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.

 

9/11 Comprehensive Concise Evidence---please contribute

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





Well if you can come up with another time when a loaded 767 impacted a building at very high speeds, causing fires to erupt across multiple floors without any firefighting effort, we'll be all ears. Oh also make sure that the building is also a 110 floor tube in tube design. And remember, no water was poured on the buildings.


So you still can't come up with an example? So you start tap dancing and spouting off nonsense.

Those buildings were as strong as they come. You have a super strong inner core of solid welded steel. Cemented in for extra strength. On top of that you have a perimeter structure joined to the central core. I don't know why they call it tubes.

The buildings should have toppled over if anything period.




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
1 No Trusters have been able to come up with just one example of a steel frame building globally collapsing as the three buildings 1, 2 and 7. Without explosive demolition. Never in the history of mankind before or since 911.

I laugh in their faces.


...and we laugh right back. No conspiracy monger has ever been able to come up with just one prior example where an occupied building could have controlled demolitions secretly planted in it without any of the occupants noticing. Never in the history of mankind before or since.

Every time I point this double standard out, you conspiracy people universally run away the same way vampires run away from sunlight. May I ask why?


One example is the elevator company that was upgrading the elevators. They would have had total access to the core steel.

Yes. It would have been next to impossible unless it was an inside job.

So again someone has given you what you asked for but you have failed to come up with the example I asked for. Maybe you just don't know much of anything.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


Doc, there have been numerous posts which have already addressed this question, which showed how steel structures have failed from fire alone. Hell, Windsor Tower's steel structure fell apart within two hours of being engulfed in flames. The only thing that saved it was the large oversized concrete and steel reenforced core. Read up on that part. At least it had active firefighting efforts.

Once again you IGNORE the aircraft that first impacted the towers (no surprise there). Then you ignore the fact that another building was burning for nearly 6-7 hours without a drop of water poured into the building to fight the fires (another no surprise on your behalf). why do you people always forget the main facts? (Or ignore them?)

And you have just shown your unfamiliarity of the design of the WTC. The whole building was not built like a steel skeleton frame of conventional design. Neither of the WTC were designed in this way. The WTCs were practically mostly air in terms of design. No interior load bearing walls, except for the core, and the exterior columns, which were bolted together. This was not some mega-super-duper strong structure. It was designed to be light, flexible, and strong enough to withstand high winds. Not so much fully fueld 767s at 450+ mph impacting them and the resulting fires. And NO, the WTC would not have "toppled over" like a tree. This is a glaring obvious point that you really have no idea as to the design of the WTC towers.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





Doc, there have been numerous posts which have already addressed this question, which showed how steel structures have failed from fire alone. Hell, Windsor Tower's steel structure fell apart within two hours of being engulfed in flames. The only thing that saved it was the large oversized concrete and steel reenforced core. Read up on that part. At least it had active firefighting efforts.


That's the best you can do? A building that was an inferno for 20 hours and still didn't fall? Don't you have any dignity? What a joke! Heh heh.


vimeo.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


If you only you bothered to do some research Doc.
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...


The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.


I'd read up on this one. Apparently the main thing that saved the building from total collapse was a solid concrete and steel reneforced core. BUT the STEEL ONLY SECTION COLLAPSED. Do you understand this part? I'll repeat this very important part since sometimes it seems that you need to be bludgeoned with the facts before they seep in. The steel supported floors all COLLAPSED from fire alone. Within TWO HOURS of fire englufing the floors. Read the report first, THEN open your mouth. Your personal incredulity is noted. By the way, the video of the Windsor Tower fire, what does it show? Oh yeah! The steel structure collapsing from fire alone. woops! Kinda sucks to have it backfire on you?



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
The Trade Centers were also re- enforced with concrete. Almost all steel frame buildings are.



The Windsor Building didn't collapse! You can make all the excuses in the world and BS all you like. It's a poor example. It didn't even fall over for CHRISTS SAKE!
Even if the building collapsed it would have fallen towards the weakness. For trying to submit that pathetic example and attempting to explain away why it didn't collapse. make excuses you get an "F" on your assignment. You failed to find an example of a global collapse.

Next. Don't bother me again until you find a legitimate example.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


No the WTC were NOT re-enforced with concrete. The only concrete used was for the floor slabs and the floors of the core. Everything else was steel and steel and steel. That was it. Unless you can dig up some proof of this, you are terribly wrong.

And yes the steel only sections of Windsor COLLAPSED. If only the Windsor DIDNT have a large concrete core, the whole thing could have come down as well. In fact, some said the large technical floor is what saved the building as well. Its not a pathetic example. You wanted evidence of steel structure failing from fire? You have it. Just too bad you are so blind to not even see it, or understand it. Windsor Tower Fire showed how a LARGE CONCRETE CORE can save a building. The WTCs did NOT have anything of teh sort.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 

Radek, give it up.
NO ONE, no one real, IS ON YOUR SIDE OF THE LINE.
The gig is up. We have....transparency.
You should be happy! You can look forward to the whole world that has any brain matter at all, disagreeing with your lame argument.
But, there is always the brainless. People are getting dumber, so, maybe there IS hope after all.
Carry on.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 



Hi Stewie, I don't know why they don't work, I just checked all three and they work ok for me. Two of the links are the same anyway (one in each post) because I had trouble with the first link originally. I will try and post it here and see how it goes.

