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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




Actually, there is. How was the large amount of thermite installed next to the beams with no one noticing? When did the workmen enter the building, bash holes in the walls to install the thermite, again with no one noticing?


Haven't you done any research? Any? If you were really impartial, you would already know this. Ok, let's play trivia for second. To appease the truther scenario for a moment for the sake of argument. Name two (2) moments an opportunity existed to plant explosives without anyone knowing. If you can answer correctly then I know you have done your homework. IF you can't, I know you are talking out of your hat.

ok, go.




posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
This is a friendly reminder to keep it civil, or this thread will be shut down.

Talk about the subject. NOT EACH OTHER.

Continuing to do so will result in severe penalties.

Do not reply to this post.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: samkent

No, that logic just doesn't sit well with me. If I was a criminal mind and wanted to do this, I would wait till just before noon or right after lunch. Doing it first thing in the morning is counter productive.

I agree totally.
To maximize deaths you should wait until the buildings were full.

But if you were trying to coordinate multiple flights to all impact before any intervention could occur, you would want the first flights out.
If you wait until later you run into the likely possibility one or more planes could experience a takeoff delay.
That fear was realized in Shanksville. The passengers found out about the first impacts.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Were those the first flights out though? Besides, flight 11 was already 14 minutes late.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo




Were those the first flights out though? Besides, flight 11 was already 14 minutes late.

Simple time line:
Flight------------Take off
11----------------7:59
175---------------8:14
77----------------8:20
93----------------8:42 but was 40 minutes late because of congested runways.

So yes they chose the early flights with close take off times.
Which allowed the passengers on 93 to find out about the other flights and take action.

Not so conspiratorial when you look at the real facts.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent




But if you were trying to coordinate multiple flights to all impact before any intervention could occur, you would want the first flights out.
If you wait until later you run into the likely possibility one or more planes could experience a takeoff delay.
That fear was realized in Shanksville. The passengers found out about the first impacts.


Hijackers had number of constraints on what flights to take.

Needed flights that were

Transcontinental flights - large aircraft filled with fuel

Boeing aircraft - do the large number is service and ease of training

Takeoffs close together - preserve synchronicity

Takeoffs early in day - avoid delays caused by weather and mechanical problems, again preserve synchronicity

It for these reasons selected the flights they did

Flight 93 showed what happened when synchronization broke down - it was 40 minutes late and in addition
hijackers waited 45 minutes after takeoff to begin hijacking

Passengers by this time had time to phone families and find out about other hijackings - gave them time to
prepare counter attack



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: FlySolo




Were those the first flights out though? Besides, flight 11 was already 14 minutes late.

Simple time line:
Flight------------Take off
11----------------7:59
175---------------8:14
77----------------8:20
93----------------8:42 but was 40 minutes late because of congested runways.

So yes they chose the early flights with close take off times.
Which allowed the passengers on 93 to find out about the other flights and take action.

Not so conspiratorial when you look at the real facts.


You can still logistically plan afternoon flights just the same to coincide with each other. 8 am flights doesn't necessarily guarantee success. Flights 175 and 77 still risk being delayed as much as flight 93. Just random luck 93 was the last of the four to get delayed.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Back in the day runways were normally over booked.
If you chose 4 flights from different airports leaving at the same time you were assuring yourself delays on more than one flight.

Say what you will about their background, they planned their mission well.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

Afternoon fights tend to have a higher passenger count. Early flights tend to be business travelers and groups. Afternoon flights tend to be connecting flights from international flights and families that didn't want to fly early with their children.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409

False. Thermite is not an explosive and thermite reactions generate extremely bright flashes of light, none of which was observed at ground zero. I might add that thermite is not effective in dropping tall steel frame buildings and that is another reason why thermite is not used in such a manner.


Double false! Thermate is an explosive if prepared properly. Have you not watched any private study demonstrations on the fact? Small scale demos show and prove that thermate can be an explosive when under the right conditions. It blew off a steel cap 30 ft into the air when put inside a steel box... Common now man?

-DuR



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv



I believe the towers collapsed from structural failure due to heat and internal damage. Building 7, however, is a totally different animal and should stay in it's own thread(s).

This biggest concern I have are the reports of aircraft debris that some say are not from the same type aircraft that purportedly hit the towers,...


