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.

 

Hustler Magazine; What if everything you know about 9/11 is wrong?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Relax there are no pictures at the link below except for the one posted here.
I found nothing new in this report; it has been discussed here many times.
They do how ever do a much better job than popular mechanics,



Hustler Magazine; What if everything you know about 9/11 is wrong?
Interview by Bruce David and Carolyn Sinclair



Snip~~

We all know what happened on September 11, 2001-Osama bin Laden inspired 19 Muslim extremists to hijack commercial airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. But what if it didn't happen that way at all?

At HUSTLER we believe the murder of 2,986 innocent people demands hard questions and digging deeper. We're especially troubled by the collapse of Building 7, but we're determined to keep an open mind. As such, we sit down with Griffin to discuss what appear to be disturbing inconsistencies with the government's story.

HUSTLER: You've compiled a record of the facts-but are they beyond dispute?

You say there's reason to question the government's official position on Osama bin Laden.

What are some other problems with the official story?

If the Twin Towers did come down by controlled demolition, wouldn't they have to be wired for the event well in advance of the attack?

Were aircraft parts ever found in the Pentagon wreckage?

www.larryflynt.com...




The 911 North Tower Demolition Explained





[edit on 27/8/2005 by Sauron]




posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   
closest thing to mainstream ive seen so far...



woot..



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   



Nice find!

I liked this pic from their page, too:



I'm sure those blasts coming out are just camera smudges, or uh, compressed air.


Thanks for sharing.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
It looks like that photo was doctored in areas like the one you pointed out. Its really sad but 9/11 was I think just a way to make money for America. I'm serious its really weird and creepy but its true.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   
In the picture from implosion world there is no evidence that the building moved from having a plane busted into it. Also there is a little dot right next to where it was boxed out



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
In the picture from implosion world there is no evidence that the building moved from having a plane busted into it. Also there is a little dot right next to where it was boxed out

The picture you are referring to is what a controlled demolition looks like, it is being used in comparison to the picture above that which the government claims is the result of a 757 impact.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by senseless04



closest thing to mainstream ive seen so far...



woot..



And you'd be very surprised what website they came to for help researching pictures. (Though no assistance was offered.)



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Lets just say that it was actually as it is told in the official story and there were no explosives.

How would you predict the air would escape at that moment as the top collapsed? What sort of pattern would you expect to see and where would exit the building? What exactly would it look like?

Just curious what your opinons are.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   


Also what's this? Another squib! Oh it's so lonely up there, why was it put there I wonder?

It's funny that there was obviously a hole there which smoke was coming out of already, and that the smoke bellows out of the existing holes as it collapses in the same way. I imagine that it would bellow out of the compromised area as it starts to collapse too, which it obviously does.

Can one of you please explain why it resembles one the the 'squibs' and why it is there?

I also find it incredible that the wires to the detonators stayed intact when the plane hit too, the 'squibs' are in such a perfect line obviously none of them were severed, incredible. I guess the people could have put them in before they jumped..
Or maybe they had individual remote control detonators like in the movies, it's amazing they didn't go off though, I know fire doesn't set off a lot of explosives but shock usually does.

what do you think?

[edit on 28-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
well, unfourtunatly for you there was "not major ground shaking".. You would've known that if you read the offical story. There was no major earth shaking during any part of the event including the falling of the towers.

theres your official story at work.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by senseless04


well, unfourtunatly for you there was "not major ground shaking".. You would've known that if you read the offical story. There was no major earth shaking during any part of the event including the falling of the towers.

theres your official story at work.




Im sure the ground shook pretty good when towers fell. but how would anyone know. Do you think people were standing around checking it out? From what I remember, people were running everywhere and the was chaos.

Ive read all sides of this, and Im sorry to all the conspiricsts out there, but this wasnt done by "us". You need look no further than radical islam, and will power.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020

Im sure the ground shook pretty good when towers fell. but how would anyone know. Do you think people were standing around checking it out? From what I remember, people were running everywhere and the was chaos.

Ive read all sides of this, and Im sorry to all the conspiricsts out there, but this wasnt done by "us". You need look no further than radical islam, and will power.



YOU CONSPIRACY THEORIST!! YOU"RE GOING AGAINST THE OFFICIAL STORY.

THERE WAS NO MAJOR GROUND SHAKING AT ALL.. THIS COMES FROM THE FEMA REPORT. THE SEISMOGRAPHS DIDNT PICK ANYTHING UP AT ALL!!!

YOU CRACKPOT!!!

oh wait.. the seismographs did pick something up... multiple bomb explosions similiar to the ones they see on a daily basis from the local rock quarry


it measured a 2'1 on the reichter. one would be suprised how far a shockwave can travel through the earth.

sorry, ive noticed of recent the only way to get a point across to the majority of people is extreme sarcasim.







[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Lets just say that it was actually as it is told in the official story and there were no explosives.

How would you predict the air would escape at that moment as the top collapsed? What sort of pattern would you expect to see and where would exit the building? What exactly would it look like?

Just curious what your opinons are.


This has been covered plenty of times by now.

The squibs could not possible have been caused by air, because it would require compressed air to travel uninterrupted like a jet through less dense air. Air doesn't behave like this. It would equalize instantly.

If you're referring to the way the explosions came out in rows on the initiation of the collapse, what you're saying may be more legit if you think that was from the floors falling on each other, etc. But you can't differentiate that with demolition charges. So how can you tell?

The smoking gun: the squibs. Singular explosions that are known to go off at the wrong times during demolitions, making them stick out like sore thumbs. It happens.

