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: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
A mini-nuke would leave high levels of radiation in New York....and it would leave a crater.

And why is it not possible for Islamic extremists to have made the attacks?....

The attack of the WTC in 1993 was done by an Islamic extremist. The attacks in Spain were done by Islamic extremists, several of them blew themselves off and police officers from Spain when they were caught...and the sobs who flew the planes into the wtc and the pentagon were Islamic extremists. Even the evidence that authorities in Spain found proved that it was Islamic extremists who did the attacks of 9/11.

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Muaddib]

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Muaddib]




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   
muaddb

we all have our opinions.

I just posted mininuke elsewhere and got a ROFLMAO from another poster

who was not informed.



I'm leaving it as a possibility. there's just too much unknown about them

and that footage of the squibs goin' off , and them pools of steel, have red flags waving all over the place...

www.newscientist.com...

www.counterpunch.org...

www.ucsusa.org...

and as far as the ban on them...yeah, right , what an agency with no oversight does, is anyones guess...eh ?



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Even if you detonated a 1 kiloton nuclear weapon, you would have massive amounts of radiation. Any containment, short of massive amounts of dirt would be vaporized in the explosion, otherwise it wouldn't give you the effect you wanted. There is no way they could hide the radiation bloom from a device like that and if they DID truck in the tons of dirt it would require, then a whole lot of people would notice that. It is not possible to set off a nuclear weapon without a massive radiation signature, otherwise it wouldn't be a nuclear weapon.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 04:57 AM
link   
How about a MOAB?

At the time the MOAB did not officially exist. It was not publically tested until March 11th 2003. It was said to of been in development since "late last year" which would put its acknowledged developement at less than 6 months. This is rather short for an ordinance of this size, no? Also its not as if there is no precedent for the U.S military to keep its R&D a secret.


But military officials tell CNN that the MOAB is mainly conceived as a weapon employed for "psychological operations." Military officials say they hope the MOAB will create such a huge blast that it will rattle Iraq troops and pressure them into surrendering or not even fighting. Officials suggest perhaps the Iraqis might even mistake a MOAB blast for a nuclear detonation.

www.cnn.com...

Employed for "psychological operations"? Thats the definition of 'terrorism'.


the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

This weapon is acknowledge as designed to strike fear into the enemy so as to scare them into not even fighting back.

If an ordinance of this nature was deployed in the basement of the WTC towers it might explain the tremors that are visible about 12 seconds before the WTC1 collapses. The confined nature of exloding such a huge device underground would see that most of its energy would be transfered to the ground instead of expanding into a mushroom cloud.

No radiation from a 18,000 pound conventional explosive device. Enough damage that conventional explosives could be overlooked and lead some unwitting conspiracy theorists to think it was a mini-nuke.

Its my opinion that the MOAB was in development alot earlier than acknowledged. i.e. first test run - 11th September 2001.

[edit on 22/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   
There would have been plenty of evidence if MOAB had gone off in the basement. Have you ever seen video of an FAE ( Fuel Air Explosive ie MOAB) going off? There was a weapons test where they found damage at like a mile away from where the weapon was set off. There would have been a massive explosion going upwards, and just vaporizing the bottom of the WTC buildings, if not half the building. There would have been a lot more than just a tremor. Most of the energy probably would have gone into the ground, but you have to remember that one, it would have exploded upwards too, and two, you're talking about a bomb that's basically a nuke without the drawbacks of a nuke.

Here's the video. When you see the size of the explosion keep in mind the distance from the camera, which I heard was over 10 miles from ground zero.
www.defenselink.mil...

As far as the short time in development, this is an old style weapon, and it's based on the BLU-82 Daisy Cutter (I think that's the one). It's basically a new weapon based on an old weapon. New casing, GPS guidance, old bomb.

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Zaphod, you seem to think that the government is limited to using off-the-shelf specs for its weapons. The government can reduce the size of a MOAB or modify it any way they wish to do the job they want.

You say that it would of exploded upwards as well. Wouldnt that explain the molten pools of steel? I fail to see how a building collapse could of caused the hotspots reported by NASA.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Oh sorry, my mistake. MOAB and the BLU-82 were NOT FAE type weapons, they just are very similar to them. The person that wrote this story is way off on how the device would be used, but has some good info on the weapon. It's 9.5 tons of explosive slurry.
"The BLU-82 and the MOAB are, in fact, much larger and more powerful weapons even than an FAE. They are based on a mix of ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminium in an aqueous suspension or slurry, with a binding agent to hold the materials together before detonation. The effect of the BLU-82 is astonishing, and rare film shows a detonation, shock wave and subsequent mushroom cloud very similar to a small nuclear weapon, even if it is actually a conventional bomb."
peaceuk.co.uk.mdl-net.co.uk...

