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.

 

WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
"Planes probably were 2x USAF 767 tankers, a Global Hawk in Pentagon and a “real” 757 in Pennsylvania."

The USAF doesn't HAVE 767s. The FIRST KC-767 just rolled off the assembly line a couple of months ago, and it was built for the Italian Air Force. The USAF KC-767 program was put on hold due to contract irregularities, and has not gone forward for over a year now. The Andrews VIP squadron uses 757s not 767s.

"two seconds later the mini-thermonuclear bomb is exploded in the cellar of south tower, and again two seconds later another very powerful charge in the WTC6 customs building while nobody is looking that way."

Mini-nukes? Where's the radiation? Even a "small" nuke would do more than just vaporise some steel in the basement. It would have gutted the building and there would be evidence of it outside the building. Even a "clean" nuclear device emits a pretty large amount of radiation. The word "clean" only means that the fallout won't linger in the area, you would still have a burst of radiation that would be easily detectable.

"A 1-kiloton explosion, less than one tenth that of the Hiroshima bomb, would need to be under 450 feet of earth to be fully contained. But the U.S. B61-11 deep-penetrating bomb only penetrates about 20 feet. A tactical missile might possibly penetrate to 100 feet, although it would be difficult for a nuclear warhead to function after such an impact.

If an underground explosion is not contained, it becomes very "dirty", in that the earth above it is made radioactive and thrown over a large area. Thus, use of even a small earth-penetrating warhead in a populated area would cause significant civilian casualties, according to the study. "

here's the link for the rest of the article
www.fas.org...




posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   
"In May 2003, the US Air Force announced that it would lease 100 tankers to replace the oldest of its KC-135 tankers, subject to congressional approval. The lease would be for six years, starting in 2006. An option to buy at the end of the lease was included in the deal. A Defense Science Board review of the USAF's proposed lease concluded that further studies were required before a decision could be taken. In November 2004, it was announced that a study to clarify service needs and an analysis of alternative strategies is required, to be followed by request for competitive bids."

www.airforce-technology.com...


"The first designated USAF 767 airframe—a so-called “green” 767 that will not have the necessary aerial refueling modifications—will be completed next month. A company official said it would be set aside until Boeing receives further instructions from the Air Force."
from April 2004



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
I wish our governments were not responsible for 9/11 and other attrocities as well.

I see you can include illiterate on your CV right next to belligerent.


And you continue with your insults...... You clearly stated that you think our governments had something to do with 9/11 subz...... You live in england...so when you said our governments you clearly meant to add England too.... You have no evidence for this statement, so instead you continued with your derogatory comments and tried to take the subject off tangent once more...


Originally posted by subz
Can I ask you a straightforward question Muaddib? Why are you on ATS? You dont prescribe to ANY conspiracy theory that Ive seen. Do you believe any conspiracy theory or are you primarily here to debunk?


First of all, I actually do prescribe to a few conspiracies, you obviously have either not noticed it or can't remember. I am not going to name them here because it is not part of the topic...

Second of all, i am after the truth, not concocted theories which don't stand to scrutiny and reason.



Originally posted by subz
Also I guess we will never know if thermite or any other explosive was used in the WTC. Why? Because the law was broken when all the rubble from the WTC was sold off before investigators had a chance to examine it.


First of all, thermite is not an explosive....it produces an exothermic reaction in which the iron from the iron oxide is melted into pure iron..... think of it as a soldering torch....(which coincidentally thermite is mostly used for underwater welding. It's other use is for pyrotechnics, because it creates fireworks like those used on 4th of July) but it does not produce an explosion... i gave a link and an image of what the reaction of thermite looks like....nothing like that was seen in the wtc footage.

Let me address the rest of your "opinion" below.


Originally posted by subz
Funny that isnt it, if the government didnt have anything to hide and wanted to nip conspiracy theorists in the bud they should of left all the evidence to debunk everything. But no, they sell off all the metal for scrap, good work genius.


You are obviously not thinking clearly, or thinking it through....

There were companies that removed the rubble from the wtc, they were not government companies...they had to do this because, first, they were looking for any survivors and had to move fast... Second, there were thousands of bodies at the wtc which had to be recovered.... for the families and for the health of those people still living in New York....

You can't have an open graveyard in the middle of a mayor city....bodies decay fast, and disease would run rampart throughout New York.... The work had to be done as fast as possible.


Originally posted by subz
We'll never know for sure will we. Not due to lack of evidence but because the evidence was destroyed before unrefutable and verifed proof could be established. That places the onnus of the government to prove they did not do it, rather than that we prove they did it. They destroyed the evidence, not us.


