It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Controlled demolition experts says no doubt it was a controlled demolition.
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
The building could of been pre rigged as a safety precaution
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Coming from a guy who is trying to convince ( I don't know who )
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Listen to the professionals.
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Coming from a guy who is trying to convince ( I don't know who )
No one in the building saw anyone install these tonnes of explosives or the KM or wires running everywhere, .
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Coming from a guy who is trying to convince ( I don't know who )
No one in the building saw anyone install these tonnes of explosives or the KM or wires running everywhere, .
Again, if you would of read the NIST report they claim it was one column that failed that caused the global collapse. So really they only had to take one column out according to NIST.
Another fail approach buddy. Logic is not your strongest suit
And again, if you would of read the NIST report there was no fire in the area of the failure. Stop taking a weedwhacker to the truth, I don't mean to be captain obvious here but watch the video before commenting ... thanks.
originally posted by: waypastvne
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Coming from a guy who is trying to convince ( I don't know who )
No one in the building saw anyone install these tonnes of explosives or the KM or wires running everywhere, .
Again, if you would of read the NIST report they claim it was one column that failed that caused the global collapse. So really they only had to take one column out according to NIST.
Another fail approach buddy. Logic is not your strongest suit
So you are saying that explosives attached to a single column can take down the entire building,,. But fire failing that same column cant ?
Logic is not your strongest suit
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
And again, if you would of read the NIST report there was no fire in the area of the failure. Stop taking a weedwhacker to the truth, I don't mean to be captain obvious here but watch the video before commenting ... thanks.
originally posted by: waypastvne
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Coming from a guy who is trying to convince ( I don't know who )
No one in the building saw anyone install these tonnes of explosives or the KM or wires running everywhere, .
Again, if you would of read the NIST report they claim it was one column that failed that caused the global collapse. So really they only had to take one column out according to NIST.
Another fail approach buddy. Logic is not your strongest suit
So you are saying that explosives attached to a single column can take down the entire building,,. But fire failing that same column cant ?
Logic is not your strongest suit
originally posted by: hellobruce
What nonsense, so you expect to people to believe that buildings are wired up with tonnes of explosives etc just in case?
Please note that the Swiss have rigged "half of their country" to ensure their autonomy. These explosives would destroy bridges, cause landslides and blow up vital infrastructure. And in as far as I know, none of these devices ever exploded accidentally.
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
originally posted by: hellobruce
What nonsense, so you expect to people to believe that buildings are wired up with tonnes of explosives etc just in case?
Yes, that would be an option.
If you have something of importance to protect and there are no other options, you destroy it. Otherwise your enemy would gain use of it. WTC7 housed a number of 3 letter services, and I can imagine they had a lot of stuff lying in there not meant for public investigation. I can therefore imagine the building was (partially) rigged.
You worry about what would happen if fire would reach the explosives. Actually, even good old dynamite can be burned without any problem - you could throw a stick in a stove and watch it burn. The nitroglycerine that is contained in the stick only explodes if hit by a shockwave. In practice they used caps with some other explosive to stick into the dynamite and the fuse you see lit in some movies did not light the dynamite, but the explosives in the cap. The minor explosion of the caps would cause the nitro to explode too.
Then - you say "tonnes of explosives" - but on the other hand you believe the fascinating story that only ONE column needs to be blown out to cause the collapse as we saw it. So, if that one column was rigged and blown up, you'd see the very same spectacle, don't you agree?
About the wiring: if explosives are put in place beforehand, you can also put the wiring in place beforehand. It would be part of the regular infrastructure, probably hooked up to some electronic device that only would respond to a special signal, e.g. the transmission of a command using an encrypted line. And if - as you seem to believe - blowing out just one column sufficed to let the building collapse, you really don't need much wiring either.
So, yes, it is possible. Please note that the Swiss have rigged "half of their country" to ensure their autonomy. These explosives would destroy bridges, cause landslides and blow up vital infrastructure. And in as far as I know, none of these devices ever exploded accidentally.