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: 17
13
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   
What exactly are you asking me here? What about the passengers? The passengers died, more than likely. This is a weak point?




posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   

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.


The above quote sounds to me as though you feel that the fact that speculation about the terrorists not actually being on the planes is a plus for your alternative explanation. So...if the terrorists were not on the plane than something like your following quote must have occurred.


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.


OK. then when did the terrorists take over the 2 (two) planes? Before take off? I guess it would have to be spelled out for me to imagine how this could happen without anyone noticing something wrong.

After take off? Would the terrorists be able to take over that system you talk about from where? Would they be like hacking into the air control systems?



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
The above quote sounds to me as though you feel that the fact that speculation about the terrorists not actually being on the planes is a plus for your alternative explanation. So...if the terrorists were not on the plane than something like your following quote must have occurred.

OK. then when did the terrorists take over the 2 (two) planes? Before take off? I guess it would have to be spelled out for me to imagine how this could happen without anyone noticing something wrong.
After take off? Would the terrorists be able to take over that system you talk about from where? Would they be like hacking into the air control systems?

Without anyone noticing anything was wrong? Air traffic control notified NORAD that the planes had been hijacked and Norad sat on their arses ALL MORNING while planes slammed into landmarks, then oddly enough refused later to comment on disrecpancies in their own timelines, Passing the respnosibility of scrambling fighters from Rumsfeld to General This or Commander That.
I have not said that I think the planes were in fact controlled remotely, but there is evidence presented in this thread that would suggest this may have indeed been the case. The fly by wire systems can be initiated from the FAA and were implemented for just such an event, however yes it is possible the system was 'hacked', but more likely a scenario is that they were overridden from an external source IMO. American AWACK aircraft have this capability, and really, anyone could for that matter given the right equipment or access. The implication is either the system was compromised as you suggest by the terrorists, which is highly unlikely if you know much about the systems, or that the system was overridden which would be indicitive of an inside operation. I just don't buy the official line that box wielding terrorists were able to override a multimillion dollar security system is basically my response to your question. At what point were the planes compromised, well, just a guess here but, probably about when or shortly after ATC lost communication with the pilots.


[edit on 29-10-2004 by twitchy]



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 07:25 AM
link   
twitchy, thank you for trying to explain to me how it could have happened if the planes had been taken over by others.



[edit on 10/29/2004 by Mahree]



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I do firmly believe that something was not right about 9/11.

It stinks of corruption - and deception of the highest order.

The fact that two buildings- Stuck by passenger aircraft both collapse In the same way within minutes of each other, but struck in different positions?

What is the statistical fact of that occuring.

Even if you used wooden blocks or lego, it would never fall in the same manor twice.


Regards

BoonDog



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I do firmly believe that something was not right about 9/11.

It stinks of corruption - and deception of the highest order.

The fact that two buildings- Stuck by passenger aircraft both collapse In the same way within minutes of each other, but struck in different positions?

What is the statistical fact of that occuring.

Even if you used wooden blocks or lego, it would never fall in the same manor twice.


Regards

BoonDog



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boon_Dog
The fact that two buildings- Stuck by passenger aircraft both collapse In the same way within minutes of each other, but struck in different positions?


Actually the collapse initiation for the two buildings wasnt the same at all


www.nist.gov...

The second tower to be hit, collapsed first. That is one significant difference right off the bat. Also the initial collapse sequences, building movements, etc. was different for both buildings. Read the above link.


Originally posted by Boon_Dog
What is the statistical fact of that occuring.


The statistiscal fact is that once the global collapse started, the physical movement of the debris was dictated by one thing and one thing only, gravity.


Originally posted by Boon_Dog
Even if you used wooden blocks or lego, it would never fall in the same manor twice.



Well it is a good thing that the building was not built out of wood blocks or legos, then isnt it?

Seriously, if you want to model the collapse of the towers using wood blocks and legos, then you have to build you model to the appropriate height so that the load bearing properties of the blocks and legos are proportionate to steel and concrete. Furthermore you would have to use very thin blocks or legos to approximate the flexibility of steel, and very brittle legos to match the breaking strength of concrete.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   
www.truth-now.com...

'pull' is a term used in both firefighting AND demolition. private citizens(ie. silverstien) have NO AUTHORITY to direct firefighting operations. therefore, silverstein saying 'pull it' cannot refer to the fire fighting effort and must, by default, refer to demolition. follow the above link for more detailed analysis.

and from the personal site(www.usphs-scientist.org...) of a medic whose office was right around the corner from the wtc......


Our clinic is on the corner across from the Pile (rubble of the WTC towers). One side of the building has shattered glass in all the windows; the other side is untouched. On the damaged side, an enormous girder is impaled in an upper floor, a result of the massive force of the blast.

