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.

 

9/11 WTT explosions??

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Hello I've been in the background reading, this is my first post. I'm just a US citizen who has read enough to become suspicious of the 9/11 events. There are a few questions I have not seen anyone addressing. Perhaps I came in on this discussion too late, so I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction

1. Since there are so many witnesses who say they heard explosions in the WTT's 1 + 2, for now I will assume that is indeed how they fell. Ok, so then I think, under any normal crime scene investigation of a bombing, wouldn't there be a search into all the different companies which could manufacture the kind of explosives that could have been used ? One site I read mentioned they thought thermite had been used. Using that as a possibility, has anyone actually gotten a list of those companies and questioned them to find a link? Like where were their employees the days that proceed 9/11?

2. Following along that explosives were used to bring the towers down; I would think that only certain people would have the expertise to plant all the explosives. Do we know who those experts are?

3. Or maybe I'm wrong..so how likely would it be that anyone with a little knowledge of bombs could learn to implode buildings so perfectly to have them fall as the towers did? I mean there are lots of bombings in the world today, so could a terrorist cell have learned enough about implosions to do this? Example such as leaving many, many car bombs in the parking lot below ground level to all go off at a certain time?

4. I read and heard Silverstein's comment on bdg #7 about "pulling it" over and over again on many sites, but has anyone ever questioned him again? If not, why? It would seem some journalist would have done this by now. So did Silverstein go into hiding now or what?

5. Also in regards to #7, I read on site which said the firefighters had been told to vacate the premises because they thought it was too dangerous. Which leaves me to wondering ...why if the firemen would not go in the building would they allow other people in to set the explosives? This doesn't make sense to me; I've never heard of any firemen allowing anyone to go into a building that was on fire? Comments?

Ok, I guess those are just a few of the questions I have for now. Thanks ahead of time if you can help..




posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ABC_123
Hello I've been in the background reading, this is my first post. I'm just a US citizen who has read enough to become suspicious of the 9/11 events. There are a few questions I have not seen anyone addressing. Perhaps I came in on this discussion too late, so I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction

1. Since there are so many witnesses who say they heard explosions in the WTT's 1 + 2, for now I will assume that is indeed how they fell. Ok, so then I think, under any normal crime scene investigation of a bombing, wouldn't there be a search into all the different companies which could manufacture the kind of explosives that could have been used ? One site I read mentioned they thought thermite had been used. Using that as a possibility, has anyone actually gotten a list of those companies and questioned them to find a link? Like where were their employees the days that proceed 9/11?

2. Following along that explosives were used to bring the towers down; I would think that only certain people would have the expertise to plant all the explosives. Do we know who those experts are?

3. Or maybe I'm wrong..so how likely would it be that anyone with a little knowledge of bombs could learn to implode buildings so perfectly to have them fall as the towers did? I mean there are lots of bombings in the world today, so could a terrorist cell have learned enough about implosions to do this? Example such as leaving many, many car bombs in the parking lot below ground level to all go off at a certain time?

4. I read and heard Silverstein's comment on bdg #7 about "pulling it" over and over again on many sites, but has anyone ever questioned him again? If not, why? It would seem some journalist would have done this by now. So did Silverstein go into hiding now or what?

5. Also in regards to #7, I read on site which said the firefighters had been told to vacate the premises because they thought it was too dangerous. Which leaves me to wondering ...why if the firemen would not go in the building would they allow other people in to set the explosives? This doesn't make sense to me; I've never heard of any firemen allowing anyone to go into a building that was on fire? Comments?

Ok, I guess those are just a few of the questions I have for now. Thanks ahead of time if you can help..


Here are your answers

1. If this were a normal crime scene investigation, all the evidence that could have been found would most certainly would have. If it was nessecary, there would be a thorough investigation as to what company can prduce explosives used in demolition. It could have been quite possible that thermite was used in all three buildings. I don't believe that anyone has attained a list like that, YET.

