It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by Ben81

The WTC Towers swayed about 4 feet due to the wind. The skyscrapers in Japan didn't have their structural integrity compromised by planes slamming in to them.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:54 AM

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by Ben81

The skyscrapers in Japan didn't have their structural integrity compromised by planes slamming in to them.

Neither did the WTC, but even if you believe the official fairy tale, neither did WTC7,

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by Alfie1

"I have listened to what Barry Jennings had to say and the evidence is that he and Michael Hess were in the OEM on the 23rd floor when the South Tower collapsed at 0959 and that they were trapped on the stairs, while trying to exit, by the collapse of the North Tower at 10.28."
-- Nice try. You insert the times of the collapses as if they somehow add legitimacy to your claims...they do not. In fact they are irrelevant to his testimony.

So go ahead and tell us what times the towers fell again...meanwhile I'll give you Barry Jennings own words which you obviously did not read...

Transcript from a portion of Barry Jennings interview:

"When we arrived, the police were in the lobby... Me and Mr. Hess who I didn't know at the time... [got] to the 23rd floor... we couldn't get in. We had to go back down, then police and security took us to the freight elevators where they took us back up and we did get in.

Upon arriving into the OAM POC, we noticed that everybody was gone... only me and Mr. Hess were up there. After I called several individuals, one individual told me to leave and leave right away. Mr. Hess came running back in and said, "We're the only ones up here, we gotta get out of here."

He found the stairwell... we went down the stairs. When we reached the sixth floor... there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging and I had to climb back up and I had to walk back up to the 8th floor... it was dark and very very hot. I asked Mr. Hess to test the phones as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows.

Once I broke out the windows I could see outside below me. I saw police cars on fire, buses on fire. I looked one way, the building was there, I looked the other, the building was gone. I was trapped in there for several hours. I was trapped in there when both buildings came down.

The firefighters came. I was going to come down on the fire hose, because I didn't want to stay there because it was too hot; they came to the window and started yelling "do not do that, it won't hold you". And then they ran away. I didn't know what was going on. That's when the first tower fell."

--So he clearly states that the explosions occured inside WTC7 BEFORE the first tower fell. Can you read that?
Those are his own words. Not mine. Remember when I said we wanted to see your games play out in real time...well, we just did.

I really don't like doing your homework for you and posting links to videos and such. I am much more impressed when you do it yourself like a big boy, but when you blatantly lie and distort you leave me no choice.

"He never actually saw either tower collapse. Quite happy to discuss the facts with you."
--So he never saw them collapse. How does that change the fact that the explosions occurred INSIDE WTC7 before the towers collapsed? If you're still so happy to discuss the facts with me, start by using them.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:15 PM
reply to post by Game_Over

Just curious, but by "first tower" couldn't he have meant WTC 1, the second tower to collapse? It seems like that would make the story make a lot more sense.

Edit: Honestly, the story is confusing. He said in an interview that it was pitch black while he was going down the stairs, and that the floor exploded. According to that post I linked you, the power was out at 9:59 after WTC 2 collapsed, meaning that there was plenty of time for WTC 1 to collapse right as he was reaching where he was on the stairs. Honestly, it doesn't make sense after that, since he says that both towers were still standing, yet somehow no one noticed an explosion.
edit on 16-3-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
Yes, I have seen this phenomenon once, and it was from a tanker fire under a bridge. Incredible fire. No, this was not the I-75 fire in Detroit, but simmilar.

Right, like I have any more reason to take your word for it than I do the plaque from the NYPD museum itself.

Thanks but I'd rather leave it to civilian professionals to analyze and decide.

So, when do you plan on talking to a materials engineer, or fire protection engineer, or physicist?

Next week? Don't be lazy bsb, get crackin!!

LOL! Who am I kidding, you won't do any such thing.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:19 PM
All of the more modern post-70's American skyscrapers use this counterweight system and is standard in steel structures these days. Which is where the Japanese learned it. It's called a tuned mass counter balance system. AND uses concrete encased depleted uranium.

It balances the sway of any tall building by design. The taller you go the more sway (due to surface area exposure to the wind) or in this case to earthquakes, you will encounter.

I know that the Citibank Building in NYC, the former Sears Tower in Chicago uses this, as well as the John Hancock Tower in Chicago and the one in Boston all utilize this counterweight system....The steel structures are designed to sway and the counterweight controls the motion similar to your shock absorbers on your car.....I I

Remember the first steel structured skyscraper, which at the time was a building exceeding 10 stories or 100 feet was designed by the architect Louis Sullivan in Chicago built in ....get this.... 1890....The Home Insurance Building.

