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.

 

Fire Fighters discussing WTC Pre-positioned bombs

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
video.google.com...

This is the brass ring. People who were there.

While the nation was watching the Corporate Media and being told Jet fuel melted the core and brought the WTC's down exactly like a controlled demolition these people were there and they saw it all unfold.

Even demolitions experts have come forward about the whole thing.

www.plaguepuppy.net...

www.rense.com...

www.lewrockwell.com...



[edit on 22-12-2005 by Huabamambo]




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Hmm yes, key word in the phrase being 'like'. It was 'like' someone had planted explosives. They say this because, and I quote "one by one the floors started poopin' out" whichis now thought to be because of the nature in which the building collapsed. The firefighters are doing nothing but speculating.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
You don't get it do you?

Even the Chief Architech was scratching his head that day because he said those buildings were designed to take 747's and their fuel complements.

The WTC fell exactly like a controlled demolition.

How to you explain building 7? Fox News told us that the building collapsed because of the fires that hit that building..

However a year later we have larry silverstein admit that he gave the decision to pull it.

Do you realize that it takes days of preperation to blow up a building? And yet in the afternoon they pulled building 7.

So. Building 7 as admited by Silverstein (WTC OWner who made 7 billion a pop off each tower) was pulled and it fell exactly the same way the WTC fell.

That should make it perfectly clear right there.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi
The firefighters are doing nothing but speculating.


And so what are you doing?

Got any proof that the towers could've fallen by gravity alone? If you do, you might want to call up NIST, cause they still haven't offered any. Just their speculation, as a government agency.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Here's a very good possibility as to why the towers collapsed like they did. Maybe a group like C.D.I. out of Maryland were told what was going to happen, and someone in Washington told them what they wanted done. So they take their equipment, which could have been disguised to look like maintenence equipment. They go up the elevators, go through a power down at the tops of both of the towers. Get up to their target floors and get to work. Place whatever explosives they have brought with them that had to be placed. Leave, then have the head of maintence go back and turn the power back on to the tops of the towers. When time came for the buildings to be destroyed. You sit back somewhere, where you preferably cannot be seen and watch 1,500+ die at the push of a button. If you thought the Muslims were cowards, the people that actually did this are just as cowardly as they are.

Lemme just ask this.

Would you want to believe the government employee that supposedly gave a reason as to how those buildings fell or a firefighter, policeman, medic that was there?

[edit on 12/22/2005 by gimmefootball400]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
OK first off the WTC towers were hit by 767s not 747s. And just because they were 'designed' to take it dosen't mean it will, not everything goes to plan. The millenium bridge was designed to take people walking over it but it didn't straight away.

Yes I am just speculating, everyones is. The difference between the speculation now and the speculation on the day is that now we have evidence for both sides of the argument (no matter how weak that evidence may be *cough cough*



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi
OK first off the WTC towers were hit by 767s not 747s. And just because they were 'designed' to take it dosen't mean it will, not everything goes to plan. The millenium bridge was designed to take people walking over it but it didn't straight away.


Designed for a 707 actually, which weighed a little less but had a higher cruise speed and would've impacted with more force than a 767.

What you should have said was something like, "Yes, maybe it was, but it wasn't designed for the resulting fires! Now those fires were something!" That's normally what pancake theorists say. Just thought I'd help you out.


[edit on 22-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   


What you should have said was something like, "Yes, maybe it was, but it wasn't designed for the resulting fires! Now those fires were something!" That's normally what pancake theorists say. Just thought I'd help you out.


[edit on 22-12-2005 by bsbray11]


Hey hey, I still ahven't made my mind up who did what myself yet



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
to the "days of preparation" needed to plant the explosives in the towers?


Originally posted by Huabamambo
Do you realize that it takes days of preperation to blow up a building?


Thousands of people were in those buildings and the surrounding area day and night. In your own words, a crew would need days to plant the devices. So where are the witnesses that would have seen them hauling the equipment in and placing it?



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
to the "days of preparation" needed to plant the explosives in the towers?


Originally posted by Huabamambo
Do you realize that it takes days of preperation to blow up a building?


Thousands of people were in those buildings and the surrounding area day and night. In your own words, a crew would need days to plant the devices. So where are the witnesses that would have seen them hauling the equipment in and placing it?


I read in an artical somewhere that they had random fire drills and shut down floors of WTC1 & WTC2 for "inspection crews" to go through and then some days prior to the attack they pulled the bomb sniffing dogs from the buildings. I'll look and try and find the artical again but if this is true those Inspection crews could have placed the bombs.

Here is the link to the artical I just found it: la.indymedia.org...

