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: 30
7
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: NWOwned

I've already established that the office contents and computer towers were neither all burned up nor all crushed.

Yet, they're largely MISSING. As are the trusses etc.,


an experiment for you to do.

drop a computer tower from the 10th floor of any building onto the street and note how much of it is left after this impact with the ground.

next drop about 10 tons of solid concrete and steel on top of it from the same height in one go, note how much of the computer tower is now left if you can find any in the mess.


I remember a post on here years ago where some member detailed all the metal in the towers 100.000 + lift doors thousands of toilets and computers , door handles all i ever remember reading about was one fileing cabinet ?




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: stonerwilliam




What could have caused such extraordinary damage? Portions of cars burned while paper nearby did not.


Video from WCBS Channel 2 - paper and debris burning in street Barclay Street, North face of WTC 7

www.youtube.com...

3:10 onward



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
I still ask myself this:
If you were planning this conspiracy why wait about an hour before you blow the buildings?
That gave the news media time to set up cameras and catch the explosions.
That gave rescue crews time to stumble across prewired explosives.
That gave time for people to escape.
Those escaped victims may have seen something by accident.

The smart plan would be to wait 4-5 seconds after the impact then hit the button.
Who's going to question the collapse ?
Who's going to be alive to tell what they saw?
Greater loss of life.


An instant collapse would have been even harder to sell as you can not invoke the burning jetfuel that brings down the building after weakening the steel. Also, assuming the event was controlled and the time of implosion could be chosen, you want to wait for the media to set up and broadcast the event for maximum impact.

And as for the risk of firefighters finding evidence, the firefighters who reported on explosives died in the towers, didn't they? Too bad. Everything else within the towers got pulverized as well duds or not. Also you are assuming that any evidence uncovered would be of any consequence to the perpetrators. Who exactly would imprison the leaders of the secret service, the armed forces and the nation itself because the "unwashed masses" have evidence? Evidence was simply of no concern as it could be explained away as conspiracy theories.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Right, because a plane colliding into a building and then suddenly the building falls down would not be suspicious at all. if there were any conspiracy at all it would have been more logical to wait a while so as to fool people into thinking it was the internal fires that resulted in the collapse of the building. That's assuming there was a conspiracy, which there wasn't.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

Why not.

Time for all the networks to get their camera crews in a safe place to film for SHOCK and AWE.

Time to get enough television viewers from all over the world to tune in.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Because as they told everyone that would listen years earlier they needed a New Pearl Harbor. Everyone was to witness worldwide the destruction. Fireman and police etc get in the buildings. Then pawn them off.

Look at 4:30 into the video. Then for an eye opener go to 12:50 Most of the video is worth a watch though.



This video is what I was looking for.


edit on 11-6-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-6-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: logicsoda




Right, because a plane colliding into a building and then suddenly the building falls down would not be suspicious at all. if there were any conspiracy at all it would have been more logical to wait a while so as to fool people into thinking it was the internal fires that resulted in the collapse of the building. That's assuming there was a conspiracy, which there wasn't.


You spend god knows how much time and effort rigging the building with your alleged demolition charges then you
fly a plane into the sections of building you have just rigged ......

The impact alone would have destroyed any demolition charges damaging wires and detonators by impact and resulting
fires .

"Controlled demolitions" depend on a precise sequences of charges detonating in a pattern to knock out critical support
columns which you just disrupted by flying plane through the area destroying the charges

Violates "OCCAMS RAZOR" in that introduces additional level of complexity into the operation - you have supposedly
been able to smuggle explosives in and rig the building for demolition . Now you want to hijack multiple airliners
to fly into the building . So what happens if the hijacking fails, like that of United 93, ? What do now ?

Set off charges with no airplane?

Nobody said truthers are known for their logical and consistent thinking.......



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: logicsoda




Right, because a plane colliding into a building and then suddenly the building falls down would not be suspicious at all. if there were any conspiracy at all it would have been more logical to wait a while so as to fool people into thinking it was the internal fires that resulted in the collapse of the building. That's assuming there was a conspiracy, which there wasn't.


You spend god knows how much time and effort rigging the building with your alleged demolition charges then you
fly a plane into the sections of building you have just rigged ......

