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