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.

 

One million New Yorkers to see Building 7 fall (AE911truth)

page: 6
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I have a question for you, Hooper, and Dereks. Do you believe the official story given by the 9-11 commission 100%?



I know it's a direct question and those never fly too far on here, but I am very curious about how any or all of you would answer this.


I'll bite...

I think that it would be quite naive to take every word as factual.

9/11 however was not an "Inside Job"




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


Exactly what would they be "seeing"? I mean, billions of people have seen all the video there is to see of the collapse, and there are more than a few New Yorkers who saw much more as they were there when it did collapse.

It would appear that the approach here is to simply buy a marketing campaign for a conspiracy. Good luck with that, all these conspiracies have gone nowhere in almost ten years now, I don't think a slick marketing campaign is going to help. And of course, there is the big downside - people may start asking questions. You know, ones like "well, how did they plant explosives without anyone knowing"? or "why"? Questions that AEtruth have no answers for.


without digging through the mountain of references and research i have, i can easily answer the 2 questions you pose at the end of your post.

1. there are multiple reports of heightened security being inexplicably cut in the weeks prior to 9/11 in the WTC buildings. this would pose the perfect opportunity for such an operation.

2. why? easy. certain elements with the Bush administration conspired with the government of Saudi Arabia before 9/11 to finance, amongst other things, individuals to carry out an artificial second Pearl Harbor in order to provoke public support for their military agenda in the Middle East.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
From the official NIST investigation documents. There are thousands of pages, so of course I will just pick out my favorite parts.


There was no evidence to indicate that the joining method, materials, or welding procedures were inadequate. The welds appeared to perform as intended

So, the impact did not do anything other than what was expected. There was no miraculous damage that was unexpected. In addition, on that same page it talks about how few of the exterior panels were damaged. They used precollapse photography and post collapse collected material to make their determination.


There was no evidence that fire exposure changed the failure mode for the spandrel connections.

That came from the same page, and they are talking specifically about the columns damaged by wing impact, as well as the columns above and below the impact. They do mention that many of the bolt-hole tear outs were more common in that area, but they attribute the added weight of the plane and the damage from the actual collapse as the reason for those bolt hole tearouts. The fire was not a factor. The impact was already accounted for during the design process. So if it wasn't the impact, and it wasn't the fire, then what was it?


The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed to pre-collaps fires.

So, within WTC 2, direclty in the fire floors, there was no evidence of direct exposure to fire. Yet heat from fire is supposedly what compromised the integrity of the columns and led to the uniform collapse? How do you get heat with no fire?


Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and termperature condistions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of the steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterised. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited expopsure if any above 250 C, were found for the two core columns recovered from the fire-affected floors of the towers, which ahd adequate paint for analysis.



The yield strengths of the perimeter column steels generally exceeded the minimums by 10 to 15 percent. The tensile properties of the perimeter columns are consistent with literature estimates for average properties of construction steel plate during the WTC construction era.


So, it was designed and engineered to withstand the impact of an aircraft of this size. It was designed and engineered to withstand at least 12 hours of a major chemical fire, and it actually performed at least 10-15% better than it was engineered to do. The fire was not above 250 degrees Celsius, so no amount of time would have compromised the integrity of the beams, the beams microstructure did not show any compromise in integrity.........and yet they still came down?


This comes from the OFFICIAL REPORT! The guys that wrote this stuff, are the same guys that decided to summarize that the buildings fell as a result of fire?

I think they were doing their patriotic duty, following orders, protecting their families and reputations, and telling us the truth all at the same time.

They made the summary say what it was supposed to say, but they left the truth in all the technical jargon so people like me would dissect and find it!!

There are literally thousands of pages for you guys to see for yourself.

Here is the Mechanical and metallurgical Analysis Page

Here is the Home Page for WTC.NIST.GOV



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Where does the interpretation begin and end?

And thanks Hooper for answering me.


I don't think I fit into the full "truther" box, but I think that some things don't fit. I appreciate the fact that you don't buy 100%. But is there anything wrong with questioning these things? I know some go off the deep end, and this forum has tuned into a joke where the same people say the same things and the same result happens.

