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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:56 PM

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by phantomjack

LOL pushed out by what, the cores that were falling first ?? The outer walls still have not moved at that point.

I guess all that concrete powder was like "Ink Toner" Yeah that must have totally fanned the flames... so much so it fanned invisible flames underneath as well.

Very simple, AIR. As the collapse started, the floor pushed down like a bellow, and blew out windows, along with fire, dust, debris, bodies, and just about anything else. Where did you think that air went?

The flammable materials, the ones already burning, were further inflamed by the all of a sudden presence of NEW oxygen, from the outside. That is the source of the fireball.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:57 PM
What happened? She cut you off? No really did she? Because I can see zero logic in your changing of your mind. Dismiss nano-thermite. Dismiss breaking the laws of physics. Dismiss rapid onset of collapse, Dismiss the no plane wreckage at Pentagon, and dismiss the 15x20 burnt out hole in the ground in Shanksville. Dismiss the fact gravity can't lift a few hundred thousand pound beam and throw it up and away from the Towers. I could really go on & on. I'll let some other's on here toast your change of heart.

If your wife is a professional architect. She would be familular with building codes. As in in high rise buildings, each floor has to be strong enough to support the weight of the five floors above it. So how does less than a third of the weight of the structure, crush down through the stronger floors below? At the rate of freefall? Also where did the concrete go? If it was just a gravity collapse, there should have been really large chunks of intact concrete in the rubble. There was'nt. In a crush down event as per gov version. Should there not have been a lull or pause as each floor contacted the floor below it till it coud'nt bear the weight and so fourth and so on. If so, then from what I''ve learned it would have took about one minute thirty nine seconds 1:39 compared to 9.8 & 10 seconds. Dismiss it all and reconnect with that spouse of yours.

edit on 20-9-2011 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2011 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:59 PM
I mentioned this before and I dont think anyone saw it......

Want to mess up debunkers lives and the make the perps sweat? Investigate everything about 9/11, 1 second before the first plane hit.

Who funded it? Did the 'terrorists' use the wargames as cover for the attack? How did they know about the war games? Did fema have any foreknowledge or just plain luck they were set up on pier 92 on Sept 10th 2001 anticipating a terrorist attack (exercise)? What did Ptech have to do with the FAA software? Did they electronically hijack the aircraft? Who trained the hijackers? Were Israeli agents living next door to the terrorists in the U.S for years? Did Israel play any part in the execution of the attack? Were american intelligence fooled? Electronically hijacked?

Start with these and forget thermite, cutting charges, pullit and whatever black hole conspiracy is promoted.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by openyourmind1262

Truthers should be cut off . It would help with that natural selection thing.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

Thanks that is fixed. The fire temps were not hot enough to melt steel about half the temp needed ( they showed this in the color of the smoke, and color of the fire) also the fires burned for less than one hour (which is not even sufficient to remove the fire coating. The molten steel is again proven through color and heat. What do you think the molten metal is?

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:01 PM

Originally posted by nottheonlyone
So you believe there was a conspiracy in regards to WTC 7, but then that terrorists flew the planes into WTC 1 and 2. Instead of believing the whole thing was a conspiracy or believing the official story.

Hmmmmm..... Which one is a bigger stretch of the imagination? Which one is a more probable hypothesis of the 3 selections?

edit on 20-9-2011 by nottheonlyone because: grammar

I think there is more behind WTC7 than what we have observed. The whole command center for the Mayor is an interesting variable. Then, one has to look at all of the other tenants in the building.

Lets say, for argument sake, that WTC7 was in fact rigged to blow. The question is, was it rigged to blow on 9-11-01? Or was it rigged to blow at some other time in the future when certain "secrets" would need to be kept secret?

The amount of men needed to first wire the twin towers and to have WTC7 wired as well, would be enormous! And as of today, not a single one has stepped forward to admit they were involved in a demolition project that large, with this much money floating around? Hell, I am surprised that someone hasn't paid someone yet just to lie about having done it.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:03 PM
If a truther is defined by an absolute belief in the building demolition theory, I wouldn't fit it either, but I sure as hell don't buy the clean-as-a-whistle OS.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:03 PM
good for you. I'm sure you'll face lots of venom and anger in this thread. that's just other truthers who feel the same way but haven't gotten to the acceptance yet

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:04 PM

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by wardk28
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.

