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.

 

This is how normal people discuss 9/11

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by geobro

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by wildtimes
Nanothermite was found in the dust - by outside investigators.



They found paint chips.
and how do you think fire proofing gets on iron etc you can just as easy paint on a explosive and the buildings were undergoing work months before the attack


This has been done to death.
You can fine a hundred threads going down the same road.

Can you find one professional organization or real company that supports the paint chip theory?
Conspiracy organizations don't count.




posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 



Dude, what does this have to do with 9/11, its just like your trying to divert attention form your week arguments by trying to bring little Georgy boy into things.

This is the very FIRST time I have taken part in this eternal forum - the first thread I have participated in - I've admitted I was not "into" 9/11 theories - now I am, and I'm simply trying to make sense of the accumulated evidence.

Sorry for sounding disrespectful - but your answers to me are quite abrupt and disrespectful. "HA! Please."

Sorry for your friend - and yes, I know there were foreigners in those buildings.

I'm trying to assess the "arguments" from both sides, 12 years on from the event, and I don't see conclusive reports on it from either side.

I'm here asking for help - not trying to convince anyone. I've already said, "I want to believe this was not an inside or cooperative scheme." I'm "new" to this topic as far as the "evidence" goes. My interest has been re-awakened in light of my recent research of NEW information.

Sorry for seeming 'ignorant' of the arguments - I should just go and look into it on my own - all you experts and veteran investigators don't have time for a 'newb' like me.

Again, I apologize.
edit on 15-8-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


THE BBC!!


Yeah good old Jane spoiling the plot.

let me get this right, the American government (or rouge parts off), arrange for 3 buildings to be rigged up with explosives secretly, have a missile flown into the pentagon and plant something in Pennsylvania, they go to all this trouble they fake voice calls, fake a whole vast terrorist network and the dupe the entire world including parts of their own intelligence community into believing the lie.

They do all this, but then they go ahead and let the BBC, a foreign news outlet in on the whole thing and give them the heads up about WTC-7.

Why would they do that, why would they need to tell the BBC when the BBC would have just reported on it anyway after it collapsed. ?

would it not make much more sense that just like everyone else on 9/11 the BBC was getting reports that WTC-7 was about to collapse and then in confusion said it had collapsed. I mean even the reporter says "things are very very sketchy".

use some gray matter please!



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


If you are really trying to be balanced then face up to the fact that Jones and Gage are talking utter rubbish.

lets take a really simple point.

as i pointed out to you earlier in this thread WTC-7 took much longer than the 7 seconds that A&E for 9/11 truth said it took. So they are a bunch of engineers and people who know about the technical details of building collapse (well some of there 1500 are software engineers but never mind) so you would expect them to say 13-17 seconds to collapse but they dont. They dont even show you the whole of the collapse in their videos.

you have to ask your self why?

Why dont they just say the penthouse collapsed then about 10 seconds later the rest of the building fell?

why if they are so sure that 9/11 was a inside job would they basically lie about this (they never mention this circuital bit of info about the penthouse collapse), with their professional background they must know that it took longer than 7 seconds for the building to collapse so they must be lying about it.

and if they are lying about that what else are they lying to you about?


edit on 15-8-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 



You are jumping again.

It's a summary of the evidence - that is not "jumping" - that is looking at accumulated reports.


But did any firefigher say they were 'demolition' explosions?
The firefighters are interviewed in clips on the vid I posted. They said there were "bombs" -

You realize that fires cause other things to explode?
Contents also explode.
Steel structures make loud reports when exposed to fire.

No building of that size and engineering has ever 'exploded' from an office fire.

The Twin Towers exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.
from globalresearch again.

Did you look at the document from implosionworld.com pertaining to 911?

Yes.


Lets not bring FAA and Norad in to this as it's jumping.
It's another piece of a huge puzzle.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Okay, folks - I'm out. I clearly am in over my depth here, and since I (evidently) don't have a prayer of getting out of "newbie mode" in this particular forum or debate (not having participated before) it's probably better if I refrain from further participation.

Thanks for your links and thoughts. I'll carry on my research independently.
Here and "abroad."
Fare well!

Sorry to have offended anyone.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I have a lot of respect for any member who can bow out of a debate with some dignity and humility as you have yet go forth and continue to research the topic at hand in a effort to further his/her understanding.

its refreshing to see a ATS member with such a attitude and more should do it, probably including myself.

I wish you luck in seeking out the truth



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes

I just looked at your wiki link.

That was another thing - the "planned exercise"....and the 'put off' of upgrades.


So ??




Here's a little more high strangeness:




She was a british journalist she had no idea which building was building 7.

What's really funny is that even now AE 911Truth and most of the truth movement also don't know which building was building 7.

Do you want proof ?

Here it is:



This poster was voted no 1 by truthers for the new A&E add campaign.

The building with the number 3 on it is not WTC 7 ..... It is Liberty plaza.
edit on 15-8-2013 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin




13-17 seconds to collapse


I personally never understood how a 47 story skyscraper full of furniture can collapse completely to the ground in only 17 seconds...

