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

The fact that Howard either just loves Bush and the US government SO MUCH that no matter what evidence is put forward he'll explain it all away and even IGNORE some of it.. he'll drill you about the physics and how you don't have enough understanding of such, and then when you talk about something obvious.. like the explosions.. and the fact that FIREFIGHTERS were saying they were going off inside the building (you think they don't know the difference) .. and the fact that it LOOKED like a demolition...etc..etc.

Or the fact that he really seems suspisiously like a paid governement shill.

Do you get paid PER post Howard? Is that why you asked me to come back in to the chemtrail thread to keep at me for awhile? So you can show your employers that you are working hard?

The level at which you seem to "just have to tell the truth to these dumb ufo and chemtrail and wtc conspiracy freeks" is almost like you have nothing else better to do.

Do you? I'm starting to think that you don't.


Sorry if I am wrong. But you are begining to become very suspisious to me.


Period. You are suspisious. You are just TOO IN TO debating the governments official side of things, when EVERYONE AND THEIR GOD/DOG knows by now that there is "something" up with the whole day.


Never mind the stand down orders.. "where were our defences that day?"

Or where the leaders were.. Florida.. far as possible but under protection of his brothers state.

All the other strangness that went on that day.


Like HOW IN THE HELL, can an intellegent person sit there and tell 'us' that we are wrong about the things we think happened that day, when there is JUST SO MUCH evidence that all is not what it seems.. and more and more just keep coming out every day. Never mind the war games exercises too eh?

I bet you have an answer for everything Howard.. I bet its all in a little black book in front of you with choices and graphs you can choose from to decide how to protect the governement.. as long as their side of the story is repeatedly told as much as possible eh?

Scarry. For sure.. either way.. you scare me. And its not your wit that has me nervous either. Its who might be backing you or who might be watching this conversation.

That possiblility makes me nervous. DO NOT bother replying as I know what you answer is going to be. There is NO ONE who joins a group LIKE THIS just to shoot down conspiracies all day.

"I have no real interest in conspiracy or the paranormal but I'm going to sit here and waste my time all day shooting down these bizzaro theories."

Yeah that happens. Where do you live? Alaska or something? Get a hobby or a girlfriend or something man... because its real creepy you just coming here to knock this stuff.

Sorry to the rest of you, but there is something going on here, and I think its plain as day.

SORRY to offend.. but his tenacity is just too much for me to think he is just here as a 'member' sorry.. no way.

-VMX




[edit on 9/6/2005 by Vis Mega]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

I’m sorry, Lost, but those statements are not only wrong, but they demonstrate that you don’t understand the realities of how buildings get constructed and who is responsible for what (i.e. architecs vrs engineers)

Which is why this is a losing argument on both sides. No one with an understanding of materials can adequatly relay such understanding to someone with an over simpliflied idea of it in a forum.

Its tough to explain the aspect of how buildings were and are constructed to someone who has never been involved. My major in engineering tech was construction technology and I can tell you from my education in material's properties and a few years in the commercial building industry (My current area is transportation) it amazed me they stayed in tact as long as they did. When that core struture was damaged , basically it became a balancing act shifting the load back and forth until the weight had insufficient support.

Those of you who want to make this a political game have no business discussing the actual mechanisms involved in the collapse. Those are arguments for a different thread and quite off topic.

Originally posted by Vis Mega
like the explosions.. and the fact that FIREFIGHTERS were saying they were going off inside the building (you think they don't know the difference)

Some one can fire a gun a block away from me in an urban environment and I can report to the police I heard two gun shots - which I did. I'm reporting what I hear - doesn't make me any less wrong when the facts bear out there was only one shot fired but I heard the echo as the second shot. Same here - no one's calling the firefighters idiots, but they are reporting what they heard and what it sounded like. "what it sounded like" doesn't matter as much as what it actually was.

.. and the fact that it LOOKED like a demolition...etc..etc.

Again, it doesn't matter that you feel like it "looked like a demolition". What matters are the facts. Your perceptions are not the facts.