An explosion that size couldn't be contained just in the basement of the WTC. There definately would have been evidence of it going off.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As far as the short time in development, this is an old style weapon, and it's based on the BLU-82 Daisy Cutter (I think that's the one). It's basically a new weapon based on an old weapon. New casing, GPS guidance, old bomb.

Ok that assumes complete disclosure from those bastions of openess 'the United States military'. However the fact that it could of been developed in less than 6 months does not exclude it from being an operational ordinance on the day of Sept 11th 2001.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:22 AM
link   
But if they reduced the size of the weapon, then you wouldn't have 18,000 pounds of explosive going off, and it wouldn't be MOAB. It would probably have to have been a 2000, or 5000 pound bomb or more to cause enough damage to sever the basement supports completely, and anything that size would probably have shown up on video.

As far as development, why would they spend years developing a completely new weapon, when they could take the old one, and using new technology make it slightly smaller, put a GPS antennae on it, and pack more explosives in it. It wouldn't be that hard to do. It was probably in the design stages for awhile, but as far as operational testing goes, it wouldn't take that long. Look at the 5000 pound "Bunker Buster" designed, tested and used between Destert Shield and the end of Desert Storm.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
An explosion that size couldn't be contained just in the basement of the WTC. There definately would have been evidence of it going off.

Again you assume that the government is limited to cookie-cutter ordinance. They can modify and reduce the size of this ordinance at will. They have the know how and the resources to.

As far as no evidence of it going off. Watch this video:

Tremor 12 seconds before the WTC1 collapses

Notice that the camera is not affected by the actually collapse of the WTC1. Therefore you can extrapolate that what ever caused the tremor 12 seconds before the collapse was more powerful than the combined energy released during the collapse of WTC1. Correct?

Also note that at the top right of that video there is a massive increase of black smoke pluming out just after the tremor. If the elevator shafts were exposed its indicative of major pressure being forced up the building and out the top of the exposed roof. Much like a drinking straw.

It seems like sound energy has been converted to kinetic energy indicating it was exploded well under ground.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
But if they reduced the size of the weapon, then you wouldn't have 18,000 pounds of explosive going off, and it wouldn't be MOAB. It would probably have to have been a 2000, or 5000 pound bomb or more to cause enough damage to sever the basement supports completely, and anything that size would probably have shown up on video.

As far as development, why would they spend years developing a completely new weapon, when they could take the old one, and using new technology make it slightly smaller, put a GPS antennae on it, and pack more explosives in it. It wouldn't be that hard to do. It was probably in the design stages for awhile, but as far as operational testing goes, it wouldn't take that long. Look at the 5000 pound "Bunker Buster" designed, tested and used between Destert Shield and the end of Desert Storm.

Zaphod, I mentioned the MOAB as a counter to those claiming that the extensive damage would of required a mini-nuke and that there was no radiation present. The MOAB provides the destructive power seen with the absence of radiation.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I realize that they can change the size, but that's not going to change how big of an explosive you are going to need to cause enough damage to sever all the supports in the basement. I've seen the video that you are talking about. I don't know what caused it, but there could be other reasons for the plume changing the way it did. The inner portion of the floor would probably go before the outer structure would, which would also cause a pressure change as the air is forced out from between floors. Just my speculation though. I really don't see any way that there wouldn't have been SOMEBODY talking if they had planted explosives in the building. If they were planted on individual floors, they would have to have large numbers of people to set them in time. If it was one big one in the basement, there would still have to be a pretty good sized number of people involved. You would think that SOMEONE would risk everything to come forward to say "We did this!"



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Yeah, I understand that, I'm just trying to counter your reasoning behind it. I haven't had a good CALM reasonable debate in a long time, and I have to admit that while we might not change each others minds about what happened that day, it's nice to see a discussion that so far doesn't appear to be about to turn into "Oh yeah? You're stupid!" like some have, and some will in the future.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yeah, I understand that, I'm just trying to counter your reasoning behind it. I haven't had a good CALM reasonable debate in a long time, and I have to admit that while we might not change each others minds about what happened that day, it's nice to see a discussion that so far doesn't appear to be about to turn into "Oh yeah? You're stupid!" like some have, and some will in the future.

Agreed there Zaphod58 and you wont see me degrade yourself, myself and the forum with that kind of invective.

With regards to the amount of people required to place charges throughout the WTC buildings and a possible MOAB-esque ordinance in the basement. I think the first thing that entered my head was that those who could possibly pull a mission off of this size would be the military itself.

