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.


Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by twitchy

Do yourself a favor, read the thread. If you want a PBS/Discovery/NY Times/Wall Street Journal piece of news, then you need to look up the word propaganda. Do you think the main stream media is going to cover a conspiracy?

So, in other words....... Anything that does not agree with your opinion is part of the conspiracy?


posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 03:00 PM

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by twitchy

Here again I ask you, why do you not address the explosions reported by fire fighters and witnesses, do they need a phd as well? Does it take a phd to know that CDI reported pools of molten steel? Does it take a phd to realize to understand this...

This has been done to death here.

Those quotes by fire-fighters are being taken out of context over and over again. They "LIKENED" the sound of the collapsing buildings to the sounds of explosions. It is called a 'FIGURE OF SPEECH."


No it's called misquoting. Geez.

I have seen the video interviews with the firefighters at the scene. It has been taken out of context from the original: "wow, it almost sounded like an explosion" ---- to the more twisted to fit a delusional conspiracy angle. " It must be an explosion."

Do a search

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 03:27 PM

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by HowardRoark
That's it?
that is the only response you can make?
What about all of the other points that I made? are you admitting that I am right?
[edit on 2-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

No, I am admitting that you are repetitive and deluded. What more do you need? The other points you made are all based on the impossible assumption that a building fire can melt structural steel into molten pools. Your statements and seismic references completely ignore the fact that the greatest energy readings came from the moment the collapse begins. In fact, oh wise one, the impact of the debris didn't show a reading as high as the spikes initiating the collapse. Not only do you fail to address this, you keep on rattling it off like it explains anything other than your blind faith in the official reports and the error of your argument.

Sigh, I have to be repetitive, because you continuously ignore the data put in front of you.

So, let's try this ONE MORE TIME.

Your claim: "the greatest energy readings came from the moment the collapse begins"

IS NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!

You simply refuse to understand what you are looking at when you look at the seismic chart.

Look at the seismic trace of the second collapse as shown in this chart

This is the exact same data that is presented by the top, red trace in the following:

The two charts are on different scales, that is all. Note that the bottom picture indicates that the total length of time for the seismic event was less then 20 seconds. Twenty seconds equals about 1/32 of an inch on the top picture. Notice also that the height of the seismic waves in the second chart are relatively smaller then in the first. This is because they also attenuated the response factor when they expanded the time scale. This is so obvious that a blind monkey could see it.

Yet for some reason you continuously refuse to acknowledge this fact. Why is this?

Yes I am repetitive, because you are wrong and refuse to admit it.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 03:34 PM
I think we've had a total of 30 or so threads on this exact topic. The fact is nothing has changed.

You have one group who says the attack was what the common opinion of it is. That group says those who disagree are loony conspiracy theorists with tinfoil hats.

You have one group who says the attack was a massive illusion and bombs, or missiles, or something OTHER than the common opinion happened. That group says that those who disagree are sheep or knowing tools of the NWO.

(yes i know im being general don't waste text telling me that)

My point is, nothing is being accomplished. Everyone seems to claim that they have THE smoking gun but no one ever produces anything that hasn't been hashed, rehashed and rerehashed on this site and others for the past 3 years.

What is the goal here? Summer rerun season is over isn't it?

If all that is being contributed to the site is hateful language and other flaming, by all means keep the nasty talk to yourselves.

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Sauron
1945 Plane Crash Rocked NYC
Army Air Corps B-25 bomber
Hit the Empire State Building
14 Killed

Sept. 11 The last time a plane crashed into a New York City skyscraper was July 28, 1945. A U.S. bomber flying through thick fog at about 200 mph crashed into the Empire State Building, one of the most recognized structures in the world.

On that day in 1945, an Army Air Corps B-25 bomber headed from Bedford, Mass., to Newark, N.J., was lumbering low over Manhattan in extremely thick fog, according to reports.
Lt. Col. William F. Smith Jr., the pilot of the B-25, was told to land at Municipal Airport in Queens (now known as LaGuardia). But he insisted for clearance at Newark, according to a New York Times report

[edit on 2/10/2004 by Sauron]

Hey Sauron, What do you see in that picture, a bunch of guys standing next to the remnants of a clay tile wall.

The design of the ESB was the more conventional beam and column box style then the bundled tube style of the WTC.