1999 we were told that mayors state of the art, $13 million, armored, self-contained emergency command center that is strong enough to withstand virtually any disaster had to built on the 23rd floor. How come it didn't even slow down the collapse?

edit on 15-8-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   


but, why were the air defense systems "turned off"?


America has no 'air defense' systems for private and commercial aircraft. They are all reactionary same as they were in the height of the cold war. At any one time there are 4500 private and commercial aircraft in the skies above America. However there are many different classified systems that constantly monitor all of North America for incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles(ICBM) and a range of other intruders that no one really knows about. The thought that fighter jets can be dispatched to shoot down aircraft if the veer of course or don't communicate is just silly. Those request for military assistance must go through channels and be requested by the Airline not ground traffic control. As we saw on 9/11 it took 6 different individuals in the chain of command to get fighter aircraft scrambled by then it was all over.


Planning for terrorist use of hijacked airplanes as missiles had been considered for some military exercises prior to 9/11,


That is totally incorrect There was never any exercise nor were any planned for this kind of attack. There were however, many such training exercises with airliners as missiles during all of President Clinton's overseas trips including the G 8 summit. People try to twist that around and make a point with what happened in Europe and Asia.



And the military-industrial complex makes a living off of perpetual war; and tyrants make a living off of scaring their people, keeping them in 'chaos' mode, and then offering up "an answer" just when any answer at all will do. Classic Machiavelli.

Well that is original anyway. No doubt that there is a complex that befits from war production however they are way down the list when it comes to influence in America. Starting with:

JP Morgan Chase

Citigroup

HSBC North America Holdings

PNC Financial Services Group

And many more. Perhaps one day decades ago the MIC was powerful but not anymore. The banks run America.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 




1999 we were told that mayors state of the art, $13 million, armored, self-contained emergency command center that is strong enough to withstand virtually any disaster had to built on the 23rd floor. How come it didn't even slow down the collapse?

Have you ever heard anything claimed to be fire 'PROOF'?
What I hear is fire 'RESISTANT'. Sometimes they qualify that with 'x' number of hours at 'x' temperature.
A quick example is the new gun safe I purchased. 30 minutes @1200 degrees
Also the UPS crash two days ago. They just retrieved the crash recorders but they were badly burned. Fire resistant.
FDR's memory section are required to withstand 2000 degrees for 1 hour. Not the entire device. Older units that had actual tape recorders had a much lower fire rating. I think I read 30 min @ 1200 deg.

So you can't expect an entire building section to withstand fire temps for 6 plus hours without the contents catching fire.

Most likely they were talking about flood, storm, power outage, and communication outage.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret
I try to avoid talking about 9/11 as much as possible, but every now and then unrelated conversations shift in that direction turns into a debate then an argument, and almost always ends up a screaming match with insults. It annoys the crap out of me.



Well, what do you expect? If you believe the account as it was explained in the 9/11 report was false then it necessarily becomes your obligation to provide another scenario that better fits the facts. It would be one thing if the conspiracy proponents had a a legitimate, reasonable, explanation that we could use to go back and check and say "You know, that does makes sense", but so far, every single alternative scenario presented have been nothing but uninformed crackpot accusations that only work in the movies- huge buildings rigged with tons of explosives without anyone noticing or leaving any evidence behind, the planes hitting the buildings were all holograms, the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile and secret agents planted aircraft debris to make it look like it was a passenger jet, the World Trade Center towers were fake buildings, earthquake machines, tactical nukes, lasers from outer space, and so on. Of course, everyone from the eyewitnesses, to the relatives of the passengers, to the maintenance crews in the towers, to the FBI, to Israel, to even the Red Cross, are all in on it.

When someone insists the passengers on the planes were murdered, their bodies were dismembered, and their body parts were loaded on cruise missles so that their DNA woudl be planted at the Pentagon site...and I'm NOT even making that one up, I've seen two people claim that...that isn't coming from what the evidence says. That's coming from that person seeing the events through his own twisted outlook on life. You can't NOT expect some level of disgust against the 9/11 conspiracy theorists in return, and more to the point of your OP, you can't join with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who make such outrageous accusations and not expect to be persecuted by association.

So let me ask you- do you have even ONE alrernative explanation that doesn't require you to accuse thousands of innocent people of being sinister secret agents plotting to take over the world??



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





do you have even ONE alrernative explanation that doesn't require you to accuse thousands of innocent people of being sinister secret agents plotting to take over the world??

Oooooh I like that. I'll have to remember that angle.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




So let me ask you- do you have even ONE alrernative explanation that doesn't require you to accuse thousands of innocent people of being sinister secret agents plotting to take over the world??


I don't need my own explanation to see that the official one is not true. It's really very simple, but I expect you will find it hard to understand. Have you ever heard an expression " I don't have to be right for you to be wrong"?