Sometimes I just walk around and talk with the firefighters, police, and ironworkers. The following are assorted images from these conversations:

From a firefighter who has seen too much: "Two weeks after the attack, the rubble, the Pile, is still 7 stories tall. Below, in the Pit it burns like the gates of hell. It is 1200 degrees, so hot that the iron lifted by the grapplers comes out soft. Ive never seen anything like this."


notice, this eyewitness said 'blast', not 'collapse'.

i guess the siesmologists aren't talking, eh, howard?
still waiting for your super-scientifical explanation to the molten STEEL. 1200 degrees two weeks later, eh? that's some impressive jet fuel. maybe i should take this opportunity to point out that report from the university also cited the jet fuel as being mostly consumed in the giant fireball.

can't wait to buy some popcorn and check out the film 'in plane sight'(which uses network footage exclusively), and moore's F911. what a hoot that's gonna be. double bill. even better would be to see bushes face as he's sitting in a theatre with all the victims' family and survivors of 911 while they all watch the two flicks.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Seriously, If our public REALLY wanted to gain freedom, scratch the income tax, restore liberty, and have better lives- they wouldn't vote republican/democrat.

Because most of the votes being counted in the presidential elections are republican/democrat- It means the American people WANT curruption (why else would they vote for it?).

If the American people really wanted no income tax- more liberty- more freedom- and a better life- they would vote Libertarian. And because people aren't voting Libertarian, it can be certain that the American people do not want these things.

Mass media has no effect on this fundamentality.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by aukaiman55
Mass media has no effect on this fundamentality.

I very strongly disagree with that last statement, the total media blackout of the libertarian part this year would be indicative of a continuing two party dogma. You have to realize that the major media is not an organization devoted to reporting the facts for the benefit of the people, it is a tool of the established powers that be, which have a vested interest in perpetuation of this two party illusion.

"...and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
-Thomas Jefferson



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   
"freedom of the press only exists for those who own one" google it if you feel the need to know who said it. i forget.

here's a weblog from a live discussion group on the web. i've become so entrenched in the battle for truth, i've never let the emotion of the day hit me. it just did after reading this... www.metafilter.com...
the one where the guy is just coming out of tower two as the plane hits and then sees his wife running out of another building really gave me faith that there is a force of goodness taking care of the good people out there. i like to call it christ, but midichlorians works, too.

what i found most impressive and amazing is how quickly people suspected something was rotten in denmark. despite the panic and fear, they saw that this could lead to permanent loss of freedom. some sensed a hidden hand. pretty psychic.
the discussion had many similiarities to the threads here, except people were thinking properly, ....with their guts, that is.
i also liked the most excellent ghandi quote, 'an eye for an eye leaves the world blind'.

here's a link to the swept under the rug story of the clash between cops and firemen, ...www.socialistworker.org...



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I'd like to see people actually try and debunk the network footage itself, clearly showing the buildings blown, both 1 and 2, and 7 WTC. Not only that, but missile pod beneath the 757's that hit 1 and 2 and the pre-impact missile launches. No one can debunk the images.

www.911uncovered.com...



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   
This has got to be the most moronic topic on this board......I can't believe it has gotten to be 23 pages long. Planes flew into the towers, steel was structurally weakened by the heat of the burning fuel, top floors collapsed and "pancaked" the floors below. It actually IS that simple! Get a life.......(while you can!).

Edit changed # of pages mentioned from 17 to 23 just in the time it took to post.

[edit on 8/11/2004 by SgtNFury]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
That is why I have dropped out of this thread for the most part.

Life is too short to spend it arguing with people who don't understand simple physics and engineering.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Based on latest studies, the jet fuel only started the inferno, the "stuff" in the offices provided the fuel and brought the steel above the softening point.

South tower went down first, It was struck lower than the North, more mass was sitting above the impact zones.

Comparing 1oz Lego(tm) bricks to tons of building materials is not a good comparison to metalurgy and highrise structures.

Due to weight-to-stress ratio of the construction it is near impossible to see those types of towers just plop over. When the mass above the wreckage on south tower started to tumble (seen in camera footage), the stress exceeded the steel support below it long before it could tumble off. The casecade affect is a result of gravity (as someone said) and physics, no explosive help was needed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try blaming the Gvmt for sleeping on the job, proven by the 911 commision. Wouldn't it be nice to have off 42% of the first 8 months on a new job. Maybe they knew planes were going to be used for terror but they just though they would blow up over water somewhere and they could care less. It would still have been a reason to scare the s*** out of some of the population and start eroding the constitution.

People; a 200 year old piece of paper with a few signatures on it are all that stands between us and the global corperate minions that want to remove governtment boundaries to control the world. This bunch saw the opertunity with the worlds most advanced army at it's ready in trust.

