Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

Originally posted by astrocreep
Well, it just goes to show you that people whom have closed their minds to any theory but the one they have concocted and hitched their horse too will not see anything, even the basic calculations if it counters their opinion.

Well it goes to show you that people who close their minds to the most ridiculous and hilarious theories, do not end up wasting loads of time, debunking the most insane crap.

What about the context here?
Did this tragedy take place in a context that made it controllable, manipulatable, even affectable?
Think people.

Howard Roark/Jakko/Valhall

I post this question again:

Originally posted by billybob
does it explain how alleged terrorists that smashed into towers are still alive?

Do you have an opinion on this or do you just want to avoid it? Do you think it's not true? Do you think it's true but doesn't necessarily point to a cover-up? Do you think there's a cover-up and you were just arguing how you think the towers came down? Do you think it has nothing to do with the thread title so in deference to the T&C you will refuse to answer it. Your answers would really help me understand you better.

Peace

Prove it.

Whare is Mohamad Ata now?

Originally posted by syntaxer
However,

It does nothing to explain how a paper passport belonging to Mohammed Atta can survive a different fate.

[edit on 6-6-2005 by syntaxer]

You know, when the pyroclastic surge of hot gasses and ash swept through Pompeii, people who were caught in the flow were literally boiled alive. An escaping jet of steam from the boiling tongues caused a characteristic blob of hardened ash around their mouths. Yet at the same time, only a few dozen feet away, wax seals stored in a drawer survived intact without melting.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Prove it.

Whare is Mohamad Ata now?

He was wired 100,000 bucks by a man who was meeting with Senate intelligence Comittee members the morning of 9-11 Roark. Who knows, he sure wasn't on the security tapes from the airports. 100,000 bucks and the blessings of the powers that be, who knows where he is.
Odd, but I have yet to see any mention from any of this to suggest what happened to the Fly by Wire systems which have been in place on airliners since the 80's. Only Airports and American Awacks have that capability that I know of.

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Whare is Mohamad Ata now?

His dad spoke with him on 9/12 by telephone , so he claimed
The numbers of disappeared people worldwide is alarming

Originally posted by billybob
valhall's calculations are good for thosse easily distracted by shiny objects.

Originally posted by dh
His dad spoke with him on 9/12 by telephone , so he claimed
The numbers of disappeared people worldwide is alarming

I'm getting darned tired of how long it's taken management to come up with an emoticon to show my facial expressions when I watch somebody engaging in mental masturbation.

So to review to date:

1. We reject science! It's just for teh shiney-brain! **

2. Some dude whose torqued out son flew himself into a building for the sake of AAAAAAAAALLAAAAAAAH...says he talked to him the next day (of course, we don't have to worry about varying time zones or anything )- but that aside - THIS GUY'S REAL CREDIBLE HUH!!!? **

Newton - or Attah the blood-splat's father - you decide.

i'm certainly not rejecting science!
i'm also not using speculative scenarios when i say the towers fell WAY TOO FAST. it is in the public record.
i'm not using a speculative scenario when i say there were flashes captured on video. it is in the public record.
i'm not using speculative scenarios when i say there was violent LOCALISED lateral ejections. it is in the public record.
a building that massive doesn't literally suck itself into the earth, which is what happened if the reported time of 8.1 seconds for the north tower is accurate. that is a very simple physics equation, and unless someone changed the rules of gravity, YOU, as a scientist, should be asking these questions with me.

Lets not forget Building #7 fell down all by it's self.


Or Pull it mp3

Anybody have a link to the blueprints to WTC? nope why would that be.
Oh and another thing the jet fuel would not have made to the ground floor.
none of the elevator shafts run from the basement to the penthouse. ( bottom to the top floor)




[edit on 6/6/2005 by Sauron]

Explosives, flashes, bombs, it's all crap. Although I could take the time to debunk this entire thread, I'll just say a couple of things.

