Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer.

page: 1
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+29 more 
posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
For years I'd have anyone who would listen to me for more than a few seconds watch the YouTube videos, check out ATS, and read anything they could on the events of 9/11. I then decided to just take some time, and simply research ONE event, ONE happening that had plenty of evidence, plenty of conversation and debate, and ONE part of the official story that I didn't believe, and see if I could make some sense of it.

I could go on and post numerous websites and references and videos, but (hopefully) there are others like me who really don't have time to sift through every single reference on one of those long, drawn out threads, and with the abundance of information, not only on this site, but on the internet, it's easy to find evidence backing up everything I will explain.

Some simple facts, and some flaws in the arguments of truthers:
1. The building was hit by a plane far larger than the original design when the towers were engineered and constructed. To say that they shouldn't have fallen because they were designed to withstand a hit from any plane is a bit ridiculous.
2. The steel columns lost a considerable amount of their strength due to the intense heat cause by the fires inside the building. They wouldn't remain standing, as they're still bolted to the trusses and concrete slabs, and by being weakened by the fire, were simply bent down and snapped by the weight of the collapse.
3. Asking for evidence of 110 floors nicely stacked up at the bottom of the rubble is like asking for a carton of eggs to be intact after being dropped 10 feet onto concrete. Stuff breaks. The farther it falls, and the more it has falling on top of it, the more unrecognizable it's going be after the collapse.
4. Comparing temperature charts to grainy pictures of flames from the fires, and claiming that the fires must have been hot enough to constitute thermite is silly. I can light a match, and it will have several of the colors on those charts, and the flame from my match isn't going to come close to 1100 degrees.
5. Towers 1 and 2 WERE a controlled demolition. Just not in the sense of C4/Thermite/Dynamite charges. The building was weakened, burned, and collapsed. The building had nowhere to go but down. Anyone claiming that the second tower should have "tipped over" because of the angle, is naive at best. It's still being held together by the core columns, and even being weakened, still held the building together. The building simply had too much inertia to go anywhere but straight down.

There are plenty of events that day that are absolutely unexplainable, and we probably will NEVER know exactly why certain things happened. I'm respectful of EVERYONE'S beliefs, because at one time I was convinced.

My wife put up with me talking about this for 3 years. She holds an architecture degree from Arizona State University, and when I told her that I was starting to change my mind, she smiled and said, "I didn't feel like arguing with something you seemed so close minded about, but when I saw the gaping holes in those buildings, I knew they were coming down sooner or later. The impacts were too low, leaving too much weight above them for them to remain standing."

Like I said, I respect everyone's beliefs. Building 7 is a different story. I think some people had a vested interest in seeing that building fall. But to me, WTC1&2 fell because of a perfect storm of structural damage, fire, weakening core columns and too much weight above the damaged floors that couldn't possibly be supported as the structure weakened.

Peace.



+75 more 
posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
but yet there are tons of engineers who will look at you and go the fire wasnt hot enough to explain the molten steel pouring out of the side of the building jet fuel alone and office supplies do NOT burn hot enough to do what your saying its been proven....and they are the first steel structure's to actually "collapse" because of fire...please if your so inclined tell me why a building that burned for 18hours straight stayed standing...it must of went threw way more hell Considering it burnt for 18hours over what 54 mins? you say your wife is an architect.....well then even she could tell you she didnt know for a fact it would come down...or the fact she really thought it would since a fire has NEVER taken a steel structure down..... i would love to argue every point of your new found belief but it would be pointless...
edit on 20-9-2011 by Calex1987 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Thank you for actually posting an anti-truther thread that isnt just 'you truthers are idiots it was terrorists' etc.

But the same things you have said that prove the building collapsed from a terrorist strike can be used in defence of us truthers. The fire from jet fuel is in no way possible able to bring the building down, as simple as that. Also the amount of evidence found perfectly intact by the people investigating is a bit fishy. Finally, what really actually makes me a truther is why there is no mention of building Seven in the reports. It was just ignored and if there was a comprehensive report on what happened to it I would actually have a little bit of faith regarding what the government said.


