Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTC collapse videos exposes the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist movement

page: 17
18
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SolaFide
So you are saying that operatives of a rogue faction in US government planted exotic weapons, which nobody knows what they are because they are covert black ops pentagon issued, to take down the towers shortly after terrorist hijackers flew commercial airplanes into them. Am I understanding you correctly?
Yes, except that "nobody knows" is not accurate. The Pentagon and the Bush cabinet and the New World Order Cabal certainly know.


You also brought up your opinion that there werent 19 hijackers, and that the "parties responsible" want us to believe that there were 19. I don't understand the signifigance of there being 19 or any other number of hijackers. Please enlighten me.


There were supposed to be 20, and my guess is that 5 hijackers for each flight would have been enough to do the job according to the official fairy tale. Aside from that, I don't know of any significance in the number. However I do not believe that any of the 4 flights were involved in the actual impacts except for 93 over Shanksville. It is my conclusion that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and the towers were hit by specially equipped military aircraft while the actual flights were flown out over the Atlantic by remote control and obliterated beyond identification. The passengers and crew were all gassed shortly after takeoff.
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Myendica
 





The perimeter wall held half the load?


Anyone who says this is just stupid. The perimeter curtain wall is structured to capture the glass facade of the building only. It does absolutely nothing in the way of structural support. 0.
Architectural aluminum extrusions with no load bearing capacity. Period.

Google curtain wall.
edit on 6-7-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


The towers were designed as framed tube structures, which provided tenants with open floor plans, uninterrupted by columns or walls. This was accomplished using numerous closely spaced perimeter columns to provide much of the strength to the structure, along with gravity load shared with the core columns. -wiki

The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wallsurrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity.-911review.org

The towers' perimeter walls comprised dense grids of vertical steel columns and horizontal spandrel plates. These, along with the core structures, supported the towers. In addition to supporting gravity loads, the perimeter walls stiffened the Towers against lateral loads, particularly those due to winds.-911research.com

I could go on linking sites as to the construction of the towers. The fact is that the perimeter walls support a signifigant amount of the stuctural load, both gravitational and lateral load.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SolaFide
 





I could go on linking sites as to the construction of the towers. The fact is that the perimeter walls support a signifigant amount of the stuctural load, both gravitational and lateral load.


Steel columns have nothing to do with what I'm talking about guy. What I said is a fact.
Not even debatable.
edit on 6-7-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Ok, so you're saying that terrorists, of an unknown number, flew 2 specially equipped military aircraft into the towers. Can I assume that you believe that these specially equipped military aircraft were 767's painted to look like commercial civilian passenger jets?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Do you think the perimeter walls provide signifigant structural support to the towers?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by facedye
 


I'm merely trying to find out exactly what this dude thinks happend. I am a skeptic, if I were not then I most likely would not be here on ATS.

I find that looking at a subject from multiple angles will get me the most information which I will use to form my opinion.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SolaFide
reply to post by randyvs
 


Do you think the perimeter walls provide signifigant structural support to the towers?



The outside steel columns do. But some mix up is occurring if people are calling it a wall. There is no wall of steel on the perimeter. Only outside columns. The only thing that forms a wall on the outside of those buildings ? Is the aluminum tubing bolted to the side of the buildings designed to carry and capture the glass facade. Curtain wall. Give it a google. I install the stuff partner.

SnF Dave even as a truther I admire a good thread.
edit on 6-7-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SolaFide
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Ok, so you're saying that terrorists, of an unknown number, flew 2 specially equipped military aircraft into the towers. Can I assume that you believe that these specially equipped military aircraft were 767's painted to look like commercial civilian passenger jets?

No, not terrorists flying them, but remote control. There were no terrorists involved in the attacks on 911. Only their passports.


As for the towers, some witnesses said they didn't look like anything that belonged in the area, some said it had no windows. Only something that was specially equipped to open up the outer perimeter beams and let the plane fly straight in unimpeded makes sense.

What we saw hit the south tower clearly had a missile pod mounted underneath and a bright flash appeared just before it entered the tower. The same flash was seen on the Naudet tape of the north tower hit before it was edited out by the MSM.

