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.

 

Is there anything we can agree on in regards to 9/11?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
I hope we can agree that WTC 1 and 2 and WTC 7 were modern buildings built to withstand fires.




posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
I hope we can agree that WTC 1 and 2 and WTC 7 were modern buildings built to withstand fires.


You said this already. And I responded with:


Originally posted by Varemia
Yes, but we can't agree on the insinuation that they were said to have collapsed solely due to fire. They collapsed because of fire AND damage. Remember that, ok?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
When I watched it on the news, it looked like I was watching something that was not real. Like a movie, almost too perfect.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


The collapse was inconsistent with a collapse due to damage and fire. It should have followed the way of least resistance, instead WTC 7 fell straight down and WTC 1 and 2, well they exploded.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
 


The collapse was inconsistent with a collapse due to damage and fire. It should have followed the way of least resistance, instead WTC 7 fell straight down and WTC 1 and 2, well they exploded.


No, WTC 7 tilted as it collapsed, not just fell, collapsed. WTC 1 and 2 technically exploded in that the material was impacting other material and causing it to collapse aggressively.

So we do not agree here at all. In fact, one of us must be confused over what even happened from the outside!



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
 


The collapse was inconsistent with a collapse due to damage and fire. It should have followed the way of least resistance, instead WTC 7 fell straight down and WTC 1 and 2, well they exploded.


No, WTC 7 tilted as it collapsed


www.youtube.com...

Yes it is totally tilting as it collapses can you see it

edit on 16-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Wrong angle, son. If you look at this video, you will see that as it goes out of view, it does indeed tilt to the south, most likely because it was more damaged there:




posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I knew you were going to say wrong angle :p . It still collapses into its own footprint. The top rotates around its own axis, but still falls on top most of the rubble. Tilt would mean the top would lean over and fall torwards the direction of the damage outside the footprint of the building. Somthing tilts if it moves away from its center of gravity. Something rotating around its axis does not mean it moved away from its center of gravity. It fell straight down, because all the support columns below it were taken out. Also it did not start to tilt till it was 3/4 down. The tilt was probably caused by the piled up rubble. If anything the angle you provided makes it MORE CLEAR that wtc7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, because even as the top starts to slightly rotate around its own axis, it keeps falling straight down. You would think the top rotating like that would cause it indeed to tilt over, however it keeps going straight down, because everything below it is taken out, so it falls torwards the way of least resistance.

If it would rotate and it had some degree of support below, then the imbalance might indeed have had caused it to tilt over, but that it not what happened, it continued straight down, because everything below it was being pulverized.

But lets assume the top tilted torwards the end as you said. The damage was supposedly at the bottom. Shouldnt the building have titled to the side from the get go instead of falling straight down for the top part to tilt, if we assume that losing much of its fassade played a major role in the collapse fo the building, for which we would have to assume that those bricks were curicial in holding the building up?

You are like a bigfoot man. Your picture looks very convincing, but you can still tell that it is just a guy in a white jacket.


edit on 16-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


You have a point, but I'm still not convinced that it was controlled demolition. The damage and fire couldn't have had no effect at all.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



It should have followed the way of least resistance....


This always gets me. A building or anything else that is collapsing is not a meandering river that will "test" relative strength and weakness of geological strata to find the weakest resistance over eons. Collapse is simply an expression of gravitational force. It will not follow the course of the least resistance but the path that offers the greatest satisfaction - a straight line. The only thing that will divert objects from the straight line is sufficient resistance. The resistance must exceed the gravitational load.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Why do you think that? The debries that did reach the building took out part of the fassade at one corner and the fires burned up whatever compustible was in the rooms, so yes, I guess they had the described effect. But it were not the fires and the sustained damage to make WTC 7 collapse the way it did.

Buildings are built to withstand fires and damage. The WTC towers closer to WTC 1 and 2 got banged up good, but did not collapse and had to be dismanteled in the cleanup process, well what was left of them, they were badly disfigured.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
 


Why do you think that? The debries that did reach the building took out part of the fassade at one corner and the fires burned up whatever compustible was in the rooms, so yes, I guess they had the described effect. But it were not the fires and the sustained damage to make WTC 7 collapse the way it did.

Buildings are built to withstand fires and damage. The WTC towers closer to WTC 1 and 2 got banged up good, but did not collapse and had to be dismanteled in the cleanup process, well what was left of them, they were badly disfigured.


Actually, according to reports, the building was also hit pretty severely in the center of the South side with a twenty story gash from the bottom up. If you want, I can find the firefighter report that's been posted on this forum a hundred million times.

The other WTC buildings that were smaller had been heavily reinforced because of the '96 bombing at the WTC.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I dont see how that report relates in any way to the collapse we have all seen.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
 


I dont see how that report relates in any way to the collapse we have all seen.


It adds a much higher severity to the damage that was present at WTC 7. How is that not important?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


It still came straight down in the fashion of a controlled demoliton. I do not think you understand how unlikely it is for a building to come straight down by chance alone. If you see somebody throwing paint at a wall, for the mona lisa to appear, was it just a coincidence of one out of a million that happened to occour or some kind of trick? I just dont believe in magic debries that hit all the right spots to take out structures that supported the building, given the little visible damage WTC 7 overall had.

