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.

 

How they rigged the towers.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Yeah, you're not here to push any agenda, only to constantly ignore dissonant facts to your cognition and restate the value of the 9/11 CR and "102 minutes". Doesn't that actually qualify as advertising? Weren't people banned for just that before?




PS: From what I can tell, having only read excerpts and reviews of 102m, it clearly aims at emotion, not reason, pretty much like the 9/11 CR does. The little tidbits of "factual information" scattered within the story, whether accurate or not, are uncritically absorbed in the emotional frenzy, much like the official theory was in the days succeeding 9/11. That you seem to believe drama can substitute science speaks volumes. The emotional involvement certainly provides a sense of reality, of being there, of re-living actual history, but it's just an illusion, just like any other.



[edit on 16-3-2006 by Lumos]




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I am not advertising, and you did not read it. Are you trying to threaten me since I am eroding your precious theory?
I didn't write the book, I am recommending it.



Per usual, you are going off 'tidbits' of information and making an 'informed' decision. It goes into the history of the WTC and into much of the information about the building of the towers, which is difficult information to find. It talks about how the Rockefellers envisioned it, and everhtying that was not to code in the WTC that was ignored. I am trying to help and give you some info for god sakes, not get blasted.





[edit on 16-3-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
In my opinion, you're extremely obtuse. I don't know if that's on purpose or not, but in the end, it doesn't really matter...

People that link to pages somewhere containing book- or video offers, among freely accessible information, no matter their actual relation to the page or its authors, have been banned. For all we know, you could be the author of 102m or have another vested interest in advertising for it. Let's face it, you can't really prove otherwise, just like the others could not.

If there's anything of substance in that book you base your opinion on, provide the information. Noone's saying "oh there's this wonderful page, www.st911.org, they say I'm right!" without giving specific pointers, and that's not even commercial information. Did that get through?




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
So you have lowered yourself to baseless accussations to get your point across? Did i link to Amazon.com? The only thing that got through is the fact that you are purposely trying to piss me off. I get over it by realizing I am me, and you have to live with yourself.


Why don't you try to add something constructive to the thread? Can you post anything that is longer than a few sentences? You seem prettty good at one sentence quips and that is about it. I also really wish I could see you tell that 9/11 survivor that psoted your tirade in person. That would be classic.

Please, take some time, and explain to me how they rigged the towers, since this is what this thread is about.




[edit on 16-3-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Well, make of it what you will, you're not worth my time. See ya.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
So instead of attempting to prove your views, you simply walk away? Why can you not give some information that I may be able to learn from, or may gain some insight?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I also really wish I could see you tell that 9/11 survivor that psoted your tirade in person. That would be classic.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by esdad71]


First, I don't think that person was in the towers. He/she said that they were there that day....doesn't mean they are survivors. With that logic, every single person that was in New York and New Jersey that day are survivors.

Please, esdad, quote something about "102 minutes"....I'm interested in looking into it. I don't want to buy/read a book without sampling some first. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I don't want to quote it becasue I might get banned.

Seriously, there are a multitude of things in there that you can connect to certain theories or quotes that have been attributed to individuals regarding 9/11.

The emotional parts of the book that deal with the survivors is a samll part of the book. It talks about the FDNY and NYPD repsonse, PA response, Talks of structural damage to both buildings, visisble and reported by workers of the WTC. One of those Frank A. Demartini, the on-site contruction manager of the WTC ,who in 1/01 stated that it was desinged to take a hit from a 707. In the book it recalls his calls to his co workers stating that he thought the towers were ready to fall based on the damage he could see. His office was on floor 88, and he was an intregal part ofthe rescue.

architecture.about.com... this is about the structures

911research.wtc7.net... here is an excerpt from 102 minutes.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Thanks esdad. I think I might eventually read it. I have a lot on my list so far but would like to get into that book.

I kinda wish I knew someone who was there that day and could rehash their story for me. Any takers?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I have a few family friends and a cousin who saw it that day. ( I am originally from Queens, NY) so I have heard first hand accounts and have talked to people who were there to see, feel, taste and who will always remember it. They do not talk about it, and when we see them you do not bring it up. It is kind of like dealing with soldiers who come home and just do not want to talk about it. I guess that is part of the reason I am so emotional about these issues.

I was back up at ground zero this past decemeber, and it is hard for someone who grew up with them there to not see them anymore. I hope you enjoy the book if you get around to it, and happy hunting.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
"He/she said that they were there that day.... doesn’t mean they are survivors."

That is what I said, I was there all that day through the night into 2 AM the next morning, I work near by . . . I witnessed it, I knew people who worked there and a FDNY lieutenant who was a friend and neighbor all of whom did not survive. I along with several others was inside the security perimeter and we tried to help and did as best we could under the circumstances. As I said what we saw and heard were successive "bursts" under the weight of the buildings' structure(s) ABOVE the fire line. I can respect qualified conclusions based on evidence. You can keep the rumor, innuendo and accusations. A p***ing match helps no one.

