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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   


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.

It is easy to make it all sound silly when throwing around the term "suitcase bombs". It sounds silly because the whole concept of miniature bombs has been ridiculed to death, despite its technical feasibility.

However, the point is, non-standard munitions were likely used in WTC. I don't know what size, and I don't know what type, but I am not so stupid as to assume that if I don't know about such explosive devices, that they don't exist.

The question is HOW the devices were placed, and that has been answered because there are contractors going in and out all the time.

There's a debate technique where you reduce the opponent's statement to an absurd sounding one. It's called reductio ad absurdum. It's a weak technique, but it works in group settings like message boards.

The point is, we have WTC (a murder site) falling perfectly into a hole, cooking for two weeks, and then all evidence being totally trucked off the American continent under the strict supervision of FEMA. This indicates that someone wanted the evidence removed.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by smallpeeps]




posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix


Back on subject, if some heretofore unkown explosive was used what makes anyone think the dogs would have picked up on them?



It's an added complexity that first must be proved to exist, but if it were some unknown type of explosive device (would like to know what you're thinking on that) the dogs might be totally useless.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Phoenix


Back on subject, if some heretofore unkown explosive was used what makes anyone think the dogs would have picked up on them?



It's an added complexity that first must be proved to exist, but if it were some unknown type of explosive device (would like to know what you're thinking on that) the dogs might be totally useless.


Valhall, I'm just throwing stuff off the top of my head at the moment hoping others may have knowledge of somewhat less radical but still effective explosive devices that would fit the bill and support smallpeeps theory.

If not then another direction will be needed......................................



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Contrary to your statement that explosives had to be set on every floor, thats not what this expert says. There is a 20 second comercial prior to this videofeed:



fray.slate.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Wouldn't someone have had a Geiger counter on scene? I don't just mean a government official. I played around with the things in high school science class, it seems like someone would have had some kind of reading if a "suit case" bomb was used. I assume we're talking about nukes here.

The conspiracy theorists are stretching more and more for some kind of logic to it.

And Lyte_Trizzle shouldn't have been banned. A lot of people on both sides have slung the poo around, and just because one of the slingers has access to MOD buttons doesn't mean it should make all ATSer's look like they push censorship and "disinformation". Which that really does. I think trizzle is completely wrong. But she wasn't abusive to anyone, no more than a few were to her. And now she's an f'ing martyr. That's just brainless and egotistical.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I think it would take many as well. In fact, a butt-load.


Why do you think it would take a 'butt-load' when you infact believe the small fires bought the buildings down?

Wouldn't a few well placed explosives have more effect than a weak fire burning only on the upper floors?

IF those small fires bought down the buildings then just a few well placed explosives would also, no?

IF you don't think the fires bought them down then you can't argue it would take a 'butt-load' of explosives IMO.

Yes why was Trizzle banned? I've seen far worse from ppl on this site. It's not fair when you can't argue with a mod cause they're are power tripping.
Can't win the argument so you ban ppl, that sucks! Or is this site scared of going too far exposing the real truth. It seems a lot of mods show up in threads like this trying derail members input by threating and insulting behaviour. That sucks!



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps


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?


Good post smallpeeps.


Can we rule out forced air from the collapse? Forcing out vents and such. Just curious. Still, good animation. Cartainly something interesting. With no frame of reference, I don't know that its out of place. Could be normal I suppose.

Worth looking into. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   
It is possible the explosives were put in the buildiing some 40 years ago for later demolition. Whats behind the demolition foreseen 40 years ago? I dont know. It could be standard procedure or it could have been planned by the NWO mongers (they go way back) to wait for the right opportunity.

Judging by the state of affairs in this country now and all over the world, i would say the latter is a bigger possibility.

Does anyone know for sure (with links) if the placing of explosives is standard procedure now?

This may shed light to this once and for all. It would be nice to get some experts opinions instead of bias ones.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete

And now she's an f'ing martyr. That's just brainless and egotistical.


