A question for believers or 'OSers'....

reply to post by hooper

Who says it was symmetrical? By who's standards and measures?

By your eyeballs standards: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9fece666e47b.jpg[/atsimg] Notice how after the kink forms, the building falls straight down? That's what I'm referring to.

And? So? Gravity is consistent regardless of cause.

The building free-falls, so what happens to the stuff that should be crashing into each other and causing the building to collapse? It is also falling with the building at the same rate, a feat that could be acheived with explosives but not random fires causing a single core column failure.

Now, even you know this is wrong. During a controlled demolition the sounds are timed and consistent in volume and construction. No such thing was heard on 9/11. Loud sudden noises are not evidence of explosives.

Tell that to the dozens of witnesses that talk about the explosions they heard before/during the collapse, not me. They said explosions, not "a loud sudden noise"

So all controlled demolitions result in a fault?

No, that's why implosions was in parenthesis:

WTC7: A fault during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: A fault during the collapse (implosions)

See? (implosions), not (all controlled demolitions)

You forgot a few, here let me help:
WTC7: Happened during the day.
Controlled demolitions: Happen during the day.
WTC7: Happened on planet Earth.
Controlled Demolitions: Happen on planet Earth
WTC7: Involved a building
Controlled Demolitions: Involve buildings.
WCT7: The building fell down.
Controlled demolitions: The building falls down.

Very funny! Are you sure you're an architect? You sound like more of a comedian.

Yes, those are similarities, but they are completely vague and really have no relevance to the discussion. My list was of the simliarities between building 7 and controlled demolitions, yours was just stupid things that don't mean anything. My list backs up a controlled demolition, yours backs up the premise that things on earth are on earth, and things that happen to buildings during the day happen to buildings during the day....

reply to post by samkent


Obviously there is a conspiracy,
a HUGE conspiracy. Please look up the term conspiracy so you may understand the term and use it correctly in the future. It was either an "INSIDE JOB" by people affiliated with the government or it was a bunch of cave dwellers who conspired to bring America to its knees with some very sophisticated WMDs ie box cutters. The very same knives you can buy at the dollar store. Either way it WAS A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO CONSPIRED TO CREATE THIS SITUATION. Both stories are "CONSPIRACIES"

reply to post by TupacShakur


The kink appears over the area that was determined to be one of the points of the initial collapse.

As far as explosions, what do you think people heard when the buildings fell? Wind? It must have sounded like 20 seconds of carpet bombing. Problem is that there are no explosions prior to collapse which is reference in a CD's.

reply to post by hooper

Hooper can you please pull out your "Jenga" game some Lego and a pack of cards. Now would you please replicate the same free fall characteristics seen on 911 and can you repeat that simulation 3 times in a row on camera. Impossible you say? Not according to your comments . So if you would be so kind to show us "Truthers" how easy it is it would be much appreciated and we can close these threads. Also while you are at it could you please show us how to shove a 100 + ' wide aircraft into a 30 ' hole . Thanks in advance for your magical proof.

reply to post by TDog40

Hooper can you please pull out your "Jenga" game some Lego and a pack of cards. Now would you please replicate the same free fall characteristics seen on 911 and can you repeat that simulation 3 times in a row on camera. Impossible you say? Not according to your comments . So if you would be so kind to show us "Truthers" how easy it is it would be much appreciated and we can close these threads.

Yeah, right. You've been shown over and over and over again and told over and over and over again what happened on 9/11 and of course you go right on ignoring the truth and making up your own realities and then daring persons to prove your fanatasies are not true. As long as you are equipped with your denial tool all the experiments, analogies, and reproduction in the world is not going to sway you.

Also while you are at it could you please show us how to shove a 100 + ' wide aircraft into a 30 ' hole . Thanks in advance for your magical proof.

Sure can. But what does have to do with 9/11? Nothing like that happened.

reply to post by hooper


If you can list where they have reproduced any of the scenarios from 9/11 and proven the story you uphold to be true then that would be great. As far as anything else you are really just stating an opinion after all of this. I hate to say it mate, but you are the one who sounds a little delusional when it comes to this, you're not really presenting anything and just kinda dodging all the points that counter your argument. I don't know but your flat out refusal to acknowledge the suspicious events on 9/11 is a bit worrying.

You know, people will never see eye to eye about what really happened. It doesn't matter what question you raise, I can go to 100 websites and find "proof" that there were explosions, proof that it was pancaking floors pushing air out of the building. We can argue this until the end. It doesn't matter. I believe that the planes were hijacked and we were attacked by terrorists. That's my personal belief. When I watch videos that's what I see. That's the side I research. I have seen Loose Change and was swept up in the conspiracy but also watched Screw Loose Change and realized all the out of context quotes and cropped picture and ridiculous accusations such as no planes.

I once had a mission to prove ever conspiracy wrong about 9/11. What's the point? No 2 people will ever see 2 things the same way. You have your belief and I have mine.

I wasn't there on 9/11 so I don't know. How about that answer?

