It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 Conspiracy Theorists still subjected to ridicule

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 09:25 PM
a reply to: soekvg

Yes, I should have included the molten steel. That, too, is more easily explained by thermite/thermate than by office fires and jet fuel fires.

And that also brought to mind the damage on the south side of WTC 7. I never see it discussed anywhere, but the ragged pieces around the hole in the corner are blown OUTWARD. The hole does not appear to have been hit by debris from the outside of the corner.

And that would make sense with the reports that there were explosions in WTC 7:

edit on 12-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 09:49 PM
a reply to: MotherMayEye. Nope. Larry gave no such order, and what he did say has been taken way out of context.

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 09:50 PM
a reply to: MotherMayEye Your photo, shows just what the collapse of WTC 1 did to 7....according to the FDNY on site that day.

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 10:00 PM
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I watched and listened to him myself. no one took anything out of context.


Anyone can watch this and decide for themself:

Larry Silverstein interview
edit on 12-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 10:03 PM
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Yeah, I get what the official story is. Yet, I am still saying the hole in the corner appears to have been blown OUTWARD regardless of the official explanation.
edit on 12-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 10:51 PM
Where are the official story supporters to explain why this building didnt collapse from "fires"

21 ton explosion! Detected from space! And building still stands.

Patiently waiting

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 11:12 PM
a reply to: MotherMayEye. I watched it too. I also corresponded with the man who WAS in charge that day. Silverstein, still did not have an answer from his insurance company over what to do with 7 when it collapsed. "Pull it" was pulling the FDNY Engine unit out of the building because of collapse fears. Or are you calling the FDNY liars too?

edit on 12-9-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 11:14 PM
a reply to: DarthFazer. Can you show us the airliners that slammed into the building or the skyscraper that collapsed and carved a hole in it? Didn't think so.

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 11:30 PM
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I'd love to have a civil, responsible, intelligent debate with you. No name calling allowed, no raging and no nit-picking certain bits of information. Use the information as a whole and point out your evidence. Would that be alright with you?

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 01:15 AM
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

CDI: 'Pull It' Means 'Pull It Down'

For those who still question what Larry Silverstein meant when he said "pull it" when talking about the collapse of the WTC 7, Jeff from called demolition experts Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) and asked them what "pull it" means in demolition terms. This is what CDI told him:

Click here to listen to conversation

Female receptionist: Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.
Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?
CDI: Yes it is.
Jeff: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?
CDI: Well what kind of question?
Jeff: Well I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
CDI: Ok, what type of term?
Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
CDI: "Pull it"?
Jeff: Yeah.
CDI: Hmm? Hold on a minute.
Jeff: Thank you.
CDI: Sir?
Jeff: Yes?
CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.
CDI: Ok.
Jeff: Bye.
CDI: Bye.

It is also an old term used by demolition companies PULL IT also means to bring down.
So it has two meaning.
It doesn't matter what Silverstein, said at this point. You can use the term to fit the OS if that makes you happy, however the other term doesn't support the OS does it.

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 01:31 AM
a reply to: DarthFazer

Many buildings have their steel frames encased in concrete, which was not the case with the WTC Towers, whose fire protections were dislodged by the aircraft impacts.

I can also bring up the Windsor building in Spain where the steel structure collapsed from fire that left only the concrete core standing and the steel frame buildings in Thailand that collapsed due to fire in two hours.
edit on 13-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 01:34 AM
a reply to: skyeagle409

Many buildings have their steel frames encased in concrete, which was not the case with the WTC Towers, whose fire protections were dislodged by the aircraft impacts.

Wrong, the WTC were encased in concrete read about the so call bathtub under the WTC.

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 01:44 AM
a reply to: Informer1958

Wrong, the WTC were encased in concrete read about the so call bathtub under the WTC.

Let's take a look to see if your right by examining these photos taken during an inspection before 911.



