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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
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.


Maybe you should try posting things we haven't seen yet, that actually support your case. I have seen the NIST Report, etc., and apparently even know it better than you, as you keep suggesting that the impacts raped all the effected floors, when I know that even NIST and FEMA's reports will tell you the exact opposite.

You never seem to want to talk about the numbers, only un-quantified things, like super-intense fires and super-destructive impacts.


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
The smoke was BLACK, meaning there was more fuel than there was oxygen.


Or more oxygen than fuel. The smoke started off clean, much lighter, from a better fuel-to-air ratio, and then went downhill, as the jet fuel was consumed.

Either way, though, sooty, inefficient fires do not produce the same temperatures. And the better the ventilation, the cooler the fires will be. It's by poor ventilation that heat accumulates and fires can exceed the 825 C or so, given that oxygen and fuel are both always available.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by bsbray11]




posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
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.


Hahaha, so you think because we don't believe the official story we haven't looked at all the info? What a joke. How could we de-bunk the documentation if we haven't looked at it? The official government documentation is what is cherry picked. Anything that doesn't fit their theory of the collapse is ignored.

I can't believe anyone who claims to have looked at, and understood, all the documentation can still believe planes and fire caused the collapses. Denial comes to my mind.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
No, I am not in denial, I jsut acept the fact of what happened. I understand that a government conspiracy would be a great story and it makes better converstation than terrorist striking the towers, but that is what happened. The NIST report that was published in 2005 clearly states what led to the collapse.

You see, Denial is a psychological defense mechanism in which a person faced with a fact that is uncomfortable or painful to accept rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. You see, I am not in denial, you are. You are faced with 4 independant research firms, but only seem to accpet the thoughts of the only one who NEVER tested anything, the 9/11truth movement.

NIST, FEMA,9/11 commision and the Silverstien inquiry. Hmmm, 4 out of 4 are all wrong? I could understand if our government appointed an agency and there was ONE report, and it was a closed case.


Also, please post in from the reports, since you KNOW it is there, where they state there was minimal to no damage to the inner or outer structure.

I will continue to repost the same information because it is truth. I mean, at least I have the balls to try to defend instead of jumping on the conspiracy wagon, that is filled with conjecture and theory. Again, and i have asked for this for over a year, where is your proof of demolition.

True proof of demolition please, I still wait....



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
911research.wtc7.net...

Also, this shows more than half of the core columns destroyed or damaged. There are some numbers for you.

content.answers.com...

And this one was a direct cut, where close to 1/3 are damaged or destroyed. This supports the previous post with the NIST release from 2005.

A building that large cannot support the upper floors forever, can it?



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

Or here is another good article from a 3rd party, who could care less.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, this shows more than half of the core columns destroyed or damaged. There are some numbers for you.


22 out of 47 is not "more than half".

That's also the model where NIST altered Flight 175's path to make the damage more severe. Why would they do that, do you think?

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by Spawwwn
ok well i'm hoping this thread goes somewhere because i for one am quite puzzled as to why people think that the buildings were the result of a controlled demolition.

I am equally puzzled as to why people think the buildings' symmetrical, freefalling, explosively ejective, radio interfering, seismic spiking footprint collapses complete with explosions and obvious squibs, pools of molten steel, and visual evidence of thermite reactions could have been anything but a controlled demolition. Especially considering the fact that CDI was contracted to do the cleanup, FEMA was ordered into NY Sept. 10, the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled out of the building the weekend before, with an UNPRECEDENTED power down of the complex. building 7.

Look at this picture and tell me that looks anything like a fire related collapse to you.


Watch this animation and tell me how this doesn't look controlled to you?


Squibs


Explosions in the Basement


And the just plain inexplicable...
911review.org...

Do you believe in Pyschic ability to predict the immediate future? I don't either...

“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barclay Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse."
-Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Willie Brown's "Security People's" Pyschic Episode

Odigo's Amazing Pyschic Powers

Promis Software's Pyschic Visions of Impending Doom

anonymous top-level White House source has psychic vision

Echelon's Amazing Psychic Abilities

It goes on and on.


It doesnt matter, you can keep on and on telling these people that it was a controlled demolition but they will never believe you, because they are brainwashed to believe what the government told them.

