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.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
And what exactly do those whistle blowers have to do with a controlled demolition.
Plenty of stuff stinks about 9-11, but that does not automatically mean there were bombs in the building. Hell, I'd even believe that the terrorists were actually sent by the Gov before I'd believe the controlled demolition hypotheses. I'd still need proof. Something lacking in most of the conspiracies surrounding 9-11.
PSA
Correlation does not equal causation.
A million coincidences does not equal evidence.
Originally posted by Christophera
Originally posted by LeftBehind
And what exactly do those whistle blowers have to do with a controlled demolition.
Plenty of stuff stinks about 9-11, but that does not automatically mean there were bombs in the building. Hell, I'd even believe that the terrorists were actually sent by the Gov before I'd believe the controlled demolition hypotheses. I'd still need proof. Something lacking in most of the conspiracies surrounding 9-11.
PSA
Correlation does not equal causation.
A million coincidences does not equal evidence.
If you knew about high explosives, you would know that BOMBS could never, ever create the appearance seen below.
[edit on 16-6-2006 by Christophera]
Originally posted by Vushta
Originally posted by Christophera
If you knew about high explosives, you would know that BOMBS could never, ever create the appearance seen.
You would get much more credibility if you stated what your qualifications are to make these judgements. What are they?
Originally posted by VushtaI'm just jumping into this thread and haven't read all the posts soooo.
I'm missing your point. You say the "bombs could never create the appearance below". Who said that bombs were involved in any way? To me that picture shows a global collapse caused by a structural failure.
How are you determining that it was caused by explosives. If thats what you're saying. Is that what you're saying?
Originally posted by Christophera
A global failure of an all steel stucture (as FEMA claims it is, LIE!) does not look anything like that. The oly concrete FEMA claims was there was in the floors. Concrete floors of any type do not turn dust and particulate when they fall!!!!!!!!!
A controlled demolition desn't even create that fine of particulate.
A collapsing structure topples, buckles, folds and falls, big rectangular pieces tiilt over, tearing columns. Some columns won't tear and hang dangling other structure from them. Core columns are bared when outer columns fail and floors fall, (we see none ever) The image bears NO resemblence to a collapse. None whatsoever.
[edit on 16-6-2006 by Christophera]
Originally posted by Christophera
..
A global failure of an all steel stucture (as FEMA claims it is, LIE!) does not look anything like that. The oly concrete FEMA claims was there was in the floors. Concrete floors of any type do not turn dust and particulate when they fall!!!!!!!!!
A controlled demolition desn't even create that fine of particulate.
..
Originally posted by Christophera
Originally posted by LeftBehind
And what exactly do those whistle blowers have to do with a controlled demolition.
Plenty of stuff stinks about 9-11, but that does not automatically mean there were bombs in the building. Hell, I'd even believe that the terrorists were actually sent by the Gov before I'd believe the controlled demolition hypotheses. I'd still need proof. Something lacking in most of the conspiracies surrounding 9-11.
PSA
Correlation does not equal causation.
A million coincidences does not equal evidence.
If you knew about high explosives, you would know that BOMBS could never, ever create the appearance seen below.
[edit on 16-6-2006 by Christophera]
Originally posted by Christophera
Your belief system is in for a shock.
The effects seen, taking 2 towers identically to the ground on 9-11 cannot be accomplished except with Optimally placed and optimally distributed explosives. Meaning they have to be built in. There is no way to do that throughout a structure otherwise. Even controlled demolition compromises that by just seeing that things are broken small enough to handle by machines.. At the WTC we have amazing "breakage", concrete reduced to SAND & GRAVEL. UNHEARD OF in the blasting industry.
The oly concrete FEMA claims was there was in the floors. Concrete floors of any type do not turn dust and particulate when they fall!!!!!!!!!
A controlled demolition desn't even create that fine of particulate.
A collapsing structure topples, buckles, folds and falls, big rectangular pieces tiilt over, tearing columns. Some columns won't tear and hang dangling other structure from them. Core columns are bared when outer columns fail and floors fall, (we see none ever) The image bears NO resemblence to a collapse. None whatsoever.
That image shows all materials being uniformly pulverized and blowing outward in a huge wave. The notion that this happned twice (out of order) identically is absurd.
Being an ex British Military Explosive and demolitions pioneer i would say this is exactly what it looks like when BOMBS are used. This picture is a classic pic of controlled dems in action. Not that im saying this is what happened on that dreadful day however this picture makes me very suspicious
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by LeftBehind
A million coincidences does not equal evidence.
I want to ask you one question......How many coincidences on 9/11 does it take to convince you? Obviously over a million...which is about what happened that day. Think about it.
Originally posted by ANOK
Actualy concrete tends to break up into pieces, not pulverise.
It took a lot of force to turn that concrete into dust, more than what gravity could have supplied imo...
Originally posted by ANOK
There were lots of power downs, and plenty of opportunity at night to do this.
Especially when bush's brother was involved in the security.