WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer.

I can assure you I'm no shill. I'm an unemployed guy in between careers at the moment.

Originally posted by Calex1987
but yet there are tons of engineers who will look at you and go the fire wasnt hot enough to explain the molten steel pouring out of the side of the building jet fuel alone and office supplies do NOT burn hot enough to do what your saying its been proven....and they are the first steel structure's to actually "collapse" because of fire...please if your so inclined tell me why a building that burned for 18hours straight stayed standing...it must of went threw way more hell Considering it burnt for 18hours over what 54 mins? you say your wife is an architect.....well then even she could tell you she didnt know for a fact it would come down...or the fact she really thought it would since a fire has NEVER taken a steel structure down..... i would love to argue every point of your new found belief but it would be pointless...

edit on 20-9-2011 by Calex1987 because: (no reason given)

Have you ever considered that what you were seeing was molten Aluminum and not steel? There was an Aluminum airplane that flew into that building, you know. Most of the time the truth is as simple as it sounds....

Originally posted by psyop911

Originally posted by radhaya88
I have seen many of these converted truth er posts. I am sure many of them are not genuine. If you truly feel you are converted at this time, please watch the link below with Dimitri Khalezov. Richard Gage only found the evidence of how they cut the beams for size to be shipped to Japan, not how the buildings truly came down. Dimitri's explanation is the only one that makes sense. I am surprised his interview is still available to watch.
www.disclose.tv...

disinfo, conitelpro anyone?

Virtual Crowd-sourcing for Online Media Marketing.. what they're trying to sell to us is BULLS*IT... and we aint buying it. They wont go away until their bosses realize the poor ROI of such a campaign.

Originally posted by anumohi

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by anumohi

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by jamiebenzy

 

That is so complex it is near ridiculous. I mean, surely someone would realize that he/she was placing stuff all throughout the tower near the time of 9/11.

And to answer some people's wondering about explosives being built into the tower; after 50 years, they would not be reliable. Age does not treat anything very well.

ur funny, i see you know nothing about explosives

But those explosives were implanted within weeks of 911 not years

So what types of explosives were they? You do appear to know. Why weren't traces of the explosives discovered in the debris by any of the thousands of people helping to clear it?

Nano-thermite is not applicable, because it is a hypothetical explosive at best, with no known applications in actual buildings. Plus, how did all of the demolitions connect and detonate properly under a dynamic collapse and fire? It just doesn't make sense to me.

wireless charges of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel would have been perfect because with all that debris who could test it for a fuel that was used in the airliners. you have to remember that no one was looking for explosives , because remember TERRORISTS FLEW PLANES INTO IT

I doubt ANFO was the explosive. Firstly, 767's dont run on diesel, secondly the traces of ammonia would be found. Im of the nano-thermite opinion; I dont know what you mean by it being not-applicable because its "hypothetical"? are you suggesting this explosive compound does not even exist outside the military and mining industry? or not exist at all?

why on earth is it so hard for people to buy some concrete and chicken mesh fence
make 1 mold that resembles a tall buildings facade
pour the concrete in to mold about 5mm think with the mesh fence interlaced 3 times

presto you have 4 sides to a "tall" building

combine the pieces and build an air cannon that shoots beer cans or what not of simular design

shoot can at simulated building and observe results

heck if you want to be picky you can make floors and the inner collums

after youve made a hole shooting a can through the facade pour a gallon of kerosine like liquid on the remaining building and set on fire

observe results

to a 99.99% accuracy i bet you the concrete slabs will be there the next day ( with the floors if you where picky) intact exept for the hole made by the can, .

reply to post by Gando702


I think it takes courage to speak out against either side.
And I keep an open mind too. My biggest stumbling block about going back to the excepted version is the short video "In Plane site" Have you seen it? and if so, do you have any thought on it? In that short video they never even talk about the buildings coming down. But what they do discuss is hard to argue.
What I really like about your post is that it's in the spirit of open forum and that's what ATS is supposed to be all about.

Originally posted by zerimar65
No, you're not going to be attacked personally. I'm not calling you crazy. But I would like to know where you get your information from.

Thanks for that. I'll do my best to cite all the information.

How do you know Building 7 was built over a "Consolidated Edison power plant"? and the supports were not put in the most ideal places? The building would not be built like that. You're making it up as you go along.

This is one I've read a number of times.

Architect and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's Site

A news story of Con Ed trying to sue WTC7 for negligence in construction

The Wikipedia

This is the first time in ten years I've heard your explanation. How could there be a 20 story hole near the bottom? That doesn't make any sense.

It's about halfway down the interview

This site includes the information as well

Here are tons of cited interviews of firefighters seeing and expecting the collapse

If one of the main supports was damaged and it collapsed, the building wouldn't have come down so symmetrically. But it did. Nice and even. It almost floats down to the groud. For the building to collapse the way it did, ALL of the supports would have had to be taken out at the same time within milliseconds to get that desired effect

The NIST did a simulation to explain this. One without debris damage taken into consideration, and one with the damage completely considered. The simulation naturally couldn't progress very far after initiation, because then the percentage for error is simply too high.

