It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 16
13
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   



Do you agree that the red trace above is the the trace of the impact of the building with the ground from the first collapse?




posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Now, if the y scale of the expanded inset of the first impact was only 243 nm/s and the y scale of the expanded inset of the building collapse is 4,534 nm/s, that means that the magnitude of the seismic motion caused by the building collapse was 18 times greater than that caused by the first plane impact.

No the only thing that is 18 times greater than the first plane impact on the graph that YOU linked to (and I did also from the original site) is the big spike that you are claiming is from an explosion. It is not from an explosion, it is from the impact of the building with the ground.

period.

end of the discussion.

You lose.





*Nyuck nyuck, nyuck,



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I just sent off an e-mail to Art Lerner-Lam asking him to comment on your version of his statements It will be quite interesting to find out what he has to say about the situation directly from him.


it MIGHT be interesting. it is very rear view mirror now,unfortunately, and i may have to expect a time distortion effect of some sort or other(ie. fear of suicide by multiple bullet wounds to the back of the head).

i might point out a little pattern here, .....-anthrax/microbiologist assasinations.
IF i am right(:lol
and there is an almost complete media lockdown, complicit with the SS shadow masters, then it is possible that art lerner-lam may have been compromised. i will stick with the records' implications.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Ah, the stock conspiracy theorists answer that gets pulled out whenever they are refuted by a legitimate expert: “the scientists are afraid.” Or “the firefighters are afraid to tell you about 9/11,” or “the pilots are afraid to tell us about chemtrails” and so it goes.


No, the truth is never afraid. It is you, sitting in your house of cards that you have built out of your erroneous assumptions and your misunderstanding of the basic principles of chemistry, physics and engineering that is afraid. You are afraid that if you admit you were wrong about one thing then you will have to admit that you were wrong about other things. Once you admit that you were wrong about one thing, you will have to admit that anything based on that assumption is also wrong, until it eventually collapses around you under the weight of your unsupported theories. Just like the WTC collapsed when the structural damage cause by the impact and fire eventually overcame the ability of the structure to support itself and it came crashing down. Only in your case there won’t be any seismic data to look at.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Ah, the stock conspiracy theorists answer that gets pulled out whenever they are refuted by a legitimate expert: “the scientists are afraid.” Or “the firefighters are afraid to tell you about 9/11,” or “the pilots are afraid to tell us about chemtrails” and so it goes.

No, the truth is never afraid. It is you, sitting in your house of cards that you have built out of your erroneous assumptions and your misunderstanding of the basic principles of chemistry, physics and engineering that is afraid.


you were the one refuted by an expert, ....two actually.
it may be a stock answer, because it is a stock pattern.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
I am a volunteer firefighter 45 minutes away from NY. I recently met several from the city and the talk of 911 is forbidden. I asked a couple about and they told me that they could not discuss it, but not to believe the official version. Thats all I could get.

With 7WTC being demolished, so soon after the towers fell, that means the building was already wired to go. Ask yourself one question - 'Hows that?'.



Quite frankly, godservant, I think your story is unadulterated B.S.

You must not really know any real firefighters. Do you honestly think that New York Firefighters who lost over 300 of their co-workers, close friends and in many cases family members would sit still for one second if they though that their was some sort of conspiracy and cover up? These are men who go into burning buildings for a living; do you honestly think that they are afraid?

Yes there are some issues about 9/11 that the rank and file have legitimate grievances about. These have to do mainly with the fact that the radio equipment was ineffective when they needed it the most, and that the command structure may not have handled the situation in the best possible way. After the first tower collapsed, it was clear that the second one was doomed also, yet because of the various communication failures, many fire fighters did not evacuate the building in time.

But if you think that for one instance that if the rank and file NYFD fire fighters thought that there was any thing at all of merit to the demolition theory that they would just sit on their hands and not do something about it, then you obviously do not know people very well, especially firefighters.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob


you were the one refuted by an expert, ....two actually.
it may be a stock answer, because it is a stock pattern.


Not hardly. Your comments by the expert are so taken out of context that they are worthless. That I intend to prove.



I challenge you to find a seismologist somewhere, anywhere that will support your contentions. You will not.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by billybob


you were the one refuted by an expert, ....two actually.
it may be a stock answer, because it is a stock pattern.


Not hardly. Your comments by the expert are so taken out of context that they are worthless. That I intend to prove.

I challenge you to find a seismologist somewhere, anywhere that will support your contentions. You will not.



i don't do challenge, howard. i believe in cooperation. tug of war goes nowhere. you and i are cooperating right now in a search for truth. i enjoy your wisdom and insight. they are an excellent anti-enviroment to mine.
the quotes were not taken out of context. www.public-action.com... the quotes were the result of a direct probe by concerned citizens. since this article was published, the atmosfear in amerika has changed greatly. 'experts' are more careful with their testimony, these days. you don't want to be associated with 'conspiracy theorists' because, that's just crazy take your meds, AND/OR you might get a free trip to gitmo, fired or fired at or into.
so now that it has been shown there WERE tons of molten steel weeks later, why don't you explain that fact, that you keep trying to avoid, using your advanced chemistry and physics.
you still haven't explained how the top portion collapsed first(tower two). if the pancake theory were true, the top portion should have stayed in one piece until it hit the bottom, as there was no weight on top to crush it, or structural loss of integrity. also, the bottom portion DIDN'T EVEN BUDGE, while the whole top portion dissolved onto it. it FULLY SUPPORTED the collapse. however, you can see that when the exploding top portion reaches near flush of the bottom, THEN it begins to disintegrate, in near FREE FALL. so it goes, in a fraction of a second, from full support of a gigantic collapse, to freefall AFTER it has already bourne the full brunt of the assault from above.

my basic knowledge of physics is enough to know the equal and opposite reaction law. i don't know chemistry, but i know some physics, howard. enough understanding, even, to know that, as supposed earlier in the thread, a scalar cannon could be responsible, and squibs aren't the only possibility. i do agree with the demolition expert from mexico and think it was a few well placed charges, though. OH NO! a THIRD 'expert'!........

