Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Lets say the OS was that the buildings had been taken down by explosives.....

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

While I appreciate that they actually went out and interviewed people, what they failed to do is then organise that into any kind of workable hypothesis.



Agree with you totally. They did a lot of hard work to get some new evidence then mysteriously arrived at a conclusion for which there is no particular evidence. That part of their analysis is rubbish. However the fact remains that their basic research is good and of itself more than enough to give the official account a very painful kick.

edit on 13-9-2010 by winston_jones because: punctuation tidy up




posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Titan Uranus
 


" Hopefully someday I can be as unquestionably trusting as you. "

I'ts really not that hard .

I use the process of elimination , myself . I take any one of the several 9/11 theories and prove/disprove it until the only thing that remains is the most plausible explanation .

I actually take the time to analyze each individual theory instead of obtaining my daily opinion from whatever it is that my party is broadcasting for the day .

I towed the truther party-line for years , forever banging my head against the wall because I could prove absolutely none of it .

I never once looked at 9/11 , and said "Okay , the OS makes sense so , that's what I'm going to believe ."

Instead , I was very vocal in my opinions about how there was no way in hell that 19 goat-herders had pulled this off . I was still blinded by preconceived opinions even after joining ATS .

So , I find it humerous when I am accused of being a government shill . The government didn't form or shape my opinions at all , ATS did . I was "inside-jobber" all the way , even after signing up . So , now everyone can call me an ATS shill , instead .

I was very outspoken and vocal in my pro-truther threads and posts .

But alas , I have to follow the truth , no matter which way it leads . It took me years to realize that I was being the typical truther and simply spouting "proof" this , and "evidence" that , without actually having any proof or evidence .

I don't spend all my time defending the OS . I spend all my time refuting the many lies and falsehoods of the TM .

Don't take it personal . I simply analyze everything that is presented by both sides and make my decisions based on that .



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skinon
Yea i was thinking that too, because of the massive cry of BS!!!! It seems like they must have a backup plan... Maybe a scape goat country? Somewhere that would prove beneficial for the elitists to take and that the world wouldn't kick up too much of a stink about losing... Hmmmm Israel...


They would probably blame the demolition on the Muslims too if they could.

That's why a Muslim somehow gained a security pass to the WTC basements and was messing around down there just before 9/11. I don't remember the specifics of that case but you can look it up, he was investigated by the State of Tennessee if I'm not mistaken as he was coming out of there.

But they just as soon say that it wasn't a demolition at all and see how many stupid people will believe that first. Admitting they were demolitions and then blaming Muslims for that too would be much harder to believe, because whoever did it must have had complete access to these buildings which indicates connections between the Port Authority itself and the terrorists. And then the Port Authority would be investigated, and that's when the hornet's nest would be stirred because it has been elitists and the government working with the Port Authority, not Muslim terrorists. The Rockefellers had the towers built in the first place.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
They would probably blame the demolition on the Muslims too if they could.

That's why a Muslim somehow gained a security pass to the WTC basements and was messing around down there just before 9/11. I don't remember the specifics of that case but you can look it up, he was investigated by the State of Tennessee if I'm not mistaken as he was coming out of there.


I suppose that if the truthers would believe a suspect "messing around down in the basement" would cause the towers to collapse up at the ninety-somethingth floor where the planes impacted the building, then they'll certainly believe any goofy thing those damned fool conspiracy web sites would put out.

Every video in existence proves that's where the initial structural faulure occurred, dude. Please explain why this isn't simply innuendo dropping, to create an appearance of impropriety without actually coming out and saying it.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I suppose that if the truthers would believe a suspect "messing around down in the basement" would cause the towers to collapse up at the ninety-somethingth floor where the planes impacted the building, then they'll certainly believe any goofy thing those damned fool conspiracy web sites would put out.


Damn fool this, damned fool that.

Like they say, it must take one to know one, and you sure seem to know a lot about them.

Here's some information for you. The basements and lobby were severely damaged when the planes hit those ninetieth-something floors. This is indisputable fact. The Naudet footage even shows the lobby windows blown out and ceiling tiles hanging off the roof, on the ground level. Various engineers and other employees and general people in the basement explained this already. Now you can believe your explosive elevator shaft fireball nonsense if you want but I tend not to believe in tooth fairies and Santa Claus, not to mention it doesn't actually match with the witness accounts in the first place.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Here's some information for you. The basements and lobby were severely damaged when the planes hit those ninetieth-something floors. This is indisputable fact. The Naudet footage even shows the lobby windows blown out and ceiling tiles hanging off the roof, on the ground level. Various engineers and other employees and general people in the basement explained this already. Now you can believe your explosive elevator shaft fireball nonsense if you want but I tend not to believe in tooth fairies and Santa Claus, not to mention it doesn't actually match with the witness accounts in the first place.


You mean jet fuel in the elevator shafts doesn't match witnesses on practically every level of the towers describing fire originating from the elevator shafts and the smell of jet fuel?

