It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 05:26 PM
Are you aware of the number 33 and its significance to freemasonry etc?

Also 3 x 11 = 33. Important number. Three is trinity (good or evil).

Remember 911? see relationship? 3 x 3=9

Three buildings come down?

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:02 PM
Yes, they are at teh same angle, driven that way to inflcit the maximum anout of damage. Why would they do that if they knew someone was going to demo them? Kind of redundant, don't you think or they knew what they were doing....

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:20 PM
I'm not an expert of geomatria etc, but the angle of impact has some bearing on this this I'm willing to bet that it was 33 degrees.

Notice how nobody else saw this?

We got experts ranting and raving about minutae b/s but missing the obvious. Just what the debunkie monkies love!

For this majic to work the numbers have to be there and I am not an expert on that. It is possible that the idea of the plane was to incorporate the idea of air, a striking motion etc.

If this idea has merit then I would expect similar geometrics with the pentagon.

It is possible that the planes hitting the towers is for the most part a diversion as you suggest, eg. they were coming down anyways.

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:37 PM
Denythestatusquo, out of curiousty, did you have a feeling beforehand that the angles would be somewhere around 33 degrees?

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:48 PM
Yes, but that is based upon my seeing the videos over and over like everyone else has. I have to admit that I didn't see the connection until recently and now it makes sense.

The towers is a very common theme, it even appears on some tarot for example. It probably refers to tower of babylon or maybe an obelisk, I'm not sure about that.

Planes striking the tower have to signify something but I don't know at this time.

Again what I am suggesting here is that the planes were all for show and a way to rope in patsy's to blame it all on. The buildings were brought down primarily by demo.

What I am looking at now is the pentagon as you all know it is 5 sections, with 5 divisions in each section. That gives you 5 x 5 =25 sections. In the occult 25 is a recognized number too.

The issue at the pentagon is this:

what angle did the plane/missile/drone strike, what level did it hit at, and how many of the layers/walls did it pierce. All those numbers again could well have numerological significance.

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:54 PM
Explaining It All Away

Originally posted by xxvalheruxx

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?

The article you cited does a pretty good job of it -- if you read it and don't quote selectively from it to make it seem like it says the opposite of what it actually says.

Here's a link to the same article you used to bolster your theory, except this link includes the title of the article:

ERROR: 'Seismic Spikes Preceded the Towers' Collapses'

Note the use of the word "ERROR".

Here's the first paragraph from that article:

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 .

Emphasis in bold in this and the other quotes has been added by me.

You quoted this paragraph yourself, so presumably you read it, and would therefore know that it is specifically referring to Christopher Bollyn's article as a "source of this error".

Nonetheless, you proceeded to use a portion of the article that quotes Christopher Bollyn, whom the article repeatedly claims is wrong, implied it was factual and asked the question that led me to respond with this post.

In response to Christopher Bollyn, the 9-11 Review article you cited says:

To the contrary, there was nothing strange about the seismic spikes recorded by the Palisades station. As the video and photographic evidence shows, the towers exploded into expanding clouds of rubble that were about 400 feet from top to bottom by the time they reached the ground. Those rubble clouds contained virtually all of the mass of towers -- thousands of tons of rubble falling from as high as 1000 feet. That could certainly be expected to produce pronounced seismic waves.

It also says:

An analysis of the timeline of the North Tower collapse on the 9-11Research site corroborates the idea that the large seismic spikes were produced by rubble reaching the ground.

I would quote more, but I think I've quoted enough already.

I urge anyone interested in what the article actually says to read it for themselves.

Meanwhile, I am compelled to ask: Why are you misrepresenting what the article says?

That's something that is truly worthy of an explanation.

Dishonest Disagreement

Originally posted by xxvalheruxx
Obviously there is only one thing that could have cuased this.

No, it is not obvious, nor is there even any credible evidence to prove that it's true.

Presenting speculation as fact is dishonest. Misrepresenting the content and meaning of a source article is dishonest.

Making false claims such as "Notice how anyone with a half decent education in science supports this" serve only to discredit you. There are many people who are very well-educated in science (and many other disciplines) who do not support the theory that explosives caused the collapse of the WTC towers.

