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.

 

Demolition crews are dumb; they didn't learn jack from 9/11

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
It seems to me that 9/11 would have changed the demolition world forever.

You wouldn't need weeks of planning, manpower, and loads of explosives to demolish a building. All you would need is to set it on fire.

Look at this...

Baptist MBF Patient's Tower Implosion

From the article
"Following a careful analysis of the structural drawings, CDI ultimately opted to use explosives on six (6) floors of the structure to enhance their control of the rate and direction of fall, as well as maximizing fragmentation of debris. Following Chandler’s completion of abatement/strip-out operations, CDI’s Project Manager and drill team mobilized to the site months ahead of time to begin the arduous task of drilling nearly 2,500 holes for subsequent explosives placement." (emphasis mine)

, these guys carefully analyze stuff and start MONTHS ahead of time on the "arduous" task of drilling holes for explosives. What morons. They would have saved time, effort, and explosives if they had followed the WTC 7 model. In one day, they could have just started some fires and been done within hours.

The Everglades - Forever Gone

This one's even worse. They did all kinds of complex stuff to make sure the building fell in its footprint. Again, they must have missed bldg 7 fall STRAIGHT DOWN into its footprint.

And how about these guys?

Masterton Demolition

So, every project invovles precise planning? Are these buffoons high? The only planning they would need is "start some fires."

Really, though. FEMA and NIST should contact these guys and let them know that it's much easier to demolish buildings that the current methods they sell. Hell, even one of our ATSers can let these guys know that fires can collapse these buildings. These guys are idiots.





posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
That argument both supportive and unsupportive of your claim, as hard is it is to do, how did the towers fall like that without explosives?

But if its also that hard to do, how did they do it without being able to drill holes and do every other predemolition procedure, for it to work as well as it did.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Just think how difficult and amazing it would be for a tall building (like the WTC) could catch fire, burn for a few minutes UNEVENLY then spontaeneously collapse perfectly straight down into its own 'footprint'.

That would be a 1 in a 1,000,000 thing to see!! I wonder if til the end of eternity we will ever see something happen like that.




posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   
shaimaison they did plan and do everything as per usual, even better than usual. They had many opportunities to rig the buildings for the whole year of 2001. When you have a Bush in charge of security then anything can happen.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
If you don't count the Penthouse on the top of WTC 7 which took a couple seconds to collapse (nearly). WTC 7 fell as fast as an object falling a vaccuum. Your damn right Demolition crews didn't learn anything!



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
But why?

Why do they continue to do demolitions old style when they could just set buildings on fire? Why didn't they realize that buildings could be demolished from mere fires BEFORE they began working on demo techniques back in the day?

Why, why, why?



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Oh you know, if they just burnt them and let them buckle and fall into their footprints, they could never justify the huge sums of money they take for planning, months of preperation, and finally execution of the take down.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by The Links]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Yeah demo crews would only have to set fire to a building and crash a Boeing 767 into it, or drop a 110 foot building next to it. Yeah that would really be smart and easy to do. Even the WTC7 received massive structural damage before the fire did any real damage.

picture WTC 7

Wonder why they dont do it that way


Nice trying to make it seem like a fire was the only factor



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Yeah demo crews would only have to set fire to a building and crash a Boeing 767 into it, or drop a 110 foot building next to it. Yeah that would really be smart and easy to do. Even the WTC7 received massive structural damage before the fire did any real damage.

picture WTC 7

Wonder why they dont do it that way


Nice trying to make it seem like a fire was the only factor


Taurus feces.

NIST's own report said that the planes were not a significant factor in the collapse of the twins. And a monstrous building falling "next" to WTC 7?
The building was at least a couple of blocks from the twins. There were buildings closer than WTC 7 that didn't collapse like it did.

BTW, I think you mean 110 STORY, not FOOT, but hey, your way is even more incredible.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Could you please link to the part in the NIST's report where they say the 767s werent a "significant factor " in the collapse of the Towers

As for the WTC7 are you blind could not see the damage in the picture I linked. Or are you still going to pretend that the fire was the only factor in the WTC7? Because thats what your doing.

Your own quote


if they had followed the WTC 7 model. In one day, they could have just started some fires and been done within hours.

Just some fires?

I just showed you undeniable proof fires were not the only factor



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Hey ShadowXIX do believe that 9-11 happened exactly as the official story goes, are you just arguing with truthseeka because you don't like his tone or do you think there that some lies about 9-11 have been told in the official story, but you just don't accept that demolitions were invoved in the triple collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7?

