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.

 

So... What if 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
It'll never be considered an outside job even if it was due to those who continue to make money and seek fame off of spouting their absurd conspiracy theories that play off of the pscological based insecuritys & fears of the sheeple. I have only one belief regarding a conspiracy in one incident that happened on 911, and thats pretty much it. of course those who want to believe in a conspiracy will obviously not be convinced of anything less.




posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
There is no way the gov did not know it would happen.

That makes it an inside job. If they let it happen, its an inside job.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


If the gov knew it or let it happened, it is NOT an inside job. Its called complicit behavior. Of course those who have their heads up the rear ends of their conspiracy heros fail to be objective in their claims of charges regarding what did or did not happen.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The explanation is there. However, it is just impossible to recreate the exact conditions, so there always has to be some guesswork. Personally I miss the gift of just knowing how crashing airliners would effect skyscrapers, it just is not obvious to me. So I require a scientific study that explains why it is impossible in order for me to be convinced. So far nobody has been able to show this to me, but I am still open to it.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


What if???

Yes it's good to always ask what ifs.

What if 90% of 'truthers' were spreading misinformaion and/or disinformation to lead you astray?

What if some truthers say all evidence points to Bush/Cheney?
What if some truthers say 911 was a plot solely to secure oil in the ME?
What if some truthers say it was soley a Jesuit or Jewish operation?
What if some truthers say all evidence points to no planes hitting the WTCs and the Pentagon?
What if some truthers say only energy weapons could have been used to fell the towers?
What if some truthers focus all of their efforts toward the Pentagon and nothing else?
What if some 'respected' truthers openly endorse a globalist world?
What if some truthers appear to have agendas and spend most of their time fear-mongering?
What if some truthers spend most of their time attacking anyone who questions their theories?
What if some truthers who claim to be scholars and/or professionals are seen to be not very professional at all?
What if Rumsfeld deliberately said that a "missile" hit the Pentagon and video footage etc was withheld for that purpose?



What if we are all barking up the wrong tree but are still correct in saying/implying 9/11 was still an inside job?

What if we have been lied to by nearly everyone, including fellow 'truthers'?

What if Julian Assange is an Agent???????

Or - perhaps Oswald really did murder JFK and never said "I'm just a pasty"......?

In the end, what you believe is up to you I suppose but when it come to the truth you're on you own in this dog eat dog conspiracy world..

Having said that, it's great to see you've still go an open mind.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
The first thing you have to have is that everyone agrees on all of the high-strangeness that occured on 911. That doesn't mean it was an inside job. However, if you want to prove that point, you can't jump a step ahead and make this claim.

You must first start with the claim that some weird things happened on 911, and maybe the OS missed them. If everyone can agree on that, then you can go from there. But you can't just start the arguement with 911 is an inside job because it goes nowhere....
edit on 25-11-2010 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The explanation is there. However, it is just impossible to recreate the exact conditions, so there always has to be some guesswork. Personally I miss the gift of just knowing how crashing airliners would effect skyscrapers, it just is not obvious to me. So I require a scientific study that explains why it is impossible in order for me to be convinced. So far nobody has been able to show this to me, but I am still open to it.


So you have a gift for not asking about the distributions of steel and concrete in a skyscraper but you can believe that an airliner can TOTALLY DESTROY a building 2000 times its mass in less than 2 hours.

The NIST report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers though it specifies the total for the steel in 3 places. It does not specify the distribution of the steel though. Don't you think that must be determined pretty accurately for any tall narrow man made structure that must withstand 100 mph winds? Why do you suppose the CN Tower is shaped like this?

www.youtube.com...

How scientific could the NCSTAR1 report be if it can't specify the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers? Have you downloaded any of it to check? Is a PhD in physics required to understand that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above it?

psik
edit on 25-11-2010 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Is a PhD in physics required to understand that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above it?


If you understand the structure you know that every floor only requires to be strong enough to carry its own weight, not all floors above it. Thats what the columns are for. For the rest of your post, I am interested in the science behind the reason why the collapse is not possible, which to me is far from obvious.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Is a PhD in physics required to understand that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above it?


If you understand the structure you know that every floor only requires to be strong enough to carry its own weight, not all floors above it. Thats what the columns are for. For the rest of your post, I am interested in the science behind the reason why the collapse is not possible, which to me is far from obvious.


I didn't say FLOOR I said LEVEL.

By level I include the 12 foot height of columns in the core and on the perimeter. The columns get thicker going down the building therefore the amount of steel increases therefore the weight on the LEVEL increases.

psik



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


It seems to me the terms can be used as synonyms. But then again, I am neither native English speaker nor do I have a degree in it. Anyway, whats the point you are trying to make?



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
If it wasn't an inside job, then everything fell right into place for the Neocons. They had already deployed troops to Afghanistan prior to 911 and battle plans for the invasion drawn up. The Patriot act had been written during the Clinton administration. It was printed up and ready to go to congress and on October 26, 2001, before anyone could read the thing, it was passed. PNAC, the Bush boys and Israel got everything they ever wanted.

If it wasn't an inside job, there were a hell of a lot of coincidences.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Then explain how a NORMAL airliner could TOTALLY destroy a very large skyscraper IN LESS THAN 2 HOURS.
And the explanation must include accurate information on the distribution of steel in building.
That is the trouble with concentrating on conspiracies instead of physics. Physics isn't about motive and opportunity it doesn't care who did it or why. It should be so obvious that an airliner couldn't do that, that this would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
People with degrees in physics should spend the rest of their lives explaining why they haven't been asking about the distribution of steel in those buildings.
www.youtube.com...
Purdue needs to explain why the core columns don't move in their SCIENTIFIC SIMULATION since the NIST says the south tower moved 12 inches 130 feet below where the plane hit.

psik
edit on 24-11-2010 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)


Excellent post
I agree.