The very source you cited actually contradicts your inference that seismic data indicated the use of explosives. Read it. According to that source, the seismic data neither supports nor refutes the possibility of explosives.

Despite my concern about excessive quoting, I'll quote the last paragraph, in case you don't believe me:

That the larger spikes of the seismic signatures of the tower collapses were produced by falling rubble does not preclude that the towers were destroyed with explosives. In a typical demolition, numerous small explosives are used to shatter the columns supporting the building. Unless the explosives are detonated simultaneously, they are unlikely to produce detectable seismic signatures. If explosives were responsible for the towers' destruction, they were numerous and were detonated in a synchronized but progressive manner, contributing little to the recorded seismic disturbance.

Arguing that something is "obvious" when it is not and implying that those who disagree are in "denial" is insulting.

I recommend posting honestly to, and I look forward to seeing your explanation for apparently doing otherwise.

Perhaps you were mistaken, and this was not deliberate.

If so, only you can clear this up.

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:30 PM
The sysmic spike is not a record of explosives being initiated below ground, its signal being of a different nature, so it must be attributed to the effect of debris striking the ground or the effects of explosives initiated elsewhere.
The first major occurence would be the first impact between the top and bottom sections, if we can still talk within those references.
Quote from somewhere, but don't remember offhand from where:

They show a very similar pattern for the leveling of WTC 1 and 2. In both cases there is about five seconds of high-amplitude movement, followed by about three seconds of movement at less than half that amplitude, and then by about 15 seconds of much weaker movement. In addition there is some still weaker movement starting about 12 seconds before the onsets of the high-amplitude movement. The main difference is that for WTC 1 the initial high-amplitude phase builds in intensity to a much higher spike than any seen for WTC 2.

Consider first of all the difference between the two readings.
The first collapse involved an upper section of 30 odd floors plus hat truss, the second ten odd plus hat truss. We would expect the bigger strike to be from the larger section - the first collape - but this was not the case.

However in the first collapse,WTC2 we can see a large section of the core still standing, several seconds after collapse.

I believe that this demolition was triggered early because of the arrival of fire crew on the first fire floor. The process involving thermite weakening of the core would not be as far advanced as the second collapse. The second collapse was therefore stronger because the thermite had weakened the core sufficiently to force it to shift load to the perimeter columns. When these columns were blown with explosive the mass striking the ground via the still standing columns was greater because of the mass of the core itself also bearing down. So the first collapse involved an upper section of 30 odd floors plus hat truss, the second ten odd floors plus hat truss plus the core mass partially suspended, or more precisely, partly unloaded, acting down through the floors and hat truss.
Again this evidence fits the theory, explaining the difference in the spikes of the seismic record?

The initial movements pre-collapse may have been the core shifting and settling due to thermite action in the base and key structural points.

The five second high amplitude was charges progressing down the building accompanied by the first collapse noises.

After five seconds these charges ceased and the building perimeter, floors, hat truss and upper core section continued to collapse to the ground.

The remaining fifteen seconds was the collapse of the core and last few remaining uprights and general settling of the debris.
If my theory is correct the last section, the collapse of core and general settling should be longer in duration for the first collapse than the second collapse. Was it?

Some one mentioned the power down access to floors 50 and above. The charges to separate the corners and initiate collapse were necessary only above this level. There was no need to continue the charges all the way to the ground and indeed we know that several storeys of perimeter columns remained upright, though severly damaged, after collapse had ceased.

The way to defeat this theory is to produce contradictory evidence or a better theory. Trying to assume some kind of moral high ground is a poor method of refutation.


[edit on 16-3-2006 by gordonross]

[edit on 16-3-2006 by gordonross]

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:32 PM
In my previous posts, I noted that I witnessed the events of 9/11 first hand and that I welcome evidence. I have seen some of the links to videos, etc. By way of example from different angles and different positions, video cameras capture what appears to be a ballplayer being tagged out at the plate or missing the tag. Likewise, a flash here and a shadow there etc. can be interpreted in many ways.

The lunatics that attacked New York, USA on 11 September 2001 no doubt did so because it is high profile, it is media centric, it is heavily populated, it is a financial hub, it generates many things on a grand scale including lots of dollars and lots of hype. This city is not populated by the ignorant, unintelligent, naive or delusional - indeed, it is every New Yorker's God given right to complain and be very cynical and skeptical of everything and everybody from our own government to "terrorists' to conspiracy theorists to oil industry and military industrial complex interests and whatever else comes our way.