Like HOW IN THE HELL, can an intellegent person sit there and tell 'us' that we are wrong about the things we think happened that day, when there is JUST SO MUCH evidence that all is not what it seems.. and more and more just keep coming out every day.

Well, I can't speak for the intelligent person Howard, but I can speak for this intelligent person. This is how I do it:

You're wrong.

When it comes to the evidence of the WTC's being bombed versus collapsing due to the damage caused by the plane crashes and the resultant fires - YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE - the science shows that the damage would have caused the building to fail. You have anecdotal accounts of sounds and fireballs.

On these forums, I generally consider it a sign that someone has run out of valid arguments to back up their case when they start throwing the “paid disinformation agent” label around.

FWIW, I like to debunk the absurdities surrounding the WTC conspiracy theories for the same reason everyone else does, because it is fun.

Well lets hear you crap and debunk the entire thread. 3 posts to ATS, I'm glad you here what would have we done with out you

[edit on 7/6/2005 by Sauron]

No Sauron, let's hear you address just the few points that I did bring up. I'd hardly regard a post of the length I wrote to be a 'flippant dismissal'... adress the issues friend.

.. I was just watching the debate and watching how you grill on some evidence and just disreguard other stuff.

THAT ISN'T the personality or the goals of someone looking for the truth Howard.

IT REALLY seems like you have an adjenda to protect something and do not care to explain or discuss certain elements of the attack (usually the ones that are NOT related to the attack itself.. which of course the government would have had planned down perfectly.. its the stuff that got out of hand, or that they didn't think we would notice - the dogs, the explosion reports from the firefighters). These debates are not even debates.. there are no points here for winning a point or losing a point.. DISCUSSION would be a better word. AND because they are DISCUSSIONS therefore AT SOME POINT you should be saying "Okay yeah.. I'll give you that, that is strange." but you don't. Its almost like you feel if you give the person your debating against (or rather, having this discussion with) a little credit then somehow ... you lose or something? Its just very strange...

... this attitude... "Ah you don't know what you are talking about, its way way way beyond your level of understanding.. btw.. did I mention your spelling sucks too?"

That doesn't promote healthy debate or discussion or even a message board.

So don't talk about the OTHER teams DEBATING tactics.. becasue I'm not the one that is debating you.. no.. I'm watching you. THEY HAVE NOT YET, said anything of the sort Howard.. just me. THEY are still trying to have a discussion with you... but you just keep playing the same cards over and over again... and none of them get the discussion anywhere and that seems to be why there are 15 pages of "No you didn't listen to me, I'm going to nit pick on the way you worded that when I actually know what you ment and so does anyone else in here. And besides, I guess you just can't understand that because you don't have the education for it.. just go back to playing in your sandbox." And that standard fare.

You say things like..

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?

Well isn't that what he said? Why are you changing the subject away from the facts now and comparing apples to oranges.. THEY ARE TRAINED on how to fight a fire, they are NOT TRAINED on how to keep your airplane in the air when it starts crabbing as it is about to land... killing everyone on board.

And this...

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.

Did you know that the guy who designed that radio system was supposedly on flight 77? AMAZING ISN'T IT! You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that what goes up must come down... there is no degree in B.S. detection... and no course on 'obvious attempts by people in power to orcastrate and cover up mass murder to launch wars all over the planet'. You just have to have some basic problem solving skills and the ability to read I guess.. and say... "WHOA.. too many conincidents for me, thanks."


Did you want to tell me now that the Iraq war was legit now too? Even with the downing street memo? DOES THAT not raise suspision that perhaps 9-11 (and the 'intellegence' surrounding it) also could have been 'worked' to 'fit the policy' too?

You are picking apart small details.. and ignoring others. FOR INSTANCE, the firefighters saying there was little fire to fight, and that bombs were going off inside the building. WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU NEED MAN?! Are they not proffesional enough for you? You going to tell the firefighter that his buddy that died in there ... gave his life to save the people who were all going to die anyways in there (because of the radio problems) ... did NOT KNOW what the hell he was talking about?

"We'll only need two lines" is a big difference from something like.. "This fire is completely out of control.. the heat is melting everything.. we have to get out of here because this thing is going to come down."