Originally posted by secretsandlies
You know, people will never see eye to eye about what really happened. It doesn't matter what question you raise, I can go to 100 websites and find "proof" that there were explosions, proof that it was pancaking floors pushing air out of the building. We can argue this until the end. It doesn't matter. I believe that the planes were hijacked and we were attacked by terrorists. That's my personal belief. When I watch videos that's what I see. That's the side I research. I have seen Loose Change and was swept up in the conspiracy but also watched Screw Loose Change and realized all the out of context quotes and cropped picture and ridiculous accusations such as no planes.

I once had a mission to prove ever conspiracy wrong about 9/11. What's the point? No 2 people will ever see 2 things the same way. You have your belief and I have mine.

I wasn't there on 9/11 so I don't know. How about that answer?

The point is that if we don't expose the institutional corruption now, we're condemning the next generation to more of the same.

Pretending we have a government when we don't, and that we have the "rule of law", when we don't only helps screw our grandchildren. It's not their faults we can't pull our heads out of the TV, but we're going to make them suffer for it.

reply to post by sir_slide

If you can list where they have reproduced any of the scenarios from 9/11 and proven the story you uphold to be true then that would be great.

Huh? Reproduced the scenarios? Read the NIST reports. Better yet, go to college, get a degree in civil and structural engineering, work in the field for about 10 or so years, get your P.E. and/or your S.E. and then read the report and get back to me.

As far as anything else you are really just stating an opinion after all of this.

Sorry, more than just my opinion. Way, way, way more than just my opinion. It is the "opinion" of billions of other persons.

I hate to say it mate, but you are the one who sounds a little delusional when it comes to this, you're not really presenting anything and just kinda dodging all the points that counter your argument.

Well, just for your information I am not delusional. And what I am doing is challenging the presenter to first prove his point is real and valid before we consider it relevant or not.

I don't know but your flat out refusal to acknowledge the suspicious events on 9/11 is a bit worrying.

No, its really not. Its mentally healthy to reject delusions grounded in paranoia.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TDog40

 

Hooper can you please pull out your "Jenga" game some Lego and a pack of cards. Now would you please replicate the same free fall characteristics seen on 911 and can you repeat that simulation 3 times in a row on camera. Impossible you say? Not according to your comments . So if you would be so kind to show us "Truthers" how easy it is it would be much appreciated and we can close these threads.

Yeah, right. You've been shown over and over and over again and told over and over and over again what happened on 9/11 and of course you go right on ignoring the truth and making up your own realities and then daring persons to prove your fanatasies are not true. As long as you are equipped with your denial tool all the experiments, analogies, and reproduction in the world is not going to sway you.

Also while you are at it could you please show us how to shove a 100 + ' wide aircraft into a 30 ' hole . Thanks in advance for your magical proof.

Sure can. But what does have to do with 9/11? Nothing like that happened.

Hopper I guess you haven't heard about or seen the photos of the pentagon when they were bombed ( attacked) that day. Small hole created by a supposedly huge aircraft. Does that ring any bells for you or did your blinders cover that area up. Just saying 360 degrees is a good viewing point try it some day

reply to post by TDog40

Small hole created by a supposedly huge aircraft.

Small? Huge? Please don't overwhelm me with all that technical jargon and all those details! A plane hit a concrete and stone building near its foundation, only an idiot would expect a cookiecutter outline of a plane.

reply to post by hooper


Did you just say billions? HA! Now THAT is going to need some backing up......

People who "martyr" themselves rarely do it because they are very religious. Oftentimes they are promised their families will be well looked after financially, after their death.

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by JesusLives

 

This is precisely my point though. How, with all of the crazy evidence available can people still wholeheartedly believe the official story to be true?

Well believe is oftentimes a choice. Rather than to face the facts, many people prefer to be part of this struggle against "terrorism", being the big hero and getting the girl in the end, just like in the movies. Also most people want to feel valididated and be seen as equals amongst their peers. Being a truther wont get into my way of that here. But I guess if you live near an army or marine base in america and all the popular guys sign up to "fight terrorism" and line up their girls, you dont want to be the strange odd guy.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by esdad71

 

The WTC towers 1 & 2 did not land in their footprints, the debris was ejected in a 360d arc.

That point alone debunks 'pancake collapse'.

BZZZZZZ!!!! WRONG!

The debris around the footprint was the exterior paneling and exterior columns! No floors! The floors remained inside the footprint. How many times must you be shown that you are wrong? Workers cutting into the footprint discovered the floors stacked up nice a tight, like geological formations. Layers. Ergo, pancaked floors. Geeze, its like you are given two lifelines, a 50/50, help from an expert, phone a friend, and only two answers on the board, and you STILL get it wrong.

If debris is being ejected then mass is being lost, post collapse pics show most of the debris was ejected, meaning most of the mass was lost during the collapse. That is in accordance with physics. What is not in accordance with physics is the collapse continuing in spite of the loss of mass, the loss of ke.

You mean dust from the drywall and some concrete. I dont see how that is "most of the mass" since all the floors were found to be stacked in the footprint.

