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.

 

The Proof Is In The Core

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Vushta
Really?
Being a security guard, how would you have dealt with the sudden and prolonged strange activity?

You and your 'team' could have "laced" those buildings in one night?

Good!..Then You're the one to ask.

How could you have done it?
Explain the process from first locating and then accessing the steel members to covering up any evidence.
Thanks.


on foot, in one night, starting at the top, i could go into every bathroom, on every floor, and stick something up over the ceiling tile, simply by lifting the corner of a tile. that stuff is just sitting there. there is nothing to unfasten or fasten.
i could run down a 50 storey tower staircase in about eight minutes to say, fifteen minutes(it was a long time ago).
five minutes times 110 storeys
if the device had some kind of, say magnetic clamp, it would be simple to stick it to a structural beam, above the ceiling tile, and below the floor, in about a minute or five(depending on whether there was a natural feature(like a toilet) that you could quickly reach the cieling, or perhaps longer if you are carrying a ladder.

so 110 times five, plus travel time of say, forty minutes, puts one bomb in every bathroom.

okay, and now do it in an elevator shaft, riding on top of an elevator.

that's just one guy.

are all you lie believers COMPLETELY uncreative?



GOOD ONE!!...Had me goin' there for a while!
WooHooo!! ahhhh....Let me catch my breath.....Now I know you're pulling my leg.

[edit on 9-7-2006 by Vushta]




posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
i gave a SUPER LOW TECH plausible answer to your question. your question suggests it would be very hard to 'rig' the towers.
i have shown, from personal experience, that one guy, on foot, starting from the top, could plant one explosive on every floor in less than two hours. (if the explosives were weightless and volumeless, that is, for the sake of argument only)


that means 12 guys could do it in ten minutes. 24 guys could do it in five.

this 'how is it possible' question is a red herring. it would be a simple thing.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i gave a SUPER LOW TECH plausible answer to your question. your question suggests it would be very hard to 'rig' the towers.
i have shown, from personal experience, that one guy, on foot, starting from the top, could plant one explosive on every floor in less than two hours. (if the explosives were weightless and volumeless, that is, for the sake of argument only)


that means 12 guys could do it in ten minutes. 24 guys could do it in five.

this 'how is it possible' question is a red herring. it would be a simple thing.


Thats ridiculous and you know it.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by billybob
that means 12 guys could do it in ten minutes. 24 guys could do it in five.

this 'how is it possible' question is a red herring. it would be a simple thing.


Thats ridiculous and you know it.


says you.

i am talking from personal experience in office towers, after hours. it is not ridiculous. it is entirely true that it would take me about eight to twelve minutes to run down the stairwell of a fifty storey building. that is just true. stop for ten minutes on each floor to stick up a device over the ceiling tile, and continue. 50 floors times ten minutes is 500 minutes, or about eight hours. eight hours plus twenty minutes for fifty devices planted by one guy.
or sixteen hours plus forty minutes for a 110 storey building.
use two guys, and 110 storeys can be done in eight hours.
four guys, fours hours.
eight guys, two hours.
sixteen guys, one hour.


what is ridiculous is how i keep giving you valid plausibilities, and how you refuse to recognise them.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
There is no way in hell you're serious.
Just trying to rattle my cage.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Vushta, we already know you're never going to agree with anything we say unless we tell you you're right.

So why don't you stop spamming these threads and tell us why you think things are wrong? BillyBob is laying out a scenario for you and all you do in response is try to brush it off as nonsense without bothering to explain why.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Vushta, we already know you're never going to agree with anything we say unless we tell you you're right.

So why don't you stop spamming these threads and tell us why you think things are wrong? BillyBob is laying out a scenario for you and all you do in response is try to brush it off as nonsense without bothering to explain why.


It is nonsense.

You seem like a bright chap. Do YOU believe it?



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I don't even see what about it is hard to believe.

About eight hours worth of work for one person to plant 50 devices in the bottom half of the tower, if he's only carrying one in at a time. Those eight hours wouldn't even have to be consecutive. With more people, you have less hours of work.

It would've been even easier to plant these things during maintenance to the core structure. You get security clearance from Marvin Bush's company to do this, and you're good to go. You can bring in whomever you want to do whatever you want within the most important structural aspects of the buildings, and not have an eyebrow raised. You can do this on and off for months, or even years.



I promise you, if you have a building, any building, and control over its security company, you can bring in any team of your choosing to do "maintenance" or "construction" and have the buildings covertly rigged fairly quickly.




[edit on 9-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Vushta, again provide reason behind your comments. What's the reason for my comment? Because you give small comments very consecutively that don't show anything more for your side than just your basic opinion of what was posted. Nothing more.

I think anything that the NIST doesn't point out, you can't think for yourself. You're like a computer mainframe, run on a NIST operating system, if something doesn't fit the code (i.e. anything non-NIST) than it's just invalid.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Right, you guys can't possibly be serious.


