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.

 

My beliefs have changed regarding 911

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


well, did you see a runway a top of the buildings then? i don't know single building designed to be landed on with plane. but it seems that designers of wtc had to take the possibility of plane collision into accounts, as there are airports nearby and its a seaside city, with common foggy weathers - they were designed to endure ok? but the validity of design is yet to be confirmed:


As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
a very official source

so it's unsure whether they would endure the hit, according to nist. but yeah, bet all you like. i am tired, will log off for good. gn


[edit on 9-6-2010 by Geemor]




posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
I know about a type of ship that is designed to have airplanes land on them(aircraft carriers), but if you crash airplanes into them, they tend to lose their structural integrity, catch fire, explode and maybe sink.


As someone who spent over a year aboard the USS Saratoga I would disagree with this statement. No plane crashing would ever cause it to sink. Where do you even get that idea?

If it came from Kamikaze attacks in WWII those planes were loaded with bombs, torpedoes, and other explosives.

Why do people base their beliefs on assumptions?

Like another poster said learn about 'conservation if momentum', and why resistance from undamaged structure would not allow a global symmetrical collapse through the path of most resistance, unless somehow that resistance was removed.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Geemor
 
I suppose if we are going to go with buildings near an airport, let's go with one right in the middle of an airport.

You sit in the control tower, in the uppermost occupied floor.

Then we crash a fully fueled Boeing 707 into the very bottom floor of the control tower.

Here's the bet...

I will bet that if you do get out alive, you will not be very healthy.

Peace.




posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 
Were you in the main spaces of the Sara' after the oil fires?

Tell us what that looked like. Just an oil fire.

Edit to add: The steel deck plates melted.

Just an oil fire, there have been some very ugly incidents in the US Navy involving aircraft carriers and aircraft without the use of explosives. When a plane crashes onto the deck of a ship there is a whole lot there to go wrong, like pieces of flaming metal, tires and wheels weighing hundreds of pounds , equipment on the deck(in addition to aircraft already on the deck) and the fuel.

I have been there too and done that. Wasn't an Airedale, but who would want to be? They lose arms and stuff! (even on good days when planes aren't crashing)



[edit on 9-6-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I honestly think that if a commercial plane flew at full speed into a building, that it could damage the core structure, and COULD cause it to collapse.. That IS a possibility..

BUT....

WTC7's collapse based on FEMA's report, is IMPOSSIBLE. Just the fact that the 9/11 Commission Report ignored that building should open your eyes.. You say that it was demo'd for the safety of the public, but what about WTC4 and WTC5 Buildings? Those buildings were burnt to a crisp, and far more damaged then WTC7, and they weren't taken down until later!! What about the traces of Nano-Thermite?! I guess that doesn't matter.

Pentagon has to be one of the most surveillanced buildings in the world, and yet they don't have any footage of a plane flying into it. Riiiight. Look at the photo's of that building after the 9/11 attack.. The damage does not compute with a 747 crashing into it. Just one small section of the building collapsed with very little burned property within the area, yet the Twin Towers and WTC7 melted into collapse?! Prove me wrong... The moment they show a plane flying into that building, is the moment I believe their story. Pilots with TONS of experience have gone public and stated that they could NEVER have flown a plane like the one that flew into the Pentagon. IMPOSSIBLE....

Why did the CIA lie about the plane's black boxes never being recovered, but later admitted they found 3/4 of them, and is STILL REFUSING TO RELEASE THEM TO THE PUBLIC?!?! WHY?!

You know something is wrong when you have members of the 9/11 Commission saying that investigation was a "National scandal" and a "Cover-up." Important information was blocked from that investigation, and even the appointed members were upset with it. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the accused terrorists were observed entering into this country, and thoroughly watched, but never arrested.. Oh by the way, the CIA/FBI actually stated that they realized the one "terrorist" was involved when they found his un-damaged Passport in the street after the buildings collapsed. Really? Come on...