Exactly what doesn't match, because as far as I am aware it's pretty clear cut. Perhaps this will help:

64 people on 43 levels below the impact zones reported smelling or contacting jet fuel/kerosene on these floors

North Tower: 87, 85, 83, 81, 78, 63, 62, 60, 57, 53, 52, 47, 46, 40, 39, 36, 35, 34, 33, 29, 27, 25, 13, 12, 9, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, Plaza level, Concourse, B1, B6, and one unknown floor.

South Tower: 75, 74, 68, 61, 40, 25, Plaza Level, Concourse.


33 people on 18 levels below the impact zones reported seeing fireballs coming from elevator shafts or down hallways

North Tower: 91, 88, 85, 83, 82, 81, 78, 77, 7, Plaza Level, Concourse, B1, B4, Basement (unknown level).

South Tower: 75, 70, Plaza level, Concourse.

Link



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
You mean jet fuel in the elevator shafts doesn't match witnesses on practically every level of the towers describing fire originating from the elevator shafts and the smell of jet fuel?


You are talking about Mike Pecoraro. He didn't say he smelled jet fuel. He said he smelled something like kerosene. Remember that the underground basement floors had just been seriously damaged by his own admission, and he thought they had been bombed exactly like 1993 again. There are hundreds of cars parked down there. If it was destroyed, of course you would be smelling gasoline, and whatever other fuel containers were ruptured down there, and there would have been fires down there too, and there were, because you can see smoke rising out of the lobbies while the towers were still standing. I can show you photos, videos, and animations of this if you haven't seen it already.


And for the record can you tell us how far you think this fireball actually descended down the towers? Give an estimate in feet.

edit on 13-9-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
So in other words, the official theory would be: WTC 1 and 2 were taken down by controlled demolition after the plane impacts, and WTC 7 was also taken down by controlled demolition 7 hours afterward which was later revealed to be insurance fraud.

the untrue/inaccurate theory would then be: plane impacts weakened core beams causing a symmetrical collapse in towers 1 and 2 one hour after impact, and falling debris caused a single beam to fail leading to a symmetrical, free fall collapse of tower 7 seven hours later

The official theory: the intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, Mossad) knew of the attacks prior to 9/11, and either helped or let it happen as a pretext to go to war

The untrue theory: Muslims did it cause they hate our freedoms.

Yeah, it's fairly easy to see which theory makes more sense.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
You are talking about Mike Pecoraro. He didn't say he smelled jet fuel. He said he smelled something like kerosene. Remember that the underground basement floors had just been seriously damaged by his own admission, and he thought they had been bombed exactly like 1993 again. There are hundreds of cars parked down there. If it was destroyed, of course you would be smelling gasoline, and there would have been fires down there too, and there were, because you can see smoke rising out of the lobbies while the towers were still standing.

I'm talking about 30 or 60+ reports depending on what you're discussing, and general common sense. If you throw thousands of gallons of fuel at a floor with quite a lot of damage, some will make its way down the shafts.


And for the record can you tell us how far you think this fireball actually descended down the towers? Give an estimate in feet.

It's unlikely a fireball travelled far into the towers, but jet fuel will have travelled to the bottom of the elevator pit, as evidenced by the accounts of people from the impact floors downwards.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


What would Muslims / Illuminati NWO agents in a basement be able to do to initiate a collapse at the point of impact of the planes?

Second line



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


If you're so sure maybe you can explain how a buildings outer walls can end up on top of its debris pile, in other words land in its own footprint, from an uncontrolled demolition?

Just to be sure you understand what I'm talking about...



And how difficult this is to do...

science.howstuffworks.com...

Just curious how you explain this one? Please be to the point. (and no I haven't lied, or edited anything, just presented evidence for my claim)

edit on 9/13/2010 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If you're so sure maybe you can explain how a buildings outer walls can end up on top of its debris pile, in other words land in its own footprint, from an uncontrolled demolition?


Very easily, just look at WTC 7!

Now you have to show why it is not possible/....



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Land in it's own footprint?
Where do you think it is going to fall?

Please explain where it was supposed to fall.

- The building was weakened at the point of impact,
- Failed at the point of impact
- Structure above the point of impact was no longer being supported
- Gravity plays its role in making things that are in the air come straight down

What am I supposed to be looking at with your link anyways?

But really, please explain why a building that is unable to support the weight above a certain point shouldn't just fall straight down.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
He didn't say he smelled jet fuel. He said he smelled something like kerosene.


And what is jet fuel? Kerosene based..
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Here's some information for you. The basements and lobby were severely damaged when the planes hit those ninetieth-something floors. This is indisputable fact. The Naudet footage even shows the lobby windows blown out and ceiling tiles hanging off the roof, on the ground level. Various engineers and other employees and general people in the basement explained this already. Now you can believe your explosive elevator shaft fireball nonsense if you want but I tend not to believe in tooth fairies and Santa Claus, not to mention it doesn't actually match with the witness accounts in the first place.


You are either lying, or you don't have even remotely a clue as to what your own conspiracy story is. I'm quoting William Rodriguez' testimony to NIST, to document his experiences during 9/11:

"The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized" -William Rodriguez

It'd be one thing if you didn't know there were fireballs, but insisting with such arrogance there weren't fireballs *at all*, and worse, saying you know more than the eyewitnesses who were actually there, is being horriby uninformed and ignorant. I know full well what the Naudet video says- I watched it, and I know it says that witnesses reported seeing fireballs down at the lobby level. You'll forgive me when I say I'm going to take their word over yours.

