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.


New Twin Tower Collapse Model Could Squash 9/11 Conspiracies

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:21 AM
reply to post by Gmoneycricket

Not in this life bud, been a plane enthusiast for the last 20 years and never seen one melting, not even the concorde with the fuel tank on fire. Thats something that should make them think.

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:27 AM

Originally posted by Saltarello
reply to post by intrptr

Jet fuel produces barely no smoke, but thats depending on the engines, modern ones produce less smoke. Office furniture, plastics, etc, produce black smoke because of the combustion, true, but because it is at a very low temperature. If you really believe that you can get furnace conditions in any kind of open fire you have more than 1 problem there.

When burned in engines, little smoke yes. Look at the vids of fireballs?
Also , I said "like a blast furnace". Temps were not hi enough to melt steel before the collapse. Just steadily increased until steel was "plasticized" (or weakened) by the constant heat for an hour. The fires sucked air in one side and blew the heat out the other, right over the steel girders until they gave way at one point starting a domino like breaking of the girders around the building on that floor. Once one floor succumbed, they all did.

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:36 AM
Three buildings pancaked in one day from fire, nite guys.
In is dreams he thinks maybe earthquakes, but
so many buildings pancaking in one day from fire,
That sounds, man made to me.
Wonder how many structures have collapsed just from
automobile impacts, next Google search tomorrow.

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:14 AM
I read the trash you linked, OP. So we are to believe that in 2 separate incidents, a jet crash into a tower created an inferno of burning jet fuel, creating a lake of molten aluminum which reacted with water to subsequently bring down each tower. (Of course ignoring the video evidence showing a thermite reaction rather than molten aluminum.)

And then, we are also to believe that building 7, coincidentally, fell through OTHER means (since no jet hit it.)

You can debunk 9/11 truthers forever. However, the only way to do that will be for the elite who perpetrated this mass murder of 3000 Americans to finally complete and institute their death camps, round us all up (enduring many of their own casualties in the process) and kill us and anyone who supports truth. Until then, you'll have to deal with the fact that you're utterly and completely wrong. Get used to it.

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:15 AM
reply to post by spw184

It was impossible for the aluminium to have caused explosions because for 10 years they've told us there were no explosions. Aluminium can't cause explosions that never happened.

The only way that story is plausible is if they're changing the official story. If that's the case that means they were wrong about the explosions then or they're wrong about them now and that the conspiracy theory people are more reliable because they were right from day 1. That there were explosions.

How did all that aluminum from the planes get into building 7?

Am I to believe that jet fuel PLUS office fires wasn't hot enough to cause explosions in the towers without melted aluminum, that it took the melting of the aluminum to explain the explosions in the towers, but that no aluminum was needed for the same type of explosions caused in WTC 7???

What's special about the towers that you need to explain the explosions with aluminum, but the same doesn't apply to 7? Did 7 have magical explosions? If pure office fires brought down 7, then that would be enough to explain the towers as well. There's no need to even bring melted aluminum into the discussion.

But if office fires CAN'T do it and you need the melted aluminum to explain what happened, then that just proves that 7 shouldn't have come down. No plane hit it.

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:19 AM

Originally posted by mileysubet

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by spw184

One scientist against thousands of Architects, Structural Engineers, Fire fighters, and Pilots for 9/11 truth and you want to put all your eggs in this guys basket?

Go right ahead...

Oh right so people should put "all your eggs" in the basket of a conspiracy theorist with no actual proof. I have seen many assumptions and backyard scientist, but none of them have had any credible evidence to the contrary of the official story, contrary yes but not credible.

This is contrary to the official story. The official story claims there were no secondary explosions after the plane crashes.

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:23 AM
reply to post by DemonicUFO

9/11 was an inside job,because you say so? Most,if not all of the so called 'evidence' of it being just that,is laughable and easily debunked. It just goes round and round.

edit on 23-9-2011 by nightstalker78 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:39 AM
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

The let it happen theory is the only creditable theory that I can think of. Its easy to do, harder trace and cheaper. Its a simple and rational plan.
edit on 9/23/2011 by Mcupobob because: HA HA HA

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:03 AM
Am I the only who seems to notice that this not only debunks "Truthers" but also debunks NIST, The Federal Government, and all believers of the Official Story as well?

