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

reply to post by Gando702


Thanks for clearing up 10 years of head scratching on how those towers fell.

So you're saying we need to invade Iran?
Thanks for the laffs xavi1000.

reply to post by DemonicUFO


Did you read anything? At all, really, did you read anything at all? I came back to see if maybe you or the other guy clarified anything, but nope! You just assumed I knew what you meant. What did you mean by "looks at me weird"? I don't know you. This is an internet messageboard, meaning things are lost in interpretation if you don't have quality writing skills. So say what you mean. Don't leave anything open to interpretation.

You "heard" the Towers were designed to withstand the impact from any plane in existence? You just "heard" that? From where, a YouTube video? You also know that they were designed in the SIXTIES, right? That's FIFTY YEARS AGO.

Argh, you know what, there's no use. Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

3. Asking for evidence of 110 floors nicely stacked up at the bottom of the rubble is like asking for a carton of eggs to be intact after being dropped 10 feet onto concrete. Stuff breaks.

Who is asking for a nice neat stack? So you're comparing numerous massive steel beams to egg shells? Did your "professional" wife also help you with that comparison?

Aaaahhh yes...the incredibly profound statement that "stuff breaks". By the way, I recall seeing a photograph of a steel beam on the street with a tire embedded in it which dropped 800 feet and did not even come close to breaking. How do you account for that? Why was that steel beam not shattered into millions of pieces like a broken egg shell? You and your wife might want to brainstorm this one.

With you and your wife's logic, I do not think too many Truthers will shed a tear for you switching camps. No doubt, you belong on the wrong side of history with all the other OSers, who I am sure will welcome you with open arms. Since they're uncontrollably sinking in their lies, they can use all the help they can get.

reply to post by Gando702


thanks for resorting to name calling, hope it makes you feel real manly.

Argh, you know what, there's no use. Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

Keep it up; I am sure insulting the mentally ill will earn you loads of credibility with OSers.

reply to post by Gando702


Anyways here you go kid
Towers designed to withstand impact from largest planes.


The World Trade Center Construction manager says that the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 (which was the largest plane at the time) and that such an impact would to nothing to the structural integrity of the building.

goes on to say the buildings could actually take multiple planes.. k? Thx owned

Originally posted by Gando702
I never realized that by bringing up some points, people would start putting words in my mouth.

I'm down for openly and politely debating the collapse of 1 & 2, but when people start saying that my "gf looks at you weird" and I "don't want the truth to come out"...both things I've never said, I guess I really see why ATS has completely gone down hill. It's no longer mature discussion, it's people not liking an opposing opinion, and resorting to snipes and insults.

Stay blind, ATS.

I'll go about my business.

Peace

I was trying not to offend you, what I was trying to ask was: What was it that made you no longer be a truther?

does asking that cause offence? is it insulting?

reply to post by Gando702


Two things you should long know.

1. A plane cannot not behave like this in a real world collision.

Hologram says he. C.G.I. says me.

That's all you need to know right there to know the video is faked, as indeed must
be all video showing this collision. This is a very important point, as it should bring us to
question the veracity of all footage released and wonder (and investigate) whether or not it
was a computer generated, virtual reality movie we were witness to, and paid dearly to see.

2. The weaker upper section of the tower cannot crush and overcome the stronger bottom section
in a gravity driven collapse. 10% steel does not trump 90%. Full stop.

Your arguments are pretty weak but if you can find a way around the two above points,
then you might have a point. (Though even then, I would still seriously doubt it.)

You have fallen asleep and slipped back into a dull dream.

Please wake up!

reply to post by pshea38


Eh look at the footage closely, why does the building explode exactly the same way the plane is shaped, thats what bothers me about the no plane thoery.

reply to post by cartenz



Simple the guy cant take the heat, hes being hit with facts left and right, cant even answer any questions, hes upset because we're not happy hes acting like a sheeple again. im not going to praise someone who decides to be blind. he was truther but changed his mind because the people around him influenced him and would not argue with him.

Originally posted by DemonicUFO

The World Trade Center Construction manager says that the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 (which was the largest plane at the time) and that such an impact would to nothing to the structural integrity of the building.

goes on to say the buildings could actually take multiple planes.. k?

Maybe in the Theory this is possible but i doubt that,
the Inner Core was not that big or even massive
and i am sure that when you fly a few Times with a 707 inside
it will break apart!

How can we trust a Construction Manager?

reply to post by micpsi


Well said micpsi.

I echo your every comment.

reply to post by DemonicUFO


Well if he cant take the heat of being a tool of disinformation than he should send back his paychecks--those are your tax dollars at work.

Im surprised his co-workers didnt jump in more to help him out, he was clearly drowning. New Media Manipulation FAIL!

reply to post by Human0815


Well you have a point, we cant really trust a construction manager 100% or anyone for that matter, I was only presenting the evidence I had seen to the OP before he ran off crying about how ATS is this and that.

so please explain this then because this building got hit by a plane...yet today its still standing tall and was older then the towers....www.aerospaceweb.org...

so the empire state building took a direct hit from a B25bomber and stayed standing the twin towers we're built to take multiple hits from an even bigger air craft...yet the older building that was infact on fire hit by an aircraft and yet is still standing...im having a problem here.

Originally posted by DemonicUFO
reply to post by pshea38

 

Eh look at the footage closely, why does the building explode exactly the same way the plane is shaped, thats what bothers me about the no plane thoery.

lots of things bother me about the "no-planes" theory... but thats another story

reply to post by Gando702


This is the first time I've heard of a "Truther" turning "OSer", assuming that's what you've become or are you on the fence?

The building was hit by a plane far larger than the original design when the towers were engineered and constructed.

Wrong!
I'm sure you must have read the excellent post by micpsi.

But consider this.

Whatever hit the towers, if anything, were not commercial passenger aircraft.
Such an aircraft travelling at the alleged c500mph would have had its wings ripped of through drag well before getting anywhere near the towers.
Even if a plane did reach the tower intact, it would have crumpled up against the building like a bug hitting a car windscreen. The engines may have made something of an impression on the 4inch steel walls, perhaps even enough to penetrate.
The poor special effects we saw on the MSM of the butter plane passing through the intense steel grid of the towers right up to the wingtips like warm butter passing through a hot egg slicer are just laughable if it wasn't so serious.

Analysis of the videos proves that the "plane" didn't even slow down.
Impossible!

Towers 1 and 2 WERE a controlled demolition. Just not in the sense of C4/Thermite/Dynamite charges.

Wrong!
The destruction of the towers was controlled demolition in its true sense.

Most of the structure of the towers was pulverised in mid air before hitting the ground and distributed over Manhattan.
Large pieces of the structure couldn't be allowed to hit the ground since that would risk damaging the "bathtub" - the consequences of which were undesireable by the perpetraitors.

reply to post by Gando702


The mock simulation tests being done for the same attacks on the same day is the one that leaves me stractching my head.. Funny the same thing happened in the UK on 7/7. Mock terrorist attacks being carries out at the same stations at the same time as the real ones.
I wish someone could explain these away for me............

To the OP, you are not a truther...


Whats with all these " I was a truther and I give up" threads.... They are full of it. Who are you trying to fool..


Investigate 911 before the plane hit. There is the conspiracy. Investigate Ptech, Israel, amdocs, israeli spy ring, art students. Atta (flying venice circus) to start.