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.

 

Controlled Demolitions in Action

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Let me address a few things

Advancement of the neo-cons (PNAC)'s PUBLICLY AVAILABLE agenda - this is a think tank, nothing else.

A New Pearl Harbor environment of FEAR. - are you afraid, I am jsut cautious

Forward operating bases established in Iraq and Afghanistan _ yes, that is what they are so we have Iran now surrounded. This would have happened without 9/11. This was planned before that. There was no need for an attack.

Patritot Act II - give me something passed that affects you everyday and makes you life worse

Freedom to strike anywhere anytime (War on Terror) What do you call it when Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq with a no fly zone, and what about Bosnia???

Massive Domestic Populace Data Gathering and Warehousing - This has always been there and you would be ignorant to think it is not. What do you care if they know what videos you rent, or where you shop???

Contracts, contracts, contracts... I find it stranger that we allowed a Nazi based car company to buy Chrysler, but I see TONS of Mercedes and also VE's on the street.

Corporate Friends that benifitted:

Insurance Companies - 9/11 did not create Hurricanes and they lost money on 9/11
Defense Contractors - Always here
Security Contractors - Since the late 1800's
Oil Companies - I agree we should use alt fuels
Technology Firms - Wny, because the Army uses Windows, they also use Unix


IN can understand the statements you are making, but in the real world they make no sense. It is not the administration, it is big business that is controlling the nation. If you told me Wal-Mart had a hand in 9/11 I would beleive it more than the CIA. Maybe they wanted to build a 100 story SuperWal Mart in Downtown NYC.


We were lucky on 9/11 that only 3 planes were used and the loss of life was not more. First rule in a plan is to make it as simple as possible.




posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Advancement of the neo-cons (PNAC)'s PUBLICLY AVAILABLE agenda - this is a think tank, nothing else.


Comprised of many members of our curren government who wrote a document that suggets expanding military spending, projecting power worldwide, taking out Iraq and that we would need a "New Pearl Harbor" to "catalyze" the American public behind these actions.

Sorry dad, but they are NOT just a think tank... they are our SITTING LEADERS.



Originally posted by esdad71
A New Pearl Harbor environment of FEAR. - are you afraid, I am jsut cautious


I do not fear terrorism... I think it is exaggerated and fabricated fear. I fear the decline of my country and my freedom.


Originally posted by esdad71
Forward operating bases established in Iraq and Afghanistan _ yes, that is what they are so we have Iran now surrounded. This would have happened without 9/11. This was planned before that. There was no need for an attack.


According to the PNAC there was need for "A New Pearl Harbor". You are flat out WRONG if you believe 9/11 was not the EXCUSE given to go into Afghanistan and Iraq.


Originally posted by esdad71
Patritot Act II - give me something passed that affects you everyday and makes you life worse


GOD... EVERY TIME. IT IS A SLOW EROSION. Freedom is never stripped in a day. The consequences of these ANTI-AMERICAN "laws" are yet to be realized. The fact that PACII exists is sickening enough, much less the future ramifications.


Originally posted by esdad71
Freedom to strike anywhere anytime (War on Terror) What do you call it when Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq with a no fly zone, and what about Bosnia???


He did NOT establish a FOB, start a civil war, send in over 100K troops.... Those were quick little deals.. these ARE FULL WARS.


Originally posted by esdad71
Massive Domestic Populace Data Gathering and Warehousing - This has always been there and you would be ignorant to think it is not. What do you care if they know what videos you rent, or where you shop???


You sir belong in China if you like surveilence. This has NOT always been there. The ability to collect the data has but only now does the processing power, voice recoginition software and laws exist to use and abuse the vast amounts of data being gathered.


Originally posted by esdad71
Insurance Companies - 9/11 did not create Hurricanes and they lost money on 9/11


Wrong. Legisilation was passed so that the tax payers foot the bill next time AND all large buildings now have "terrorism riders"... they are making a FORTUNE. You need to read more.


Originally posted by esdad71
Defense Contractors - Always here


And thanks to 9/11, "the war ecomony" and the PNAC now making 2x as much.


Originally posted by esdad71
It is not the administration, it is big business that is controlling the nation.


This statement shows how little you know about how Washington works... It is all the same people... they are one and the same.

