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: 27
7
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: NWOwned




Some floors were probably empty or sealed off, maybe they put sand bags and fireproofing on the 85th floor of Tower 1 for instance, at any rate most of Tower 1 was unscathed after the 'plane' impact.


why do you make up bizarre suppositions. ???

Tenant lust of North tower

en.wikipedia.org...

Tenants of 85th floor

SMW Trading Corporation, Thermo Electron, Chicago Investment Group, Hyakugo Bank, Ohrenstein & Brown

Dont see any sandbags here........

Impact area North Tower was from 93 th to 98 th floor

Marsh & McLennan Companies
98 Marsh & McLennan Companies
97 Marsh & McLennan Companies
96 Marsh & McLennan Companies
95 Marsh & McLennan Companies
94 Marsh & McLennan Companies, Marsh Private Client Services
93 Marsh & McLennan Companies, Fred Alger Management

Area was occupied by Marsh & Mclennan Insurance brokers - no sand bags present.....




posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

We're talking about why they waited to blow the buildings.

Along the way it gets tossed around that plane impact locations might be hard to maintain, hard to keep on target etc., and therefore could ruin or break chain of demolition circuitry and/or it would reveal through damage said hidden circuitry.

I counter these ideas with ideas that posit that pinpoint plane control is known and perfected for the most part, for those in the know with the capabilities. So it follows that they could isolate sections for plane impacts without damaging or exposing their demolition plans.

I merely suggest that because they couldn't have just blown up the entire buildings, so then they needed 'planes', and needing planes they would naturally choose and hit their target locations somewhat easily; extremely accurately.

Therefore, being confident of this all the buildings have to do after impact is stay up during the 'waiting' period.

If we're theorizing why the wait we have to discuss these things.

It may be that they were worried a plane strike could destroy the buildings better and quicker than say what happened in '93. So it not unreasonable to suggest that if the plane impact areas were pre-planned and known that it might be a good idea to buffer the zones in some way.

I picked floor 85 at random for no particular reason, just to use as an example.

You say such and such a company were on all impact floors? The ones above and below too? That's fine but it doesn't mean anything really, if you want to think every floor was full of office workers on 9/11 when no office furniture or computers end up in the rubble pile then that is up to you.

I don't think the planes had anything to do with the ultimate destruction of the towers anyway.
edit on 10-1-2016 by NWOwned because: typo



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: NWOwned




I counter these ideas with ideas that posit that pinpoint plane control is known and perfected for the most part, for those in the know with the capabilities. So it follows that they could isolate sections for plane impacts without damaging or exposing their demolition plans.

I disagree that they could control planes that closely.
The first plane hit at about a 30 degree bank almost dead center of one side.
The second hit the corner in a steep bank, exiting the adjacent side.

That still doesn't explain why blow up the second building first.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum

originally posted by: NWOwned
So no one saw bombs or miles of strange wiring snaking its way around the hallways and stairwells on any of the floors of either building,

Ok.

Then I guess that that must mean the masterminds didn't use conventional explosives to bring the towers down.

Right?


The simplest explanation is most often the correct one and, in this case, that would be that there were no explosives used to bring the towers down. When your theory has unrealistic degrees of increasing complication to succeed it's most likely you've got the wrong theory.

Things like pinpoint accuracy regarding the impact sites, super secret silent explosives leaving no evidence of themselves or the means of detonating them remotely etc etc

The KISS principle dictates there were no explosives used.
Sure, ordinary things do explode in fires and major structural failures can resemble explosions audibly and visually but they are symptoms of the failure, not the root cause.


Your "KISS" principal accepts this:


19 hijackers, directed by Osama B Laden, took over 4 Commercial Jets with box cutters and, while evading the Air Defense System (NORAD). Hit 75% of their targets. In turn, W. Trade Towers 1,2 & 7 collapsed due to structural failure through fire in a "pancake" fashion, while the plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane that crashed in Shanksville. The 911 Commission found that there were no warnings for this act of Terrorism, while multiple government failures prevented adequate defense.
- Zeitgeist



It would not be the simplist answer that 9/11 was a shock and awe operation designed to drum up support for decades of military spending and government debt?