I believe it was a controlled demolition i have seen enough websites and videos to proove to me that it is a demolition, but for some reason some people will just not accept it and it does annoy me, i mean the goverment thinks it was a sun refelction? as the light hits the tower before the plane, lol i dont think so. I never believe in what the government tell me anymore, i always believe the oppisote in what they tell me.

There where bombs planted inside the wtc both towers days before 911, and the aircrafts that hit the towers where pitch black and had no windows, yet the government expect us to believe it was american airlines? how gay are the government. The black planes hitting the towers where controlled by a secret millatary that the us government controls. Thats my theory, and no skeptic will ever make me change my mind. Missile also hit the pentagon, my theory.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Sorry, almost half. However, it does not matter. The Load became too large, and they collapsed. I read the link, and it is an op/ed piece of the NIST report. Sorry, I think I'll believe NIST and the people who do this work for a living.

Another thing, do not believe every web video you see, that is like believing that David Copperfiedld really made the Statue of Liberty disappear. But it has to be true, becasue it happened on TV.

Again, can you give me some proof now? I only think it is fair.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Kleverone, the B-25 example is a good one to show how NOT to do a comparison. Just for the beginning...
Plane mass
Plane impact speed
Plane dimensions
Plane construction
fuel carried upon impact
building construction

Everything of these stats is completely different. Only common point - aircraft crashed into building.
According to you, because not so long after 0911 a Cessna crashed into an office building and it remained standing, the WTC should be also standing after a 767?

Oh and btw that minimal damage included parts of the plane penetrating all of Empire State.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Can you give us proof thay the planes really damaged the columns to the point of failure?

Aluminum plane, hardened construction steel Hmmmmm?????

Try this at home, take an aluminium tube and hit a piece of steel as hard as you can.
Even if you could swing it at 500 mph, sry but your aluminium will lose every time.

You know, soft metal impacting a hard metal, simple physics.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Sorry, almost half. However, it does not matter. The Load became too large, and they collapsed.


Evidence of this? Not even NIST gives it in their report, which you would know if you were more familiar with the report.

Again, safety factor of 3.35 for the core. Half totally severed would not cut it, given those figures. And should the



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Tuccy. I understand that, but you have to use your brain a little here and see that zero structural damage was done. We don't have the speed it was going, and the hole is not much smaller than the one left by the passenger jet. Is it an exact example. NO! Can it be used to draw rational conclusions absolutely, and that was the whole point. I didn't think that would need explained to anyone, guess I was wrong



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
You know, I really wish I could sit down with Bray and talk over a few beers. The remark about the videos was not meant for you. i mean, I think I am the only one in this thread that beleives the original story.

All I want is proof of demolition, because everything else can be explained away to me, and according to the research I have done. Man, it always comes to this....




posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
you are asking for something that cannot be proved since the goverment had the metal scraps shipped out of the country and melted down without allowing any testing to be done on any samples. Red Flag.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   
It can be used to draw conclusion maybe with the Pentagon - its construction was much closer to Empire that that of WTC. But structure of WTC and Empire is COMPLETELY different. As was the energy of the impact. Had a 767 slammed into Empire, you can bet the structural damage would be large.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Exactly my point! The WTC was built 40 years later with a much better understanding of structural support. Would it have caused more damage, of course, but would it be enough to bring down the towers WITHOUT buckling, instead all four corners falling at once? And the fire in 1975 that caused zero structural damage? I am open-minded enough to entertain your theory and upon rational thinking I am also able to refute it. I am sorry you cannot do the same. Ummm why did the towers including tower 7 all fall straight down? NO buckling at all. NO tilting or leaning. Straight down! Tower 7 alone should make you at the very least question why? Why did tower 7 fall unless they knew an attack would happen and loaded it? How does that not force your mind to connect dots and go from there? HOW? Once again I am sure this part of the question will be completely ignored! Just like that voice in your head that should be sounding the irrational alarm. I guess some people are scared of what could be.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
All I want is proof of demolition,..


So, you know exactly what many here seek.

Regardless of the fact that you believe you can "explain away" all of the observations that don't make sense, NIST errors, omissions and distortions, the fact the the FAA, NORAD and DoD LIED to the 9/11 comission... etc. etc. I do not think you really can "explain it all away".

