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.

 

What a controlled demolition really looks like.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Hope you're still reading.

Option A:

9/11 was a dreadful terrorist attack masterminded by Bin Laden. The towers came down because planes were flown into them. The pentagon was hit by flight 77.WTC 7 was hit by failing debris, burnt and fell down. The forth plane came down because the passengers fought back.

A massive independent investigation has produced reports that are universally accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

Option B:

The US planned and executed it all by itself or with bin Laden. The towers were packed with explosives which brought them down. The Pentagon was hit by anything else other than a plane. WTC 7 was packed with explosives and was brought down as an insurance scam. The forth plane was brought down by a missile.

The small non independent investigation is a sham designed to cover up the truth that the following people were actually behind it.

www.911myths.com...

CIA agent Larry Mitchell for meeting with bin Laden in the months before 9/11, and everyone else in the CIA who knows they're not actually trying to capture him after all
• GW Bush and various family members (if you're to believe the relevance of Bush family members being involved with the WTC security company Stratesec)
• Condoleezza Rice (if you believe she had enough knowledge to warn Willie Brown that he might be in danger)
• John Ashcroft (if you believe he had enough knowledge to decide not to fly commercial flights)
• Larry Silverstein (if you believe he knew 9/11 was coming and that there were explosives in WTC7)
• The 19 people who played the part of the hijackers, if you believe they were just their to play a role and were never on the planes
• Enough senior people at the FBI to block progress in the Moussaoui case, ensure the Phoenix memo was ignored, and more

*see link for full list


I go for option A myself.

I’ll give the grace of having the final word, so feel free, on you go, convince us all option B is the most plausible.


[edit on 5/8/2006 by 12m8keall2c]




posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   


You have voted Stateofgrace for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month


Thanks for some excellent and very clearly written posts.

I think the last point cuts the issue down to the core: for the explosives theory to be true literally 10s of thousands of people would have been involved in one of the greatest crimes committed in the history of civilisation - and against their own country!. Not a single one has suffered guilt pangs since?? Not only that they would have to have been convinced to do it for....some very vague reason. I'm sure plenty of people of have done nasty things for what they might think is the greater good of their nation (or just for cash), but they would have been individuals or small tightly knit groups with a shared common purpose. Not the enormously disperate group of people this consipiricy theory would suggest.

The US needs an excuse to invade other countries? I haven't noticed it blowing it's own skyscrapers every time it takes military action. There wouldn't be much left of NY if it did this before every conflict.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Am I the only one here who thinks that the building implosion shown in the first post looks almost exactly like building 7's implosion, with the exception of the flashes and explosions? Wasn't the original point of the post to show that it looked nothing like what happened on 9/11? I see the exact opposite. Why is it when building #7 is brought into the mix you instantly dismiss it and say you want to talk about the twin towers instead. You are picking and choosing. If anything building #7 is the most relevent building to look at in this case. Building 7 was not hit by airliners. Watch the video in the first post, then watch building 7's collapse. They are nearly identicle. Dust cloud and everything. Again everybody is overcomplicating the issue. WTC7 is the smoking gun. I wouldn't have leaned toward conspiracy if it were just the twin towers that collapsed. I believe that it IS possible for them to collapse without explosives, although it is HIGHLY unlikely. But building 7? Not a chance.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
And here is their home page, saying they took 3 years to conduct a building and fire safety investigation.
[...]
So who do you expect me to believe?


I don't expect you to put faith into anyone, if that's what you're asking, but NIST is a government agency for Christ's sake. You don't turn to the government to ask if they've committed conspiracy and expect a straight answer.

And let's be frank. NIST's report doesn't even tell you why the towers totally fell. They give a theory on how the first floors failed, and that's all they describe. Most all of the things demolition theorists point out, besides the lack of damage from fire (and there's really no evidence to support truss failure theory because of this), NIST doesn't address at all. And again, what they give you as theory, has no evidence to support it.


Ok you said I missed the point about the expulsion of the material. Sorry I thought I made my point very clear. Let me clarify it for you. The expulsion of all the debris was caused by the massive weight above collapsing onto it. Unless of course you belief all this debris was flung to the side of the now more or less tons and tons of invisible explosives.


Well, dude, let me clear something up with you.

I'm sure what you're going for is that demolitions fall straight down, and yet most of the debris landed outside of the WTC footprints. What I'm saying is that they still fell straight down, it's just that the material was ejected as they did so. The centers of gravity are still within the footprints. Ok?