If the nose did come out the other side intact, once again, something had to be removing the steel ahead of it for that to happen, unless those perimeter walls were wired up beforehand, which is quite possible since they were the walls of newly completed data centers where the explosives could have easily been hidden under the raised floors and disguised as battery-back up units for the mainframes.
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You keep adding the word curtain. That has nothing to do with the strength of the structure, which is what we talking about here. The curtain you keep wanting to bring up is primarily for architectual and glazing purposes.

You're probably a glazer, I get it.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SolaFide
 


That's exactly right.
Most oif the time if I say glazier people don't have a clue. Figures when avoid it. You would know.
edit on 6-7-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Interesting.

So you're saying they were unrecognizable (except for the missle pod mounted underneath) and remote controlled (from terrorists at a safe distance) military aircraft which hit the towers?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SolaFide
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Interesting.

So you're saying they were unrecognizable (except for the missle pod mounted underneath) and remote controlled (from terrorists at a safe distance) military aircraft which hit the towers?



No, I'm not saying that terrorists were remote controlling the aircraft. I'm saying that they were remote controlled by the rogue faction within the US Government that did 911.

I don't know what hit the north tower because all we have is the Naudet Brothers video which is very blurry. But the 757 that hit the south tower was supposedly a 300 series, significantly longer than a 200 series. The south tower impact videos show a 757 that is clearly a 200 series which has a much shorter fuselage than the 300 series. So I believe they outfitted a 200 series 757 with a weapon that opened up the perimeter walls in order to allow it to fly into the building unimpeded. Other than there being "no plane", that is the only explanation that I can think of as to why none of the aircraft broke up on impact. At least some of it should have rained down on the street directly below the impact.

edit on 7-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
No, I'm not saying that terrorists were remote controlling the aircraft. I'm saying that they were remote controlled by the rogue faction within the US Government that did 911.

The total evidence you have for this is nothing. There is literally no evidence of this whatsoever.


I don't know what hit the north tower because all we have is the Naudet Brothers video which is very blurry. But the 757 that hit the south tower was supposedly a 300 series, significantly longer than a 200 series. The south tower impact videos show a 757 that is clearly a 200 series which has a much shorter fuselage than the 300 series.

Are you joking?

en.wikipedia.org...


At least some of it should have rained down on the street directly below the impact.

What makes you think it didn't?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
No, I'm not saying that terrorists were remote controlling the aircraft. I'm saying that they were remote controlled by the rogue faction within the US Government that did 911.

The total evidence you have for this is nothing. There is literally no evidence of this whatsoever.


I don't know what hit the north tower because all we have is the Naudet Brothers video which is very blurry. But the 757 that hit the south tower was supposedly a 300 series, significantly longer than a 200 series. The south tower impact videos show a 757 that is clearly a 200 series which has a much shorter fuselage than the 300 series.

Are you joking?

en.wikipedia.org...


At least some of it should have rained down on the street directly below the impact.

What makes you think it didn't?

Please spare me the Wikipedia BS. You and all the rest of your tag team buddies refuse to acknowledge what I have repeatedly posted about Bush admitting in 2006 that the towers had explosives in them that were planted by operatives. If the main towers had bombs then so did #7. All the rest of this nonsense is therefore meaningless.

SO until you jokers own up, there's absolutely no point in anyone continuing to waste their time debating with you people. You very clearly have no choice but to continue the charade in the face of defeat because that is your job. It is plainly evident for all to see. You are fooling no one.

Goodbye.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Please spare me the Wikipedia BS. You and all the rest of your tag team buddies refuse to acknowledge what I have repeatedly posted about Bush admitting in 2006 that the towers had explosives in them that were planted by operatives. If the main towers had bombs then so did #7. All the rest of this nonsense is therefore meaningless.

Bush is a moron, why do you think anything he says has to be taken as gospel? You clearly said that UA175 was a 757-300. It was not. Why won't you admit that?


SO until you jokers own up, there's absolutely no point in anyone continuing to waste their time debating with you people. You very clearly have no choice but to continue the charade in the face of defeat because that is your job. It is plainly evident for all to see. You are fooling no one.

The fact you can't even answer a simple question shows that it's not me performing a charade.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
This video exposes the lies in the OS and those that support it with fake evidence.

When you have videos like this below that clearly show explosives going off, and first responders talking in this video about explosions, coupled with all the known recordings of explosions, all roads lead to explosives being used.