1. Controlled demolition? - If they placed bombs before the event, or even during the event, tell me why the collisions didn't start a chain reaction of explosions? The explosives weren't affected by the fire??? Furthermore, there are thousands of building demolitions experts in this country. You don't think every single one of them would have recognized the demolition for what it is? They would have noticed it right away and they'd all be crying to high hell right now. Somebody said, "the guys in charge of cleanup were also demolitions experts". Wow! Really? What an uncanny coincedence considering THAT'S WHAT THEY DO! After a building comes down, no matter the reason, THEY CLEAN IT UP! Such groundbreaking insight in this thread. For those who say a structural steel building has NEVER collapsed due to fire... check again. I did a five minute Google search and found SIX CASES where structural steel buildings had either a total or partial collapse due to fire... and we're talking regular fires, not fires fueled by jet fuel.

2. Bursts of smoke as the building goes down - It's clear that you've so closed your eyes to the truth that you'll believe anything. Let's use the noodle here a little bit... if a building is collapsing from the top down, as the towers did, what happens? One floor falls onto another and collapses it. Now what happens to all the air that was on the floor that just got pancaked? IT SHOOTS OUT THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING. Basic physics. Take two paper plates and slap them together in front of your damn face. Feel the wind? Same concept. Air displacement.

3. Ground shakes - Conspiracy theorists are trying to pimp the theory that there was a ground shake just before the "Spire" on one of the towers fell, after most of the collapse had already taken place, claiming it's evidence of a demolition. OH, so there's no possibility that maybe the ground shakes were caused by the THOUSANDS OF TONS OF WRECKAGE SETTLING TO THE GROUND? We know for a fact that some wreckage crashed down to the 10th or 11th story level, where it hung up on the pile. Later, that pile of wreckage came crashing down, all the way to the ground this time, trapping some firefighters. But that couldn't possibly have been the cause of the ground shakes huh? Because that wouldn't fit with your theory.

4. The fire wasn't hot enough - Oh really? Have you accounted for the structural damage, plus the heat, plus the additional fuel which comes from office furnishings, paper, etc... Have you accounted for the stress which the weight of the higher floors added to the structure, compounded by the increased stress caused by the structural damage which placed higher stress on key joints and beams? YOU CANNOT DENY that the building started to lean, slowly and gradually, at the point where the impact took place. WATCH THE VIDEO. Use your eyes. The building started to lean over at the top, with the lean beginning right where the collision was. Once the lean reached the critical point, the upper floors collapsed and destroyed the building. Last I checked, there aren't any explosives that can make a building collapse slowly over a period of twenty minutes.

Move on gents. This topic is getting old and you're only alienating yourself from society by believing such an absurd conspiracy theory.

[edit on 6/6/2005 by AlphaMail]

Originally posted by AlphaMail
Explosives, flashes, bombs, it's all crap. Although I could take the time to debunk this entire thread,

Well lets hear you crap and debunk the entire thread. 3 posts to ATS, I'm glad you here what would have we done with out you

[edit on 7/6/2005 by Sauron]

Originally posted by AlphaMail

Yeah, did you even read this thread? I love people that get on a thread like this, and despite mountains of research and evidence,t hey just blow it off with a flippiant "Huh uh". Come back whan you want to debate specfics or have something to actually offer here, otherwise your no better off than you were when you opened this thread.

Originally posted by AlphaMail
Explosives, flashes, bombs, it's all crap. Although I could take the time to debunk this entire thread, I'll just say a couple of things.

1. Controlled demolition? - If they placed bombs before the event, or even during the event, tell me why the collisions didn't start a chain reaction of explosions? The explosives weren't affected by the fire??? Furthermore, there are thousands of building demolitions experts in this country. You don't think every single one of them would have recognized the demolition for what it is? They would have noticed it right away and they'd all be crying to high hell right now. Somebody said, "the guys in charge of cleanup were also demolitions experts". Wow! Really? What an uncanny coincedence considering THAT'S WHAT THEY DO! After a building comes down, no matter the reason, THEY CLEAN IT UP! Such groundbreaking insight in this thread. For those who say a structural steel building has NEVER collapsed due to fire... check again. I did a five minute Google search and found SIX CASES where structural steel buildings had either a total or partial collapse due to fire... and we're talking regular fires, not fires fueled by jet fuel.