Now by trying to explain the ejections, you're totally changing subjects. We're no longer talking about if the towers fell straight down or not, but why the debris fell where it did. It doesn't matter why you think the debris flew outwards. The fact of the matter is that that has nothing to do with the centers of gravity still being within the footprints; you still have to admit that the point behind your question has been satisfied; it was a loaded question and based on an incorrect premise.

You do the same thing with the supposed lack of sound. You admit there was a mass of sound, but then ask why you didn't hear any explosives. I'm telling you that it's of my opinion that that metallic roar was partially the result of explosives.

Another thing, a VERY IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind, is that these collapses were not meant to be obvious demolitions. They weren't MEANT to have obviously expulsions of material. They weren't MEANT to produce load explosions as they fell. They were meant to look natural.

We've already established that no two demolitions are ever alike. There are special considerations behind every demolition. In these cases, the considerations would've involved fooling millions of people. And as resources, possibly all of the technology of the military industrial complex, ties to the buildings' security teams, and I'm sure they had the means to produce a front company. Certain of our agencies are known to use front companies to get work done inconspicuously, and yet in broad daylight.


You say you didn’t notice the buildings offering up any residence, maybe you was too busy looking for your magical explosives. Have another look, it is pretty clear they were resisting the force from above, or it is to me anyways.


The fact that the collapse rate never really slows from start to finish is proof enough to me that the resistance was minimal to non-existant.


You now say the Towers were solid, ok fine, kind of like a tree trunk maybe ?. Strange that, wonder how people managed to work and move around in such a solid structure. Maybe by magic.


The buildings were constructed of solids; let me put it that way. And you now accept that the masses of the buildings did not consist of 90% air, but almost all steel and concrete, right? And that mass is what is able to fall and do damage, not area, right?


The damage from the planes and the resultant fires did not have to take out all the supports to cause this catastrophic collapse. They just had to take out enough for the above load to become dynamic.


I know this. Do you know what that critical figure is? NIST gives you enough information to figure it out. I've already posted but I don't think you read it. It would take about 75% of the total columns on one of those upper floors to fail before the whole floor would give way to the weight above.


I have even gone to the trouble of trying to explain to you what Logical Fallacy is, incase you forgot here it is again.


Of course I wouldn't know what those are, because I've only pointed out some in your posts and even gave you sources for them. Flip back through the pages of this thread, buddy.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
A massive independent investigation has produced reports that are universally accepted by the majority of the scientific community.


I'd like to see you prove this with a little more than talk. Because, you know, a lot of people have never stated an opinion, and have never even glanced at the NIST report, and may not even know what it is. And yet you assume all of these silent people are on your side. So, some sources that show conclusively that the majority of the scientific community has considered the NIST report critically and support it.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
A massive independent investigation has produced reports that are universally accepted by the majority of the scientific community.


I'd like to see you prove this with a little more than talk. Because, you know, a lot of people have never stated an opinion, and have never even glanced at the NIST report, and may not even know what it is. And yet you assume all of these silent people are on your side. So, some sources that show conclusively that the majority of the scientific community has considered the NIST report critically and support it.


FFS, bsbray I keep trying to leave this thread and you keep bringing me back.

Ok I will keep this short. The support that you question NIST has. Ok here is a statement

www.engr.psu.edu...

By Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr.

Director National Institute of Standards and Technology
United States Department of Commerce
This statement was made to the Committee on Science
Committee on Science
House of Representatives
United States Congress

On March 6 2002.

Please read it, in fact I will actually tell you what he said that is so important.



At the request of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), NIST conducted a
comparison and analysis of the current building and
fire codes of New York City with national codes, and
we contributed to the Army Corps of Engineers’ study
of the structural and fire damage to the Pentagon.
In addition, NIST experts participated in the initial
assessment of the collapse conducted by the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Coalition that
comprised a Building Performance Assessment Team
(BPAT) funded by FEMA. The ASCE Coalition Team also
included professional members of the Society of Fire
Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute
of Steel Construction (AISC), and the Structural
Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY). NIST is
lending its expertise in structural disasters to ASCE
and the Structural Engineers Association of New York
(SEAoNY) to store WTC steel at its Gaithersburg, MD,
headquarters for further scientific study.


So now all these guys are also involved?




In compliance with statutory requirements
NIST has already consulted with local authorities in
New York, including the Port Authority of NY & NJ, the
Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management, the New York
City Department of Design and Construction, and the
Fire Department of New York. These organizations have
expressed support for NIST and agreed to cooperate in
it’s investigation.


So these guys are now involved?

From NIST itself.


