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.

 

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

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Let's not get distracted too much about what type of explosives demolition companies use. As mentioned, the compartmentalized shadow-military is decades ahead, technologically. The murderers of 9/11 could have used any manner of unknown tech, which surely exists.

All this talk about how difficult it is to wire a building. Isn't that due to the constraints of det cord and blasting caps? Doesn't it all have to be wired conventionally, and isn't that the main sticking point? That there wasn't enough time to do it? The answer is yes, IF they're using off-the-shelf gear. Why assume that they would?

What about wireless portable suitcase-sized explosives (nuke or not) of a sort we've never seen? Something with enough explosive force to ensure a million little WTC pieces as the building fell? All those laundered dollars have to go somewhere, and I'm sure some of them have gone to engineers and weapons designers.

Or, perhaps a sub-sonic vibratory frequency projected at the building? I know it sounds crazy, but directed sound waves are really used in this way. You'd have to have some kind of audio record of WTC to investigate this,

This is why 9/11 becomes difficult to discuss. In the end, we're dealing with an enemy that has billions of dollars and unseen weapon systems purchased/researched with that money.

One thing's for sure, as I have said before: The towers had to come completely down, and they did. There couldn't be any evidence left by the murderers. The murderers' forethought can be observed circumstantially in the immediate removal of all the evidence from the murder. All that steel which was quickly and orderly hauled off to China would have TOLD us what sort of demolition went on.

The erasure of evidence and the continued coverup is what causes me to believe the towers were rigged in some way. I'm not stupid enough to assume that the devices or explosives used to rig it will be of a sort known to me. I'm guessing that whatever method was used, it's only by examining the evidence NOT destroyed on purpose, that we'll ever know what weapon was used.

Why do most people assume that WTC was rigged with old (read: public) explosives when ongoing explosives research is secretly funded and for decades? Do the armchair experts really hubristically believe they know of every sort of explosive device which exists?




posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
One thing's for sure, as I have said before: The towers had to come completely down, and they did.


No motive argument there. I believe the terrorists had the same objective.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

What about wireless portable suitcase-sized explosives (nuke or not) of a sort we've never seen? Something with enough explosive force to ensure a million little WTC pieces as the building fell? All those laundered dollars have to go somewhere, and I'm sure some of them have gone to engineers and weapons designers.



Interesting point - which actually works both ways (both terrorists as well as government). But interesting point nonetheless. And with the sniffy-dogs possibly gone, doable.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by smallpeeps
One thing's for sure, as I have said before: The towers had to come completely down, and they did.


No motive argument there. I believe the terrorists had the same objective.

I disagree entirely. There was no coverup with the terrorists who were ostensibly in the planes. They didn't care if the evidence got removed or destroyed. They simply wanted the explosions and shock. Evidence removal was not on the mind of Atta and Co, assuming they were flying the planes. Evidence removal was on the minds of those who ordered ground zero's debris shuttled away from Americans' eyes.

The final removal of the evidence was not done by the terrorists. They couldn't have cared less what happened to the pieces of WTC and all the dead human pieces included therein.

Zedd, wouldn't you rather that the mixture of steel and human remains from WTC be hauled to any available field or airplane hanger for post-mortem or analysis, even if only for future buildings to be made safer and not killable by jetfuel? Wouldn't you prefer to see those people's bodies buried, even if along with all the steel?

Is a steel smelter in China a suitable grave for those fine Americans murdered at WTC?


[edit on 29-1-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   
smallpeeps,

My only question - which is unanswered - is where did the decision for the ultimate disposal of the steel get made? I know you've posted that before on the board, but I haven't ever read on it. I had read accounts that the contractors were the ones that decided. Has anyone ever found evidence that some one above them (in authority) okayed that, or maybe even worse ordered it?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
smallpeeps,

My only question - which is unanswered - is where did the decision for the ultimate disposal of the steel get made? I know you've posted that before on the board, but I haven't ever read on it.

FEMA ordered it.

This article from Ruppert's site indicates that they were very exact about the removal of the steel.



www.fromthewilderness.com...

Further complicating the matter, hard evidence to fully substantiate either theory since evidence is lacking due to FEMA's quick removal of the structural steel before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, FEMA had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.

And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York's Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named "Tripod II."

Besides FEMA's quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.

In a detailed analysis just released supporting the controlled demolition theory, Reynolds presents a compelling case.

"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not," said Reynolds. "These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened.

"On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia's Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that 'beams and girders sagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.' Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."

Not sure about how the order was gven, but this is the real sticky wicket with 9/11.

There were American murder victims melted in with that metal. To me, that makes the WTC debris sacred, in a way.


[edit on 30-1-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Zedd, wouldn't you rather that the mixture of steel and human remains from WTC be hauled to any available field or airplane hanger for post-mortem or analysis, even if only for future buildings to be made safer and not killable by jetfuel? Wouldn't you prefer to see those people's bodies buried, even if along with all the steel?


