It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

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

page: 3
32
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:44 AM

The chances of identical exercises being conducted on 9/11 and 7/7 are billions to one.

The explanation is simple.

Inside job.

There can be no other.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Calex1987
so please explain this then because this building got hit by a plane...yet today its still standing tall and was older then the towers....www.aerospaceweb.org...

so the empire state building took a direct hit from a B25bomber and stayed standing the twin towers we're built to take multiple hits from an even bigger air craft...yet the older building that was infact on fire hit by an aircraft and yet is still standing...im having a problem here.

B-25 - Wing span = 67'/Length = 53'/Max take off weight = 41.8K lbs/Max speed = 275mph
767-200 - Wing span = 156'/Length = 159'/Max take off weight = 395K lbs/Max speed = 530mph

Then there's the differences in the construction of the two buildings...

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:11 AM
I think this whole thread is bs....

Focus on the real evidence rather than the bs.....

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:11 AM
To the OP, you are not a truther...

Whats with all these " I was a truther and I give up" threads.... They are full of it. Who are you trying to fool..

Investigate 911 before the plane hit. There is the conspiracy. Investigate Ptech, Israel, amdocs, israeli spy ring, art students. Atta (flying venice circus) to start.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Gando702

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.

Bigger, but the tower was designed to withstand impact from a faster plane. Do the maths and you will find the kinetic energy of the 707 is higher than that of the 767 at cruise speed. Size does not matter. It's kinetic energy that counts and so your argument fails.

Originally posted by Gando702
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.

I did not say some concrete got hurled sideways. I said some steel did.

Originally posted by Gando702
And I'm not missing any points, you're actually cherry-picking similar points.

No, I am not. I merely rebutted the points you made.

Originally posted by Gando702
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.

Well, if you have changed your mind, that's fine if you have irrefutable argument to explain your change of view. But you don't.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:27 AM

so the empire state building took a direct hit from a B25bomber and stayed standing the twin towers we're built to take multiple hits from an even bigger air craft...yet the older building that was infact on fire hit by an aircraft and yet is still standing...im having a problem here.

Where do people get this stuff from?

"Built to take multiple hits" ???

What is this building? A battleship??

Please show any site with athority that states "multiple hits".

Also the ESB used steel I beams that ran in the horizontal direction in addition to vertical.
But WTC did not have any that ran horizontal. (excluding core). That is a huge difference in construction. Imagine building a bridge without using horizontal I beams.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by DemonicUFO
The World Trade Center Construction manager says that the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 (which was the largest plane at the time) and that such an impact would to nothing to the structural integrity of the building.

goes on to say the buildings could actually take multiple planes.. k? Thx owned

The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a low speed 707. The Port Authority was apparently making things up as they went along and there is no evidence that the designer considered high speed aircraft or more than one striking a building. "k? Thx owned"

www.911myths.com...
"Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out.
There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel."

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 09:21 AM

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.
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.

If you were ever a Truther you must not have been a very competent one.

What is the specific heat of steel.

How many tons of steel were in the vicinity on the impacts.

If we don't even know the amount of steel it certainly cannot be determined how the steel could get that hot in less than TWO HOURS.

911research.wtc7.net...

psik

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 09:31 AM

If we don't even know the amount of steel it certainly cannot be determined how the steel could get that hot in less than TWO HOURS.

Huh? What are you talking about? You made your determination within two weeks of 9/11/2001 without any of that information - why does everyone else need the information, but not you?

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 09:38 AM

If we don't even know the amount of steel it certainly cannot be determined how the steel could get that hot in less than TWO HOURS.

But the steel in the trusses is much thinner than the external structure. Essentially round bar steel about 3/4 to 1.25 thick. Without insulation it could heat up to the point of weakening quite quickly.

Now I'm curious as to the actual size of the truss steel.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 09:54 AM
Glad to see the truth movement dropping its useless parts. It must really be hard for them, every day another anti-truth thread, we are getting there.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 09:54 AM

Originally posted by samkent

If we don't even know the amount of steel it certainly cannot be determined how the steel could get that hot in less than TWO HOURS.

But the steel in the trusses is much thinner than the external structure. Essentially round bar steel about 3/4 to 1.25 thick. Without insulation it could heat up to the point of weakening quite quickly.

Now I'm curious as to the actual size of the truss steel.

Oops, that's right. You have to disappear THE CORE again.

psik

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:35 AM

care to answer the question i posted to you ealier. If you do not i shall presume you are still a truther... Whats going down with all these I was a truther threads with no backbone...

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Saltarello
Glad to see the truth movement dropping its useless parts. It must really be hard for them, every day another anti-truth thread, we are getting there.

Getting where may I ask? Just because there are countless threds on here of this nature does not mean truthers are going to go away--infact this strategey is counter-intuitive!. The more you push your spam onto the web the more the truth will resist.

I use to only lurk forums like this, but Im happy to add another voice for the truth so we are not drowned out by this organized trolling.

You can not manipulate the truth.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:45 AM
9/11 has far to many coincidences for me to beleive in the os

you can only call an apple an orange for so long .

governments have a history of false flag operations , this is no secret .. its public knowledge .

Thats why it would not surprise me if it were an inside job.

They have no problem sending men out to get slaughtered

Remember its easier to sacrafice the pawns for the king ?

In higher power and politics i don't believe in coincidences....

espically not this many

50 Facts Concerning 9/11 that point away from the OS

and then of course you have these guys

I would love to bury my head in the sand , take the OS and drink my tap water like a good citizen .....

but there are far to many red flags about the event that changed the world for me to ignore.

but let me know how the sand taste ya?

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:49 AM

Try working on reading comprehension please, it will save you many posts like this one.
That every second day there is a truther hate thread means a couple of things: OSrs start to be really worried, and the truth movement is increasing. Dropping a useless part, like the OP, that chooses to go in denial is good for the movement, get rid of the retards and get on with the people that can see things for what they are.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:53 AM
I don't know if we will ever know the truth about the events of 9/11.

Why did the terrorists do that to the WTC? Were they also working for Enron? Needing some Gold or what?

I seriously thought that day as I do now that WE allowed it to happen. You cannot tell me the GREAT US of A had no clue what was going to take place and we couldn't prevent it. PLEASE. We have never been attacked like that and probably never will again because our Government knows ALL!

At the "time" the events were beginning to unfold we just so happen to see our President reading to a bunch of little kids...awwww...how sweet. I just don't buy all the BS. Sorry!

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:54 AM

Originally posted by purplemer

... Whats going down with all these I was a truther threads with no backbone...

I think they call it "New Media Marketing Strategy"?? or "Psyops"???, that is if like I suspect this is an organized campaign.

If not, the trolls really somewhere to hang out since the closure of ED.

But so many tell-tale signs its organized.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:57 AM

Originally posted by MamaJ
I don't know if we will ever know the truth about the events of 9/11.

Why did the terrorists do that to the WTC? Were they also working for Enron? Needing some Gold or what?

I seriously thought that day as I do now that WE allowed it to happen. You cannot tell me the GREAT US of A had no clue what was going to take place and we couldn't prevent it. PLEASE. We have never been attacked like that and probably never will again because our Government knows ALL!

At the "time" the events were beginning to unfold we just so happen to see our President reading to a bunch of little kids...awwww...how sweet. I just don't buy all the BS. Sorry!

What terrorists? Those 19 of wich half are still alive? They say they had no clue, condy stated no one could envision that, yet there is that report with the towers and a plane, not to mention the 9/11 drills. You were not attacked, at least not by external forces. And no, YOU did not allow it to happen.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:59 AM

Well guess what, sometimes structural engineers are wrong.

new topics

32