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.

 

How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by astonished

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by astonished
Hey Phoenix, a quick scan of your posts reveal you are pro-Iraq, pro-Bush, and pro-official 9-11 story. This must be a miserable place for you.


I also checked for a bit on Howard Roark - funny how he used to post in the Chemtrail Central Forum (as Wolf_Larson) until he apparently vanished in 2003. I think he was just re-assigned.

Here is Howard showing disdain for anyone "dumb" enough to believe there is anything sinister behind the
Denver International Airport

Same 'ol Howard - spending hours upon hours of his daily life trying to convince others ON CONSPIRACY BOARDS that there are no conspiracies at all. Wonder how he's enjoying the new assignment to ATS?



[edit on 23-7-2006 by astonished]



wow, talk about wasting time.


Not to me - took me probably 25-30 minutes, and it was fun, so no complaints.

So how's the pay? Not too good I bet.


So do you still hang out a thermit's house of nuts, or should I call it Mech's waco world?

Stick to the point here It is bad manners to bring up other forums on this site.

Back to the subject.




posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Where are the photos of the massive damage done to WTC7?

If there are none then please stop using this statement as fact.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by goose

blah blah, blah



However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.

These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.




Long since debunked.


here even this CT page admits it.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I have made no contribution to this thread prior to this moment. I just joined this site to reply to the idiotic claims made by the leftist conspirators.

All I have to say is this...

Go to this site, www.popularmechanics.com... and an unbiased source will scientifically prove all your wacko theories WRONG.

Secondly, if you are convinced that the US Government orchestrated the 9/11 tradegy, and therefore are guilty of murdering citizens of the United States, then why do you live in this country? If you were really convinced of this, and weren't just saying it to criticize the Republican President Bush, then you would run away to Venezuela with Hugo Chavez and the ugly Cindy Sheehan. But no, instead you cower in your abode in America. Oh and where does Cindy Sheehan still live? Oh thats right, the United States of America.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftWingHit
Go to this site, www.popularmechanics.com... and an unbiased source will scientifically prove all your wacko theories WRONG.


Unbiased? Accurate? Check your facts.

I am not a wacko.

I love the USA... I believe in LIBERTY and FREEDOM. I believe that these things are being systematically stripped and we are dangerously slose to FASCISM.... So it is up to the TRUE PATRIOT to confront these issues. You have it backwards telling me to leave. You want FASCISM? YOU MOVE.


"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not..?

“For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know.. it -- now.”

- Patrick Henry


Stop with the name calling too... OK?

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
Um.........the wind was blowing almost due south.

In your first photo one can see the smoke from #7 tight on the right rear corner which is not from any other buildings.


How can you tell? You do realize that the other WTC buildings were right across the street from WTC7, right? And that WTC7 and other neighboring buildings would have acted as a windshield for a period of time as the smoke rose from the ground and expanded all around? The other complex buildings were not so tall.


I guess since you guys persist in this misinformation campaign about #7 I'll just have to post some more southside photos.


Let's start with this one:



I see smoke in the background, but it's not coming from WTC7.



This shows two regions (one is by higher dark smoke) where dark smoke is coming from WTC7. The rest of the smoke is all BEHIND the building.

Also notice how completely out of control that fire is.

Keeping in mind that the smoke is rising upwards into the air, where do you think all of THIS smoke is coming from behind WTC7?



Here's WTC7 after one of the tower collapses:



The smoke (and concrete dust) in this case is from a tower collapse behind it, and yet looks exactly like any of the photos of the alleged smoke coming from WTC7 itself.

And once again: if there were such infernos in WTC7, why do we not see any smoke from the front of the building? Why do we not even see any fire from the front of the building? Or much of anywhere else for that matter?

I still want to see photos of this alleged monster fire that was supposed to have raped Building 7. I haven't seen anything even remotely troublesome in a single photo of that building.



That's WTC5 on fire.

Notice that we can SEE THE FLAMES.

Notice that there is IMMENSE SMOKE.


And it was behind WTC7, which has showed us virtually nothing in terms of fire.


That is where all that smoke was coming from!!



[edit on 24-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Why don't we all get back on topic?
The topic was ...how were the buildings rigged with explosives? Just hrowing that in here because it seems like it doesn't take more than one or two off topic posts and the whole focus gets diluted.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Why don't we all get back on topic?
The topic was ...how were the buildings rigged with explosives? Just hrowing that in here because it seems like it doesn't take more than one or two off topic posts and the whole focus gets diluted.


