It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:50 PM
reply to post by NadaCambia

I dont think they had to bring down the WTC to start a war.....they created "this" red flag to get control of the masses(thru fear) and to implement the Patriot Act without resistance.

They had "weapons of mass destruction" as their excuse for war......another lie, btw

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:51 PM

Star and flag for sure.....I wish it could be 100.

For the level headed post. I get so fired up on this subject it is not even funny. I have to take a break from the physics arguments and such nonsense.............people trying to sound smart and really do not have a clue.....

I usually argue until I have smoked a pack of cigs and then delete the thread from my subscribed threads. It truly is like beating a dead horse.............. It will never end.....

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Howakan

I am a truther. I believe this to be a red flag. I think it was allowed to happen, but not a controlled demo. I believe these towers could have fallen due to the impact and subsequent fires.

Well, this is a new one... So, uh.... ?

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:54 PM
I believe that if those jet fuel fires had burned for more than an hour, yes it would've eventually taken down those buildings..maybe. But I am not buying a total collapse of both buildings in under an hour of burning, just not gonna buy it.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:54 PM
Arguments based on the temperature at which jet fuel combusts or similar for paper are not valid. If I rely on the same logic I only need to show that there was a single candle in the building and I have an explanation for the weakened steel. After all candles burn at up to 1000C whereas steel is critically weakened at as little as 1000F.

In a kiln the temperature of a wood fire can reach well over 1000 degrees C.

Also, the logic that the building contained only paper, an aeroplane, jet fuel and steel is clearly nonsense.

And, fires make buildings collapse all the time.

For an insight into why a large proportion of the building was turned to dust and small pieces, see the video of the recent air race crash in reno.

Another thing. The buildings DID survive the impact of the planes, They swayed 8m or something like that, then returned to their original positions. Testimony of survivors from floors directly above or below where the planes hit confirm this. The buildings did not survive the subsequent fires.

Saying all this is pointless. There are those who actually want to disbelieve their government. And well, fair enough. Maybe their government deserves that lack of trust.

edit on 20-9-2011 by XtraTL because: Corrected typos

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:55 PM
People we can go back and forth on this for another ten years and say this will happen, this wont happen, thats impossible, the government had something to do with it, yada yada yada. My point is this. Two commercial aircraft flying around 500mph crashed into the buildings. Never in history that I recall has that every happened. Yes aircraft have crashed into buildings but they werent this big nor were they traveling at that high of speeds. These jets were. We didn't know what the outcome would be because it has never happened before. We and whoever can speculate all we want, but the fact is that we just don't know what brought them down. Experts say this, then some say that...thats all hogwash. Those jets hit those buildings with so much energy and force that i cant even begin to think. The following fire, plus the damage of the impact surely had a something to do with the collapse. Remember that even though the buildings were "DESIGNED" to withstand a impact, we are not for certain it was designed right. We didnt have the computer programs like we have now to simulate anything like that. The engineers math may have been wrong. One thing is for certain though, those buildings were designed to fall straight down.

I'll close with this. Do I believe the government had something to do with it, or let it happen absolutely. They could have stopped it I believe. But giving everything else that happened those buildings were doomed.

1. Planes hit the buildings with a ton of energy.
2. Resulting damage did weaken the overall integrity of the structure, had to of.
3. Resulting fire also contributed to weakening the strength and integrity of the structure.
4. Maybe the buildings were flawed when they were designed and actually couldn't handle the impact plus fire.
5. Maybe the 2nd building that collapsed was weakened from the 1st collapse. Resulting in it collapsing as well because its integrity was compromised.
6. WTC#7????????????????????????

I just think it was a perfect cocktail of everything mixed together. Murphy law says...."What can go wrong, will go wrong", and everything went wrong that day.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by XtraTL

And, fires make buildings collapse all the time.

Not true no steel framed building has collapsed due to fire. The 3 buildings that day were the first and will be the only to ever fall due to fire.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:01 PM
What about building 7 though? Forget building 1 and 2. I seriously think 1 and 2 are just a way to attack the weaker part of the arguement....

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:01 PM
Well all i have to say is check this out, this is about as dumbed down as it can get, but still a very powerful video which brings up alot of big questions:

Sure there may have been terrorists involved, but in my eyes it looks as if the FBI/CIA had known about their plans for a long time and simply allowed them to crash into the WTC. In that video above its focusing on WTC7 which did not even get hit by a plane... just so happened that several floors were occupied by the DOD and CIA. Top it off with a controlled demolition, destroy the evidence/planning and you have put the cherry ontop of the conspiracy cake.

There is no way i will ever change my view on what happened. The WTC attacks were organized by terrorists, government officials played a blind eye and used it for their advantage to start the great oil crusade of iraq and afghanistan.

