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.

 

Explosives and Demolition Industry Explains CD Theory

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
This is an eleven page paper by Protec. Protec is one of the worlds most knowledgeable independent authorities on EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITION( note the idustry does not refer to it as CD).If an understanding of the FACTS is what you seek. This is the utmost authority you could ever hope to find. A few equals ,but none better. Mind you , this is a detailed paper, still worded for the layman.Do not be intimidated !

Take A Look , It Can Not Hurt! If The "Truth" Is What You Really Seek!


xbehome.com...




posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
they were part of the cover-up, er, 'clean-up' operations.
this makes them nothing more than the 'accused'(and likely guilty) in 'denial' mode.

i have no fear that people who actually have critical thinking skills will not be swayed by the holey paper of the demolitionists.

try this, folks...proof of demolition

bye for now, common sense, er, duhh.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Nice. Although I'm sure it will be ignored by the CT's.


Edit: Or as BS has done, dismissed as being “part of the plot.” Effectively ignoring the fact this just increases the number of people “in on the plot.”

Pretty soon, everyone in the world (except the CTers, of course) will have been in on it.



According to some, (Dylan Avery, for one) even the victims were willing participants.





[edit on 9-8-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
they were part of the cover-up, er, 'clean-up' operations.
this makes them nothing more than the 'accused'(and likely guilty) in 'denial' mode.

i have no fear that people who actually have critical thinking skills will not be swayed by the holey paper of the demolitionists.
bye for now, common sense, er, duhh.


Sad you respond so quick. I am sure you did not read the paper. I find in curious that you think you know better than experts. What part of independent do you not understand? The CT crowd is calling for a new investigation. Correct? Who would you let investigate? A thread in a web page, or independent experts in the field in question? I think any one that possed or claimed to posses,Critical Thinking Skills, will choose experts. Some one has to do the new invetigation you are crying for. Who would you use? Better yet what will you say when they do not agree with your fiction? Call them part of "the cover over"? You sound desperate saying those things ,over and over.
READ THE FACTS NEXT TIME! BEFORE RESPONDING,or you have zero cred, right off the bat!



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Why should the CTer read it, The author was obvioulsy IN ON IT.


Oh, the humanity.

How many hundreds of thousands of soulless, heartless, people are out there that were IN ON IT?



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
This is an eleven page paper by Protec. Protec is one of the worlds most knowledgeable independent authorities on EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITION( note the idustry does not refer to it as CD).If an understanding of the FACTS is what you seek. This is the utmost authority you could ever hope to find. A few equals ,but none better. Mind you , this is a detailed paper, still worded for the layman.Do not be intimidated !

Take A Look , It Can Not Hurt! If The "Truth" Is What You Really Seek!


xbehome.com...


Duhh, you're always first in there with new material that (tries to) discredit 911 truth. You must search for this stuff all day! Good luck on your mission.

On with the topic....



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Why should the CTer read it, The author was obvioulsy IN ON IT.


Oh, the humanity.

How many hundreds of thousands of soulless, heartless, people are out there that were IN ON IT?


Truer words have never been spoken Howard. This is more a sociology experiment at this point. I find it fascinating the way people here run from anything that does not support their ideas! I thought they were looking for facts not "clues" to their magic thermate stories.None of the things I have posted here were hard to find. That is, unless reading world news sites, and paying attention, is hard! Maybe it is for some. I mean the 911 "scholars" page has months of entertainment. Why leave? LOL!



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I notice copying and extraction are not allowed on the PDF... so much for public debate on the document.

The theories about WTC 7 within don't hold up IMO... the building fell at absolute freefall (video.google.com... d+trade+7) due to some relatively small internal fires.

So Duhh, did the laws of physics fail in Manhattan that day?



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
Sad you respond so quick. I am sure you did not read the paper.
READ THE FACTS NEXT TIME! BEFORE RESPONDING,or you have zero cred, right off the bat!


you are wrong.
i read it yesterday, after you posted it at physorg.
you know it's 'me', newton, don't you CS? i've pointed that out several times on both boards.
zero cred with you is a great score, in my books.

and, howard, you were probably in on it, too, as a hazmat expert.

'trust the experts' when they prescribe untested, harmful pharmaceuticals and dangerous, ineffective vaccinations? trust the experts yourself. i trust me and my mind, because i know i'm not motivated to lie to me.

the newest tack of the disinfo squad, is to point out how things were not at all like demolition, and then to point out that the phenomena observed can be observed in demolitions. circular logic taken to new lows of dumbness.