But it's also impossible for those types of explosions to occur from air, for reasons I've already discussed. It's borderline insane to believe air could do that. The compressed air would have to travel, uninterrupted and magically without equalizing, down as many as 50 floors through various small air shafts (since the elevators were all closed), and then exit the shafts and blow through several offices, to explode out the side of the building, taking with it what seems to be concrete dust. Impossible. Air would equalize immediately upon reaching less dense air.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Also what's this? Another squib! Oh it's so lonely up there, why was it put there I wonder?

It's funny that there was obviously a hole there which smoke was coming out of already, and that the smoke bellows out of the existing holes as it collapses in the same way.




You're just using straw-man tactics now. No one claimed that was a squib, for reasons you just mentioned.



There's a squib.



There's another, a little lower, taken from the same video.



Here's another from this video.




Three more from this video.

And from this video, you can see a squib from about 50 floors or so below the collapsing region.



Thanks to WeComeInPeace's in-depth squib post for the references.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by senseless04
YOU CONSPIRACY THEORIST!! YOU"RE GOING AGAINST THE OFFICIAL STORY.

THERE WAS NO MAJOR GROUND SHAKING AT ALL.. THIS COMES FROM THE FEMA REPORT. THE SEISMOGRAPHS DIDNT PICK ANYTHING UP AT ALL!!!

YOU CRACKPOT!!!

oh wait.. the seismographs did pick something up... multiple bomb explosions similiar to the ones they see on a daily basis from the local rock quarry


it measured a 2'1 on the reichter. one would be suprised how far a shockwave can travel through the earth.



So how do you know that the ground movement picked up by the seismic wave wasn't caused by the buildings hitting the ground?

Where is there evidence of "multiple bomb explosions?" Please post links or data to back this up.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Also what's this? Another squib! Oh it's so lonely up there, why was it put there I wonder?

It's funny that there was obviously a hole there which smoke was coming out of already, and that the smoke bellows out of the existing holes as it collapses in the same way.




You're just using straw-man tactics now. No one claimed that was a squib, for reasons you just mentioned.


But it looks like all your other squibs? You are on one hand saying that it's impossible for it to be air, but you basically admitting in this case that the cause is as I say it! What makes it so different to your others? How does it make it impossible for your other 'squibs' to be air being pushed out of the building?

And you lot keep gibbering that the top part of the tower was shut off and anything could have been done just before 9/11, but your 'squibs' are way further down? Did they shut the whole building off after all? Or did they just put in the odd squib to throw you guys a bone?

Maybe they put the explosives in when the made the building, yeah.. Apart from it being highly unlikely I wonder why the '93 bomb didn't detonate them...

And you still havn't answered how they managed to keep the wiring intact and explosives in place after the plane smashed into them.
Why didn't the wires melt?
Why didn't the explosives go off from the shock of the impact?

Maybe George Bush is gonna pull his mask off and it'll be Tom Cruise underneath....

[edit on 28-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
www.usatoday.com...

The south tower collapsed at a magnitude of 2.1 on a seismograph; the north tower collapsed with a magnitude of 2.3, according to Columbia University in New York.

now, lets get a copy of the seismograph report

www.rense.com...

www.americanfreepress.net...

reported by the AFP

" Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center's twin towers immediately prior to the collapse."

uscrisis.lege.net...

^ here is an image of the data itself.



LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA




[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]

[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
But it looks like all your other squibs? You are on one hand saying that it's impossible for it to be air, but you basically admitting in this case that the cause is as I say it! What makes it so different to your others? How does it make it impossible for your other 'squibs' to be air being pushed out of the building?


A) There was already a hole were your mock "squib" is. No such pre-existing hole for the real ones.

B) There was already smoke coming out of your mock squib before the collapse was initiated. No such smoke coming out of the real ones beforehand.

C) There was a fire behind your mock squib. Again, no such thing behind the real ones.

D) There was simply smoke coming out of your mock squib. The real squibs exploded solid debris in the form of dust. Again, there were no fires behind them.

I think I've made my point.

What you're suggesting is oranges (smoke from a fire being pushed out by collapsing floors) to our apples (actual explosions, without fires, isolated and of dust debris and at least one was 50 floors below collapse).


And you lot keep gibbering that the top part of the tower was shut off and anything could have been done just before 9/11, but your 'squibs' are way further down? Did they shut the whole building off after all? Or did they just put in the odd squib to throw you guys a bone?


What exactly is "shut off"?

The buildings were brought down by demolition charges. In demolitions, sometimes the charges go off at the wrong times. This happened at the WTC. These were the squibs. They were not air, and they were different from your "squib" for the reasons I mentioned above. So the fact that there were squibs so far down suggests that, yes, there were charges placed that far down. Is that what you're asking by "shut off"?


Maybe they put the explosives in when the made the building, yeah.. Apart from it being highly unlikely I wonder why the '93 bomb didn't detonate them...


Something else I've never asserted.


Come on, man. I have enough respect for you to not put words in your mouth, and then mock you for them.


And you still havn't answered how they managed to keep the wiring intact and explosives in place after the plane smashed into them.
Why didn't the wires melt?
Why didn't the explosives go off from the shock of the impact?


This has nothing to do with the evidence of there being demolition charges used. I wasn't there when they set this # up, so I wouldn't know how they did it, and it's a moot point for you to be arguing.

But I'm sure if they knew which side of the building the planes would be hitting, they would be able to work around that information to set up the charges. Anywhere where the charges were disabled would've probably been damaged enough on its own to not have to bother exploding anyway, so it would've just been a matter of getting the signal to those still available, which I'm sure wasn't that big of an issue with our modern tech of remotely detonated charges, etc.




top topics



 
0

log in

join