Here is the URL if the link dosn't work again:

cryptome.org...

Cheers



[edit on 24-7-2010 by Skyline74]

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Skyline74]

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Skyline74]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
My contribution to the already impressive list:

1. The extremely high odds against three unprecedented collapses of steel framed high rise buildings occurring on one day. These are astronomical odds. Insurance companies and Vegas bookmaking operations routinely commit vast sums of money in situations with nowhere approaching the sort of odds occurring with the 9/11 building collapses.

If you won bets in a Vegas casino playing these sorts of odds, the people who watch for cheaters in those places would have you out in the back alley stamping on your hands before you could get near the payout wicket.

This three page thread goes into the insurance question a little and though somewhat amateurish, makes some interesting points on the odds question as well as broaching the question of why there was so little resistance from the insurance industry to making payouts on what looked, on the ("Pull it.") face of it, like an obvious fraud.

9/11, A question of Insurance.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

2. The spike in the M1 money supply which occurred in the couple of months preceding 9/11. Basically, calls were put in to the Federal Reserve Bank for 5 Billion dollars in 100 dollar bills, over and above normal routine requests for liquid cash (M1) in that period.

Money laundering investigators with the FED noticed this anomaly and got the OK to investigate. In the circumstances they thought that middle eastern financiers might have had advanced knowledge of 9/11 and had acted to thwart attempts to freeze middle eastern assets post 9/11.

A competing theory was that Americans with insider/perpetrator knowledge of 9/11 had liquidated assets with a view to making a run for it if 9/11 failed as an operation.

Just before the investigator, who had been authorized to look into the anomaly in M1, was going to find out into which accounts that money had flowed, his computer access to the data was denied through a password change and his position was terminated.

This issue is the subject of the following thread:

Important 9/11 Financial Anomaly Revealed!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

3. Willie Rodriguez's report of an explosion in the WTC basement just prior to the impact on the North Tower. Rodriguez's testimony is backed up by audio recordings and by other witness testamony.

Rodriguez's testimony is explored in numerous threads, many of which involve all sorts of ad hominem attacks on him, including the following thread, which highlighted the testimony of Jeanne Yurman, who gave an account which jibes with Rodriguez's in an actual CNN broadcast interview which occurrred not long after the hit on the North Tower, that very morning. The interview can be heard at archive.org.

This is the thread:

First North Tower Explosion Confirmed On CNN?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

4. The whole story of Mohammed Atta, including his relationship with CIA asset Wolfgang Bohringer. MKUltra overtones abound. Read the story of Bohringer's "catch and release" after he gave law enforcement authorities a number to call in the US. It is told in the following thread:

Let me tell ya 'bout Mohammed Atta

www.abovetopsecret.com...

5. The fact that the South Tower collapsed before the North Tower, which had been hit first and worse. Unfortunately though, the FDNY were about to put out the fire and ruin the cover story intended to account for the collapses:

First mention of this as a suspicious occurrance, that I am aware of is in the thread:

Devil in the details

www.abovetopsecret.com...

6. Dick Cheney, ". . . the order still stands."



There is a huge amount of considerations which fall under the category of "preponderance of evidence". Interceptor deployments on 9/11, numerous distracting military excercises, the President's "pet goat" episode in Florida, "Angel is next", etc., etc., on and on and on.


[edit on 25-7-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by GenRadek
 

Radek, give it up.
NO ONE, no one real, IS ON YOUR SIDE OF THE LINE.
The gig is up. We have....transparency.
You should be happy! You can look forward to the whole world that has any brain matter at all, disagreeing with your lame argument.
But, there is always the brainless. People are getting dumber, so, maybe there IS hope after all.
Carry on.






Not only did Radek fail to come up with a global collapse of a building for any reason other than controlled demolition. Look at this. Concrete buildings are more likely to fail in a fire than Steel Reinforced buildings because concrete is a poor conductor of heat. The heat can concentrate instead of being conducted away from the hot spots. And their is moisture in concrete causing explosive steam in a fire.




* Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete. * Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.


911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 





1. The extremely high odds against three unprecedented collapses of steel framed high rise buildings occurring on one day. These are astronomical odds. Insurance companies and Vegas bookmaking operations routinely commit vast sums of money in situations with nowhere approaching the sort of odds occurring with the 9/11 building collapses.


You would be right if about 3 random unconnected events happening on same day

Unfortunately we are talking 3 buildings in close proximity to each other

2 of the 3 being deliberately targeted for attack

Or did you forget about the 2 massive airliner striking the buildings ?

The 3 rd building being close to the original 2 buildings was showered with debris when other 2 collapsed - debris which initialed fires in it leading to
ultimate collapse


Conclusion is you are lying (again)

Why am I not surprised......



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Conclusion is you are lying (again)

Why am I not surprised......


I must be hitting the big time. Am I a star in debunkernation now?

The odds against the scenario playing out as you describe are still astronomical.

People who think like you are always welcome in Vegas.


