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

Study concludes explosives used on 911

page: 8
130
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DimensionalChange03

I'm no physicist but even I know there is something eerie about it.

Those buildings should have crumpled like a slinky on a staircase, but instead they collapsed perpendicularly. Throw a balled up piece of paper at the top of a Jenga tower and see the results. Many of us have seen an imploding demolition of buildings before and the falling of the towers looks spookily similar to controlled detonations.

I could be wrong but i'm adamant the two towers should've collapsed in a different way.
edit on 5-9-2016 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Been over this Gruber.....

Illness of the people on the scene were caused by inhaling toxic dust - contaminated with glass, lead, cadmium , mercury
and witches brew of chemical produced by burning plastics



The radiation emitted by a nuclear event can be tailored by the design of the nuclear device employed. Geiger counters do no measure all forms of radiation.


That's why health physicist sent to scene by Board of Health was equipped with several radiation meters including
scintillation counter



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander




On the other hand, dozens or more people reported explosions and booms. Any nuclear devices would likely be quite small in size.

So now you say there were dozens of nukes with no radiation and not enough power to blow out all the windows 100 feet away ?
Whats the point of using a nuke then ?



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent




But there should have been dozens of windows blown out not one or two.


Well if you're referring to what we see in that video a couple pages back?
I'm not saying any windows blew out except for where we see those alleged
isolated explosions. But I would agree that an explosion that was powerful
enough should devastate more than one or two. But it's not an easy call to make
with what we can see in the vid. But the expulsions we see surely can't be
air pressure from the above collapsing floors. I don't know if they used insalated
units when the towers were built or just a single lite of tempered vision glass with
spandrel panels between floors or what. I don't think they had insalated units at
that time. No way could they be full of plate tho.
edit on Ram90516v19201600000027 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: DimensionalChange03

I'm no physicist but even I know there is something eerie about it.

Those buildings should have crumpled like a slinky on a staircase, but instead they collapsed perpendicularly. Throw a balled up piece of paper at the top of a Jenga tower and see the results. Many of us have seen an imploding demolition of buildings before and the falling of the towers looks spookily similar to controlled detonations.

I could be wrong but i'm adamant the two towers should've collapsed in a different way.


Unfortunately for your theory, Jenga blocks were not used in the construction of the towers. As to the implosion demolitions on video -- in all cases one can see the flashes and hear the sharp detonations before collapse. There were no such phenomena noted in the collapse videos.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: neutronflux

Ordinary grade thermite decays very little. Nano thermite is not shelf stable, though. So it's possible they could have positioned the thermite when the building was constructed. It isn't like thermite is new...it was discovered in the 1890's. So, it existed prior the Twin Towers construction. To ignite it, you would just need a magnesium ribbon which are readily available.
Explosives could be planted fairly quickly...by the "security" company that "swept" the building the weekend previous to 9/11. You know, the whole Wirt Walker/Marvin Bush fiasco. Their company...well, they were on the BoD, designed and installed Phase 1 of the electronic security system at WTC. That is fact.
So no, the concept isn't ridiculous.


Over time, the aluminum oxidizes and makes the mix harder to ignite. The finer the Al powder, the faster that happens. Ignition by Mg ribbon is for the lab demo as Mg oxidizes even faster than the Al. BaO2 and Al powder are a common ignition mix that will provide the temperatures required to initiate the reaction but this is not really stable, either. Wired up, it would be dangerous as induced currents could cause an embarrassing ignition before it was planned.

Large amounts of thermite would have to be used for each structural member and thermite effects cannot be timed like cutter charges because heat transfer takes a much longer time than the lined cavity effect. This is why thermite is not used in commercial demolitions. About all that could be done with thermite would be initiating the collapse by heating a key steel beam to its softening point. Steel weakens significantly as it is heated and would readily deform and initiate the collapse. The problem with this is that the collapse would look exactly like what actually happened and this is unsatisfactory for those who use the collapse videos as evidence for demolition. Further, the strength of steel would be equally compromised by fire, so there would be no way to distinguish between a thermite induced collapse and a fire induced collapse.

Conspiracists obviously do not understand this or refuse to hear it. If you really want a conspiracy with no loose ends, claim that a suicidal team of Bin Laden's followers wearing fire suits used hacksaws and socket sets to cut and unbolt key structural components on floors damaged by the planes to initiate the collapse.


edit on 9/5/2016 by pteridine because: ETA



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: DimensionalChange03

Sure they were, and the planes were obviously not flown by a couple of arabs with a recently acquired flying license and a few hours on a MS flightsimulator from the year 2000!

A professional airliner pilot would have throuble in flying that curve trajectory with a radious of miles at 600 knots/h into 50 meter wide buildings, a pilot with no experience, no way.

The planes were either remote piloted of directed to that place via gps programming or jamming. For this to be done the planes must had been previously tampered

I´m telling this since 2001, even here on ats, and I even said this to John Lear who did a q&a a few years ago here. And he agreed.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: CrapAsUsual




Sure they were, and the planes were obviously not flown by a couple of arabs with a recently acquired flying license and a few hours on a MS flightsimulator from the year 2000!