I agree..which now begs the question, why did the pile continue to burn for months? Jet fuel does not burn for months either.

Houston we have a problem.

Controlled demolition companies remove the contents of the building to be demolished. The towers had all of their content when they collapsed less what was expelled on impact.
The pile continued to burn because there was significant fuel in the rubble in the form of office furnishings and paper. In such an environment, they continued to burn as a damped fire while the rubble acted as insulation. Underground fires are common in the mining industry and are difficult to extinguish.

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?

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Viper73
Jeeeeez....this another fool who hasnt got the strength or intelligence to escape his own cognitive dissonance........listen....we have gone over this for 10 years.....10 damn years........a friggin decade......if you still don't have enough friggin neurons in your puny little brain to know that 911 was an inside job, then there is no hope for your azz.....I'm not kidding tired of paid posters coming on here attempting to smear the or cloudy viewers perceptions of something that has already been virtually proven. This debate is done....there is no controversy either are smart,intuitive with common sense or your cognitive dissonance is ruling over you!
911 has and always will be an inside job! Wake the hell up! ...and if your a paid poster......get outta here!

Come on brother. You are on a forum that discusses these things, from all points of view. If you can't take the debate, then why are you here?

"This debate is done...there is no controversy" -- this is a standard tactic used normally by those who want the truth to remain hidden.

Paid posters? Damn, please tell me where I can get some of that income??

Take a deep breath, and deal with the other side of the coin like a man. You can't silence people bro.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:06 PM
According to a nifty little calculator I found online: If a aircraft weighing 325,000 pounds is traveling at 550 mph then the energy it hits the building at is 3,286,517,030 pounds....thats a lot of kinetic energy. 3 billion pounds worth....I'm sure that will do some damage.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:12 PM
Heres some math on the dynamics of the planes/fire/and collapse.....interesting and dry read......

Collapse Math

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:13 PM
reply to post by Gando702

There is no 'fact' in number (1) it is hearsay, there is nothing written about airplanes visa ve the towers construction, only what certain individuals have stated and with the qualification of low speed, and to add not so much a larger 'plane, that is overstatement + the hearsay 'plane was faster, and since the 'planes that hit the towers are generally accepted as going at high speed, neither hearsay 'plane or actual 'plane would conform to what actually occurred.

Number (2) you did not address the knowledge that washers on the bolts were found to be fractured, you could speculate that they had already had lost their properties before the attacks, more information is needed, (I can add that very special attention is being applied to both bolts and washers in the new buildings)

Number (3) is a non remark, it is quite obvious that all the ejecta is flying out horizontally.

Number (4) others have made the same remarks about molten metal dripping down, (not aluminium) BTW grainy pictures are confined mostly to what is on the internet.

Number (5) needs to be clarified, you just say second tower, if you mean the second collapse, that is the north tower, and in fact below the inpact point, and very partially above, the core remains standing for some considerable moments, and when inertia no longer plays a part, and is the only part of the building to fall straight down, this has not been properly explained.

Both towers had extreme lean overs above or around and below the points of impact at the time of collapse, the south tower's upper portion totally disintegrated with little effect directly below, the north tower's upper portion had a sizeable amount hitting the street, and mostly no effect directly below, none of this is properly addressed in official reports, one of which is flawed and that is admitted, the other of which uses $10 million cartoons.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:22 PM

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

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

YES! Lets discuss that. First, let me say that I feel that I am well qualified to discuss this topic because I would be willing to guess that I am only one of a very few people on this thread who have actually been to the twin towers.

Correct me if I am wrong....

There are a lot of things that are in an office building other than the above aforementioned.

1. Many of the offices had carpeting not only on the floors, but on the walls as well. Anyone here ever see carpeting burn? It burns hot, it burns long, and it makes a lot of smoke. It is petroleum based with other polymers, glue, and chemicals. Add that heat to the heat of the burning jet fuel.