The columns were fireproofed with concrete and masonry, not friable, spray applied material.

The B-25 weighed 33,500 lbs and had a maximum speed of 275 mph. a cruising speed of 230 mph.

The maximum takeoff weight of a Boeing 767 is 395,000 lbs. The speed of the planes at impact has been estimated to be between 400 to 500 mph.

That is a hell of a difference.

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:01 PM

Originally posted by twitchy
Admitting your right? Right about what? Magical super hot office fires that vaporize and melt structural steel?

To missquote Arthur C. Clarke

"To the scientifically illiterate, all science is indistinguishable from magic."

I will repeat myself here, once again, because you ignored this data the last time I posted it.

In a typical structure fire, the gas layer at the ceiling can quickly reach temperatures of 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Where a fire is oxygen starved and in a smouldering state, a sudden in-rush of air, where a door is opened or a window breaks, may create an explosive mix in the fire gases leading to a sudden ignition. Such ignitions are normally brief and not sustained. However, where the gases are in plentiful supply they may take several minutes to burn off, creating temperatures in excess of 800 degrees C.

(800 degrees Celsius = 1472 degrees Fahrenheit)

Flashover temperatures rapidly reach a peak of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Your skin will begin to burn at 124 degrees. The black nylon straps holding your SCBA will begin to fail at 300 degrees. At 500 degrees, your facepiece will begin to cloud, then soften and melt.

the interior atmosphere must be lowered from the typical 1500F of a structure fire

The fire generated atmosphere temperatures of over 1200oC, which resulted in beam temperatures up to 1100oC

(1100 degrees Celsius = 2012 degrees Fahrenheit)

The fire load was very high at 95kg/m2 giving a heat output of 15MW and a fire temperature of 1100C. A partial collapse of the roof occurred

The temperatures attained within the compartments vary according to the construction materials, type and amount of fuel load as well as the ventilation characteristics. Temperatures attained by the atmosphere when wooden cribs are burning are usually around 1000C although this can be as high as 1200C with compartments constructed using insulating materials. When plastics are involved in a fire such as those found in modern day offices, atmospheric temperatures easily achieve 1200C. With regard to steel temperatures, these depend upon the size of the member but for typical unprotected beams and columns these would lag behind the compartment temperatures by around 100C to 200C.

(1200 degree Celsius = 2192 degree Fahrenheit)
and from the same link above,

For hot rolled structural steel the yield strength reduces as the temperature increases dropping to about 60% of its ambient temperature strength at around 400C and approximately 10% at 800C.

It is quite common and typical for temperatures in structural fires to reach up to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit

I'll bet that most of these fires produced black smoke also.

Twitchy, what is your specific response to this information?

Oh and google the terms, "hot corrosion" steel and sulfur

[edit on 3-10-2004 by HowardRoark]


posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:01 PM
You state: "The fact that the only passanger killed by the hijackers happened to be retired from Isreal's elite counter terrorism unit and happend to be sitting directly infront of them."

ques: did the passenger manifest list indicate this?
If you have read this, can you please tell me where?

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 05:57 PM

Originally posted by LL1
can you briefly explain to me why you and others believe this "inside job"?
I would really and honestly like to know?
Are you and others really in belief that the government would be down with such a horrible act? I don't believe this, but this is me.
I've read reports of the heat reaching 1300 1400 degrees.
I know for fact of the flammable ability of jet fuel.

Is it something that the government has done to you and others?
What is it that you knw or can correlate the event of the WTC that really makes it an "inside" job?
Try to remember, people that post here not only come from all over the world, but have different experiences and jobs, these exposures tend to form who we are, and why we come to the concludes that we do.

I'm not being sarcastic eirther... my exposures are different, I know for fact than those that believe in the NWO. I have researched on it and do know quite abit about it. I can go back with you to the ancient Templars, but the issue at hand is the WTC.
I'm open... I don't appreciate the shove it thing.
But I am open to hear.