Of course. Again...no argument.

And for the record, all I said was the terrorist's objective would have been to bring the towers down as well. Not the covering of evidence. They would want it known who did it.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
And for the record, all I said was the terrorist's objective would have been to bring the towers down as well. Not the covering of evidence. They would want it known who did it.

I agree that having the building fall was icing on their cake (well, with them instantly surrounded by dozens of virgins in heaven, I'm not sure they were watching WTC after the initial impact.
) But I do not believe they had expected jet fuel to melt the structure and thereby collapse WTC.

I can still remember my intial reaction to 9/11. my roommate told me to turn on my TV when I was getting dressed for work. I turned it on and immediately saw the replay of the first building's collapse. My first instinctive reaction to the image was, "Now that's impressive."

...I think a lot of people felt the same thing. Like, how is it that both WTC towers dropped directly into their basements? To me, it is absurd to think it "just happened".

I tend to think that the NWO is viewable by the absence of normal human concern. I saw this lack of emotion post-WTC with the way they handled the remains in the basement of WTC, and I saw it displayed by Barbara Bush and her ilk during Katrina. For me, it is the reaction of the elites (and their agencies) which makes them highly suspect.

The desecration of the victims' final remains by selling them to China, was not done by arabs. It was done by so-called "Americans". It is also these same Americans who cultivated Osama, Atta et al.

It's more comfortable to view 9/11 as simply being blowback for our involvement with the mid-east and the afghans. If that were true, and this was just blowback, those WTC dead should have been heroically buried as the martyrs they are. This was not done, and no mention was made of their bodies being hauled away.

Think about this: Why was that flag-waving opportunity wasted? My strong suspicion is that the steel would have not supported the official theory of jet-fuel caused collapse.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Man, we keep getting DISTRACTED from the point here...
What have we actually cleared up so far?
I'm CONFUSED!

[edit on 1/29/2006 by theBLESSINGofVISION]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
so, smallpeeps, is your theory that the hijackings were allowed to happen and these random charges (be it suitcase bombs like brs postulated or some other kind of charge) were added in just priot to the planned (and then allowed) events?

And if so, what would be the motivation? Would it be for the symbolism that the collapsing towers would be? Some type of insurance that the attacks were as bad as possible?

P.S. Excuse the numerous typos. I have a migraine and I've had to take medicine. My fine motor skills must be leaving me.


[edit on 1-29-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by theBLESSINGofVISION

Originally posted by theBLESSINGofVISION
LUMOS
Obviously you are here to orchestrate CONFUSION, DISTRACTION, and HYPNOTISM to the weak here on ATS.
End of story.


Light Trizzle or Lumos or whatever "Illumination Reference Name" you choose... This applies to all of you

[edit on 1/29/2006 by theBLESSINGofVISION]


Is there nothing in the terms of service about this kind of crap? 'Cause I'm sure we can all do without it.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
so, smallpeeps, is your theory that the hijackings were allowed to happen and these random charges (be it suitcase bombs like brs postulated or some other kind of charge) were added in just priot to the planned (and then allowed) events?

No, I think the scenario as broadcast on television before 9/11 in the TV show "The Lone Gunmen" is what happened. It was broadcast, why, exactly? I think it's safe to say someone was trying to warn us.

In that episode, the planes are populated with passengers, pilots, etc but they are flown by remote control. This remote flying of big jets has been proven and is not hard to rig. I believe the planes needed to be controlled because too much was at stake. Also, only top-level permission would allow them to fly around for over an hour without an f-16 escort like Payne Stewart's jet.

Theoretically, if I were the criminal planning this event, I would want to lock the pilots in their cabin at the same time as I take control of the plane remotely. This way, the terrorists become irrelevant once they've gotten onto the plane and served their purpose. Once they are on the plane, and let's say they force the cockpit door open and see two pilots unconscious, well, it's too late for them to alter the plan, and why would they grab the yoke and try to fly when the plane is flying itself? Then I just fly the planes where I want them to go.

The explosions in WTC are just to ensure that the airplanes, steel and all other evidence --except Atta's passport of course
-- are destroyed or made difficult to examine. I would want explosives that work subtly, pulverizing the concrete and crippling key pressure points in WTC so that it came down without fail. Simple. All I'd need is super-strong, wireless explosives set in the right places of the building. I am sure such devices exist since we are talking about launching a war here.



And if so, what would be the motivation? Would it be for the symbolism that the collapsing towers would be? Some type of insurance that the attacks were as bad as possible?

Any thief or criminal knows that by torching the crime scene, you remove evidence. I don't think the motive need be any more complex. If a murderer kills someone in their home, it makes sense to torch the place. Who wants evidence that might refute the offical story?

Even with a migrane you're digging at the truth and moderating the obfuscators. My hat's off to ya, Valhall.


