Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If the towers were demoed, how the explosives were set up?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Okay, so if that is the case Trizzle.

Please note that a page or two back Agent Smith linked to a prisonplanet article that quoted a newsday article about explosive-sniffing dogs being taken away from the towers just days before the 9/11 event.

I think that is one point, so far in this thread, that needs to be pursued.

Don't know where it's going to go, (could turn out to be a coincidence of some sort) but it sounds like it has merit to me.

EDIT IN LINK:

www.prisonplanet.com...

[edit on 1-29-2006 by Valhall]




posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Grimm, what I find intersting is that you have a Professor, and a Senior Research Scientist (sorry if they're the same thing, I'm not up on my terms for researchers) who both look at the same data, and came to two COMPLETELY different conclusions.

On the one hand, you have Steve Jones, a BYU Physics Professor, who says that WTC HAD to have been a controlled demo. On the other hand you have Frank Greenings, who has said the NIST report is inaccurate, but that the impact of the planes, and the fire would be enough to bring them down, and there's no need to have used explosives in a controlled demo.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, it's not just that Zaphod, for pete's sake, Trizzle is so caught up in their "truth movement" that they've built some grand fantasy that there are extra-super-dooper-secrety-detonators out there that only Delta Force can get!



Which would require the super-dooper-forces to be the one to put these charges in the building, now wouldn't it? That brings in a whole new special realm of complication and hard-to-attain invisibility in the middle of downtown Manhattan, now doesn't it?

But they don't have super-dooper-secrety-detonators. Because the damned detonators they use are the same detonators used by companies who have the same designers who work in cooperation with Sandia Labs/DoD, et. al. to design the detonators that the military uses!

And some of those folks are the same folks I worked with for three years!



Oh my gosh! Some of us may actually know what we're talking about!


is there no end to your sarcasm?

for being such a strict forum on "tone" it amazes me that moderators behave like you do.

are you saying that just because the military uses conventional explosives and detonators also that it is impossible for them to have any advanced covert technology in this regard?

so once again valhall sarcastically implies she knows everything about covert military explosives and that it is impossible for our military/intelligence to have detonating technology that she is not familiar with.




posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

On the one hand, you have Steve Jones, a BYU Physics Professor, who says that WTC HAD to have been a controlled demo. .


wrong.

that is a slanderous lie.

he states clearly that his paper is a hypothesis that should be tested.

do you know what hypothesis means?

look it up please.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
my sarcasm knows no bounds, I assure you.

Did you see my question about the prisonplanet article? Are you going to contribute to this thread? You haven't yet, you do realize that don't you?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
i never said that alternative theories shouldn't be questioned.


Well you seem to imply it.



in fact i do question them quite often and there are plenty i believe to be hogwash.


When? Why are trying to derail this thread then?



but people like you that rabidly question the alternative theories and tout the official story as the ultimate truth are just as guilty of what you are accusing me of.


We don't 'tout' the official story, we just acknowledge that elements of it are probably correct.



yes i want truth.


You won't mind if we carry on with the discussion then.



and yes even if ALL of the theories are incorrect, including the official one, i'll admit i want said officials overthrown.


Good for you!



but no i don't want to take their place.


Well thank god for that!

[edit on 29-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

feel free to run yourselves in circles with pure speculation all you want.

i just know that you will not find anything whatsoever on high tech covert military explosives which are clearly what would have been involved in a controlled demo at the wtc.


When did you get your degree in demolitions anyway and what school was that exactly? Maybe you could explain more such as how the charges would have to be placed on the beam (remember, shielding from premature ignition must be used to prevent further construction from setting it off, ie. welding AND thermite is difficult to ignite consistantly) and exactly what is the half life (RDX has one and its days, not years) of the demolition compounds?

Really. I'm curious...

Since my wife has worked with thermite charges in the military (for structure and hardware demolition...go ahead, look up the SeaBees) I do know someone with a military demolition background who CAN talk about it.

Generally, controlled demo on this scale would use RDX to "slice" the steel beams and then a secondary smaller charge to "kick" the beams out of place so the structure will fall in a direction predesignated (in this case down). The military might substitute the RDX for thermite, but thermite CAN be natural in composition too. Rusty beams + aluminum plane + massive heat (jet fuel fires) = thermite.

Just one possibility. I know it's speculating, but that's all any of us can do. You included that is unless you now want to convince us 1) you're an expert or 2) you were there.

That would do it if controlled demo were used, but this same "kick" force of debris you claim is proof can be done by the natural drop of the upper floors collapsing.

Take a raw egg and put it on the counter. The counter is the lower floors of the building and the egg is the "demo" floors. Now take something like a hammer. This is the upper floors. Put uniform hard pressure straight down on the egg. Did the debris go straight down? Why not? How far did the debris go outward?

Should be easy to figure out with the mess you made. I thik Gallagher demonstrated this with his Sledge-o-Matic a few times. Sure the lower floors collapse eventually due to weight (not explosions) but not initially, so a solid counter is accurate enough for this experiment.

ps) I haven't even got into the RDX or Thermite "slice" rate (which would effect blast distance) or column failure threshold testing. Want to state again that any reseach is pointless?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

At the risk of the ire of Valhall, could you please provide some website URL's associated with your "truth movement" and the one in which you spend most of your time?


i have no idea what you are talking about.


