New ATS Survey: The 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

May I ask again which results you consider to have been encouraging?

reply to post by hooper


Yeah, that even trumps approval of congress - the two part one-party corporate owned US political system that has been feeding you all those impossible fables for decades.

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by hooper

 

Yeah, that even trumps approval of congress - the two part one-party corporate owned US political system that has been feeding you all those impossible fables for decades.

Yeah, you're right it does. That is really something. Even on a conspiracy website, this particular flavor of conspiracy cant' do better then say 80%. That would mean that 1 out of 5 members of this website think that 9/11 was solely the act of foreign terrorist. How do you think that translates to the general public?

reply to post by hooper


Mighty big talk from an underdog in these discussions.

Work on reversing your underdog status by identifying issues and thus generating meaningful discussion. This has been an evident shortcoming of yours so far resulting in meager support for your views. Kind regards, galdur

reply to post by Varemia

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

Pull IT. But IT is a group of fire fighters probably right.

reply to post by galdur

Mighty big talk from an underdog in these discussions.

Underdog? Far from it in my book. I always figure the enlighten HERE, on this forum and on this website accounted for no more than 1 in 20. But 1 in 5? Thats a major victory.

Work on reversing your underdog status by identifying issues and thus generating meaningful discussion.

You realize that just 30 more points and I am the majority, right? I'll give it a try. From now on no more Mr. Nice Guy, anytime someone twist words or attempts to rhetorically re-write history I'll be there to put a little sugar in his tank.

This has been an evident shortcoming of yours so far resulting in meager support for your views. Kind regards, galdur

1 out of 5 member agree - 9/11 was solely the product foreign terrorist.

Interesting poll, I did participate in it, it will be interesting to see to outcome. I believe people are not as ignorant as some of the OS supporters have claimed.

reply to post by SecretFace


I don't think they took any shortcuts. The engineering contractors that built the building said they specifically designed it to withstand crashes from passenger jetliners and hurricane force winds. en.wikipedia.org...

Structural design Main article: Construction of the World Trade Center The towers were designed as "tube in tube" structures, which provided tenants with open floor plans uninterrupted by columns or walls. Numerous, closely-spaced perimeter columns provided much of the strength to the structure, along with gravity load shared with the steel box columns of the core. Above the tenth floor, there were 59 perimeter columns along each face of the building, and there were 47 heavier columns in the core. All of the elevators and stairwells were located in the core, leaving a large column-free space between the perimeter that was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses.[7] The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors with shear connections to the concrete slab for composite action.[7] The trusses had a span of 60 feet (18 m) in the long-span areas and 35 feet (11 m) in the short-span area.[7] The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns, and were therefore on 6.8 feet (2.1 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to interior box columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers, which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants. The towers also incorporated a "hat truss" or "outrigger truss" located between the 107th and 110th floors, which consisted of six trusses along the long axis of core and four along the short axis. This truss system allowed optimized load redistribution of floor diaphragms between the perimeter and core, with improved performance between the different materials of flexible steel and rigid concrete allowing the moment frames to transfer sway into compression on the core, which also mostly supported the transmission tower. [edit] Safety concerns regarding aircraft impacts The structural engineers working on the World Trade Center considered the possibility that an aircraft could crash into the building. In July 1945, a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog had crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. A year later, another airplane nearly crashed into the 40 Wall Street building, and there was another near-miss at the Empire State Building.[8] Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers working on the design of the World Trade Center, has since claimed to have personally considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner—a Boeing 707—which might be lost in the fog and flying at relatively low speeds, seeking to land at JFK Airport or Newark Airport. However, Robertson has provided no documentation for this assertion.[8][9] NIST found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft-impact analysis, involving impact of a Boeing 707 at 600 miles per hour (970 km/h), but the original documentation of the study, which was part of the building's 1,200 page structural analysis, was lost when the Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the WTC 1; the copy was lost in WTC 7.[10] In 1993, John Skilling, lead structural engineer for the WTC, recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."[11] In its report, NIST stated that the technical ability to perform a rigorous simulation of aircraft impact and ensuing fires is a recent development, and that the technical capability for such analysis would have been quite limited in the 1960s.[12][note 1] [edit] Fireproofing In April 1970, the New York City Department of Air Resources ordered contractors building the World Trade Center to stop the spraying of asbestos as an insulating material.[13] Fireproofing was incorporated in the original construction and more was added after a fire in 1975 that spread to six floors before being extinguished. After the 1993 bombing, inspections found fireproofing to be deficient. The Port Authority was in the process of replacing it, but replacement had been completed on only 18 floors in 1 WTC, including all the floors affected by the aircraft impact and fires,[14] and on 13 floors in 2 WTC, although only three of these floors (77, 78, and 85) were directly affected by the aircraft impact.[15][note 2] and that the fireproofing was being replaced due to its asbestos content, in fact the builders had been informed of a proposed ban on using asbestos/vermiculite fireproofing during construction and had ceased using it. By this time, only the fireproofing of the lower 40 floors of the north tower had been completed, and more than half of this was later replaced before the building was completed.[16] Although replacement fireproofing was specified at 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) in thickness, NIST found the average thickness to be 2.5 inches (6.4 cm).[17] NIST concluded that "the existing condition of the fireproofing prior to aircraft impact and the fireproofing thickness on the WTC floor system did not play a significant role".

