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: 30
13
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
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'.



Okay - I take this post as an admission that this is a tactic you have decided to use.

As for how a "science-minded" person should treat possibilities, that's the only way it can be treated. Unless there is something about a claim that violates a physical law, you can't dismiss it. But what you've been guilty of is saying that things couldn't be possible (i.e. the planes and fire causing the towers to collapse) as if it violates physical law, when in it fact it doesn't....and you do this (twist science, mis-use science, deny science, neglect science) so that you can continue to cling your theory. That's when you're just looking silly.




posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
With war, in order to do good, sometimes you must engage in evil!



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
here is another of my tactics. i sew information together into a web. it's all the rage. the cool kids are doing it. everything is connected. people who have made the connections through their own research see a single most probable historical scenario for that fateful day, and the can of whup ass history it opened into both the past and the future. it is the history of money.
illuminating, indeed, history is, hmmmm?
322, and all that.
hitler chose that number for his license plate. funny, eh?
the company the bushies keep really ought to raise a few eyebrows.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
here is another of my tactics. i sew information together into a web. it's all the rage. the cool kids are doing it. everything is connected. people who have made the connections through their own research see a single most probable historical scenario for that fateful day, and the can of whup ass history it opened into both the past and the future. it is the history of money.
illuminating, indeed, history is, hmmmm?
322, and all that.
hitler chose that number for his license plate. funny, eh?
the company the bushies keep really ought to raise a few eyebrows.


Here, you're going to need this...




posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
you made me laugh, valhall. laughter is good.

hey, wait a minute....weren't they trying to kill the man with one red shoe?



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   


"Because the planes and the fires couldn't bring down the towers by themselves." Yes they could


They COULD, it doesn't mean they did.

I doubt those small fires, which the fire fighters put out could of demolished those buildings.

"We have two isolated pockets of fire, we should be able to knock it out with two lines, radio that 78th floor"



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vis Mega
.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.


Well Vis, you have to understand that the Windsor tower in Madrid was nothing like the WTC structures in terms of construction. but hey, why let a couple of facts mess up a beautiful theory, hmm?

For those that are interested,

THe Windsor tower was built with a concrete core surrounded by a standard, steel column and beam framework. The steel framework on the windsor tower did collapse, the concrete framed core did not.




As for the size of the fires, they are difficult to compare because the WTC towers were almost four times bigger than the Windsor tower.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae



"Because the planes and the fires couldn't bring down the towers by themselves." Yes they could


They COULD, it doesn't mean they did.

I doubt those small fires, which the fire fighters put out could of demolished those buildings.

"We have two isolated pockets of fire, we should be able to knock it out with two lines, radio that 78th floor"





These don't look like small fires to me.













posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Damage





Fires









Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

www.firehouse.com...



Boyle: A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

We ended up getting back to the command post at Broadway and Vesey. By that time, there were probably 50 officers standing in a row. And I was like, I’m not going to stand on another line like that. So we came down with Fox. I knew Fox was somewhere. So we found out that Fox was over at Cortlandt and Church. They were putting a tower ladder into operation, so we made our way over to there. We ended up helping.

They had no pressure at all off of any of the hydrants from Broadway. He was asking if there was any way that we could do anything at Broadway or West. From Broadway to West westward toward Church Street there was no pressure at all. We spotted one of the squads up on Cortlandt over by Broadway and he was hooked up to a hydrant, and it was running. There was nobody there. I don’t know which squad it was, but you know they were in there. We were just sitting there, so we stretched the line off of him. We relayed it to 274, who relayed it to another engine down the street and eventually we got more pressure. I think it was 22 Truck on Church and Cortlandt and they were operating to number 5.

We did that for a little while. It took a while to get the hose there because there was a White Plains company helping us and they had some different fittings. So we got water to 22, but then that’s when they said all right, number 7 is coming down, shut everything down. I don’t know what time that was. It was all just a blur.

Firehouse: Did they shut the tower lines and remove them from there?

Boyle: No, just left them. Everything was left where it was. Just shut everything down, moved everybody back.

Firehouse: Could you see building 7 again from there?

Boyle: Seven, no. You got a half block away, you couldn’t see it, couldn’t see a damn thing. All we heard was they were worried about it coming down, everybody back away. We ran into the people running around for water for the eyes because everybody’s eyes were burned and I don’t know who they were. I think it was the doctor and some other people. They were just running around, washing people’s eyes out.

We were there about an hour or so until number 7 came down and everything was black again.

www.firehouse.com...

I find that to be pretty compelling testimony, don't you?



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Oh lord Howard, there you go again. Let's start first with the building 7, those pictures you post just reinforce my convictions about explosives being used to bring it down. There are no 'huge' fires, no "gaping" hole. (relatively speaking). I mean please, the fires don't even go an entire floor on ANY floor. I especially like the picture where a box is drawn around the "damage". If you look at the rest of the picture you will notice that the other buildings have a 'curve' as well. (Photo shop anyone?) Notice the flexing of building 7 further in away from the fire and you will notice no broken windows around this 'curve' It would have been more believable if it had 'partially' collapsed like the Murah federal building did in the Oklahoma city bombing. I wish you could dispell this conviction I have about building 7 but you are failing miserably. Since you are such the expert on building cores compare the core of building 7 with the Oklahoma Murah building and please keep in mind that Murah sustained 'far' more damage than 7.