'mushrooming effect' proves that there was a great outward buckling, which supposedly proves that there were no bombs. in other words, the fact that it looks like an explosion proves that it wasn't. great reasoning. the fact that there was little rubble within the building's footprint proves that everything was blown outside of the footprint, which once again proves that 'it had nowhere to go but straight down. the convoluted backwards logic is EMBARRASSING to read.

i love that official conspiracy theory supporters are right on board with this piece of crap, though. a nice tell.

i could pick the whole thing apart, but i don't feel the need at this point, and besides, foxx is much better than i at point by point refutation, so i'll wait for his capable hands to wring the life out of this propoganda piece.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Easy Tiger
I notice copying and extraction are not allowed on the PDF... so much for public debate on the document.


If not being able to cut and paste, destroys your ability to have public debate.
You have answered a question for me. One that I always believed anyway, nice to see you admit it. Your free fall falacy has no mmm..merit! You are not the expert on this subject, of that I am sure. I will pose this question of you. Who would you have do the new investigation? That is if you want one. I have presented a well done, well investigated paper. All you can comeback with is you don't "believe" it. Suuurrrpriiizzzzzee!

NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

edit for; Bil Bo I have no idea what you are going on about some other site. Nothing you have stated here stands up to EXPERTS! You are no EXPERT, and they are. Run all you want. This is for people really looking for truth. You do not seem to be that person.
NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Going surfing now! Enjoy!




[edit on 9-8-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh

NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


OK, review this.

Discuss the topic, not each other.

This forum is going to be brought up to ATS standards.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
edit for; Bil Bo I have no idea what you are going on about some other site. Nothing you have stated here stands up to EXPERTS! You are no EXPERT, and they are. Run all you want. This is for people really looking for truth. You do not seem to be that person.
NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Going surfing now! Enjoy!


you don't know i'm not an expert. debunking911.com is common sense's site, and you are constantly linking to it, just like he does. the 'logic' displayed there is the same 'logic' that is in this crappy demolitionists' paper.
what is the hallmark of an expert? are we all experts on asleep/awake? do you know when you are in either state? can you prove it on paper?
i have some expertise, and the fact that i am unwillingly to discuss 'paper' certificates of achievment, or my real life identity has no bearing on the reality of my knowledge and education, 'duhh'(who just happened to post the same paper that 'common sense' posted yesterday at physorg, which when i downloaded it, had had a grand total of TWELVE downloads, and was literally published yesterday........almost like duhh and common sense had 'insider knowledge' that this paper was coming out. how'd you 'find' it, duhh?).
howard knows i'm no slouch. we've been the best of enemies for years, now.

why do you not respect expertise from griff? he is a structural engineer.

and, does e=mc^2 only work if you're an expert, or is it a PHYSICAL LAW that works for even laymen?

because, sometimes, we don't need experts to 'prove' that the sky is blue.

and, indeed, my very simple PROOF of demolition remains unrefuted. the best the whole debunking camp could muster was, 'blurry picture'. HAHAHA! WEAK!



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
If not being able to cut and paste, destroys your ability to have public debate.
[edit on 9-8-2006 by Duhh]


Well obviously it doesn't, but in a free discussion it helps a lot.

And please inform me when I've mentioned anything about freefall? Please post links to the appropriate forums to support this. Or are you addressing theorists at large? Speaking to the masses?

If we are not qualified enough to argue this then your OBVIOUSLY not qualified enough to defend it.

over and out




[edit on 9-8-2006 by Easy Tiger]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Nice find... and while I would have to say that I am no longer dubius about explosives being used... that however in on way means that 9-11 was carried out by Religous Extremists.... and that to me is what is important... not how it was done or not done... but who did it... who was complicit.... etc... However I think it is important that everyone read this with an open mind.... it pokes some serious holes in current theories.... if we latch on to something and declare its true...that doesnt make it true..... maybe explosives werent used... does that mean theres no conspiracy... nope... just means we got the first part wrong.... nice find Duhh...



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
Nice find... and while I would have to say that I am no longer dubius about explosives being used... that however in on way means that 9-11 was carried out by Religous Extremists


Hi mate.... could you explain why you're no longer dubious about whether explosives were used? What piece of evidence 'clinched' it for you? Because I'm searching for it but can't find it. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
well... it wasn't really a theory that I ever particularly bought into... i mean it definetally didn't look like what I thought it should look like... but at the same time.... i don't know... its not really any specific piece of evidence.... I could really honestly care less about how the buildings were brought down... I'm more interested in who gained... and who had motive to commit such an act... I looked at the research with an open mind just like I do all 9-11 theory... and since i was already dubious at best.. this just kind of put me over the edge... its just hard to accept that explosives were used....

Its important that i point this out... I am not saying that I don't think bombs couldn't have been used ... i really don't know Exactly how those towers came down... but i do know that there are far too many coincidences for the official story to be true...

