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.

 

Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe

page: 24
1
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
They Blew It


Originally posted by Valhall
I think the buildings were blown.

Aw, what the heck. Me too.

They just finished what they started back in '93, and finally did the job right.

Practice makes better, there's no such thing as perfect.

Since Val got the salt, I'll go get some limes.





P.S. I Remember the Maine, not because I'm old enough, but because it is indeed a good thing to remember.




posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
yea,,,, okay lets parrrtay




posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
takillya time?
well, drop kick me, jesus!



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Nvm, salt, tequila, yeah... I'm not much on alcohol so no surprises that that confused me.


But Val, was that sarcasm to the effect of the posts after Smith's, or what?

[edit on 12-2-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
No, it wasn't sarcasm.

And the salt was for the cold crow I'm eating.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
No, it wasn't sarcasm.

And the salt was for the cold crow I'm eating.


it's a complicated issue. the truth is hazy, even when 'your' truth is more 'true' than 'theirs'.
congrats, though, if you're serious. welcome to 'the other side', lol!



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
And the salt was for the cold crow I'm eating.


Aw, you don't have to eat any nasty birds.


That salt thing confused me though, until someone made a reference to alcohol, but apparently that wasn't a very accurate interpretation.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith


Not quite so spectacular when you don't turn the contrast up by an extra 50% or so is it

..



Do you realize that you cannot amplify what isn't there? so turning the contrast all the way up is OK as long as you clearly state what you've done and why. Then and only then can you start to interpret the pic.

That said, there was enough wind to blow the plumes away, so, even covered in smoke, the core must have still been standing at that point...



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Fine, there were probably explosives. Who cares if a little bad science is used to promote the idea anyway, as long as the end is the same and everyone comes to the right conclusion it really doesn't matter. It's fine to push an agenda on false ideas as long as it benefits everyone in the end.

So now we know it was done with explosives and we can all agree on it, what do people suggest the next step is? Are we going to sit around talking about how it was done or something? Shouldn't we be doing something?



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Don't Tell Sofi What's For Dinner


Originally posted by Valhall
No, it wasn't sarcasm.

And the salt was for the cold crow I'm eating.

In my case it was, because I'm still agnostic on this issue -- and still very suspicious.

Fortunately, that leaves me the freedom to look at the debate from a relatively neutral point of view, although it's worth pointing out that "neutral" means I don't assume there's a conspiracy unless the evidence leads me toward one.

On the other hand, it also means that I don't dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand unless the evidence leads me away from them.

And as for tequila, I'd probably better take a rain check.

I'm naturally more afield of mind than a few shots of cactus juice can account for.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
We could go a lot further than 9/11, but studying up on how they did it actually probably would help, because how they would've down it would require technology like we have never seen. The same tech is used all over the world in various "terrorist" bombings. Where you go from there, you can figure out what their scheme is, and prepare yourself for upcoming changes in the world.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
We could go a lot further than 9/11, but studying up on how they did it actually probably would help, because how they would've down it would require technology like we have never seen. ..



Do you mean exotic stuff like directed sonic pulse weapons or instant corrosive materials (hey, just off the top of my head), or more conventional tools (explosives usually) used in a creative manner or both?



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I did consider the possibility of the Thermite, but as pointed out by some people the towers could withstand having a large number of their columns compromised before failing. So if thermite was used it would have to affect a large number of columns from my understanding.
Corrosive chemicals will act in much the same was a Thermite regardless of their composition so again they would have to be delivered to a substantial number of columns.
I'm unaware of sonic weapons having a substantial effect on physical objects in that way, but it's not an area I delve into much, I can't really see how the vibrations caused would cause the collapse and I would have thought there would be some sort of testimonies to such a peculiar event.

Going back to thermite though, I dont' think it has the same problems as with explosives with losing any kind of stabilty over time. As it is composed of rust and aluminium anyway it's not like they have to worry about it corroding away! LOL
The only problems are with delivering it to it's locations undetected and while adhering to the various regulations in play. The area they would have to cover would be immense.
Oh and of course, not being an explosive and being.. err. iron and aluminium like the WTC bomb sniffing dogs would not pick it up either.
Explosives still seem unlikely, the bomb dog would have picked them up (the one that died in the collapse) and there are more likely to be witnesses, why bother when you can create a more realistic looking collapse anyway?

