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.

 

99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 32
274
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 

Where does it say someone saw a pool of molten steel in a basement?
Um in those quotes I just posted. Refer to the 33 witness testimonies of people who saw molten steel.



Now, six weeks after the attacks there were pieces found that were molten. The fires below the gz site were like huge smelters. All of the materials, chemicals heated material continue to burn for months. This does not mean there was thermite used. If it did, you would have all the proof you need but there is none. Nothing. No physical evidence of a demolition.
Just like GoodOlDave, you must have missed this:



Nothing. No physical evidence of a demolition.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Fig. (2). Photomicrographs of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 of the WTC dust involved in this study, shown in (a)-(d) respectively. The
inset in (d) shows the chip edge on, which reveals the gray layer. The red/gray chips are mounted on an aluminum pedestal, using a carbon
conductive tab, for viewing in the scanning electron microscope (SEM).

Fig. (27). Spheres extracted from WTC dust.





posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Yeah and I've heard from the very structural engineer of the tower that you're describing that it was designed to take such an impact with ease and remained structurally intact.

-- John Skilling, the WTC's head structural engineer, told the Seattle Times after the 1993 bombing that if a plane struck the building and dumped it's fuel on the inside

There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But the building structure would still be there.
These 1400+ engineers and architects agree that the inside story is a load, but I'm sure your anonymous "architect" source knows more about that building than all of them.


Before you attempt to quote mine the architects any further, John Skilling was one of two architects who designed the towers. The other is Leslie Robertson, and he is on record as agreeing with the conclusions of the NIST report. In a radio discussion with Steven Jones in 2006, Roberson said-

“[Leslie Robertson:] I support the general conclusions of the NIST report… The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it…

I'm cutting and pasting this directly from Prison Planet, and I know how fond you are of Alex Jones.


If tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel was dumped into it, what was that explosion then?


You will need to be more precise on where the explosion you're referring to came from. If it's from the south tower, then you need to know the plane hit one floor above a dedicated mechanical floor chock full of electrical transformers, generators, fuel tanks, pressurized pipes, and other things that would go BOOM if they caught on fire. This floor would have been the first floor the tens of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel would have been dumped into.

If it's from somewhere else, then I couldn't tell you. Whatever it was, the likelihood that it was due to non-conspiracy reasons far outweighs the "secret conspiracy" reasons. If even one explsion we heard was from something flammable within the towers going BOOM as the fires reached them in turn, it stands to reason that all the explosions we heard were from something flammable within the towers going BOOM as the fires reached them in turn.


And what about WTC7? No airplane hit that building and dumped "thousands of gallons of aviation fuel", that was just your typical office fire that caused it to collapse in on itself.


If you're attempting to claim WTC 7 was a "typical office fire" then you're lying through your teeth. After the collapse of the north tower the water supply for the fire suppression systems from the street were destroyed which allowed the fires to burn out of control. Firefighters reported seeing a three story tall bulge in the side of the structure, proving that there was massive loss of structure integrity from the fires.

Name another burning building that ever had "three story tall bulging on the side of the structure".



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Wizayne
How about instead you just describe for us exactly how the building, i'm sorry, BuildingS came crashing down. Feel free to show us YOUR diagram indicating exactly what happened on each floor as they collapsed. NIST had years to put together an explanation, and they couldn't. Can you? I would bet not.


You lose your bet. I subscribe to the Perdue University study that shows the damage from the plane impact was much more fatal than what the NIST report takes into account. I say this because the planes crashed their way all the way to the central core and destroyed the stairwells, so there had to have been more extensive damage to the structural integrity of the interior than anyone realizes. Plus, the plane was carrying massive amounts of liquids in the form of fuel, so that would have hit the structure like a sledgehammer. After that, it was only a matter of time for the upper section to fail and collapse onto the lower sections.

Here's an animation Perdue put together. there's no guesswork or anything left to the imagination as to what damage the impact inflicted on the structure:

Perdue University Animation

As long as you conspiracy people continue to pretend that the initial collapse didn't begin at the precise location where the plane struck the building (and therefore one event led to the other in some way your conspiracy stories aren't even going to get out of the gate.



LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

Congradulations Perdue on creating a CGI VISUALIZATION. I asked you for a diagram showing HOW the buildings fell all the way down the way they did just by a plane crash and gravity. Your response is proof that a fast flying plane can do damage, so the buildings must have weakened and fell ALL THE WAY DOWN. Makes so much sense to me.
You say "after that it was only a matter of time for the upper section to fail...." Really? Only a matter of time huh?
Again, you have no explanation of how they came down and you question that fact just as I do, even though you wouldnt use those words. How about you ask Perdue to draw up a video actually showing complete collapse is standard. Or instead of a moving DRAWING, they should create an actual SIMULATION that can be run thousands of times showing the average destruction that takes place when you weaken a few supports. Then we could agree that TOTAL COLLAPSE WAS INEVITIBLE.

So you agree that no one can simulate even closely how the towers came down? And all the screaming for me to show evidence is in fact a cover up of the fact that you have no evidence at all of how they fell.

The plane was fast and heavy and hit hard, so the buildings must have naturally fallen all the way down into nothingness. Real Solid.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
You must have missed this:


I didn't miss it, I ignored it becauase it's based upon a bad assumption on your part. The underground fires weren't being fueled by the plane fuel. That burned off within a few minutes. The fires were being fueled by the contents of the buildings- desks, carpets, cubicle partitions, plastics, and the like.

...or are you now going to pretend there weren't any occupants in the towers the same way you're pretending the planes didn't hit the towers?


Do you know what can melt steel? Thermite.


Yeah, and the size of the gigantic underground field that was on fire would mean there'd have to have been enough of this imaginary thermite to fill the Death Star. You've seen the aerial thermal map of the fires, haven't you?

USGS thermal imaging of the underground fires, Sept 16 2001

This is straining the boundaries of believability, even for you.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizayne
Congradulations Perdue on creating a CGI VISUALIZATION. I asked you for a diagram showing HOW the buildings fell all the way down the way they did just by a plane crash and gravity. Your response is proof that a fast flying plane can do damage, so the buildings must have weakened and fell ALL THE WAY DOWN. Makes so much sense to me.


Don't be childish. The FEMA report specifically said that after the initial loss of structural integrity so many things started happening and so many components were involved that it's impossible to map out what happened to every nut, bolt, and door hinge during the collapse. If you're of a mind that you have to demand what happened to every nut, bolt, and door hinge, then this isn't research- it's grasping at straws in desperation for why you shouldn't need to give up your conspiracy stories. You know that and so do I.

The only thing that can be proven is that each floor was held in air by horizontal support braces from the outer perimeter and the internal core, so every floor had the exact same load bearing weight as every other floor. If the initial floor that collapsed wasn't able to withstand the force of the impact of the upper section of the building, then no other floor below it would be able to withstand the force of impact either.


So you agree that no one can simulate even closely how the towers came down? And all the screaming for me to show evidence is in fact a cover up of the fact that you have no evidence at all of how they fell.


All right, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Show me a simulation that illustrates how controlled demolitions (or thermite or lasers from outher space or whatever it is you believe) would explain how the towers collapsed. Step by stem progression of the collapse, please.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Jet fuel would not melt steel that is pulled out months later. No one is arguing that. Realize that your picture means nothing with the BIG temperatures on it. Jet fuel wasn't there months later but if it it buried and still burning debris why would it not be molten in some cases months later when you pull steel out? There is also a big difference in dripping hot metal and pools of molten steel, which did not exist in the context you are using.

Also, you have still not given the name of the person who saw pools of molten steel in the WTC basements.





edit on 29-6-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Before you attempt to quote mine the architects any further, John Skilling was one of two architects who designed the towers. The other is Leslie Robertson, and he is on record as agreeing with the conclusions of the NIST report. In a radio discussion with Steven Jones in 2006, Roberson said-

“[Leslie Robertson:] I support the general conclusions of the NIST report… The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it…"
So we have both lead architects with conflicting viewpoints. There's only one solution to determine who is correct: A fight to the death.



You will need to be more precise on where the explosion you're referring to came from. If it's from the south tower, then you need to know the plane hit one floor above a dedicated mechanical floor chock full of electrical transformers, generators, fuel tanks, pressurized pipes, and other things that would go BOOM if they caught on fire. This floor would have been the first floor the tens of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel would have been dumped into.