I'm not here to insult you or make you feel bad about yourself. I'm here to point out all the excruciatingly bad quality of information the conspiracy movement is passing around, exactly like this. Not even you can deny you've been fed a lot of rubbish with this bit.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
why dont people just build a replica model of the two towers . build a pneumatic gun that can fire aluminium cans and see what happens,

cant be that hard to pour concret slabs less then an 1/2 inch thick and interlaze it with some metal strands and fire away a can filled with about 1/10-15 kerozine and watch the results ,

i mean , come on its one thing to jab about it on the net but another to replicate the incident
.

any one even tried



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If you're so sure maybe you can explain how a buildings outer walls can end up on top of its debris pile, in other words land in its own footprint, from an uncontrolled demolition?

Just curious how you explain this one? Please be to the point. (and no I haven't lied, or edited anything, just presented evidence for my claim)


I certainly don't think you've intentionally lied. However, I do question the date of your photo of WTC7. It appears to be after tracks were cleared and potentially some debris. Still, it is true that the interior of the building failed first.

I don't know why you need me to explain this to you, as it is quite well detailed in the NIST report. I will do my best to quickly summarise it though.

The collapse of WTC1 caused damage to WTC7, igniting fires which burned throughout the day. These fires spread around the building, until finally they heated up an area on the eastern side. This area was designed with particularly long span beams between columns due to the building's placement on top of an old substation. These beams were connected asymmetrically to columns, so as the beams heated up, the forces they exerted on the column were not balanced. Due to this, the connections to that column failed at approximately floor 12. This failure caused an internal collapse of a small amount of the building down to about floor 12, localised around column #79.

Now, column #79 was unsupported over a large height, and was unable to carry this weight. It buckled. This buckling is observable from the outside as the failure of the east penthouse. The floors above floors 7-12 collapsed completely into the building, causing massive internal damage to the east side. As they reached the lower floors, they compromised the horizontal bracing which contributed the majority of the building's internal moment frame.

At this point we are just prior to the main onset of collapse. At this point the interior of the building fails at a low level due to the destruction of the moment frame. This is observable as the central penthouse beginning to collapse a fraction of a second earlier than the roofline of WTC7. From this point, the interior failed and dragged the exterior down with it. This resulted in the total destruction of WTC7 and due to a slight southern tilt, left the northernmost wall on top of the debris pile.

It's also worthy of note that it did not collapse entirely within its own footprint. It caused millions of dollars of damage to surrounding buildings, and at least one had to be entirely torn down.

The evidence for all of this is detailed in the NIST report. It may not be completely accurate, but it's the best theory we have and well matched by the available evidence.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
any one even tried

Certainly, NIST created various models both physical and virtual to investigate behaviour in the towers.

However, it is not that simple to scale a building down. For example, you can't scale gravity, so every floor still has to be 12 feet apart. You can't scale steel beams and keep the same strength to volume, so they have to be full size too.

Basically, to recreate the WTC, you would actually have to recreate the WTC. That's why NIST relied primarily on computer modelling supported by verification experiments where possible.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


i then guess all scaled model work thats done before building bridges boats planes cars and what not towers are just bull and not actual science, ...

heck if i have time to morrow ill pour a few slabs and find me a tube that can fire a large beer can and watch the results for my self , heck ill even use chicken fence wire to mimic the outer mesh,..

and if i have time ill even pour a 1/2 gallon tank of gasoline on it just to see the effect of fire on it,..


edit

whats a good size 9ft x 2ft ?

edit on 13-9-2010 by zerbot565 because: added numbers for model



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
I like playing what ifs, so lets see....

Ok, there are 2 scenarios:
1) Planes were flown into buildings, that were then brought down by explosives.
I'd go big time "What???", and wouldnt believe a word of it because it is a needlessly complicated plan. If you have the ability to plant the explosives *AND* hijack jets and fly them into targets, why waste half your attack potential? I generally belive people are not stupid, and that would be a very, very stupid plan. So I'd have a rather hard time believing that.
2) We do not have planes: just big bombs bringing down WTC 1-2, and debris destroying 3-7. Well, thats just another bombing, unusually large, but no particular problem in believing the szenario.

So: all in all: Even if we turn it around, the CD Story just makes no sense. And as long as truthers can't even come up with an inkling of an idea why to make this thing so complicated, I would need more than 2 or 3 discrepancies of the "he said, yet he said" kind.
Its like the whole BBC & Building 7 thing: Truthers say "Aha! something is wrong here" and I say "But what, and more importantly what for?"


The more complicated a plot is the more likely people are to believe the official version of events. For me it seems inconceivable that a)isolated fires on the upper levels of each 110 story building would be enough to bring both down AND b)small wreckage footprint at the pentagon's steel reinforced facade. The facts of the original story simply don't add up well.

I have little doubt planes were involved on that fateful day but the damage they purportedly did was greatly exaggerated. You don't need an engineering degree to see the anomalies!






top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join