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.

 

Some last questions about 9/11

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I agree that the time required for setting up explosives, and the oppurtunity for such has not only been missing; but has not been fully explored.
All we've seen is a report or two about 36 hour power downs a couple weeks before 9/11 on floor 50 and above, and the removal of bomb sniffing dogs.




posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent
I agree that the time required for setting up explosives, and the oppurtunity for such has not only been missing; but has not been fully explored.
All we've seen is a report or two about 36 hour power downs a couple weeks before 9/11 on floor 50 and above, and the removal of bomb sniffing dogs.


So do I, these suspect claims have not been discussed...

BTW you are mistaken on the 36 hour powerdown as it was claimed a couple of weeks before 9/11...


The 'power down' condition on the weekend of September 8th-9th, 2001


www.serendipity.li...

It was only a few days ( got to be carefull here, this is how dis-info starts
)...

And do you have a link to the removal of the bomb sniffing dogs ?

It also sounds suspect to me...


[edit on 7-11-2005 by Jedi_Master]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
On bomb-sniffing dogs being removed, Sept. 12, 2001:


Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.


www.nynewsday.com...



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:38 AM
link   
The bomb-sniffing dogs that were removed were extra ones, I think, for the heightened security they had for a while. The regular dogs remained on site, and at least one of them was killed in the attacks ( www.novareinna.com... )



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So all of these people are such craven cowards, that they are only concerned about money, right?


You are aware that all the policemen, firemen, etc. involved with the response on 9/11 were ordered to not discuss what they had seen, correct? A gag order upon them, as well as FAA personnel?


Wrong. There have been no gag orders issued by any judges to the any of the first responders of 911



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Wrong. There have been no gag orders issued by any judges to the any of the first responders of 911


By any judges? You're right. Gag orders were issued by agencies such as the FBI.

And we know the FBI's been placing gag orders in the name of "national security," as a recent court case declared these actions of the FBI unconstitutional. How lovely.


FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.


Source.

And if you want to know what the referenced pdf says on page 10:


b. FDNY employees were and continue to be under a “gag order” imposed by senior FDNY officials on instructions of ex-CIA director James Woolsey and others, which forbids them to talk about (among other things) multiple explosions at the WTC on 9-11;


That's from William Rodriguez's case against government officials over 9/11.

Then there's this article, which just goes to back up Mr. Rodriguez:


“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11.



Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story.



Researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also at the WTC “open grave site” on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2005, wrote the following on the on-line news web site APFN: “I just got back from Ground Zero. People know the truth. Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know that 9-11 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting what we were doing. I had tears in my eyes.”


Source.

And then there's Sibel Edmonds, who translated intelligence for the FBI, also had a gag order placed on her directly by Ashcroft when she started telling people what she had read prior to 9/11. There's a good example of why people aren't coming forward. I don't even really feel I need to source anything here as a quick Google search will turn of plenty of sources, including the actual gag orders placed upon her. This is why people aren't coming forward, Howard, as if you could just walk up to a CNN or Fox reporter and tell them these things anyway, or do you still think that the media is all grass-roots and independent of the feds?

[edit on 8-11-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
The only legal gag order was issued to that one person and this had nothing to do with the firemen and policemen at the WTC on 911.

As for any “gag order” issued by the fire department brass, if you think that the rank and file FDNY thought that there was a cover up, that they would just sit around and not say anything about the deaths of 343 of their brothers just because some administrator told them not to, you really don’t understand the fireman mentality.

Do you really think this?

Do you think that these guys are that chickenbleep?


What about the guys that have retired or have left the force for other reasons?

Why don't they talk?






[edit on 8-11-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Look at the article I linked to above. If they were going to raise hell, who are they going to call, Howard? Are they going to call Homeland Security and tip them off? Are they going to call the local authorities? Go to the major media? How do you expect their testimony would even reach you? More likely, you would only have articles like the one above.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Wrong. There have been no gag orders issued by any judges to the any of the first responders of 911


Howard, thats the second time I've seen you use terms only people of or very close to the brotherhood use. Are you smoke suckin c-spine holdin bunker pants wearin brother?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Howard, there could be a huge multitude of reasons why the retired personnel aren't talking. I believe that if these guys really wanted to say what they heard or saw, they would come out and say flat out what they heard. If a gag order was issued, I don't believe that it would have came from the department heads. The firemen's mentality is if you experience a traumatic event, like 9-11, they don't like to talk about it unless they absolutely have to during therapy.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
Howard, there could be a huge multitude of reasons why the retired personnel aren't talking. I believe that if these guys really wanted to say what they heard or saw, they would come out and say flat out what they heard. If a gag order was issued, I don't believe that it would have came from the department heads. The firemen's mentality is if you experience a traumatic event, like 9-11, they don't like to talk about it unless they absolutely have to during therapy.


Not only that, but with the new HIPAA laws in place they can be sued if they talk about a scene, and someone who had a family member die on that scene they could get into real trouble. I am sure their Chiefs said "Keep your mouths shut about 911" and the retired personel doesnt want to get sued for HIPAA infractions.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
This is one of the best and easily read websites on 911, I have seen. I would love to see the movie, has anyone seen it? I recently got an email from someone at another website who was a diehard believer in the official story but after seeing this video she has changed her mind. anyway the website is informative and one does not have to read a ton of pages to glean a small amount of info its all compacted and does not take hours to go over.

www.911inplanesite.com...
Why were America and the world never shown the video and photographs of the Pentagon, BEFORE the outer wall had collapsed showing only one 16 ft. hole. Many people do not realize that the outer wall did not collapse until a full 20 minutes after the initial impact. See these astonishing photographs and video footage for the first time.