BTW... FEMA was not the only agency there...

well, what i find interesting here is that you have researched the templar/money/bloodline connection, yet claim there is no NWO. obviously, the NWO is a simple restructuring of the OWO. it is still them(the ultrarich OWNERS of the world) and us(the plebes, the unwashed masses, the useless eaters). the 'order' shuffle is more of a delete the middle class sort of a thing. then there will be once again only two classes, the haves and the havenots. george bush's 'have mores' class will more overtly become the new aristocracy(the world over, ...borders are for the ignorant).
the only thing that ACTUALLY changes through all this is, ....public perception. this small change in public perception will amount to a huge change in government powers. 'we the people' will no longer be qualified to make decisions. only the elite 'intelligence' agencies will have the power(with all their access to 'sensitive' and 'above top secret' info) to make decisions without compromising 'national security', that lovely blanket phrase which allows gmen to sweep ANY ATROCITY under the rug.

and, no, i don't think the 'gubmint' did this. i think it was the agents of change assigned to this duty by the 'star chamber', 'round table','bohemian grovers', 'bildebergers' or the 'illuminati', or whatever name you prefer to give the tiny group of bankers and industrialists that run the world. they do have positions of power in the government, but they aren't actually the government. real super above top secret stuff, you know? this is why 'need to know' and compartmentalisation has been built into ALL law enforcement and cutting edge research and intelligence.

at a certain point, one takes ALL information with a healthy helping of salt, and then the process of whittling may COMMENCE! (i love mixed metaphors)

in this case, the simple fact of the towers falling straight down(ESPECIALLY tower seven) is enough to require SERIOUS investigation. insider trading, warnings, stand downs, twenty dollar bills, wing dings in word, role playing games from years earlier, destruction of evidence(BIG ONE), slips of the tongue(FEMA guy saying they arrived the day before, 'ready to go'), operation northwoods, EVERY SINGLE PERSON AND AGENCY intimately involved at some point with the CIA in very compromising postitions(for those willing to research), starting a war alledgedly because of 'alledged terrorist' USA ma bin laden when the war was planned months before,(and it was over a pipeline), biblical prophecy(the handbook of the illuminati), personal relationships between key players in the shadow puppet play(bush/hinckley, bush/bin laden to name a few, ....and who was the exclusive zapruder viewin' NOVICE reporter that stated, 'the head clearly rocked forward' from the impact of the 'magic bullet', and then moved on to become the number one talking head in the states?), rockerfellas and rothschilds, memes and tetrads.
the fact that there was only a lame, tripped up, biased investigation TWO YEARS LATER only fuels the conspiracy fire.
what it is that i am just trying to get a grip on, is that at the top of the pyramid being duplicit is akin to being naked. warriors of light must be triplicit, AT LEAST! and then one stands on the slippery slope of getting so far into the enemies' mind, that one becomes exactly like the enemy. it's sad that this is the way it is, but ces't le vie.

if you refute this after researching all the connections, you are:
A: an agent of the NWO
B: in denial
C: blind, deaf and dumb.
D: destined to convince me i'm wrong

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 06:09 PM

Originally posted by billybob

in this case, the simple fact of the towers falling straight down(ESPECIALLY tower seven) is enough to require SERIOUS investigation.

I am curious, how do you think they should have fallen?

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 06:10 PM

Originally posted by LL1
You state: "The fact that the only passanger killed by the hijackers happened to be retired from Isreal's elite counter terrorism unit and happend to be sitting directly infront of them."

ques: did the passenger manifest list indicate this?
If you have read this, can you please tell me where?

I believe I read it in "Terror Timeline" by Paul Thompson
I never buy books, I just read 'em in the bookstore so I can't check it right now :p

It could have also been "Cover Up" by Peter Lance

I believe both books are fairly recent. Terror Timeline is probably the best of the two and seems fairly impartial since it's mostly just a reference book but has a nice deatailed minute by minute account of the day of 9/11 and a good long list of the warnings leading up to and including the day of Sept. 11th and has a good account of the history of our problems with AL Qeada and "terror" in general. If i'm wrong about the isreali I was misinformed and i apologize.

Happy hunting

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 06:42 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by billybob

in this case, the simple fact of the towers falling straight down(ESPECIALLY tower seven) is enough to require SERIOUS investigation.

I am curious, how do you think they should have fallen?

hey, howie.
i think they shouldn't have fallen. they were pulverised. turned to dust. they didn't just fall, they practically evaporated.