72 virgins was a stronger motive than trillions in government spending?



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

This discussion is about the actual destruction of the buildings but you've mentioned the components of the event that I believe encompass the real area for conspiracy ideas. IE how 4 planes came to be hijacked, who planned it, who knew it was likely to happen and why it wasn't prevented.

Destroyed buildings were just the consequence of any inaction or incompetence at that 'front end' of the event. There's also some potential to question the construction standard of the towers that could have contributed to their failure under the extreme circumstances of being struck by 200 000kg travelling at over 200m/sec followed by uncontrolled fires.

After the event may have been a case of 'never let a good crisis go to waste' but the majority of the USA was crying out for revenge then, not just the government.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: MALBOSIA

This discussion is about the actual destruction of the buildings but you've mentioned the components of the event that I believe encompass the real area for conspiracy ideas. IE how 4 planes came to be hijacked, who planned it, who knew it was likely to happen and why it wasn't prevented.

Destroyed buildings were just the consequence of any inaction or incompetence at that 'front end' of the event. There's also some potential to question the construction standard of the towers that could have contributed to their failure under the extreme circumstances of being struck by 200 000kg travelling at over 200m/sec followed by uncontrolled fires.

After the event may have been a case of 'never let a good crisis go to waste' but the majority of the USA was crying out for revenge then, not just the government.


The discussion is "why wait to blow up the buildings", and the 'who done it' could very well tie into "why wait?" if we were about to be sold a generation long war that put generations to come in debt for the rest of their lives.

And the majority "as reported" is what I am sure you meant to say about the cries for revenge. The same reporters that were showing those towers collapse 100's of times a day for a year after the fact.

There was value in the footage those towers burning and collapsing from 20 different angles, or else the news wouldnt have used the footage so many times. That is my answer for the question in the OP.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: NWOwned




I picked floor 85 at random for no particular reason, just to use as an example.


So you admit you have no evidence - are just making up bizarre speculations and suppositions.....




if you want to think every floor was full of office workers on 9/11 when no office furniture or computers end up in the rubble pile then that is up to you.


So are you one of those conspiracy mongers who claim the buildings were empty? That the victims were faked ("Vic Sim")...?



I don't think the planes had anything to do with the ultimate destruction of the towers anyway.


If the planes had nothing to do with the buildings then why include airplane hijackings and fly the planes into the buildings?

It adds extra layers of complexity and exposes the plan to discovery. Why have 19 hijackers wandering around, taking
flight training . Hijackers had several brushes with authorities which could have derailed entire plan.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Your "KISS" principal accepts this:


19 hijackers, directed by Osama B Laden, took over 4 Commercial Jets with box cutters and, while evading the Air Defense System (NORAD). Hit 75% of their targets. In turn, W. Trade Towers 1,2 & 7 collapsed due to structural failure through fire in a "pancake" fashion, while the plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane that crashed in Shanksville. The 911 Commission found that there were no warnings for this act of Terrorism, while multiple government failures prevented adequate defense.
- Zeitgeist



It would not be the simplist answer that 9/11 was a shock and awe operation designed to drum up support for decades of military spending and government debt?

72 virgins was a stronger motive than trillions in government spending?


1) The Pentagon aircraft and UA 93 did not 'vaporise on impact', it's just that 500 mph+ impacts don't leave much debris - was this jet crash secretly a missile? Not much pieces there. The parts of the Germanwings plane are pretty small too. Was that all faked as well? High speed impacts just are that destructive.

2) 'evading NORAD' Civil airliners were generally not thought to be a threat, and the system was setup to intercept foreign aircraft anyway - that is where most airborne threats come from, funnily enough.