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:11 AM

Originally posted by XplanetX

The 9/11 conspiracies will only ever be debunked through a new transparent and independent investigation. This will never happen because the authorities responsible for 9/11 have too much at stake.

Even if some of the conspiracy theories are debunked, the official story still has too many holes in it.

In years to come people may find out the truth, but long after the people invloved have passed.

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 06:47 AM
Maybe it's just me but with this and the BBC/Charlie Veitch offering, it seems that there is a concerted effort by the mainstream media to bury the view of the truthers from the dozing public recently.

Why don't they just answer the questions?

PS That last sentence was rhetorical.

edit on 23-9-2011 by BruceWayne because: moticon

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 06:56 AM
reply to post by ThaLoccster

It might depend on which one you pour into which. I know this sounds stupid, but it is true.

If you pour acid into water, then not much happens and you get a more dilute version of the acid. If you pour water into acid however, it results in an explosive reaction. Maybe it is also true with Al and water

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:17 AM
reply to post by spw184

What about the 911 mock simulation tests being done for the same attacks on the same day. That is the factthat leaves me stractching my head..
Funny old world the same thing happened in the UK on 7/7. Mock terrorist attacks being carries out at the same stations at the same time as the real ones.

I wish someone could explain these away for me............and again what is with all the sudden anti 911 truther threads.. four in a week and still no one will answer this point...

edit on 23-9-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Ilyich
I would also like to mention, no fire fighters even made it to the fires in the towers before they collapsed. On September 11th I just watched the lovely hours of terror play out, and the fire men were just getting to the floor survivors were on when the buildings came down. Most of the men, didn't even make it to the fires, and as far as I know not one pump was pumping water into the tower when it came down. Nice try, but there are so many holes, the fire was not hot enough to even melt the steel involved in the structure, nor was there any molten Aluminum in the basements or lobby levels, that both first responders and survivors report hearing and witnessing devastation before the towers collapsed. Excellent try, great article, interesting theory, but so far from the truth. There are more engineers, scientists, and architects who believe otherwise. You get a flag for effort, and to attract those more suited to explain why this just doesn't satisfy any bit of my disbelief.

You seem to have must a couple of points:
1. The water was in the sprinkler system.
2. Nobody is saying it was hot enough to melt steel merely soften it so it lost structural integrity.
3. If the explosion was due to aluminium and (sprinkler) water then surely the aluminium would be anywhere except the basement or lobby levels.
4. Witnesses report hearing bangs not "devastation", the bangs being the aluminium exploding (bangs became explosions, explosions became demolition as the ale gets retold, it pays to go back to source!!!)
5. Did you read the replies to the article and the one from the welder........real world engineering backing up the theory.

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:46 AM
reply to post by spw184

With the plane positioned somewhere in the middle of the building, blanketed in debris and with no route for heat to escape, the temperature would have rapidly escalated, reaching 660 degrees Celsius (1,220 degrees Fahrenheit), the melting point of aluminum — of which there was 30 tons in each plane fuselage — within an hour. The molten aluminum would then have heated up further to between 800 and 850 C (1,470 and 1,560 F).

See I have a problem with that right there. Because according to the NIST the plane disintegrated on impact as it was torn to shreds by steel support beams. The plane didn't both explode and get torn to shreds, and also sit in the center of the building super heating itself and creating hydrogen explosions.

But i think you are missing some key points. The official story denies ANY explosions but for the initial impacts. There were no secondary explosions, and no explosions at points below the impact floors.

But this "report" states otherwise, it actually admits there were tons of explosions (as FDNY and first responders as well as WTC workers reported) below the impact zone.

So regardless of what you believe about this mans theory, to believe part of his theory disproves some of the conspiracies then you are forced to admit the official story is a lie and that some parts of the conspiracy theories were correct.