Rense doesn't seem to be thinking it throught either.

Once the debris was removed and all the bodies recovered, something had to be done with all that debris...

Where exactly were all these people going to keep the tons of debris from the WTC?....


[edit on 21-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
It's called "distract and redirect," or sometimes, "red herring." But don't take it personally or blame Maudib, it's just a job...


it's just a job?.....what job are you talking about?....

The only job I am going to be doing is starting next month as an MWD specialist in Wyoming... It is an engineering job, and for a private company....

I guess when people tell the truth and show that bogus claims do not stand up to scrutiny it has to be " a government agent doing a government job"......


Oh and btw, the company is not Halliburton....it is actually a bigger company... Now that's going to get ya talking about me being an agent for months huh soficrow?....


[edit on 21-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR

Howard,
I get no sound on that video( damn real player crap ).
I think I can see what they are doing though and with that in mind, as I have said before, no doubt there would be a large flash.That doesnt mean we would see it though.It could have been placed in such an area as not to see.I mean why would they want to blow their cover right




    Actually I was thinking of the flash that the pod people keep going on about. The one that they claim is from a missile, but is clearly from the impact of the nose of the airplane with the building.

    But you bring up a good point.

    A thermite reaction puts out a lot of light. There is no evidence of this light form the building before it collapsed. If the thermite was located on a perimeter column, this would have been visible.

    Furthermore, a thermite reaction is not instantaneous, nor is it directional (like a shaped charge), thus there are extreme technical difficulties in;



    1. Getting the thermite reaction to cut through the steel in the proper sequence.

    2. Keeping the thermite in contact with the vertical steel columns so that the steel could be melted through.



      Since there is no evidence of thermite reactions on the perimeter columns, that would mean that the core columns would have to have been the ones cut.

      Now, I don't know if you've ever worked construction in a high rise building, But I have. I have been involved in a number of high rise projects where areas of the core had to be accessed for renovations in pipe shafts, HVAC ducts, etc. Let me assure you that the level of difficulty involved in accessing these areas is such, that it would have been a major construction project to do so.

      The ONLY reason that some people believe in the thermite theory is that they simply do not have the academic background or the practical experience to understand and appreciate the engineering forces involved in the collapse.



    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:48 PM
    link   
    Thermite is used for underwater welding. I doubt it can be used to cut anything sideways, because it's reaction is not explosive. If you put it in a container, tie it to a columm and set it ablaze, it would burn through the container and keep burning downwards until the ingredients consume each other, such as pouring acid would do. It would do minimal damage to a standing steel column.

    Appart from that as Howard and I have mentioned already, the thermite reaction would be seen and captured by the cameras that were filming.



    [edit on 21-6-2005 by Muaddib]



    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:03 PM
    link   
    The Boeing 707 and 767 are comparable? These people DO know what they're talking about right???
    "These towers were build to last the impacts of hitting of Boeing 707, comparable to Boeing 767, including the fires caused by the aviation fuel. And they survived that well."

    Here are the specs for the two planes:
    Boeing 707
    General characteristics

    * Wingspan: 130' 10"
    * Length: 144' 6"
    * Height: 41' 7"
    * Weight: 122,533 lb. (empty)
    * Engines: four 13,500 lb. thrust P & W
    * Number of passengers: 181

    [edit]
    Performance

    * Cruising speed: 600 mph
    * Max.Altitude: 41,000 feet
    * Range: 3000 miles
    Max Fuel Capacity 707-120 15,000 gallons
    Max Fuel Capacity 707-320 23,000 gallons

    Boeing 767-200
    Specifications: 767-200ER
    Length: 159 ft 2 in
    Wingspan: 156 ft 1 in
    Height: 52 ft
    Max. Weight: 395,000 lb
    Range: 6,600 nautical miles
    Cruise: 530 mph at 35,000 ft
    Engines: 2 Pratt&Whitney PW4062, 63,300 lbs thrust or two GE CF6-80C2B7F with 62,100 lbs thrust
    Empty (767-200) 179,080 lb (81,230 kg)
    (767-300) 191,700 lb (86,955 kg)
    (767-400ER) 227,300 lb (103,100 kg)
    Typical Load unknown
    Max Takeoff (767-200) 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
    (767-300) 412,000 lb (186,880 kg)
    (767-400ER) 450,000 lb (204,120 kg)
    Fuel Capacity 23,980 gal (90,770 L)
    Max Payload

    (767-300F) 135,520 lbs (61,470 kg)


    Now how are those two comparable exactly? The 767 is an all around bigger airplane that wasn't even on the drawing board when the 707 was in service. The 707 in one version or another was built until about 1991. The only things similar are that they have two wings, a tail, engines and a fuselage, and are build by Boeing.

