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.

 

New ATS Survey: The 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

page: 7
69
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I don't think gas and electric lines could burn up to 2400 degrees which was the relative temperature under the towers for about a month after the collapse. Workers boots were melting when they were walking over certain areas. You have Larry Silverstein (leaseholder on all the WTC buildings) admitting on camera he gave the order to "pull" building 7, aka. demolished it in engineering/construction terms, and the amount of explosives that would take requires at least a week or two in advance. So, explain that. Also, a highjackers passport miraculously made it through the fire that supposedly weakened the steel and brought the buildings down, this passport made it through the fireballs and fell to the ground, only to be conveniently found by FBI or whomever. NORAD was given the order to stand down, this is on record.

First responders are not invited to the 9/11 ceremony because they are complaining about not being told in advance about the asbestos and hazards in the buildings, also because in my opinion they know the truth about the other explosions, also of which they are on record talking about "multiple explosions". Both Janitors recall hearing explosions in the sub level of the first tower, and one janitor helped bandage a man whose skin was burnt off from said explosion. I can't tell you how many times the fire fighters and cops said "molten steel" in the newscasts when talking about the aftermath at the base of the towers. There is a picture of one of the main I-Beams right after the collapse, where said I-Beam has a completely diagonal cut (controlled cut, demolitions cut beams in the exact same manner).

The two main highjackers were out having dinner and drinks in Florida nights before the attack. Other highjackers were found alive in the middle east months after the attacks. Alot of 9/11 witnesses have died since 9/11 almost with precision based on their amount of knowledge and ability to recall information and facts about that day. BBC was talking about Building 7 collapsing like 10 minutes before it actually collapsed, you can see the building in the background while the woman is talking about the fact that it "just collapsed". The 9/11 commission has come forward and said they were deliberately not allowed to pursue further avenues and were not allowed to perform a full investigation. The CIA has a history of supporting Bin Laden against the Soviets in Afghanistan. We invaded a completely different country than the one who was supposedly harboring Public Enemy #1 Bin Laden. I could go on, but you see where this is going.

edit: Oh, and homeland security response law was changed 2 months before 9/11 saying that central command must first seek permission from the secretary of defense before sending fighter jets after civilian passenger aircraft. A lot of coincidences.
edit on 9/1/2011 by smarterthanyou because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
This one is getting a lot of attention rather quickly... and so far I think the results will be a surprise in a couple areas, but encouraging in others.

Also, there is not a significant disparity between the opinions of members and that of non-member visitors -- at about a 40/60 ratio right now.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I wanted to give this survey but I was only



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by HumansRuleTheGalaxy
 


Thank you for the never before seen footage.

At this point had you already heard it was hit by a plane?
If not What was your reaction when you first saw the pentagon?
If so did it look to you as if the damage was from an commercial airliner?
And did you happen to see any debris or reminants of a commercial airliner?
Thanks in advance for your response!



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by massiveffect
reply to post by HumansRuleTheGalaxy
 


Thank you for the never before seen footage.

At this point had you already heard it was hit by a plane?
If not What was your reaction when you first saw the pentagon?
If so did it look to you as if the damage was from an commercial airliner?
And did you happen to see any debris or reminants of a commercial airliner?
Thanks in advance for your response!


Due to the extreme velocity of the Boeing airliner (it hit the Pentagon feet off the ground at a whopping 530 mph, according to the official story) it liquified on impact and rushed into the building much like a river would. The fate of the Shanksville Boeing airliner was similar, it too liquified on impact and sort of seeped into the ground, hence the lack of debris at the crash site.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Pretty staggering stuff. A Boeing airliner flying horizontally feet off the ground at 530 mph. Yeah right.

Again the official story is totally out of touch with physical reality.

"""At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed."""

govinfo.library.unt.edu...

Note #61:

61. See NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77," Feb. 19, 2002;TSA report, "Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation for 2001," Aug. 20, 2002, p. 41.

govinfo.library.unt.edu...



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
"""At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower.156"""

govinfo.library.unt.edu...

Note #156

156. NIST report,"Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the WTC," June 18, 2004, appendix H, p. 40.

govinfo.library.unt.edu...



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
P.S. In my most humble estimation about 90% of those who believe the official story of 9/11 have never even bothered to check (read the 9/11 commission report) the incredible bunk and contradictory nonsense they blindly believe.

Trusting in veracity from a system that is manned by habitual and compulsive serial-liars was, is and will continue to be a totally hopeless proposition. Blind faith in such a system seems, well .......... I don´t want to appear insensitive, you fill in the missing word.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Some of those questions were trickery; it appears who came up with the questions is not fully informed on the downing of the WTCs and what actually caused it....which is debateable!