WTC 7 did land mostly in its own footprint, evidenced by the outer walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building, proving it was an 'implosion demolition'.

Yeah, sure, and the loud series of detonations that are ALWAYS heard prior to a "implosion demolition"? I mean, gee, for all those people milling around near WTC7 right up to when it collapsed, I'm surprised they forget to mention something sounding like this prior to collapse:

Sure they mention loud booms as the building is already mostly collapsed, but where are the kabooms beforehand?

Different building structures, different methods of collapse. You guys are always getting this confused.

And you are getting dust clouds from crushed drywall and entire floor sections confused for "most of mass ejected."

It still quite amazes me that the only 3 buildings to EVER collapse in this manner happened on that day.

Building 7 fell from a fire and some debris damage? Sure it did. Either the construction of the World Trade Center was the absolute WORST construction of sky scrapers ever in history, or there is something more to it. There of course have been many building fires, and skyscrapers with immense damage that never fell. Granted they didn't take an airplane hit. But there have been some cases of horrendous fires that lasted two days spanning the entire building. And yet those buildings still stood. But we are supposed to believe not one, but TWO 100+ floor skyscrapers blew OUT and fell down, taking every floor below it with it, because of some kerosene and structural damage? Who really is insane???

I get a kick out of people arguing "facts" by trying to use the NIST findings. That NIST report is a joke. NIST was ran by people notorious for whitewashes. Just look at who was head of the NIST report and you'll see what I mean. When a criminal murders someone, do we ask him to act as judge at his own trial? No. So why do we do it here?

So, after 10 years I am still left with the same questions.

1) How did not one, but two 100+ story Skyscrapers fall, in a manner of 10 seconds by supposed fire and structural damage? Why didn't the tops just sheer off instead of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete, metal, office materials, steel, etc turning into talcum powder?????

2) Why did building 7 fall straight down from a fire and small damage? There were MANY other buildings around 1 & 2 that took MASSIVE amounts of damage and they didn't neatly collapse. Yet #7 dropped the penthouse and came tumbling down. Perhaps they forgot Flight 93 never made it there?

3) Why was #7 reported down way before it actually fell?

These are simple questions. These questions could have been answered if evidence wasn't so quickly destroyed. Why was that? That steel could have sat for a while out in Jersey. But we sold it off almost immediately. Why?

I know that those who believe the "official story" are going to go after me saying that WTC 7 has been debunked already and I'm stupid. I've looked at its 'debunking' and their stories are laughable at best. I know there are those who will go after me and say that I'm not an engineer and I'm crazy and I know nothing. Your right. I'm not an engineer. But hundreds of REAL engineers have said the same. (AE911Truth.org). I've also been studying 9/11 since the day it happened. As I live in NY and I was very close to the situation it never sat right with me.

Before I get slammed for my viewpoints I might as well tell you what I currently believe happened, so there is no misconception.

1) Yes, I believe two aircraft hit the Towers. I believe the stories about holograms, or aliens, or mini-nukes are a terribly poor attempt at dis-info, placed to lump us together and look crazy.

2) I believe there were charges set in the buildings the week (or two) prior to 9/11. Possibly put in place during the security shut down in the buildings, under the guise of "upgrading the Internet" or whatever it was they were doing.

3) I believe "terrorists" actually did take control of those aircraft. They were helped along by our government, or a select few within our government. It was definitely made easier for them to be here, to do what they were doing, and to board the planes, even though they ALL set off the metal detectors.

4) No, I don't believe the terrorist pilots were in control of the aircraft after a certain point. I very much believe the planes were controlled remotely. Call me crazy but I've seen a lot of theoretical evidence that helps overcome the fact of lack of piloting skills.

5) I 100% believe Mosad was involved. It was a means to get us into wars. Wars for profit on our side, and the destruction of Israeli enemies for them.

Of course I could go into further detail but its not the point of this topic. The point is I don't believe the official story. If you do? Fine. Good. But your not going to convince anyone else to believe it by saying the "Truth Movement" is just a bunch of crazy loons who should just shut up and hug a flag. I actually quite enjoy having debates with calm, rational people who DO believe the official story. I often learn things from them, and perhaps they learn something new from me. What I can't stand is the accusations and name calling by those who believe the OS. It gets to the point where if you don't agree with them, your just stupid and ignorant. Yes, that happens from our side too. But it seems much more prevalent from the OS side.

reply to post by spoor


The treaties with the USSR allowed an ABM site near Washington, D.C. If that was built, it would not be targeted to low flying aircraft. I used to work at the Pentagon, and know from the local talk that there were defensive systems of some sort to protect it, but don't know the details. ATS has a thread containing a link to video from one of the cameras pointed at the site of the crash, and it clearly shows a large commercial aircraft down near the ground approaching the crash point. The difficulties of flying low do not apply so much here, as this is not steady flying. Also, the Pentagon walls are very thick. A small hole does not surprise me.

There are a lot of suspicious things about 9/11, but it would be good to dwell on those that are really suspicious, and not keep going on about the physics of the Pentagon crash.