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by whatsecret
 




1999 we were told that mayors state of the art, $13 million, armored, self-contained emergency command center that is strong enough to withstand virtually any disaster had to built on the 23rd floor. How come it didn't even slow down the collapse?

Have you ever heard anything claimed to be fire 'PROOF'?
What I hear is fire 'RESISTANT'. Sometimes they qualify that with 'x' number of hours at 'x' temperature.
A quick example is the new gun safe I purchased. 30 minutes @1200 degrees
Also the UPS crash two days ago. They just retrieved the crash recorders but they were badly burned. Fire resistant.
FDR's memory section are required to withstand 2000 degrees for 1 hour. Not the entire device. Older units that had actual tape recorders had a much lower fire rating. I think I read 30 min @ 1200 deg.

So you can't expect an entire building section to withstand fire temps for 6 plus hours without the contents catching fire.

Most likely they were talking about flood, storm, power outage, and communication outage.



I don't get it, was the entire building on fire? What does fire have to do with the "bunker" on the 23rd floor?

My question was how come the entire building collapsed in what was it, 17 seconds?

That makes how many floors per second? With furniture and a super duper command center? Didn't slow it down even to make it one floor per second. That Crazy.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 





My question was how come the entire building collapsed in what was it, 17 seconds?


as simple as i can make it...

NIST highlight that throughout that day there were at least 10 fire’s burning inside WTC-7 with out of control fires raging on floors 7-9 and 11-13. The heat from these fires caused the steel beams supporting these floors to sag as a result of fire induced thermal expansion. Due to the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion between steel and concrete the connections holding floor 13 to column 79 failed resulting in the collapse of floor 13 when a girder connecting column 44 to 79 collapsed. The collapse of floor 13 caused a progressive collapse of the floors below it on until they reached the reinforced floor 5. However this action left column 79 (one of the 3 large support columns for the eastern portion of the building) without any lateral support causing it to buckle, this was cause of the “kink” seen in the video. The Failure of column 79 resulted in an upwards progression of collapse of the floors it was supporting which caused the collapse of the East Penthouse. This put additional strain on the 2 remaining supporting interior columns, 80 and 81 which under the redistributed weight coupled with the debris and effects of fire also buckled causing the first and second transfer trusses to also fail. This redistributed the load of the building on to columns 58-7 and now the entire weight of the building was being supported by these interior columns which were insufficient (hence the need for the transfer trusses in the first place), and as such they also began to buckle and fail. The columns began to fail form east to west (as is evidence from the collapse of the east penthouse) this caused a progressive collapse of the core support of the building and the entire interior of the building collapsed. Eventually the building essentially became a hollow shell and the exterior support columns also failed and the building fell straight down. There was very little resistance because the interior of the building had already collapsed.




With furniture and a super duper command center? Didn't slow it down even to make it one floor per second


well it wasn't all that "super duper", it was only as strong really as the building it was in which due to its unique design was rather week. Also if you think about this, all of the floors below 23 had were holding up the bunker so to speak and when they collapsed then floor 23 would also have collapsed. OME was installed after the completed of WTC-7 the building was not designed with the OME in mind. Also if you look at the progression of collapse from the point we start to see the tower fall, it does slow down eventually.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


And..........

That makes how many floors per second? With furniture and a super duper command center? Didn't slow it down even to make it one floor per second. That Crazy.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Yet a Russian 40 story skyscrapper burned and burned with over 20 floors engulfed, yet no collapse. But 3 in one day while one not being struck by a plane came crashing.




www.theblaze.com...


WTC owner Larry Silverstein: "One of the smartest things we can do is to pull it, so that what's they did. Then you see it collapse.




posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


home many floors per second does not really matter, and its not so crazy when you research how it actually collapsed (or the twin towers for that matter)

at the first stage of the collapse floor 13 down to 5 collapsed very quickly it just crashed down wards, once all the main supports. then column 79 went so all the floors it were supporting lost there support and that started off the sequence of events I told you about.

if you dont like the answer then how about you tell me how it happened.

I have told you how it happened, that, in a nut shell is how NIST described the sequence of collapse, if you dont buy that they go away, research, come up with a alternative then send me a quite U2U about it and we can discuss it further.

but if you dont have a alternative version of events other than "na am not buying that BS" you dont really have platform from which to launch a counter argument.
edit on 16-8-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Rosinitiate
 


WTC-7 had a very unique design that relied on 3 huge column's 79. 80 and 81 to support the huge western portion of the building and huge transfer trusses to in the lower portion to support the foundations which were originally designed to support a much smaller 25 stories building.

On 9/11 it burned uncontrolled for hours then at 1720 column 79 failed causing the progression of collapse i have outlined. that's how it fell.

yes other buildings have survived worse infernos but those buildings were not WTC-7 or even similar so a comparison is unfair. its a ignorant oversimplification just to say "well this building was on fire and its ok"

as for the "pull it" comment,

lets face it he was talking about getting the firefighters out its very obvious when you watch the video and the documentary in its entirety.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join