If it's from somewhere else, then I couldn't tell you. Whatever it was, the likelihood that it was due to non-conspiracy reasons far outweighs the "secret conspiracy" reasons. If even one explsion we heard was from something flammable within the towers going BOOM as the fires reached them in turn, it stands to reason that all the explosions we heard were from something flammable within the towers going BOOM as the fires reached them in turn.
These explosions- North:

South:

And that's just speculation on my part, but I assume that when the plane hits and explodes, the explosion is caused by the jet fuel igniting.


If you're attempting to claim WTC 7 was a "typical office fire" then you're lying through your teeth. After the collapse of the north tower the water supply for the fire suppression systems from the street were destroyed which allowed the fires to burn out of control. Firefighters reported seeing a three story tall bulge in the side of the structure, proving that there was massive loss of structure integrity from the fires.
Well, it was an office, and it was on fire, much like what would be seen if another office was on fire.


Name another burning building that ever had "three story tall bulging on the side of the structure".
OK the Marriot Hotel in Tampa Bay, Florida, March 4th, 1997, and the International Bank of Commerce in Austin, Texas, August 26th, 1987.

Just kidding, I wanted to give you that feeling of humiliation for a few brief seconds


OK, we've been focusing too much on my version of how the building fell, according to your point of view how did the building fall? How did the structure get damaged by an extraordinary, unprecedented office fire (happy?) to the point that all off the internal steel supports failed simultaneously resulting in a free-fall collapse? If the building truly fell according to the official story, it would not have been symmetercial and it would not have been in complete free-fall during the collapse:


This is high school physics we're talking about. If they can't get the high school physics right, what confidence can we have in their multi-colored computer animated whizz-bang simulations to tell us the exact sequence of girder failures without any physical evidence for any of it?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Don't be childish. The FEMA report specifically said that after the initial loss of structural integrity so many things started happening and so many components were involved that it's impossible to map out what happened to every nut, bolt, and door hinge during the collapse. If you're of a mind that you have to demand what happened to every nut, bolt, and door hinge, then this isn't research- it's grasping at straws...


What your saying is that the collapse was sooo complex it cant be explained, therefore, believe what you're told and like it. Oh wait, FEMA is saying that and you are saying no problem FEMA, it was complex and cant be figured out.

No one is saying every nut and bolt needs to be explained, both buildings fell the same way. How hard is it to show a SIM that demontrates what TYPICALLY would happen. Would you at least agree that both planes hit the buildings in a different way completely, yet both fell the SAME WAY. How is it possible for them to fall the same way but not be able to offer at least a general idea of what physically happened to keep the collapses uniform.

Sorry if I'm so confused, you say that both buildings became destined to fall the same way but cant even begin to answer HOW THE F they did, because there are so many factors that go into buildings falling in the same way

And it's nice that you know how to turn things around on someone BUT, I'm asking for the frigging proof YOU have of the story the govt and media has been pushing. It's one thing to ask me for proof of what i THINK may have happened, however it's much different when the story you are pushing is supposed to be the final word on that day.

You laugh at me for seeing the obvious flaws in the OS but dont seem to think its funny that you have NO PROOF what so ever that can back up your story that planes and gravity alone COMPLETELY destroyed two of the largest and strongest buildings ever made.



Oh, and by the way, the Perdue video you hold on to so dearly shows at 2:23 that the plane punched through the Building clear through to the other side. In fact, it did not. Period. I'll repeat that, Perdue's video shows the plane clearing completely through and out the other side of the tower when in fact it didnt bust outward through a single beam or bulge one on the opposite side. By your own logic and reasoning, your dear video is invalid.
edit on 29-6-2011 by Wizayne because: Spelling it out still doesnt do it for them but i try...



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizayne
 


The plane did punch through the other side. How do you think the parts got to the ground. I mean, do any of you have any of your own logic or thought process or simply read the internets and think everything is the truth.

The Purdue simulation is was actually a very good simulation. There is nothing to debunk there.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


So how's debunking the OP or this video going?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizayne
 


No, its not being said that the collapsed can't be explained, its been explained over and over and over again, but that because it was a complex event, the precise moment and mode of failure of the millions and billions of pieces of the structure can not be CATALOGUED with a very high degree of detail. Big difference.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
So we have both lead architects with conflicting viewpoints. There's only one solution to determine who is correct: A fight to the death.


