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.

 

Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

page: 34
23
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


60% of the people who compiled the nist report alluded to a coverup.





Bull#. Prove that 60% of the people who compiled the NIST report alluded to a cover up, Cite a source please a beg you!....Oh I forgot just another PARANOID made up"fact" made up by a nut job conspiracy theorist. You're agenda is clear.
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


I wasn't trying to write off architects as a stereotype,its true theres alot of well rounded individuals in construction,especially in an economy like this-good point.Something slows down you pick something else up till things rebound and such. Uniquely qualified architects might have special insight but your average run of the mill architect has people he pays to know those things usually a welder/welding company they work with on jobs the architect takes on. This is exactly because experts in that field are valuable because of their experience and are typically consultants in the design logistics.Someone has to check the work before fabrication.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


60% of the people who compiled the nist report alluded to a coverup.





Bull#. Prove that 60% of the people who compiled the NIST report alluded to a cover up, Cite a source please a beg you!....Oh I forgot just another PARANOID made up"fact" made up by a nut job conspiracy theorist. You're agenda is clear.
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


Your on a major conspiracy theory forum which is dedicated to exploring conspiracy theories large and small and your calling us "nutjob conspiracy theorists"? Where exactly did you think you were buddy? Call us crazy but your on our turf. Maybe you should go play on MSM,they have really great stories about that cat that travelled 300 miles to find its family that moved away,how deepwater isn't leaking anymore,and how awesome our war is going out in afghanistan. This site is for CONSPIRACIES and crazy or not your on here too buddy



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


come out and made millions? More like billions. Tried to sue for the attacks to be considered two different incidents so he could get double pay and really put the screws to swissre.

And ya, the new WTC project is a joke. The developer has dragged their feet the entire time (not including delays caused by forensic digs, which ended a while ago). Theres no way the expense has anywhere near approached the insurance claim payouts. I dont think the project will ever be completed and dont think it ever was meant to be completed. It will be abandoned during the next crash cycle as the CRE bust continue to gut the FiDi here in Manhattan (news flash- big corps moved to midtown long before 9/11, which only made things worse).

A friend of mine has done business with and knows Larry. I once asked what he thought of the man. i cant repeat the language here, but it was pretty much "total and complete scumbag." and "If he didnt know 9/11 was going to happen, he was certainly happy it did."

When his firm took up the lease, it left many scratching their heads, as it was generally thought the twin towers were the biggest POS RE position someone could take downtown. as many on ATS have pointed out, asbestos remediation alone was projected to cost more than the value of the investment itself. Oh well, he doesnt have to worry about any of that anymore... that was cleaned up by the lungs of lower Manhattan for free.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by chaeone86
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


come out and made millions? More like billions. Tried to sue for the attacks to be considered two different incidents so he could get double pay and really put the screws to swissre.

And ya, the new WTC project is a joke. The developer has dragged their feet the entire time (not including delays caused by forensic digs, which ended a while ago). Theres no way the expense has anywhere near approached the insurance claim payouts. I dont think the project will ever be completed and dont think it ever was meant to be completed. It will be abandoned during the next crash cycle as the CRE bust continue to gut the FiDi here in Manhattan (news flash- big corps moved to midtown long before 9/11, which only made things worse).

A friend of mine has done business with and knows Larry. I once asked what he thought of the man. i cant repeat the language here, but it was pretty much "total and complete scumbag." and "If he didnt know 9/11 was going to happen, he was certainly happy it did."

When his firm took up the lease, it left many scratching their heads, as it was generally thought the twin towers were the biggest POS RE position someone could take downtown. as many on ATS have pointed out, asbestos remediation alone was projected to cost more than the value of the investment itself. Oh well, he doesnt have to worry about any of that anymore... that was cleaned up by the lungs of lower Manhattan for free.



So because I get a crap load of money if my mom dies that means I should be investigated because I just so happen to gain! Maybe your mind works like that but that would never cross most peoples minds. Proving conspiracy theorists are CRAZY WACKOS!



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
This is just my opinion so don't be bashing, but I made up a few pictures depicting why I think the WTC buildings collapsed (basically leaning to towards the "official" story as it's put lol).



I conducted my own test using this video:

www.youtube.com...