reply to post by galdur


dunno. it's just funny listening to sheeple and shills complaining how someone said
fu on teh interwebs. imagine. shill is shilling like a mother#er (read lying and distorting
the truth, whatever it may be) and someone tells that shill to foff. imagine the horror. the
scandal. what will the neighbours say?? and it is actually quite funny how a shill, or a
sheeple can act surprised and shocked when someone tells them to foff with their bs.
anywho, inside job. cheers.

reply to post by psyop911


Frankly, it´s totally beyond me why even one fifth of the clientele of this fine conspiracy site would lend any credence at all to the silly official fables. I would imagine that in these enlightened times purely faith-based bunk would be supported by maybe 1-2%.

Whatever. nonsensical views of 9/11 are still the deciding minority here which certainly is reassuring.

What is the deal with the survey results? Are the results given or sold to a third party?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Please take the time to consider the events of that day, the events that followed, and the responses of people around the world and do you best to provide us with your opinions on the following questions.

your


Taken from the opening paragraph of the survey.

If this has been pointed out, I did not see it. It just jumped out at me, so I wanted to share. Grammar is important, and can affect the ways in which we are perceived by others.


[color=454545]Camouflaged Disclaimer [aka Flaming Insurance]
My grammar is not the issue. I am not running this website.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Call me crazy.

I'd have to get in a real long line.

Does it bother you that even on a conspiracy website, dedicated to the proposition of the existance of complex conspiracies, your particular brand of conspiracy is considered, well, crazy?

If you're considered sane, crazy is the only place for me to be.

Continuing my discussion of 9/11, obviously it´s impossible to prove falsehoods and therefore by effect lies age very badly. So, it´s a function of time and its effects. It seems in the long run impossible to maintain lies but how long the fraudulent promulgation can last - is anybody´s guess at this point.

Originally posted by galdur
Continuing my discussion of 9/11, obviously it´s impossible to prove falsehoods and therefore by effect lies age very badly. So, it´s a function of time and its effects. It seems in the long run impossible to maintain lies but how long the fraudulent promulgation can last - is anybody´s guess at this point.

it seems to be impossible to prove ANYTHING, which makes everything suspicious.

Thats whats got everyone so pissed, not the end result but how its fairly inconclusive and hugly questionable, and then theres the lost records etc

Sorry, really narrowminded, assumptive questions that implied the truth was either one or another of the provided choices leaving me with no way to answer any of the questions honestly. Your questions ignored massive amounts of valid evidence pointing to other choices than the ones offered.

I believe there were NO hijackers, NO muslim terrorists, NO CRASHED PLANES! (did you see any remnant of ANY???) and ALL an extremely hi-tech, long pre-planned and beyond-general-willingness-to-believe-sci-technically-possible black-ops job with the full co-operation of high level American traitors in high enough positions to have the power and means to cooperate.

Next time I'd like to see a last choice: fill in the blank... and see what happens.

Hope the truth comes out, and all are satisfied.

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by psyop911

 

Frankly, it´s totally beyond me why even one fifth of the clientele of this fine conspiracy site would lend any credence at all to the silly official fables. I would imagine that in these enlightened times purely faith-based bunk would be supported by maybe 1-2%.

Whatever. nonsensical views of 9/11 are still the deciding minority here which certainly is reassuring.

If you think about it, it is possible that there is simply another perspective that you aren't seeing. People don't have to be stupid or slow just because they disagree with you.

It's like when people say that inter-racial couples are evil. They assume that everyone who thinks otherwise is twisted and sick. This is how I see people such as yourself reacting every time a person does not support your view.

reply to post by Varemia


What would that another perspective be?

If you´re capable of identifying it, please try to make it fit to elementary laws of physics.

reply to post by Varemia


"another perspective"? lol. have you seen all three collapses at all, ffs? video evidence doesn't lie.
period. the only perspective one can have after watching those videos is either something is
fishy or their head got stuck up their arse.

oh, and now i know you are truly a retard (and a shill) by trying to spin some bull# racist crap
as some sort of quasii argument. oh, and it just happened to be on in a 9/11 thread. rofl. you
shills think everyone is stupid as you want them to be. it's just hillarious.

in your next reply, shill, do bring elvis, aliens and/or holocaust in. those are about the only things
you goddamn shills have left in your little, scrawny playbook of spins, distortions, lies and bull#.