The impact alone would have destroyed any demolition charges damaging wires and detonators by impact and resulting
fires .

"Controlled demolitions" depend on a precise sequences of charges detonating in a pattern to knock out critical support
columns which you just disrupted by flying plane through the area destroying the charges

Violates "OCCAMS RAZOR" in that introduces additional level of complexity into the operation - you have supposedly
been able to smuggle explosives in and rig the building for demolition . Now you want to hijack multiple airliners
to fly into the building . So what happens if the hijacking fails, like that of United 93, ? What do now ?

Set off charges with no airplane?

Nobody said truthers are known for their logical and consistent thinking.......

Honestly I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me that there is no conspiracy involved, or if you're disagreeing with me and arguing that there truly is a conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

I think that in terms of investigations, "who profited from this" comes before "occams razor".

So that being said, occams razor would conclude that there is no more simple reason than intrests tied the US and its allies were behind the planning and exicution of the 9/11 attacks.



Nobody said truthers are known for their logical and consistent thinking.......


By "truther", do you mean anyone that does not believe the OS is the truth?



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: logicsoda

Just amplifying your points and pointing out how totally illogical truther position is......



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

So your conspiracy fantasy outweighs pointing out just how illogical and inconsistent your plan is ...........

Occams Razor is method of comparing competing theories - it states that the simpler of theories is preferable
do to fact that a more complex theory has more moving parts- failure of any of them will cause it to collapse



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

I see. Thank you for the clarification.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: firerescue

I think that in terms of investigations, "who profited from this" comes before "occams razor".

Why would asking who profited from this be relevant at all, much less come before Occams Razor?


So that being said, occams razor would conclude that there is no more simple reason than intrests tied the US and its allies were behind the planning and exicution of the 9/11 attacks.

Not at all. In this situation Occams Razor would suggest that 23 terrorists were involved in the hijacking of four planes, two of which flew into the WTC, one into The Pentagon, and another into a field... in shorter terms, "terrorists did it".


By "truther", do you mean anyone that does not believe the OS is the truth?


I think that is what a "truther" refers to. At least that's what I have always understood it to mean.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: MALBOSIA

So your conspiracy fantasy outweighs pointing out just how illogical and inconsistent your plan is ...........

Occams Razor is method of comparing competing theories - it states that the simpler of theories is preferable
do to fact that a more complex theory has more moving parts- failure of any of them will cause it to collapse


Which "fantasy" are you referring to?

"Who profited from this" is a way of comparing motives. Theories come later.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: logicsoda

Why would asking who profited from this be relevant at all, much less come before Occams Razor?


Umm.... motive....


Not at all. In this situation Occams Razor would suggest that 23 terrorists were involved in the hijacking of four planes, two of which flew into the WTC, one into The Pentagon, and another into a field... in shorter terms, "terrorists did it".


No it doesnt. Not even a little bit.

Back to who had the motive, a bunch of well funded terrorists were smart enough to pull of the attacks but too stupid to know the US would send the army after them? Why would terrorist WANT US troops invading the middle east?

Your interpretation of occums razor is retarded, to be kind.



I think that is what a "truther" refers to. At least that's what I have always understood it to mean.


So a truther is someone who believes that 9/11 was not properly investigated, as well as someone who believes mini nukes and direct energy weapons brought down the towers? There is no difference between the 2?
edit on pSun, 12 Jun 2016 01:02:35 -05002016 135Sun, 12 Jun 2016 01:02:35 -0500amAmerica/ChicagoSunday by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

No it doesnt. Not even a little bit.

Yes, it does. There is no reason to believe otherwise--none whatsoever, no matter as to how hard you try to paint it. Occam's Razor is defined merely as the most simple explanation is the most likely... in this case, terrorists did it. We have plenty of evidence to support that case and none whatsoever to support the American government being involved in some conspiracy.


Back to who had the motive, a bunch of well funded terrorists were smart enough to pull of the attacks but too stupid to know the US would send the army after them?