No one would love to see every person responsible for the attack on New York City and DC on 9/11 be identified and held accountable than we. There is a discovery process - a paper trail, a money trail, forensics, and incriminating and exculpatory evidence as well out there that each and every New Yorker - myself included - would love to have ascertained in entirety. The tens of thousands of pieces of DNA evidence have not been analyzed to date I suspect. The debris field was over five miles I understand. We have the events; we may have cover-ups as well.

Remember what one of our forefathers said, "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." So what else is new America? We have a constitution, we have the LAW and nobody is above it. IMO the government and the military failed in whole or part on that day probably more so by default than design. No doubt certain professionals were negligent. You can convict on evidence not allegation or innuendo.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by templar8]

[edit on 17-3-2006 by templar8]

[edit on 17-3-2006 by templar8]

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:06 PM
There are reports from 4 seperate Police Helicopters that reported the following

However, the police did. Hovering over the North Tower following the collapse of the South Tower, Detective Timothy Hayes, in his helicopter, Aviation 14, radioed to his dispatcher, "Be advised - just not 100 percent sure - but it does appear that the top of the tower might possibly be leaning at this time." A moment later he continued, "It is confirmed, it is buckling and it is leaning to the south." "Which tower is that?" asked the police dispatcher, "one or two?" "The remaining tower, the North Tower, is leaning to the southwest at this time," Hayes said, "and it appears to be buckling at this time in the southwest corner."

This occured shortly after the first tower fell, the saw that it was buckling. I posted earlier the amount of force that was released as each tower came down, accelerating as it collapsed with the weight, and created an 'burst of energy' 1/10 the size of a nuclear explosion. It was felt over 250 miles away, and not just seismically. This was not a 4 story apartment building that came down.

You can go through the archive of FDNY voice records and can find multiple instances of people screaming "it is coming down", not , did you hear that explosion, and then it's falling. The only sound they heard was the 100 stories collapsing and finishing years of construction in seconds.

The column that remained was the last surviving elevator shaft I beleive, that still ahd people in ti.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by esdad71]

[edit on 17-3-2006 by esdad71]

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by esdad71
I posted earlier the amount of force that was released as each tower came down, accelerating as it collapsed with the weight, and created an 'burst of energy' 1/10 the size of a nuclear explosion. It was felt over 250 miles away, and not just seismically. This was not a 4 story apartment building that came down.

Please excuse me, I missed the earlier post you reference. A nuclear explosion releases anywhere from 80TJ to 240,000 TJ of energy (source). 1/10th of the energy output from the baby bear of the family makes for 8TJ. Each tower contained 400GJ of PE. Where did the extra 7,600,000,000,000J (at least) in the 'burst of energy' come from?

[edit on 2006-3-17 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 03:57 PM
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.

278,000,000,000 watts of energy is easily 1/10 of a nuclear weapon. It is an analogy that the force of the collaspe was that of a small nuclear blast.
That amount of energy is generated by small nuclear reactors.

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:54 PM
esdad71, thanks for your reply, but you are confusing me, for a number of reasons...

A watt is an expression of 'work' over time, not of energy per se. If you have calculated the power output of the collapses, you must have calculated a certain time frame for the release of a certain amount of energy. This is the first time I've seen the energy of the collapses expressed thus. Can you please show your calculations for both time and energy here to aid in my understanding of how you arrived at your power output figure?

You state that each tower collapse had a power output of 278 megawatts and is thus equal to a 1/10th the power output of a nuclear explosion, but then you state that 278 gigawatts is 1/10th of a nuclear explosion. Which is it? And what figure are you using for the nuclear explosion?

Thanks for your patience.

[edit on 2006-3-17 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:16 PM
Sorry, I did put in too many zeroes, didn't I?

My information was taken a from a book, which was stating that the amount of power that was contained after the towers were built was that figure. In the book it speaks of how much energy is suddenly released and that is the figure that they used, and stated that it equated to the power of roughly 1/10 th of a small nuclear explosion. This was used to help describe the siesmic events that were casued when the towers collapsed.