You are forgetting the pictures of the women who was standing in the opening of the impact site unharmed... no heat if she could stand that.

Things like this.. the Madrid tower..

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.

No Howard.. its NOT JUST the Madrid tower.. its EVERY SINGLE TOWER FIRE IN HISORY... never a collapse. But on 9-11 3 buildings collapsed and only two of them had been hit by airplanes. You don't think fire causes structural damage? Why is it that on 9-11 steel buildings can be damaged structurally by fire but the Madrid tower can't be. CAN YOU TELL ME what the difference is between the two towers so that

WAITAFREEKINGSECOND... so a small office fire can cause enough heat to weaken the building enough so it will collapse? But a large office fire in a different type of building and it doesn't collapse? The fire in Madrid was WAY WAY WAY hotter then the ones in NY on 9-11 but it DID NOT collapse the way WTC 7 did. And WTC 7 apparently came down ALL BECAUSE of fire.. and that is according to the fema report. And NO HOWARD, what you might have READ said that the whole building was on fire.. but if you look at the pictures its no where NEAR the kind of fire that has engulfed the Madrid tower.

Personally I think that the Madrid tower was set on fire on purpose just to give us this type of ammo.. I think its pay back for the bombing. But that is just my opinion.

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

WHERE DID YOU GET THIS INFO FROM?! No one was inside the buildings.. even FEMA isn't clear on why it came down. What makes YOU SO SURE, that you have all this inside knowledge that FEMA doesn't have. And JUST BECAUSE YOU STATED that WTC 7 suffered damage doesn't mean that its true. All the buildings in the immedate area suffered some damge, but only the ones in the complex came down.

Long story short Howard... you are not here to learn and find out what happened. You "already know" what happened (FEMA would like to hear from you). You know what happened for several reasons it appears...

A) You knowledge about physics is better then everyone elses.. including a bunch of physics guys on physics911.com that say something is very wrong with almost everything that happened that day.

B) Someone in authority told you what happened.. and you buy it all up without question.

C) Any information that doesn't fit, or makes your opinion of what really happened (which is basically the party line which even the Bushes won't talk about anymore because it is so damn full of obvious and glaring lies) is just disreguarded because it would make the offical story sound suspicious.


There is NO POINT, in engaging discussion with people who will under no circumstances agree with you NO MATTER WHAT... notice how he won't aknowledge any GOOD point that you make? Notice that seems to be a patteren with A LOT of skeptics. There is a difference between being a skeptic and someone who has a job to do. A skeptic would at times say "Yes, that is a good point.. and I agree with you, the evidence WAS carted off too quickly.. it DOES look suspicious." (or something like that) ... but someone with an agenda will not allow themselves to agree with the people they are being paid to shut up.



Sorry to change the subject like this but there comes a time when you have to say enough is enough. I might have enjoyed reading this thread but the constant.. "I'm smarter then you so you just wouldn't understand, so I'll repeat this ONE LINE OVER AND OVER AGAIN, because I don't have a way to refute that in my book of answers that the MiB gave me." ... is just too much after awhile.

Sorry to the rest of you who were dealing with him.. I am, really.. to inturrupt like this but sometimes I just want to strangle you guys too for not ignoring stuff like that and just pretending that the individual who is using these types of tactics doesn't exist.



And you know what.. I'm betting that the MORE TIME you spend debating him and allowing him to clog up the boards.. the more money he makes. If he was just ignored.. (like howard.. why not just an account at Frep) ..then he would not make any money and have to go elsewhere.




[edit on 9/6/2005 by Vis Mega]

what? silence? * *

FWIW, I like to debunk the absurdities surrounding the WTC conspiracy theories for the same reason everyone else does, because it is fun.

yeah getting paid is fun. however, i dont think most of us discuss this information for fun as much as we are compelled to. just like people crane their necks at a crime scene, our attention is drawn to the enormous lies. fun, bah. -

-well said mis vega, funny how the most obvious conspiracy there ever was is right in our faces, and there are a few "math-wizards" claiming, "nope! the obvious crimes are all explained away by these mathmatical anomolies." I hadnt considered it earlier, but I think you're right. We should only expect that the biggest conspiracy forum, questioning the biggest lie ever circulated to have a couple somebodies quietly promoting the lie... the lie... the lie.... the lie....