"Study everything, take nothing for granted, because everyone else has there own agenda" AC



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SgtNFury
This has got to be the most moronic topic on this board......I can't believe it has gotten to be 23 pages long. Planes flew into the towers, steel was structurally weakened by the heat of the burning fuel, top floors collapsed and "pancaked" the floors below. It actually IS that simple! Get a life.......(while you can!).

Edit changed # of pages mentioned from 17 to 23 just in the time it took to post.

[edit on 8/11/2004 by SgtNFury]


Watch those videos.

While you're at it, tell me how 7 WTC alone fell.

Then listen to the firefighters' transcript:

Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.
Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion .
[...]
Dispatcher: Battalion 5, be advised we're trying to contact Battalion 3 at this moment to report north tower just collapsed.

And then tell me what this was on the plane:



Yes, it'd be nice to think that planes hit the towers, they collapsed, end of story. However, when you look at the film, you can see that's not the whole story. Deny it all you want, you cannot explain the collapse of those towers by plane impact alone, and you cannot explain what that pod was on the plane (kinetic impacter, missile launcher) nor can you explain why WTC 7 fell like a collapsing hat when it was the toughest building in NYC and didn't take any visible damage.

Why you react so violently to these facts? "Get a life." Maybe you react violently to them because it affronts your accepted beliefs. Cast those off and look at the evidence, then decide. You are decided before you have even looked.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
...clip...
Yes, it'd be nice to think that planes hit the towers, they collapsed, end of story. However, when you look at the film, you can see that's not the whole story. Deny it all you want, you cannot explain the collapse of those towers by plane impact alone, and you cannot explain what that pod was on the plane (kinetic impacter, missile launcher) nor can you explain why WTC 7 fell like a collapsing hat when it was the toughest building in NYC and didn't take any visible damage.


I'll give you WT7, if you leave 1 and 2 alone. Explosions would have taken out the glass on the lower levels before the collape or 1&2, Wheres the flying glass?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlabamaCajun

Originally posted by taibunsuu
...clip...
Yes, it'd be nice to think that planes hit the towers, they collapsed, end of story. However, when you look at the film, you can see that's not the whole story. Deny it all you want, you cannot explain the collapse of those towers by plane impact alone, and you cannot explain what that pod was on the plane (kinetic impacter, missile launcher) nor can you explain why WTC 7 fell like a collapsing hat when it was the toughest building in NYC and didn't take any visible damage.


I'll give you WT7, if you leave 1 and 2 alone. Explosions would have taken out the glass on the lower levels before the collape or 1&2, Wheres the flying glass?


I took 7 and left 1 and 2 alone from Day 1. Then, three years later, I stumbled across www.911uncovered.com... Check it out.

What was on that plane? Why does it look like lines of squibs go off around the whole building? If 7 WTC was rigged to blow, couldn't 1 and 2 have been rigged?

Now tell me the names of the people tried and convicted for the biggest crime this country has ever seen.

*crickets*

There's too much counter-evidence against the popular myth that hijacked planes took down the towers for me to believe otherwise. I don't have all the answers here, but what I see tells me those buildings were pulled.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
nor can you explain why WTC 7 fell like a collapsing hat when it was the toughest building in NYC and didn't take any visible damage.



Can you prove these assertions?

No.

The fact is we don't know the extent of the damage to the building from the tower collases.

Furthermore, ther are some serious questions that have to be answered regarding the design of the wtc7 transfer trusses.

Do you know what a transfer truss is?

thought so.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 12:29 AM
link   
i would like to point out that the fire from this crash could not have caused the steel to melt.

when looking through some 9/11 photos a few months ago i recalled watching a documentory years ago and remembered that a large bomber crashed into the empire state building. This was caused by fog and navigation error by Lt. Colonel William Smith who was piloting a WWII bomber on Saturday July 28, 1945. Now, at 9:49 a.m. this ten-ton bomber crashed into the north side of the building on the 79th level, "creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor."



The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million.


I would also like to note that despite a bomb explosion "on friday Feb. 23, 1993 at 12:18", the World Trade Center still stood intact.


The explosion, destroying 5 floors in the 110 story building, including the central commando center, trapped about 50,000 people, killed 6 and wounded at least 1000 people.


now as for the 9/11 incident, althought these towers stood intact 45 - 90min after impact, the blame is still placed on the crash.


Much (perhaps, in the case of the second impact, as much as two-thirds) of the jet fuel was consumed immediately in the fireballs which erupted when the planes hit the towers. Furthermore, according to one FEMA investigator (Jonathan Barnett), most of the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers was consumed within ten minutes.


moreover if it were possible that this weakining of the structure occured, or even melted the supports, it would have tilted over then fallen.

what was witnessed though is a demolition style calapse of both buildings. The initial collapse also is obviously far below the point were the planes crashed into the building. just look at the vids, there is an objious cloud of smoke raising from the lower portion of the structure seconds before the crash

www.middleeast.org...
www.aviewoncities.com...



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join