You can also hear someone saying on a radio about 'WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION'
WTF would they be saying that for? I'll let you decide.

9/11: WTC Rare Demolitions Explosions Revealed
www.metacafe.com...

If this plays slow for anyone, download Vlan (videolan), which is free, and use an add on or similar to flashgot for mozilla, to rip out the .flv file, then you can play it direct from your computer.

I seriously recommend anyone watch this video, it has some WTC collapse footage that I have never seen, and perhaps many others haven't, it has some good zoom ins where anyone can clearly see explosions.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 


You didn't post the link correctly.

edit: Found it, this the one you meant? www.metacafe.com...
edit on 7/7/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by facedye



i will try to make myself as straight forward as possible - they CAME DOWN as dust. as the buildings traveled to the ground, not only were they meeting no resistance whatsoever from the floors below, but they were ejecting huge white clouds of smoke floor by floor. where is the office equipment? where are the desks, tables, chairs, half burned bodies, carpets, elevators, computers? this is hopefully the clarification that can work. AS they came down, they pulverized everything on the way there. showing me a picture of debris and a few BENT (!) steel beams won't do much against a conversation about how they traveled, not how the ground looked afterwards. i hope i'm being clear here, let me know if i'm stirring more confusion.

have you taken any introductory physics courses, by the way? i've had the opportunity of having all of these insights before taking a physics class myself. through conversations with my professors and study of the science, it was very easy to see how two planes can't eviscerate two buildings into dust. two planes also cannot make a building come down in 9 seconds (which is the accurate freefall speed of an object dropping from that height without any resistance below it). this is important, because when an object meets no resistance, it just picks up speed as it travels downward with gravity. if the towers "pancaked," they would have either both been partially standing, or it would have taken MUCH longer for them to... disappear.

it's very simple, really. if the planes hit the towers, and the tops of the towers fell over on an angle, you'd have most of the towers still standing. this is, dare i say, a mathematical certainty with all measurements considered.

same thing goes for world trade center 7. if there was as you say a 20 foot hole on one side, and that side gave way to the rest of the building, it would have toppled over. it would not have come straight down.

relevant: www.youtube.com...


I suggest you do your physics class again lets see at school I studied maths, physics,engineering drawing, engineering science ( a more focused version of physics).

Left school worked for a structural steelwork company
did civil engineering as a day release course as part of my job training.

Now work advising architects,engineers and site managers on structural fixings(18+ yrs) YOU KNOW the things that help hold up buildings and now have 30+ years in construction.

They did not come down as dust YES dust was created so lets list WHAT could create that dust, some of the concrete from floor slabs No doubt but NOT it all, sheetrock THOUSANDS of sq mtrs in those buildings, the sprayed on fire protection, paint , dust build up in areas of the building that are not cleaned,and also part of it was smoke!!!!


Are YOU really stupid enough to think that objects like desks computers,furniture and people would be seen in the pictures released lets see you have TENS of THOUSANDS OF TONS of steel and concrete falling from up to 1300+ feet.

As for your 9 secs THATS TOTAL BS can you explain this picture with your best physics!!!



How can the wall panel drop faster than the floors if the floors are at freefall speed !!!!


It wasn't a 20ft hole it was a gash 20 FLOORS high in WTC 7.

Now a little lesson on steelwork structures the main design with THE WTC Towers was to get as much rental space a possible the unfortunate floor design ment the FLOORS were held up with angle cleats on the core and walls if those failed floor slabs could DROP its that simple.

WTC 7 also had a weakness the FOYER of the building was a large open plan area so steelwork above that was supported over a large span which again caused problems because of fires and impact damage.

So when YOU have 30 + yrs experience I might give A HOOT about what you think!



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Bush is a moron, why do you think anything he says has to be taken as gospel?


How convenient. So now even when it is admitted to you that there were bombs in the towers by the "Commander in Chief", which is what he was the other day when I said that Cheney ran the White House, now Bush is a moron and we shouldn't listen to anything he says.

I think your gig is up.

Bye byeeeeeeeee

edit on 7-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
So now even when it is admitted to you that there were bombs in the towers by the "Commander in Chief",


Except of course he never admitted that at all, but do not let that fact stop you!





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join