NIST has an operating budget of about $930 million and operates in two locations: Gaithersburg, Md., (headquarters—234-hectare/578-acre campus) and Boulder, Colo., (84-hectare/208-acre campus). NIST employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel. About 1,800 NIST associates complement the staff. In addition, NIST partners with 1,400 manufacturing specialists and staff at nearly 350 affiliated centers around the country.


So all these guys are now involved?
Man, they sure fooled us all.



Founded in 1901, NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration.


www.nist.gov...

Really believe what you want, believe nobody but me supports NIST if you wish, Jesus, you can believe I am part of it if you wish.

Here is a google search of Civil Engineering Institutions, please try to find one that doesn’t support them, better still try to find one that supports you.

www.google.co.uk...






[edit on 8-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I'm not making you do anything. If you don't want to post, don't.

But they wouldn't all have had to have been "involved." NIST started with the conclusion that the buildings fell naturally and worked within that conclusion, skewing the whole thing from the top down right from the start.

Look at the computer sims they did as an example. They were unable to reproduce the failures they were looking for in their lab tests, so they resorted to ridiculous parameters on a sim program that were most certainly not very realistic, just because they were convinced that that had to have been the cause of collapse, or because they were being pushed to explain the collapses as such. Professor Steven Jones talks about these kinds of actions from NIST in his lecture that you can find on Google Video. The reports were blindered from the start. And it probably wasn't much help that the vast majority of the numbers of people you listed were probably doing minute jobs that had no real impact upon the overall report.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I don’t think they would have tried to make it look like a demolition job... if I was the master mind.... I would have just taken out what I needed to, to bring the buildings down. The key points of interest. The fact fact fact is there were other explosives they have been recorded by seismograph, audio and video. And countless amounts of eye and media witnesses.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
www.cnn.com.../video/us/2006/05/08/vo.nc.hotel.demolition.affl

probably the best quality video ive seen online of an ACTUAL building implosion.

note the actual identifiable flashes and staccato sounds of individual charges going off?


I don't understand the point of this.

#1. You are comparing this hotel to a steel highrise building. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the structures are much different. Apples vs Oranges.

#2. IF it was indeed a conspiracy, don't you think they would make the explosions less obvious? We're talking about the government here. They have the absolute best technology and training available, period.

What I'd LOVE to see is a video of a building collapsing progressively WITHOUT the use of explosives.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
What I'd LOVE to see is a video of a building collapsing progressively WITHOUT the use of explosives.


That’s easy, look for vids of WTC 1, 2 and 7.



But, seriously, what is it that you expect to be different?



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11the fires were not hot enough to sufficient weaken the steel.


You have no evidence to support that contention.

I say that the fires were as hot as any other typical structure fire, which would mean that it would certainly be hot enough to weaken structural steel, especially thin trusses.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
real question...did anyone bother to view the vid's i linked to to see WHY i posted the things i have about the controlled demo theories?

or have i just been dismissed as a disinfo agent?


Of course they don’t want to look at the videos you have posted nor even listen to the logic and understanding you have of explosives, because it flies totally in the face of their claims. As it has been pointed out the original claim now lies in ruins. That being the collapse of the Towers looked like a controlled demolition. It has been pointed repeatedly that this collapse looks nothing like a controlled demolition.
So plan A is decimated.

They then fall back on plan B “But many people heard explosions”. This too lies in ruins because what sounds like explosions and what are explosions are not the same.
This as already been conceded.

So enter plan C



Another thing, a VERY IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind, is that these collapses were not meant to be obvious demolitions. They weren't MEANT to have obviously expulsions of material. They weren't MEANT to produce load explosions as they fell. They were meant to look natural.


This is the most toe curling cringe maker of all. It wasn’t meant to look like a demolition, therefore it clearly was. Brilliant !!, the only small flaw here is, if it didn’t look and sound like a controlled demolition then is it not reasonable to assume it wasn’t a controlled demolition? Of course not.Then quickly onto Plan D



I don't expect you to put faith into anyone, if that's what you're asking, but NIST is a government agency for Christ's sake.


The fact that it is actually a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration is beside the point. The fact that they employed hundreds of private academics and engineers to help in their investigation is no longer relevant. After all NIST is just part of it. I have already listed the people they employed and liaised with during the course of their investigation and won’t relist them. A three year massive investigation involving top scientists and engineers is not enough.

After all this is the biggest hoax in the history of hoaxs and when it is pointed out the hundreds, if not thousands of people that would have been required to put it off, simply fall back on Plan E.



