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.

 

WTC Collapse

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Most of us who actually make a living in the "mental health" field understand that terms like insane should never be slapped around withouth merit.

Seems someone is just stiring up trouble.

On topic, the thought of the buildings being brought down for financial reasons seems to be a valid point. Although a hundred other threads on ATS seem to think it was Bush and his family, it is equally feasible to consider that someone else, for reasons less than global domination could have done it.

Personally, I believe it was a bunch of radical islamic terrorist who flew airplanes into the building with the intention of killing Americans and making us afraid to go into our offices or fly on airplanes. I do not believe they knew the buildings would fall, they just got lucky. When you look at the evidence if there had been a proper investigation we might have discovered there was a failure in the fire suppresion systems that "lead" to the collapse. Or maybe the structur was weakened by the earlier attack.

I remember seeing photos of people actually standing inside the building looking out the hole created by the jet. Something did not go as it should have, although I doubt when it was built anyone designing it said "I wonder what would happen if a fully loaded jet was slammed into this structure at top speed?".

You can bet that today, they take that into consideration.




posted on May, 28 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by nativeokie
Something did not go as it should have, although I doubt when it was built anyone designing it said "I wonder what would happen if a fully loaded jet was slammed into this structure at top speed?".

You can bet that today, they take that into consideration.


The Trade Center was designed with the possibility of an aircraft collision. A bomber had crashed into the Empire State building many years before and such risks were taken into consideration with regards to the designs of the WTC Towers.



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nativeokie
Something did not go as it should have, although I doubt when it was built anyone designing it said "I wonder what would happen if a fully loaded jet was slammed into this structure at top speed?".


actually, they DID consider it. they even had a plaque that said something like, 'these buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 747'.



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I agree with nativeokie on this, and i would not consider Rense to be reliable, his site is as unreliable as Atzlan.net and cosmicpenguin.com....

You will find many threads that deal with this, some called 9/11, and some others having names similar to this one. If you are seriously considering investigating this, i would sugest that you check those links in the forum that deal with this topic. But if you think no matter what that there is a government conspiracy and that Bush had a wand that helped to bring down the WTC, then good luck because those truly informed, do know this doesn't seem to be true and its just a wild theory and nothing more.



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

......But if you think no matter what that there is a government conspiracy and that Bush had a wand that helped to bring down the WTC, then good luck because those truly informed, do know this doesn't seem to be true and its just a wild theory and nothing more.


Why don't you enlighten those of us that don't sit in the 'truly informed' category then?

I'm more than prepared to listen to both sides of the story.



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Here's a start. Most ATS archived discussions on 9/11, etc:
Forum Reference Index AND Thread for Discussing anything related to 9/11, Pentagon, etc.



seekerof

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Here's a start. Most ATS archived discussions on 9/11, etc:
Forum Reference Index AND Thread for Discussing anything related to 9/11, Pentagon, etc.



seekerof

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by Seekerof]


Thank you, this is an excellent thread but I am still yet to be convinced there wasn't government involvement.



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Ok. Lets get a few things clarified.

First off, I believe that knowing a little about the people you are talking to is useful. Some people don't agree with that, cool. Personally I like to know if I'm discussing physics with a 14 year old or someone who worked on the shuttle program. Thats just me.

Second. "Shrink" is not the right term for me. Like a previous poster, I'm a psychologist. Very different from a psychiatrist.

Thirdly I'm not practicing. I did, then I left. I'd had enough. For the other psyche bod here, I had fundamental problems with my desire to truly understand coupled with my desire to be objective, I was a rebel phenomenologist if you like. Pretty much every paradigm pissed me off.

Fourthly. "those of us who work in mental health" frankly know that "insane" is a great coverall for "Jesus Christ this guy has problems I can't be arsed to get into right now, I'll call him insane"

And lastly. Yes. If you seriously believe the WTC was destroyed because of escalating renovation bills you're "intercourse and water crackers" as a nurse I knew used to put it. i.e. "f****ing crackers"

Anyone who doesnt know why isn't worth discussing the subject with.



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

actually, they DID consider it. they even had a plaque that said something like, 'these buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 747'.


Actually the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. The 747 wasn't considered, because the first 747s were just coming off the assembly lines (1968) when the towers were designed.

The plane that hit the towers, the beoing 767 is bigger, and larger.


Technically, the buildings did survive the impact. It was the fires that caused the collapse.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   
The fires are the problem. It just doesnt seem like a fire burning slow and not very hot as it was could soften the steel enough. I thought the large initial explosion looked like it took alot of the fuel out.