2. One company to look at would be Controlled Demolition Incorporated out of Saulsbury, Maryland. This is because they have the best expertise in the field of demolition.

3. It would be highly unliekly that a terrorist with no demolition experience would know how to implode a building. It takes years of schooling and training to be able to do a job like that. A terrorist cell would not have the training or the capability to implode a building demolition style. The amount of damage that multiple car bombs would have caused would be about 15 times more damage than the truck bombing in 1993.

4. I believe that the government told Mr. Silverstein and Co. to be quiet after the Building 7 comments he made on PBS. If a journalist were to interview Silverstein now it could mean the journalists job, it could be headlines that Silverstein is dead in one week. I, myself, believe that Silverstein is in hiding fearing that if he mentions another word, that the government would kill him.

5. The firemen knew what they were doing by letting the building burn. As to why they let people into Building 7 is quite puzzling. This could have happened because they thought the demolitionists were structural engineers coming to check the stability of the building itself not knowing what was about to happen. Another possibilty is that something blew out, not up, in Building 7 like thermite that caused the demolition-like collapse.

But it does baffle me as to why all three buildings fell inside their own footprint. You would only have that in a demolition-style collapse, but the debris from the towers shot out over hundreds of feet during the collapse.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Ok, so then I think, under any normal crime scene investigation of a bombing, wouldn't there be a search into all the different companies which could manufacture the kind of explosives that could have been used ?


All major first-hand investigations into 9/11 were carried out by the government and the government alone. They've only worked within the limits of the story they've stuck to, more or less, from the start. No bombs, etc., were considered and therefore there were no such investigations. All of their investigating was geared towards trying to prove the initial theories of how the buildings must have collapsed. These investigations, such as FEMA's, and more recently, NIST's, have serious fundamental flaws, especially from starting with a conclusion and working within it while conveniently ignoring all evidence to the contrary.


One site I read mentioned they thought thermite had been used.


Thermite burns to slowly to have caused the collapses. It may have been used at the complex for something; who knows. But as far as the collapses themselves, there was a very sudden collapse of all the necessary columns at the necessary times for a clean, symmetrical free-fall. I don't think thermite could do that very easily. It especially wouldn't eject material so far laterally as we have seen from footage and photographs.

Here are a couple videos showing thermite burning:

Video I
Video II

And a Wikipedia article on thermite.

What exactly the charges consisted of is hard to tell, but I was hoping for some sort of in-depth investigation into this here at ATS. Thermobaric explosions are a more likely possibility, I think, and LabTop touches on other possibilites in this nice thread. The slow burn at Ground Zero is infinitely more typical of thermite than blowing out columns, but I don't see what the point would be in using thermite simply to prolong the burn at Ground Zero. It's something that needs to be looked into more I suppose.


4. I read and heard Silverstein's comment on bdg #7 about "pulling it" over and over again on many sites, but has anyone ever questioned him again? If not, why? It would seem some journalist would have done this by now. So did Silverstein go into hiding now or what?


Silverstein responded to the amount of feedback his comment aroused by refusing to clarify what he meant.


The journalist who wrote the hit piece, Sam Smith, directly questioned Silverstein. Silverstein told Smith that he "meant something else" by the "pull it" comment but mysteriously refused to elaborate any further.


www.prisonplanet.com...

Yes, Prison Planet, but if you dig I'm sure you can find more. A source is already linked from that page to get you started.


5. Also in regards to #7, I read on site which said the firefighters had been told to vacate the premises because they thought it was too dangerous. Which leaves me to wondering ...why if the firemen would not go in the building would they allow other people in to set the explosives? This doesn't make sense to me; I've never heard of any firemen allowing anyone to go into a building that was on fire? Comments?