The collapse starts at 3 seconds into the video, and the building stops becoming visible at around 12 or 13 seconds into the video (9 seconds) , however just like stated above, there are MANY floors below which are unaccounted for in the fall, which brings my collapse time to around 14 seconds (14-18 seconds including all the debris that fell).




Investigative teams were specifically looking for traces of explosives after the attacks as well because one of the calls from a passenger indicated there may have been a bomb on the plane (even though the passenger stated he thought it was fake), and to no surprise there was no evidence of the sort.


In conclusion, I 100% believe that controlled demolition was not needed to bring down the towers.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


9/11 and 7/7 were inside jobs

Everybody knows this

Its 2011

So close to new world order and you still going round in circles with 9/11?

sh!t man



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
INCASE
YOU
PEOPLE
DIDNT
REALISE

THE
ONLY
3
BUILDINGS
TO
EVER
HAVE
COLLAPSED
DUE
TO
FIRE

COLLAPSED
ON
9/11

AND ONLY TWO OF THOSE WERE MENTIONED IN THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (WTC 7 was TOTALLY IGNORED)

Truth hurts people, now move on and prepare for the next big attack



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
*Might I add

THE
ONLY
3
STEEL
BUILDINGS
IN
THE
HISTORY
OF
MANKNID



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


60% of the people who compiled the nist report alluded to a coverup.





Bull#. Prove that 60% of the people who compiled the NIST report alluded to a cover up, Cite a source please a beg you!....Oh I forgot just another PARANOID made up"fact" made up by a nut job conspiracy theorist. You're agenda is clear.
edit on 20-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


its in the documentary on the other thread. you should watch it, you might learn something.

i find it funny, you still haven't answered the heat issue for what, 8 pages? yet when you think you can stump me, you jump right in. so much for "everything has been debunked"
edit on 20-6-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I just want to point out his claims of "experts" debunking 9/11 conspiracy. He claimed that engineers from Popular Mechanics debunked many things from Loose Change. Well when I brought up that Popular Mechanic is owned by no other than the Hearst Corporation. There was no response. Why?

Let me ask you this... Why was this show about Popular Mechanics debunking Loose Change aired on the History Channel? Did you know the Hearst Corp. also owns the History Channel? Is this just a big coincidence or deliberately planned? Hmmmmm...



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by chaeone86
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


come out and made millions? More like billions. Tried to sue for the attacks to be considered two different incidents so he could get double pay and really put the screws to swissre.

And ya, the new WTC project is a joke. The developer has dragged their feet the entire time (not including delays caused by forensic digs, which ended a while ago). Theres no way the expense has anywhere near approached the insurance claim payouts. I dont think the project will ever be completed and dont think it ever was meant to be completed. It will be abandoned during the next crash cycle as the CRE bust continue to gut the FiDi here in Manhattan (news flash- big corps moved to midtown long before 9/11, which only made things worse).

A friend of mine has done business with and knows Larry. I once asked what he thought of the man. i cant repeat the language here, but it was pretty much "total and complete scumbag." and "If he didnt know 9/11 was going to happen, he was certainly happy it did."

When his firm took up the lease, it left many scratching their heads, as it was generally thought the twin towers were the biggest POS RE position someone could take downtown. as many on ATS have pointed out, asbestos remediation alone was projected to cost more than the value of the investment itself. Oh well, he doesnt have to worry about any of that anymore... that was cleaned up by the lungs of lower Manhattan for free.


So because I get a crap load of money if my mom dies that means I should be investigated because I just so happen to gain! Maybe your mind works like that but that would never cross most peoples minds. Proving conspiracy theorists are CRAZY WACKOS!


Well Skeptic it depends,did you take the life insurance policy out on your dear old moms? Are you the sole beneficiary of her death? How are you handling the loss? like someone who just won a huge lottery or a person devastated by her untimely demise? In your scenario,the one you made up,yes indeed you SHOULD be investigated if your meeting certain criteria of suspicious out of ordinary behavior...You opened the door for me on that one.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


if you took out that life insurance policy 4 months prior, yes you would indeed be investigated. If you demanded special coverage for a certain type of death or circumstance that wouldn't normally qualify, and your mother's death met those exact specifications a competent claims department would refer you along to legal with big red flags.

of course i should have just looked up the OPs file and realized the entire commitment of your time on ATS has been this subject. always scratch my head when i see someone here taking such a hardline and negative stance on one topic without having shown interest in any other forum on the site. Why be here at all? spooky.