You are parroting the same BS as CT sites.
He had a multi engine commercial pilots license.
MS flight sim doesn't issue those.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DimensionalChange03

Funny because I live practically at the Langley Air force base and the jets were flying out of there at an amazing rate. Also even jets over Canada could respond to that sector of airspace. Planes were being hijacked all over they didn't know where they would be needed. Plus they are very very fast.. That's the weakest argument I've ever heard associated with this. Our planes were out to lunch.


i was thinking something similar.
if our system is broke.... (air force planes not able to respond to a crisis as a security measure) then where is the out cry for a better system? why invest tax money in an air force system that completely failed?



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
There is much evidence to show explosives were not used that day.




posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Regardless of the truth, which our corrupt government will never disclose to the people, the fact (IMO) remains that the reason there is a conspiracy in the first place is that we have been lied to. I rarely fails that when people are told a lie, that they can tell there is something wrong with the story. Sometimes they don't even know what that something is. But we were lied to by our government...people got a whiff of something stinking and a conspiracy was born.

The big question is this...why is the truth so much worse than the conspiracy? For it must be, or the conspiracy would have been extinguished by the truth.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

No, I do not make any claim of explosives at the WTC. It's you fellow conspiracists that contradict you. This is the problem with the 911 movement of truth, It is so lacking in facts with the embracement of pseudoscience you guys cannot even come to a consensus. Tell it to Dr. Wood, a conspiracists who debunk controlled demolition. The movement seems to embrace any person with a sensationalized narrative and enables them by throwing money their way. It's about YouTube likes and booksales. That is the true conspiracy. Snake oil salesmen making a living off 911. They are like psychologist, they don't make money unless you believe there is a sickness.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
If you want controlled demolition to be true? First, might want come up with video with the sounds of multiple and very loud demolitions setting of in a controlled / rhythmic cadence.

But you have to realize the conspiracists narrative of searching the WTC debris as being incompetent is false.

WTC debris and steel was inspected on site. The debris where identified by characteristics and composition. The identified material was sent to the appropriate staging are for further investigation. Three men crews worked the conveyors for smaller debris, picking out humam remains, evidence, and personal artifacts.

No steel was worked on by explosives. No demolition fragments or demolition wiring found.

Any conspiracists telling you the investigation of WTC debris was anything less than meticulous, tedious, and extensive is practicing deceit. Proving they are not reliable and have their own conspiracists agenda. It's not about the truth for them.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Nope.

First I´m not a parrot.

Second he has multi engine license for small planes, not commercial airliners. Do you know the difference?

MS FS does not issues licenses, at least can´t be used to obtain real licenses.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I admire the information presented in your reply. Seems well understood. I just found this forum and wanted to ask someone what they thought about the video of the plane actually hitting....Do you think it was a real plane or part of Project Blue Beam. Perhaps used also at the Pentagon because evidence for that really doesnt present a single point of solidity of an actual plane hitting. Just explosions at all sites.


a reply to: micpsi



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman
For the first time, I saw this video today of a WTC 7 news coverage , telling the world that building 7 had collapsed.
In the background on a life screen behind the English BBC reporter building 7 still standing.

It really amazes me how much lies then and now you guys in the US can stand looking at the election to the next presidency.

however, I understand that nobody can't win from these guys that are keeping the evilness going as it is.
So yes I do understand that you won't give up your laws carrying arms...



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

Its called CONFUSION......

BBC was quoting from Reuters report about collapse of WTC 7

Reuters in turn got their report from local news outlet report that FDNY had pulled back from WTC 7 and set up collapse
zone IN ANTICIPATION of building collapsing

Somewhere along the chain it got garbled

Really think BBC even knew there was a WTC 7 ??

Most people never even heard of the building until the looney fringe started squawking about it as part of some grand
conspiracy



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue
So what did I see in that report that the video poster marked , was just a faulty background video before the incident as of how building 7 was before it came down?


edit on 0b16America/ChicagoMon, 05 Sep 2016 17:19:16 -0500vAmerica/ChicagoMon, 05 Sep 2016 17:19:16 -05001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: 0bserver1

Its called CONFUSION......

BBC was quoting from Reuters report about collapse of WTC 7

Reuters in turn got their report from local news outlet report that FDNY had pulled back from WTC 7 and set up collapse
zone IN ANTICIPATION of building collapsing

Somewhere along the chain it got garbled

Really think BBC even knew there was a WTC 7 ??

Most people never even heard of the building until the looney fringe started squawking about it as part of some grand
conspiracy



Yes it was definetly confusion, reporting about a building that had collapsed that hadn't but would

Any way
That's not my issue, my issue has nothing to do with the bbc, my issue is with a building, whatever number it was, just up and collapsing, no aero planes or fires or earthquakes, just a building collapsing for no apparent reason Eason
That concerns me, also the idea that you have tried to change my statement about the building collapse to an issue with the bbc, about satellite feeds, about garbled chains, about tv stations, about reporters

I was talking about a building that was NOT hit by a jet just collapsing, that's strange in any world



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: firerescue
So what did I see in that report that the video poster marked , was just a faulty background video before the incident as of how building 7 was before it came down?


Do you need people to tell you what to think,
Be observant, note you are arguing about the bbc tv report, the issue is not the bbc report, it's about a building collapsing for no reason
You are following a silly argument, mr rescue is playing you and you are following


Mr rescue, why did the building collapse



new topics

top topics



 
130
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join