I wish there would be a place to be able to ask a question and have people from both sides participate without the trolling and 2nd grade behavior.

For those that buy the official story 100%, why would you even bother to comment on this board? That baffles me. And it's a serious question. I would love to know.

My big question other than the fact that building 7 looked remarkable like a controlled demolition (although I admit, concrete proof seems to be lacking) is does anyone on the official story side believe that it's possible that Flight 93 was shot down? I know that the OS is that it crashed into soft ground, but is it remotely possible in your opinion?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I find the responses to my post laughable. You quote my statements and add "Lie" as if that somehow is proof otherwise. Maybe you should consider what you base YOUR belief on is inaccurate. I'll take the Pepsi challenge on credibility any time. I've read NOTHING in your responses to convince me to change my mind about anything or any of you unfortunately. I would really like to be convinced it wasn't an inside job, that my government wasn't corrupt from the top down, that they weren't capable of this, but you don't need a 9-11 to convince most people of that.

Something of this magnitude deserves to be scrutinized from every angle and even theories I find unlikely are worth at least taking a look at. All I hear from those that don't believe it was a conspiracy is desperation and fear with an almost militant denial reflex based less information that what they oppose.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
I know it's a direct question and those never fly too far on here, but I am very curious about how any or all of you would answer this.


No I don't believe everythign the 9/11 commission reported and I'll tell you why- we've already been shown that the gov't can't even give out bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels, and we know Bush can't even out a CIA agent out of spite without hordes of journalists tracing it back to him, so I know full well there was a hell of a lot more incompetence that occurred during 9/11 than meets the eye.

The 9/11 commission documented a few of them- the FBI didn't share information with the CIA and sometimes not even with their own agents, people in high levels were crapping out in their responsibilities, orders weren't being handed down properly, airline screening was just plain bad, etc- but I know there had to be more. For all I know, some dope may have had a warning of ain imminent terrorist attack lying forgotten underneath a pizza box in the corner of his office. Thus, the 9/11 commission report has only part of the story becuase noone wants to be the one to come forward and admit they screwed up and caused 3000 people to die.

The parts that the commission report does cover, I.E. Mohammed Atta's hijacking operation, Al Qaida's war on the United States, etc, I think is generally accurate. Mainly, becuase every time I mention those parts here (I.E. Mohammed Atta having a pilot's license from every country he's been in) all the conspiracy theorists here avoid it like vampires avoid sunlight.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Paschar0
 


As I posted above, the guys that penned the official story don't even believe it! They left all the proof right there for us to follow!

Here is a scenario for you:

You and a team of 50 or so engineers spend 3 years conducting an exhaustive analysis and you reach the conclusion that some unknown source was responsible for the collapse. You rule out all the known causes, but you don't have evidence of explosive detonation cord, or conventional explosives. You are at a crossroads, so you run it by your superiors and handlers. They tell you that it won't fly as inconclusive, and you better have hard facts and figures if you even attempt to place blame anywhere other than terrorists on planes. You go back to your team, you spend a few days, your grant money is running out, so you package up your research and you summarize it with the simplest explanation, and the one that has already been sold in the MSM for 3 years. No one will question it if you tell them what they think they already know. But, you don't take the time to go back and change any of your data, because it is too time-consuming, and the data is inconclusive anyway.

Doesn't that sound like what we have here? We have a convenient official story, and a bunch of things that could "not" have happened, but nobody, not even me, nobody has a good clear idea or any proof of what did happen. Without contradicting proof, we have no leg to stand on when disputing the official story.

I know they did not collapse from fire, the problem is I have no idea why they did collapse.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 54v!0r531f
 



1. there are multiple reports of heightened security being inexplicably cut in the weeks prior to 9/11 in the WTC buildings. this would pose the perfect opportunity for such an operation.


Wow. Thats wide open and doesn't even answer the question. How did they do it without anyone noticing???


2. why? easy. certain elements with the Bush administration conspired with the government of Saudi Arabia before 9/11 to finance, amongst other things, individuals to carry out an artificial second Pearl Harbor in order to provoke public support for their military agenda in the Middle East.