3) 19 hijackers did it - well, while the total hijacking wasn't entirely expected, plenty of hijackings had occurred before.
4) Simplest explanation - the explanation for AF447 isn't that simple, doesn't mean it's wrong.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: apex

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Your "KISS" principal accepts this:


19 hijackers, directed by Osama B Laden, took over 4 Commercial Jets with box cutters and, while evading the Air Defense System (NORAD). Hit 75% of their targets. In turn, W. Trade Towers 1,2 & 7 collapsed due to structural failure through fire in a "pancake" fashion, while the plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane that crashed in Shanksville. The 911 Commission found that there were no warnings for this act of Terrorism, while multiple government failures prevented adequate defense.
- Zeitgeist



It would not be the simplist answer that 9/11 was a shock and awe operation designed to drum up support for decades of military spending and government debt?

72 virgins was a stronger motive than trillions in government spending?


1) The Pentagon aircraft and UA 93 did not 'vaporise on impact', it's just that 500 mph+ impacts don't leave much debris - was this jet crash secretly a missile? Not much pieces there. The parts of the Germanwings plane are pretty small too. Was that all faked as well? High speed impacts just are that destructive.

2) 'evading NORAD' Civil airliners were generally not thought to be a threat, and the system was setup to intercept foreign aircraft anyway - that is where most airborne threats come from, funnily enough.

3) 19 hijackers did it - well, while the total hijacking wasn't entirely expected, plenty of hijackings had occurred before.
4) Simplest explanation - the explanation for AF447 isn't that simple, doesn't mean it's wrong.


The crash site in Zaphods post you linked to is a sand dunn. Its not soil in a wooded are. Apples to jam. The Germanwings crash left the cockpit still in tacked. Hardly a comparrison to the scene at shanksville.

As far as simplist explination, the first rule of any investigation is 'follow the money' and the question "who profited from this?" 99.9% of the time that will find your perp.

Bin Laden was smart enough to devise a plan that beat the US air defense system but was too dumb to realize that these actions would trigger a multi trillion dollar, multi national military compaign against him and everything around him? Because he wanted 72 virgins? That story completely ignores anything sensible.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: NWOwned




I picked floor 85 at random for no particular reason, just to use as an example.


So you admit you have no evidence - are just making up bizarre speculations and suppositions.....




if you want to think every floor was full of office workers on 9/11 when no office furniture or computers end up in the rubble pile then that is up to you.


So are you one of those conspiracy mongers who claim the buildings were empty? That the victims were faked ("Vic Sim")...?



I don't think the planes had anything to do with the ultimate destruction of the towers anyway.


If the planes had nothing to do with the buildings then why include airplane hijackings and fly the planes into the buildings?

It adds extra layers of complexity and exposes the plan to discovery. Why have 19 hijackers wandering around, taking
flight training . Hijackers had several brushes with authorities which could have derailed entire plan.


Evidence? Lol

This is 9/11, who has got any evidence?!

You? You got evidence all the impact floors were full of stockbroker office workers all sitting at their desks in front of their computers and large heavy monitor screens just because you name the company that had leased the floors? Maybe 2 or 3 floors were for expansion, maybe some entire floors held merely records or servers. Maybe they leased 6 or 7 floors but only used 2 etc. etc. I could go on...

You don't know anything but the tenant's name.

Evidence...


I said I didn't think the airplanes ultimately destroyed the towers but if one day New Yorkers woke up to two (or more) completely destroyed WTC buildings without a 'foil' of a couple of plane 'impacts' (or some such scenario preceding their destruction) to explain all the destruction then people would be asking too many pesky questions like WHY. And HOW. AND WHO!

The planes were needed (in part) to curb the pesky questions. And to provide a plausible reason the towers were destroyed when later, not due to the planes, the towers were destroyed.

Did I say the buildings were empty or the victims were fake? No?

Because I really didn't think I did.
edit on 10-1-2016 by NWOwned because: 2 plane reasons



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
The crash site in Zaphods post you linked to is a sand dunn. Its not soil in a wooded are. Apples to jam. The Germanwings crash left the cockpit still in tacked. Hardly a comparrison to the scene at shanksville.