IF they were to fall naturally, it would have taken longer AND there would have been more large, intact fragments. they would have fallen more asymmetrically, as the weaker parts would crumble first, which is indeed what we observe STARTING to happen at the top of tower two. did you miss my earlier post citing the learned opinion of a 'steel structure expert'?

would you, howard, be convinced it was explosives if the bomber himself came and confessed to you? or would you continue to fight voraciously for a view already bombarded on us by the mainstream? bombers got in before, why is it such a stretch to think that they could do it again? especially when you believe as i do, that the bush family is akin to the mob? they were pulling the shots in florida, AND at the WTC. both pivotal events had no less than a BROTHER in the most important posts. marvin, head of security for the WTC(so if georgey boy is complicit, and there were bombs, the question of 'how' becomes much smaller), and jeb, who put dubya where he is(in an amazing cascade of illegality).

and even if, dark lord forbid, i am wrong about the towers, and it was actually brilliant engineering that allowed two planes to bring down three buildings, how does that explain the umpteen other non sequitors in the official lie?
even if i'm wrong, and there is no NWO, there might as well be, because the tower of our rights, freedoms and democracy are most certainly imploding as a result of the thermite, 'war on terror'.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by billybob]


posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 06:53 PM
In order to come to conclusions, one has to have all the facts.
Both sides to come to a clear decision.

Because someone reads about Templars does not give me enough
evidence to prove NWO exists.
Do you realize there was a ton of gold/silver/platinum in the vault below the WTC fell.
Won't the NWO have removed these prior to attack?

And billybob Rabbis were at the scene to claim the deceased Jews
as burial has to be quite immediate.

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 09:05 PM
Billybob, how big do you want the pieces?

First of all, the floor slabs were composite floors built with lightweight concrete. In use, composite floors get their strength from the way the steel and concrete are assembled, not from any inherent material strength. The floor slabs were thin only 4 inches thick. for 110 stories, that only equals about 36 feet, if they were all piled up on top of each other. Don't forget that the WTC had five basement levels also. What parts of the building did you want to see intact? how about a section of the exterior? Several large pieces slammed into this building.

What large pieces do you want to see intact, the exterior columns like in the pictures at the top of this page?

Have you bothered to calculate the impact force that the top portion of the building would have generated after it fell 10 feet?

What about after if fell 100 feet?

I don't think you truly appreciate the enormity of this energy once the downward movement started.

Actually in the final analysis it may just be that it was less then brillient engineering that brought the toweres down. The design was simply not up to the impact of the planes and the subsequent fire.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Shadowflux

I never buy books, I just read 'em in the bookstore so I can't check it right now :p

Why doesn't this surpise me?

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 11:08 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Billybob, how big do you want the pieces?
[edit on 3-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by billybobeven if i'm wrong, and there is no NWO, there might as well be, because the tower of our rights, freedoms and democracy are most certainly imploding as a result of the thermite, 'war on terror'.

that big, at least.
and funny, ....i just heard a gubmint big wig call canada, 'the spoiled brats of the new world order'. HAHA!!! time to move to canada!

edited 'cause i forgot to say 'on television'. they also advertised an upcoming expose on cheney, THE CRIMINAL.

ooooo, i love it when big brother caves!

[edit on 4-10-2004 by billybob]

posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 12:40 AM
Given the collapses roughly nine seconds each to take place, then you look at the seismic readings, how in the world do you get that the greatest point of energy did not come from the beginning of the collapse? If you take a real good look at the data you present clearly shows the largest seismic readings are not from the impact of the debris. Let me simplify, if you look at teh squiggly lines, the biggest squiggly lines are at the front of the readings. You really should start looking at the seismic readings from other controlled demolitions in similar environments and I think you will find the similarities, or if you like I can point them out for you.

