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.

 

Bombs in the WTC? Why not the terrorists?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler

Bombs have went off before, but nothing can ever compare to 9/11.

America will never be the same, on one day they lost control their total sense of security. A simple bombing would not have done this, the planes were needed.


Not really, think how many more people would have died if they had just blown both buildings up without warning, on a work day, before they had time to evacuate.




posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
Why?

Think of the drama that built up from the time of impact to the time of collapse. Think of how many cameras were pointed towards the towers. The planes draw the attention, and with millions of people watching, down come the buildings.


Yeah, that would be the perfect motivation for a government that's trying to get an emotional response from the public, so that people will be riled up and ready for war.

For al Qaeda, the second part of that question was, why make the collapses look natural?

Why attract so much attention just to make the collapses look like they would've happened anyway? That no explosives were planted? Why make the collapses such unconventional demolitions? You would really have to go out of your way to not collapse them from the bases. Hell, you could even do a lot more damage in general by just blowing out the bases at a steep angle and causing the buildings to tilt.

And why FEMA in NY on 9/10? Hauling away evidence so quickly?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Building 7 not only blows the official story out of the water but it blows agentsmith's ridiculous assertion out of the water as well.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
And what are characteristics of 'terror masterminds' exactly?



Knowledgeable, disciplined, cunning, & intelligent.

Certainly not inept, loose cannon, drug addicts that are supposedly motivated by religious fundamentalism but practice hedonism!



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Yeah sorry mate!



Originally posted by bsbray11
Why would al Qaeda fly planes into buildings just to demolish them with explosives in a fashion that makes the collapses look natural?


Ahh! But apparantly they don't look natural apparantly, that's the problem and why we're having this conversation.
Or you could flip the coin and say that it was part of a bigger plan to also help damage the already lacking support of the Government by the people.
(And I don't want to hear any 'cave dweller' comments from any racists out there
)



For US factions, rigging the towers wasn't supposed to be known. The planes hit the towers, drew media, and then the towers were blown in an intensely emotional pyrotechnics show. All propoganda, a psy-op for kicking off a new set of wars, and the collapses would be shown again and again for weeks.


Seems unlikely still to me with too much to go wrong (and if it was true judging by the growing popularity of the demolition theories, it did) when an easier option is to engineer events so 90% of 'The truth' is actually the truth!



For al Qaeda to fly planes into buildings just to demolish them, makes little sense, unless they were just drawing attention too. And in that case, why make the collapses look so natural? Why not just rip them from a base like an obvious, in-your-face demolition?


See my comment above, but as Chissler said it may have been 'insurance' or as equally as you suggest the timing was so to strike maximum fear into the people by the Government, it could also be the same tactics but from 'Al-Qaeda'.
Bin Laden was a civil engineer I believe anyway, after the bombing blunder in the 90's he may have decided initiating a collapse in this manner was more likely to succeed.



And why such a massive government cover-up of what happened?


First impressions and all that, besides Moore put forward some good arguments in Fahrenheit 911 regarding the realtionship between the Saudis (and the Bin Laden family in particular) and the Bush's.
Forgetting the corruptness though, there were so many blunders and with the holiday and all, to have to admit that not only all this had happened but there had been bombs planted in advance and left undetetected would do little for people's already dwindling faith in a new administration.



Why was FEMA in NYC on 9/10?


Training exercise? Can't remember.



Why was the evidence hauled off so quickly?


If you go with explosives, even if it was the enemy operatives, they would not want anyone to find out for the reasons given above.
Other than that, I know China has been paying a lot of money for steel due to their increase in building. One of the places we get our metal from, the guy was telling me a few years back how he had a phone call about some steel they had on order and was offered some ridiculous price to sell it before he got it to satisy the demand they were getting from China. It may be they were seizing an oppurtunity to make maximum money from what they had at the time.
The worst thing about that is that theory, is once again money is more important than the people.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Why was FEMA in NYC on 9/10?


Training exercise? Can't remember.


You believe that? o.O

I still can't understand why al Qaeda would rig the towers to blow from the top down. You say that they apparently weren't natural-looking enough, but at the same time it would take quite a bit more of an effort to cause the towers to collapse like that, rather than making it a purely in-your-face demolition that couldn't possibly be denied. It seems to me that whoever rigged the towers didn't want them to look like demolitions. And neither did the government, obviously, as they've gone to great lengths for a whitewash.

So if al Qaeda went out of its way to make the collapses look as if they were falling naturally, and the government also has interests in keeping the public out of the loop with the buildings being intentionally demolished, then our government and al Qaeda would certainly have similar interests here, wouldn't you say?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Knowledgeable, disciplined, cunning, & intelligent.