+19 more 
posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Ok so you decided to be in denial because your gf looks at you crazy, anyways can you explain the nano thermite found in the WTC dust?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Yes you can light a match and see all those pretty colors, but does your match burn for a couple months after? How do you explain the molten metal and the fact that the pile was burning for a few months after?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
I share some Points with the Op. because the Inner-Core of the WTC was very, very small
compare to the Building.
(which wasn't big in the Basement either, only high!)

The Plane cut through the Building in a easy manner (because there was not much Resistance)
and destabilized everything,
the damaged and de-stablized Inner-Core get heated up with expansion of the Steel
and loosed the Stability, finally the Pancake-Effect happened!

But than it + WTC 7.got blown up because of Security Matters


S.& F. because of having Eggs in the Pantsu!
edit on 20-9-2011 by Human0815 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DemonicUFO
Ok so you decided to be in denial because your gf looks at you crazy, anyways can you explain the nano thermite found in the WTC dust?


Where did I say that my "gf" looked at me crazy? I don't even have a girlfriend, I'm married.


Like I said, there's plenty of stuff that's not explainable. The collapse of the buildings weren't due to only fire, although fire played a great role in it. They collapsed because fire weakened the building, and it was just too heavy to be supported the weaker it got, simple as that.

As far as molten steel, if you're referring to a grainy video showing sparks pouring out of the side of the building, I need more evidence than that. Sparks can come from many sources, the particular video I'm thinking about shows some sparks leaking out of the side of the building, and that's what it looks like to me, it's not clear enough that it's molten metal. If you point to the eyewitness testimony of the firefighters that claim there was "rivers of molten metal, like lava", while I respect the firefighters, they're not foundry workers, and there might be an explanation for that. To my knowledge, and the research I've done, when a building IS set with thermite charges, even then, it doesn't result in rivers and pools of molten lava, so I'm not sure where that would come from, even IF thermite was used.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Here is a question; how many controlled demolitions do you know of where the rubble burned for months afterwards? Controlled demolitions are used to remove old buildings and for the most part build a new one where the old ones stood. Builders don't want to wait months to start working on a new building for the fires to go out.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DemonicUFO
Ok so you decided to be in denial because your gf looks at you crazy, anyways can you explain the nano thermite found in the WTC dust?


Typical..

"decided to be in denial because your gf looks at you crazy" - yeah thats exactly what he said.

You guys really cannot help yourselves.

Gah, my fault, I should have read the op, nodded in agreement and left, it's his work to deal with this arrogant attitude that permeates every singld god damned 911 thread, as he Op'ed it.


+24 more 
posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Gando702
 


I would agree IF.......
All three buildings..yes 1 , 2 and remember 7! Had not fallen with such symmetry, I would have believed it too.
If they had fallen over, all or part of any of the buildings, I would have believed it too
.
Yes 1 & 2 were hit by planes and fire followed, though history shows us that they never fall from fire like that.
Building 7 has proven that we dont need demolition experts anymore to implode a building.
Just set fire to it and it will do it itself

But history was changed on that day.....
Three buildings did the impossible and fell in their footprint, Their support structures gone and a textbook symetrical collapse followed.

If anyone doesnt scratch their heads over the fact that random fires can just cause symetrical collapse like that, they are just not thinking for themselves.

I guess demolition companies will soon be out of work.


+61 more 
posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gando702
Some simple facts, and some flaws in the arguments of truthers:

Your "facts" are not facts, and the flaws are in YOUR argument, not in those of 9/11 truthers

Originally posted by Gando702
1. The building was hit by a plane far larger than the original design when the towers were engineered and constructed. To say that they shouldn't have fallen because they were designed to withstand a hit from any plane is a bit ridiculous.

False.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

The Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.
The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

In all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.