That's a very good point. If Building 7 was pulled, like Silverstein said it was, then the explosives would've had to have been planted before 9/11. Pretty dramatic implications there, but it would just go to further support the evidence against the official story.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
gimmiefootball....Yyou responded

3-You think it would be highly unlikely a terrorist cell could learn to implode a building, but didn't the hijacker take years to be trained for flying? If they were here in this country, why not other terrorist cells? Couldn't there have been another cell learning demolitions somewhere? Everyone who believes 9/11 was an inside job wants to point fingers at the government and well that might be true, but don't all avenues have to be investigated?

4- Do you have a link or article saying Silverstein has a gag order on him or was told to shut-up? I think for any more answers to come to light about this, someone must be able to get through to him.

Sorry if I seem ignorant of all this, I worked for the past few years where I couldn't get radio or computer, so this is all new to me. Thanks



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
bsbray thanks for the links I will look into them. Here's the link on the article I'ld read, they point to thermite because of how long the rubble burned...3 months.
www.whatreallyhappened.com...


I won't criticize you for reading prisonplanet
, I've listened to AJ radio show a number of times and although he can seem extreme at times, he doesn't quote things out of the air. He's done his research on different matters, that's for sure.

Basically, to me, It's hard to understand why the gov never investigated that the towers could have fallen from explosions seeing how it did appear that way; which is just one more piece that tells me something is very wrong here.


[edit on 18-8-2005 by ABC_123]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ABC_1231. Since there are so many witnesses who say they heard explosions in the WTT's 1 + 2, for now I will assume that is indeed how they fell.


with all the camcorders and news video pointed at the towers when they fell, how come none of them recorded the sounds of these explosions? If there were explosions before the planes hit, how could someone in the basement tell? If there were explosions before the planes hit, why did the buildings stand so long afterwards?


Originally posted by ABC_123
Ok, so then I think, under any normal crime scene investigation of a bombing, wouldn't there be a search into all the different companies which could manufacture the kind of explosives that could have been used ? One site I read mentioned they thought thermite had been used. Using that as a possibility, has anyone actually gotten a list of those companies and questioned them to find a link? Like where were their employees the days that proceed 9/11?


There is no credible evidence of explosives, just a lot of people who don't understand physics and the power of gravitational potential energy.


Originally posted by ABC_123
2. Following along that explosives were used to bring the towers down; I would think that only certain people would have the expertise to plant all the explosives. Do we know who those experts are?


Good question. . . Why haven't the conspiracy theorists produced any names? Probably because they don't want to get sued.


Originally posted by ABC_123
3. Or maybe I'm wrong..so how likely would it be that anyone with a little knowledge of bombs could learn to implode buildings so perfectly to have them fall as the towers did? I mean there are lots of bombings in the world today, so could a terrorist cell have learned enough about implosions to do this? Example such as leaving many, many car bombs in the parking lot below ground level to all go off at a certain time?


Building demolition is not like making sure that all the timers are synchronized. you have to understand how a structure is put together. There are probably thousands of structural engineers out there that understand the weaknesses and strengths of the WTC tower structures. Too bad none of them think it was a demo job.


Originally posted by ABC_123
4. I read and heard Silverstein's comment on bdg #7 about "pulling it" over and over again on many sites, but has anyone ever questioned him again? If not, why? It would seem some journalist would have done this by now. So did Silverstein go into hiding now or what?


Maybe because he won't talk to people with hidden agendas like Chris Bollyn.



Originally posted by ABC_123
5. Also in regards to #7, I read on site which said the firefighters had been told to vacate the premises because they thought it was too dangerous. Which leaves me to wondering ...why if the firemen would not go in the building would they allow other people in to set the explosives? This doesn't make sense to me; I've never heard of any firemen allowing anyone to go into a building that was on fire?



Maybe the firemen knew what they were doing when they decided that the building was in imminent danger of collapse due to the structural damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I haven't seen any evidence about explosives at buildings 1 and 2. All i've seen is eye witnesses, but that's it. Why you think that there were explosives? Do you think that the towers wouldn't have fallen without explosives?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join