Not that you're some HBgary COINTEL schill-bot like everyone else is saying. More like a hardheaded idiot who isn't worth anyone's time, let alone their careful thought/consideration, because its clear you're mind is not open on this subject (or any?). The best posters on ats carry a spirit of friendly debate and are keen to look at an issue several ways. you seem determined to argue against only the smallest bits of each reply here without realizing that its amounted to pages of incoherent and disconnected bickering.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by northEASTukPIMPStheSYSTEM
 


In case you didn't notice: two of the buildings had aeroplanes slammed into the side of them



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by northEASTukPIMPStheSYSTEM
 


In case you didn't notice: two of the buildings had aeroplanes slammed into the side of them


which they were specifically designed to withstand. your point being?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
too SAB ever heard about my nations man called dr. Niels Harrit = Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. ?
also he is one of them that talk about nano thermites. spelling on english is not my strongest side


" Dr Niels Harrit claims nano-thermite has been found in the dust collected from WTC 1 and 2 "

look at this video
www.youtube.com...


and to all the beliveres of 911 was a inside job. Keep up the good work and don't believe all you hear on the internet


hope this can help too get your eye´s open SAB...

all have a nice day..

Denmark is just a little land but Dr. Niels Harrit is one of my heros
and we have also other here that don't buy the OS.
edit on 20-6-2011 by kadara_dk because: youtube video i failed.

edit on 20-6-2011 by kadara_dk because: youtube video failed. 2th time better eork

edit on 20-6-2011 by kadara_dk because: still not

edit on 20-6-2011 by kadara_dk because: dont get it :S

edit on 20-6-2011 by kadara_dk because: f*** it i have my link too the video. not my day
bed time soon.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by northEASTukPIMPStheSYSTEM
 


In case you didn't notice: two of the buildings had aeroplanes slammed into the side of them


There is so much information in this thread that shows how tall buildings can not completely pancake themselves to the ground, and you think that comment has any relevance?

Try going to page one and reading a few posts and you'll realise, I hope, that the planes had nothing to do with the collapses.

What do you think they did exactly that compromised the structure bellow where they impacted? Why did the planes not take out the floor trusses, and cause the truss failure collapse intermediately? The truss failure was supposed to have started at the impact points, yet we're supposed to believe the planes severed core columns at the impact points, but didn't take out the floors trusses? I don't think NIST even thought of that when they put together their whitewash.

I doubt much of the steel was even damaged inside the building. After going through one wall of steel columns there is not going to be enough energy left in the plane to damage even more massive core columns.


edit on 6/20/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by northEASTukPIMPStheSYSTEM
*Might I add

THE
ONLY
3
STEEL
BUILDINGS
IN
THE
HISTORY
OF
MANKNID


Wrong ,why do I say that because 2 of the buildings were hit by aircraft and the other was damage by falling debris, they are not the only steel buildings to have collapsed by fire! and some buildings have had total or partial collapse ONLY due to fire and NO AIRCRAFT,the thing YOU SEEM to forget about 9/11.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


care to give some sources? the only steel building i've heard of partially collapse due to fire was in japan i think. 100% of the building was in flames for over 21 hours, and the top of the tower twisted and fell to the side. no symmetrical collapse, no complete collapse, the fire was completely engulfing the whole building, and it burned 20 times longer than the twin towers.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
there are so many unanswered questions around 9/11 that will never be answered - a thread by a nobody on a website means nothing...

INSIDE JOB



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


They were built to withstand a lost airliner that may hit it at 200-250 mph. That is directly from the designers and those who built the building. It was built to withstand a hit so that if needed, evacuation could occur and there would not be a huge loss of life.

In 93, it was found that what they, the terrorists in this case, wanted to do was knock one tower into the other to bring them down. The bomb did not do it. This is why both towers were hit from opposite sides. I am sure in hindsight they should have had them follow one another and hit lower if needed.

Now, as many of you say you have never seen a tube frame building made of steel collapse due to fire the same can be said for have you seen another building survive an airliner impact at over 550mph? No.

Now where is that evidence of the demo folks?



new topics




 
23
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join