2. Bursts of smoke as the building goes down - It's clear that you've so closed your eyes to the truth that you'll believe anything. Let's use the noodle here a little bit... if a building is collapsing from the top down, as the towers did, what happens? One floor falls onto another and collapses it. Now what happens to all the air that was on the floor that just got pancaked? IT SHOOTS OUT THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING. Basic physics. Take two paper plates and slap them together in front of your damn face. Feel the wind? Same concept. Air displacement.

3. Ground shakes - Conspiracy theorists are trying to pimp the theory that there was a ground shake just before the "Spire" on one of the towers fell, after most of the collapse had already taken place, claiming it's evidence of a demolition. OH, so there's no possibility that maybe the ground shakes were caused by the THOUSANDS OF TONS OF WRECKAGE SETTLING TO THE GROUND? We know for a fact that some wreckage crashed down to the 10th or 11th story level, where it hung up on the pile. Later, that pile of wreckage came crashing down, all the way to the ground this time, trapping some firefighters. But that couldn't possibly have been the cause of the ground shakes huh? Because that wouldn't fit with your theory.

4. The fire wasn't hot enough - Oh really? Have you accounted for the structural damage, plus the heat, plus the additional fuel which comes from office furnishings, paper, etc... Have you accounted for the stress which the weight of the higher floors added to the structure, compounded by the increased stress caused by the structural damage which placed higher stress on key joints and beams? YOU CANNOT DENY that the building started to lean, slowly and gradually, at the point where the impact took place. WATCH THE VIDEO. Use your eyes. The building started to lean over at the top, with the lean beginning right where the collision was. Once the lean reached the critical point, the upper floors collapsed and destroyed the building. Last I checked, there aren't any explosives that can make a building collapse slowly over a period of twenty minutes.

Move on gents. This topic is getting old and you're only alienating yourself from society by believing such an absurd conspiracy theory.

[edit on 6/6/2005 by AlphaMail]

Allthough this is an excellent post, I doubt wether this will help the hysterical "conspiracy seekers" in here to drop their ridiculous ideas about 9/11.

They will blindly assume the most hilarious crap and tell you you have your eyes closed if you use common sense.
Ah well, what else is new on ATS.

Originally posted by billybob

... which is what happened if the reported time of 8.1 seconds for the north tower is accurate.

Okay, please direct me to where this number came from.

For those of you replying to my earlier post, I stated only that no other forces were needed to bring down the towers. I did not address Atta, Building 7 or the placement of demolition devices. However, I think those of you who are "speculating' about these topics do have the burden of proof upon you.

I don't want to discourage anyone from seeking what they believe to be the truth because if it is true, any of these notions, we need to know.

But, using the scenario that the impact and fire could not have brought those buildings down alone might have to be excluded as proof because no matter how much you all make fun and say someone claims the heat melted the steel and all that jaz, there will be those on this board and probaly just about any board with experience in materials who will explain the process. The steel fatigued as with the law of entropy of thermodynamics. All composite material is always in a state of attempted return to its core materials. As heat was used as the instrument to forge them, then it should be no suprise that heat can affectively change structural strength.

I'll bet many of you don't know that warm distilled water breaks down concrete faster than any other substance. Its difficult to explain materials properties to people who have never had the formal training. My degree required an entire semester just on propoerties of construction materials. I will admit that though steel was included, in the last 10 years or so, unless it dealt with a highway bridge, most of my experience has been soil, rock, asphalt and concrete (minus last year I when did GIS mapping of highways) so I might not be the person to best explain the girders but I do deal alot with bridge steel reinforcement and steel beamed bridges.