The leading benefit to steel structured building was their ability to resist fire and were advertised as being Fireproof !!!
Not since before or after 9/11 has any steel structured building succumbed to fire by collapsing.

AND That's a fact !

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:23 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why outside NIST offices?

Because it would be more effective than protesting outside McDonalds? Or on the corner of a street?

Look at the protestors in Wisconsin. They have taken over the capital building. THAT is what should be happening if you believe in this so much, not blabbing on obscure internet forums.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't control where protests are anyway. If you want to see 9/11 protests in general just go to YouTube and you'll find dozens. I don't guess they all think NIST was satisfactory regardless of them not being at NIST's offices. Of course you'll just ignore that and on to the next fallacy.

Oh, right, 10 people on a random corner, where nobody of any importance sees them. Excellent choice TM!!

Hey, take some lessons from the people in Wisconsin. Those guys and gals know how to protest.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You can also find videos of congressmen and other leaders being confronted about 9/11 on YouTube. Just saying. I wouldn't know what mail they get anyway brother. Why didn't you think of that one?

Why don't you contact them? A simple Google search will bring up all the rep's address and contact information.

You can also call them. Don't be lazy.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Game_Over
--what is that saying about never doubting a small dedicated group of people making big changes in the world? Perhaps you should tell that to the scary brown guys who hijacked those planes.

Yep. 19 people can make a difference, if they actually DO something.

What has the TM done recently?


Originally posted by Game_Over
--judging from the amount of time you spend posting on this matter and your screen name I highly doubt this is true.

Nope, you all disappear when I close my laptop. Not sure what my SN has to do with anything, but ok.

Originally posted by Game_Over
--I am not interested why you brought it up. You brought it up and I illustrated how you were wrong. It is very simple. If you cannot wrap your head around the inherent conflict of interest in the 9-11 Commission Report and how this conflict would render the outcome questionable, just say so. I would be glad to discuss how not using proper codes of ethics in an investigation like this raises red flags.

I did not bring it up. Do you not understand this? I responded to a post by SOMEONE ELSE who brought it up.

So, the fact that they didn't explain the 7WTC building, or any of the other buildings that were damaged, you think there is a conflict of interest? They didn't discuss ANY of the other buildings, only the ones that were hit by airplanes.

It didn't discuss alot of things, because they are irrelevant to WHY they happened.

Please, start a new discussion on the 9/11 CR and I will join in.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:33 PM

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

To draw a straight line to WTC is a huge stretch.......

I agree, this comparison is a huge stretch; a powerful earthquake can cause a lot more damage to a building than a couple of fake CGI created non-existent commercial airliners. I guess Japan does not have skyscrapers which are decrepit, hollow money pits filled with asbestos and controlled by a bunch of greedy criminal scam artists.

In addition, the Japanese Government knows that their people are not stupid enough to be bamboozled into giving up their freedoms and supporting two illegal unjust wars. And finally, the Japanese actually have a long standing culture where they actually show respect for their fellow human being. I think the Japanese have enough self-respect where they would not act inhumanely and provide the rest of the world with a genuine excuse to urinate all over them.

It's posts like this that make so many people laugh at and immediately discredit anyone who believes in the 9/11 conspiracy.

As are the ones where "truthers" (or non-truthers who claim they aren't a truther even though they have the same beliefs) make a statement with no source to back it up and everyone is expected to take it as truth, even though when a non-truther makes a statement they jump down his throat for evidence supporting said statement. It's also odd every source from a truther, when given, is 100% legitimate while almost every non-truther source is immediately discredited as "part of the conspiracy". Leaving out info when you do post a source doesn't help your agenda anymore (such as not mentioning how the workers cut the beams to help move them and immediately using those images as proof of controlled demolition). There are also things like BBC and WTC7, the key to the whole "it was planned because BBC knew about it happening before it did" idea, though the idea that it was a simple mistake in a crazy news time is definitely not something that truthers can consider.

Now, I'm not a truther (obviously) but I'm also not 100% on the official story. That's why I do occasionally read 9/11 threads because I want to see if there are any new ideas that have been brought up and am annoyed when something is said and it's either not backed up with a source, it's only looked at with one point of view (which I think too many truthers look at the conspiracy theory as if everything they believe is 100% true and there are no mistakes in life) or they leave out certain information. And I understand this may be biased towards truthers, but in my view since there have been many studies on the collapse and none pointed to anything fishy, it's up to truthers to bring enough hard evidence to the table to convince people otherwise. And honestly I've rarely seen anything that makes me think other than the "official" reports.