29 pages, cool math, but we're not all stupid.




[edit on 10-6-2005 by lost]

You have voted Vis Mega for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

yeah, how do you vote? this one is worthy.


-people, there is a very active effort to keep us in the dark. lets stop rationalizing these painful truths away. we can see that in order to convince us, they know their best argument is to claim the explanations are over our heads. a nice chart and some numbers presented proffessionally. Well, thats nice, but are we to understand that the explanations are so folded in math, that they're over all of Americas heads?! Its a nice blanket the hide the lie under. All the while refuting counter evidence.


AMERICANS, THERE ARE VICTIMS FAMILIES, FIREFIGHTERS, AND MANY OTHERS SPEAKING OUT. this IS real. Do what you can.

[edit on 10-6-2005 by lost]

[edit on 10-6-2005 by lost]

Originally posted by lost
yeah, how do you vote? this one is worthy.

they know their best argument is to claim the explanations are over our heads. a nice chart and some numbers presented proffessionally. Well, thats nice, but are we to understand that the explanations are so folded in math, that they're over all of Americas heads?!

I'm not claiming this! If I were attempting to claim that I wouldn't be showing my calculations, the equations, the constants - I would just wave my hands in front of your face - much like you do - and say "NO! It's not that way, it's this way!"

Why are you getting aggravated at the fact that there are some people - like me for instance - who are attempting to give you the data to look at instead of just brushing you off?

Would you please just state right here in this thread which you prefer:

1. Discussion where some one gives you the data they're basing their statement on.

2. Dismissal where some one says - No, there were no bombs, so let's drop this now.

Would you please just state right here in this thread which you prefer:

1. Discussion where some one gives you the data they're basing their statement on.

2. Dismissal where some one says - No, there were no bombs, so let's drop this now.

valhall, i would very much prefer the first of the two options. what i am agravated with is how all the explanations usually involve some crazy physics that can really be disputed one way or another. What I mean is, a lot of (*not all*) these scientific wizards choose to use a couple of variables here, but exlude others elsewhere. They manufacture equations to make a point, and naturally their point is in line with their agenda. basically, its just more rhetoric wrapped in semi-convincing numbers.

its not dripping in numbers, but your 'bowing-face' explanation with the red line on the other page is a good example. such arguments make the assumption that they are conclusive and correct, to the point you got me thinking maybe my skull is too thick. was that your objective? maybe your agenda would have EVERYONE convinced their skull was too thick?

[edit on 10-6-2005 by lost]

Originally posted by lost

to the point you got me thinking maybe my skull is too thick. was that your objective? maybe your agenda would have EVERYONE convinced their skull was too thick?

[edit on 10-6-2005 by lost]

1. I don't have you thinking your skull is too thick. If you've decided to think that way you did that by yourself. Take responsibility for your own perceptions. Don't blame them on me.

2. My objective in this thread has been to stick to the evidence, data and science surrounding the question "Could the damage from the plane impact and the ensuing fires bring down the WTC towers"...that's is.

3. I would appreciate it if you do not use the word "agenda" and my name in the same statement. I've been watching the accusations against Howard - please don't start that crap with me. I have to say that what I've been witnessing in this thread and the Pentagon thread is disturbing. When some one tries to talk to you guys about these issues by dignifying your statements and then logically debating them with science there seems to be the following consistent chain of behavior:

a. On a given point you never seem able to say "Okay, the science shows I could be wrong."

b. Instead you divert the discussion to another area.

c. Then you resort to calling names and making accusations about agendas.

I'm going to restate my stance and why I finally got very active in both this thread and the other.

1. There's fishy things about 911.

2. They don't include the physics.

If the subject matter is "Those planes couldn't have made those buildings fall" I'm going to continue to produce the physical laws that show - YES, THEY COULD.