I don't think it was so much as the terrorists wanting the U.S. military to send their troops after them so much as it was about them understanding that their actions would have consequences but choosing to go ahead with doing such anyway. As far as I know there were plenty of reasons behind al-Qaeda wanting to carry out the attacks, such as the occupation of Saudi Arabia by the U.S., the aid of Israel by the U.S., and the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the U.S.

Failure to prevent consequences doesn't imply wanting particular consequences.

Why would terrorist WANT US troops invading the middle east?

I have no clue. I don't think they did...



Your interpretation of occums razor is retarded, to be kind.


I appreciate your kindness.


So a truther is someone who believes that 9/11 was not properly investigated, as well as someone who believes mini nukes and direct energy weapons brought down the towers? There is no difference between the 2?

A truther is simply somebody who does not believe that the mainstream 9/11 story is the true one, hence "truther".
edit on 12-6-2016 by logicsoda because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: logicsoda

Yes, it does. There is no reason to believe otherwise--none whatsoever, no matter as to how hard you try to paint it.


Maybe there is no reason for you to believe otherwise...


Occam's Razor is defined merely as the most simple explanation is the most likely... in this case, terrorists did it.


Yes, the most simple explination. The petro-dollar is in trouble, we need to control the region.
Not "the petro dollar is in trouble, lets sit on our hands. OH LOOK! some wonderful terrorist attacked us, we can send troops now. Fancy that."


We have plenty of evidence to support that case and none whatsoever to support the American government being involved in some conspiracy.


Your right. There is "evidence" gathered by a commission and a 3rd party private research firm. And no government agencies were involved. Your correct. No sworn-in investigator was responsible for the conclusion of any "facts".


I don't think it was so much as the terrorists wanting the U.S. military to send their troops after them so much as it was about them understanding that their actions would have consequences but choosing to go ahead with doing such anyway. As far as I know there were plenty of reasons behind al-Qaeda wanting to carry out the attacks, such as the occupation of Saudi Arabia by the U.S., the aid of Israel by the U.S., and the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the U.S.


So Bin Laden would have to abandon reason to fit your theory?


Failure to prevent consequences doesn't imply wanting particular consequences.


How could Bin Laden possiby prevent the inevitable? He sent a plane into the pentagon...



I have no clue. I don't think they did...


They flew a plane into the pentagon and then what? Dinner at Red Lobster?



A truther is simply somebody who does not believe that the mainstream 9/11 story is the true one, hence "truther".


So you have a name that you like to call anyone that does believe what they are told by the mainstream?


edit on pSun, 12 Jun 2016 03:15:51 -05002016 151Sun, 12 Jun 2016 03:15:51 -0500amAmerica/ChicagoSunday by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Text

Text
a reply to: firerescue


Controlled demolitions" depend on a precise sequences of charges detonating in a pattern to knock out critical support
columns which you just disrupted by flying plane through the area destroying the charges


Not true. This Depends on how the explosives were wired in sequance. The two Aircraft did hit both buildings quite high up, the impact dont have to damage the wireing or charges below the impact point and down to ground Level.

Both buildigs are intact form below the impact Points. Because energy always take the easiest way With least resistance.







edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66




Not true. This Depends on how the explosives were wired in sequance. The two Aircraft did hit both buildings quite high up, the impact dont have to damage the wireing or charges below the impact point and down to ground Level.

Both buildigs are intact form below the impact Points. Because energy always take the easiest way With least resistance.


The collapse started in the areas hit by the aircraft and where fires were most intense

Also if the time interval - South Tower fell at 9:59, hour after aircraft impact . North Tower at 10:28 , half an hour
later and 1 hour 45 after aircraft impact . So why the long intervals between impact and building collapse
and then why interval between South And North Tower

Because of the time lag between both collapses gave people and first responders time to escape North Tower saving
hundreds if not thousands .........



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA




Back to who had the motive, a bunch of well funded terrorists were smart enough to pull of the attacks but too stupid to know the US would send the army after them?

That one statement exemplifies the west's lack of understanding of radical Islamic religion.
Consequences of their actions have no bearing in the commission of the act.

In their mind:
We attack the heart of the capitalist world to send a message to leave our region.
If you leave great.
If you retaliate and kill 30,000 of us it just proves we were right and we should continue to fight.




top topics



 
7
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join