Again, and this is going to be the question that will arise out of the campaign should it ever begin - why? Why did you need to secretly demolish WTC 7 with explosives in order to achieve that political goal? Again, the OP is about a campaign focused around building 7.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


ITS SIMPLE!!!!

www.youtube.com...

they decided that they were going to 'pull' the building, 'pull' being a term they use in controlled demolitions.

there was no way that they got demo experts in building 7 in just hours to set up demolitions, yet the building came down on sept 11th

hense, it was wire to be brought down in advance of the attacks


this alone makes the case that all the buildings were wired. and this is fact!

edit - can't forget this gem...
www.youtube.com...

Documents and Command Center Destroyed
At the time of its destruction, Building 7 housed documents relating to numerous SEC investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed, according to the Los Angeles Times. Among the destroyed documents were ones that may have demonstrated the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 13-8-2010 by kalisdad]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 



hense, it was wire to be brought down in advance of the attacks


Fine, again, I am Joe Average New Yorker out there, you know the subject of the campaign in the OP - and I am asking HOW??? How exactly did they wire a building with explosives in advance of the attacks without anyone noticing or asking questions? What kind of explosives and where?

Just a note - "thats why we need a new investigation" is NOT going to be a sufficient answer. You brought it up, its your innuendo, you give us some answers before I go accusing some innocent people of committing mass murder.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



I know they did not collapse from fire, the problem is I have no idea why they did collapse.


You don't see any problem with that statement, do you? You have no problem admitting that you simultaneously have no clue what caused the buildings to collapse but you somehow have knowledge what didn't cause them to collapse? No problem with that, huh?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



I know they did not collapse from fire, the problem is I have no idea why they did collapse.


You don't see any problem with that statement, do you? You have no problem admitting that you simultaneously have no clue what caused the buildings to collapse but you somehow have knowledge what didn't cause them to collapse? No problem with that, huh?


No, I don't have any problem with that? Why should I?

It is easy to prove things that are negative or impossible, but it is much more difficult to formulate another plausible theory.

I know for certain that I can't make brownies out of s**t. I may not be sure exactly what I need to make brownies, but I know enough to be certain that I can't make them from s**t.

I posted plenty of information above that shows why fire didn't bring down the towers. The firemen on the scene knew that fire couldn't bring down the towers. Every engineer that I know is certain that fire didn't bring down the towers.

Was it nano-thermite? Was it conventional explosives planted much earlier and triggered in a way that didn't require detonation cord? Was it strategic angular cuts made in the beams as the aftermath photos suggested? It could even be some brand new thing I never thought of. Hell, it could even be one of these far out theories like an energy weapon. I don't know.

What I do know, is that those buildings were designed and engineered to withstand a much hotter fire, for a much longer period of time, and all the evidence supports the fact that the heat was not intense enough, the beams microstructure was not compromised, and the video does not show any of the necessary torqueing about the three axes that would be evident as beams began to plasticize at differing levels.

100% it was not the fire. If you read the reports, or have them reviewed by an engineer, you will reach the same conclusion.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
As much as I love these topics its time to put it to rest. I will tell you I believe the government was in it, but they will never never admit to that. You could come to them (government) with pics that are proved to be authentic showing people placing explovies within the tower and you still would be denied. They would "prove" the pics are faked, outright deny, or just make you dissappear. These people are not ones that like to look bad. If you ask most people they will say that they believe that the government is hiding more then then they are telling about 9/11, but its usless to try to gat the info. What's it going to change if we do find out that Bush hired Al-Qada to take down the towers as a means to invade Iraq and evenutally Afganistain. Whats it going to change? Is it going to bring the 3000+ back from the dead, do you really think that those responsibe would be brought to justice. So i say its time to put this one to rest. Nothing good can come from it. All it will do is bring up a lot of pain and heart ache that no one is going to do anything about.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


How difficult would that be? Just today, I have seen at least a dozen men in uniform come in and out of my building and access secure areas with tools and boxes of materials. How do I know what they are doing in there. And this is a secure building with guards and passkeys. And it is only a couple of stories and we all recognize one another and we know who is in charge of maintenance, and we assume if they are in here, then they must be cleared.