So my next question is to ask why the same issue about PHYSICS isn't applied by those who believe Real Planes ie 767-200, hit the WTC when there's irrefutable evidence it could not have happened based on the simple fact alone that Physical Laws were broken and suspended specifically for flight 175.


edit on 26-11-2010 by elnine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


It seems to me the terms can be used as synonyms. But then again, I am neither native English speaker nor do I have a degree in it. Anyway, whats the point you are trying to make?


The terms are used synonymously in normal English but this presents a problem when discussing the World Trade Center. But normal English is often modified or restricted when discussing PHYSICS. Normal language is too imprecise. The entire purpose of the tube-in-tube design was to create a very large FLOOR without lots of columns 30 feet apart. So that FLOOR outside of the core is very important to the discussion. Many people claim or imply that it is the tube-in-tube design that allowed the buildings to collapse.

But when sheer forces were applied to the building whether it was the wind or an airliner all of the mass on a given level had to move horizontally. So when I say FLOOR I mean the horizontal component that people walked on. When I say LEVEL I am talking about a 12 foot high section including the floor and the 12 foot height of columns in the core and the perimeter.

The columns had to get stronger toward the bottom because they supported the weight above therefore they were thicker therefore the weights of the LEVELS increased but the FLOOR assemblies were the same. So why don't we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every LEVEL from an Official Source after NINE YEARS?

Why haven't EXPERTS been demanding that information for NINE YEARS?

psik



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by elnine

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Then explain how a NORMAL airliner could TOTALLY destroy a very large skyscraper IN LESS THAN 2 HOURS.
And the explanation must include accurate information on the distribution of steel in building.
That is the trouble with concentrating on conspiracies instead of physics. Physics isn't about motive and opportunity it doesn't care who did it or why. It should be so obvious that an airliner couldn't do that, that this would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
People with degrees in physics should spend the rest of their lives explaining why they haven't been asking about the distribution of steel in those buildings.
www.youtube.com...
Purdue needs to explain why the core columns don't move in their SCIENTIFIC SIMULATION since the NIST says the south tower moved 12 inches 130 feet below where the plane hit.

psik
edit on 24-11-2010 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)


Excellent post
I agree.

So my next question is to ask why the same issue about PHYSICS isn't applied by those who believe Real Planes ie 767-200, hit the WTC when there's irrefutable evidence it could not have happened based on the simple fact alone that Physical Laws were broken and suspended specifically for flight 175.


I refuse to get involved in the NO PLANES dispute.

Enough people seem to have problems with the physics of skyscrapers.

psik



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
Julian Assange says 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy by the American government. In fact many great minds say 9/11 wasn't an inside job. What if they are right? I have been a truther for quite a few years now.

What if we are barking up the wrong tree?


I realise there are many questions but what if?... If it wasn't a conspiracy of the Government of the time, was it only allowed to happen?

I fear that all the time we are looking at how the towers both fell, was it not just a really harsh ending to 2 planes being slammed into the WTC?

Maybe it was allowed to happen... maybe the US defences/NORAD failed?

I don't know, it's just as a truther I like to ask myself that ever important question once in a while.
edit on 24-11-2010 by Wide-Eyes because: (no reason given)



Your right it was NOT an inside job. The Terrorist planted thermite in the buildings prior but could not leak how deep they where on the inside. Thus they staed the planes so they could pull the buildings without anyone knowing that there still here!!!



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The columns had to get stronger toward the bottom because they supported the weight above therefore they were thicker therefore the weights of the LEVELS increased but the FLOOR assemblies were the same. So why don't we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every LEVEL from an Official Source after NINE YEARS?

Why haven't EXPERTS been demanding that information for NINE YEARS?

psik


Why would experts want to know this? Isn't just the weight of the complete top section relevant? And isn't that information easily obtainable with a little research? I am not really sure what you are getting at. I don't know the exact numbers, but why would it be unreasonable to accept that the weight of the top section is enough to make the floors below it fail if it was to fall on it? Or why would it be unreasonable to accept that this weight is enough to initiate collapse after the columns holding it were weakened by heat and impact damage? I don't really see why this would be so obviously wrong, especially to people who did not have a proper education in this area. Also, If it is so obvious, I am kinda missing the numerous publications of the experts explaining it.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
If 9/11 actually occured in the way portrayed by the 9/11 commision?

Then Jesse Ventura was 110% right in some of the things he suggested in that 9/11 interview he did in 2008 where he continually asked his interviewer questions (which is the one single thing that woke me up). No type of open flame or flame producing type of device should be allowed in any building of a similar contstruction, because clearly fire is far too hazardous and any building built with similar steel could come down the same way. That's a paraphrase, but it's also the gyst of what he was getting at with his questions.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
When I hear Julian Assange dismiss 911 conspiracies, I don't hear him deny them, only assert that he doesn't have time to get into those, as there is no hard evidence or documentation, whereas there are other things going on that he can focus on, that he can get documents ect., to the public.

I don't see him really dissing it, only saying that it would be absurd for him to focus on that and spend time on that.

JMO.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Inside job, means that people in the government knew it was happening and did nothing about it, or were actively involved. Either way it was an inside job! and yes Israel or at least Israelis were involved. My money is on the banks being involved to create a new war to bolster their books in advance of the banking collpase we have seen, and they knew was on the way!



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by theregonnakillme
 


They certainly did know it was on it's way.

They were handing out money like it grew on trees, they knew damn well that the guv would bail them out.

I guess paper money is grown on trees but you know what I mean.
edit on 26-11-2010 by Wide-Eyes because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join