I give up.

GO CALL YOU GRANDFATHER AND ASK HIM WHAT HE THINKS OF THE PATRIOT ACT, the LOSS OF FREEDOMS, ETC.

Listen HARD to his answers... REALLY hard.

I advise you ALL to read this site to your grandfathers and fathers and see WHAT THEY THINK.

I will stop responding to this in this thread as it is WAY off topic. I will respond to you in any other on topic thread about it though dad.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
PNAC is a think tank comprised of politicians not a global agenda. I have yet to see Congress pass any laws or change the Contistitution based on PNAC suggestions. PNAC is a non profit organization, not a government agency. You need to do a little reading yourself. The reason people tie PNAC to BUSh is that after his election, he appointed some members to cabinet psots. AFTER he was elected.

Both my grandfathers and my great grandfather fought in WW2 to allow you to post to a site such as this. I also have relatives in politics, aerospace, defense contracting and a few who worked for our government in other capacities described with acronyms. Does this make me the bad guy, because according to your rhetoric, it does. By turning against your own coutry and government, you have bought into what they wanted on 9/11. Distrust, disillusion and contention for the US by their own citizens.



Again, I ask, and Bsbray knows this, give me concrete evidence of thermite or other explosives, because just like both sides of the arguement, it is nothing but theory till there is physical proof. I am just as interested in the truth as everyone else to know the truth.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I have yet to see Congress pass any laws or change the Contistitution based on PNAC suggestions.


Because we all know that's exactly how they would try to get what they want, right? Petitioning Congress?



The reason people tie PNAC to BUSh is that after his election, he appointed some members to cabinet psots. AFTER he was elected.


Yes, everyone knows that none of these people, Bush and the PNAC crew, none of them existed before Bush ran for president. Therefore they could not have done any thinking or planning ahead of time (not that they would have anyway, what a silly idea), and of course we have to keep this in an administrative context. It's not like external forces are acting upon this administration, or have ever acted upon any other. No corporate military influences, banking influences, etc. Because again, we all know that's how things really work in Washington.




Again, I ask, and Bsbray knows this, give me concrete evidence of thermite or other explosives, because just like both sides of the arguement, it is nothing but theory till there is physical proof. I am just as interested in the truth as everyone else to know the truth.


I would know that you ask for concrete evidence?

What I don't understand is why you believe either side without it. Where is the concrete evidence for truss failure theory? It doesn't even make sense on paper from the figures and images NIST presents. There was not enough buckling to explain away the initiations of either collapse.

At least thermite would actually provide a context for the collapses to initiate, and you can even see bright orange/yellow molten material pouring out of the side of WTC2.

A good illustration is in this NIST image:




How much buckling do you see? I see none, and this was just minutes before the collapse.

And yet, there is a bright molten material (not just molten, BRIGHT: high temperature!) pouring out where the corner box column would have been.

How objective are you really being, Esdad?

[edit on 18-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
You are showing one picture, look at it from a different angle and I KNOW that you have seen the buckling in pictures. What about the reports from reporters and the NYPD that it was buckling and sliding minutes before it collapsed? You know they are there?

As far as PNAC, alot of these guys have been around since the early 60's so nothing has changed in 40 years.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
You are showing one picture, look at it from a different angle and I KNOW that you have seen the buckling in pictures.


No, you're thinking of WTC1. This is a different beast entirely.

You can even see the bare columns, in one area, and they are obviously not buckling. Only the aluminum facades are moving around.


As far as PNAC, alot of these guys have been around since the early 60's so nothing has changed in 40 years.


Early 60's? As in, Operation Northwoods early '60s? lol



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Our government has not gained anything from 9/11.



LOL!!!!! I can't believe anyone with a brain can say that. You know, the US Government can kill anyone, arrest anyone, as long as they label them a "terrorit".

Patriot Act anyone? en.wikipedia.org...



Someone asked, "why use planes?", i'll tell you why.... to make it seem like it wasn't an inside job. If the buildings were destroyed with explosives only, people would question how they went undetected while preparing the building. But with planes, noone will question it, because it seems like nearly instant destruction.