A demolition of the type that most of you seem to be implying is not done by simply planting a c-4 charge close to a beam.

The kind of explosives used in demolition have to be wrapped around columns and/or actually inserted into the columns. The hypothetical team would require access to every office on every floor, and then plant on almost every column some sort of either demo charge or theoretical thermite device.

Here is what the inside of an actual controlled demolition looks.



It is not as simple as placing one charge on a floor and then running up and down the stairs. Why run anyway, wouldn't that make it more conspicous?

The WTC was not just a 50+ story building but taller. I'm sure that there was plenty of private security in the buildings, as well as tenants that would be in the building 24 hours. I think they would notice a guy with a back pack running up and down the stairs.

Maybe this issue here is the major disconnect that needs to be addressed. I many of you believe that it's a simple matter of hiding charges on each floor, then I can see why the demolition theory makes sense to you.

However explosives in movies are not real life. A controlled demolition of the size and complexity that your theories require, would needs months if not years of setup time. Especially if they need to fit thermite charges on every column for the plane crashes, and then lace every floor with charges and detonate them top down to make it look "natural".


Why do I think it takes so long to set such things up? Why don't you look at the times it took for much smaller buildings.


Controlled Demolition Inc.

In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 “primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.


But somehow we are supposed to believe that a small team could do this to a much larger building in one night?

I don't think so.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
That was a basic example oh your "man in a backpack running up the stairs".

You think such a thing, if wanted to be commited, would be left to be blantantly obvious? Would it be so hard to have people bypass normal security posed as any type of service or maintaince worker, do their job, place what was needed and just leave? Is that so hard to imagine?

Do you expect this to of been done seconds before the collapse? Because I'm thinking more of a couple years rather. It's more conventional that way. Don't mock the theory due to your views on certain impracticalities of certain scenarios, not every scenario is perfect, but what I said would be more conventional.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I have a suggestion... if Larry wants to clear his name, how abouts he produces all the work orders in the building for 6 months before the blast as a way to show theorists that he is on the level?

Then there is the question of the chopper that people said was hanging off the top of the towers just before they collapsed... rumoured to be picking up the demo experts before the towers were 'pulled.'



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
You think such a thing, if wanted to be commited, would be left to be blantantly obvious?


No I don't, but apparently some of you have no problem believing the "running with backpack" theory.



Would it be so hard to have people bypass normal security posed as any type of service or maintaince worker, do their job, place what was needed and just leave? Is that so hard to imagine?


Yes, because many of the companies in the WTC had their own security and would be aware of who was authorized and who wasn't. They would be aware of any maintenence work and in some cases probably hire the contractors themselves. Anyone in charge would know that something was fishy when the unscheduled column maintenence guys started wrapping columns with demo charges.




I'm thinking more of a couple years rather. It's more conventional that way. Don't mock the theory due to your views on certain impracticalities of certain scenarios, not every scenario is perfect, but what I said would be more conventional.



What scenario? So instead they slowly over the years placed thermite devices and demo charges thoughout the building? Did they leave out the wireless detonators? Such things are very unstable and could be set off by the constant cell phone and radio activity in the building. But with this scenario you again run into the problem of huge amounts of people remaining quiet while you wire up the buildings, and staying silent.

Even in this scenario, someone has to plant all those detonators within a close timeframe if they wanted to minimize the risk of accidental detonation.

To me it would be a lot more plausible for the "inside job" to just crash the planes into the building and hope for the best.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   
LB, that is an image of the inside of one building before demolition. Every single demolition is different because every demo'd building is different. What's more is that WTC demos would've been extremey unconventional because of the goal of making them look natural, and trying to pin the collapses on impact damage and fire. And personally, I'm somewhat partial to the idea of the explosives being built in, in massive amounts by laying thin layers under the floor slabs and in the core structure. Christophera is the main proponent of this here and can back it up with some testimonies from the construction workers if you haven't already seen them. Tight security, each floor evacuated before laying the floor slabs, and unknown substances being laid onto the floor pans before the concrete. I also understand that a fraction of an inch of space was unaccounted for in the original plans, and that engineers were discouraged from enquiring of this by the Port Authority. I can only imagine what occupied that space.

The only things I personally think would have been added, would've been thermite, initiatory devices (if they weren't already there), and anything needed in addition, which probably wouldn't be much considering how thoroughly everything would be destroyed by so much HE everywhere once an actual collapse was underway.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Vushta, again provide reason behind your comments. What's the reason for my comment? Because you give small comments very consecutively that don't show anything more for your side than just your basic opinion of what was posted. Nothing more.

I think anything that the NIST doesn't point out, you can't think for yourself. You're like a computer mainframe, run on a NIST operating system, if something doesn't fit the code (i.e. anything non-NIST) than it's just invalid.


Well.. I must admit that in a sense you're right about some of my recent replies being very short. Its just that it seems like no amount of information that counters the CT will be even remotely thought of using any reasoning at all.