Here is the video
www.youtube.com...

I've never heard of a building bulging.

web.archive.org...://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

(having a hard time linking it, since the original site has deleted the interviews, and it has to be accessed through a cache site. Ok, I can't link the full link. Copy the link, and then copy the second part onto the address. That should work. ATS's formatting is being annoying)
It's about 3 quarters of the way down. Between floors 10 and 13, it was bulging, and he says that they knew the building would collapse around 2pm

www.debunking911.com...
You can find it in context with other interviews here approximately a third of the way down this page.

In the history of buildings and skyscrapers, never has there been a collapse by fire. Buildings have burned for 24 hours and they didn't collapse. But let's say if one did, it wouldn't collapse all at once. Are you really going to say that the fire burned so evenly that it weakened the building exactly the same way all the way around? That the debris hit the building in the same places so it weakened it evenly? There's no way.

No, not at all. The building was not damaged evenly, but it was damaged enough to globally collapse. If you watch the videos very closely, you'll see that the collapse was actually quite unbalanced. The south side, which was damaged, is where the building leans immediately. It had to collapse from the penthouse down for a few seconds before anything else happened in the building. That part of the building swayed before the building came down.

I mean, I've done my research on this. I like to hope I'm not misinformed. Hope you find my sources credible. I've wasted a good 40 minutes of my morning before class on this.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Gosh, this is such a fallacy it is absurd. Jet A burns at less than 600 degrees F. Structural steel has a melting point of 1000-1200 degrees F. Let's also remember that the steel was covered in fireproofing material. Not to mention that most of the Jet A was consumed in the fireball that EXITED the building, burning up in mere SECONDS. Contrary to popular myth, it didn't continue burning after the initial fireball. So this argument is just hogwash top to bottom.

So who committed suicide for the government in order to create the cover story? If the jet was not manned then where were all the people from flight, presumably they were taken away shot and buried somewhere?

Originally posted by WeRpeons
Does anyone know if the guys on Myth Busters ever tried to duplicate this pancake theory on a smaller scale? I'm sure there's enough people who have written in to suggest proving it. I would be curious just to see a small scale steel building set on fire and watch how long it takes to collapse, if it would ever collapse.

Small scale testing is done all the time. I can't think of anything else more important than trying to put this building collapse conspiracy to rest. If they haven't talked about it, maybe they've been strong armed to ignore it?

I know they were blocked from revealing the RFID myth. Proving information contained on RFID chips could be read remotely. Here's just a small part of the story that caused them not to push for the episode on RFID's.

Adam continues, “I got chills just as I described it. They were way way out-gunned and they absolutely made it clear to Discovery they were not going to air this episode talking about how hackable this stuff was and Discovery backed way down, being a large corporation who depends upon the revenue of the advertisers. Uh, and now it’s on Discovery’s radar and they won’t let us go near it. So I’m sorry. It’s just one of those things, but man, that was.. Tory still gets a little white when he describes that phone conversation.”

I would imagine the amount of viewers for an episode like that would go through the roof!

Mythbusters, on the submit a myth section of their website, have a disclaimer
and refuse to entertain or test any and ALL 9/11 'myths' or controversial points of contention.
This is very telling. When I brought this up in another thread, someone here, like hooper
or good'oldave, offered up the old 'out of respect for the 9/11 victim families' line as
a (BS) reason for this otherwise nonsensical directive. As you say, ratings would skyrocket
for such a 9/11 myth special, but obviously there is something else in play here.
I suggest that the same people who terrified Tory (in Adams above RFID quote) have made
their 9/11 position CRYSTAL clear to the discovery channel heirarchy, and ALL their other
MSM sub-ordinates.
OF COURSE Mythbusters could and would bust the 9/11 OS MYTH wide open in very
short shrift, but, malheureusement, they are a sold-out and owned entity, just like all the rest.

Myself, I would like to see them (or anyone else) bust the 'myth' that 9/11 was a huge
hoax/scam, with no terrorists, no planes and few if any real victims, most being computer
SIMulated creations with no basis in reality, and that most of the footage released, including
the so called 'Live' broadcasts, were nothing more than (bad quality) movie effects, computer
generated imagery!
No one, not even most 'truthers' will go anywhere near this one. Again, very telling!
Torys friends, with their repugnant silent roaring, rearing their ugly heads, again.

9/11 Video Fakey
9/11 Victim (and Other) Fakery


p.s. Mythbusters sold us out on the moon landing shows also!
The Moon Landing and Apollo Fakery MYTH...BUSTED - MY ARSE!
Merde!

reply to post by pshea38


Showing that the building fell the OS way is totally different than showing other things might have happened.
Their show is based on could it really happen the way it portrayed. And then can they force things to happen to get the same final result.
You can come up with all kinds of alternative ways to explain each small observation. But that doesn’t mean that small thing actually happened via the alternative way.
Since they can’t replicate the building, they can’t test the OS.

As to the Moon thing, you are just conspiracy minded and will never believe anything that comes from official sources.

reply to post by Gando702


You poor guy......I give you credit, you opened up and posted your thoughts....and in true ATS fashion, they attacked you without mercy.....

you broke the rule on on ATS....go against "them" and they abuse you...disagree with "them" and suffer "their" rath.....