The military has the access to highly disciplined and trained explosive experts. The same experts are surrounded by danger in their military lives e.g. training accidents, which could explain any disappearance shortly after the mission if need be. If those who I think are responsible for this mission wanted to silence the majority of those involved it wouldnt be that hard for them to do it.

If those responsible were take from those military personel deployed overseas such as in South Korea. They could easily be detained after they planted the explosives and after the Afghan War was started, could of had their deaths explained as occuring due to action in that area.

Lots of hypothesis and speculation I know. Im not trying to sway you into signing on to those theories, mainly just to acknowledge that its "possible".



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 06:04 AM
link   
The only thing with the number of people that would have to dissapear is that if you suddenly have a large number of explosives experts killed, and it would probably have to be about the same time, then you open a whole new can of worms. Yeah you have a lot of soldiers killed in a war, but if you aren't taking many casualties, which realistically we haven't, but you have a lot of explosives guys killed all of a sudden people are going to go "wait a minute....." I suppose it COULD be arranged to look like an accident, but with the military needing all it's aircraft to get supplies to the war zone, and for regular ops they wouldn't want to use a plane crash, and a vehicle accident would look suspicious, because the number of guys would be hard to pack into one vehicle.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
WTC 2 - One perfect collapse, I would say, OK.
WTC 1 - Two perfect collapses, I would start to go Hmm???
WTC 7 - Three perfect collapses, I would say No Way????

I’m sorry but I’m no fool and if anyone can just accept the government explanation and the fact that not 1 or 2 but 3 buildings collapsed perfectly that day from fire????

Well then

I have some land in Iraq I think you’d be interested in!!!



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

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?


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]


No need for sorrys, all I'd said was that nobody had given me a satisfactory explanation for it. If it's a fake, nothing really surprises me in that department, so somebody was on the job very quickly then because, as I said, this video has been on the net since amost immediately after the attacks.

My curiosity about the video was just a little extra something to toss out, my real concern here are reports of people calling out from the towers (firemen included) and claiming there were detonations going off.

It also concerns me that eyewitness reports claim there were flashes visible through windows, they were going off on lower floors immediately prior to collapse.

If so many buildings can be counted on to fall straight, perhaps we have overestimated the value of controlled demolitions.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by anila

If so many buildings can be counted on to fall straight, perhaps we have overestimated the value of controlled demolitions.



Good one.

As per usual, the facts speak for themselves, while the politicians speak for special interests and oil profits. Looks like this will take a civil lawsuit to see the light of reason. Oops. Forgot that door was closed last term.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by anila

No need for sorrys, all I'd said was that nobody had given me a satisfactory explanation for it. If it's a fake, nothing really surprises me in that department, so somebody was on the job very quickly then because, as I said, this video has been on the net since amost immediately after the attacks.


Yep, we have seen around these forums how fast and sometimes how easy hoaxers trick most people into believing lies. There are enough people out there that would like you to believe hoaxes so they can have their 5 minutes of fame.


Originally posted by anila

My curiosity about the video was just a little extra something to toss out, my real concern here are reports of people calling out from the towers (firemen included) and claiming there were detonations going off.


There were no detonations.... Howard gave a link to the seismic readings of the towers, any detonation would have been recorded in those readings.


Originally posted by anila
It also concerns me that eyewitness reports claim there were flashes visible through windows, they were going off on lower floors immediately prior to collapse.


Oh really? so now they also saw flashes through windows?....how come none of the videos show any flashes from any windows?


Originally posted by anila
If so many buildings can be counted on to fall straight, perhaps we have overestimated the value of controlled demolitions.


And this shows how much you are aware of the facts and physics behind the building of skyscrappers.

All skyscrappers, in fact, all buildings if they collapse they will fall straight down, it is the way they are built. They won't fall to the side like a tree would do...a tree is a one piece solid structure, while buildings are build from many pieces put together. A good analogy would be to build as high a house of dominoes as you can build, and then trying to make it fall to the side. As you will see the pieces will in fact fall straight down, and not to the side.

In order for a building, or skyscrapper, to "partially" fall to the side, a great portion of its mass would have to move more than halfway off center of the building, no force on earth is powerful enough to do that, at least none that we have seen yet. And even then most of the building will not fall to the side like a tree would.


[edit on 22-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Good one.

As per usual, the facts speak for themselves, while the politicians speak for special interests and oil profits. Looks like this will take a civil lawsuit to see the light of reason. Oops. Forgot that door was closed last term.


politicians?..... who is a politician around here "speaking for special interests and oil profits"?.....

Yes, the facts do speak for themselves...

Can you please tell us who you think is a "politician speaking for special interests" around here?.....


[edit on 22-6-2005 by Muaddib]




top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join