Given 2 theories, explosives and a fantastic highly unlikely (borderlining on only theoretical possible) unique never before and never again coincidence, explosives are more likely to be the case here, especially in the face of a clear motive, which has been acted upon.
edit on 16-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia
 


It still came straight down in the fashion of a controlled demoliton. I do not think you understand how unlikely it is for a building to come straight down by chance alone. If you see somebody throwing paint at a wall, for the mona lisa to appear, was it just a coincidence of one out of a million that happened to occour or some kind of trick? I just dont believe in magic debries that hit all the right spots to take out structures that supported the building, given the little visible damage WTC 7 overall had.

Given 2 theories, explosives and a fantastic highly unlikely (borderlining on only theoretical possible) unique never before and never again coincidence, explosives are more likely to be the case here, especially in the face of a clear motive, which has been acted upon.
edit on 16-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


It didn't come down in the fashion of any controlled demolition I've seen. There were:

1. No bangs
2. The building didn't collapse all at once
3. Where are the squibs that shoot out when all the supports are shot?

On the other hand, you have:

1. Debris damage, according to reports said to have been severe.
2. Fire damage, allowed to burn for 7 hours.
3. Bulging floors, no water, firefighters clear a collapse area in anticipation of the collapse.

Which one sounds more fantastical?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
You do have explosions. They are muffled but clearly audible. Turn up the volume, I did not hear it at first either. They are not the explosions you hear during a controlled demolition, but usually during a controlled demolition there is no reason to attempt to muffle them.

www.youtube.com...

Here is another one. The caption says WTC 7 however I am not familiar with New York, it might have been prior to the collapse to prep the building.

www.youtube.com...

And an controlled demolition due to random fire and damage still sounds more fantastical. At least us fantastic as intelligent debries that hit all the right spots, leaving much of the building untouched. Like I said, I dont think you udnerstand how unlikely that is to occour.

So you have a collapse that can only be obtained by carefull planning and the use of explosives, or some kind of force to take out what needs to be taken out in a planned fashion and I gave you the explosions. Ill throw in a whitness too.

www.youtube.com...

Curiously he died after making that interview. However he wasnt 20 years old either. Alex Jones might not be the most reliable source. But neither is Fox news :p

But no matter what somebody says its never going to be good enough for people like you. You will just keep on believing in UFOs and the OS no matter what anybody says. I truly think it is a question of faith for you and I do not think any less of you because of that, just like I respect people who believe in Aliens and bigfoot or the OS and who knows, maybe one day it will turn out that you people have been right


edit on 16-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


*Sigh*
A muffled boom right when the penthouse is COLLAPSING. Because that's not expected. The damage was only on the south side of WTC 7. That doesn't make it minimal or non-existent. Also, that guy experienced WTC 1 hitting WTC 7. He died many years after giving many testimonies, so that doesn't sound like an assassination.

I also just love it when you compare finding rational explanations for things equal to believing every UFO, Bigfoot, and paranoid conspiracy when YOU are the one touting assassinations, secret quiet controlled demolitions, and severely altered facts. Not trying to attack your character, but I would appreciate it if you stopped attacking mine with that bull at the end of most of your posts.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Everytime I read something like *sigh* what follows can be summed up as grasping at straws.




I did not tout assasinations. I said he died after the interview, because the guy in the clip would point that out, but I also pointed out that he wasnt 20 anymore, which means it is very well possible fatty died of an unnatural cause or was assasinated by Burger King. Either you have a hard time grasping the concept of what people tell you or you prefer to interpret anything somebody says in a way that suits you. I think you are a pretty intelligent fella, therefore I lean torwards the latter, a trap many people who feel argumentative capricious and hostiles torwards somebody fall into, so I dont take that as an offense. We are all just human.

I think you have a serious misconception of the therm rational explanation. To you it is unthinkable the American goverment along with its allies would stage a false flag operation. Therefore anything that points away from the OS is an "irrational thought" in your mind ANNYTHING. So in your mind the official conspiracy theory is rational, because it has been delivered by unca sam and anything that points away from it is just crazy.

However the laws of physics do not change for anyone. The OS is the fantastic tale trying to explain never before never again events without revealing the tricks involved. But gradually eliminating the impossible you dig deeper to what might be the truth. No I would not expect an explosion right before the tower collapses if it is indeed a collapse where explosives were not involved. That does not even make sense.

I gave you audio of explosions whitnesses of explosions, explained why we see a controlled demolition and not a collapse due to chance. Make of it what you want.
edit on 16-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

New Zogby Poll: 51% Of Americans Want New 9/11 Investigation
67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7

www.prisonplanet.com...
so much for this circular pulling event
*sigh*
lol Cass you didn't say things before the *sigh* were suspect.
PS
Nist tried to supress a bunch of videos that make Cassius' point
they are posted here at ATS ad nauseum and are only ignored by the OSers


edit on 16-12-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2010 by Danbones because: PS

edit on 16-12-2010 by Danbones because: fixed qoute



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join