Also... one might remember that not even the most important/best/etc CE experts in the world don't know everything... they don't know about every single new explosive made up... So while it is unlikely that Explosives were used it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility...

take it with a grain of sand.. it doesnt matter who is right... only that we find that truth.. regardless of whether or not it fits within our paradigm is a problem that we must all deal with on our own accord.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
.. this just kind of put me over the edge... its just hard to accept that explosives were used.... it doesnt matter who is right... only that we find that truth.. regardless of whether or not it fits within our paradigm is a problem that we must all deal with on our own accord.


You are one of the few people, I have seen on this baord, that gets it. Atleast you read the paper ! Many here could learn from that. Thank you for taking the time out of you day. Bravo! I am perplexed by those here, trying to rationalize what they are reading, with" I know what I saw". The main claim here starts as follows.

--A- Question to CTer;
Why do you think the towers were brought down by explosives.

-Answer; Because anyone can see they came down just like a "CD" ( Demo folks don't seem to even call it "CD", they call it Explosive demo)

--B- When demo EXPERTS explain it did not look that way!

-CT answer; Well it was a "CD" made to look like it wasn't a "CD"

Circular logic at best!
So which was it to these people? Looked like,or didn't look like?
Again they think with what they know nothing about. Explosive Demo Experts do, however. It is their Job to. So who ya gonna listen to? If critical thinking is used here. There is only one answer to this question!! But I repeat, only if CRITICAL THINKING IS USED! (end caveat)



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
REad the whole thing Duhh very informative but It hangs and falls just like the twc
bldgs did without explanation.
They state that they have graphs of the explosions and other data was this data compiled by the 911 commission and used to make a decision.
Why would protec state that it is paid by no political party, or individual and are doing this for the sole purpose of friends and associations.
How would protec know that 1100+ degree fires raged until collapse when its know and documented by the 911 commission that the fires never reached more than 700 degrees?
Protec stated it would be impossible for someone to place the charges after the hit and fires raging, but did not really rule out charges being placed a week ahead of time.
Protec stated that even though onlookers heard explosions that ddoes not refute scientific studies.
Protec states that all seismographs all paint the same picture, yet even the 911 commission has stated there were movements prior too and before the bldgs fell
not a good clear picture here about such a event. Protec says this evidence make a compelliing arguement against explsoives being used but this also does not rule them out rather a clean bait and switch of words.
Protec stated in an effort to further reseach about explosives in the wtc it talked directely too numerous operators and site formans yea right what branch of the government gave you permission to do a on site investigation of 911 and not provide the results to the 911 commission.
I am not sure what trip protech is on but there is so much opposite information here to make one think this very group of people had something to due with placing of the explosives.
If we remember right there were not investigations of the steel structure and or tests for metal failure after the fall by anyone yet protech states that there was
forensic investigators, city officials, and site managers, but not not one document
can be produced that this occurred.
I think this document is strange indeed and has not changed my self that there really might have been cutter charges planted one week prior to 911 during a 7 day turndown at both of the three bldgs andnthis meant also that no power for seven days and no alarms for doors being opened and who came and went.
Very fishy story with no backup of real data!



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   

You have voted mondegreen for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


exactly the type of REAL critical thinking i had in mind.
thanks to you and your parents and teachers, greenearth.

this paper pulls itself apart, and you cheerleaders of the NWO better get better at BUNKING if you think you can win the meme wars.
one TRUE idea can DECIMATE a whole plethora of universities', 'experts'' and knowledge lexicons' accepted 'truth'.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Oy....

Although old and tiresome.... one of my favorite debate topics. I've only had one person debate this issue with me on a logical level - and I hold him with high respect (or possibly her....).

Anyway...

Freefall... so I suppose that you're talking about terminal velocity of an object and how it's somewhere around 67 miles per hour for the average human (belly-flop position).

Terminal velocity is derived from the mass of the object and its surface area relative to the velocity of the object combined with the low-pressure zone that develops behind it (for very accurate interpretations).

There is no way you can convince me that the building is falling at terminal velocity - or anywhere near it. Its terminal velocity would have it glowing red in our atmosphere.

As for the colapse of the building - look at the structure. It's a steel meshed-grid with two main supporting shafts that contain the elevator systems and maintenance ways. The colapse of the two towers damaged WTC7 (I'm assuming that's the building you are talking about), and the fires inside, though small, generated enough heat to soften the steal to the extent that one end gave way. You can see this in the videos very clearly - as well as what I am going to describe next. Just mere fractions of a second later, the tensil strength of the steel mesh attempts to support the caving section, but fails, leading to a total colapse of the building because it was, litterally, PULLED down by its own mass. The tensil strength of steel is far greater than any other strengths.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join