There was no way the 9/11 aircraft could have been switched. Recovered wreckage were from the 9/11 aircraft and the issue of the passengers and crew of those flights would have had to be addressed as well. Radar tracked each of the aircraft even though the transponders were tampered with. There are people who get the wrong idea that tampering with the transponder will render an aircraft invisible to radar, but that is not the case. Radar controllers will lose information on that particular aircraft, but the aircraft will still present a radar return because those aircraft are not stealth aircraft and even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible to radar.

A couple of years ago, ATC controllers from Travis AFB, CA. were invited to conduct a presentation for my chapter. During their on-screen radar presentation, radar returns from aircraft with non-working transponders were depicted on their radar screen as light-colored blobs. In addition, there is further information that proves that each of the 9/11 aircraft were not switched. Switching aircraft would not have been feasible because even the engines, APU and other equipment attached to each of those aircraft have their own unique maintenance and tracking histories. In doing so, a paper trail from Washington State to Washington D.C. and around the world, would have revealed the guilty and it would only take me less than 30 minutes to reveal a switched aircraft and with a bit more time, reveal the people involved with those aircraft. Remember, only a certain number of B-767-200 and B-757-200 series aircraft were built and using those aircraft in such a manner would have been self-defeating and signed the death warrants for those involved.


...
and also the rather weak video analysis that shows some other structure under the aircraft. In this theory, other explosives or napalm were brought into the building, which could probably cause much more damage than kerosene.


Why would anyone modify an B-767 with a pod to carry 1000 to 2000 pounds of explosions when they could placed well over 20,000 pounds of explosives in the cargo compartments without modifying anything? However, there was no way that American Airlines and United Airlines would have grounded their aircraft in order to illegally modify their aircraft to carry explosives? Additionally, there was no way the 9/11 aircraft were modified to fly under remote control. The B-767 and B-757 were not fly-by-wire (FBW) aircraft. In addition as an experienced pilot of over 46 years, I am also an airframe technician of 49 years and have modified large and small aircraft including helicopters and have invented components for Air Force aircraft and special tools and equipment for the Air Force, Army and for major defense contractors. In fact, the Air Force and Raytheon Aerospace sent me to Florida to develop a new technical manual for the engine inlet, which is used by the TF-39C engine that once powered the Air Force's C-5 transport, so when I read a post where claims were made that the 9/11 aircraft were either switched and/or modified, I simply shake my head in disbelief.


...and passenger cam Is there any consensus out there that this is a viable scenario, or it it properly debunked? I have not seen a good enough counter argument to rule it out yet.


Can you provide further details?

.
edit on 1-1-2016 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DoUrResearch



Double false! Thermate is an explosive if prepared properly.


False! Thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

How long did it take WTC 7 to collapse after WTC 1 was struck by American 11?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Remember, 3 steel frame buildings in Thailand had collapsed within two hours due to fire.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



And a demo implosions expert to boot.

What a joke!


Then explain why no demolition explosions are heard in the following video as WTC 7 collapses.




posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: DoUrResearch



Double false! Thermate is an explosive if prepared properly.


False! Thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive.



I didn't want to have to bring it here but... TRIPLE FALSE! I'll find the video demonstrations for you to gaze upon shortly, thermate can and will cause a type of 'explosion' when prepared properly and concealed well... Just because its labeled as an incendiary doesn't mean it can't explode. Bullets aren't explosives, but remove all the gunpowder, prepare it and conceal it, bang! You have an explosion. I love and enjoy your side of the argument but please stay open minded


-DuR



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DoUrResearch



I didn't want to have to bring it here but... TRIPLE FALSE!


Once again, thermite is not an explosive, it is an incendiary. Ask any explosive expert or you can go here.



Incendiary Device

Incendiary weapons, incendiary devices or incendiary bombs are weapons designed to start fires or destroy sensitive equipment using fire (and sometimes used as anti-personnel weaponry), that use materials such as napalm, thermite, magnesium powder, chlorine trifluoride, or white phosphorus.

en.wikipedia.org...


Incendiary Munitions

The main incendiary agents are thermite (TH), magnesium (MG), WP, and combustible hydrocarbons (including oils and thickened gasoline

www.globalsecurity.org...


.
edit on 1-1-2016 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DoUrResearch

Let's do it this way.

On the table, there is a pile of gunpowder and another pile consisting of thermite. Which pile is an explosive, and which pile is an incendiary?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Thanks, that is a great analysis and exactly the kind of information I was looking for.
I did not think the planes were switched either, however there is so much disinfo out there, it is certainly hard to weed out what is feasible, improbable and outright ludicrous.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join