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.

 

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

page: 13
32
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
There were no planes at 9/11/ Pentagon / Pennsylvania. PERIOD

Finding the passports/id of the terrorists pretty much gave it away that it was an inside job.

Common people. Wake up?




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I'm genuinely considering all these "I was a truther" threads to be made by paid shills, a lot like the one who came on here a few months ago confessing his/her job in all this. It's also starting to remind me of born-agains.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by LibertyCrazy
While I'm always open minded, I have to say I've never really "bought in to" the whole 9/11 inside job theory. Not because of lack of logic or evidence that contradicts the official story but simply because I strongly doubt the competence of anyone inside the gov't, or hell TPTB, to pull an event and plan of this magnitude off and maintain the security on the event that continues to this day.

So I've always kind of written off the occurrences of that day as being part of a perfect storm that created a series of unlikely, but not impossible, results.

That being said I simply can't reconcile what happened to WT7 as an unlikely but not impossible event. And the OP as someone who has been a passionate critic of the official story should not easily surrender their suspicion about these events until a even slightly plausible explanation for WT7 is developed and considered.


A plausible explanation I found is that WTC 7 was damaged by debris and was on fire, causing one main support to fail. The building was built on top of a Consolidated Edison power plant, and so the supports were not put in the most ideal places, structurally. The debris caused an 8 story hole in the corner, a 20 story hole near the bottom as described by firefighters, and at least a chunk off the roof as visible from pictures. Later on in the day, firefighters witnessed a 3 story bulge forming in the building, and the decision was made to pull them out of the area, creating a collapse zone. Then, the building began to collapse, penthouse first, as it was directly above the failed column. Then, the debris crashing down in the building caused the supports to buckle for 8 stories along with the damage to the corner, and then the building simply continued coming down.

But naturally, I will get attacked personally for this post and completely ignored, called crazy and such. That's ok. It makes sense to me and to many others, so who cares what some anonymous people on the internet think?


No, you're not going to be attacked personally. I'm not calling you crazy. But I would like to know where you get your information from. How do you know Building 7 was built over a "Consolidated Edison power plant"? and the supports were not put in the most ideal places? The building would not be built like that. You're making it up as you go along. This is the first time in ten years I've heard your explanation. How could there be a 20 story hole near the bottom? That doesn't make any sense. If one of the main supports was damaged and it collapsed, the building wouldn't have come down so symmetrically. But it did. Nice and even. It almost floats down to the groud. For the building to collapse the way it did, ALL of the supports would have had to be taken out at the same time within milliseconds to get that desired effect. I've never heard of a building bulging. In the history of buildings and skyscrapers, never has there been a collapse by fire. Buildings have burned for 24 hours and they didn't collapse. But let's say if one did, it wouldn't collapse all at once. Are you really going to say that the fire burned so evenly that it weakened the building exactly the same way all the way around? That the debris hit the building in the same places so it weakened it evenly? There's no way.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gando702

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.


^ You do realize that that is just ridiculous right? ^

Forget the finger pointing, and the theories, and the right and wrong posturing, and just think critically and logically about your concluding paragraph as to why you are no longer a truther...

Re-read every sentence and follow the logical inconsistencies.

Mmhmm,... is your brain starting to hurt?

Mine too.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Ugggghhhh, it is getting so damn annoying having to debunk this crap over and over and over again. A few of the videos there are faked. They only came out at least 5-6 years AFTER 9/11. You refuse to believe that because you refuse to research all the information available on this site alone!

I couldn't hear ANY explosions happening before the collapse. All booms were during it, and the one video had fake audio of demolition-like booms. I showed you the original, but you don't want to hear it, I guess.


You're not "debunking" anything. Your explanations sound ludicrous. Why are you so gung-ho to accept the official story? Just because you have an answer to everybody's doubts and questions doesn't make what we know invalid. The reason we have these lingering doubts, suspicions and questions is because the official explanations do not make any sense. If it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true. They're the ones who are saying, "this is what happened". From what we see and know, we don't accept it and don't believe them. The burden of proof is on them because they're the ones who were in charge. They would be the ones who would do something like this. They're the ones who would be held accountable. But their explanations don't make sense. You're so convinced that you're right and EVERYBODY else is wrong. How can that be? You can't even see how your explanations are so made up. Why do you believe them so strongly? Is it because it would be a scary realization if you figured out that you have been lied to? That our government could possibly have a hand in, or allow 9/11 to happen?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Does anyone know if the guys on Myth Busters ever tried to duplicate this pancake theory on a smaller scale? I'm sure there's enough people who have written in to suggest proving it. I would be curious just to see a small scale steel building set on fire and watch how long it takes to collapse, if it would ever collapse.

Small scale testing is done all the time. I can't think of anything else more important than trying to put this building collapse conspiracy to rest. If they haven't talked about it, maybe they've been strong armed to ignore it?

I know they were blocked from revealing the RFID myth. Proving information contained on RFID chips could be read remotely. Here's just a small part of the story that caused them not to push for the episode on RFID's.


Adam continues, “I got chills just as I described it. They were way way out-gunned and they absolutely made it clear to Discovery they were not going to air this episode talking about how hackable this stuff was and Discovery backed way down, being a large corporation who depends upon the revenue of the advertisers. Uh, and now it’s on Discovery’s radar and they won’t let us go near it. So I’m sorry. It’s just one of those things, but man, that was.. Tory still gets a little white when he describes that phone conversation.”