And it probably wasn't much help that the vast majority of the numbers of people you listed were probably doing minute jobs that had no real impact upon the overall report


Again a toe curler, All these people that were involved were only involved in small sort of way. Sorry but you are either involved in mass murder or you are not. There is no little comfortable grey area where you simply slot in and only play a small part. It is black or white, truth or lie. You are either part of it or are not.Yet all these minor players have kept quiet for years.

So as this plans lays in ruins offer up plan F. “But we have loads of support Everybody thinks something fishy is going on”
No they don’t not a single Institute of Professional Engineers from anywhere on the planet agrees with them, at least none I have come across.
No Institute of Civil Engineers, Demolition Engineers, Structural Engineers, Fire safety Engineers or Architects agree with the controlled demolition theory.

From The UK
iceconferences.com...

From Australia
www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

I could go on and on but will simply run out space.

The fact that all the draft reports by NIST were peer reviewed by the entire planet is totally incidental.

No, Damocles, the truth seekers really are not too bothered by the truth , in fact if anything it simply gets in the way of fantasies and wild claims. Never mind I’m sure Plan G will soon enter and put us all in the picture.

Why have I got no faith in them? Why don’t I belief them?

Let me think.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
This is the most toe curling cringe maker of all. It wasn’t meant to look like a demolition, therefore it clearly was. Brilliant !!, the only small flaw here is, if it didn’t look and sound like a controlled demolition then is it not reasonable to assume it wasn’t a controlled demolition? Of course not.


You like to take the things I say completely out of context. That was in response to something you were saying, and not an argument for demolition in and of itself. And your whole post is made of crap like that. Not even worth responding to bit by bit.

I find it ironic that you were to one to bring up logical fallacies on this thread, too, as you've used more of them post-to-post than anyone else I've seen. That includes changing topics but still acting as if we're talking about the same thing, and taking arguments out of context like you just did. I don't really like arguments based on popularity amongst government agencies either, to be honest.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by bsbray11the fires were not hot enough to sufficient weaken the steel.


You have no evidence to support that contention.


Ah, Howard, tricky! So now you guys don't have to prove the fires were hot enough for your theory to work; we have to prove a negative instead!

Didn't you used to be all against people asking you to prove negatives?


It's part of your theory that the fires were hot enough to fail columns. So you prove it. It's not my theory. Demolition wouldn't have needed any heated columns.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
State of Grace,

Wow. I just finished reading this whole thread.

I feel for you. You have been able to carry on with this "discussion" for this long. You sought of fell into the "conspiracy theory trap". (Don't feel too bad, I've fell into it a time or two also). One that has no basis in fact, there never has to be concrete evidence behind any of their claims.

I live and work in New York City. I watched every minute. Horrible. No words can explain it.

There are those who think that our government was behind and planned this - is totally rediculous.

Some sites you may find interesting;

www.popularmechanics.com...

www.publiceye.org...

www.sciam.com...

People really need to get a life. Good luck to you fighting off these guys. You know what George Costanza says, "Its not a lie if you really believe it".



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommy1701
State of Grace,

Wow. I just finished reading this whole thread.

I feel for you. You have been able to carry on with this "discussion" for this long. You sought of fell into the "conspiracy theory trap". (Don't feel too bad, I've fell into it a time or two also). One that has no basis in fact, there never has to be concrete evidence behind any of their claims.

I live and work in New York City. I watched every minute. Horrible. No words can explain it.

There are those who think that our government was behind and planned this - is totally rediculous.

Some sites you may find interesting;

www.popularmechanics.com...

www.publiceye.org...

www.sciam.com...

People really need to get a life. Good luck to you fighting off these guys. You know what George Costanza says, "Its not a lie if you really believe it".





yeaaaaaahh wooowhooo some cool thinks to some elite funded site's... hmm ill be back tomorrow with a list of who owns those websites I bet a million bucks its all connected. What part of they own everything don’t you understand. Ohh but but it was on the history channel they told me so. Ummm well buddy I have seen every angle from all sides and beliefs and only one stands true... The side I can’t deny the proof that we did it. Man even on the very basic level of studying for yourself loose change proves enough. I never learned a darn thing from any video. But im glad they exist!

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Vision Ammunition]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

I bet a million bucks its all connected.


The PM article has already shown to be connected to the Department of Homeland Security via some connections at the top. And also debunked, btw, right after it came out.

9/11 Review put out a good critique of everything it says, for example, soon after it came out, rating things as supported, unsupported, or not analyzed, or some equivalent to those three things. A lot of the PM article is straw men and etc. anyway.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Stateofgrace,

See what I mean.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   
ok im back

popular mechanics: is owned by The Hearst Corporation

who also owns...