In conclusion we can say that if the twin towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.

Originally posted by Gando702
2. The steel columns lost a considerable amount of their strength due to the intense heat cause by the fires inside the building. They wouldn't remain standing, as they're still bolted to the trusses and concrete slabs, and by being weakened by the fire, were simply bent down and snapped by the weight of the collapse.

Er, no, they were not. They would have been left standing below the point they snapped. The scenario that failure occurred simultaneously over all 240 columns is ludicrous. Any collapse would have been partial, sagging occurring in only some parts of the towers. It would NOT have happened all over the tower at the same time.

Originally posted by Gando702
3. Asking for evidence of 110 floors nicely stacked up at the bottom of the rubble is like asking for a carton of eggs to be intact after being dropped 10 feet onto concrete. Stuff breaks. The farther it falls, and the more it has falling on top of it, the more unrecognizable it's going be after the collapse.

You miss the point. Large chunks of concrete would still survive. Instead, each floor was almost entirely pulverized to dust long before it hit the ground. That degree of destruction can be explained only by high-explosives.

Originally posted by Gando702
4. Comparing temperature charts to grainy pictures of flames from the fires, and claiming that the fires must have been hot enough to constitute thermite is silly. I can light a match, and it will have several of the colors on those charts, and the flame from my match isn't going to come close to 1100 degrees.

You miss the point. The temperature charts indicate pockets of temperatures persisting at Ground Zero long after the towers fell that were hundreds of degrees higher than that reached by office fires. The official story cannot explain that.

Originally posted by Gando702
5. Towers 1 and 2 WERE a controlled demolition. Just not in the sense of C4/Thermite/Dynamite charges. The building was weakened, burned, and collapsed. The building had nowhere to go but down. Anyone claiming that the second tower should have "tipped over" because of the angle, is naive at best. It's still being held together by the core columns, and even being weakened, still held the building together. The building simply had too much inertia to go anywhere but straight down.

But videos show sideways expulsion of steel and concrete with explosive force that cannot be explained by the accumulated kinetic energy of the floors falling above each one. It simply isn't true that eveything went straight down.

Your analysis is faulty and so your conclusion that the towers fell naturally is not to be trusted. Quite apart, of course, from the host of other anomalies connected with the Pentagon and Flight 93 that you ignore ..... .



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Ok... so what about that other building, WT7 or whatever, and the four non-Arabs that were arrested by the George Washington bridge?

Still too many holes in the story... and come to think about it... There couldn't be a war in Afghanistan or Iraq....

I think it's clear to say that nobody will ever know 100% what happened. But to think your goverment had nothing to do with it, is just foolish...

*ps*
I'm Canadian, and really don't give a shait.. though your people's paranoia has leaked up here, and our ultra conservative leader is crying about islamists being the #1 threat here in Canada...


....like... really meow....



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by wardk28
 


Not many. But I also don't know of too many 110 story buildings with multiple basement levels that were hit by fully fueled passenger airplanes that collapsed, either. That's the point that really made me realize that by comparing what happened to the twin towers to any other building fire, or demolition was comparing apples and giraffes. They're really nowhere near the same thing.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SalientSkivvy
Ok... so what about that other building, WT7 or whatever, and the four non-Arabs that were arrested by the George Washington bridge?

Still too many holes in the story... and come to think about it... There couldn't be a war in Afghanistan or Iraq....

I think it's clear to say that nobody will ever know 100% what happened. But to think your goverment had nothing to do with it, is just foolish...

*ps*
I'm Canadian, and really don't give a shait.. though your people's paranoia has leaked up here, and our ultra conservative leader is crying about islamists being the #1 threat here in Canada...


....like... really meow....


Like I said in my original post...there are plenty of thing that are probably never going to be fully explained. I'm only talking about the twin towers in this thread. Trust me, I'm on board about building 7.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gando702

Some simple facts, and some flaws in the arguments of truthers:
1. The building was hit by a plane far larger than the original design when the towers were engineered and constructed. To say that they shouldn't have fallen because they were designed to withstand a hit from any plane is a bit ridiculous.