No fire is going to get hot enough to melt steel columns into pools, with a steady supply of pure chemically pure oxygen hydrocarbon fuels can get that hot, but your telling me what amounts to kerosene and office furniture in a black smoke soot ridden, fuel rich, oxyegn poor fire it going to achieve that kind of temperature? Your telling me not only that is going to acheive that temperature, but be able to maintain that incredible temperature long enough to pool steel in the basement and turn a steel fram high rise into dust? High Temperature Corrosion?
First off, in this raging inferno that magically melts steel, there are fire fighters running around in it saying it is containable, victims peering out through holes in the buildings where your inferno is supposed to be the hottest, and not to mention, steel is conductive. It not only takes an enormous amount of heat to melt it, it also takes consistent application of extremely high temperatures. Thermite does this easily, molten pools are common in a controlled thermite demolition, molten pools of steel are not common in office fires, kerosene or not. The smoke was black, the fires were containable, the jet fuel primarily burnt up in the initial impacts and there are numerous reports of explosions. For crying out loud folks, watch the footage you can see the squibs going off just ahead of the falling debris. Now on top of that, you have material ejection consistent with explosions, not collapse.
Roark you ask what way the towers should have fell...
Well, let's say your correct in saying the WTC fires acheived and maintained incredible temperatures and melted the steel frame, then the building would have fell on the burnt side. If the impact caused the collapse, then the towers would have fell into the most damaged area. And don't try to bring up the towers being designed to do this, as all towers of this size are, but if the fires got so hot as to melt the steel, or if the impact was so damaging to the structure, then then 'they were designed to come down that way' no longer holds up to reason. Ther is only way a tower comes down perfectly into it's foundation, and if you have ever seen a controlled demolition then you have seen the results. For crying out loud, you can see the squibs going off and people saw fire balls and heard explosions comming from the basement. Security pulled the bomb sniffing dogs out of the buildings despite numerous threats, would you care to explain that little cooincidence? No one yet has commented on this, the extremely unusual power down the weekend before, or any other anomoly, all you guys can keep saying over and over again is that the fires got really hot (which is bologna, soot and black smoke don't equal steel melting fires) and trying to say that the seismic data supports the official story line when it clearly does not. The seismic data shows that the falling debris didn't read nearly as high when the debris hit the ground as it did when the collapse began. Address the stand down order from norad, address the molten pools of steel in the basement, address the super security of the desposal of the steel scraps, explain why no fighter jets were scrambled when we all know good and damn well that they always scramble fighters when a plane, even a small plane, goes off course, especially in that area. Address why Condi Rice told Willie Brown not to fly that day. Address something besides magical steel melting fires that defy the laws of themrodynamics and retain incredible temperatures despite heat absorbing soot and lack of oxygen, because you have no ground to stand on with that rubbish. Explain why there was sudden surge inthe WTC computers as the disaster unfolded, explain why all evidence of those transactions ended up in germany to be investigated. Explain why Ashcroft quit taking public flights that summer for the first time in his career? Address the fact that several Israeli Nationals were dancing on car hoods and high fiving as they videotaped the disaster, or maybe explain why Bush Lied about his time line that morning. Why was Bush Sr. meeting with a Bin Laden that morning? Explain why the media immediately started showing footage of Arabs celebrating the disaster and tried to say it was live footage when it turns out that it was stock footage from the first gulf war. Address some other issues cause the magical steel melting fire arguement is a loosing battle, heat corrosion...
If you think an office fire fueled by carpet and kerosene is going to cause steel to melt and pool up in the basement, then how on earth did they manage to invent the internal combustion engine? Hey wow, does this mean we can use kerosene to weld with? It's alot cheaper than acetylene and you don't have to buy o2 either.

posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 01:40 AM
billy bob, twitchy u guys are dead on. excellent arguements,
dont let those NWO agents trip you up! both of you have scores more commen sense then any of those who are still in denial.

everytime i see the video it becomes more evident this was a controlled demolition, it came down all to perfectly. there are too many unanswered questions, too much convience, too many loop holes in the storie. as for those silly seismac graphs, the US gotv has the most advanced explosives, highly condensed and concentrated. it is possible that they would have made no seismic readings at all. further more, who is to say that the official documents and stories presented had not been cooked up months in advance?

posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 03:03 AM

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Shadowflux

I never buy books, I just read 'em in the bookstore so I can't check it right now :p

Why doesn't this surpise me?

No offense, but just because I'm cheap doesn't mean I'm stupid. I gave you the link, check it out for yourself. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong

[Edit] Eureka!! I'm not stupid, his name was Danny Lewin, he sat in front of the hijackers. He's the mysterious "business class" passenger that is reported murdered by so many minute by minute accounts, some say he had his throat slit and others are unspecific

[edit on 4-10-2004 by Shadowflux]

[edit on 4-10-2004 by Shadowflux]

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in