She's not a martyr. She's some one deciding if she can come back, have an opposing voice speak to her and not use the following tactics:

* my group's theory is the only one that's right
* why are you even discussing this it's just speculation
* you're a liar

If she can decide to drop those three methods of trying to shut down opposing views, she'll be back and she can even dislike me more for all I care.

P.S. I'm not sure she is a she.

[edit on 1-30-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Valhall
I think it would take many as well. In fact, a butt-load.


Why do you think it would take a 'butt-load' when you infact believe the small fires bought the buildings down?

Wouldn't a few well placed explosives have more effect than a weak fire burning only on the upper floors?

IF those small fires bought down the buildings then just a few well placed explosives would also, no?

IF you don't think the fires bought them down then you can't argue it would take a 'butt-load' of explosives IMO.



Well, that's what I'm trying to get straight. Is the theory that multiple floors were blown? If so, that would take a lot of explosives. If the theory is that only one floor was blown, it wouldn't take a lot. Some one earlier in this thread talked about one particular floor (34?) of one of the towers being completely empty due to rennovation, is theory that could be the floor that was blown?

and to be straight, I don't think the fires caused by the jet fuel and secondary burning were weak. Even the photographs prior to the collapse show they weren't weak. But we're not discussing that point in this thread (we've discussed it in other threads), we're discussing how the demolition of the building could have taken place.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

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]


Antimatter???



What about Photon Torpedoes?

As far as conventional explosives go, All conventional explosives tend to fall within the same chemical families. i.e. heavily nitrated organic compounds.

I’m not a dog, nor do I play one on TV, but I suspect that they are trained to detect the characteristic odors from a wide range of these types of compounds.



[edit on 30-1-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Let’s get one thing straight here. A few people have put fort the proposition that explosives were planted when the building was built.

This has to be one of the goofiest WTC conspiracy theories yet. Frankly it’s a toss up between this, the UFOs, or the WTC guy. (remember the picture that was supposedly taken from the observation deck?)

If you honestly think that this is a possibility, then please elaborate.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
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.





posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Maybe there was a design flaw in the buildings so that that when a large aircraft impacted with them and created a tremendous fire (such that people were leadping hundreds of feet to their death to escape it) it caused damage to the aforementioned central column, weakening it to the extend that it collapsed just from the weight of the floors above?

But nah, that's just plain silly......
Next you'll be saying even the terroists didn't actually expect the towers to fall down!



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
The design flaw...that's allways one I've had in the back of my head...

It's due mainly to the Port Authority holding back the blue prints untill a waiver was signed that they couldn't be sued because of the investigation...



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
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.

  • Molecular and Metallic Hydrogen
    When hydrogen is squeezed by about 1 million atmospheres of pressure, theory says the electrons will start to flow easily, making a good conductor or even a superconductor. This "metallic hydrogen" will, again theoretically, store immense amounts of energy.

    A 1977 report (Molecular and Metallic Hydrogen, M. Ross and C. Shishkevish, Report R-2056-ARPA, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, May, 1977), said metallic hydrogen would have 35 times the explosive capacity of TNT and could be "useful in nuclear weapons."

    In 1996, metallic hydrogen was apparently synthesized at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California, home of the thermonuclear bomb. In 1998, LLNL experimenters shocked deuterium (a hydrogen isotope with one neutron) with a giant laser, producing a material with metal-like superconducting properties.

    Some interesting information on Metallic Hydrogen : www-phys.llnl.gov...

    So-called "metallic hydrogen" is believed to have an energy density of about 270 kJ/cm3 which would be about 35 times more energetic than TNT. It could be used as a powerful "conventional" (non-nuclear) military explosive. A bomb containing one ton of metallic hydrogen would then be equivalent in destructive potential to 35 tons of ordinary TNT. It could also be used to make nuclear weapons much more compact, possibly even obviating the use of a fission trigger (fission makes the bomb radioactively dirty, and the materials required for the fission trigger are very expensive and hard to obtain; a design with no fission trigger would make cost proportional to explosive power, but could also prove to be a proliferation nightmare).

    members.dancris.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

XenonCodex
fray.slate.com...


Great video! If only someone would be able to subpoena Mr. Loizeaux before an influential court.




top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join