What next? Claim a humanitarian crisis via NATO and start an oil crusade in libya?
Oh wait, nevermind...

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:03 PM
if the OP is genuine, and i doubt it, it merely indicates that the 10 years of constant brainwashing from news media reminding us that "the moslems did it" has finally hypnotised him. he can feel safe now that he has bought the story.

case closed, another obedient servant for the corrupted government.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:06 PM
reply to post by Gando702

That was my point. If it was a controlled demo then I couldn't see the fires burning for so long. Between the amount of debris that came when the buildings collapsed to the fires, one can rule out the buildings being brought down using the kinds of demolitions used to bring down old buildings.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:15 PM
reply to post by blah yada

i logged in just for this

you are hereby getting a star from me
because you have seen exactly what this person intended
and this should be something noted of the ways shills(or whatever they should be called)
will use as their tactics to sway people to the other side, even if it doesn't work.

Good Job!!!


posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:21 PM
You say all this...Then say "building 7 was a different story"???

Your damn right WTC7 was a different story...The "smoking-gun" story, in my eyes.

It might be a good idea to take & look, & try to disassemble the valid points made in this epic thread, by TupacShakur:

9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

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

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

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:35 PM
I'm not going to attack you, but I will say that I understand that as a skeptic, you probably think you're being more rational. The simple fact is, however, that you aren't.

Look at Shanksville. Look at the near non-existent debris from that crash. Look at the Pentagon. Look at how clean and symmetrical the explosion was, and the utterly absurd cock and bull story they tried to tell people about the obstacle course that the plane would have had to go through. Look at the fact that there has been virtually no footage of the Pentagon detonation whatsoever. We're supposed to go purely on their say-so.


There is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever. There are holes in the official story, literally anywhere you care to look.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:42 PM
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

I probably didnt articulate myself well enough here.....the point I wanted to make was that how the buildings fell is less important to me than why they fell......

"how" they fell could be due to planes and fire, or possibly controlled demolition, or possibly thermite, or possibly missiles.....I admit I dont know the answer and nobody has convinced me their "theory" is the correct one...., yet people debate it over and over as if they know the answer.....its speculation and theory at this point, not fact

Now "why" they fell is a different story....they DID fall due to a terrorist attack....perhaps the terrorists were the Cheney/Bush admin, perhaps they were the CIA, perhaps they were Israelies, perhaps they were crazed muslims.....I dont know(again) matter who planned it, I believe our government had knowledge and could have prevented it.

Overall, I dont believe the buildings had to fall to accomplish a "red flag" or create fear in the peoples eyes. Hijackers crashing into buildings is probably enough to create the fear, get their patriot act enacted and start a war or two.....maybe they just got lucky on the towers falling.....again, I dont know.....Im looking for the answers, just like everyone else....but.....

building 7???........THATS the one I keep coming back explanation will convince me it wasnt planned....

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:43 PM
The big question is imho. not how and why the WTC collapsed
the big question is why the US-People do not demand to get the full Truth of 9/11

Why there is no Consequence in all this Discussions?

Why there is no logical radicalization in the People?

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:45 PM
reply to post by Gando702

That is the most logical well stated argument I've seen in a while. You are spot on in your assessment. Unfortunately, most of the conspiracy gurus have already made up their mind and there is no convincing them. Now in another 50 years, our children and grandchildren will be discussing this case like it was Roswell or JFK. I'm curious, does this make you re-think your stance on Roswell or JFK?

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:45 PM
I still kind of think it’s a little laughable that we a still talking about this 10 years after the fact was it a government cover up? sure. Did building 7 get demolished by c4? yes. should world trade 1&2 have collapsed? no. Was there a upon there? NO WAY! (too many people would have reported it. and too many cameras didn't catch it) More importantly, is anything we talk about, any amount of proof we give, going to change the way the government releases information. I dare say no....’s still fun to watch all the different people try to make some sort of difference

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:50 PM

Originally posted by micpsi

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.

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 ..... .

But you failed to figure in the velocity of the aircraft and the faster soemething moves the greater the mass. that's right, an airplane impacting on the building weighes more than at rest.
edit on 20-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:54 PM

Originally posted by ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

As I said in another post what made them collapse is of little issue to me the events before hand are enough to put doubt on it. As for the A&E stuff the termite and iron orbs are compelling,

Termites have never in history brought down a steel building. They're more of a threat to wood buildings. Thermite could maybe do it, but it would take tons and tons of the stuff, no one saw it going in, no one saw it burning, and neither thermite residue nor unreacted thermite has been found.

The "official story" provides numerous candidates for your iron orbs. Given the lack of thermite evidence, any of these candidates will do. I'll just post a link.

the fire temp information is good too,

And what is this fire temp information?

the molten steel running out the side of the building as well.

They identified this as steel, how?

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in