Given that the outer wall of the Pentagon had not yet collapsed and the only hole is approximately 16 ft. in diameter - how does a plane over 44 feet tall and 125 ft. wide fit into that hole as shown in the crystal-clear and close-up photographic evidence from the Pentagon? Furthermore, can physics explain why there is no damage to the Pentagon's upper floors where the tail section would have hit?

“I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast – it sounded nothing like an airplane.”
Lon Rains - editor for Space News (Pentagon eyewitness)



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent
I agree that the time required for setting up explosives, and the oppurtunity for such has not only been missing; but has not been fully explored.
All we've seen is a report or two about 36 hour power downs a couple weeks before 9/11 on floor 50 and above, and the removal of bomb sniffing dogs.


The easiest thing for an intelligence agency to do, the most simple trick in their repertoire, is to make a front company. Heck, even terrorist organizations do it and operate in the US - just ask Iran's MEK. Those front companies can then do whatever they want, including rent office space.


Demolition of tall, thin buildings is often carried out by severing the supports at key segments in the structure, effectively letting each section crush the one below it under its own weight. (In fact bsbray has posted file photos of this very method before). Performing this sequentially would be an ideal way to make the towers appear to collapse on themselves. Demolition experts have gone on record saying if they were hired to bring down the WTC towers, they would simply cut core columns at certain points and let the buildings bring themselves down under their own weight.

The oft-repeated "need for cutting charges on every single column on every single floor" is utter nonsense. But the same people who try to sell this rubbish will, in the very same post, tell you that the entire mass of each tower collapsed into dust and pick-up-sticks down to the very pavement simply because the caps were crushing down on them. However the paradoxical nature of this stance does not seem to bother them in the slightest.


Remember folks, all is not as it seems...





[edit on 2005-11-9 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
It's also pretty ironic that the same people who tell you that progressive collapse is impossible when a plane weakens core structures, say that you only need to rent an office, weaken a few core structures with explosives, and then progressive collapse is possible.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

wecomeinepeace wrote:
Demolition of tall, thin buildings is often carried out by severing the supports at key segments in the structure, effectively letting each section crush the one below it under its own weight.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
It's also pretty ironic that the same people who tell you that progressive collapse is impossible when a plane weakens core structures, say that you only need to rent an office, weaken a few core structures with explosives, and then progressive collapse is possible.


Here's a clue: Grab yourself a dictionary. Look up the word plural. Then look up the words segments, sever, each,and section. Finally, look up the word ironic. Come back when your done.




[edit on 2005-11-9 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I got an idea

How about you grab up dictionary, look up civil and see if your behavior on these threads matches their description.

I don't see how being insulting adds to the conversation anyway.

You are the one who has consistently stated that progressive collapse is impossible.

Now your singing a different tune and saying that it's possible to take out small sections and cause a collapse.

Precisely what the official story says, but with explosives instead of airplanes.


BTW, being a jerk doesnt hide the flimsiness of your argument. Do you have any evidence to back up what you say, or is it pure speculation?

I still have yet to here any plausible explanation as to how the bombs got there. Your new "rented office" theory doesn't quite fit with the previous "demolition squib" argument either.

If all they had to do was rent an office in strategic locations, then were the "squibs" caused by air now? Are you now accepting the "syringe theory" that you have blasted so vehemently before?

I'm curious as to which one you believe in.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
How about you grab up dictionary, look up civil and see if your behavior on these threads matches their description.


Fair comment...my apologies.

I'm not talking about "progressive collapse", i.e. a domino effect - that's your theory. I'm talking about staying within the laws of physics, where the system can't output more energy than is inputed.

Whether you severed all the supports at the airplane impact point by explosives or by weakened supports, the effect would be the same. The difference lies in the caps not being enough to demolish the building to the ground, break all those steel connections and welds, and pulverize most of that concrete, furniture and people to dust. There's just not enough potential energy in the cap to do all that work. Secondly, the cap and the lower sections destroy each other equally in the crushing and grinding process - as was observed in the footage of the collapses, and as was further confirmed by the demolition expert QuietSoul liaised with in the Progressive Collapse Challenge thread. The only way it would be possible to completely destroy the building using its own weight would be to sever it into a number of sections. You see the difference?

I'll have a look around or U2U bsbray and see if I can dig up those pics of the demolition method I'm referring to.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
You are the one who has consistently stated that progressive collapse is impossible.


Progressive collapse and demolition are, by definition, two very, very different things. When a building is brought down by demolition, it's not called a "progressive collapse." Though, I can understand your confusion, as in all practicality they are the exact same thing.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   
WCIP,

Are these the images you're referring to?



Also, this series showing a demolition job with total destruction very similar to the WTC on 9/11.

And buildings showing demo charges going off in a different fashion than the above, illustrating the various possibilities of wiring up demo charges:





If only a small plane had been flown into the base of the last one, I could name off so many people here that would believe it was a so-called, and oh-so-rare "progressive collapse."

[edit on 9-11-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
IMHO those pictures show buildings collapsing in a much different fashion than the WTC. In those pictures there are initial huge blasts all throughout the building. I don't see those on WTC footage.

All those buildings collapsed from the bottom up. The two towers collapsed from the top down.

I wonder what key points were needed to be bombed and who had the leases for those areas. Which point in the video do you think shows the initial blast that started the collapse?

If the building wasn't completely lined with explosives, are the "squibs" proof of anything?

I was under the impression that "squibs" were evidence towards having the entire building wired up. If we say that only key points were bombed, were the squibs caused by something else?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join