Originally posted by Sauron
Oh and another thing the jet fuel would not have made to the ground floor.
none of the elevator shafts run from the basement to the penthouse. ( bottom to the top floor)

You don’t know much about how large buildings operate, do you? Elevator shafts aren’t the only things in the core. There are pipe, and duct shafts, also. But, since we are talking about the WTC elevators, let’s look at that, shall we?

In both towers, there were three separate systems. The express elevators that went to the sky lobbies on 44 and the 78th floors, the local elevators that served each zone and the freight elevator that served the whole building. (You forgot about the freight elevator, didn’t you?)

In addition, without knowing the specifics of the layout for the core on all the levels, you can not rule out the possibility that the elevator banks were open to each other for air pressure relief.

If you had any experience with large buildings, the idea that the jet fuel could have spilled down to the basement level would not seem that strange to you

Howard here in Canada they use a substance called Fire stop that is injected into the holes in the floors where wires and pipes pass through to the next level so scratch that idea.
I don’t think the elevator banks would be as you say open to each other for air pressure relief; it would be a fire hazard (IMO)
I also worked for a company called Niagara Elevator in my younger years as a mechanic , but the highest I ever installed was 22 stories, peanuts compared to WTC.
However, I do know elevators. (or did I'm not up on the new Technology I have been out of the trade for some 20 years)
Have you come across the blue prints of WTC in you travels of the web? I can’t seem to find them.


[edit on 7/6/2005 by Sauron]

i admit 27 pages is too much conspiracy for me, and frankly im sick of discussing it. i have come to my own conclusion, and cannot see how anybody else can come to a different conclusion should they really look into it.

one word; building 7. when will you naysayers get past your denial? the above post by 'alphamail' has me convinced the individual is a paid disinformer or just the victim of some deep deep denial. where does the faith in this administration come from?! they dont even 'seem' honest. excuse me,

Originally posted by Sauron
Howard here in Canada they use a substance called Fire stop that is injected into the holes in the floors where wires and pipes pass through to the next level so scratch that idea.

You only need to put the fire stop around the penetrations in the occupied areas and where the pipes come out of the the pipe and duct shafts. The shafts are in their own “fireproof” enclosure, i.e. a 2” thick drywall enclosed shaft, so there is no floor slab between the floor levels.

I don’t think the elevator banks would be as you say open to each other for air pressure relief; it would be a fire hazard (IMO)

Again, the elevator shafts are considered their own fire enclosure. I know that the individual cars are not isolated from each other in a given hoistway.

It would be speculation on my part to assume a particular design for the core, however I have worked in the core areas and in and around shafts in many tall buildings and I can assure you that the there are many paths up and down the building cores.

I also worked for a company called Niagara Elevator in my younger years as a mechanic , but the highest I ever installed was 22 stories, peanuts compared to WTC.
However, I do know elevators.
Have you come across the blue prints of WTC in you travels of the web? I can’t seem to find them.

How come you forgot about the freight elevators then?

there are lots of structural schematics of the floor plans around. THe link I posted above is from Otis.

Well for what its worth, I did work for a few years there as an electrical tech on commercial construction and the "fire caulk" as we called it was reletively new then (early 90s) to most of the contractors of course we are in KY so maybe its was used elsewhere sooner. I think what Howard is refering is what we called "chases" which were open areas which allowed climate control, main electrical panel feeds, sprinkler and such to go between floors. these were usually hidden by "chase walls". Not withstanding that many of these walls would be built of drywall in such a building as the WTC for weight consideration, even a block wall would have given way to such an impact. I'm not sure why its important whether or not fuel reached the ground floor before collapse as I understand the mechanism which caused the "pancaking" happened on the floors just below the impact line when the floors above came crashing down upon them. However, there is really no way anyone can understand all the mechanisms involved without either experience or education if construction, engineering, and materials.

What many see as an indestructable peace of steel or concrete is , to those who specialize, really a combination of several different elements with laws which surround their adhering properties that have to be kept in tact. The biggest enemies: temperature, water and stress.