If the subject matter is "There's no way a plane made that damage in the Pentagon." I'm going to continue to produce the physical laws that show - YES, IT COULD.

And I guess I'll get accused of being a smart-ass, a government agent and a paid disinformation dissimenator. But when I go to bed at night I'm going to know I didn't twist anything and that every statement I made I tried to give you the data I was basing it on. And if me conducting myself in these discussions in that manner deals you some kind of grief I'll count that as icing on the cake because quite frankly anyone who can get aggravated at dealing with facts and science needs to be dealt a bit of grief.

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

Sorry but the Diesel tanks were in the basement of the WTC, the fire was not near the basement.

The North Tower fell faster than the rate of free fall in a total vaccuum.

Distance = (32.16/2) X Time in seconds squared.


1350 / (32.16/2) = 83.95507129

Square Root Of 83.95507129 is 9.1627

Although the North Tower didn't start falling at the top, if you calculate it from the 94th floor or what ever, you find its just under free fall.

Adequacy of the Structural Design

According to sub-article 1002.0, Adequacy of the Structural Design, the design of structural members is to conform to the applicable material standards mentioned in sub-articles 1003.0 through 1011.0 (C26-1002.1). If such computations as prescribed in these standards cannot be executed due to “practical difficulties,” the structural design can be deemed adequate if the member or assembly performs satisfactorily when subjected to load tests in accordance with 1002.4(a). Provisions to determine the adequacy of completed or partially completed structures are also provided. Prequalifying load tests (C26-1002.4(a)) can be used to establish the strength of a member or assembly prior to having such
members or assemblies incorporated into a structure. The test specimens are to be a true representation of the actual members or assemblies in all aspects, including the type and grade of material used. Support
conditions for the members or assemblies being tested are to simulate the conditions of support in the building, except that conditions of partial fixity might be approximated by conditions of full or zero restraint, whichever produces a more severe stress condition in the member being tested. In regard to strength requirements, the member or assembly must be capable of supporting the following (note: no specific reference to a particular type of building material is given in this section of the Code):

1. Without visible damage (other than hairline cracks) its own weight plus a test load equal to 150 percent of the design live load plus 150 percent of any dead load that will be added at the site, and

2. Without collapse its own weight plus a test load equal to 50 percent of its own weight plus 250 percent of the design live load plus 250 percent of any dead load that will be added at the site.
The latter loading is to remain in place for a minimum period of one week, and all loading conditions in Article 9 of the Code are to be considered. Exceptions to the above load conditions are also given in this
section.
The member or assembly is also subject to the following deflection requirements: the recovery of the deflection caused by the superimposed loads listed in item 1 above must be at least 75 percent. Also, the
deflection under the design live load is limited to the values prescribed in C26-1001.5.
Requirements are also given for tests on models less than full size. The similitude, scaling, and validity of the analysis are to be attested to by an officer or principal of the firm or corporation making the analysis.
The firm or corporation is to be approved by the Building Commissioner.

2. Without collapse its own weight plus a test load equal to 50 percent of its own weight plus 250 percent of the design live load plus 250 percent of any dead load that will be added at the site.

wtc.nist.gov...

Originally posted by Valhall


If the subject matter is "Those planes couldn't have made those buildings fall" I'm going to continue to produce the physical laws that show - YES, THEY COULD.

If the subject matter is "There's no way a plane made that damage in the Pentagon." I'm going to continue to produce the physical laws that show - YES, IT COULD.

I think that pretty much summed up the stance of the few of us on this board who have the background to understand the physics. I don't think any one us came out and said that there was absolutly no chance something else was involved. The only statement we stand behind is that in the case of WTC 1 and 2, the impact and fire were capable of causing the collapse, now I do think the impact played more a part in it than the fire because of the factor of load distribution to rock which is the purpose of all load bearing members.

Building 7? Yeah, I think needs more investigation. If it shared a footing or they were somehow interconnected, I guess the collapse could have caused the failure of the foundation. Concrete has a resonate frequency just like everything else where it reverts to its core elements such as we see with pulverization. I don't know if any of you have ever used a ball mill to pulverize soil or a centerfuge to separate asphault in a lab environment but its amazing how little energy is needed to break them down.