So many questions, yet no REAL answers... Ask yourself this… Why hasn’t Bin ladin been charged with 9/11 yet?! Look at the FBI’s Most Wanted List and click on OBL.. The crimes he is wanted for is listed but is missing 9/11.. When the FBI was questioned about not charging him, they replied that they did NOT have enough evidence….



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemonkeydishwasher
Sorry, the Law of Conservation of Momentum completely disagrees with you. Have a nice sleep.


I never read a source that claimed that momentum was created nor destroyed on 9/11. I read several reports that momentum was changed through action and foices though.

Care to cite your expert source that said that the collapse of the WTC towers defied the law of conservation of momentum?




www.grc.nasa.gov...

"momentum is neither created nor destroyed, but only changed through the action of forces"



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
why resistance from undamaged structure would not allow a global symmetrical collapse through the path of most resistance, unless somehow that resistance was removed.


You have said that over and over again. Even after discussing it at great length here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You simply have refused to cite your source for that information. So please cite your source for that, admit that you made it up and can't find a source, or leave the 100% un-expert opinion at home.

Even after explaining that the twin towers fell slower than free fall speed because of resistance from undamaged structure.



[edit on 9-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


If 911 was not a “grand deception,” why do you have it as your avatar?
You have stated in your thread that most of the OS is most likely true and there were mistakes made in some of the reports because they were rushed am I correct. Yet your avatar says something else entirely.
I do not believe, you believe what you wrote.


[edit on 9-6-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by mikelee
 


If 911 was not a “grand deception,” why do you have it as your avatar?
You have stated in your thread that most of the OS is most likely true and there was mistakes made in some of the reports because they were rushed am I correct. Yet your avatar says something else entirely.
I do not believe, you believe what you wrote.


You also DON'T believe that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue are credible sources.

as you have made clear on your post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maybe he DOES believe that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue are credible sources.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


WTC 7 could not have been wired in one day for demolition that is impossible it would have took miles of cable and not to mention every device needed to be check and tested you are talking about a 47 story building not a house.

Your opinion was WTC 7 suffered serious damaged, what evidence convinced you of this nonsense? Do not tell me the photo with the funny looking shadow convince you.
Or the video of WTC 1 exploding and hurling steel beams 500 feet away yet the video appears to have been taken miles away where you barely can see what's really going on.



[edit on 9-6-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by mikelee
 


WTC 7 could not have been wired in one day for demolition that is impossible it would have took miles of cable and not to mention every devices needs to be check and tested you are talking about a 47 story building not a house.

Your opinion was WTC 7 suffered serious damaged, what evidences convinced you of this nonsense? Do not tell me the photo with the funny looking shadow convince you.
Or the video of WTC 1 exploding and hurling steel beams 500 feet away yet the video appears to have been taken miles away where you barley can see what really going on.



Do you have a source for this information or is it your 100% un-expert opinion?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 



Do you have a source for this information or is it your 100% un-expert opinion?


Yes, like the OS? It is chuck full of “100% un-expert opinion,” yet some people fall for it as demonstrated here.

My questions have already been posted in many 911 threads and have been answered with sources.
What does your comment to me have to do with Mikelee thread?

You absolutely have no idea what your are talking about.

The 911 commission rushed their report, is their lame excuse used by the OS believers, yet they are the one that continue to ignore the real facts that the 911 commissionaires admitted to [color=gold]out right lying . Go figure!




FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue...We, to this day, don't know why NORAD told us what they told us...It was just so far from the truth." ~ Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean, Former Governor of New Jersey
"We got started late; we had a very short time frame... we did not have enough money... We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. ... So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail" ~ Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton
At some level of government, at some point in time, there was an agreement not to tell the people the truth about what happened." ~ John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9-11 Commission in his book The Ground Truth (Page 4)





The book unveils how “the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks,” and Farmer himself states that “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.” The publisher of the book, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, states that, “Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security.” The report revealed how the 10-member commission deeply suspected deception to the point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation



Senator Max Cleland ~ Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003 Commission, resigned in December 2003 "I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye... It is a national scandal... this White House wants to cover[9/11] up."