Pot meet kettle.

Where is the picture of the damage to the face WTC7? I want to see the "20 Story CRATER" in the building. (This should have caused a VERY asymetrical collapse anyway.)

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Yes that is smoke pouring out of WTC 7.

Watch Screw Loose Change, they show a video clip that clearly shows the smoke pouring from the building.

www.lolloosechange.co.nr...



The above picture is a still taken from the video.

Watch the video, it is the evidence most of you seem to be asking for, and it is not dust from the towers.

Bsbray, shame on you, this has been pointed out to you a number of times, and yet you still pass on BS speculation that it is dust from the towers. You are either deliberatly not looking at the video evidence, or you are purposefully trying to deceive.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Hm. Can you read, LB?

Show me where I said it was dust from the towers. Maybe that'll get you to actually read what I posted.



Btw, if you respond with this, it will be out of context and wrong:


The smoke (and concrete dust) in this case is from a tower collapse behind it, and yet looks exactly like any of the photos of the alleged smoke coming from WTC7 itself.


This is more along the lines of what you should be reading:


That's WTC5 on fire.

Notice that we can SEE THE FLAMES.

Notice that there is IMMENSE SMOKE.


And it was behind WTC7, which has showed us virtually nothing in terms of fire.


That is where all that smoke was coming from!!


I should also take the opportunity to point out that I didn't literally mean ALL of the smoke was coming from WTC5, because obviously what little fire there was in WTC7 was producing smoke.


WTC5 (and 6 -- and the rest of the burning/smoldering complex) was directly behind WTC7. Virtually all of the photos of WTC7 place all of this mess behind WTC7.

Therefore you are seeing all of the smoke from WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6, and the smoldering footprints, behind WTC7.

As shown above, WTC5 alone was putting off a massive amount of smoke behind WTC7. It was actually right across the street, and much lower, giving the appearance of smoke rising up the side of WTC7. But it was from WTC5.


Maybe you're going to start arguing that WTC5 wasn't really on fire? Or wasn't really producing smoke? Or wasn't really right across the street from WTC7? Or that the FEMA photograph was photoshopped to add in the fire? Or what? It's pretty open and shut, that masses of smoke behind WTC7 were from WTC5 (and even surrounding buildings) and not WTC7 itself.



[edit on 24-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The smoke (and concrete dust) in this case is from a tower collapse behind it, and yet looks exactly like any of the photos of the alleged smoke coming from WTC7 itself.

And once again: if there were such infernos in WTC7, why do we not see any smoke from the front of the building? Why do we not even see any fire from the front of the building? Or much of anywhere else for that matter?

I still want to see photos of this alleged monster fire that was supposed to have raped Building 7. I haven't seen anything even remotely troublesome in a single photo of that building.

. . .


That is where all that smoke was coming from!!



Ok, well you seem to be implying that it looks just like concrete dust.

My, mistake, you also claim that the smoke is from different buildings.

None of this has any bearing on what I previously posted.

Have you bothered to look at the video evidence presented in Screw Loose Change?

It clearly shows smoke pouring out of the south side of WTC 7.

Are you delibiteratly ignoring the evidence, or are you being deliberately deceptive?


edit: read your edit, see above.


also to clarify, here is a still from the video.


[edit on 24-7-2006 by LeftBehind]


Are you going to tell us that this is smoke from WTC 5? Or concrete dust perhaps? Watch the video, it is very clear where the smoke is coming from.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Here's a good video:

www.youtube.com...

It includes the clip you reference.

I'm not arguing that none of that smoke is coming from WTC7. I'm arguing that the worst of it is being blown around from the burning buildings behind WTC7 and out of sight.

I've shown you a raging fire in WTC5 alone that clearly produced masses of smoke. Again, WTC5 was right behind WTC7, just across the street.

WTC7 was a much more prominent building, and there are many more photos available of it from 9/11. Why can you not show me a single photo linking all of that smoke to fire in Building 7? Why is the smoke all you can show?


Will you at least concede that all of the smoke coming from WTC5, 6, etc. would have risen right behind WTC7, since they were located right behind it?

[edit on 24-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


Pot meet kettle.