Lastly, as I have stated before in this thread. I think we are really comparing apples to oranges in that the motives behind our arguments seem to stem from very different places. On one hand, those who agree or not, tend to look for the true answer to the question being posed and then there are those who seem to be trying to get the evidence to sway toward their political opinion. yeah, I know each and every one of you will accuse the other side of that but I think its clear who has more a stake in the final verdict coming out in their favor. I think a lot of hard evidence has been presented very well and in a very understandable format and a lot of emotional stress has been presented because the numbers don't add up to the side of political activists.

And probably the most important aspect that I guess you all hoped we had missed is the assumption that a terrorist organization who had openly declared war on the US, had bombed the building once before during the term one of our democrat presidents, and has rejoiced and celebrated success in the downing of the buildings is somehow got you people. You people who, regardless of the blatant and obvious guilt and pride at their deed, for no more a reason than petty politics, decide to defend and aquit them of a crime they threatened to do, failed at once before, and celebrated the success.

And to beat it all, you demonize anyone who might critcize them for it and who might have a little better understanding of the technical aspect concerning the materials properties as backing a certain president and politcal party! It has nothing to do with who is in office and what their affiliation is. It had nothing to do with it in 1993 when Bin Laden learned he wasn't going to be able to get a big enough bomb in the basement to bring them down.

And in reality, many of your arguments have nothing to do with what actually happened on 9-11-01 as much as they do with what happened in November of 2000 in Florida, I think. That was a bitter pill for us dems but my God, we can't go off the deep end and continue these childish games. What happened is more serious than politics because those bastards killed many people of many politcal and religious persuasions. Thats just my opinion, like or lump it. I could give a damn less.

easy now cajones..

to the point you got me thinking maybe my skull is too thick. was that your objective? maybe your agenda would have EVERYONE convinced their skull was too thick?

1. I don't have you thinking your skull is too thick. If you've decided to think that way you did that by yourself. Take responsibility for your own perceptions. Don't blame them on me.

ok, because my sarcastic use of the term 'thick-skulled' failed the first time, let me make it understood that i do not percieve myself to be thick skulled, but rather percieve your red-line illustration to be an ambiguous little argument in the face of overwhealming evidence - and one that insinuates myown and others stupidity for not seeing the proposed aparent point of the red line. A*N*Y*W*A*Y*S*

a. On a given point you never seem able to say "Okay, the science shows I could be wrong."

and you're basing this on what, the last three of my posts?! -great science.

And I guess I'll get accused of being a smart-, a government agent and a paid disinformation dissimenator. But when I go to bed at night I'm going to know I didn't twist anything and that every statement I made I tried to give you the data I was basing it on. And if me conducting myself in these discussions in that manner deals you some kind of grief I'll count that as icing on the cake because quite frankly anyone who can get aggravated at dealing with facts and science needs to be dealt a bit of grief.

-my eyes are welling. how beautifully cliche' coming from a conspiracy theorist. no really, i admire your conviction, but really whats the point of posting that here? you sure have a way to turn this 911 discussion into a discussion about valhall.

would you please let me know exactly what you do find 'fishy' about 911, since the jet fuel meltdown doesnt seem to bother your math.

lost - every time you make a personal comment at me I'm going to ignore you - because my kung-fu at ignoring derailers is much greater than your de-railing capabilities.

*shield up*

I felt the need to follow up just to clarify my position on this thread.

First, what my intention is not.

In no form or fashion am I trying to prove that bombs did not go off in the WTC towers or Building 7 or anywhere else that some one might theorize they did. For anyone who feels that bombs may have gone off some where on 9/11. I respect any real research you do in trying to prove that...and more power to you because I think if you personally feel there is a question, by definition, deny ignorance mandates you continue those efforts

Second, what my intention is.

To combat statements that are based on bad science, bad data, or simply no data at all. So for instance, in the theory that bombs went off in the towers, the following can not be used as reasons for thinking that:

1. "Because the planes and the fires couldn't bring down the towers by themselves." Yes they could, and it has been shown through material science, heat transfer, and damage analysis in this thread that they most definitely could. Therefore, in listing the evidence of the possibility of bombs - this reason should not be used if you want to avoid looking silly.

