprint. And it looked exactly like a controlled demolition.

Picture :
911research.wtc7.net...

9/11 report does not mention the building at all.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by pai mei]

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 05:44 PM by watchZEITGEISTnow

reply to post by pai mei

Don't forget you can see squibs when WTC7 was "pulled" too.

911 = Inside Job WTC1 WTC2 WTC7 = controlled demolition.

wZn

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 05:55 PM by Mikey84

Originally posted by pai mei
reply to post by Mikey84

Yes it did collapse in it's own footprint. And it looked exactly like a controlled demolition.

Picture :
911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by pai mei

Don't forget you can see squibs when WTC7 was "pulled" too.

911 = Inside Job WTC1 WTC2 WTC7 = controlled demolition.

wZn

Neither have bothered to research have you?

Even your own pic you provided shows that WTC7 didn’t fall neatly into its own footprint.

I think you need to lay off the Michael Moore and Zeitgeist videos and actually look at un-edited videos and footage. Stop watching videos that are cut and paste and twisted to suit their own agendas.

It seems you are sheeple to Michael Moore and Zeitgeist. You need to look at un-altered un-edited videos and think for yourself. Stop following the conspiracy websites that don’t use fact or leave fact out and start to think for yourself.

Then you will see what really happened, and you’ll soon find out there is not a single shred of evidence to show explosives or controlled demolitions.

Mikey

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 06:36 PM by Chadwickus

I gotta ask, why doesn't anyone question the fact that when a building gets demolished by explosives it gets stripped and gutted first.

Then all the support beams are strategically cut or blown away enough so when the explosion goes off there is as little resistance as possible.

Then add the fact that all the explosive charges, which in theory would be hundreds on every floor, has a detonation wire running to it from a main control box away from the blast zone.

Did anybody notice that their office block was gutted out with holes drilled everywhere with explosive charges packed into it and wires and cords running everywhere?

Heres a couple of vids to peruse:

Vegas demolition

Miami Hotel

[edit on 6-1-2009 by Chadwickus]

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 07:17 PM by watchZEITGEISTnow

reply to post by Mikey84

It's strange you know sheeple was intended for people like yourself that follow the official line of the story.

Quite ironic you use a word that 'truthers' initiated. Funny stuff.

I have done a lot of 'homework' regarding the 911 inside job, and to be quite frank, I as many others have tired of the 911 debate, because you guys (the real sheeple) have not come close to 'debunking' anything regarding 911.

wZn

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 07:31 PM by thedman

So the tin foil chorus still doesn't believe that air pressure blew out
windows as the building collapsed

This is what the firemen who survived the collapse in the stairway said

That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.

The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.

We have a 250 lb fireman, wearing 100 lb of equipment , being blown down several flights of stairs....

Also as the building collapse and the structure twisted many of the windows
were popped from their frames - even before the collapse many of the
windows were dislodged as the building began to shift

Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

Windows breaking, blown up against walls as South tower collapsed....

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 10:41 PM by iammonkey

Originally posted by pai mei
reply to post by iammonkey

You ask this :"why didn't the buildings come down nice and into their own footprint like in a controlled demolition".

wrong i did NOT ask that! but feel free to twist things.

To me this is a question from someone who does not think much or you write here just to waste people's time. Maybe you wonder why didn't they evacuate the people like they do in controlled demolitions ?

And to me this is some one who cant read what i post. Do yourself a favour. Go back, re read and get your facts right as to what I said. seems like you only see what you want to. but that no Surprise.

This will be my last post on this thread due to the fact that already two people have twisted things and put words in to people’s mouths. I’ll take the advice I was given years ago which is,

Never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[edit on 6/1/09 by iammonkey]

[edit on 6/1/09 by iammonkey]

[edit on 6/1/09 by iammonkey]

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 10:59 PM by iammonkey

reply to post by pai mei

The fact that you got 3 stars for your responce on what i DID NOT say shows that the sheep still follow the leader even when their wrong Baaaa.

reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 01:15 AM by pai mei

You said this:

"So why in god’s name would they do a controlled demolition to cause less damage? "

I said you said this :

You ask this :"why didn't the buildings come down nice and into their own footprint like in a controlled demolition"

From what you say I understand that all this controlled demolition talk means that the "truth movement" tries to prove that it was a controlled demolition with everything you see happening in a normal controlled demolition. Even with "less damage" ?

No there were no wires and the building was not stripped down. Why strip it down ? For "safety" ?

Remote controlled explosives do exist, and they are not new.
Thermite to cut trough the beams does exist. Remember the molten steel pouring trough that corner of the building. It was not aluminum, molten aluminum is white. Also the fires were not hot enough to melt the steel to make it liquid. What was that then ?

reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 01:41 AM by Mikey84

Originally posted by pai mei

Thermite to cut trough the beams does exist. Remember the molten steel pouring trough that corner of the building. It was not aluminum, molten aluminum is white. Also the fires were not hot enough to melt the steel to make it liquid. What was that then ?

WRONG. Keep searching, all the answers to what you have just said are out there and have been proven.

You’re new to this I can see, but just use the search button, look at the internet, all your answers are out there as clear as day.

Mikey

reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 01:06 PM by adam_zapple