I would imagine the amount of viewers for an episode like that would go through the roof!



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by elg3cko
I'm genuinely considering all these "I was a truther" threads to be made by paid shills, a lot like the one who came on here a few months ago confessing his/her job in all this. It's also starting to remind me of born-agains.

I think you're right. Who in their right mind would one day decide, "I've learned all I need to about 9/11 and now I believe the official story". Huh? If that's true, then why would they come here trying to change everybody else's minds with the same lame explanations that we've heard from 9/12? They should just go about their lives blind to the reality that 9/11 is a big lie. They must be paid to try to "debunk" people's doubts, questions and suspicions. But they're failing at it miserably.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Gando702
 


Being a truther or not, to me, is besides the point. We asked about the how. We asked about the who. And we all have our own opignions, each one as valid as the next. But a question I have seldom heard answered is why. This is the most important question of all. Why was this attack carried through? Why was there no resistance. Why were the American armed foces, seemingly, deliberately kept from defending the US? And I'm not talking about "they were out on drills". Yes, they were but in such a great number? Why? The why is of the utmost importance. If we can not move beyond the who and the how then I'm affraid the answeres to our questions will never be uncovered.
edit on 20-9-2011 by XLR8R because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by balon0
There were no planes at 9/11/ Pentagon / Pennsylvania. PERIOD

Finding the passports/id of the terrorists pretty much gave it away that it was an inside job.

Common people. Wake up?


Well there probably were planes and UMV but they DID NOT crash into any buildings.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
To the op, just google "shaped charges WTC," people waving in the opening of where the plane actually hit the WTC's 1 and 2 and the fact that WTC 7 was not even mentioned in the 9/11 commission. No need to trivialize it much more than that.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Calex1987
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)


National Geographic did a show on this.
They tried to burn through steel with thermite.
It didnt do a thing, they were doing it because people said "thermite was used to cut the columns"
They kinda shot themselves in the foot - If thermite cant cut steel or weaken it, how can jet fuel... most of which burned up on impact?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Yeah, the disinfo shills on this thread are paid good money to ply their b.s., why not just let them make their money?
Especially the ones with the, 'your repeated rhetoric on long debunked theories'.
That is classical disinto shill b.s.. They try to make it look like someone has debunked the facts, when, in fact, no one has. They try to make it sound like your facts are so boring that no self respecting sheeple would listen to them.
Let them answer why every grain of dust from the twin towers had radioactivity in them.
And why the molten steel lay in the footprint of the twin towers, boiling, for weeks, even months afterward.
Neither have anything to do with airplane fuel.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Gando702
 


Those buildings were designed to take a dozen hits each.... FACT!



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
It's a conspiracy theory and we love it. Our community will mourn the loss of a fellow "truther". Someone who was bold enough to challenge the common beliefs of society. We will mourn the loss of someone who was unafraid and questioned openly what the media told him to accept.
You will be sorely missed... If life takes you in a different direction, so be it.

If you have any questions or feel a need for stimulating, intelligent conversation...

Then you know where to find us.

Farewell



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by R3KR
 


Ignorance is bliss, but have a look at this

edit on 21-9-2011 by Saltarello because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

I'm afraid you just debunked your own previous statement.

First you say that because the pile burned for months, that is evidence that controlled demolition was not used because other controlled demolitions did not have a burning pile of rubble for months.

Now I agree and I think that is a fair point to make. Which caused me to ask you what would cause the pile to burn for months. Read your reply again....


Now your saying that buildings that are destroyed have the contents removed, and since the WTC did NOT have its contents removed, that these contents continued to burn and keep the fire going. So even by your own explanation, if it was a controlled demolition and the contents of the building were not removed, the pile would still burn. Therefor your assertion that the pile burning is proof that controlled demolition is impossible is false. Am I missing something here?


I never made the claim that underground fires disproved demolition. No matter the cause of the buildings' collapses, the underground fires provided the heat. Some less astute CTer's insisted that the excess heat was proof of thermite which, of course, it wasn't.
The question of why the WTC rubble burned and why a planned CD doesn't is that there isn't anything to burn in a commercial CD. Everything is that can burn or easily fly is removed before demolition; windows, doors, etc
edit on 9/21/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
reply to post by Gando702
 


Those buildings were designed to take a dozen hits each.... FACT!


There is absolutely no evidence for your claim. FACT!



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Viking9019
 


So how did we get any oil by planning 911? How did anyone profit from oil due to 911.

I just don't see a money connection.



Short selling of American Airways stock in futures market in early trading prior to impact reeks of profit making on 911--granted its not commodities (oil) but someone made a fortune knowing this was going to happen.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Gando702
 


lol were you ever a truther or are you just saying that?? because you have not come up with a very convincing arguement as to why you changed your mind. the buildings fell straight down yes but there was no stop in the speed at which the top floors fell which should have happened when the upper floors connected with the floors still intact below

lol the fact that you think it was a plane that brought them down is just stupid



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
100 story buildings do not fall in 2 hours because of structural damage. What is your point with this post? You think the original story is fact? Or was it a cover up?




top topics



 
32
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join