Senator Mark Dayton ~ Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services and Homeland Security "[NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission...the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence"



Congressman Ron Paul ~ Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee "the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation"



Congressman Curt Weldon ~ "[9/11 Commission] there's something very sinister going on here... something desperately wrong... This involved what is right now the covering up of information that led to the deaths of 3,000 people"



Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney ~ Member of the House Armed Services Committee "the [9/11] Commission ran up against obstruction by the administration and non-cooperation from government agencies... the errors and omissions immediately jumped out at us"



Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh ~ "[9/11 Commission] findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself"




Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, PhD ~ "Distinguished national and international scientists and scholars present massive evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax and that the 9/11 "terrorist attack" has been manipulated to serve a hegemonic agenda in the Middle East... We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false"


There is plenty more comments just go down the page.
www.invisibleempire.net...

Some of you guys can sit here and say, oh, the 911 commission didn’t have enough time to do their report and that is why so much was not done. What about the outrages lies that our government and military personal at the pentagon told, are you OS believers just going to ignore these facts as well, and pretend that you do not see it?

Really, I have heard some excuses, but this beats all.


[edit on 9-6-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I don`t agree with any part of your theory.
The report certainly wasn`t rushed. How many months/years did they hastily put it together?
What happened to the US air-defence while the 4 planes made their way to their targets?
Where is the cctv footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon?
What happened to the missile defence system at the Pentagon?
How the hell did they rig building 7 out with detonators and explosives in a couple of hours?
Why was video footage confiscated and never returned?
Why did the BBc report that building 7 had collapsed more than 20 minutes before it came down?
I could go on because i TOO like lots of others, have studied the events of 9/11.

I dont claim to know who did it but i`m certain the US and other governments know who acted out this EVIL deed.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
"WTC 7 could not have been wired in one day"

Notice how the wiring of WTC7 was mentioned a couple of times in the thread and the OP has completely ignored it?

Anyway, congratulations on your epiphany OP. People who have been following your posts about 9/11 surely cannot say they could not see this coming. Nice to see that there are a handful of people in this post who perfectly understand the OP's motives for making this thread.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 


This is ironic:


I could go on because i TOO like lots of others, have studied the events of 9/11.


....in light of this 'question'
:


What happened to the missile defence system at the Pentagon?


Keep researching, and studying....would seem to be sage advice.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
>>Doubled, Deleted, Dismissed



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 





I know about a type of ship that is designed to have airplanes land on them(aircraft carriers), but if you crash airplanes into them, they tend to lose their structural integrity, catch fire, explode and maybe sink.


Aircraft carriers are full of fuel (jet fuel for aircraft and if conventially powered fuel oil for the boilers)

As warships are also chock full of things that go BOOM (bombs, rockets, torpedoes and such)

Thus if hit by aircraft have lot more of things that will burn or explode

I suggest you read up on WWWII history - specifically Battle of Midway

Look up book SHATTERED SWORD



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Hello,

republicbroadcasting.org...

The evidence presented here I find pretty compelling. I suppose I have more research ahead of me, to debunk this page's info?

maybe The OP can send me to the right locations?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

The 911 commission rushed their report, is their lame excuse used by the OS believers, yet they are the one that continue to ignore the real facts that the 911 commissionaires admitted to [color=gold]out right lying . Go figure!



None say that 9/11 was an inside job.

Of course, you will use the quotemining skills of some other website, and swallow their interpretation lock, stock, and barrel.

Dog bites man......



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


None say that 9/11 was an inside job.


Your right they didn’t, however when the commissionaires admitted they lied to the American people they never told us what they were told did they.
Perhaps, they were told it was an inside job, we do not know what they were told by the government and the pentagon.


Of course, you will use the quotemining skills of some other website, and swallow their interpretation lock, stock, and barrel.


Like people who support the OS lock, stock, and barrel.
you have not proved your OS true yet, we are all still waiting for your evidence.
Perhaps, you think credible people that I have presented in my source, working in our government and military who have spoken out against the OS, are all lairs to.






[edit on 9-6-2010 by impressme]




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join