2. "Because the towers fell too fast." They didn't fall too fast. To avoid the silly factor, this reason should not be used.

Now, concerning other evidence:

1. Fireballs emitting from the building as it collapsed.

lost - every time you make a personal comment at me I'm going to ignore you - because my kung-fu at ignoring derailers is much greater than your de-railing capabilities.

*shield up*

fair enough. valhall wins by default. lol.

since its been established by ATS's finest 'valhall' that i am a 'derailer' - i guess i need a victory dance. it has been deemed that i am no more good eh? sorry, i thought i was actually contributing. i thought my points were valid, but nevermind my opinions everyone, im a 'derailer'.

ok ok.. enough sarcasm. thats quite the explanation of your position valhall. i find it much easier to agree with and understand than earlier. it seems even you have backed off being such the hardcore debunker. regardless, go on 'deny ignorance' as you see fit.

[edit on 10-6-2005 by lost]

oooo. the dance has some new steps! how exciting!!

i don't know about this 'silly factor'. seems like it could be the lynch pin that will bring the whole tower story crashing down.
i don't know why we want to ignore flashes and ejections and energy sinks.
oh well. i guess i just don't understand physics(despite my 95% average in college), and i just don't understand buildings, although i've helped put up a few big ones, and i just don't understand politics, although everything you need to know about that you learn in kindergarten. i guess the fact that the NIST report has a strong disclaimer based on the fact that their whole explanation is based on SPECULATION DUE TO ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE shouldn't disuade those who 'know' what happened.
oh and howard, why didn't the radio communications work well in the towers? something about 'reinforced concrete'.......

as far as all the calculations go, let's see someone calculate the total potetial energy of the tower and compare it to the total amount of energy requred to generate the siesmic energy, AND pulverise the concrete, AND bring the towers down at that speed, AND generate that pyroclastic cloud, AND melt enough steel to create a molten pool which will last several weeks. good luck, jetfuelers. i would also like to see an ACCURATE simulation of the tower crashes that confirm the tail wouldn't have shattered off, etc, and exactly how the jet fuel would react, i.e. a splatter pattern.
i believe the fuel would have been atomised by the impact and then would have spontaneously combusted. that's pretty much what it looks like in the video. you know, the famous fireball. it also matches eye-witness testimony(the elevator guy).
of course, we'll never see an accurate reproduction of the incident, because there is a MASSIVE COVER-UP well underway. even the official body(NIST) didn't have enough evidence to actually say they know what happened.
anyway, i don't know much about stuff. it's too hard for my wee brain.
me watch teevee now. teevee good.

Originally posted by billybob

anyway, i don't know much about stuff. it's too hard for my wee brain.
me watch teevee now. teevee good.

Did you guys get together and decide to use this as a tactic - self-degradation as a means of trying to elicit sympathy or make it appear you're being persecuted?

I can see that you guys are now in a mode of not bringing any value to the discussion, but instead are going to post either name-calling or more of the same unfounded speculation without continuing a logical discussion.

What's say we just try to get to page 100 of this thread by the end of the day by taking the fast route.

You post "there were bombs in the building!"

I'll post "no there wasn't?"

then we can go into a 50 page volley of

"yes there was!"

"no there wasn't!"

because that's basically what you are doing right now. Might as well drop the charade.

sorry, oh mighty and vastly respected valhall, but the fact is NOBODY knows what caused the collapse, and the conspiracy theory is just as good as the official story(WAY, WAAAAAAAAY better, IMHO).

you seem to just be pushing the official agenda, wittingly or unwittingly. you also blatantly ignore or spin evidence that doesn't jive with your preconceived notions of what happened that day. and then you call it 'scientific'.

the more you type, the more you show this tendency. your recent admission that there COULD have been bombs is VERY LATE in coming, from someone so supposedly 'science-minded' as you.
like my beloved howard, your science mind IS excellent. please don't assume you're talking to 'inferiors'.