Fireproofing was applied directly to the long joists that supported each of the floors. Inspections of the floors with asbestos-containing fireproofing (up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied. Top and bottom chords and truss web members were exposed, and the red lead on the trusses was clearly visible in many locations. Photo 1 shows a truss with fireproofing missing from its end where it meets the outside wall. Also, the fireproofing was frequently thinner than the 3/4 inch described in the Federal Emergency Management Agency-funded ASCE BPAT report on the collapse of the towers. Many of the problems observed were clearly the result of poor workmanship.

However, the nature of the structures that were fireproofed and application methods used could also contribute to the problem. Applying fireproofing to a long-span or any type of joist construction is difficult. The round rods and small angles making up a truss are difficult targets for the installer. Spray fireproofing materials are typically applied from the floor with an extended spray nozzle. The installer may be unable to reach or see certain areas of the trusses that must be covered. This frequently results in thin or absent fireproofing on surfaces hidden from the floor by the bottom of steel members (photo 2). In the WTC, this resulted in sections of the top surface of the bottom chord of the trusses receiving an inadequate coat of fireproofing. These are deficiencies that would have been easily discovered by the ASTM field quality assurance tests for adhesion, cohesion, thickness, and density had these test methods existed at the time of construction.


The WTC was built before there were accepted standards for determining if the fireproofing as applied in the field would perform properly. Would the material remain on the steel (adhesion), resist physical damage (cohesion), insulate properly (thickness and density), and behave as a fire retardant? Architects relied on the "testing" undertaken by Underwriters Laboratories. However, without field quality assurance tests, there was no way of knowing if the properties of the applied fireproofing matched those of the material subjected to the UL test. The previously discussed tests would not become available until years after the completion of the WTC. For example, the ASTM test for adhesion would have detected the bonding defects of the fireproofing on core columns. This test and the ASTM test for thickness and density would have determined the adequacy of the spray fireproofing on the floor joists.

The WTC should not be considered unique in this regard. The fireproofing in any building constructed before the ASTM standards became available in 1977 should be considered suspect.

Photo 1: WTC Steel Structure Inspection

Photo 2: WTC Steel Structure Inspection


There is another important aspect to this issue. There is no existing requirement in any building or occupancy code to inspect the fireproofing in a building periodically to determine if it has degraded through gradual physical damage. This is even true for new construction where the fireproofing is installed and tested early in the construction process. Successive work by many trades often damages and removes whole sections of fireproofing. In the WTC, the fireproofing coatings had been damaged by later construction and renovation in many locations.


In considering the possible causes of the collapse of the WTC towers, the possibility that the initial application of fire-resistive coatings was deficient must be considered. The implications of this are far ranging. The fire safety of buildings depends on the fire-resistance ratings' successfully resulting in buildings that stay standing despite fire damage. Prior to the collapse of the WTC towers, it was thought that adherence to the fire-resistance ratings in the building codes would result in buildings that were safe for occupants and for those who fight fires. However, the entire scheme currently used to make these determinations must be called into question. If the WTC towers were properly protected but fell anyway, then this would indicate that the fire-resistance ratings and structural reliability of buildings as they are now built are insufficiently protective. However, if the buildings failed because the fireproofing was improperly applied, then the standards for fireproofing application and maintenance need to be strengthened. Peoples' lives depend on properly analyzing these issues and then taking appropriate corrective action.

Deficient firestopping

Deficient firestopping provides an avenue for fire spread. Columns, girders and beams are commonly protected with spray asbestos insulation or a composition material. Spray insulation has been tested to offer four-hour test ratings on columns, three hours on beams and girders.

Test conditions, however, do not match actual conditions in the field. Insulation adhesion may be ineffective because of rust. Frequently, insulation is applied to rusted metal that has not been properly treated before application; the insulation's consistency may vary; its application may be inconsistent; or it may be dislodged during original and new construction and maintenance.

There you have it. The WTC steel in the inspection photos were never encased in concrete and it was also evident that WTC steel was exposed by fire in the following photos and it is evident that the steel in the following photos were never encased in concrete.