I can't believe anyone would question what happened on 9-11. The buildings survived the jet hits. They were standing for quite a while after the hit. The Empire State Building survived te B-25 hit before, and is still standing. NO FIRE HAS EVER BRAUGHT DOWN A SKY SCRAPPER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. Yet you people believe it happened 3 times in one day.....


Its unbelieveable.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Northwoods...hahaha


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please look at this thread and the pictures or

Pictures show collapse of WTC towers was structural, not demoliton

wtc.nist.gov...
Page 96

You can see the floors of the WTC have already begun to fall. This goes to show, along with eyewitness accounts of people trapped in the WTC who called relatives, that the building was starting to collapse, and the inner structure of the towers were failing.

If the support for those floors is failing, and you can see the buckling of the outside clomns here

wtc.nist.gov...
Page 95 and page 100

This is showing structural collapse, right?

Now, take a look at this picture 6 minutes before collapse, the tower is essentialy cut in half.

wtc.nist.gov...
Page 109 and 110

Look at the inward bowing of WTC 2 here

wtc.nist.gov...
Page 112

Now, look at page 115, and look how the tower is leaning and sliding into the collapse, not coming down upon itself like a demolition.

wtc.nist.gov...
Page 115-117

It is showing strutural collapse again.

Then starting with page 122, there are numerous pictures of twisted and contorted steel that played into the collpase.

The NIST report pictures show that the structural integrity of the building is failing, from the inside out. It is suprising that many of these pitures never appear, however the video of free fall collaspe is the truth for 9/11 bible.

There is no evidence of explosives. You can see that they have steel members from where the collapse originates, and there is no trace residue. You can see the buckling of the supports that

I am also well aware of the Pat act, but how has it affected YOU?

[edit on 18-8-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
esdad..

What you fail to realize is, the outer structure of the building is NOT the main support for the building...




You can't knock down a tree by destroying its branches only.

Your PDF is disinfo. They don't have any evidence of the central support system being damaged.


That fact of the matter still stands, the official explination is "fires melted the supports". That alone is questionable, since jet fuel is designed to burn quickly, and probably completly burned up on impact. The evidence of the smoke shows the fire was not burning hot enough, because it was starving for oxygen.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I am also well aware of the Pat act, but how has it affected YOU?


Since you don't know, I REALLY suggest reading this....

en.wikipedia.org...

ALL OF IT.


But focus on the part that says "portions of the Act are unnecessary and allow U.S. law enforcement to infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy. "


[edit on 18-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
The planes destroyed the inner columns. Read any of the reports. I do not post disinfo, I repost links and offer opinion and my own beliefs.

To think that the inner portion of the tower was not damaged is ludicrous. There were eyewitness reports from callers inside the towers stating that floors had already begun to fall upon one another, and that the fires were intensifying, not dying down. Do you think that everything in an office is non-flammable? The planes were flown in at an angle also to cause the most damage to multiple floors.

Steel does not need to melt to lose its strength. I believe that when heated and then made to support the upper structure with damaged inner support columns, the towers finally gave way and collapsed. This is not a 'strange' theory. These were not 5 story buildings we are talking about. Look into the design of these buildings, and the forward thinking that was used. They were not built for stability but for maximum office space.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Esdad, the "bowing" images of WTC2 were taken after the collapse was already underway!

What exactly is NIST proving by showing these? That the buildings collapsed, and columns failed during the collapse? Because I'm pretty sure everyone was already in agreement on that one.

Again, you're thinking of WTC1 with the buckling images.


Originally posted by esdad71
The planes destroyed the inner columns. Read any of the reports. I do not post disinfo, I repost links and offer opinion and my own beliefs.


The critical question that you fail to consider is "how many". How many columns did the impacts fail?

The answer, from all of your government investigations, is this: a small minority. Less than 15% of the perimeter, and no more than 25% of the core in the absolute worst case scenario, according to NIST.

The perimeter columns were 5 times (500%) redundant, and the core columns were about 3.35 times (335%) redundant. You do the math on that one.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I think we have been here before with the columns. Are you speaking of destroyed, or damaged? You do not need destruction for weakness or degradation of a structure. There is no need to do the math, it has been done already.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I think we have been here before with the columns. Are you speaking of destroyed, or damaged?