I have carefully read and argued the NIST report on this site. IT is not reliable nor accurate. The computer modeling uses "adjusted inputs" to even achieve a collapse initation (i.e. Plane speed + 15%; Building strengteh - 10%, etc.) we do not even know if the computer models initiated collapse with these inputs as the NIST released on information on the algorithms, they did not even bother to release some sort of animation for our $20 million.

I think a lot of the OFficial Story Believers think that a guy like me is just some paranoid freak who hates the gov't and has other motivations, etc.

This could not be further from the truth... I voted for W TWICE... (my bad). My opinion on 9/11 has been formed by reading reams of information from gov't sources to the tinfoil armies posting and I have to tell you something... You would NOT be here if you did not smell something fishy.

When you look at 9/11 from all perspectives it REAKS.

- The PHYSICS do not make sense.
- The Geopolotical GOALS the PNAC wanted to achieve in 2000 WERE MET. (See: Rebuilding Americas Defenses)
- The FAA, NORAD and Dod LIED according to the heads of the 9/11 Comission.
- Odd financail Transactions occured.
- Hijackers reported as ALIVE by the BBC. No tapes of hijackers boarding the planes. Not listed on the manifests.
- Bush lied about seeing the first plane.
- Rumsfeld admits the Pentagon "lost" $1 TRILLION on 9/10 on 9/11 the CIVILIAN ACCOUNTANTS investigating this take a DIRECT HIT (their offices) from whatever hit the Pentagon.
- Evidence shipped and scrapped. (Even the NIST complained about lack of evidence)
- No video from the Pentagon... Worlds Largest Military HQ has no working cameras?

The list goes On and ON and ON and does not just revolve around CD. The reason most here research this topic the most is becaus physics is exact and if CD can be proven the whole bag of beans will be spilled. Many believe that though very difficult, the easiest thing that we can attemp to prove is the CD.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
PNAC is a think tank comprised of politicians not a global agenda.


This is 100% CATEGORICALLY FALSE.

This document was published by the PNAC in 2000... It outlines a global agenda regarding foreward operating bases and full spectrum dominance. It also says that the process will be slow absent some "catalyzing event" "like a New Pearl Harbor".

Rebuilding Americas Defenses (From the PNAC's own website)

www.newamericancentury.org...=%22rebuilding%20America's%20Defenses%22

I suggest you look and see who really is a member of the PNAC and also in the current administration... Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Abrams, Richard Perle and William Kristol. As well, former Lockheed-Martin vice president, Bruce Jackson, and ex-CIA head James Woolsey were on board, along with Norman Podhoretz, another founder. Woolsey and Podhoretz speak openly about the “World War III”.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   


Ummm why did the towers including tower 7 all fall straight down? NO buckling at all. NO tilting or leaning. Straight down! Tower 7 alone should make you at the very least question why? Why did tower 7 fall unless they knew an attack would happen and loaded it?


This tells me you have done no research into this. There was buckling and leaning, which was reported ny the NYPD helicopters that were on scene. There are reports that they saw failure up to 20 minutes prior to the final tower falling. This is all in the tapes that were released.

Hey Slaps, PNAC is not a 'government organization' per say. Yes, alot of the members are goverment officials, and i am sure in some way the conversations that occur in there somehow refer to the White House, but that is what it is for. I do not feel it is any type of shadow government.

The site states


www.newamericancentury.org...

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.




Anyone who has never read the actual paper written in 2000 should.

www.newamericancentury.org...


There are money transactions every day that would make your head spin if you knew. How Big BUsiness is using middle class America to expunge every little penny that it has and attempts to save. I don't blame hte government, I blame the people who make Hummers, Wal MArt and Starbucks. We can change our president, but these vampires will always be here. Do people think that Having a Democrat in office means Big Oil makes no money??


It is tough to agree with the official story, because no one wants to defend it with you. It is an arguement of coincidence, misquotes and disinfo. I nthe end, however, we are all entitled to our own belief. I respect your views as I would wish someone to respect mine, however that does not occur alot here.

New members jack threads and post the same, tired, bulls*** that has already been posted on here. What I want is something new, it has been 5 years. If not, there is nothing else to do but agree.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Kleverone, can you make your points without the condecention?

Thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join