    [edit on 21-6-2005 by Zaphod58]



    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:03 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by anila

    Originally posted by HowardRoark
    anila, see this post.



    Originally posted by anila
    Nobody has given me a satisfactory answer for the cause of the explosion at this link, www.cyberspaceorbit.com...
    notice a tower still standing?


    That has been completely debunked as a photoshopped hoax. Notice the break in the roof-line of the near "tower" It is an obvious fake. The dust is from the collapse of the south tower.

    This doesn't make any sense to me. The link you provide seems to suggest you think the explosion is from WTC7, yet reports would have it that the building came down after the towers collapsed, could you please clarify your point?


    WTC 6, and WTC 7 were both severely damaged by debris falling from the collapse of the north tower.

    Just like the Banker's Trust (Deutsche Bank) building was damaged from the collapse of the south tower (note the section of the south tower's exterior wall embedded in the side of the building).








    The plume of smoke is not from the collapsed tower or it would not be so low and contained, it is clearly separate and apart from the towers. The break in the roof-line of the near tower, if it can even be called a break, looks like simple digital distortion to me. Digital distortion will contain fairly well with a quality high resolution camera, such as one used by news media, but resolution isn't high enough to hide bright spots. Anyone who has experienced digital distortion when white writing comes on a screen or tried to photograph a candle with a cheap digital camera will understand how unforgiving digital distortion can be. Perhaps we are not looking at the same thing.
    It does not make sense to suggest this is fake based upon the top of the 1st tower. While it is possible the film is fake, this was one of the first independent pieces of film (meaning someone caught it with their VCR and coded it) to make it onto the net after 9/11. For it to have been faked means someone had to be on the job immediately (now there's a conspiracy theory!). Furthermore, there has been ample opportunity for the network to claim the video is a fake, and since Tom Clancy was allegedly on air at the time, perhaps he might have something to say as well. Maybe he doesn't know this is floating around...? The pixel distribution shows me no obvious signs of fakery, unlike the Zapruder film with its glaring edits. Of course, we have better technology now and someone with real skills can fake almost any picture.


    It is a hoax, which has been all but admitted to by it's perpetrator's
    www.questionsquestions.net...



    Update, 13 September: I have now received confirmation from someone who spoke personally with Dave von Kleist at the 9/11 conference in New York last Saturday, that von Kleist has acknowledged that this video was a hoax. A new version of the DVD is in production and this part will presumedly be corrected. Note, however, that there appears to be no notification of this retraction at the In Plane Site website yet.

    Update, 10 September: I have been informed that the producers of In Plane Site have recently already acknowledged that the "mystery explosion" claim is false. I am glad to hear this, although unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any easily visibly notification of this retraction at their website, 911inplanesite.com. I will check into this and update this page again as necessary...



    Sorry 'bout that.


    [edit on 21-6-2005 by HowardRoark]



    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:04 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by SMR
    Muaddib,
    It seems all you do here is make funny jokes or not gather any info to debunk mine.You argue the least of the issue at hand because you cant find any proof otherwise to go against mine.
    ..................


    I actually gave more than enough evidence that you don't know what you are talking about, and those theories you keep claiming to be true are nothing more than wild rantings.

    You yourself gave a link to the website of the Tully company. In that website they talk about everything they did to get the debris from the WTC after 9/11, and there is no mention of any pools of steel found for weeks at the site.....

    Since they explained exactly what they did and what they found, they would have stated in that site if they found any pools of molten steel and what they did to get rid of them....but not a peep.

    Are you going to now claim that the government told them not to post anything about "pools of molten steel that were in that state for 5 weeks with no source whatsoever to keep it in that state"?....


    [edit on 21-6-2005 by Muaddib]


    SMR

    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:19 PM
    link   
    Howard,
    I never really saw a POD to tell you the truth.I do see some sort of flash right before both planes hit, but I dont fully know what to think of it.
    I had to search and search for orginal footage so I knew it wasnt tampered with and after seeing the same thing, I still cant imagine what it was.I really dont buy into the static theory.But there really isnt much to explain it.Perhaps a small charge of 'something' I dont know.The video and images are not all that great to zoom in on.
    As for the POD.Reason I didnt get into that is because at first, I wasnt seeing what people were pointing out.All I saw was this grayish black bump thing.For all I could see, it was shadow.Part of the buldge under the plane.
    What I wanted to see was a totally seperate object.In the video and images, if it is a POD, it looks as if it had to have been 'formed' into the plane to make it not so obvious.Like they had to retrofit it so you couldnt tell what it was.Thats the only way I see it being a POD.
    Now had it been a seperate object, we wouldnt have to be talking about it as it would be clearly seen.