So, sand and soil are two totally different things to hit at high speed are they? And do you have an image of the Germanwings cockpit? I've not seen any pictures of anything that big. How about this one then?, although quite a lot of the images there compare it to Shanksville, so I guess that's an unfair comparison for you. Or this one.

Unless you happen to know of any other airliners that went straight down into a field to compare it to?


As far as simplist explination, the first rule of any investigation is 'follow the money' and the question "who profited from this?" 99.9% of the time that will find your perp.


So, all comes down to money, that's it? Or:
1) 9/11, as in the 'Official Story' happens, Western world runs into the Middle East, and destabilises the region by putting a lot of western boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, and topples Saddam Hussein's dictatorship.
2) This gives a sudden power vacuum, as well as providing a nice easy target with which to radicalise a lot of people.
3) The destabilised area catalyses itself into the world we see today, with Iraq and Syria being ravaged by ISIS as well as other sectarian groups, along with issues all across the Middle East along the same lines, with no clear end in sight.
4) This of course, also gives a cause for various copycat groups and other fundamentalists to join in with, helping it to self sustain.
5) The fact that for any one person in it will likely die is not an issue, they're religious fundamentalists - they see that as a plus.
So 9/11 really probably went better than Bin Laden intended, he wanted to show that America wasn't untouchable.


Bin Laden was smart enough to devise a plan that beat the US air defense system but was too dumb to realize that these actions would trigger a multi trillion dollar, multi national military compaign against him and everything around him? Because he wanted 72 virgins? That story completely ignores anything sensible.


Going from the above I just posted, and in general, so you believe this conspiracy to blow the towers on 9/11, intended for this wonderful wave of Islamic Fundamentalism?



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: NWOwned




You? You got evidence all the impact floors were full of stockbroker office workers all sitting at their desks in front of their computers and large heavy monitor screens just because you name the company that had leased the floors? Maybe 2 or 3 floors were for expansion, maybe some entire floors held merely records or servers. Maybe they leased 6 or 7 floors but only used 2 etc. etc. I could go on...


Yes - I do ......

My neighbor who lived across the hall from me lost two of her sons - both worked at Cantor Fitzgerald in North Tower

Marsh & Mc Lennan as referred to earlier - some of the victims lived in my town or adjacent towns. Going to claim they didnt exisist...?



Did I say the buildings were empty or the victims were fake? No?


So why you state - "Well some of the floors might be empty" "Or maybe used for storage"

How did you think that thousands of people died....?



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

I think you misunderstand me, I'm concerned about missing furniture and computers and monitors in the rubble pile because I THINK THEY SHOULD BE THERE not because the buildings were empty of contents like desks and computers or that the companies and victims were fake.

I think there should be a whole whack of heavy steel cased computer towers in the rubble of 2 110 storey OFFICE buildings.

But there aren't any.

And the lack of what should be there but isn't may even constitute some kind of evidence.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: apex

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
The crash site in Zaphods post you linked to is a sand dunn. Its not soil in a wooded are. Apples to jam. The Germanwings crash left the cockpit still in tacked. Hardly a comparrison to the scene at shanksville.


So, sand and soil are two totally different things to hit at high speed are they? And do you have an image of the Germanwings cockpit? I've not seen any pictures of anything that big. How about this one then?, although quite a lot of the images there compare it to Shanksville, so I guess that's an unfair comparison for you. Or this one.

Unless you happen to know of any other airliners that went straight down into a field to compare it to?


As far as simplist explination, the first rule of any investigation is 'follow the money' and the question "who profited from this?" 99.9% of the time that will find your perp.


So, all comes down to money, that's it? Or:
1) 9/11, as in the 'Official Story' happens, Western world runs into the Middle East, and destabilises the region by putting a lot of western boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, and topples Saddam Hussein's dictatorship.
2) This gives a sudden power vacuum, as well as providing a nice easy target with which to radicalise a lot of people.
3) The destabilised area catalyses itself into the world we see today, with Iraq and Syria being ravaged by ISIS as well as other sectarian groups, along with issues all across the Middle East along the same lines, with no clear end in sight.
4) This of course, also gives a cause for various copycat groups and other fundamentalists to join in with, helping it to self sustain.
5) The fact that for any one person in it will likely die is not an issue, they're religious fundamentalists - they see that as a plus.
So 9/11 really probably went better than Bin Laden intended, he wanted to show that America wasn't untouchable.