The towers were opened on April 4, 1973. Planes larger than the Boeing 767, such as the B-52 existed when the towers were built. Tho this first statement you make I find ambiguous and misleading; weather they were built to withstand a direct hit by an aircraft is not what most us truther are arguing for.


2. The steel columns lost a considerable amount of their strength due to the intense heat cause by the fires inside the building. They wouldn't remain standing, as they're still bolted to the trusses and concrete slabs, and by being weakened by the fire, were simply bent down and snapped by the weight of the collapse.


Aviation fuel will not melt steel, the "weakened by fire" point has been proven, not just in scientific models but also in real world evidence whenever there is a major fire in an office-block that does not result in a collapse.


3. Asking for evidence of 110 floors nicely stacked up at the bottom of the rubble is like asking for a carton of eggs to be intact after being dropped 10 feet onto concrete. Stuff breaks. The farther it falls, and the more it has falling on top of it, the more unrecognizable it's going be after the collapse.


In forensic investigations it is the unrecognizable carton of eggs that is the evidence. Such evidence as the nanothermite particles found--but thats a bit over your head


4. Comparing temperature charts to grainy pictures of flames from the fires, and claiming that the fires must have been hot enough to constitute thermite is silly. I can light a match, and it will have several of the colors on those charts, and the flame from my match isn't going to come close to 1100 degrees.


No, it is the physical traces of nanothermite found at the scene that cause me to claim it was that particular high-explosive. if there was traces of Amonium id guess it was ANFO, but that was not the case. Aviation fuel does not melt steel.


5. Towers 1 and 2 WERE a controlled demolition. Just not in the sense of C4/Thermite/Dynamite charges. The building was weakened, burned, and collapsed. The building had nowhere to go but down. Anyone claiming that the second tower should have "tipped over" because of the angle, is naive at best. It's still being held together by the core columns, and even being weakened, still held the building together. The building simply had too much inertia to go anywhere but straight down.


If like you claim it WAS a controlled demolition "Just not in the sense of C4/Thermite/Dynamite charges..." they please explain this last point, because all I get from it is an increased sense that you do not have enough background in this topic.

Can I ask you, what made you no longer want the truth of the event to become exposed?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Ok... put your head in a sand now and watch music idol .
edit on 20-9-2011 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Your comparisons of the two aircraft are noted. Still, the plane is bigger than the 707. Maybe not much bigger, but still bigger. Any further argument would be semantics.

If all of the concrete was pulverized, then how did some of it get thrown away from the building, as you've said? You said it would take massive force to throw these pieces of concrete away from the building, so they must have been pretty big and not pulverized. You can't have it both ways.

And I'm not missing any points, you're actually cherry-picking similar points.

I'm not going to battle with everyone, as I respect all of your opinions. I've done plenty of research, and I used to firmly believe in most of what you are all saying. The Twin Towers were a once in a millenium event, that really can't be compared to anything else, and by using examples of other demolitions or fires, it's not serving any analytical process honestly.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by cartenz

Can I ask you, what made you no longer want the truth of the event to become exposed?



Can you please point me to where I said this?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
I never realized that by bringing up some points, people would start putting words in my mouth.

I'm down for openly and politely debating the collapse of 1 & 2, but when people start saying that my "gf looks at you weird" and I "don't want the truth to come out"...both things I've never said, I guess I really see why ATS has completely gone down hill. It's no longer mature discussion, it's people not liking an opposing opinion, and resorting to snipes and insults.

Stay blind, ATS.

I'll go about my business.

Peace



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Wife girlfriend whatever you know what I meant, and another thing, I heard the world trade centers were designed to take impact from the biggest planes in existence. What about all the other skyscrapers that have caught fire and never went down like these.

edit on 20-9-2011 by DemonicUFO because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join