No offence intended, just curious as to your stance on this issue



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
You see some people like to spend a little internet time to talk about conspiracys, we think it is important and could make a differance at some stage in the future.
Obvious to see some people have nothing better to do than spend some internet time to come to a place like ats and tell us we are dumb to talk about such things.
Which then makes the conspiracy side think,"if i did not believe something happened, do you think i would waste my time trying to make a bunch of fruit cakes understand their fears are not true"
You must understand tho, we probably would not be here if the other side was not so ignorant.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
Hey ShadowXIX do believe that 9-11 happened exactly as the official story goes, are you just arguing with truthseeka because you don't like his tone or do you think there that some lies about 9-11 have been told in the official story, but you just don't accept that demolitions were invoved in the triple collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7?

No offence intended, just curious as to your stance on this issue


This thread isnt really about that and theres more then enough threads about that subject on ATS, I have voiced my opinions in many of them. This thread is about if demolition experts are stupid after learning the lessons of 9-11 I thought.

Im sorry but when some trys to say WTC7 was just a fire or the Planes werent a "significant factor" in the towers thats ignorance of the greatest order. We are trying to deny ignorance not imbrace it.

But no I dont believe 9-11 went down exactly as the official story goes.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
ShadowXIX - I am very glad you agree the official story is not how it went down

I think this thread is a sarcastic take on how ridiculous the official story is not about actual demolition experts daily routine and job analysis. I am sure most ATS users agree upon that.

WC7 should not have collapsed on 9-11. It did. Therefore, something is wrong in the official story.



[edit on 31/3/2006 by alienanderson]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
ShadowXIX - I am very glad you agree the official story is not how it went down

I think this thread is a sarcastic take on how ridiculous the official story is not about actual demolition experts daily routine and job analysis. I am sure most ATS users agree upon that.

WC7 should not have collapsed on 9-11. It did. Therefore, something is wrong in the official story.

[edit on 31/3/2006 by alienanderson]


Quite perceptive, Mr. anderson.



Good point, The Links. I honestly don't understand why some posters make a big deal out of coming to a "CONSPIRACY" site and debunking the conspiracies.
Honestly, if they don't believe it, why the hell should they care? I don't believe the moon landing hoax thing, but you don't see me posting post after post debunking the conspiracy. Like Fat Joe said, get the hell on with that.


OK, ShadowXIX, since it's ignorance of the HIGHEST order, will you concede that you are ignorant when I post NIST's statement? Probably not, but you really should take your own advice.


From wtc.nist.gov

The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, perimeter columns, and floors. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation and the subsequent multifloor fires. …

And, as for the damage to WTC 7, please. Even by the pic YOU posted, you would expect the building, if it were to collapse at all, to collapse in the direction of the damage! Even if it wouldn't collapse completely in that direction, it would have collapsed at an angle, NOT straight down. Again, you must think I'm a fool if you expect be to believe that a building damaged on one corner would fall straight down...



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   
See truthseeka you didnt say that you said the NISTs report said

Your own words


NIST's own report said that the planes were not a significant factor in the collapse of the twins


Where does it say the planes were not a significant factor??? Oh wait it doesn't say that. What the heck do you think "dislodged insulation and started those multifloor fires. …" the PLANES which makes them a significant factor along with the structural damage they caused.

Will you just concede you made that up the NIST report said the planes were not a "significant factor"?



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
ShadowXIX just out of interest, what is your body weight?

Due to your thin, lightweight remarks, I can only imagine that your body volume is the opposite and I would think as in regard to your body mass rather slack and rotund

No offence

[edit on 31/3/2006 by alienanderson]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
No offence ??

What a clever remark alienanderson
Did you think that all up by yourself? Really added to the thread.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I am not trying to add to the debate. There is no debate.

Truthseeka was being ironic in his comments.

You took the bait - when truthseeka referred to the demolition experts as being ignorant after 911 he was in fact implying that as no building in recorded history has fallen into it's own footprint via sporadic fire and high altitude impact it is obvious that at least one other factor was involved - therefore the official story is (by your own admission) unbelievable.

[removed offensive comment towards another member]




Mod Note: Warnings – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 3/31/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
...................................
WC7 should not have collapsed on 9-11. It did. Therefore, something is wrong in the official story.


Why is that?.... Part of the building was destroyed from the debris of one of the towers falling on it, add to that the shock recieved to the structure of WTC7 from the explosions as the planes crashed into the towers, plus the burning debris and fuel burning for hours, it does add up...

We are here to deny ignorance, not embrace it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join