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: neutronflux
a reply to: sg1642
Any amount of explosives with out drilling would stick out like a sore thumb. I image it takes four times more explosives strapped to a column to "cut" it than if you stick it into a hole. The explosion is going to be very pronounce due to the pressure wave following the path of least resistance to atmosphere. Who much explosives would it take to level a whole village. Now imagine placing that amount in the towers using one frieght elevator per tower in open spaces unnoticed? Or utility spaces become unusable because they are packed full of suspicious creates. That is sure to piss off the maintenance and janitor staff.
People miss the point of controlled demolition. How would they know which floors to put the explosives on and not have the jets set them off prematurely?
The towers pancaked due to multiple floors being damaged buy the jets. The fuel ignited and burned all the way to the lobby through the elevator shafts. Thus heating and weeking steel and introducing thermal stess thought the towers.
Controlled demolition logic is really deficient for building 7. If the building was not damaged and fire did not weaken the steel to the point of collapse, how did it fall? controlled demolition? Controlled demolition is not about a massive charge that obliteates a building for maximum shock value with least amount of efficiency. A massive charge that would frag the building would push it up and out in all directions. If it was a conspiracy, wouldn't the conspirators go for maxmium shock value? But that's a by thought.
Controlled demolition on a healthy building is about using the least amount of explosives through out the entire structure in perfect timing to drop the building into its own footprint. That takes planning, running wire, and drilling. I cannot figure out if truthers think a special ops team rigged building 7 to fall on the day of 911. Or it was rigged to blow over weeks?
there would be fragments of charges and transmission receivers in the debris. Not to mention duffs that didn't go off and would still be in the rubble.
. There were hundreds of people from all walks of life sifting through that wreckage and rubble. Someone would have seen or found something.
I also think the truther movement as it has been labeled has been infiltrated and made a mockery from the inside out by wild claims and theories.
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: sg1642
I also think the truther movement as it has been labeled has been infiltrated and made a mockery from the inside out by wild claims and theories.
That's because you are hearing from the extreme ends of the bell curve.
Remember the bell curve in statics class?
The internet levels the field between main stream and extreme ends.
My point is there is a large group or percentage of the population who don't believe the official version of events.
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: sg1642
My point is there is a large group or percentage of the population who don't believe the official version of events.
I understand you belief but I feel it is wrong.
I don't believe there is a 'large' group or 'percentage' that don't accept the OS.
I feel it is very small.
My reasoning is as follows:
If you look all around the internet the only place you see stories about 911 come from three types of sites.
1. Dedicated 911 sites.
2. Conspiracy sites.
3. Sensationalism sites.
You don't see main stream news sites on the 911 conspiracy band wagon.
Some say those sites are too afraid of TPTB.
Or are controlled by TPTB.
But these same sites have no problem tearing into who the head of the CIA had an affair with.
These same main stream news outlets ate up the rumors of who was on their knees in front of Bill Clinton.
But now they are afraid of who pressed the button on building 7?
That makes no sense.
Who are the most famous reporters in recent US history ?
Woodward and Bernstein.
What reporter wouldn't want his name in the same sentence?
Or more likely to eclipse Woodward and Bernstein given the death toll of 911.
After 15 years no reporter has received an anonymous tip and ran with it ?
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: sg1642
That's what puzzles me the most, give the benefit of well meaning. People so zelous about their belief that they "plant" information. Maybe it's to push the narritive to light, but the actions of the zelous can hurt the intgerty of a whole movemt. It was strange hearing a ufologist on coast to coast AM complain about the integrity of their field because new technology allowing more people than ever to creat fictitious UFO vedio as real footage. Seems that the professor from Alaska time would be better spent forming a civilian panle to go gather the more creditable truther evedance and go from there? Start fresh and not waste time with the disinfomation. Can't polished a turd?
originally posted by: sg1642
a reply to: neutronflux
Well I can see the logic in that you could remove the evidence (be it information stored in the form of date or paperwork or even physical evidence) beforehand and then bring the tower down to hide the fact but it's too much hastle. I certainly wouldn't wait for hours afterwards to bring it down when nearly every human being on the planet had their attention focused on the WTC complex. People can argue they would have waited to give the cover story more credit ie damage due to fire but that defies logic. There are things about the collapse in my mind that have not been properly explained and I used to firmly believe in the demolition theory but when you add it all up you begin to see its unlikely. I also think the truther movement as it has been labeled has been infiltrated and made a mockery from the inside out by wild claims and theories. I also think that's partly deliberate and partly down to the individual.
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: sg1642
My point is there is a large group or percentage of the population who don't believe the official version of events.
I understand you belief but I feel it is wrong.
I don't believe there is a 'large' group or 'percentage' that don't accept the OS.
I feel it is very small.
My reasoning is as follows:
If you look all around the internet the only place you see stories about 911 come from three types of sites.
1. Dedicated 911 sites.
2. Conspiracy sites.
3. Sensationalism sites.
You don't see main stream news sites on the 911 conspiracy band wagon.
Some say those sites are too afraid of TPTB.
Or are controlled by TPTB.
But these same sites have no problem tearing into who the head of the CIA had an affair with.
These same main stream news outlets ate up the rumors of who was on their knees in front of Bill Clinton.
But now they are afraid of who pressed the button on building 7?
That makes no sense.
Who are the most famous reporters in recent US history ?
Woodward and Bernstein.
What reporter wouldn't want his name in the same sentence?
Or more likely to eclipse Woodward and Bernstein given the death toll of 911.
After 15 years no reporter has received an anonymous tip and ran with it ?
originally posted by: neutronflux
I just went back and read the good professor statements from the original post. The good professor wants to figure how building 7 fell from office fires. More confused than ever. I thought the narrative for building 7 was stored fuel in the basement for generator caught fire. Fuel fires are different than office fires?