Where is the picture of the damage to the face WTC7? I want to see the "20 Story CRATER" in the building. (This should have caused a VERY asymetrical collapse anyway.)

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]


The thread isn't about a hole in #7. Its about how the buildings were rigged with explosives with no one noticing.
Still waiting for any possible methods used.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   


Have you bothered to look at the video evidence presented in Screw Loose Change?

It clearly shows smoke pouring out of the south side of WTC 7.


SMOKE is not = SEVERE DAMAGE and a 20 story CRATER



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
. Its about how the buildings were rigged with explosives with no one noticing.
Still waiting for any possible methods used.


They were sneaky.


When a building is covertly rigged to implode, the operatives are generally sneaky. When they have unfettered access and lots of time and money they just need to be sneaky. Sneakiness is how the buildings were rigged.


Question = answered

NOW, where is the picture of the craater in WTC7?


[edit on 24-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

They were sneaky.


When a building is covertly rigged to implode, the operatives are generally sneaky. When they have unfettered access and lots of time and money they just need to be sneaky. Sneakiness is how the buildings were rigged.


Question = answered

NOW, where is the picture of the craater in WTC7?


[edit on 24-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]


Come on! lol. Thats lame.
Why dont you just admit that any explaination you can come up with is bound to fail the test of believability.

You guys got nothing ..nothing that will not sound just silly, so you come up with.....'they were sneaky'...which just sounds...well...silly.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Come on! lol. Thats lame.
Why dont you just admit that any explaination you can come up with is bound to fail the test of believability.

You guys got nothing ..nothing that will not sound just silly, so you come up with.....'they were sneaky'...which just sounds...well...silly.


Sneakiness is not believable?

Occam's Razor.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
Come on! lol. Thats lame.
Why dont you just admit that any explaination you can come up with is bound to fail the test of believability.

You guys got nothing ..nothing that will not sound just silly, so you come up with.....'they were sneaky'...which just sounds...well...silly.


Sneakiness is not believable?

Occam's Razor.


It seems you're running out of directions to dart into.

Sneakiness is believable.
Sneakiness is not an explanation of the steps and mechanics involved in rigging a building for demo....which is what the thread is about.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
would not be all that hard to have agents posing as security guards and maintenance men and janitors and have them place charges over a period of time. charges are not all that large. especially during the grave yard shifts. marvin bush WAS the ceo of the security company for the towers and dulles airport. the motive? remember, it is the pnac document that stated for us to achieve our goals, we must get the people of the conutry to get behind it. for this to happen, we must have another pearl harbor type attack on the country.

i live here in vegas where they bring down buildings on a rather regular basis. i have spoken to some who do work in this field. almost to a man, they have all said that the wtc were brought down by demolition. their collapse was too neat and too quick.

and what an amazing coincidence! that one of the signers of the pnac document is now our vice pres and another pearl harbor happens. and only six months into the new administration too!



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Ive stated my opinion on several threads to this.

The how it was done I presume was over an extended amount of time.

Not just during the time Bush was in office.

This is an answer that could be true, over time, it could be coordinated and set up to happen.

The exact steps to the actual work can be obtained through research of CD contractors.

This answers the how, over a extended timeframe, it could be planned and executed.

The obvious question is WHY?

Whiy would the American Government do such a horrible act to itself?

OIL, POWER evil AMBISHION? No. It would be national security.

Please take a moment to think about what is the most dangerous place in the world now and in the last 20 years. The middle east.

Now if you was a person speculating the worst thing in the world to happen, and that being nuclear war or the detonation of a nuke on American soil, you would conceive a way to protect the nation. As top officals come and go, the plan would have to be passed on to the next administration until it was time to implement it.

Since no Middle Eastern country would let us set up military operations to establish a front line defense on land and with port access in the region needed(near Iran), we would need a event that would allow is into that region with a occupying force.
A terrorist attack against America on our home soil would get the American people behind such a move, and allow us to strike on foreign soil for national security.

Once in the Middle east, we could and would manipulate the situation to get the land bases we need. There by setting up a defensive position to protect America.

This is the only possible solution I can come up with to do what was done on 911.

It would work, it makes sense, and it would be possible. Time allowed planning, set up and execution of a givin stratagy to protect America against a nuclear attack from the middle east.

Just my opinion




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join