Bin Laden was smart enough to devise a plan that beat the US air defense system but was too dumb to realize that these actions would trigger a multi trillion dollar, multi national military compaign against him and everything around him? Because he wanted 72 virgins? That story completely ignores anything sensible.


Going from the above I just posted, and in general, so you believe this conspiracy to blow the towers on 9/11, intended for this wonderful wave of Islamic Fundamentalism?


You gave a theory as to other profits that could be the motive for 9/11 and then finish with those profits could have been better than Bin laden intended? Well, which is it? Your saying that the last 15 years of ME turmoil has been a burnden on the US and the reason for the success of the launch of ISIS? Or all of it was better than intended and therefor not part of the profits behind the planning of 9/11? As well, ISIS profited more than big oil, the petrodollar,defense contractors and the banks that hold the debt that paid for them?

The cockpit found I got from the pics in the link you posted earlier but after looking again it was a google image search and likely not an image from Germanwing. On that note the images do show a lot more signs of a plane than Shanksville but I dont think it is significant to compare. Thats a mountain.

If a plane dissapears into the earth, isn't it still in the earth? If so, couldnt you get it out?



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: NWOwned

You expect to find intact furniture in the debris pile...??

Maybe an office set or two...??

What do you think happened to it ??

Have a churning maelstrom of steel beams and other heavy materials acting like giant garbage grinder

Anything bigger than a foot in size was ground up . Then debris piles burned for months after destroying what survived

Here are some of the objects that were recovered

www.nysm.nysed.gov...

Notice keys to office machines, guns from ATF, NYPD, FBI and other Law enforcement offices in complex



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Wait. What?! 'A churning maelstrom', oh, you mean the 'fire induced gravity collapse' right?



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: NWOwned
a reply to: firerescue

Wait. What?! 'A churning maelstrom', oh, you mean the 'fire induced gravity collapse' right?


You should be aware that all demolitions are 'gravity collapses.'



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

No it wasn't a sand dune. It was the side of a mountain. The aircraft hit so hard that the data recorders were shattered.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MALBOSIA

No it wasn't a sand dune. It was the side of a mountain. The aircraft hit so hard that the data recorders were shattered.


Im embarrased. Well a mountain then. Apples to acorns then.

...Are you sure a plane even caused that? Lol there wasnt a banker on board was there?



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
You gave a theory as to other profits that could be the motive for 9/11 and then finish with those profits could have been better than Bin laden intended? Well, which is it? Your saying that the last 15 years of ME turmoil has been a burnden on the US and the reason for the success of the launch of ISIS? Or all of it was better than intended and therefor not part of the profits behind the planning of 9/11? As well, ISIS profited more than big oil, the petrodollar,defense contractors and the banks that hold the debt that paid for them?


Yes.

The problem with there being just one theory behind everything is that things tend to snowball. I mainly posted that because I assumed that you, like many others, seem to think that someone staged the entire event of 9/11 down to the last detail. In which case all of what I posted needs to fit into it, or it went wrong for whoever staged it.


The cockpit found I got from the pics in the link you posted earlier but after looking again it was a google image search and likely not an image from Germanwing. On that note the images do show a lot more signs of a plane than Shanksville but I dont think it is significant to compare. Thats a mountain.


True. The Germanwings crash site was a mountain, in fact it was pretty much straight into bedrock, which is pretty hard for the pieces to go into. Whereas Shanksville had topsoil as well, leading on nicely to:

If a plane dissapears into the earth, isn't it still in the earth? If so, couldnt you get it out?


Indeed you could:
upload.wikimedia.org...

It might not be in quite the same shape it went in though.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join