Why was the rubble moved away so quickly? Why the only tapes from ground control to the airplanes "accidentally" destroyed? How can such stupid # slip past the govt?



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by plopunisher
The fires are the problem. It just doesnt seem like a fire burning slow and not very hot as it was could soften the steel enough. I thought the large initial explosion looked like it took alot of the fuel out.


the fuel load in the planes at the time of impact has bee estimated at around 10,000 gallons. Some of the fuel did burn off in the fireball following the impact, but not all of it did.

THink of it this way. The planes had enough fuel to fly from Boston to L.A with extra as a reserve. Try to imagine just how much fuel it would take to do this. then consider the size of the fireball. Is that fireball big enough to stretch from Boston to L.A. ?

As for the fire temperature, here is
a fire test that indicated that a single office cubicle could generate 9.9 megawatts of heat.

more on flame and fire


More to the point, it is not the structural columns we are concerned with, but the floor joists and the 4" lightweight concrete floor. Once the floor joists started to fail, they were no longer able to provide the stiffness necessary to prevent the support columns from buckling. It really doesn't matter what temperature the columns were at, once they lost the lateral support, the buckled.

Check out this video

The first thing you should notice is that in the first few frames before the collapse starts, the opt of the building is clearly out of alignment with the bottom of the structure.

Then watch the columns buckle inward as the collapse starts. The reason that they are buckling inward is that the floor slabs have been wiped out by impact ant fire on those levels.



[Edited on 29-5-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by plopunisher
Why the only tapes from ground control to the airplanes "accidentally" destroyed


Actually the tape that was destroyed were not atual tapes from the incident, but of a followup interview

www.washingtonpost.com...

It appeas that various union rules may have had a factor in the destruction of the tape.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   
All of these theories and articles claiming 9/11 happened because the buildings were no longer "profitable" or "safe" is ridiculous. If they had charges to bring them down they could have done so in the middle of the night when nobody was working. I will not say charges could not have been present but HELLO 9/11 WAS a terrorist attack. Bush did not order planes to be flown into the twin towers... These wild theories from various people who seem to disregard logic with "thinking out of the box" seem to forget previous threats and attacks on the WTC over a decade previous to 9/11. How do you conspiracy theorists explain this? Why did so many Americans come out after 9/11 talking about former roomates who they knew from the terrorist watch lists? Where does UBL come into your equations? How about the millions of documents proving Saudi Nationals in the USA since 1993 taking flight classes with no intent on learning to land but just to fly? How about UBL's tape saying HE never expected the towers to fall as they did but thanks Allah for it? Too many flaws in your ridiculous theories and I just get annoyed when people try and make useless and brainless accusations when they obviously have no contact with the Bush family, Al-Queda, or any intelligence organizations..


[Edited on 31-5-2004 by Raphael]



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael

To sum up my words, your a bunch of morons if you think its an inside job of land/building owners..


A more believable lie would have been to say Bush payed UBL to be a scapegoat and arrange 9/11 so we could invade Iraq and finish what his father started. Thats a far fetch but the TRUTH is UBL and Bush are not buddies..
[Edited on 29-5-2004 by Raphael]

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by Raphael]

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by Raphael]


i don't think you've researched your bush/bin laden ties. they ARE 'buddies'.
as far as the owners go, they are effectively the same people who own everything. the illuminati. they own everything. money has no real value to them, it is only a tool to move the top or the bottom of the control pyramid.
fools refuse to see. sloths are too lazy to find the ties, preferring mass media pablum.

and, yes, ...i am a bunch of morons.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
The WTC was constructed to withstand the crash of an airplane. A military bomber once flew into the Empire State Building in NYC and caused minimal damage.

However, at the time the WTC was erected, no one thought of a plane as large as today's airliners, loaded with fuel, smashing headon by accident.
Even if the architects had considered this, the statistical chances of it happening by accident over a period of 1,000 years is less than 1 in 15,000,000.

Islamic extremists have changed the architectural landscape from now until civilization ends.

Odd bit of information: NY Times crime reporter and author Michael Drosnin claims that the WTC incident was encoded 3,200 years ago within the Torah? Visit onealclan0.tripod.com...



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Being that this thread has produced nothing new to the already extensive discussions dealing with this, I will point those to the link that I provided in my initial posting in this topic.
As such, I am closing the thread.

Any further comments can be made in a existing past related thread.



seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join