With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 10 to the 8th kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 10 to the 19th ergs (10 to the 12th Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.

This is the formula that is referenced in the book.

This states that researchers name.

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:50 AM
Ah, I see where the confusion comes from. You stated "megawatts", when the author of your book calculated "megawatt-hours". The two are not the same; watts being a unit of power, and watt-seconds being a unit of energy. Unfortunately your author has calculated the PE of each tower by an order of magnitude over FEMA's calculations. FEMA states the figure at 4 x 10^11J. So either FEMA is wrong, or your author is wrong (or both, I guess). The author of your story probably made the common mistake of calculating the potential energy of the towers based upon the total height, times the mass, times gravity. Calculating thus arrives at a PE figure for a pancake-flat, 500,000t building suspended 417m in the air! Needless to say, this produces an outrageously inflated figure. I suggest you confirm that this is the case, then contact the author and quietly point out the error to him.

That being said, calculating the total PE of each tower is only useful for comparing that figure to the macro energy output of the collapses. If more 'work' was done in the collapses than energy was available, as is claimed by 9-11 researcher Jim Hoffman, then that points to the addition of another energy source...maybe explosives. But your author neglects to make such an assessment, and the comparison to a nuclear explosion seems more an appeal to emotion (the 'wow' factor) than anything else. According to E=mC^2, there is probably more energy than we could ever need in a common apple, but that wouldn't help us to understand if apples suddenly started crushing buildings to pieces. Similarly, stating how much energy was in each tower does not explain the reason for their physics-defying, allegedly gravitational collapses.

[edit on 2006-3-20 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:32 AM

I spent some time at the \\ website and it looks very fishy to me. Here is why:

1. Appears to be a pro 911 conspiracy site yet it supports official government and scientific arguments of 911 to the hilt.
2. Nowhere does it indicate who runs such an extensive site and why?
3. The site goes out of it's way to identify who it thinks is credible and not credible in 911 research even though it is not it's mandate to do this? Why does it bother to do this? Does ATS spend a lot of time and effort analyzing the veracity of competitors too?
4. When the site does have a fault to find it is always with foreign or unreproachable entities like a strawman enemy; eg. NATO for example.

My prognosis: this is a CIA or government disinfo website.

Anybody care to differ with me?

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:05 AM

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
An idea just came to me now, were the towers originally built in a way to allow for their being destroyed in this fashion? Sounds incredible but we know the NWO crowd works a very long timeline.

I came across an odd bit of trivia in my own WTC research that I think you would find interesting. The old television show, ironicly called "Get Smart!" had one episode called "Smart Fit the Battle of Jericho" which featured the Bad Guys of an organization called Chaos of all things, using the name Joshua Construction having planted explosives in the actual building material concrete of a skyscraper during it's construction to use the later destruction of the building as some implementation of evil. Sounds obscure and unrelated until I read an interview with one of the creators of the show which talked about the CIA had paid the producers a visit at some point demanding to know where they were getting their ideas for the show from, and all that during the actual construction of the World Trade Center Towers.


Smart Fit the Battle of Jericho
Airdate: Saturday, February 18, 1967, 8:30 PM
Writer: Arne Sultan
Director: Bruce Bilson
Carl's Rating: **

Buildings built by Joshua Construction somehow keep blowing up. Max follows Joshua to Las Vegas, where the gorgeous Charlie Watkins (played by Angelique) saves his life. 86 then returns to Washington and goes undercover as a construction worker to figure out KAOS' scheme. He discovers that they are putting nitroglycerin inside the bricks, and then detonating them when the building is completed and filled with people.

Also modern city planning I think requires that large buildings like the WTC complex have access to the core columns and the like for the placing of demolitions for future demolitions, something which was mentioned I think in this thread...

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:14 AM

good work you could be get smart's sidekick!

I actually know the program since I was a child when it was on TV and it was highly popular. I don't remember that particular show though unfortunately.

Now that you mention it KAOS sounds kinda like Order out of Chaos, which is associated with freemasonry and written on the US $1 bill.


posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:23 AM
Eduardo Kausel is the name of the man who came up with the calculation.

He is a MIT engineer who along with a few others have researched this issue.

Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.

The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy," he stated. "Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City." Kausel concluded that the "the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below."

This is his quote from the article.

As far as a collapse, there were 4 Police copters, who witnessed it shearing, or starting to collpase. This was no demolition.

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:50 AM
Impeachable Sources

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
My prognosis: this is a CIA or government disinfo website.

Anybody care to differ with me?

I don't plan to.

My complaint is with the apparent mischaracterization of a source by selectively quoting from it in a manner that suggests it claims something opposite of what it claims.

And by the way, xxvalheruxx, I'm sorry to be so snippy about, it just seemed suspicious as hell to me, and I'm a bit edgy about all the smoke being blown around 9-11.

As far as I'm concerned, all dishonest sources are part of the coverup, and I'm not fond of people who aid and abet the escape of mass murderers from punishment by covering their tracks, whether wittingly or unwittingly. But that's my problem, not anyone else's.

I'm tired of being lied to, and being insulted because I refuse to drink the kool-aid flavor of the week.

I just want the truth.

Disagreeable Terms

I suppose I'm part of the problem, but I'm really concerned about the way the whole discussion of 9-11 on ATS has been going.

This is a place where intelligent people from all over the world can share ideas about pretty much anything. When we work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect, I seriously doubt there is any mystery we can't at least shed some light on.

In order for that to happen, however, we must respect the fact that good people can disagree, even on issues that may seem cut and dried to some of us.

As an example, wecomeinpeace is apparently convinced that explosives brought down the World Trade Center towers (correct me if I'm wrong, WCIP).

I, on the other hand, am not convinced this is the case. I don't know one way or the other.

My respect for wecomeinpeace, which is very significant, is undiminished by that. I know he's smart (dare I say brilliant?) and he is, in my opinion, one of the finest members on the board.

But he could be wrong.

If so, again, my respect for him would not diminish one iota, because nothing says he must be infallible.

Being human is not a crime.

The Skeptical Evangelist

On matters of which I am unsure -- and even those I'm reasonably sure about -- I profess skepticism. What that boils down to is my acknowledgement that no matter how sure of anything I may be, I could be wrong.

God knows there's plenty of precedent.

I encourage members to be skeptical of everything, especially those beliefs you hold most dear.

Because you could be wrong, too.

I repeatedly fail to express this clearly, and far too often get caught up in fits of self-righteous indignation, and for that I cannot apologize enough.

But I urge anyone and everyone interested in the truth about 9-11 to keep an open mind and be ready to accept the possibility that the truth may be far different than any of us knows.

I would rather be right about not knowing the truth than wrong about knowing the truth.

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:23 AM
My mistake.
That same story, the original, is on a few websites. I read it on a different website other than 911review, where they "debunk" it, but when i googled for it, i quoted and referenced it from the 911review site, where I did not orginally read it at. Sorry for any confusion that it may have caused. I didn't purposely select quotes from it in order to misrepresent what was stated. The site copied that article and dbunked it, i originaly read it from a site without the debunkafication

I understand how you could get upset about that,

I'll just had a few things if anyone's interested, they may have been posted before, not sure...

A video i'm sure most have viewed, shot from across the river. The sound from what appears to be the explosions is recorded, it sounds like a series of distant thunderclaps. Turn up your speakers/bass to hear it better. Suposedly there's a dvd out there that has a much better recording, and i've heard a closer recording which sounds like it could be NOTHING but a series of explosions, i'm just trying to find the info at the moment..... Here's the vid though...

Also one other thing

Quick video a fireman stating in what looks like some sort of report/documentary, that when he was leaving the building, there was some sort of shaking/rumbling, then as he turned the corner to go down the stairwell, smoke/debris/air flew UP the stairwell towards him. Then part of the floor he was on collapsed, and caused him to fall almost a full floor. This would indicate that somewhere BELOW him, the structural integrity of the building was compromised.

That's also a great one, of a fireman stating they have to evacuate because there's a bomb in the building.

Oh, and the classic video of a camcorder on a tripod...and a few seconds before the collapse the video shakes for a few seconds due to the ground shaking because of possible explosions. But, i'm sure the video just happened to shake like that becuase there was some overweight terrorist near the tripod jumping up and down with excitement =P

[edit on 20-3-2006 by xxvalheruxx]

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in