    So just to let it be known, Im not a POD person by any means

    I did see a flash, but I cant really say what it came from.For me, I would have to say some sort of explosive charge to make an opening perhaps to make sure the plane went through.But thats the best right now that I can come up with.I mean if indeed this was an explosive, why?
    Why would you set off a change just before hitting something?

    See, in the images and video, I cant see anthing showing that this flash did anything.I cant see that it's purpose was to make an entry hole.It just happens to fast, the plane entry that it.So really cant see if it 'opens' a hole before the plane hits.

    In fact, I really hate that POD image.Not the subject of it, but something about it bugs me.Maybe it's an ugly image, I dont know.I just hate it



    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:20 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by toasted
    best one that I just saw [ didn't clik but 3 ] was the squibs shot , of them sequencing vertically as the blg went down

    that's no bloody accident, or natural occurrence of a collapse


    Toasted, the height of each story was 12 feet. Subtract 4 inches for the floor slabs, hell take out a foot if you want, the building was still over 90% air.

    What happened to that air as the floors collapsed?







    [edit on 21-6-2005 by HowardRoark]



    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:26 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by toasted
    perhaps u r correct about the thermite

    how about a modern mini- hydrogen-device ?

    enuf to vaporize the metal

    enuf to pool the steel

    enuf heat to keep it hot for weeks

    + more...just look at the advances in technology we have...it would not surprise me

    eh ?


    ummm, did you read this ? [ thx to SMC ]

    I believe this is the most plausible theory to date...

    members.surfeu.fi...


    Sorry to tell you, that it would not be possible...a mini-hydrogen device would have blown off at leat 1/2 of New York, and it would have left a crater instead of so much debris around ground 0, not to mention that New York would have to be evacuated because of the radiation.

    I don't think a "military expert" came up with this "claim"....

    [edit on 21-6-2005 by Muaddib]


    SMR

    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:34 PM
    link   
    Muaddib,
    Why do you insist that they would list such?
    They arent conducting any investigation.They arent telling of their personal experiences.They talk about the clean up.Why do you think they would slip in that they saw pools of molten steel? Perhaps you think they should also list down that they saw this part and that body, and other stuff?
    They simply wrote down what the job was.They arent writting a story.

    I havent said any lies either.It is you telling peolpe LIES!
    You are telling people false information about the term PULL IT and PULL OUT
    You insist it is the truth even though you are not a firefighter, not have you said you asked either about the term.I have on the other hand have and thats all the proof I need.End of discussion.

    As a side note, maybe wasnt a good idea to announce that you are going to work as a MWD specialist for a private company.Not on this forum anyway



    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:41 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Muaddib

    Originally posted by toasted
    perhaps u r correct about the thermite

    how about a modern mini- hydrogen-device ?

    enuf to vaporize the metal

    enuf to pool the steel

    enuf heat to keep it hot for weeks

    + more...just look at the advances in technology we have...it would not surprise me

    eh ?


    ummm, did you read this ? [ thx to SMC ]

    I believe this is the most plausible theory to date...

    members.surfeu.fi...


    Sorry to tell you, that it would not be possible...a mini-hydrogen device would have blown off at leat 1/2 of New York, and it would have left a crater instead of so much debris around ground 0, not to mention that New York would have to be evacuated because of the radiation.

    I don't think a "military expert" came up with this "claim"....

    [edit on 21-6-2005 by Muaddib]


    See my post above with related link. So far I've found several things wrong with this entire theory, that I've read.



    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:42 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by SMR
    Howard,
    I never really saw a POD to tell you the truth.I do see some sort of flash right before both planes hit, but I dont fully know what to think of it
    ................


    I could tell you what it is, but you will not believe it, it has to do with the sun hitting a bright surface and making it look like it is something bigger...is called an illusion...and yes, illusions do happen...they have nothing to do with the government.



    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:49 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by anila

    Louie Cacchioli, a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

    On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.




    BTW, a moment's reflection reveals the logical inconsistancy of this claim. If he was in the elevator when these hypothetical demoliton charges went off, how did he survive?


    www.nydailynews.com...

    He was outside the building when it collapsed. Yet according to toased, above, the charges were going off as the building was collapsing.