Certainly not inept, loose cannon, drug addicts that are supposedly motivated by religious fundamentalism but practice hedonism!


I've met some types of people who I would not care to discuss in great detail in the past, and they were a lot of those things - as well as being some of the most dangerous, evil and intelligent people you could meet.
The religious aspect may be exaggerated or even a lie, in some cases at least, but it does not mean that at least some of them were motivated by it, nor does it mean they did not do it.
The Government may have seized the oppurtunity to use the religion to create a boundary between the Western world and the people they are choosing to target to further their financial gains.
They rely on normal people within lower levels of Government and the military to carry out their wishes, but they have to give these people an incentive and a will to carry them out in the first place.
In the same way, some of these middle eastern fanatics are recruited during vulnerable points in their life and the ones who are already heavily into religion make easy targets, as by their very nature they are susceptable to suggestion and eager to obey.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Depends which collapse theory you go with, I believe a 'new' one is coming out suggestion it was mini-nukes in the basement, if it was somehow true then it would seem an easy place to put them and maybe the natural look of the collapse was an accident.
But then I thought the problem was the collapse didn't look natural? So is it really an issue?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Communication_Monster

Originally posted by chissler

Bombs have went off before, but nothing can ever compare to 9/11.

America will never be the same, on one day they lost control their total sense of security. A simple bombing would not have done this, the planes were needed.


Not really, think how many more people would have died if they had just blown both buildings up without warning, on a work day, before they had time to evacuate.


Very true.

But 9/11 is going to be forever remembered for that period of time between impact and collapse. The phone calls home from inside the building telling family members they would not be returning home, the WTC jumpers who chose not to burn alive, etc. All of these are what made 9/11 worse than Pearl Harbour, Oklahoma, WTC Bombing of the early 90's.

This was a plan that went off without a hitch. (Minus Flight 93)



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
AgentSmith, I gotta hand it to you, you are quite creative.

I think you're hurting your beloved official story more on this one, however. If the terrorists were in the buildings, it would make sense, seeing that they were Al-CIAda. Even if they weren't Al-CIAda, it's laughable that these guys waltzed in unnoticed by the CIA and rigged the towers? Not only because of our massive defense budget, but because our borders are wide open TODAY, 4 years after these terrorists walked in and blew the towers!

You remind me of the creationists. They were so staunchly against evolution, but in recent years, they've had to acknowledge "micro-evolution." You're starting to acknowledge more evidence from the alternative theories, but you mold them to fit the official story.




posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Depends which collapse theory you go with, I believe a 'new' one is coming out suggestion it was mini-nukes in the basement, if it was somehow true then it would seem an easy place to put them and maybe the natural look of the collapse was an accident.
But then I thought the problem was the collapse didn't look natural? So is it really an issue?


They obviously tried to make it look as natural as possible by using silent thermite during the collapse.

Of course you can't fake nature so try as they might...this is clearly where they failed.

Bottom line....they did the best they could to make it not look like a traditional demoltion and to make it appear as if it was initiated by the damage from the planes.

The thermonuclear devices in the basement went off just before the collapse to weaken the structure and facilitate the actual collapse by more silent thermite a few seconds later.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Depends which collapse theory you go with, I believe a 'new' one is coming out suggestion it was mini-nukes in the basement, if it was somehow true then it would seem an easy place to put them and maybe the natural look of the collapse was an accident.


I don't think a micro nuke could result in a top-down collapse, but who knows. I was under the impression that those devices would've been used to help take out the core structures after the trusses and perimeter columns were already being sheered off.


But then I thought the problem was the collapse didn't look natural?


Well, how they looked to someone depends on a few things. One variable is what you're comparing the collapses to.

Comparing them to conventional demolitions, they look natural because the buildings seem to be "falling" from the weight of falling floors, instead of just being blown out at the bases and then taking out the perimeter columns all at once, or something like that. (Edit: thanks to Jack for reminded me of the thermite as well; those collapse initiations were obviously meant to lack explosive bursts).

But in terms of the whole "feel" of the things falling without slowing, and the way they opened up like flowers and sprayed out such large quantities of solid debris, and powderized concrete, and a number of other oddities, they come across as unnatural in the sense that they look as though explosives were involved, but just not as you would expect if you were looking for a typical demolition.

Is that reasonable?

For me, having the buildings collapse from the top-down, and at a rate slightly below that of free-fall, shows that someone was trying to cover up what was really going on with those buildings. And I still think that al Qaeda doing this intentionally would show interests similar to those of the US directly after the events, in continuing to cover up what happened to the buildings.

[edit on 22-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why would al Qaeda fly planes into buildings just to demolish them with explosives in a fashion that makes the collapses look natural?


