If the towers were demoed, how the explosives were set up?, page 8
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10    11  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 29-1-2006 @ 10:31 PM by Phoenix
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by Phoenix


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]


And that's been my point for oh so long and with many a head-butts with others.

1. the method by which the act is committed must be feasible,
2. the theory must minimize controllable assets (minimize the number of people who actually know what is going on)
3. the motivation must be a relatively short-term (3 to 5 year) return on investment either in the form of money or control/power.

That's my litmus test on these theories. They usually flunk. But they have to outright flunk before I stop considering them.



CREATIVE DECONSTRUCTION is my term, not debunking in my mind, leads to the most plausible rebuilding of the event(s) forming a conspiracy.

I fully believe in items 1 through 3 on your list.

No problem with anyone putting out what seem outlandish ideas so long as they or others work the list to logical conclusion.

Back on subject, if some heretofore unkown explosive was used what makes anyone think the dogs would have picked up on them? for example; anti-matter needs a containment (rather large/power hungry) but should require no chemical trigger to be picked up by animals.



[edit on 29-1-2006 by Phoenix]



reply posted on 30-1-2006 @ 01:41 AM by smallpeeps
Phoenix said:
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?

Good questions, phoenix.

Although I am not an engineer, I have read about nuclear devices and I think I grasp the main challenge, and that is to ensure a correctly timed series of chain reactions inside the device. I look around at the precision-manufactured devices I do have access to, and I constantly am amazed at how small they have made these things. laptop hard drives, for example.

Therefore, I can say without fear of contradiction that micro-nukes exist somewhere. They exist because they must exist. Miniaturization is an irresistable imperitive in engineering, and to say that a fission reaction could not be electronically actuated inside a device as big as an orange, is to betray a shallowness of comprehension, in regard to technology, IMO.

Regarding EMP, I wonder if there are innocuous devices which might register EMP in the area? Like I wonder if hard drives were affected nearby or something like that. EMP might leave evidence that the murderers had not thought of.

There are numerous eye(ear?)witness accounts of explosion(s) at WTC before the first tower came down. I could paste a few here. Maybe their accounts will tell us something? I have a video which shows a steady, tripod-mounted shot of WTC2, and suddenly the camera-frame shakes noticeably about five seconds before the collapse is filmed. To me, this video is indicative of an explosion at WTC. Has anyone else seen this video? I haven't located it online. I found it through file sharing.

Anyway, here's a quick animated .gif of a different video you can download
here. I know the resolution is poor, but I think you can see the curious explosions way ahead of the leading edge of the collapse.



The video shows it better, so follow the link and download it for yourself. How do these two bursts go off at the same time, despite being so far ahead of the collapse?


[edit on 30-1-2006 by smallpeeps]


reply posted on 30-1-2006 @ 10:06 AM by HowardRoark
OK, let’s review shall we?

If there were explosives in the building, then how did they get there? So far the following theories have been presented:

  1. They were installed when the buildings were built. See my post above for my take on this theory.

  2. They explosives were planted during the so called “power-down.” This theory has numerous holes. The first is the whole power down scenario itself.

    Secondly this theory runs smack into the reality of how large buildings and complexes like the WTC are managed, maintained and run. This theory runs up against the fact that these buildings were occupied and operated 24/7. The maintenance engineers in particular are active at night and on weekends. No construction project, no matter how big or small operates in a vacuum in a building like that.

    Some have put forth the idea that because a certain security company was in place at the building, that this is how the explosives were brought into the building. Unfortunately, security is not responsible for building maintenance and construction activities. Coordinating construction schedules around tenants is the job of the building manager. In a building of that size, and with many tenants in the financial sector, it is a difficult task, at best to get into those spaces to change a light bulb, let alone anything else.

    Furthermore, the issue of building trade unions has to be dealt with. Unions are zealous about guarding their turf. In a building that size, there are contractors in there continuously. The union B.A.s and reps, always know exactly what contractors are doing what. THe idea that a bunch of workers were running around without anyone noticing or paying attention to what they are doing just doesn't fly.

    The practicality of installing explosives is always overlooked in these theories.

    Cutting charges on steel have to be installed directly on the steel to be effective. The WTC columns, either the core columns or the perimeter columns were not directly accessible. They were behind drywall enclosures covered with fireproofing. The perimeter columns were located in built out and occupied spaces. The core areas, well, if you truly understand the function of a core area, you would appreciate just how difficult it is to access theses columns. Elevator shafts, pipe shafts, duct shafts are not easy to enter and work in. The fireproofing in these areas contained asbestos, and as such, the maintenance and engineering staff would have been hypersensitive to any activities that could potentially disturb this material.

  3. The theory that the explosives were planted over a longer period of time runs into the same problems as A) and B), above.


  4. Suitcase nukes or "antimatter" explosions are for comic books.





reply posted on 30-1-2006 @ 11:40 AM by mad scientist
There seems to be a lot of talk in here about conventional exlosives not having the power to bring the WTC down. Whilst I don't think the WTC was brought down in a controlled demolition, I came across some information I posted in another thread of mine about 4th Generation nuclear weapons. Here's teh relevant part - Metallic Hydrogen.



reply posted on 30-1-2006 @ 12:40 PM by Lumos
XenonCodex
fray.slate.com...


Great video! If only someone would be able to subpoena Mr. Loizeaux before an influential court.
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10    11  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 9 days ago with 13 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 16 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags