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.
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by budaruskie
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by hooper
On an historical note ; the Great Fire of London 1666 consumed 13,200 houses, 87 churches and St Pauls Cathedral.
Yes, and not one of them built of steel and concrete, with modern engineering, or more than probably 30 ft tall. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you and yours purposefully derail these threads with trivial points. Since you guys have been so fond of posting CD videos lately and amusing us with the "reasons" why it isn't anything like what we saw on 9/11, why don't you find me a video or any proof at all of a modern high rise building that caught on fire and totally collapsed to dust. One will do.edit on 12/9/2010 by budaruskie because: forgot to put modern in front of high rise for the morons
I would love to, but your requirements are for s***, in all honesty. It wasn't fire alone that took down the buildings, and I think that's been repeated a million times. Find me a building that's been damaged at least slightly similar to 9/11 with an ensuing fire, then come back to me about precedent.
Originally posted by budaruskie
I never went to you in the first place, pal. If my "requirements" are too much, meaning that you can't do it because ITS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE (the central idea these puppets are trying to discredit) then by all means YOU show me a building "damaged at least slightly similar to 9/11." The point your friends have so foolishly made time and time again is that the ONLY thing 9/11 can be compared to, is a known demolition, and they do it all the time. Granted, the whole time they show us a CD (that many people always say looks like 9/11) they always claim that its different. I'm actually pointing out the hilarity of this mistake and showing you how to improve your argument. The only catch is, that a video like I'm asking for doesn't exist...because its IMPOSSIBLE
Originally posted by Varemia
I'm honestly not sure what you even said there. If I gathered it all correctly after reading it thrice, I think you said that first, you weren't talking to me, then that you think that me and someone else believe that CD are comparable to 9/11, then that you think we think it's not comparable, then that something is impossible????
The only way a controlled demolition is similar to 9/11 is because a building collapses. EVERY controlled demolition I have seen has serious differences: noise, speed, rubble spread, dust cloud, etc. They only look similar if you're a gullible idiot, truly.
Originally posted by budaruskie
Noise- They both contain explosions that sound like "firecrackers" oh yeah and the deep booms from below.
Speed- Science has confirmed that the buildings dropped at virtually free-fall speed, which actually is faster than usual yet only possible with explosives.
Rubble spread- I don't even know where to begin with this one, there is nothing to debate.
Dust cloud- they both contain large plumes of dust only 9/11 contained a lot of smoke because of things continuing to explode.
Yes, one of us is truly a gullible idiot and hopelessly inadequate at debate or critical thought.edit on 12/9/2010 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)
Really? Where? I'd like to hear this.
Your key-word is always virtual. They fell slower than free fall.
The rubble was spread over quite a large area on 9/11, and a lot of it was underground because there was an extensive underground complex and gaslines which ruptured after collapse, leading to serious fires and heat.
They both contain large plumes of dust, but 9/11 had more. Not because things "continued to explode." Why on earth would you continue blowing it up as it's collapsing? It's because the buildings still had junk, people, and other usually cleared out material during a demo.
Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by Varemia
I've never seen the supposed debunking of the 1st video, and regardless of mono or stereo the guys on the street certainly reacted to the boom. I'm tired of the "trusters" ignoring all of the credible claims, some of which are in that video, and focusing solely on the ones that could be ambiguous. It's hard not to notice that you didn't even address the last two videos, but claimed there is no clear evidence for the truth movement's claims. I agree with your assessment of cd's falling into their own footprint, just look at WTC7 for proof. WTC 1&2 were not typical but are CLEARLY exploding! It looks like an explosion, people experienced explosions, there is proof of explosives in the dust yet you say no explosions, why?
Originally posted by Neo-V™
I fully agree. IMO I think we should all at least be in agreement that at the very least, it was allowed to happen. The exact same thing happened in 1940, a surprised attack on the West, but 60 years on we now know it wasn't a surprise to some, and they got public support for the war. Society in the fourties was more naive and easy to patronise back then, society in 2001 had come a long long way and instead of accepting what we were told happened, finally started to question it.
We're now seeing the fraud in the banking industry being brought to light, but the same wild theories haven't been attached to to it, why, because it involves real people who have acted against the interests of the people, as did other real people before on and after 9/11, but given the complexity of the system today, in turn making the 9/11 conspiracy quite complex, and it's easier for people to debate the absurd than focus on real facts, and I believe, if the roads led anywhere else that people wouldn't be bickering like they do.
...well if he has evidence to support financial fraud and information showing the Governments conspiring to create war, the more plausible 9/11 conspiracy theory may just be proved right in the near future rather than 60 years from now.
Originally posted by budaruskie
Is there anything we can agree on in regards to 9/11?
Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by budaruskie
but I do not believe they would murder 3,000 fellow Americans in order to do that (or to invade Iraq, for that matter). I believe that, in all honesty, members of the house and the senate, as well as the Bush administration, honestly felt that the laws they passed would help in protecting Americans... This can be attributed to the widespread fear and paranoia that spread across the nation following these ruthless attacks, and it only makes logical sense that members within our government would feel that same fear.
Originally posted by Cassius666
I hope we can agree that WTC 1 and 2 and WTC 7 were modern buildings built to withstand fires.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by EdWard54
That's because steel didn't melt in the towers. We do agree that steel can't melt due to office fires. It can, however, "weaken."
As for NASA's space feed. I would bet that has to do with the light settings on the camera lens.
And the tower hit second collapsed first because it was hit lower and at a different angle than the first hit tower. It's not the hardest thing to comprehend that the factors were different so the tower reacted differently, though both inevitably collapsed.
“If a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down,”