It still does not mean that it has to be Government organised anyway, I'm not sure about America but here in the UK a lot of contractors are middle Eastern/Eastern European and such. They could be a lot more organised then people give them credit for. People refer to Bin Laden as a 'cave dweller' like on letsroll911.org, but isn't that a bit racist? Seeing as he is a member of one of the most powerful and richest families on the planet and has (or at least had) huge amounts of money, along with his expertise and knowledge in achitecture, maybe we don't give him enough credit?

Besides, they were set up, trained and funded by the CIA, maybe some people havn't let go....



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
The obvious problems with al Qaeda setting the bombs up relate to how our government has handled the situation. They're pretty much doing all that they can to convince people that the buildings fell completely naturally, and even look to the security company that was handling the WTC up until 9/11, and who's been involved with it. Hell, even look to the connections between bin Laden and the CIA, or the Bushes and the bin Laden family.

I don't see how this could've happened as it did without government knowledge at the very least. At best, the guys coming in as engineers and planting the stuff could've been al Qaeda operatives allowed into the buildings by Marvin Bush's security team (or the company he was involved with anyway). At worst, it was all done by our government, but either way they would at least have to have gotten word of what was going on at some point. Our government has been known to do things like this all by itself, after all.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Wasn't it Pearl Harbour where they provoked the Japanese into action and then allowed it to happen?

The cover-up could also be that they don't want to admit how crap the security is and that they arn't half as powerful and infallible as they want people to think.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Now that we ALL agree it was demolished ..... who did it ?

Well the Government hasn't produced any evidence to prove Bin Laden... other than the phony video tape.

However any foreknowledge would be an indicator of involvement. Considering the 5 dancing Israeli Mossad agents and the mysterious Odigo warnings and the Stock put options that supposedly point to Israeli interests ..... and considering Israel gained the most ..... and considering many in the Bush admin. are Neocon/Zionists (Chertoff etal). This leads to some reasoning that Israel should be investigated.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
how about thermate, then.
i don't know about the specifics of bombs, being a pacifist and all, but i hear it fits the bill better.
there is no reason that more than one 'media' could not be applied to the demo. you don't bake a cake with just eggs, for example.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
It's not the first time I've heard that and it's an avenue I rarely see being explored for some reason.

The 'Government' is too large and complex to be considered as a whole, besides it's a pretty good system if it was used properly. Individuals and small groups should be considered and when thinking about implementation one should consider methods where normal people in official standing doing their normal routines could unwittingly play a part. To think that hundreds would be involved is foolhardy. The majority of people in power and carrying out tasks are probably as oblivious as every other.
The operatives on that day may very well have had religous extremism as their primary motivation, but it doesn't mean the organisation behind the funding, training and planning do.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The 'Government' is too large and complex to be considered as a whole, besides it's a pretty good system if it was used properly. Individuals and small groups should be considered and when thinking about implementation one should consider methods where normal people in official standing doing their normal routines could unwittingly play a part.


I totally agree with this. I don't even think Bush really knew exactly what was going to happen. Hell, he still may not know. He doesn't have to.

The guys that would sit around and think this stuff up would most likely be pro, especially to have access to all the explosives and construction drawings and security clearances and"unwitting henchmen" and etc. Who would be able to do this more easily, and have more to gain, than the leaders of the US military and the heads of the corporations that contract for it?

I'm sure you guys have heard of the Trilateral Commission or any of those groups of world leaders, corporate leaders and political leaders and media figures and all, that just get together and discuss agendas. It happens, and especially with our military, there's a lot of group work that ultimately goes towards the same shared goal (whether it be money, or some other kind of security or advances over others). All the money going towards the war is really going to them, and a lot of power in general, really, as it could easily be argued that the most powerful institution within the US is our military. Doubtless, they could do it.

Maybe this should be our approach then:

Who could have done it?

-- Who had the means (construction drawings, explosives, security, workers, etc.), the motives, etc. to actually rig the buildings?

We can consider...

A) Factions of the US Government/Military, and/or Corporate Powers
B) Same, except Israeli
C) al Qaeda
D) Some combo of the above
E) Other

-------------------------------------------

Obviously we can discuss this a lot further (probably should start another thread), but personally, I only think A and B would really have the means and motive and all that, with C maybe being able to do it (I wouldn't really know; their abilities are probably exaggerated anyway considering what country I live in).

Maybe start another thread or something?



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Who could have done it?

-- Who had the means (construction drawings, explosives, security, workers, etc.), the motives, etc. to actually rig the buildings?



Was there any talk of water systems failing in the WTC towers on 9/11?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join