Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Actually, let's be real straight on what you said Tin Lizzy...


with unlimited access to the towers (not being hindered by marvin bush being on the board of directors of the company that controlled security at the wtc, securacom), unlimited time, and unlimited resources including covert military technology...........it's not a far stretch to imagine it as possible.

contractors were perpetually working in the towers doing something or other.

there is no reason to believe that they couldn't have had "contractors" wire the place with high tech explosives late at night over a period of weeks or months.

since of course the only hypothesis about how the the towers fell that actually works is professor jones' it doesn't make sense to work backwards and speculate "how" they wired the building.

because obviously you must realize zer69; the only answers you can get to your question would have to be speculation.


Which is the same attitude and stifling of alternative theory discussion you and merv-the-perv aka mr-narco used in the all important "oh my gawd the taxi moved!" thread, now isn't it?

It appears we can either appease you by spending endless hours staring at a taxi cab (as long as we ultimately conclude that it was "planted" and every one on I 95 was part of the big "fake") OR, we can just absolutely STFU otherwise you'll claim nothing is worth talking about because it's all speculation.


[edit on 1-29-2006 by Valhall]




posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   


since of course the only hypothesis about how the the towers fell that actually works is professor jones' it doesn't make sense to work backwards and speculate "how" they wired the building.



I'm not sure I understand, it seems that you are saying that in your mind professor jonses hypothesis is the only one that works therefore any speculation as to how it would actually be accomplished makes no sense?
It seems that what you have done is accepted a theory(someone elses speculation) and anything that speculates on that speculation is not valid in your mind?




Edited to say Val beat me to it, lol


[edit on 29/1/06 by Skibum]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
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.


I don't believe he stated you did.

Now, as to page one then...your first post stated:


since of course the only hypothesis about how the the towers fell that actually works is professor jones' it doesn't make sense to work backwards and speculate "how" they wired the building.


Wouldn't that be the contention than? How did Prof. Jones' theory become the solid foundation causing someone to "speculate" in the first place? So why become so hostile when someone does want to look at that issue? If it can be proven that controlled demo was not used, it makes all your forward speculating impossible. What if Jones' theory is not the only conceivable answer?


...it's not a far stretch to imagine it as possible.


I could imagine many scenarios, but that still doesn't make them plausable or possible.

ps) Looks like a few others above me posted on this same issue.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 05:20 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.

That sounds like this site.

Lyte, may we please have a list of sites that are comprise this movement? Also, please let us know which site you frequent the most.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

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.

That sounds like this site.

Lyte, may we please have a list of sites that are comprise this movement? Also, please let us know which site you frequent the most.

Thanks.


you can find the list here.

in fact i would say that this is also the site that i frequent the most.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
it is not trolling to point out that it could only be speculation to come up with the answer to "how" the buildings were wired.

this is a plain and simple fact.

actually.....it would have to be wild speculation.

and yes S.O. did say that i exhibited "trollish behavior" which was his excuse for allowing the horrible sarcarstic tone that his moderator exhibited.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
you can find the list here.

A link to the Google home isn't helpful at all. And rather trite.

Is there such a thing as the "truth movement" you keep referring to?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
with unlimited access to the towers (not being hindered by marvin bush being on the board of directors of the company that controlled security at the wtc, securacom), unlimited time, and unlimited resources including covert military technology...........it's not a far stretch to imagine it as possible.

contractors were perpetually working in the towers doing something or other.

there is no reason to believe that they couldn't have had "contractors" wire the place with high tech explosives late at night over a period of weeks or months.

since of course the only hypothesis about how the the towers fell that actually works is professor jones' it doesn't make sense to work backwards and speculate "how" they wired the building.

because obviously you must realize zer69; the only answers you can get to your question would have to be speculation.



How they possibly could have gotten away with wiring a project as large as the twin towers is very important and raises many questions that seem to cause this theory to not pass the smell test.

Though I am not an explosives expert I am an expert on office building operations and construction having been involved with office buildings for better than 24 years.

Simply put there are too darn many people involved for this theory to float no matter that it is technically feasible, its still not even a remotely plausible path for the conspirators to take because if they're as smart as some give them credit to be - then they would have quickly disregarded the implosion method as an operation with to many chances of leakage resulting in the exposure of the operation.