Imagine the thousands of workers at the WTC! Nobody knows anybody. Maintenance and repair is a 24/7 activity. You could literally drive some heavy machinery in there and start jackhammering the floor, and if you talked a decent game and had some paperwork in hand, you would probably get away with it!

So how hard would it be to cut some notches and place some C4 with radio receivers? Or better yet, if any of the nano theories are correcty, how easy would that be?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad
they decided that they were going to 'pull' the building, 'pull' being a term they use in controlled demolitions.


So you're seriously accusing the NYFD of being active participants in your supposed 9/11 conspiracy, which directly led to 343 of their fellow firefighters being killed...? The "they" who pulled it after all is the NYFD, not Silverstein. I keep bringing this up and the conspiracy people continuously run away from it like it was plutonium, so maybe you'll be the first to stick to his guns in dragging the New York Fire department through the gutter for your conspiracy agenda.

"Pull it" was in reference to getting the firefighters out of a dangerous area. The only people who ever claimed it was a demolition term are you conspiracy theorists.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
911research.wtc7.net...

well, wasn't even going bother with this post, but it posted it anyways

there is obviously no reasoning with you...

all three buildings came down at freefall speeds.
the physics of collapsing buildings show that there would be some kind of drag as each floor collapsed.
building 7 was barely on fire when it came down

as far as building 1 & 2

they had steel cores that supported the floors. if the floors pancaked and fell onto each other, the core structure would have still been in place, as the core was designed vertically, not horizontally like the floors.

911research.wtc7.net...

logic tells me that these buildings collapsing nothing to do with fire from the plane impacts(especially building 7)



[edit on 13-8-2010 by kalisdad]

[edit on 13-8-2010 by kalisdad]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 13-8-2010 by kalisdad]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



Imagine the thousands of workers at the WTC! Nobody knows anybody. Maintenance and repair is a 24/7 activity. You could literally drive some heavy machinery in there and start jackhammering the floor, and if you talked a decent game and had some paperwork in hand, you would probably get away with it!


Yeah, this is a pretty common misconception. A lot of people think that you can just walk into a building and if you look and dress the part you can get away with anything. First, I don't hold that to be true. Maybe one guy, one time, for a brief period. But as you noted in your response you did notice those guys who came into your building, you may not have stopped and questioned them, but you did notice and if something goes wrong in your office whats the first thing you're going to do? Of course your going to ask what those guys were doing last week, right? Same thing here, even more so. What if someone wants to see some union cards? Particularly in NYC. Nope, not buying it and neither are the folks in NYC. They know how things work in their city. You don't send a small army into a building and start planting explosives and HOPE no one notices. Remember how Watergate started.

One night watchman noticed one piece of tape on one door.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I have absolutely no problem with anyone questioning the events of 9/11 ., in fact , I encourage it .

I do not claim that the 'OS' is 100% factual , never have .

However , there are some really bizzare theories that refuse to die and give up the ghost , even after having been beat to death numerous times .

This one irks me just about more than all the others combined : " Was it strategic angular cuts made in the beams as the aftermath photos suggested? "

I made a post or a thread on this somewhere . I will try to find it .

Those cuts were made with a cutting torch , during the cleanup process .

That is one aspect of all this 9/11 stuff that I am 100% confident with .

I know what a cut from a torch looks like , as I have used them all my life .

I can't be totally certain on any of the other points you bring up but , do yourself a favor and drop this one . That is not a cut from a therm*te charge , that is a cut from a torch .

I find it strange that there are no welders on here who could step forward and confirm this .



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



I agree with you on that point, although I see how someone could question whether it was cut with a torch before or after the collapse. I completely agree that it was not a thermite cut.

I am also very skeptical of the whole nano-thermite idea. I don't discount it completely, but I think it has very, very little chance of being true. The stuff about energy weapons, ufos, etc., that stuff is more damaging to the real investigation than it is helpful. Is there a very, very slight chance that some cutting edge tech was harnessed and used? I suppose, but I don't think we have to look that far to find plausible scenarios other than the official story.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join