Timely rebuilding and closure are required. There is still a lot of hurt - my FDNY friend's wife and daughter are still distraught - no remains of him have been found and/or ID'd as yet. We admire the FDNY and the common man from broker to cook who rose to the occasion that day because that's what New Yorkers do every day. The government and military failed on that day - not the common man. You get a little fed up with all the B/S after awhile because we shoulder a lot of the burden from disproportionate taxes to all out attack. Yet we got up the next day and went back to work.

If you really want to help than write to your legislators and tell them to do what they can to rebuild the America that was attacked and help the people of lower Manhattan to get back on their feet. No matter what you think you know - think again.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
These quotes are from people who were in the South tower minutes before it collapsed and one explanation of the amount of force that bought down the towers. This hopefully helps you understand that there was no demolition.


1. John Peruggia, the FDNY delegate, received a message from a WTC Departemnt of buildings engineer who reported that the structural damage was immense, and he was worried about how long the north otwer would stand. This was minutes before the collapse. Peruggia was at teh WTC 7 building which was also bieng evacuated at the time becasue of fire. Realize that this is before the towers fell and WTC 7 is on fire.

2. At 9:50, a line of molten aluminum was seen on floor 80, pouring from the window, this was the remnant of the plane melting. In photos analyzed later, you can see the 83rd floor drooped so low it matched the 82nd. 911 Calls from the 93rd floor at this time first record the collapse beginning. Greg Milanowcyz was on the phone with his father and said
" The ceiling is caving....the ceiling is caving....."


3. The laws of physics state that energy is not destroyed, and after the building was completed, it held all the energy that held it in place and stockpiled for stability in the structure. It stated that the power released as it collapsed was equivelent to 1/10 of a nuclear explosion, 278 megawatts of energy were released as the towers fell, going straight down.


note- information above is drawn from the book "102 minutes". Take it for what you will, but it does help to explain the collapse.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Don't think this has been posted yet - its a dcumentary about the whole 9/11 conspriracy.

Take a look it was originally posted in Ignorance Denied but got pulled from the Forum.


video.google.com...



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   


Thermite was necessary because explosive charges below ground would have been picked up by seismographs leaving a tell tale signature

Yes thermite was used, yes, seismographs WERE picked up.

Look a the video above, you can see molton steel pouring out of the sides along with sparks etc. If you have never seen thermite burn before, seach for it on google videos. (I've also seen this in rl, having been in the army, and having burned it myself). The heat of the burning jet fuel is IMPOSSIBLE for this burning to occur. It requires a MUCH larger temperature for the steel to melt, and even if the jet fuel caused it to melt (which it can't), only thermite would lead to the showering sparks comming out WITH the liquid steel. for the most part, thermite is Iron oxide (rust) and aluminum. it must be ground down to a fairly fine powder/granular size, which does not occur naturally in this mixture in the WTC buildings. thermited used along with explosives in the basement brought the tower down, which explains why the fires in the basement burned for DAYS, with exremely hot temperatures. a pool of liquid steel in the basement would allow for this to happen. And yes thermite isn't really that fast of a reaction, but if you think about it, it was used in certain places to weaken the structure, that's all. Especially in the basement, if thermite was first used to melt part of the steel away, less explosives would have to be used to take it out. less explosives = less sound, which helps prevent anyone from noticing. Too bad almost everyone (even the people reporting the news that day live on TV) heard the explosions. Oh yeh, the seismographs haha.

911review.com...



The collapses of the Twin Towers generated seismic disturbances that were recorded by a half-dozen seismic recording stations within a 20-mile radius of Manhattan. Numerous websites have repeated an erroneous interpretation of the seismic recordings as evidence that bombs in the basements of the towers severed the core columns at the onsets of the collapses. One source of this error is an article by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn, reprinted in Serendipity.li .





The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.


Does anyone want to help explain this away? Obviously there is only one thing that could have cuased this. It's too bad that many people are in denial of what happened. Does it make you feel better if you believe that the terrorists and planes brought down the building and not the us gov? I would be pissed, and demanding answers. I just cannot stand it when people are denial of facts/evidence. this isn't sound random conspiracy theory. The facts state that, with overwhelming support, the buildings were taken down with explosives. Notice how anyone with a half decent education in science supports this. Independent engineers/physicist from across the country are trying to get this info out, that it was nearly impossible for the planes to have taken the buildings down in such a maner. But instead, denial sets in, and everyone becomes dumber than ever.