Why should either of them be incorrect? Skilling was quoting a report that was written back in 1964 that was based largely upon the the bomber that hit the Empire State building (which last I checked was 1/4 the size and weight), while Robertson was referring to the 767 that actually hit the WTC. Skilling's interview was in 1993, and had nothing to do witht the actual events of 2001. For all we know, if a 707 had hit the WTC instead of a 767, it very well may have survived.

The only way there'd be a conflict between the architects is if Skilling denounced the NIST report and concluded that a 767 couldn't bring the tower down. Did he?


And that's just speculation on my part, but I assume that when the plane hits and explodes, the explosion is caused by the jet fuel igniting.


I don't dispute this. What is your point? Just because the fuel burned off it doesn't mean the building contents didn't catch on fire.


Well, it was an office, and it was on fire, much like what would be seen if another office was on fire.


Did it have another office building fall on it, as in WTC 7? According to WTC 7 survivor Barry Jennings the front lobby looked as if King Kong came in and destroyed the place.


Just kidding, I wanted to give you that feeling of humiliation for a few brief seconds


It's not humiliation. It's bewilderment. My trying to follow your zig-zag point of view on how a passenger jet smacking the WTC would cause absolutely no structural damage to the building really doesn't compute.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizayne
Oh, and by the way, the Perdue video you hold on to so dearly shows at 2:23 that the plane punched through the Building clear through to the other side. In fact, it did not. Period. I'll repeat that, Perdue's video shows the plane clearing completely through and out the other side of the tower when in fact it didnt bust outward through a single beam or bulge one on the opposite side. By your own logic and reasoning, your dear video is invalid.


Excuse me Mr. Expert on everything but yes it did. I really, and I do mean REALLY, hate posting the footage of the impact becuase it's the exact moment of time that the people aboard flight 175 lost their lives, but in this case it's necessary. Here's a closeup of the impact that clearly shows wreckage coming out the other side, along with at least one I beam that came off the building. This was all simulated correctly by the Perdue animation:

footage of the impact of flight 175

My goal here isn't to call you names or to make you feel bad about yourself. I'm simply here to point out how those damned fool conspiracy websites you're getting all your information from are pulling your leg. Now you've learned something.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Why should either of them be incorrect? Skilling was quoting a report that was written back in 1964 that was based largely upon the the bomber that hit the Empire State building (which last I checked was 1/4 the size and weight), while Robertson was referring to the 767 that actually hit the WTC. Skilling's interview was in 1993, and had nothing to do witht the actual events of 2001. For all we know, if a 707 had hit the WTC instead of a 767, it very well may have survived.
When did you last check? We need to be sure it's fresh in your mind lol. I don't care if a 767 would have cut through the building completely and kept going on flying through the other side, severing every single support column in that area of the building, because that does not explain how the tower fell with no resistance through the path of greatest resistance!

Let's look at the official story. An airplane hit the WTC, and jet fuel started burning on the inside of the building causing a scorching inferno. Even if it was possible for jet fuel to melt steel, how does one area of the building's steel columns being compromised account for the rest of the steel columns throughout every floor of the building also being compromised? Why, after the top section the building became independent of the building structure and fell, did the remaining bottom portion of the building not stop it? Why did that top section just destroy the whole building without any resistance? Why, despite the fact that both airplanes clearly had different amounts of jet fuel, hit different areas of the towers, hit with different speeds, and hit at different angles, did the buildings collapse in the EXACT same way? Then why did WTC7, which was the farthest building from the twin towers in that entire complex, catch fire from debris, and free-fall through the path of greatest resistance just like the twin towers? That is not possible! It can't be done without controlled demolition! It's impossible! IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!

For the six hundreth time, watch this video and prove to me how the impossible is possible.

To be sure you didn't miss that, watch this video, and prove to me how the impossible is possible.

I'll say it again, watch this video, and prove to me how the impossible is possible.


Did it have another office building fall on it, as in WTC 7? According to WTC 7 survivor Barry Jennings the front lobby looked as if King Kong came in and destroyed the place.
Huh? How could WTC7 have WTC7 fall on it?
Does not compute, error, error. Are you talking about the twin towers collapsing? Because like I said, WTC7 was the farthest building away from the twin towers in that complex, but it was the only one that collapsed despite the fact that it was 47 stories, and every other building had significantly more damage both from fire and falling debris.

Also, watch that video and prove to me how the impossible is possible.

Watch that video, and prove how the impossible is possible.

Don't forget to watch that video and prove how the impossible is possible.

