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.

 

Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

The more they wait, the more people get to see it. It was on the news all day even before the collapse. All day long, more and more people were watching it. Makes perfect sense.




posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: brancolinoxx

Honestly, as soon as I saw the collapse on live TV, I said 'that looks like a demolition', lots of others said the same.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Even if you dont agree it was, you have to admit its a bit weird for 3 buildings to fall into their footprint like that. Especially when one of them wasnt even hit.

Come on, you must admit it at least, it was a bit weird. It has never happened before and since. There have been many fires in skyscrapers, none have ever collapsed, there is one at the moment in Saudi in flames, burning more than 911 yet i bet it doesnt collapse. Admit it at least, this needs much more investigation....to much conflicting evidence to ignore, yet that is what is happening. Shouldn't we at least ensure there was no wrong doing by the US govt? The 911 commission didnt even discuss building 7,. doesnt that ring any alarm bells for anyone?.....really?

edit on 31-12-2015 by brancolinoxx because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I'm afraid it didn't look, nor sound the same as buildings being demo'd





The towers started to collapse at the plane entry points......no secondary detonation sounds, nor any obvious collapse of the lower portions of the buildings until after the top parts collapsed.




posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: brancolinoxx

If there was any wrong doing by the US govt and they got away with it, who is to know they wont try it again. This needs much more investigation for future generations. We need to be certain they had no involvement, that is not the case yet. what does it mean for the future if we dont investigate this further? Crazyness I tell you, Crazyness.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent


That gave rescue crews time to stumble across prewired explosives.


People that were in the WTC and got out, saw no prewired explosives.

Who is making such a claim?

It is to believe the WTC had remote controlled explosives in place, perhaps months in advance.

The criminals who who did this, did not leave anything visually for the people in the WTC that worked there. They were not going to risk anyone finding anything unusual or out of place.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity
no secondary detonation sounds, nor any obvious collapse of the lower portions of the buildings until after the top parts collapsed.



Have you not seen the videos which show emergency services reporting explosions in the basement, even killing firefighters. I know you have, every one has. Also the videos claining to show the explosions occuring as the towers are collapsing.

How can the fuel burn through steel? What are planes made from? If that happened, plane engines would never work. They would burn out.

Anyway im tired of this subject. Im so frustrated at the lack of common sense that the blind following of corrupt politicians...we all know they are corrupt. The missing trillions the day before, the insurance renewal just weeks before, the list goes on. The fact so many people still are not convinced indicates we need further investigation.....does not this ring any alarm bells? Im staggered at the apathy surrounding this topic.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Considering the first tower collapsed approximately an hour after the first plane hit and the second tower collapsed a little over an hour and a half after the second plane hit, the speed at which both towers collapsed have raised red flags. If these same towers collapsed immediately after the planes hit, it would certainly cause not only red flags but the physical impossibility would be a glaring impossibility.

Both these towers collapsed extremely fast considering the foundation and the majority of floors below the planes impact were not compromised. There are still legitimate questions revolving the speed in which both towers collapsed.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
The explosions/explosion sounds could have been a result of any thermite and or thermate that was neatly packed away in the structure. I find it hard to believe that there was pre-wired explosives, but I don't find it hard to believe that something along the lines of thermite and or thermate was used.

Thermite and or thermate can and will cause explosions when used correctly, I've seen many demonstrations on that fact. When was it put into the towers? Before or during it was actually being constructed? Somehow after the construction pre 2001? I'm no expert but that's where my conclusion always leads.

Finally my first post after reading and picking all of your brilliant minds for a few years, go easy on me!

-DuR



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: brancolinoxx
you have to admit its a bit weird for 3 buildings to fall into their footprint like that.


What makes you claim they fell into their own footprint? How should they have collapsed?
How do you think WTC 7 and all the other buildings that were destroyed got damaged?


It has never happened before and since.


How many other tube within tube buildings have been hit by a heavy high speed jet airliner?


to much conflicting evidence to ignore,


What conflicting evidence would that be exactly?


The 911 commission didnt even discuss building 7,. doesnt that ring any alarm bells for anyone?


If you had bothered to read the 9/11 commission report you would know that statement was untrue!
edit on 31-12-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: brancolinoxx
How can the fuel burn through steel?


Where exactly did fuel burn through steel on 9/11?



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

It was like a movie. Pretty much same length in time. Make it too long people get bored and leave.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: brancolinoxx




How can the fuel burn through steel? What are planes made from? If that happened, plane engines would never work. They would burn out.

You think jet turbines are made of structural steel? Oy.

edit on 12/31/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

When the thermite/thermate ignited is my best guess! Molten steel was seen and video taped exiting one of the windows, and it being office materials or aluminum has been debunked.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Better question, ask yourself this. 'IF' you were a radical islam extremist diabolically planning for years to do the most awesome ballzy attack on the US of A and take out THEE iconic symbol while doing the most collateral damage as possible, what time would be best? The wtc buildings had a working capacity of 50,000 people. At 9 am only 6% arrived. Why would you plan all the logistics only to hit a building that was 94% empty?

See? Uncle Sam does have a heart.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DoUrResearch




Molten steel was seen and video taped exiting one of the windows, and it being office materials or aluminum has been debunked.

Indirectly you make my point.
By waiting to detonate it allowed time for camera crews to tape suspicious things going on.
Things that the conspiracy crowd has talked about for over a decade.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: DoUrResearch
Molten steel was seen and video taped exiting one of the windows,


How do you know that was not lead, or aluminium? How do you know it was steel?



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo




At 9 am only 6% arrived. Why would you plan all the logistics only to hit a building that was 94% empty?

My take is that they were there to strike at the symbols of American free enterprise and power.
No so much to kill as many people as possible.
Plus I don't think they expected the buildings to collapse.
Nor take down 5 other buildings.

Also I think their plan needed all the planes to be hijacked about the same time and be crashed before anyone could do anything about it.
So circling until the buildings filled up wasn't an option.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Because Flight 93 never showed up, some uppity passengers took down it's hijackers, and they were left with a building set to go but no cover cause. They would just have to 'wing it' and let some middling fires be the explanation. I never once believe neocon Philip Zelikow who made the claim Flight 93 was going to target the Capitol. Like others, I believe it was to be the 'cause' for WTC 7's collapse, only that plan went awry, and we were left with a building that underwent a freefall collapse into it's footprint from a fire.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
we were left with a building that underwent a freefall collapse into it's footprint from a fire.


What makes you claim it fell into its own footprint? Firefighters knew it would collapse, they were watching it.


As the North Tower collapsed, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing damage to the south face of the building[31] and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[32] Structural damage occurred to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage includes a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41.[32] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[33][34] Some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[35] Fires burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[36][37] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[31] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[38] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might cave to one side or "collapse".[39] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building and issued uncertain reports about damage in the basement.[40] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[41] At 5:20:33 pm EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 pm EDT the entire building collapsed completely.[42][43] There were no casualties associated with the collapse.


How do you explain the damage caused by WTC 7 to Fiterman Hall building and the Verizon Building if it fell into its own footprint.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join