[edit on 29-1-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
We are straying from the topic. I have yet to see any kind of credible theories on how these explosives were planted in the building.

Anyone?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Is there nothing in the terms of service about this kind of crap? 'Cause I'm sure we can all do without it.

Thanks.


Yessir, u2u sent.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
We are straying from the topic. I have yet to see any kind of credible theories on how these explosives were planted in the building.

Anyone?


Actually, so far, howard, there have been two points that can't be dismissed - thought they beg evidence via research - and that is

the sniffy-dogs were reported to have been removed from the building prior to the event, and

suitcase bombs - which was something I've never really considered before.

Point is, there are a few theories here worth at least trying to delve into, even if they end up leading no where.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
We are straying from the topic. I have yet to see any kind of credible theories on how these explosives were planted in the building.

Anyone?

No, I am not.

What is your purpose on ATS, Howard? I only see you in posts that give you an opportunity to debunk 9/11. Do you do anything else on ATS? Do you believe in one, single conspiracy theory? Do you think that denying ignorance means avoiding all the circumstantial evidence around 9/11, because that's what I see you doing and it makes you entirely non-credible in my eyes.

I am staying on topic because I am describing what happened to the towers after the fact. What happened to them after the fact, can indicate what was done to them before the fact. The original question is, how were the explosives set up? As I said above, we probably cannot know that.

What we CAN do in this thread, and what we have done in most threads like this about WTC being rigged, is give obfuscators like you a chance to focus on civilian explosives and how these make it "impossible" for WTC to be rigged.

Please, take the conversation where you want it to go. Your namesake was an expert in both building design and demolition, wasn't he? I'm sure that qualifies you to personally redirect this thread to your liking.



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


the sniffy-dogs were reported to have been removed from the building prior to the event, and


I believe this was addressed earlier. Apparently the heightened state of alert was lowered, removing the need for the dogs to be present.




suitcase bombs - which was something I've never really considered before.


How many do you think it would take to bring the buildings down? 50? 100?200? I would think it would be many, as one large explosion would be quite obvious on the video.

Were they placed beforehand and noone notice these many ownerless suitcases lying around or did the firefighters carry them up with them.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
IIRC not all of the bomb sniffing dogs were gone. They had a Security alert and had brought in extra dogs. These extra bomb sniffing dogs were the ones removed.

Another thing to consider is that they had extra bomb sniffing dogs during the alleged powerdown. This makes it even harder to believe that they could have snuck all those bombs in.

We do know that at least one bomb dog was present that day.


www.novareinna.com...

Police K9 Sirius, Badge Number 17...a four-and-a-half-year old, ninety pound, easygoing, yellow Labrador Retriever...was an Explosive Detection Dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department. Sirius, along with his partner, Police Officer David Lim, were assigned to the World Trade Center in New York, where their primary duty was to check vehicles entering the Complex, clear unattended bags and sweep areas for VIP safety. Sirius, who began work at the World Trade Center on July 4, 2000, was the only police dog to perish during the attack on the Twin Towers.



The suitcase bombs would be nuclear and I think that we would've found some radiological evidence to support something like that if it was used.

While the US suitcase bomb does have a variable yeild, even it's smallest setting would be betrayed by the radiation levels.

SpecialAtomicDemolitionMunition



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by HowardRoark
We are straying from the topic. I have yet to see any kind of credible theories on how these explosives were planted in the building.

Anyone?


Actually, so far, howard, there have been two points that can't be dismissed - thought they beg evidence via research - and that is

the sniffy-dogs were reported to have been removed from the building prior to the event, and

suitcase bombs - which was something I've never really considered before.

Point is, there are a few theories here worth at least trying to delve into, even if they end up leading no where.


I agree, chemical explosives of any known nature probably do have the required energy in a package small enough to put in place without discovery.

What are the known or suspected alternatives?

Micro-nukes? anybody aware of any radiation testing on, around or near the WTC site? (yeah I'm stretching with this one) Any strange reports of an EMP effect?

What effects would be from any kind of futuristic plasma weapon? (of the exploding kind, not directed) - anything detectable?

Directed energy from orbital platform?

Any quantum type weaponry, effects?

I dunno,

Sorry guys just kicking these things out there to spur discussion either for or against the ideas promulgated.

If a conspiracy is there we have to make it conceptually work in order to know what info to track down.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by Phoenix]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum

How many do you think it would take to bring the buildings down? 50? 100?200? I would think it would be many, as one large explosion would be quite obvious on the video.

Were they placed beforehand and noone notice these many ownerless suitcases lying around or did the firefighters carry them up with them.



I think it would take many as well. In fact, a butt-load. Then we get back into the time factor it would take to place that many suitcases, left in random locations and assumed to never been noticed by workers in the building and therefore moved.

It's still problematic, but it's something I had never considered.

Some one else stated suitcase bombs would have to be nuclear. Response to that - no they wouldn't.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join