As for the topic of this thread. There are two possibilties that are within the realm of logic:

1> The building was constructed with the explosive charges in-place. There's no other way to place enough high-explosives to demolish the building without being discovered.

2> The buildings (1 and 2) were not demolished, and brought down by the impact and resulting fires of two passenger airlines.


nonsense.

this would have to mean that you have proven that it is impossible for them to have somehow wired the building with high tech covert military explosives over the course of weeks or months.

you have done no such thing.

nor could anyone. it would be impossible to prove.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
no matter how much any of you claim you know about explosives and traditional controlled demo i can say with certainty that NONE of you know jack about high tech covert military explosives.


Lyte relax a bit. So I should imagine how uber-good are those high tech covert military explosives, you know this way we can easily end up imagining that they used top secret teleport technology to put (high-tech EX-T-51) explosives in, so they needed only 5 mins to bring the towers down.

You know you can impeach majority of questions with trying to over-imagine things.

I agree though that if the US Gov. agents planted explosives in WTCs, they could've been using the latest technology.



i was only making the point that you cannot call yourself a skeptic if you are not skeptical to the official story.


Agreed.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
my sarcasm knows no bounds, I assure you.

Did you see my question about the prisonplanet article? Are you going to contribute to this thread? You haven't yet, you do realize that don't you?


oh i see.

so sarcasm and tone is only regulated with members and mods can behave however they want.

gotcha.


of course i've contributed. i even started with a plausible scenario that i believe would allow them to wire the building.

what about the article?

i don't believe everything alex jones reports but if it is true....perhaps it was to get in some of the more traditional explosives that were used in the base.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
nonsense.

this would have to mean that you have proven that it is impossible for them to have somehow wired the building with high tech covert military explosives over the course of weeks or months.

you have done no such thing.

nor could anyone. it would be impossible to prove.


I believe you must prove guilt in this country. Not prove innocence. But no matter. I would love for you to back up your "nonsense" absolute with proof that they DID set things up as you say.

After all...if its impossible to prove they didn't, the you certainly must be able to prove they did.


We'll all wait. Take your time.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by ZeddicusZulZorander]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander


ps) I haven't even got into the RDX or Thermite "slice" rate (which would effect blast distance) or column failure threshold testing. Want to state again that any reseach is pointless?


i never said research is pointless.

i just said that it's pointless to try and research high tech covert military explosives.

you will find nothing.

btw.......have you finished revising your 9/11/holocaust denial piece yet?

or are you still researching the meaning of strawman?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   


After all...if its impossible to prove they didn't, the you certainly must be able to prove they did.


i agree.

it's impossible to prove that they did.

even though all of the observable evidence points towards it.......the physical evidence was destroyed or there is no access granted to whatever may remain. (destruction/hiding of evidence is indicative in a cover up and would be admissable in a court of law as evidence of guilt.)

bottom line though.......

controlled demolition of the wtc is not required to show that 9/11 was an inside job.

just like it could still be an inside job if there was a 757 at the pentagon.

BUT............proof of controlled demo or proof of a craft other than a 757 most certainly is proof of inside job.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

well sorry but the truth movement is nothing but independent researchers/concerned patriots that are trying to get down to the truth.

you see it's the official story that is not allowed to have deviation/anomalies/inaccuracies.

the truth movement can and will be wrong about a lot of things.

the truth movement is not a single entity so this says nothing as to the lack of accuracy of the official story.

the truth movement does not put forth a complete and exact theory of what happened.



.... is nothing but independent researchers/concerned patriots that are trying to get down to the truth.

... can and will be wrong about a lot of things.

... is not a single entity so this says nothing as to the lack of accuracy of the official story.

... does not put forth a complete and exact theory of what happened.



... if I recall, these are a few of the reasons I joined ATS! ???

?a common thread ?
Hmmm ...now that we may have found a common thread, hopefully we can build upon it in search of a common goal.


My concerns for the overall credibility of the Truth Movement are such that, it initially started from a grassroots approach only to become the business venture it appears to be today. Yes, they are great in numbers, but it seems their overall vision has concluded and narrowed over time.

Just my opinion.

[edit: amy to may]

[edit on 1/29/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Okay, but there's other people out here (including myself) that acknowledges there are information gaps, anomalies, and outright lies connected with the official 9/11 report and "story" who do NOT agree with...


Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle


even though all of the observable evidence points towards it
bottom line though.......


the above statement. The physical evidence available does NOT point toward det charges going off in the buildings. And the evidence does NOT point to anything but a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

BUT, guess what, we believe we are looking for the truth to fill the information gaps, make logical the illogical anomalies of the official story, and to research and reveal as much as possible to force the truth instead of the lies.

So...just because we're not part of some group you are part of, and just because we can't agree that the government blew up the buildings or shot missiles into the Pentagon, does NOT make us the enemy. It makes us fellow citizens seeking the truth surrounding a really gimped up event - that smells like 7 day old tuna.