Television:

ABC, Inc
NBC
Universal
A&E Network®,
The History Channel®,
The History Channel International®,
The Biography Channel®,
The Military History Channel,
The History Channel en Español,
Crime & Investigation Network,
AETN International
Cosmopolitan TV
ESPN
Bravo,
Discovery
CourtTV

WCVB-TV
WMOR-TV
WTAE-TV
WESH-TV
WBAL-TV
WISN-TV
WLWT-TV
WMUR-TV
KMBC-TV
KCWE-TV
WYFF-TV
WDSU-TV
WPBF-TV
KOCO-TV
WGAL-TV
WXII-TV
WLKY-TV
KOAT-TV
KCRA-TV
KQCA-TV
KCCI-TV
KITV-TV
KETV-TV
WAPT-TV
WMTW-TV
KSBW-TV
WPTZ-TV/WNNE-TV
KHBS-TV/KHOG-TV

Radio Stations:

WBAL-AM
WIYY-FM

Magazines:

Cosmopolitan
CosmoGIRL!
Country Living
Country Living GARDENER
Esquire
Good Housekeeping
Harper's BAZAAR
House Beautiful
Marie Claire
O, The Oprah Magazine
Popular Mechanics
Redbook
Seventeen
SHOP Etc.
SmartMoney
Town & Country
Town & Country TRAVEL
Veranda

Other things they own:

Idilia
Brightcove
USDTV
Current
Sling
WideOrbit
The NewsMarket
XM Satellite Radio
MetaTV
Circles
Mobility Technologies
Cymfony
drugstore.com
Referral Networks
Hire.com
govWorks.com
Genealogy.com
Scene7
StarMedia
Tavolo
Medscape
iVillage, Inc.
Brandwise
LiveWorld
Broadcast.com
Exodus
E Ink
Zip2
I Pro
Netscape
White Directory Publishers, Inc. (The Talking Phone Book®)
Associated Publishing Co.
Hearst News Service
Hearst Eagle Awards
Hearst Distinguished Journalism Awards
Hearst Marketing Excellence Award
Black Book
IC Master
Collision Database
Diversion
Electronic Engineers Reference Guide
Electronic Products Magazine
First DataBank
First DataBank Europe
Floor Covering Weekly
IDG/Hearst
MOTOR Information Systems
Stocknet
TL Publications
Used Car Guides
Zynx Health Incorporated

and there is more but i thought you would like this article insteed:

7 World Trade Center and Hearst Building: New York's Test Cases for Environmentally Aware Office Towers

A decade ago, office towers guzzled energy as fast as they could, and "sick building syndrome" was dismissed as a hypochondriac's all-purpose excuse. Since then, however, the rise of "green" architecture has encouraged architects, developers and construction managers to consider the effect their buildings have on the health of their occupants and the environment. Today green is a buzzword, a term to which all sorts of new buildings attempt to lay claim. But does that mean people who show up to work in the morning breathe more easily?
New York now has two important test cases, as workers prepare to occupy the city's first officially green office towers. Seven World Trade Center, a 52-story, $7 million replacement for the building that fell at that address on 9/11, was certified by the U.S. Green Building Council last month. The 46-story Hearst Tower, on 57th Street near Eighth Avenue, is expected to follow suit after completion next month.

WOW WOW WOW... thank you for making me look into this.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
here a nice little article i found about "Public eye" (www.publiceye.org)

David Horowitz's right-wing DiscovertheNetworks.org (DTN) accuses PRA of engaging in "smear tactics" and promoting a "hard-left agenda." According to DTN, PRA promotes the Marxist doctrine of "dialectical materialism," supports what DTN calls "Palestinian anti-Semitism," discourages political cooperation between liberals and conservatives "regardless of the underlying cause," calls for the end of policies that discriminate against immigrants "passed on the basis of legal status in the wake of September 11," seeks to combat "conspiracism," and promotes "progressive internationalism." [5]

Stanley Kurtz of the conservative magazine National Review described PRA's researchers as "conspiracy mongers" for a 1994 report on the religious right. According to Kurz, PRA used guilt by association techniques to associate conservative Christians with theocratic Dominionism: "By quoting a pathetic Dominionist extremist’s desperate efforts to prove his own influence, clever liberals can now argue that the ultimate goal of all conservative Christians is the re-institution of slavery, and execution for blasphemers and witches.[6] PRA responded to Kurz by stating that the report was "a serious study of the Dominionist Christian Reconstructionist movement."[7]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join