[edit on 25-7-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Well you know, its just not every day we have two 767s impacting 110 story buildings, or having a 47 story building get impacted with flaming debris and allowed to burn uncontrollably for 7 hours till collapse. So yes, it is a very astronomical chance that something like this occurred.

But your raging incredulity does not do anything to the unprecedented chain of events that occurred on 9/11. But you know, maybe you can show me, oh lets say, 5 actual instances were 767s impacted a 110 floor building, and didnt collapse. Ok, or maybe 4? Or how about showing me 5 instances where a 47 story building that has an exact same design as the WTC7 that gets impacted by flaming debris and is allowed to burn for 7 hours without a drop of water used to fight it, and didnt collapse? Remember, you must find us 5 instances of each event where the buildings survived the 767 impacts, the buildings were built just like the WTCs, and did NOT collapse. I'll give you till the end of the week to provide us with the results. IF you can find such instances where everything happened just as they did on 9/11, and the buildings survived, well then the 9/11 events would truly be very strange.

Just to recap, show us 5 instances where a building built like WTC1 was hit by a 767 at 450+mph and did not collapse, and then show us 5 instances where a building like WTC7 was hit by flaming debris and did NOT collapse after burning out of control for 7 hours. Good luck.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
One example is the elevator company that was upgrading the elevators. They would have had total access to the core steel.


I must tell you that I'm immune to bait and switch. I'm not asking for you to conjure up more make believe to justify your previous make believe. I'm asking when has there ever been a case where controlled demolitions were secretly planted in an occupied building without any of the occupants noticing. It's your logic that it's impossible for any event to happen for the first time, not mine, so please elaborate.


So again someone has given you what you asked for but you have failed to come up with the example I asked for. Maybe you just don't know much of anything.


Oh, rubbish. If everyone from the gov't to the NYPA to Silverstein to the FAA to NORAD to now Otis elevator was in on this secret plot, just how secret can the secret plot possibly be?

You conspiracy people are simply making up crap off the top of your head as you go along. You know that and so do I.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
Radek, give it up.
NO ONE, no one real, IS ON YOUR SIDE OF THE LINE.
The gig is up. We have....transparency.


If any of this were remotely true you'd have already documented how the conspiracy went down and the perpetrators would've been sent to the needle years ago. I can't speak for Gen. Radek's other dealings, but he's certainly straight and true in his identifying the blatant flaws in the conspiracy people's account of things.

The fact is, the only way anyone can remotely take any of these ridiculous claims of controlled demolitions, secret plots, and armies of secret agents seriously is if they get 100% of their information from those damned fool conspiracy web sites. Sheesh, we have people who still believe ridiculous things like there was a military stand down order, that the Pentagon was ringed with antiaircraft missiles, and that all the bomb dogs were pulled out of the WTC. With so much bad information floating around, it's little wonder why these conspiracy people are so outer space paranoid about everything.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by GenRadek
 

Radek, give it up.
NO ONE, no one real, IS ON YOUR SIDE OF THE LINE.
The gig is up. We have....transparency.
You should be happy! You can look forward to the whole world that has any brain matter at all, disagreeing with your lame argument.
But, there is always the brainless. People are getting dumber, so, maybe there IS hope after all.
Carry on.





Do you honestly believe that you're in some kind of majority? All reputable polls refute this. Anecdotal evidence refutes it.

The fact that after nearly a decade you've got nowhere - no investigation, no successful court cases, no insiders coming forward - kind of suggests that your definition of a win is a little eccentric.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I don't think we have a win.

From the beginning of the Truth movement there have been
exaggerated claims, theories, and hyperbole surrounding the truth
of 9/11. Every documentary on the subject undermines its own
integrity with exaggeration, bombast, and clever semantics.

The purpose of this thread is to list our most cogent, credible arguments.

What I want is to make people aware that the official story is suspect;
That governments DO engage in false-flag operations. That 9/11 fits this
historical modus operandi to such a degree that it REQUIRES a full
unbiased inquiry, and that this requirement has not been met.

There exists a prejudice in circumstances such as this. People do
not want to mistrust their government. I do not want to mistrust
my government. But with the historical evidence at hand (The Maine, the
Reichstag, the Gulf of Tonkin, the complicity of Pearl Harbor) mistrust
is the only safe option.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   


I don't think we have a win.


I think you're playing both sides of the fence. I have a definite WIN. I asked for an example of a global building collapse caused by anything other than Controlled Demolition and no one has provided it. From any cause, earthquakes, fire. Heck. A wrecking ball. Anything. All they tried to do was change the subject, come up with excuses and try and confuse the simpletons.

Here's another one.

Operatives in the FBI knew about the first bombing attack before it happened. Had an informant use real explosives in the bomb even when the informant pleaded to use fake explosives. It's obvious they wanted those buildings destroyed before 911.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doctor Smith

I have a definite WIN.


Good for you. When does the investigation start?


I asked for an example of a global building collapse caused by anything other than Controlled Demolition and no one has provided it.


Show me another example of a universe like ours being created by anything other than a divine being with a beard.

By your logic I just proved that the world was created by God. And that he has a beard.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join