In this point that was brought up about HOW the buildings were rigged..which I believe is absolutely crutial to the CT, is responded to with..in my opinion..unbelievable degrees of simplicity. In one post you can have someone trying to make a functioning anomoly out of 'angular momentum' or post math calculations "proving" the NIST calculations and methodology are 'off' and then somehow in their fluid minds it becomes believable that all thats needed and involved in a controlled demo is to run up and down and stick some gobs of explosives on random walls and push a buttom and POOF..instant CD. When its common knowledge and has been pointed out numerous times the complexity involved in an actual controlled demo, I have to wonder.."Talk about an anomoly...where has this information gone?" and can only arrive at the conclusion that to CTs actual facts don't matter and its pretty much a waste of keystrokes to comment with any more depth than "You must be joking"..or "what a pile"..

The CT just goes around in circles wearing a permanant groove and after going over the same crap for the hundreth time, the next thing you know, here we go again..'highjackers still alive..squibs..Marvin Bush..freefall..PNAC'..etc

If things stayed on point it and issues addressed and questions answered with believable comments, it would make for a much more interesting discussion..but that most likely won't happen with any point that threatens the CT.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
somehow in their fluid minds it becomes believable that all thats needed and involved in a controlled demo is to run up and down and stick some gobs of explosives on random walls and push a buttom and POOF..instant CD.


Hrrmmmmm.. I don't really remember anyone arguing that explosives were just stuck on random walls. :-/

I think the point was more along the lines of it wouldn't be very hard to get them into the building in a short period of time.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Personally, I'd like to see explosives traces being found first before argueing how it was prepetrated, but evidence on that is very lacking. I'm hoping Steven Jones makes some valid discoveries on that basis when looking at the World Trade Center debris/scrap, whatever he has access too.

When that's on the horizon, then I guess god only knows how they were planted.

I admit it would take a lot of time to successfully wire up the building, but I personally feel in my best option and opinion that the box columns were rigged through access shafts near them at certain points up the building.

I'm very iffy about anything otherwise.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
LB, that is an image of the inside of one building before demolition. Every single demolition is different because every demo'd building is different. What's more is that WTC demos would've been extremey unconventional because of the goal of making them look natural, and trying to pin the collapses on impact damage and fire. And personally, I'm somewhat partial to the idea of the explosives being built in, in massive amounts by laying thin layers under the floor slabs and in the core structure. Christophera is the main proponent of this here and can back it up with some testimonies from the construction workers if you haven't already seen them. Tight security, each floor evacuated before laying the floor slabs, and unknown substances being laid onto the floor pans before the concrete. I also understand that a fraction of an inch of space was unaccounted for in the original plans, and that engineers were discouraged from enquiring of this by the Port Authority. I can only imagine what occupied that space.

The only things I personally think would have been added, would've been thermite, initiatory devices (if they weren't already there), and anything needed in addition, which probably wouldn't be much considering how thoroughly everything would be destroyed by so much HE everywhere once an actual collapse was underway.


LB, thanks for that pic, it shows alot.
If it would help the perspective I could post a link to a skyscraper website that documents the CD of a historical building in TX. 45 stories..abandoned city block..4 months to rig.

I truely hate to be so repetitive but..thats a deflection and a straw herring.

Yes every building is different (this actually complicates the scenerio)..but the process is the same.

The difficulty of setting the charges is not only doing it undetected...its doing it AT ALL.
Once you locate the proper spot for each set you have to remove the drywall or whatever the wallcovering is...and then..oh #..the steel is cover with fireproofing..better chip that off...hope no one notices...and then place the charggg....no wait..I have to prefail the steel by cutting thru it about 90%...gotta get the oxy/acet rig up here..hope nobody wonders why I'm cutting the beams..I'll just tell them I'm soldering some wires etc.

These facts WILL..NOT..GO..AWAY. So the only avenue open to the CT is to claim some "new technique that no one knows about was used" or saying that "the explosives were there all along". Neither of these is remotely believable.

So when someone tries to say anything like "Stick it on the walls and...BOOM!"..I'm sorry, but it IS laughable and can't be taken seriously.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Well..billybob said that pretty much verbatum.

It wasn't just 'getting the explosives into the building"..but now that you mention it, how DID several tons of explosives get into the buildings unnoticed?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Personally, I'd like to see explosives traces being found first before argueing how it was prepetrated, but evidence on that is very lacking. I'm hoping Steven Jones makes some valid discoveries on that basis when looking at the World Trade Center debris/scrap, whatever he has access too.

When that's on the horizon, then I guess god only knows how they were planted.

I admit it would take a lot of time to successfully wire up the building, but I personally feel in my best option and opinion that the box columns were rigged through access shafts near them at certain points up the building.

I'm very iffy about anything otherwise.


Yes, not only explosive residues but how about the obvious blast patterns that would be evident and much harder to hide than something that may require chemical analysis to detect.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join