The pictures of building 1/2? What state was the fire in Howard right before they collapsed???? I'm sure you will find that the fire is deffinitely in a different state right after the impacts as opposed to right before collapse. Jet fuel burns very quickly, remember? Oh, and I also need to remind folks that no one.. NO ONE knows exactly how much jet fuel was left behind after the impact but I'm betting that it was not enough to fuel a 'sustained' fire. By sustained I mean a fire that was being consistantly fueled by jet fuel. I believ e that what little fuel was left in he building burned off 'hot and fast' and then died down as the fire was left to burn regular contents.


'sigh'

Howard, why don't you post some picture of the building 1 and 2 right before they collapsed.







[edit on 12-6-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
The pictures of the fires are from where the interior fires had already burned though from the damaged side to the undamaged side. The damage was moslty obscurred by smoke that is why there are few pictures of it.

It is clear from the interviews above, that there was considerable damage to that building.

Or are you calling those firemen "disinformation agents" also?



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret

Howard, why don't you post some picture of the building 1 and 2 right before they collapsed.


Why don't you check out this presentation from three days ago by Shyam Sunder and William Grosshandler at the NFPA World Safety Conference & Exposition, Las Vegas, NV, on June 8, 2005. There are some nice photos of the inward bowing of the floors just prior to the collapse.

Do you think that all of those fire and safety experts and engineers are being "fooled" somehow?


dh

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
They are being fooled by their absolute adherence to the official theory
Nothing else would blind them



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh
They are being fooled by their absolute adherence to the official theory
Nothing else would blind them


You seem to be assuming that everyone else in the world (besides you) is stupid and cowardly.

What about you? Are you smarter, braver than the NYFD firemen quoted above?

[edit on 12-6-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Just one question I have always wondered about and seeing as you all do this so often....

I noticed in those pictures you see fire in very odd places. Like three floor up and the other side of the building, and yet nothing in the middle. Why is that? Not saying it is a conspiracy obviously, just wondering.

thnx



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   
in line with some members adamant denial of ignorance, i have some questions. it seems some have made it their duty to make the title of this thread an established falshood, citing that if the demolition theory cannot be proven, it is not a fact - or atleast not until it can be proven.

agreed, but to those of you (namely valhall and howard) who have dedicated your efforts to prooving that the towers indeed COULD HAVE fallen due to weakened steel as the official story explains, do you believe they really did, or that the science leaves a big enough hole for the lie to still be believable?

due to your hard work, i will acknowlege the POSSIBILITY that the towers fell on their own without a secondary device. however, that is just one possiblity. far more evidence abounds that implicates this administrations decietfull treason. so even if it were an established fact that these towers fell because of jet fuel fire, would you 'denyers of ignorance' then observe all the other evidence, or would you go disect another "fact" until it was rationalized away as just another possiblity?

billy bob said it best on page 29: "the fact is NOBODY knows what caused the collapse, and the conspiracy theory is just as good as the official story."

are you that dedicated to abolishing trivial 'fact or no fact' disagreements - or are you promoting an official story?



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Hi lost,

I have no story I'm selling, nor do I have any theory I'm committed to. But just wanted to speak on a couple of topics that were having some bad-science statements made.

My personal opinion on WTC 1 and 2 is that the planes and the fires they caused brought the buildings down. I say that because the data is strong enough for that alone to do so, and therefore to add anything is complicating it. And as I said before, the science proves the planes could bring the towers down. Common sense points at alternative explanations to bombs for the cause of the fireballs and sounds as the towers collapsed, but science can't rule them out - they stand as inconclusive events at this point.

I have no opinion on WTC 7.



[edit on 6-13-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Valhall - you're making me feel bad. I understand, and can sympathise with your position now. sorry for jumping to conclusions. Well stated.







........I guess that leaves you Howard..........?

if the closure of this ATS thread rings somewhat like,

"It is a very real possibility that the buildings fell because mathmatically fuel could have weakened the steel."

then it most certainly must include,

"However, that is just one official stamp of science. We will have to disect every percievable angle of every other facet of confusion surrounding 911 and this administration."

do you agree?



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By
Just one question I have always wondered about and seeing as you all do this so often....

I noticed in those pictures you see fire in very odd places. Like three floor up and the other side of the building, and yet nothing in the middle. Why is that? Not saying it is a conspiracy obviously, just wondering.

thnx


That is a good question. I think it has a lot to do with the locations of verticle shafts, floor penetrations, internal firewalls, etc.

This might help
wtc.nist.gov...

The final report is due out in two weeks, so check it then also.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The pictures of the fires are from where the interior fires had already burned though from the damaged side to the undamaged side. The damage was moslty obscurred by smoke that is why there are few pictures of it.

It is clear from the interviews above, that there was considerable damage to that building.

Or are you calling those firemen "disinformation agents" also?



you have no problem ignoring all the testimony of the firemen whose tesimony adds weight to the conspiracy theory. why are these ones so special to you, howard? a little knuckle-rubbing, a wink, and a nod, perhaps? a little CPR(cardio-pulminary resuscitation) for the CFR(council on foreign relations) and a little pic nick for PNAC??
and why did the firemen get gag-ordered? isn't that strange? we don't let the 'heroes' of the day use their 'freedom of speech'? seems downright, 'unamerican' to me.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by billybob]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join