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: 18
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

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.



Transfer truss: Gee um that's pure rocket science there, wow you must be Einstien to know what a transfer truss is - a framework that supports a building by transfering the load to designated points.

See, let's not be insulting to comment on this theory. It's pointless.

So I know what a truss is. Do YOU know what's on this aircraft, the object on the starboard side? I'd like to know:





posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   
oh oh iknow i know

specially designed and employ pentegon missle pod, remotley control and detonated by control command center stationed in WTC building 7, used to weakin trusses and assist in the controled demolition, great link tailbunsuu very highly compelling arguments all the way around.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu

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:




Wow. I knew something fishy was going on when the building fell down just like that when I saw it live a few years ago. It just seems so impossible for a building to collapse in such a controlled manner from a passenger plane impact

As I remembered, the plane just crashed near the outside of the building. Can someone correct me on this one?



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 09:00 AM
link   
here's the things about tower seven we're supposed to overlook.

there is no evidence of any debris damaging it.
it went into freefall.
because it fell perfectly straight, all the support beams would have to have been knocked out at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.

here's howard's explanation, ...diesel fuel.

that means that some FUEL tanks exploded(which diesel doesn't even do well, that's why diesel engines work by compression instead of ignition), and the explosions, and the floor plan(the placement of walls, machinery and the tanks) were perfectly symmetrical. there was more than one tank, so, they would have to be filled to the exactly same amount and ignite at the exact same moment. to compound the illogic, the building was very wide, which would make such perfectly symmetrical forces akin to magic.
that's ridiculous, and a man of science should be blushing and cringing for continuing to pedal such nonsense.

and once again, silverstein has no authority to direct a firefighting effort. so, when he says 'pull IT', he can only mean 'it', the building.

this is PROOF that there were bombs in WTC, and PROOF that it was a conspiracy, involving some of the government, some of the police, some firemen, the media and the military.


edited to change 'gas' to 'FUEL' (tanks)
[edit on 9-11-2004 by billybob]

[edit on 10-11-2004 by billybob]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 03:01 AM
link   
The fact that Silverstein bought a new insurance policy right before 9-11, why did he argue for 2x the amount, he wanted to make more money off of 9-11. There is too much misinformation out here, there is no reason for this unless there is something to hide.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
here's the things about tower seven we're supposed to overlook.

there is no evidence of any debris damaging it.


prove it.

You can't prve a negative, can you.



it went into freefall.


So?

Once a runaway collapse starts, what do you expect it to do? Fly?



because it fell perfectly straight, all the support beams would have to have been knocked out at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.


This statement is based on what? your experience as a structural engineer?

You are making an assumption about how you think things should be then stating it as a fact.

The fact is, once a runaway failure begins, there is nowhere for the building to go but straight down. furthermore the collapse was not symmetrical. The collapse started in the interior, causing the penthouses to drop, then the from the 6 and 7th floors the transfer trusses failed, this failure started at one point and spread out. This is clearly visible on the video.


here's howard's explanation, ...diesel fuel.


maybe. Diesel fuel fed fire from the emergency generator storage tanks probably contributed to the collapse.


that means that some gas tanks exploded(which diesel doesn't even do well, that's why diesel engines work by compression instead of ignition), and the explosions, and the floor plan(the placement of walls, machinery and the tanks) were perfectly symmetrical. there was more than one tank, so, they would have to be filled to the exactly same amount and ignite at the exact same moment. to compound the illogic, the building was very wide, which would make such perfectly symmetrical forces akin to magic.
that's ridiculous, and a man of science should be blushing and cringing for continuing to pedal such nonsense.


No. no one has ever stated that the building collapse was initiated by an explosion of the "gas tanks." Where did you come up with that one?

Again, the collapse was anything but symmetrical.


and once again, silverstein has no authority to direct a firefighting effort. so, when he says 'pull IT', he can only mean 'it', the building.


If I recall he stated that the commander called him and the fire commander told him that they were going to pull. "And they made that decision to pull."

How are you basing your claim that Silverstein directed anything from that?




this is PROOF that there were bombs in WTC, and PROOF that it was a conspiracy, involving some of the government, some of the police, some firemen, the media and the military.


Wow, all of those people, huh, You forgot about building security, the building engineers, The Contractors required to install the explosives, the airlines, the Mayor's office, etc. How many people? more than a couple of hundred, surely? maybe a thousand? maybe a couple of thousand people?

Yeah, right.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 07:14 AM
link   
if you had any knowlegde of the US govt you would know they could pull this off easily, they dont need any of that help they have the most advance equipment in the world. to think they are incapable of denying prominent figures information regarding their operations is ludacris! they can pretty much do what ever the hell they want in a state of emergancy, rule with a steel fist! the guise of national security is quite daunting.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by sturod84
if you had any knowlegde of the US govt you would know they could pull this off easily.


And what, If I might ask, is the source of your knowlege of the U.S. government?



If you had actual experience with how the U.S. government works, you would know that the opposite is true. They could not pull this off without a huge amount of people involved, forms in triplicate, low bidder’s, etc. The government is a bueroucracy and rules according to bureaucratic standards.

There is no “secret government” within the government. The bureaucracy would never allow it.

You still have address the hundreds, even thousands of ordinary Joes that work for the local government as firemen, policemen, city building inspectors, etc. the maintenance (or “stationary”) engineers that run the buildings, the building electricians, carpenters, tenants that would have had to have been involved in the installation of these so-called explosives.

Don't forget the media, and all of the ordinary structural engineers out there who would have to be in on this.