As for the debate earlier about the buildings being built with an airplane impact in mind, I found this link, which is actually a good read overall about the possibility of it being a legitimate collapse, that mentions it was for a plane (read: one, not two). It's only a short 5 minute read.

Why the World Trade Center Collapsed: An Architect's Assessment

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:34 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11Obviously I would like an independent investigation, but if you look at the post I was responding to, the poster was insinuating that the public who paid for the report was completely satisfied, which is obviously as false as to say no one is here arguing with you today.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

The general public AS A WHOLE (meaning the MAJORITY of the people in the USA) are satisfied with the results.

It is a SMALL portion that post on the internet that dispute it.

No peer-reviewed articles, no mass protests at governement offices, nothing.

Don't be lazy! Get everyone together, and pool your money. Then, get your own investigation started. Nobody is stopping you.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Game_Over
--And why didn't they? All I here about is the fact that they were talking about its collapse ALL DAY. So why wouldn't they want to capture it? I won't get into the act that you are using a lack of evidence as evidence.

They did capture it. Ashley Banfield was near there reporting when the collapse began.

Not to mention the fact that there were thousands of people still missing and unaccounted for right across the street.

But hey, ignore that over there, look at this!!

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Yankee451
Why would any of them be fake?

Because you believe Phil Hayden, who cannot count to 343 properly, and because you said so!

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:43 PM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

We already have had a thread put into the HOAX section a week our so ago that had this NO PLANE BS look at how many people posted videos/pictures on the net of the second impact and the fact it was on live TV so your suggestion is totally mad!!!!

Also I notice still no reply to my comment on your Newton v Nist video with its flawed physics!!!

Here's your response, pay attention.

Interesting story about the hoax claim. I'll look into that. Not interested in your other video, I already know how basic physics works. We'll let the readers decide that one.

Tina Cart, Robert Clark and Wolfgang Stael all show the same perspective and the same timing in their photographs.

Wolfgang Stael's website is here, and has a link to the Smithsonian Photography Initiative, indicating he's a pretty stand-up guy or some sh!te. From his own website:

On September 8, 2001, Wolfgang Staehle, a German-born Internet artist, set up two cameras in an apartment window in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, both pointed at the skyline of Lower Manhattan.

Internet artist. Do you know how many other photographs and video were supplied by similar "artists" and 3-D graphics developers, and other creative media professionals? Might want to look into that.

Anyway, back to the three photographers listed above. Are any of their photos listed in the ATS hoax forums?

edit on 16-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:44 PM
reply to post by Game_Over

I said I was quite happy to discuss the facts with you and I am, so how about cutting out the childish insults ? does not add anything for you.

And when I say discuss the facts I think it is important to consider what Barry Jennings had to say in relation to other known circumstances and not insist that every word he spoke must be gospel like some old-time bible basher with the Old Testament.

We can surely agree that Barry Jennings arrived at WTC 7 on the morning of 9/11. There were police in the lobby and he met with Michael Hess. After some initial difficulty they both got up to the 23rd floor in an elevator.

While they were up on the 23rd floor a very important time point can be established. They went up in an elevator but, when they came to want to leave, the power was out and they could not go down the same way. According to Con-Ed the power was cut to WTC at the same time as the South Tower collapsed at 0959. So they were definitely on the 23rd floor at that time.

This immediately proves that Barry Jennings is mistaken about the South Tower collapsing later because the evidence is clear that it happened while he was on the 23rd floor. Anyway, after some telephone calls and scouting around Michael Hess locates the stairwell and they set off. After going down some 17 floors the building is rocked and they are trapped. Given the time we know they must have been on the 23rd floor plus time looking around, making calls, checking out the elevator, finding the stairwell, and descending 17 floors it seems inescapable that they were trapped by the collapse of the North Tower at 10.28 which is known to have damaged WTC 7.

When they are trapped; according to Barry Jennings testimony, he breaks out windows and can look into the street. He sees cars and buses on fire but later maintains this is before either tower collapsed. Clearly he is mistaken here because there are no reports of cars and buses burning around WTC 7 before the collapse of either tower. Barry Jennings never claimed to see either tower collapse and he seems to infer the collapses from the actions of firefighters in the street.

I suggest that Barry Jennings is in fact a good witness for the OS , certainly nothing to kill him over years later, but he is not reliable on the times of the collapses of the Towers which he did not see.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by Varemia

"Just curious, but by "first tower" couldn't he have meant WTC 1, the second tower to collapse? It seems like that would make the story make a lot more sense."
-- How do you expect us to take you seriously anymore with a question like that? Look around you. None of your truster friends are even piping up anymore and defending you because they are afraid of associating themselves with you.