    [edit on 21-6-2005 by HowardRoark]


    SMR

    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:58 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Muaddib

    Originally posted by SMR
    Howard,
    I never really saw a POD to tell you the truth.I do see some sort of flash right before both planes hit, but I dont fully know what to think of it
    ................


    I could tell you what it is, but you will not believe it, it has to do with the sun hitting a bright surface and making it look like it is something bigger...is called an illusion...and yes, illusions do happen...they have nothing to do with the government.

    So this happened with BOTH planes which hit on DIFFERENT sides huh?
    Also, that 'wit' of yours isnt making anyone laugh



    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:21 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by SMR
    Muaddib,
    Why do you insist that they would list such?
    They arent conducting any investigation.They arent telling of their personal experiences.They talk about the clean up.Why do you think they would slip in that they saw pools of molten steel? Perhaps you think they should also list down that they saw this part and that body, and other stuff?
    They simply wrote down what the job was.They arent writting a story.


    That company would take care of the debris, not of the bodies. If there were molten pools of steel that lasted for 5 weeks, they would have mentioned it since it is part of the debris. Bodies are not debris...they used to be people...


    Originally posted by SMR
    I havent said any lies either.It is you telling peolpe LIES!
    You are telling people false information about the term PULL IT and PULL OUT
    You insist it is the truth even though you are not a firefighter, not have you said you asked either about the term.I have on the other hand have and thats all the proof I need.End of discussion.


    Nope, i was never a firefighter, although in the NAVY in bootcamp we did train in firefighting skills, anyways, that does not make me an expert. But, yes, i have talked to firefighters since after the NAVY i wanted to be a firefighter, or a cop, instead i went back to college. But I did my research and i talked to people in the field, including firefighters, and people in my family who are cops. I learnt all i could, which i always do before choosing a profession, and i can tell you quite a few things which are true.

    First, as i said already, a leaseholder does not make the decision to pull firefighters and other first aid responders from a burning building, that is the job of the firefighter chief, unless FEMA takes over. As you stated Silverstein said a firefighter commander told him this, so we must go by what a firefighter means when they use the term pull....

    Demolition crew do not tell firefighters to pull out from a burning building either, that is the job of their firefighter chief.

    Silverstein is not a firefighter, so if he did not use the term correctly and said "pull it" instead of pull out is reasonable...since he does not use that term frequently. You want to make a big deal out of it and overeact because Silverstein did not say exactly what the firefighter commander told him?...be my guess, but it is not the truth, and truth is what we are trying to find in these forums... at least in ATSNN.



    Originally posted by SMR
    As a side note, maybe wasnt a good idea to announce that you are going to work as a MWD specialist for a private company.Not on this forum anyway


    LOL, well, there is nothing of a conspiracy in that sort of job, lots of people work in this field, and none of them are paid spies or paid debunkers working for the government....



    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:42 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by SMR

    Originally posted by Muaddib
    So this happened with BOTH planes which hit on DIFFERENT sides huh?
    Also, that 'wit' of yours isnt making anyone laugh


    Would you care to corroborate this by providing both pictures to make an informed decision?

    BTW, one more thing before i forget. That I remember the WTC had windows all over did it not? in fact it was fully covered by them. i guess the windows couldn't have reflected the sun onto the planes...right? i mean, that's impossible, it has to be some other unexplainable solution for it.

    BTW, although i was being sarcastic in my last response, it was no joke....it was the truth, illusions do happen without any government involvement.

    Look, if there was any reason for really doubting what happened, and if any of the evidence for these claims held under scrutiny I would agree with you, but they do not stand under scrutiny.

    [edit on 21-6-2005 by Muaddib]



    posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:52 PM
    link   
    I'm not tossing out that theory based on that flimsy article. [ easily a cover story ]

    the finn guy made lots of sense...

    loved the part where he says , the arabs were a diversion

    cuz it falls right in place with what I've read. [ obfuscation ]

    I'd like to see if there were nevada tests/other tests, resumed or odd reports of testing, privately, unofficially, in the 1990-2000 timeframe .

    cuz a mini-nuke would answer most of the questions. to assume it would have blown away half the city is assuming out of ignorance. I've heard about mini nukes in conjunction with ok-city [ just once ] and that was 95. and that freaking truck bomb didn't level the murrah bldg. the pressure drop off from that distance wouldn't allow it. it had help. and tons of people putting up roadblocks into the investigation. truck bomb was the red herring while surface devices , did the deed , unbeknownst to most.

    that whole deal stinks...real, real bad...

    and mcveigh ?!...can u say oswald ?




    top topics



     
    0
    << 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

    log in

    join