2. We are assuming that the jet fuel all blew at the same time when the plane impacted. There also would have been a significant amount of fuel that did not ignite at first, and was thrown either across the building down the shafts, into stairwells, and the floors above and below the point of impact. So it was able to work its way past most of the firewall protection that may have been building code in the sixties.

3. Every 12 feet or so there is a fire extinguisher. Don't you remember shop class? Never throw the fire extinguisher in the fire! My favorite is when those point out the mini fire balls or explosions or "PUFFS" that they see the building is falling is caused by explosives planted to bring the tower down. Yes, they ARE explosives -- FIRE EXTINGUISHERS. THOUSANDS OF THEM. Probably with the impact of several military grenades. (I am not military, so this is just supposition)

4. Then there is the whole combustable material list that just having humans in the building attributes to. Clothing, extra clothing, shoes, personal belongings, etc. People generally have some sort of spare clothing or suits with them at the office.

5. Obviously, the paper. But what about all of the computers and the plastic they are made of? TONS of black smoke, and again more petro products to heat it up.

6. Office Furniture -- from what I saw at my times at the towers, a lot of it was wood, not metal. More fuel.

Anyone else want to add to the list of fuel that could have been present?

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:26 PM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Gando702


posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:28 PM
reply to post by Howakan


And one more question needs to be investigated, if not already -- during an average week, what was the total population of WTC on any given day? Were tuesdays perhaps the most lightly visited days by chance?

I am just speculating, but if it were an inside job, and I were planning it, I would do it on the day that there would be the least amount of casualties.

After all, it doesnt matter if 100 or 10,000 died that day...what matters is that the event performed its function and got our attention.

Anyone care to do the research on that concept?

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:29 PM
Common sense...

Even though a plane hit the building, don't you think the tower would of swayed when falling? You have the wind velocity, you have the height of the tower, and you have the impact of the plane. If anything the building would of collapsed at the impact zone of where the plane hit. Or at least topple over onto another building. No, the tower went straight down in a matter of seconds defying gravity.

Another Common sense:

It was psyop of a military target operation and not a thousand Muslims from a sleeper cell. China is structured to do that sort of military targeting because they are in sync. Yuh, even Britain is capable of that kind of target operation. But, Iran and Iraq?? Their military is not as big as theirs or as ours or as in sync.

That's why I won't believe they alone attacked on 9/11... It's done and it's over with, a lot of lives lost for what? Money and Power. Hope they can sleep at night and it was worth it.

Believe what you want.

It's time to move on.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:38 PM
Just so you all know, that wasn't molten steel lava pouring out of the WTC towers. That was molten wood from the desks and chairs. Molten wood burns cooler than steel.

Just thought you guys and girls
would like to know that.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:45 PM
You'll have this,
it's part of the acceptance of death process, and what died here is the truth.
This argument has been going on for years, anyone that has actually worked with steel, really touched it and worked with it knows the truth.
Pancake my ass.
Natural fall my ass.
People bargain, they deal with themselves to help make life more bearable.
Whatever it takes buddy to help you sleep nights.
Yeah it all makes sense and everything is okay.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:52 PM

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
If a truther is defined by an absolute belief in the building demolition theory, I wouldn't fit it either, but I sure as hell don't buy the clean-as-a-whistle OS.

I'm with you there, and I always voice my personal suspicions and "unexplainables" with people here. Unfortunately, the ultimate weapon used by people here is a personal attack (calling you stupid) and then an assumption of your beliefs (you're just a believer, a blind OS'er) and then a repeat of questionable facts gotten from random sites that support their preconceived views.

I know, personally, I've changed my views on the mechanics of the collapse a number of times as I've become more informed. It is still pointless, though, as I am attacked and belittled at every turn. It makes me wonder why I came back. Perhaps I'm a masochist.

Anyway, to the people in this thread who are foaming at the mouth, please read the OP all the way through before posting all your WTC 7 stuff. He said very clearly that he still considers WTC 7 to have been a controlled demo. He also said nothing about his wife convincing him to "switch sides" on the WTC 1+2 collapses. He said she smiled and supported his decision, now that she felt he was less "close-minded."

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in