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:49 AM
reply to post by malcr

2. Nobody is saying it was hot enough to melt steel merely soften it so it lost structural integrity.

Actually plenty are, not just in relation to the collapse of wtc1 and wtc2 and even wtc7 (no plane fuselage sitting in the middle of THIS building but it too collapsed at near free fall speed) but also when talking about the damage done to the steel beams, like the now infamous photo showing I believe 2 fire fighters, in the rubble pile and behind them is visible a core beam of one of the towers, sliced cleanly at a 45 degree angle with melted and bubbled steel at the edges. As well other beams (of the few pieces of steel actually tested) showed pitting and holes melted through making the steel resemble "swiss cheese" with razor sharp edges.

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:55 AM
reply to post by BruceWayne

Why don't they just answer the questions?

Because some of the questions, just by being asked, shake the very foundation of our way of life. And, potentially, some of the answers would forever change us and society.

The concerted effort is, obviously, related to the 10 year mark as south park made it clear after 10 years, any event is open for comedy, in this case, the comedy that is the propaganda and lies being spread. I'm sure the architects and engineers who are doing a fantastic job of being impartial and just reporting what they find, have something to do with it as well.

Lately I've noticed that instead of spending time trying to smear us as people, which many still do, the real push now seems to be to convince people we believe things we have never stated we do. They take the fringe radical retarded "theories" as lump them in with factual evidence.

Yeah, Airforce pilots, retired generals, cia analysts, fbi counterterrorism agents, architects, engineers, steel workers, demolitions experts, physicists and professors, sure sounds like a bunch of teenagers in their basement.

See, that's how it works, someone, somewhere, says "those truthers don't have any facts, just teenagers in their basement on blogs" and geniuses believe it, honestly believe it, then their entire view is filtered through a screen forcing anything out that doesn't fit with their preconceived notion.

The truth does not fear investigation, if you are so right and we are so wrong, why the hell wouldn't you jump at a chance to actually prove it, and prove it in a way that WE CAN'T COMPLAIN ABOUT?

Why are they so scared?

I was one of them , then, unlike all of them, yes, all of them, I actually DID research, I didn't just say I did and talked out of my butt, I honestly starting looking deeper. Anyone who honestly does this can only come away with more questions than answers.

Seriously, we are in a thread discussing how this "model" destroys all the 911 conspiracies, while it actually confirms one of the biggest ones. Amazing.

Let this be know that in the event I die in a questionable method, be it terrorist attack or otherwise, my dying wish would be that my death not be in vain, and that it be FULLY INVESTIGATED.

And at the core, that's all most of us want, including the victim families, for this to be fully investigated. It wasn't and probably never will.
edit on 23-9-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:13 AM

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by spw184

............and again what is with all the sudden anti 911 truther threads.. four in a week and still no one will answer this point...

It is exactly what you think it is.

There is nothing sudden about this... it coincides with the 9/11 anniversary that netted the media industry millions upon millions of dollars.

Since the so-called "9/11 Truther" community's home is more in cyberspace than anywhere else, it makes sense to generate wealth-producing traffic, and political-currency-producing-attention within that arena. The Madison Avenue crowd is far from naive about how to garner attention... especially effective when dealing with a community who seem to only find an unedited voice online.

That we notice and pay attention to that 'meta' fact is irrelevant to them... just as both we - and the truth - are.

This latest installment of "forever debunked" fodder is more of a way to keep non-MSM aficionados paying attention to the MSM... They do it with 9/11, 7/7, JFK, The FED, political theater, "globalization," UFOs, and many other topics. Remember the Obama birth-certificate surge? It was the MSM that cultivated that furor too.

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:17 AM
A couple of questions arise: Why was NIST (our official US taxpayer-funded engineers) not the entity to release this suddenly introduced new theory? Also, none of this explains the free-fall of the THIRD building, which was building 7, which was NOT hit by a plane.
What has come out of the (held 09/08 thru 09/11) is about to be finalized by international judges and an international lawyer. The final report will be distributed to governments, NGOs, and other relevant entities with a clear demand for a new investigation of 911. I would suggest that this "new therory" is an attempt to grasp at straws.

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:39 AM
The conspiracy isn't as much about how the towers and building 7 fell, or what hit the Pentagon, or what didn't hit the ground in Shanksville, but about how our government allowed it all to happen. Whether or not it was terrorists is academic. Our government stood to the side and either allowed terrorists to perform these acts, or our government performed these acts themselves.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in