Well after failing once, wouldnt you want to make sure your second attempt succeeded? I never thought of this and I've never seen anyone bring this up in this forum before, but how the 93 attack falls into the conspiracy equation. Its never brought up(that I have seen anyhow). Anyone think of how the 93 attack could work into a possibility of bombs being put there by terrorists.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why would al Qaeda fly planes into buildings just to demolish them with explosives in a fashion that makes the collapses look natural?


I never thought of this and I've never seen anyone bring this up in this forum before, but how the 93 attack falls into the conspiracy equation. Its never brought up(that I have seen anyhow). Anyone think of how the 93 attack could work into a possibility of bombs being put there by terrorists.


I think that attack made it even less likely the bombs were planted in there again on September the 11th by Terrorists. Surely the Security was increased/modified? I very much doubt any terrorist group could ever plant enough explosives or whatever was used in Building 7 to bring it down without getting caught. They would almost certainly have to have been working with people on the inside. I don't even think the Plane attacks could have been achieved without someone on the inside. I just don't think it's possible, and there is a great deal of blatant evidence which does indeed indicate an inside job, that I do not feel necessary to bring up again here in this thread.


[edit on 22-5-2006 by Communication_Monster]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Its not that its impossible, its that we do not want to believe it is possible.

We are capable of cloning, we can send a satellite millions of miles into space and determine when and where it will land, but we are not capable of planting bombs into a secure building? Come on people.

Nothing is impossible.

If these men were capable of hijacking four planes simultaneously, planting a few bombs into the WTC is something they are certainly capable of.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
We are capable of cloning, we can send a satellite millions of miles into space and determine when and where it will land, but we are not capable of planting bombs into a secure building? Come on people.


I'm sorry, how many Satellites do Al Queda have millions of miles into space again? I can't remember. I'm not in any way being Racist here, as some people seem to be trying to suggest, and I'm not calling anyone Neanderthals, or stone aged Brutes, but you can't suggest all peoples are capable of something like this based solely on the most advanced of Human achievements, not every nation or people have that type of technical ability, or Scientific know how at this time, for whatever reason. Anyway, like you said 'We are capable of cloning', and 'we can send a satellite millions of miles into space and determine when and where it will land', yet we can't stop a bunch of guys setting enough explosives, or whatever, actually inside the building to destroy it? Surely people with explosives on them could be stopped at the door?


Originally posted by chissler
If these men were capable of hijacking four planes simultaneously, planting a few bombs into the WTC is something they are certainly capable of.


In order for this to work, you have to first assume that these guys Hijacked those 4 planes without it being allowed to happen, or even forced to happen (as I believe) by key elements on the inside, which I do not. So I'm not really going to pay much attention to that. Thanks anyway though.


[edit on 22-5-2006 by Communication_Monster]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Great post. Enjoyed watching my post get picked apart bit by bit.


Exactly how rich is Bin Laden? Or other members of his terrorist organizations?

Do you think they have the power to bring in these minds who are capable of scheming these plots? I certainly do.

They may not live the lavish lives we would expect of individuals this wealthy, but they certainly hold the power.

So I agree with your post, that its tough to think everyone is capable of what the elite of our race can accomplish. But what I am trying to get across is that these individuals are certainly in a position to obtain the quality of these elite.

In regards to the hijackings being permitted, very true. Can we say whether or not they were permitted? Can we determine the extent of the American government in this operation? Can we conclude how deep the corruption goes?

Probably not.

But for now we have to work with what we have, and my conclusions is these planes were hijacked without the assisstance of the government.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I can answer the thread question with one word - Illuminati.

However if you're not prepared to dig deeper and read literature about the depth of the rabbit-hole, then fine. You can only believe what you are prepared to believe.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
This is soo funny...

Smith arn't you one of the first to say it was imposible for expolosives to have been planted by the gov?

Now you want us to believe the terrorists did it?


Why are you so concerned with rtrying to take the blame away from the government.
Seems like you'll believe or make up any theory to cover your govs ass?
Why is that?

Government is not sacred, if it's bad it needs to go. The government is not the U.S.A. the people who live in it are, you and me...The gov is supposed to be our servant, not the other way around.

Why do you keep covering for these scum? I know you know something isn't right with the WTC collpase, otherwise you wouldn't have made this thread. SO what happened to your 'it wasn't a CD' argument? Have you changed your mind, are you agreeing with us now? Anything to take the blaim away from the gov....

I don't get it....



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Not to speak on behalf of Smith, but I think what he was saying was IF there were explosives in the building then who is to say they were not planted by the terrorist themselves.

I don't think he was admitting explosives were used, only discussing why if explosives were used that it had to be by the hand of the government.

Correct me if I am wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join