[edit on 23-12-2005 by digitalassassin]

[edit on 23-12-2005 by digitalassassin]



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Why was Marvin Bush involved in Security operations days before 9/11?

Infact his employment was only temporary and his contract ended on 9/11.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

www.fourwinds10.com...

So lets get this straight. The security cameras were down for a period of several hours? Wow. that would be just enough time to plant explosives in the basement.

It's kind of funny how after the first place struck all the windows in the bottom floor were blown out. There is even a janitor who has filed a lawsuit against the Bush Administration because this janitor was in the basement and said he heard and felt explosions in the basement just before or during the plane hitting on the uppermost floors.

Those terrorists certainly are crafty devils. Planting explosives in the towers just moments before flying the planes into the towers. Almost like these people can be in several places at once.



[edit on 24-12-2005 by Huabamambo]



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
So, you'll take the word of ONE guy, and not that of thousands of others? Also, if the terrorists were going to fly planes into the WTC (whicj they did) why go to the trouble of planting bombs in the building as well??

-- Boat



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Why go through the trouble?

Well for one it takes more then just one airliner to bring a building down. This is where all the corporate media lies do not hold water.

ts.searching.com...

When a plane crashes into a building it's a one shot deal and clearly there were explosives planted in the building.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
After the aircraft damage, the buildings could not be repaired without deconstructing large portions of the buildings, if not the whole things, which would cost the owner (Larry Silverstein) more money than they were worth.

Easy way to prevent having to pay for deconstruction, and instead make huge profit: let the buildings be demolished. That's if his money doesn't go towards building the next towers. And if "New Yorkers" or whoever it is protesting this or that as to what's going to go on Ground Zero get their way, and Larry is excluded from the next thing going up there, the money probably will go straight into his pocket.

The psychological effect of the attacks were also greatly enhanced with the demolitions of the towers. Look up PTSD and 9/11 and you'll see the kind of effect 9/11 had on the American populace. Propoganda must be psychological in nature, after all.

[edit on 25-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   
agreed.

The psyche is where the true battle is fought. Psychological warfare is far more devastating then any other type of warfare. To have to ability and the gaul to brainwash billions of people is truly disgusting.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
So, you'll take the word of ONE guy, and not that of thousands of others? Also, if the terrorists were going to fly planes into the WTC (whicj they did) why go to the trouble of planting bombs in the building as well??

-- Boat

I must admit that the science, aswell as the video/audio evidence, behind the theories that the towers were brought down by demolitions explosives are quite compelling. However ... wouldn't the airplanes be enough to bring the Patriot Act through and put the War on Terror in motion?
So why would they have needed the explosives?

Maybe the image of the towers collapsing and all those people dying, is somehow more effective than just the planes crashing into them, in a psychological way? Because when I hear people talking about the 9/11 attacks they mostly talk about how shocking it was to see those towers collapse.
I mean, in a symbolic way it shows that these guys mean business, they were able to bring down two big structures like that, they have the power to do that, they are a threat.

Or maybe because Silverstein thought he would've gotten that 7 billion in insurance money? Which backfired, because he didn't.

Or maybe to turn people against eachother? Like when rich white men sponsor organizations like La Raza, which are hispanic supremacists, and say white people should be killed.

Or maybe all or some of those combined?

"If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them."
-- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Just speculating here



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Interesting that I can't see evidence of explosives at the start of WTC 2 to collapse.. Smoke should have bursted out before outer walls begun to collapse, but smoke come out after the collapse begun. That means, that explosives didn't start the collapse.

koti.mbnet.fi...

Demolition can be clearly seen before building starts to fall.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
WTC2 tilted quite a bit before the lateral collapse initiated, but if you watch closely around the fulcrum you can see a point in which it blows out and the building starts falling straight down.

Go here and you'll see a close-up of a corner of the WTC2. At first, you'll see the result of the building's outward tilting upon that corner, and then, you'll see the corner just explode and then nothing but clouds of smoke and debris.

Hope that helps.

Then in WTC1, you have this: www.rense.com...

Watch a video of that collapse, and watch the inner part of the left facade (as shown in the above pic) where no smoke is coming out, and you'll see squib-like puffs emerge before the tower has even began to fall downward. Notice that these aren't very conspicuous because of the amount of smoke coming from the building there.

But regardless, the real evidence of demolition has always been in the physics of the collapses. There are too many problems for a lack of clear initiatory charges to cover.

[edit on 26-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Demolition Co. acted rather quickly to dispose of the evidence before investigators could test the WTC for bomb material too.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
That they were too quick at it. Makes me think that this was an inside job and that they are on of the many prime suspects.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join