Edit to add: Watch that video and prove how the impossible is possible.
edit on 29-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To request GoodOlDave to prove to me how the impossible is possible



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Who ever made that video clearly was looking for the age group of ...between 7 and 16 to believe it, no realistic person or adult could possibly believe the BS rhetoric spewing out the authors trolling mouth about our great government.

I stopped the video when he started talking about lava being bought from a volcano to put in the world trade center. I actually threw up on my cat because it was sickening to even think that some grown adult would actually believe that a troll, let alone a resident of the USA WOULD COMMIT SUCH TREASONOUS ACTS AS TO PUT A FLAMING…TROLLING VIDEO THAT UNDERMINES THIS GREAT COUNTRY.

‘911 WAS NOT CONSIDERED A CRIME’

‘Aluminums mix’

First, the 50,000 tons of the weight from the airplane in the middle of the floor caused both towers to collapse, not the steel, steel had nothing to do with the towers falling, so stop being stupid and learn to use the common sense god gave you....damn,there is no god for you.
I guess thats why common sense is an issue for you>any way

The towers collapse from the middle as the airplane descended down towards every floor.

I do not want to hear some BS person talking about some stupid steel melting, steel had nothing to do with it ‘CUZO’ you understand me… ‘Lil homey‘, is that clear enough for you cuzzz.

Do you not understand that the frames had nothing to do with weight in the middle of something ,is that not clear enough for you…‘BROTHER MAN‘.

It was 50,000 tons in the middle of a regular office-building floor, if you can find a site or a person who designs your average office floor, they will tell you that no office floor in the world could hold 50,000 tons, let alone when it crashed down to the next floor… then the next…then the next.





Steal frames, loll,

Molten lava on the side of the building, loll

‘911 WAS NOT CONSIDERED A CRIME’ lmaf

The author of this video, loll

The op and the author, lmaf

And you wonder how you got 247 flags?
Because 247 people would not dare try to trick them selves into believing this rubbish, and Judas attempt to undermine our beloved Government.

I WASTED 14MINUTES LISTING TO A MAN TALK ABOUT MOLTEN LAVA BUT COULDN’T EXPLAIN WHERE IT CAME FROM.

I WASTED 14 MINUTES LISTING TO A JUDAS TALK ABOUT THIS GREAT COUNTRY AND A MAN THAT DOESN’T EVEN BELIEVE IN GOD.

I FEEL SO MORTAL NOW…I FEEL SO... USED!

Stupid mortals taking about some stupid steel melting when it clearly showed that 50,000 tons of weight was in the middle of the building.

Show me proof of a bulding that can hold 50,000 tons in the middle of the floor with out it falling ,and i will be done with this and say you are right..other then that,go play some where and show some kids this video or a person who rides the yellow bus with a helmet.






edit on 29-6-2011 by Immortalgemini527 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 



First, the 50,000 tons of the weight from the airplane in the middle of the floor caused both towers to collapse, not the steel, steel had nothing to do with the towers falling, so stop being stupid and learn to use the common sense god gave you....damn,there is no god for you.
I guess thats why common sense is an issue for you>any way
50,000 tons = 100,000,000lbs. Are you telling me that a Boeing 767 weights ONE HUNDRED MILLION pounds?
Even under the most extreme conditions, the heaviest that any model of 767 can possbily be is 225 tons, so you overshot the weight by 49775 tons


CUZO, Lil homey, cuzzz, BROTHER MAN
You bring great shame to not just every American, but every single human being on this planet with your unbelievable stupidity.
edit on 29-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To facepalm



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 

If every body else can exaggerate what they say, why cant I?
I know it was 50 tons, they get the picture.


edit on 29-6-2011 by Immortalgemini527 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 



Even according to the flawed official story, the towers didn't collapse because of the mass of the airplane, so you're backing up a flawed official story with an even more flawed analysis of what caused the towers to collapse.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 



Even according to the flawed official story, the towers didn't collapse because of the mass of the airplane, so you're backing up a flawed official story with an even more flawed analysis of what caused the towers to collapse.

But the one thing i can say lil homie!!!! ...its my own analysis...PERIOD!





Last ‘Realist’ standing in the Universe of life itself !



edit on 29-6-2011 by Immortalgemini527 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


are you saying building 7 didnt fall at free falling speed?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
274
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join