Since you do not know how to type "barry jennings transcript" into a search engine to read for yourself, nor have you watched any of his on-camera testimony, I will collapse your argument by just reading the very next sentence from his interview...

Barry Jennings said:
"When they started running, the first tower started coming down. I had no way of knowing that. And then I saw them come back... with more concern on their faces. And then they ran away again. The second tower fell.

So as they turned and ran the second time, the guy said "We'll be back for you". And they did come back, this time they came back with 10 firefighters. They kept asking "where are you? We don't know where you are?" I said "I was on the North side of the building," because when I was on the stairs I saw the North side. All this time, I'm hearing all kinds of explosions. I'm thinking that may it's the police cars [and] buses that are on fire. I don't see.. you know, but I'm still hearing all these explosions.

When they finally got to us, and they took us down to what they called the lobby, because when I asked them, I said "Where are we?" He said, "This was the lobby." And I said, "You got to be kidding me." Total ruins. Keep in mind, when I came in there, the lobby had nice escalators--it was a huge lobby. And for me to see what I saw was unbelievable."

-- Feel that? That's the sting of TRUTH. I know it hurts. I know its hard to study in college when you look at the words coming out of your teachers mouth and begin questioning everything they tell you. Are you ready to admit that you can not explain Barry Jennings testimony without clinging to a fantasy?

All other trusters...let us all hear what you have to say regarding Barry Jennings on-camera testimony that explosions occurred inside wtc 7 before wtc 1 and wtc 2 collapsed.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Yankee451
Why would any of them be fake?

Because you believe Phil Hayden, who cannot count to 343 properly, and because you said so!

Jayden? He hosts a forum which has posted some of the information, but he's certainly not the only one. Besides, I don't care if the information comes from Tinkerbell. If it's true it's true, and if it's not it's not. Have you tried to verify the claims?

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Game_Over
--So it looked like it was scooped out or it was scooped out?

Scooped is what they are using to compare it. Scooped is a similie. Meaning someone didn't LITERALLY scoop a portion of the building out with a backhoe. It LOOKED LIKE someone did.

Originally posted by Game_Over
I understand it explains the direction it fell, that's why it is so important for you to accept it. But its not true.

What's not true?

Originally posted by Game_Over
They did not build the OEM and have all those tenants in an unsafe building.

Correct. However, define unsafe.
Any building is unsafe after allowed to burn for 7 hours.

Originally posted by Game_Over
The diesel generators did not contribute to the collapse.

Correct. Nobody still claims it did.

Originally posted by Game_Over
The debris from WTC 1 and WTC 2 did not contribute to the collapse.

Correct. Not directly, but indirectly, yes.

Originally posted by Game_Over
The fires did not contribute to the collapse.

Ok, why didn't they? Please show your math and list any assumptions.

Originally posted by Game_Over
They knew the building was coming down that day early on.


Originally posted by Game_Over
How did they know?

Firefighters tend to know when a building is unsafe. They can tell when a building is in danger of collapse. It's firefighting 101, right after "put the wet stuff on the hot stuff"

Originally posted by Game_Over
Because they were going to demolish it. I'll leave you to figure out how they did though.

And yet, truthers still haven't figured it out either. Thermite/thermate, explosives, combination of both, etc. etc. etc.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Yankee451I've provided proof that the wings couldn't possibly cut steel.. You ignore that.

MIT seems to disagree.

Maybe they are wrong, and you, a layman on the internet, is right?

Maybe you should submit a discussion to their paper too!! LOL!!

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:57 PM
reply to post by FDNY343

"What has the TM done recently?
-- Dude, you are hilarious. We have done a lot in this infowar. In fact I'm doing something right now, exposing your weak arguments.

"So, the fact that they didn't explain the 7WTC building, or any of the other buildings that were damaged, you think there is a conflict of interest? They didn't discuss ANY of the other buildings, only the ones that were hit by airplanes.
It didn't discuss alot of things, because they are irrelevant to WHY they happened."
-- No, the conflict of interest is the fact that those who were involved in committing the crime were the same ones involved in investigating the crime. Take the three words and say them outloud...conflict...of..interest. Do you know what this means? It means the interests of those performing the commission report are conflicted because the outcome directly incriminates them. So can you see now that it's not about what was or wasn't damaged? Do you understand that you do not get an accurate investigation with such a striking conflict of interest?

"Please, start a new discussion on the 9/11 CR and I will join in."
--no thanks. You go start a new thread on the 9-11 omission report. I'll talk about every and all subjects about 9-11 right here.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:58 PM
reply to post by FDNY343

Please explain in your own words how the MIT paper arrived at their figures for their model. Let we laymen know you understand their modeling parameters.
edit on 16-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in