If any of you had real jobs, then you would quickly realize that this whole scenario is just ridiculous.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
If any of you had real jobs, then you would quickly realize that this whole scenario is just ridiculous.

Roark, what is that, a rebuttal? That is without a doubt, the most disgusting thing I have heard you say on this entire thread. Does that kind of crap make you feel better? You have no clue who you are talking to, and now it is readily apparent you have no clue what you are talking about. IMO you just blew your entire response to this thread. It reminds me of a bully at school I knew, didn't study so he got bad grades, then took to beating up the academic students who actually had a clue what was going on in the world around them. One day I asked him why, and in a rare moment of honesty, he told me that he hated them because they were so 'right' all the time.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   
O.K. that might not have been entierly called for.


But the fact is, a large number of the people proposing these theories have little or no real world experience in how buildings like the WTC are built, operated and managed.

Throw in the fact that you are dealing with the Port Authority and the proposition that these explosives were somehow secretly planted in the building is just ludicrous.

I am tired of people who have no clue at all of any of the basics behind structural engineering telling me that there is something wrong in the fact that the buildings collapsed straight down. They are making assertions based on things that they really don’t understand that well.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:02 AM
link   
As long as you have been on this thread, you should know better Roark, these aren't just out of the arse assertions. You still haven't answered me as to why Marvin Bush's security company pulled the bomb sniffing dogs out of the building the weekend before the attack, Norad's lack of response in the most secure air space in the nation... etc. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or engineer to know that matter doesnt freefall through itself, there is more to this theory than you are willing to accept.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   
No, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that your ideas are full of it.
It probably would not take a college engineering student more that a few minutes to calculate the loading on the floor as the mass of the top of the building crashed down on it. It wouldn’t take more than a few minutes to calculate how fast that mass would exceed the limits for the truss to column connections, and it wouldn’t take long to figure out that the mass of the falling building would increase as it fell.

The fact that you continue to remain totally oblivious to this simple and obvious application of the basic principles of physics and engineering only tells me that you aren’t interested in the truth. You are promoting a political agenda.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The fact that you continue to remain totally oblivious to this simple and obvious application of the basic principles of physics and engineering only tells me that you aren’t interested in the truth. You are promoting a political agenda.

Faux Pas my friend. I might say the same to you. Why did they take the bomb sniffing dogs out of the building Roark?



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSoul

Sorry
This content is not available. We apologize for the inconvenience.


From your link: abcnews.go.com...

That video isn't available.. which I find strange because ABC normally keeps their archives intact for a long period of time..


Just prior to the election ABC pulled the White Van/Dancing Israelis story - which was ironic since I'd just directed a group of people to it - I'd be interested to know what their archival policy is, if only so I can talk to these people and say why it had gone.

It doesn't matter how many people "know" about this kind of thing once the prime sources start drying up - which is why I'd like ABC et al to invest in more server space!

WRT some of the other points - I'd heard that 5 Jewish/Israeli people were killed on the day - 4 in the towers and one on the AAL Boeing 757 flight that hit the Pentagon - and the one who died in the aircraft was a secret service agent. Any way you choose to look at it, the numbers are a statistical oddity since a great many Britons died in New York on that day.

Is there anywhere here that people have simply gathered together the prime sources (eg the Urban Moving links and so on) without clouding the issue with their own speculation?



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Look back through the thread, there is a wealth of information presented here that should at least get you started if you are interested in doing some further research. Speculation is the first step in the scientific method my friend, but they call it hypothesis.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   



diesel fuel burns black. therefore, this is not a diesel fire to begin with.
two 'small' fires on floors seven and twelve do not affect the main supports.
this building instantly goes into freefall.
this building falls perfectly symmetrically.
there is no historical precedent for this.
simple physics dictate that the building should offer at least SOME resistance to the collapse of weakened sections(which there is no reason to believe there were any of).

most of all, just watch it fall. it was imploded.

and, howard, if your going to put something in quotations, it should be the actual verbatim quote, not a conveniently paraphrased facsimile.
here's the actual quote, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." and then they stood back and watched the building collapse.

once again, why is the building's owner directing a firefighting operation? answer, 'he's not'.




[edit on 10-11-2004 by billybob]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   
The quote as it is generally reported on the internet


”I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. “


You may remember a similar thread on this subject on ATS a while ago where I suggested that the demo theorist go to a firefighter website forum and ask real firefighters]I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. what the word “pull” means to them in the context of fighting structure fires.

The response was overwhelming that the term when used by a firefighter means to pull out of a building, or off of a fire and to let it burn.

Which is exactly what they did.

Which is exactly what Silverstein is talking about here.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I've been doing that - having already done quite a lot of looking over the part year or three, obviously I'll just have to take something for my headache and carry on looking :-)


kix

posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Ok now is november and Christmas is less than 45 days away, so I ask all of our fellow ATS member to buy a pair or reality glasses for one of our beloved members.

send contributions please to howardgetaclue@paypal.com

thanks



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Ok now is november and Christmas is less than 45 days away, so I ask all of our fellow ATS member to buy a pair or reality glasses for one of our beloved members.

send contributions please to howardgetaclue@paypal.com

thanks



If you have a specific point to make then please do so instead of trying to distract from the fact that ever one of your claims about the tower collapses have been debunked.

Let me ask you this, Kix,

Why is it so hard for you to accept the fact that these men hijacked four airliners and crashed them with such devastating results? Why do you have to try to create a conspiracy where none exists?

None of the data put forth in support of this theory has been found to be credible. In fact, so many of the conspiracy web sites out there distort basic science, physics, and engineering so badly, that I can only surmise that it is being done deliberately in a malicious effort to fool the gullible.




top topics



 
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join