12th September, 2001

EXPLOSIVES EXPERT SAYS
WTC WAS BOMBED
Towers collapse "too methodical"

CHARGES PLANTED
TO TAKE
DOWN BUILDING

Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology says the collapse of the twin towers resembled those of controlled implosions used in planned demolition.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

A demolition expert, Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

that's what he said THE DAY AFTER. don't forget my chinese metal expert either. i'll go find him again, if need be. i bet HE's not scared of america, HAHA!




[edit on 27-10-2004 by billybob]



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   
www.serendipity.li...

i know the mexican guy, retracted ten days later. connect the dots, everyone.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
By the fact that you are trying to change the subject, am I to infer that you unable to refute the fact that there is no evidence of “underground explosions” in the seismic data?

If you are conceding this, then I will move on to your next point, otherwise, please review this post and respond to the very simple question that I have pose there.

Thanks.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
By the fact that you are trying to change the subject, am I to infer that you unable to refute the fact that there is no evidence of “underground explosions” in the seismic data?

If you are conceding this, then I will move on to your next point, otherwise, please review this post and respond to the very simple question that I have pose there.

Thanks.






alrighty, then. why don't we wait for a reply to your email, because frankly, i'm not a seismologist. it just looks like squiggly lines to me. i am going by the testimony of seismologists, now. you 'prove me wrong', and that's all fine and dandy that it wasn't charges. there is still a literal MOUNTAIN of unexplained, suspicious patterns that keep the 'conspiracy theory' intact.
maybe i'll shoot off an email or two into academia when i have more time.

in the meantime, you could entertain us with an explanation for the molten steel, and the required modification of the pancake theory.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
A fire in Caracas, Vene. this month burned in the country's largest skyscraper for 24 hours before being extinguished.







The fire roared "out of control" for 17 hours.

The building is still standing, despite its top 20 floors being completely gutted.

So, this puts interesting light on what happened at the WTC. Also adds more mystery to 7 WTC. 7 WTC had to have been destroyed by controlled demo. As I stated earlier, no one even attempts to explain otherwise. They can't. They ignore the fact because it doesn't suit their worldview. It's like I type invisible words.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   
There is a separate thread on this already.

And besides the situations are not comparable.



[edit on 27-10-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There is a separate thread on this already.

And besides the situations are not comparable.



[edit on 27-10-2004 by HowardRoark]


Why are they not comparable?

Also, any idea at all why 7 WTC collapsed?



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There is a separate thread on this already.

And besides the situations are not comparable.



[edit on 27-10-2004 by HowardRoark]


Why are they not comparable?

Also, any idea at all why 7 WTC collapsed?


As I posted in the other thread, it is impossible to compare the buildings. They were built using different designs, construction methods, build out materials, design standards, building codes, etc.

Hell look at the pictures you posted and you can see one major different righ off. The WTC towers and WTC 7 had much larger floor plans with less perimeter walls per square foot of interior space.

Also, As I have posted numerous times before there was evidence that WTC 7 sustained structural damage durring the collapse of the adjacent towers.

unless you can account for each and every one of these differences and explain how you think that they do not matter, then you simply can not compare the two situations.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Despite being skeptical about conspiracy theories I have read this thread more or less from the beginning. I admit that I have skimmed in places where information seems to be duplicated.

I believe in one post it was said, or hinted, that the planes were remote controlled. If I have remembered that right then how were the passengers fooled into believing they were flying with a flight crew?

Within the conspiracy theory I don't believe the passengers on the planes have been addressed. How do they fit into the theory?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
The average passenger on board isn't likely to know if a pilot or a fly by wire system is operating the aircraft. In the 1980's, in the wake of several hijackings, they instituted a system in commercial airliners that would would allow control of these aircraft from an external source. The system is pretty much impossible to override once it has been initiated.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
The average passenger on board isn't likely to know if a pilot or a fly by wire system is operating the aircraft. In the 1980's, in the wake of several hijackings, they instituted a system in commercial airliners that would would allow control of these aircraft from an external source. The system is pretty much impossible to override once it has been initiated.


Is this the scenario you believe happened? How would all this work while on the ground and take off? Isn't it believed that the terrorists were not on the plane?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   
There is alot of speculation about the terrorists actually being on the planes, this comes from the lack of their names on the seat lists, the lack of footage showing them at the airports, the fact that several of the named terrorists showed up alive and well in other parts of the world after 9-11 and others. As to my beliefs, it may better to state simply that I don't believe the offical story and my posts on this thread are an active exploration of alternatives. As to the passengers of those aircraft, we will never know, they tragically, probably got hauled off with the rest of the evidence.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
There is alot of speculation about the terrorists actually being on the planes, this comes from the lack of their names on the seat lists, the lack of footage showing them at the airports, the fact that several of the named terrorists showed up alive and well in other parts of the world after 9-11 and others. As to my beliefs, it may better to state simply that I don't believe the offical story and my posts on this thread are an active exploration of alternatives. As to the passengers of those aircraft, we will never know, they tragically, probably got hauled off with the rest of the evidence.


So this is the weak point of your alternative explanation for 9/11?

I noticed that there were several other members posting who seemed to feel the way that you do, but negected to address the point about the passengers. It seems to me that this must be addressed as important for any alternative explanation.




top topics



 
13
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join