It doesn't matter. Damaged, severed, both together: still a small minority of columns, while the structure was several times redundant.

You'll find the same in both the NIST and FEMA Reports.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
NIST states from 2005....
www.nist.gov...

please watch the videos to see how the impacts affected the inner and outer columns.



Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires. NIST previously reported that the towers had significant reserve capacity after aircraft impact based on analysis of post-impact vibration data obtained from video evidence on WTC 2, the more severely damaged tower.


This speaks of the inital hit and then this states from NIST




The specific factors in the collapse sequences relevant to both towers (the sequences vary in detail for WTC 1 and WTC 2) are:

Each aircraft severed perimeter columns, damaged interior core columns and knocked off fireproofing from steel as the planes penetrated the buildings. The weight carried by the severed columns was distributed to other columns.
Subsequently, fires began that were initiated by the aircraft’s jet fuel but were fed for the most part by the building contents and the air supply resulting from breached walls and fire-induced window breakage.
These fires, in combination with the dislodged fireproofing, were responsible for a chain of events in which the building core weakened and began losing its ability to carry loads.
The floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns.
Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
Collapse then ensued.



See, not just jet fuel but oxygen from air. That is why 911 operators told people in the towers to NOT break the windows though many of them could not breathe. That fed the fires and the office contents burned. If you read the reports you would have found this. Why does this not make sense?

[edit on 18-8-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Oh, no Esdad! You mean to say that the fires had access to air? Jesus, I'm going to have to rethink everything about 9/11!

But in the mean time, can you tell me what that has to do with my previous post?


We could get somewhere faster if you stuck with the numbers, or anything quantitative.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Here is what happens when a plane hits a bulding that was built 40 years before the WTC. Read this It leaves a big hole. And people can stare out of the whole and say WOW! Do they need to worry about the bulding collasping? No. As you can read there was ZERO structural damage! It never even had to be reinforced. Just patch up the hole! Well how is it then that both of the WTC bulidings will fall in less than an hour? That plane caused ZERO damage to the structure! Those must have been some perfectly directed hits. To go from Zero structual damage to complete annhililation in under an hour. hmmmmmm.......(red flag should raise here)



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
They were not built for stability but for maximum office space.


You are telling us that they would choose maximum office space over stability??

You just proved that you have no clue what you are talking about. The WTC designers said themself, with their own mouths, that buildings were designed to withstand earthquakes, fires, intense storms, hurricanes, tornados, AND AIRCRAFT COLLISIONS.


If you were building some of the worlds largest buildings, you would keep in mind that at any time an aircraft can crash into it. Or an earthquake can destroy it. You dont want to have to rebuild these buildings, and you don't want these buildings to fall on the surrounding buildings, or anything simular.




[edit on 18-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   
For some reason Beavis and Butthead suddenly come to mind. I am the only one here attempting to give another side to a story and I have yet to have anyone give me any evidence that could sway you. I do not want to prove anything, I am just stating my beliefs based off reading ALL the documents and not cherry picking to benefit my views.

The air gave power to the fire that raged and weakened the already damaged inner and outer core which led to a collapse. That is very relevant since I continue to see "jet fuel" stated as the only thing that burned.

Have any of you actually watched any real footage, and not cut up internet garbage. Real footage that showed the raging fires, and how large and intense they were.

It would be alot easier for me to ride the conspiracy train since nothing on that side can be proven yet everyone believes it, from win pods to stealth UAV's to remote planes.

Face it, we were caught with our pants down, and we should be lucky more were not killed, or that they did not enter the towers lower causing more damage.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
A brainwashed, blind man, is what comes into my mind...

After the initial aircraft hits, the fires died down. Enough for a woman to stand in the hole of the building.



There was also a descusion on this forum about the smoke from the fires. The smoke was BLACK, meaning there was more fuel than there was oxygen. You can have all the office furnature and paper in the world, but if you dont have enough oxygen, you will not get a hot fire.


Please tell me... if this woman was able to stand in where she is, how did she survive the initial hit? Wouldn't the fires kill her?



A B-25 aircraft hit the Empire State Building in 1947. The WTC buildings started construction in 1966. You would think the designers would build the towers strong enough to survive anything, and they did.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join