How can someone say that all of this evidence means nothing, and that people should "just read the 9/11 report, it explains it all". here's a quick 'analogy'. Sorry for any confusion but, if BOB shoots and kills MIKE, but BOB blames it on JOHN. Now there is some evidence against both people here...but then, BOB publishes a book about the shooting and the facts. Should we all go read bobs book about how he didn't commit the killing? But it's an official report...why shouldn't we believe it?


Sorry that this turned into a huge rant, i get all
sometimes.
In my opinion, i do believe terrorists conspired to crash planes into the WTC buildings, and they did. I do not believe the gov had much of a role in that, other than having knowledge of it and maybe not preventing it. However, I do believe that the gov took advantage of the situation, and took out the buildings in order to take the situation to another level. Some T's crashing a few planes into some buildings (the buildings wouldn't normally collapse) and killing a couple hundred people is horrible, yes, but it's no means to go to war etc. the buildings crashing down, killing thousands, and destroying icons of our society, yes, now that would inspire public support/a reason to go to war.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
You are so diluded you are going to chastise a survivor of 9/11 and then question his name because it say Templar in the same breath? Gotta love ATS.

the truth has come out, it has, in the form of a VERY long book called the 9/11 commision report. If you took the time, you would be able to debunk everyone one of the 'secondary explosion' stories, the missles theories and the other explosion scenarios. They all come from 9/11 calls during the attacks, when no one knew exactly what was going on. Early reports to news agencies and such.



This is such a tired arguement.


Why were some employees in some financial services industry companies not warned and likely sacrificed in the inferno?

Competitors of the NWO selected companies that did clear out of the building on time.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
does anybody off hand know where the planes hit the towers btw? I mean the floor numbers? Also the angle of entry etc. There may again be an occultic geometrical/numerical aspect to this here.

A lot of the advocvates/debunkers are totally ignoring the masonic/occultic aspect of all this... each has their own areas of expertise, but this 'operation' has occult written all over it for those in the know.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
just to add from the previous post...

www.americanfreepress.net...




These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse.
In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of “literally molten steel” were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.




Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center. .....These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said. .......The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

I just want to bring attention to the last part here. These pools of liquid steel were also found in the basements of WTC7. That building did not get hit by a plane, there was no jet fuel to fuel abnormally hot fires. the building mysteriously caught fire, and later in the day collapsed. The owner of the building admitted on television that he and the NYFD had decided that the building was a gonner, and that they could not put out the fire, therefore they intentionally took out the building. It was admitted that WTC7 was taken out with demolitions. There is another huge thread about this, and if you google it, you'll see for yourself. The video for WTC7 collapses exactly how the other two did, and the video even shows it caving perfectly inwards due to demolitions. Remember, a casual fire started in the building, no jet fuel, and it collapsed just like the others. Also remember that it was taken out with demolitions. There were pools of liquid steel in the basement, just like the other two that actually got hit by a plane.

hmm, if A = B, and B = C, then C MUST = A. I still have no idea how anyone can deny this.

jeeze.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
North tower

Floors 94-100 impacted Floors 94-97 mostly destroyed, more than 3/4 of all support columns damaged


South tower

Floors 78-85 over 3/4 of supports destroyed along with all but one of the elevators This tower falls first because ofthe increased weight of bieng hit lower. North tower collapses 30 minutes later

Yes, we are ignoring the occult because it did not bring down the towers.
WTC was already on fire before the first tower fell, and it has not been proven it was demolished.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
North tower

Floors 94-100 impacted Floors 94-97 mostly destroyed, more than 3/4 of all support columns damaged


South tower

Floors 78-85 over 3/4 of supports destroyed along with all but one of the elevators This tower falls first because ofthe increased weight of bieng hit lower. North tower collapses 30 minutes later

Yes, we are ignoring the occult because it did not bring down the towers.
WTC was already on fire before the first tower fell, and it has not been proven it was demolished.


thanks for your post, I'll look at the numbers and post later if I come up with something in these combinations. What I find significant is that the planes hit at an angle. Obviously that angle could be desired for destructive purposes but was the angle too low or high in that case or was the angle of impact chosen? Both planes had different trajectories also. The idea being that a guided plane's trajectory would be carefully chosen whilst a terrorist would roughly choose an impact zone (but those clowns acting as patsies did not have ability to fly that well).

the occult did bring down the towers as any destruction or killing comes under the realm of 'sacrifice' to their dieties. Payment for future power or past favours accrued to them.

The occultic reasoning is WHY the towers were brought down, more important than how they were toppled.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
does anybody off hand know where the planes hit the towers btw? I mean the floor numbers? Also the angle of entry etc.


WTC1: 92nd to 98th floors were hit.

WTC2: 78th to 84th.

WTC1 impact:



WTC2 impact:



They had roughly the same angle. I would estimate that angle to be somewhere around 35 degrees, based on playing around with the WTC2 impact hole in paint (I don't have a protractor
). But 35 degrees should be pretty close.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join