It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Questions for 9/11 Debunkers Re: Twin Towers' Destruction.

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:03 PM
Pardon me for changing the topic slightly.

There were 19 Muslim terrorists on 9/11. All reports seem to agree that there were plans for several more to be involved, but fur different reasons, they were not able to. No one - as far as I know - has ever claimed that those 19 Muslim fanatics were intentionally trying to be only and exactly 19. Why is the #19 important. Turn to the Qur'an 74:31, "Over Hellfire are 19 angels. And none but angels have We made wardens of the Fire. And we have not fixed their number except as a trial for those who disbelieve, so that those who have been given the Book may attain to certainty, and those who believe may increase in faith , and those who have been given the Book as well as the believers may not doubt, and that those in whose hearts is disease and the disbelievers may say, 'What does God mean by such an illustration?' Thus does God adjudge astray whom He pleases and guide whom He pleases."

Chapter 74 is highly significant! Google: GOD=7_4.

- Brad Watson, Miami, FL

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:20 PM
reply to post by Brad Watson

How do you know that it was not intentional? Aren't most rituals and ritual killings done in a symbolic manner to fulfill some purpose or exonerate the killer?

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:59 PM
reply to post by Brad Watson

Ah there were supposed to be 20 - 5 per plane. One of suspected
hijackers was stopped from entering country by Border Patrol agent
who grew concerned about him and denied entry

Which is why passengers on Flight 93 were able to get as far as the
cockpit before hijackers crashed plane

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:07 AM
Here's a compilation of other posters video links in this thread, and observations which stick out after I viewed them all.

Eyewitness Accounts of WTC Explosions on 911, part 1 and 2 :

One observation should be investigated much more :
Why did those men, wearing FBI jackets (were they really FBI?) leading people away from interviews on the street, while grabbing them at their arms to get them away from journalists when these people were explaining that they heard and felt EXPLOSIONS?

Demolitions, long sequence of different ones, all bottom up, not top down as seen at both WTC towers :

911 WTC Demolition sequence finally revealed :

If you look at all bottom down demolitions, you'll observe one event standing out :
There are, like in the WTC events, no parabolic, explosion-like arcs of dusty debris spouting out of the initial points of failure of these collapses ( in most cases quite near the ground level). Just a bellowing formation of dust clouds.

And, in the demo video, we see those top parts sinking to the ground as a fairly intact part of the building, un-alike the WTC collapses where the top parts exploded in one violent outburst of energy when they reached the original heights of the initiating outbursts.

If we accept that the whole part of the demolished buildings above their initial points is comparable with f. ex. the top parts of the WTC towers, above their specific initial points of failure, than we should be slightly if not extremely surprised to see these violent arcs of dusty debris fountaining to all four sides of the towers, and the disappearance of both top floor parts in a violent dust cloud, which ALSO arcs out to several hundred feet.
And especially that is totally illogical, when we see the demo explosions and their subsequent real-gravity collapses of their still intact top parts falling down (forced by their weight and pure gravitational force);
and compare them to the WTC towers demolitions.
Failure at some level, but then no sinking down of an intact top part, but instead the top parts explode as a fountain of debris exploding far outward.
Now, that's quite illogical.

Now an interesting theory. :

reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 02:25 PM by Truth_Seeker_82

The individuals who started the conspiracy theory of bombs being used to drop the towers, did this on purpose to make the REAL cover-ups on that day seem less believable. The REAL cover-ups on that day concerned...

1. The US military immediately recognized this was an inside job, and...
2. Struck the SOURCE of the attack (The Pentagon) with a cruise missile
3. There was no Pentagon plane

Anyone with an IQ above 90 could see on LIVE TV that day, that the towers collapsed at the level where the planes struck. No pilot, not even an experienced airline pilot, could have brought the planes in to certain floors where explosives were already present.

Similarly, no pilot who was flying a jumbo jet for the first time (like the Arabs behind the sticks that day) could have struck the Pentagon at the point of a forward-facing floor of a 5 floor building. 30 feet to high and the plane would have gone over the roof and into the other side. 30 feet too low and the plane would have hit the lawn. What DID hit the Pentagon, hit exactly where a cruise missile would hit.

Again, it's sad because this kind of crap is distracting everyone from the Civil War type of problems (1, 2, 3 above) that we are in the midst of.


The rebuttal of just the structural details :

reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 02:29 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by Truth_Seeker_82
Anyone with an IQ above 90 could see on LIVE TV that day, that the towers collapsed at the level where the planes struck. No pilot, not even an experienced airline pilot, could have brought the planes in to certain floors where explosives were already present.

Nope, sorry, doesn't cut it. If you cut the core columns, the core structure, anywhere even near the impacted floors (say the nearest mechanical floor), then the outer perimeter columns would NATURALLY fail where the planes struck, where they were weakest. The core is cut, then the load is redistributed upon the outer walls which can't take all the weight. Simple.

But what about that interesting theory laid out in those first two of his three points?
And was the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) perhaps the instigating source of this false flag operation, instead of the presumed victim?

Title : Proof explosives witness reports 9/11, U can hear the bombs :

JPhish wrote this :
""Standard "controlled" demolitions are not that powerful. The amount of force that was exerted outward from the core of the building was so great that i do not believe it could have been the result of dynamite or jet fuel.""

For starters, have a look at my Thermobaric explosives threads.
They fit exactly in what you described and we all saw happening.

new topics

top topics
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in