It is far simpler and involves fewer people to control the takeover of aircraft or influence the takeover and target set of known terrorists to impact the towers resulting in the collapse.

I'm not going to delve into the mechanism of collapse because that has been well argued in another rather lengthy thread.

For the implosion theory we have to have the entire building staff either fooled into believing work is for something plausible (building engineers are a suspicious lot whom are always looking for things out of the ordinary) or the staff needs to be in on the deed (not likely as many were killed in the collapse) for this to have a chance of carrying forward.

Bending the imagination somewhat and believing that the staff thought ongoing work was for another legitimate purpose then we have to assume that at least dozens if not many more of "contractor" personel would not utter a peep to their spouses, family, friends or anyone else for over five years - again if you were the planner of this event is that what you would logically do?

Or would you not come up something far more elegant but simple involving the lowest number of conspirators possible?







[edit on 29-1-2006 by Phoenix]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
That's my new conceptual phrase. And, Phoenix, you just detailed it elegantly.

That's why most conspiracy theories end up for doodie, they don't pass the minimization of controllable assets test.

And the "everybody on I95 was in on it" and the "they wired THREE buildings for implosion" theories, just don't stand up to well to logical analysis relative to minimizing controllable assets.



[edit on 1-29-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
It is simple. The towers were lined with explosives, anyways....In case something happened, the towers would be demolished instead of tipping over because of the devestation it would cause if it fell across the length of NY.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Back to square one. We already went over this a few pages ago.

[edit on 1/29/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
The real question is,

"If the Twin Towers were demolished, and it was a conspiracy, how could we prove when the charges were placed, what the charges were, etc.?"

Maybe look up a few people that were in on it under the "crazy people with a lot of power and influence" part of the Yellow Book, and call them up and ask, but I doubt you'll really get that far.

We do know this, though: there are plenty of reports of odd circumstances around the WTC over the years, from the fireproofing upgrades, up to the drills just prior to 9/11. I don't know how you guys expect we know what did or did not happen in terms of explosives during such events, but if you were creative, you could find a way to plant them.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
bsbray,

Do you know more about the account that Agent Smith linked to where the explosives dogs were taken out of the building just a few days before?

Because I find that interesting.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by zer69

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Well, of course, proof is hard to come by, but we can make certain inferences:


OK, your links are mainly from biased sources, so I am not taking them too seriously. But lets say that they were explosives inside WTC's concrete, do you think that after almost 30 years they were operational on 9/11?


Explosives are by their very nature highly unstable compounds. They tend to get more unstable as they age.

For example, as dynamite ages, the sticks "sweat" out a liquid. That liquid happens to be pure nitro glycerin.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
bsbray,

Do you know more about the account that Agent Smith linked to where the explosives dogs were taken out of the building just a few days before?

Because I find that interesting.


I think I remember him posting something or other about it not being all the dogs, or they were put back in, or something, but unless the whole article was faked then it's suspicious enough nonetheless. The original article even stated that the removal came amidst a period of increased security if I'm not mistaken.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

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.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

www.nynewsday.com...

They were removed, but apparently the security alert that had caused them to have extra dogs there was lifted. I know there was at least one dog there on 9/11. Sirius. His handler left him in the baesment to go help, and wasn't able to get back to him. They later found him in the rubble.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

2) The entire building was wired with explosives since without detection.
To narrow down the timescales further, Bomb Sniffing Dogs (a favourite point for indicating explosives were used) had been removed the previous Thursday:


Actually, Sirius, the bomb sniffing dog assigned to WTC was killed in the collapse.

www.cbsnews.com...

He probably "knew" too much.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


He probably "knew" too much.


That actually made me laugh out loud



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Did you know that back in 1974, there was another fire in the WTC?

While it was not nearly as extensive as the fires on 911, it did get into one of the core area shafts and proved to be difficult to access and put out as it smoldered up a wiring chase. But it was a good thing the "pre planted" explosives didn't go off then!



Seriously, the idea that explosives were planted when the building was built is the dumbest one yet. It ranks up there with the UFO and the Pod people.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Oh, and for those who claim that these explosives were planted just before 9/11 by bogus contractors, I want to know how they fooled the rank and file guys on site that they were legit, union contractors.






top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join