It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why use a jack hammer to access the truss bracket from above - access it from the ceiling of the floor below...
Originally posted by alienanderson
I just thought of a third option... the building was weak enough to allow pancake collapsing, but the collapse was helped by a relatively small number of key explosives
Explosives could have been hidden on one one floor only - and when they were triggered, that floor went and the rest of the building collapsed pancake style as per the official explanation
Just a thought... I'm still firmly on the fence with regards to the causes of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Anok, you dont wire a building with explosives and then let it set for MONTHS. For crying out loud, the building inspectors had been through the towers not that long before 9/11. They would have noticed. Oh yeah.....more conspirators right?
One needs to find out the right size and the dimensions of suitable cutting charges and then order 24 000 pieces. One must as well order fitting detonators (detonators were needed a lot more). Fitting detonators usually already exist in stores of military forces (or the CIA). Time of delivery is several months in any case. All detonators must be equipped with some kind of safety mechanism, which will be removed by a radio signal at the final moment.
I know 9/11 was an inside job from extensive research on the subject
Originally posted by bsbray11
Putting all of the above together, what do you think is the most logical conclusion regarding the smoke surrounding WTC7?
Notice that no smoke is coming from the front of WTC7. I guess it was just all on that one side and the back of the building?
NIST is still seeking photographic and video images that could help to better document the initial damage and subsequent fire growth in the WTC towers and WTC 7. The investigation team is especially interested in WTC 7 and views of the south and west faces of the WTC towers.
Originally posted by Vushta
So? Are you saying that the buildings you posted didn't get the insurence money because they didn't collapse?
What if the debris for the tower didn't strike #7 and cause a fire. Would they have 'imploded' it anyway for the money?
Originally posted by pavil
It seems like some CD theorists point to things that imply every 2 or 3 floors were rigged. The possibility of that many floors being rigged and not detected by all the workers and visitors of the WTC has got to be way up there. I seem to remember that a week or so prior to 9/11 bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the buildings after a temporary tour of duty.
[edit on 23-7-2006 by pavil]
How about this? It seems like the NIST was "especially concerned" about any photos out there which further cast doubt on it being pulled.
So concerned about photo evidence, then refused to discuss it in the official report?
Originally posted by astonished
What a weak photo Phoenix...this is supposed to prove your case? Have anything better than that, because it sure looks like weak evidence. That photo shows nothing conclusive that the smoke is coming from the building - in fact, it looks to me that it isn't. Where is the fire causing all that smoke?
WTC Security: The suggestion that explosives might have been used raises the question of how anyone wanting to place explosives in the towers could have gotten through the security checks. This question brings us to a possibly relevant fact about a company—now called Stratesec but then called Securacom—that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center. From 1993 to 2000, during which Securacom installed a new security system, Marvin Bush, the president’s brother, was one of the company’s directors. And from 1999 until January of 2002, their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO (Burns, 2003). One would think these facts should have made the evening news—or at least The 9/11 Commission Report.
These facts, in any case, may be relevant to some reports given by people who had worked in the World Trade Center. Some of them reportedly said that although in the weeks before 9/11 there had been a security alert that mandated the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, that alert was lifted five days before 9/11 (Taylor and Gardiner, 2001).
Also, a man named Scott Forbes, who worked for Fiduciary Trust—the company for which Kristen Breitweiser’s husband worked—has written:
On the weekend of [September 8-9, 2001], there was a “power down” condition in . . . the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. . . . The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded . . . . Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors [while] many, many “engineers” [were] coming in and out of the tower.
Also, a man named Ben Fountain, who was a financial analyst with Fireman’s Fund in the south tower, was quoted in People Magazine as saying that during the weeks before 9/11, the towers were evacuated “a number of times” (People Magazine, 2001).
Foreknowledge of the Collapse: One more possibly relevant fact is that then Mayor Rudy Giuliani, talking on ABC News about his temporary emergency command center at 75 Barkley Street, said:
We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building.
This is an amazing statement. Prior to 9/11, fire had never brought down a steel-frame high-rise. The firemen who reached the 78th floor of the south tower certainly did not believe it was going to collapse. Even the 9/11 Commission reported that to its knowledge, “none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 302). So why would anyone have told Giuliani that at least one of the towers was about to collapse?
The most reasonable answer, especially in light of the new evidence, is that someone knew that explosives had been set in the south tower and were about to be discharged. It is even possible that the explosives were going to be discharged earlier than originally planned because the fires in the south tower were dying down more quickly than expected, because so much of the plane’s jet fuel had burned up in the fireball outside the building. This could explain why although the south tower was struck second, suffered less structural damage, and had smaller fires, it collapsed first—after only 56 minutes. That is, if the official story was going to be that the fire caused the collapse, the building had to be brought down before the fire went completely out.
Originally posted by Phoenix
As a practicle matter can any CT'ers work up the required amount of explosives or thermite required to bring down WTC 1 or 2 in a controlled demolition as you say happened?
This answer to this has much to do with Vusta's original question.
I think the amount required is quite large making the theory bankrupt.
Originally posted by astonished
Originally posted by Phoenix
Not a personal attack - just an observation..........
What is astonishingly weak is your eyesight
I have no trouble dicerning smoke directly coming from the windows at the corner adjacent to the south side.
Smokey the bear said, and I quote.........."Where theres smoke, theres fire"