Photo 1: WTC STeel

Photo 2: WTC Steel
edit on 13-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:17 AM
a reply to: skyeagle409

For the first time I agree with you about the concrete columns, you are correct they did not use concrete to reinforce the core columns.

See we learn something new everyday.

And I can admit if I am wrong, that's what grown ups do. However I do not agree on many claims you have made supporting the OS.
edit on 13-9-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:36 AM
A very detailed report about the 9/11 money flow by the Corbett Report. Money, murder, 8.5 Trillion dollars missing and a conspiracy ?
9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money

edit on 13-9-2015 by 727Sky because: ..

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 03:17 AM
a reply to: DarkerJackal

Thanks for the offer, but I don't think my debating skills on this particular topic would make the cut. There are definitely better people to ask when it comes to ensuring a high quality debate - and anything short of a high quality debate on such a controversial topic is not worth anyone's time.

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 03:49 AM

14 years on, what are your views on one of the most important events in modern history?

Wow, 14 years sounds like a lot, I'm 23 yet I still remember that I was 8 and that we had BBC on for some reason in the afternoon and my mom was shocked and I saw the plane hitting the tower but I couldn't understand English yet. Later, I had to ask my parents how human beings were capable of such pointless cruelty- sometimes, children really do have more sense than some adults.

As to who's the culprit, I'm still somewhere in the middle. I'll just outright admit I know close to little about physics, chemistry, explosives, (building) engineering and so on. Conspiracy theorists made some points about the official explanation of events that compelled me but generally speaking, I'm smart enough to know that I'm stupid.

From time to time, I do have a fascination with this subject and I start reading about it again but after all this time, the internet's got pretty clogged with theories and supposed facts. What if some myth was created (purposely or as a mistake) in, say, 2002 about the nature of a certain material, that would've been on the web since that time, and engrained in the consciousness of people who read up about this subject, and generally accepted as a fact and premise we reason from? I might go all ''oh, but Material X doesn't behave like that'' where I'd just be repeating an urban myth that's not true at all.

Because of all the theories, debate and interpretations of facts and events, there's an overwhelming amount of 'info' on this event, much of it of course crazy, I'm sure there's a lot out there that's close to psychotic. It's hard to see what is what, where a supposed 'fact' comes from. Claims are being made and accepted as a general, unquestioned premise- but where do these claims come from? For instance, has the US government *really* been hindering honest investigation? And, how much effort *would* it require to install explosives? Is it actually true that valuable items were removed from the towers right before the attack? That suddenly, many powerful people who would've normally been there, called in sick? I can't honestly judge or research that from here. I'd like to get to the basis of all this, see where this 'evidence' (not that I necessarily don't believe it) originated.

Whenever I dive into the subject though, I tend to find many things suspect. I catch myself leaning strongly towards the alternative view side, though.

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 04:32 AM
a reply to: Informer1958

Wrong, the WTC were encased in concrete read about the so call bathtub under the WTC.

The "bathtub" refers to the building foundation - a concrete shell underground . It was designed to prevent
hydrostatic water pressure from the water logged soil from collapsing in on itself

The steel supports had only a thin coating of fireproofin, much was knocked off by the aircraft impacts

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 04:42 AM
a reply to: eluryh22

That being said, I still struggle to wrap my mind around WTC7's seemingly perfect collapse.

In your perfect collapse WTC 7 slumped to the north - it crossed Barclay St, a 4 lane highway, and smashed 30
West Broadway (Fiterman Hall) damaging it so badly that the building had to be torn down

Debris from WTC also hit 140 West St (Verizon Building), only the heavy masonry exterior prevented it from
collapse (it was built in 1927)

Your perfect collapse

WTC 7 ravaged 30 West Broadway to the north, which is being torn down in 2006 due to the damage.

Verizon building damage

Debris pile of WTC 7 - 30 Broadway at left

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 09:33 AM
Double post removed,. Oops
edit on 13-9-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in