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Laws of physics aren´t debatable, Things fall due to gravity and they fall according to certain laws of physics.

It is physically impossible for a building that is reinforced to prevent or at the very least delay collapse in a gravity driven event to still collapse virtually without resistance in a supposedly gravity driven event.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


And correct me if im wrong but isn't 9/11/01 the only day in history that a boeing 757 has been "liquified" on impact?
Also the only day in history that steel framed buildings have came done from "fire"?

coincident? Personally I think not! The evidence is just to overwhelming to be mear coincidence.

If anyone has done any real research on this matter they will find something is much more than fishy with the OS. Im just curious to hear humansrulethegalexy's first hand experiance that day!

Oh and one more question for humansrule-. Do you remember wat time it was when you filmed your footage? If it was close to 9:40am local time, do you remember seeing or hearing any low flying aircrafts?
edit on 9/1/2011 by massiveffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This one is getting a lot of attention rather quickly... and so far I think the results will be a surprise in a couple areas, but encouraging in others.

What do you consider "encouraging?" Just the response rate, or the responses given?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by massiveffect
 


Yeah, and it was also the only day in history that a Boeing airliner was flown horizontally at 530 mph feet off the ground.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Just before slamming into the wall of the Pentagon - horizontally and feet off the ground - at 530 mph

this magic plane roared at full throttle over the freeway traffic going up to the Pentagon. For some magical reason those military people didn´t report any ill effect at all from this airliner going at 530 mph right above their heads. There was no pressure sweeping vehicles this way and that and this magical event didn´t effect any eardrums.

Here´s an artist´s rendition, based on the official story, of the airliner just about to strike the Pentagon at 530 mph:




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Magic moments.

Here´s a better perspective of the plane approaching the Pentagon at 530 mph.

Again an artist´s rendition based on the official story.




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This one is getting a lot of attention rather quickly... and so far I think the results will be a surprise in a couple areas, but encouraging in others.

Also, there is not a significant disparity between the opinions of members and that of non-member visitors -- at about a 40/60 ratio right now.


be a surprise in a couple areas because the questions were phrased in a way where you couldn't provide real opinions. I voted neutral a few times because the question was too precise.. i think the survey was more for ATS than the actual people taking the survey.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoctorSatan
I wanted to give this survey but I was only



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Not to be rude, but liquified? I have never in the years that I have been looking into this stuff ever seen anyone say liquified when referring to the planes crashing. I've heard disintegrated, though that is also false.

Plane parts were found all over the pentagon area after the crash. You can say "PLANTED, PLANTED!" all you want, but they were still there and must be considered at least 1% possible to be actually true. I also recall reading that the shanksvilled plane was 95% percent recovered. Maybe I need to fact-check that. I do not hold it to be a factual statement right now. Just working off memory, so don't castrate me.

As for other opinions, it's some of the same stuff I've heard a million times. "Pull" is never used when demolishing a building. Pull the firefighters, however, is used. Guess what happened after he said to pull? That's right, the firefighters cleared the area. They had many eyewitness reports from firefighters and the fire chief that the building was not stable and could collapse. About (2 hours?) later, it did. Again, need to fact-check on my hours. It has been a while since I've been able to just regurgitate the stuff I've learned over the years.

I don't know enough about metallurgy and underground fire to tell you what should really happen after a month underground with that much material. I would hope you wouldn't jump to unscientific conclusions either. Instead of saying "IMPOSSIBLE," like I often see around here, wouldn't it be nice if we both agreed that we don't have the education or data to conclusively say whether or not it made complete sense?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I haven't read all of this thread, excuse my idleness if this has already been answered, but has it been looked in to with regards to the structure of both towers? I heard that to cut back on costs, major changes were made to make the towers cheaper to build than what it would ordinarily cost to build such buildings, is this true? This could explain why both towers come tumbling down as they did. If the steel structure was not as thick as first thought, may be it could have been easily warped and weakened from the intense heat and simply folded from top to bottom and the weight made it fall in what seems such a controlled fashion. As for the Pentagon, I still find it amazing that there is no definitive CCTV footage, or none that I've seen, when this is such a high level security building. I would expect cameras to be everywhere within a mile of this building!



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I've talked to a fair share of firefighters about the "Pull It" comment, I've yet to find one who's heard "Pull It" over "Evacuate" "Get Out" or even "Run for your life". But frankly in my mind the most damning piece of evidence against Silverstein is the insurance policies..... that he tried to cash in twice.




new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join