You came here with some kind of preconceived notion and you have not allowed yourself to see that there are a lot of us here that don't buy the official story - even though we can't buy yours either. I don't have to agree with an alternative theory that makes little to no additional sense than the official story. I think I'll hold out for one that beats both if it's okay with you.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
so sarcasm and tone is only regulated with members and mods can behave however they want.

gotcha.


Generally, when "trollish behavior" is observed by members attempting to derail threads by simply denouncing the topics without adding to the discussion, we relax some guidelines for those who are active in the thread topic so that the troll may be addressed.

It's always best to contribute to topics in a collaborative way. When you don't, you should expect the ire of those who were.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Nice dodge to all the questions from my LAST TWO POSTS.

Not only a dodge, but a trollish jab at me as well. Yes, I wrote a thread that I REALIZED I wrote badly and incorrectly conveyed what I wanted to convey. In fact...it was jaded and I admit that so I trashed it. It's not a big scandal you know. You think anyone here that knows me doesn't know I will admit fault or take responsibility for my actions? Try again.

We also went over all this when you sent personal insults about the matter to me via u2u, remember? I do.

At least I have the cojones to admit my faults without just being insulting at someone's expense, which is childish.

So back to the topic. Care to answer about your explosives expertise? Care to show your proof about when everything was wired and set up? Care to answer any of the other questions? After all, since you are shooting down every other option with your logic...


even though all of the observable evidence points towards it

"Observable evidence" once pointed toward a flat earth and that everything revolved around us too. In those cases...observation was wrong.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Okay, but there's other people out here (including myself) that acknowledges there are information gaps, anomalies, and outright lies connected with the official 9/11 report and "story" who do NOT agree with...


ummmmm. ok. then what alternative theory do you believe?



BUT, guess what, we believe we are looking for the truth to fill the information gaps, make logical the illogical anomalies of the official story, and to research and reveal as much as possible to force the truth instead of the lies.


this statement implies that you are trying to find "truth" that fills the holes so the official story makes more sense. that is how all of the official "investigations" have been executed. trying to come up with an explanation for a pre-conceived conclusion of obl & 19 hijackers as the sole perpetrators.



So...just because we're not part of some group you are part of, and just because we can't agree that the government blew up the buildings or shot missiles into the Pentagon, does NOT make us the enemy. It makes us fellow citizens seeking the truth surrounding a really gimped up event - that smells like 7 day old tuna.


i know not of what "group" you speak. however.....if you doubt the official story and are trying to come up with alternative theories....you most certainly ARE a part of the 9/11 truth movement. you are not required to believe any particular portion asserted by others within the movement for this to be the case. all that is required is that you understand the official story is false. so since you just admitted that you do......why don't you start a thread with your theory instead of constantly attacking those who might assert other ones?





You came here with some kind of preconceived notion and you have not allowed yourself to see that there are a lot of us here that don't buy the official story - even though we can't buy yours either. I don't have to agree with an alternative theory that makes little to no additional sense than the official story. I think I'll hold out for one that beats both if it's okay with you.


i don't assert a complete theory as fact.

i only discuss the portions of the official story i believe to be false.

i have no pre-concieved notions about other's beliefs here.

this is a conspiracy site. i know that a lot of people here don't buy the official story.

but there are clearly a lot of pseudoskeptics here that DO believe the official story is true.

in my time here i have had no reason until now to think that you weren't one of them.

i would love to hear your alternative theory.


[edit on 29-1-2006 by Lyte Trizzle]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

well sorry but the truth movement is nothing but independent researchers/concerned patriots that are trying to get down to the truth.

you see it's the official story that is not allowed to have deviation/anomalies/inaccuracies.

the truth movement can and will be wrong about a lot of things.

the truth movement is not a single entity so this says nothing as to the lack of accuracy of the official story.

the truth movement does not put forth a complete and exact theory of what happened.



.... is nothing but independent researchers/concerned patriots that are trying to get down to the truth.

... can and will be wrong about a lot of things.

... is not a single entity so this says nothing as to the lack of accuracy of the official story.

... does not put forth a complete and exact theory of what happened.



... if I recall, these are a few of the reasons I joined ATS! ???

?a common thread ?
Hmmm ...now that we may have found a common thread, hopefully we can build upon it in search of a common goal.


My concerns for the overall credibility of the Truth Movement are such that, it initially started from a grassroots approach only to become the business venture it appears to be today. Yes, they are great in numbers, but it seems their overall vision has concluded and narrowed over time.

Just my opinion.

[edit: amy to may]

[edit on 1/29/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
so sarcasm and tone is only regulated with members and mods can behave however they want.

gotcha.


Generally, when "trollish behavior" is observed by members attempting to derail threads by simply denouncing the topics without adding to the discussion, we relax some guidelines for those who are active in the thread topic so that the troll may be addressed.

It's always best to contribute to topics in a collaborative way. When you don't, you should expect the ire of those who were.


well thanks for responding without reading the thread SO.

i did no such thing and even started my participation in this thread on page one with a plausible scenario describing how they could have wired the buildings.

the double standard here in regards to accepting the atrocious behavior of your mods is rather hypocritical.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join