As a NEW YORKER.....it didn't take me ten years to figure out the "trueth movement" is a JOKE....

ATS IS DEAD.

Some simple math I use when explaining my stance on the collapse of the Towers. It seems to work pretty well. My stance is controlled demolition. This is what I do when people seem to not get it. The towers were 110 stories tall. They fell in 9.8 and 10 seconds . That equals 11 floors a second. Can you clap your hands 11 times in one second? I did'nt think so. So what makes you think gravity could bring the buildings down at a rate of 11 floors a second.? Through the path of most resistance.?

So i'm to beleive,that terrorist know how to break the laws of physics?

reply to post by openyourmind1262


To use your logic:
15 floors were being chewed at the same time as 85 floors. So it's only 85 floors in 10 seconds.
Expanded:
An object dropped at altitude will be going 96 feet per second after 3 seconds. That's your 8.5 floors per second.
And the speed only increases from there.

Originally posted by NadaCambia
The reason I don't like the truth movement is because people just parrot "facts" they've been told.

I'd say the vast majority of "how do you explain x, y and z" don't need an explanation, because x, y and z usually didn't happen in fact.

I think what stumps me about the the truther movement though is the suggestion that America would need to attack themselves to justify war. All America would have to do is allow a terrorist attack to happen, lord knows you have enough real enemies, however bogus the wars.

It makes no sense for 9/11 being an inside job. It doesn't matter how many parroted "facts" I'm presented with or how many failed structural engineers you put in front of me, you can never explain why they would even need to attack themselves.

It doesn't make a god damn bit of sense.

Lol. Doesn't make sense? Here let me clear that up for you.

All you have to do is research:
1. False Flag Terror
2. Operation Northwoods
3. Gulf of Tonkin,
4. PNAC 9/11 (Project for a New American Century)
5. Last but not least. "New World Order". Connect the dots and get back to me. If it still doesn't make sense to you then there is no hope.

If you just look at history, look at Nazi Germany and the tactics used to control and manipulate the masses, for global agenda. I.E False Flag Terror (Burning of Reichstag), propaganda disinformation, etc. The same thing is being done today. And 9/11 was the catapult for this great agenda.

I agree with the OP that there are far too many oddities and questions from that day, but I do have a few points.
1. I see a lot of people try to compare a typical steel beem constructed high rise to the truss design of WTC 1 and 2. The weakest point of the design was the truss attachment to the vertical columns, and I believe that prior inspections had found that most of the fire proofing insulation wasn't optimum at these joints. Yeah, maybe a box contructed steel building could burn for 24 hours after a fire, but there's quite a few more variables involved in the WTC towers. I remember a tire fire under Route 78 in New Jersey maybe 15 or 20 years ago that buckled the highway BEAMSand it took months to repair. If I recall, highways are also contructed with beams sitting on a small anchor point. In this case, the highway didn't have the weight of tons and tons above it yet they still sagged.
2. The fires were burning for months. Forest fires and even regular house fires may typically smolder for days after being extinguished.
3. The building was built to withstand multiple impacts. Yeah, and the Titanic was unsinkable. Mankind really has to take their vanity down a notch. Maybe the buildings were theoretically designed to withstand an impact at the most optimum point, speed and angle.
4. I always see the freefall speed mentioned. How much explosives would be needed to bring down the towers, and how would it have been installed? How would they have known the exact impact points and that it wouldn't have severed critical demolition cord?

I'd probably believe a direct energy weapon before controlled demolition, but we'll probably never know the truth.

Aside from all the conspiracy talk..... look at this picture.

Look how close wtc 7 was to its neighbours, now look at how small the rubble pile is and how little damage it caused to its naighbours, I would say nice professional demoltion. Anything else would be bullshat.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Aside from all the conspiracy talk..... look at this picture.

Look how close wtc 7 was to its neighbours, now look at how small the rubble pile is and how little damage it caused to its naighbours, I would say nice professional demoltion. Anything else would be bullshat.

edit on 21-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

That photo was taken 12 days after 9/11 after cleanup was already underway.

911research.wtc7.net...

It's not an accurate depiction of the extent of the debris.

Edit: Heck, just looking at the debris 4 days after the collapse, you can see how much was cleaned up:

911research.wtc7.net...

This one says it was probably taken soon after the attack. You can see that much of the lower facade is completely intact.

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by Varemia


Sorry, here is one before the clean up...... even more damning. Look how little damadge to wtc 7 neighbours . This is a professional job. No doubt. Controlled demolitions were used on WTC 7 at 5pm on 911. Fact.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Look back at my post. I posted that picture and another that was soon after the attack, where you can see the lower portion of the building mostly intact (at least, the facade from the North side). It kind of proves that the North side was not the side that mainly collapsed. It was the South side, where the debris hit.

reply to post by Varemia


Amazing how the claim that sporadic fires and damage on one side or corner could cause such a perfect demolition.

Well done pre rigging the buildings. Without this, the casualties and damages would of been far greater.