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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
So they would have captured that on video then, and would shouldn't have to rely on there reports, correct? I would also like to hear you take on what caused tower 7 to fall the exact same way the other 2 towers fell.

Intrepid, the remarks made earlier we not meant to be condescending and if they came across as such I apologize. I think my frustration is coming off as such. The frustration stemming from tuccy's selective reading process, mentioning nothing of Tower 7 and choosing only to address the buckling issue which was a weak response at that. NYPD police helicopters are equipped with camera's that would settle all arguments hands down. Same goes for the Gas Station and the Sheraton directly accross from the Pentagon that the govt still refuse to release to this day. I drove by the pentagon on the 395 everday for 3 years and no for a fact that the gas station caught everything on camera. I have even seen the live video feed of the angle the camera points and can personally verify that it would have caught the impact perfectly. Why not release the video when more people in the US disbelieve the offical story than approve of the job Bush is doing as President. 36%. I will say it one more time. Why did tower 7 collaspe in the exact same manor as the other two towers? Why did it collaspe at all? Anyone?




posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
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.


When did I say it was a "shadow government"? It is comprised of the ACTUAL government. They met, planned out our future (at the time) and 9/11, the invasions, military spending, etc. were part of that plan... IT HAS ALL COME TO FRUITION...

Do you think it is simple coincidence that their publicly published manifesto/plan/agenda has magically all come true?



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Have you read the PNAC statement or anything about it rather than referencing a few quotes you may have read on line? It was designed I would believe because of the eroding military under Clinton. They want democracy across the globe, which, in it's basic form is not a bad thing. However, for democracy, there must be some type of conflict. PNAC did not plan 9/11, it was in the works prior to them creating it. Plans for 9/11 were forged the day in 93 that the towers did not collapse in the bombings.

As far as the NYPD helicopters, yes, they can show that the official story is true. Take some time and look it up, they saw the damage and the buckling, and the shifting minutes before they fell.

WTC 7 is another arguement all together. It however was not a controlled demo either. It took close to 30 seconds for the tower to fall from the first indication of failure. You can see the 'penthouse' elevators as they were called, sinking into the building.

Slaps, I was not trying to state you said Shadow government, but that was how it read out.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Have you read the PNAC statement or anything about it rather than referencing a few quotes you may have read on line?


I have read almost all of the documents on their site.


Originally posted by esdad71
It was designed I would believe because of the eroding military under Clinton.


Part of the aim was to increase military spending and "rebuild our defenses", the OTHER HALF recommends pre-emptive striking, FOBs and specific conflicts in which we are now inolved. Not exactly how you "fix" an eroding military... by starting wars.


Originally posted by esdad71
They want democracy across the globe, which, in it's basic form is not a bad thing.


Freedom and Democracy are their code words (when describin a military campign) for domination and installation of a US friendly gov't.


Originally posted by esdad71
However, for democracy, there must be some type of conflict.


Usually a civil war... Not sending in the cowboys to FORCE democracy. IT is not supposed to be forced. You are falling for their double speak.


Originally posted by esdad71
PNAC did not plan 9/11, it was in the works prior to them creating it. Plans for 9/11 were forged the day in 93 that the towers did not collapse in the bombings.


Your opinion. Maybe the simply asked for a "New Pearl Harbour" and some othe agency/organization did the rest.


Originally posted by esdad71
As far as the NYPD helicopters, yes, they can show that the official story is true. Take some time and look it up, they saw the damage and the buckling, and the shifting minutes before they fell.


This is your definitif proof? Please cite a source instead of saying "look it up" the rest of us do. CD/Incendaries could have also caused this behavior just prior to the collapse though I see no buckling in ANY pictures. Also, buckling should have cause assymetricall collapse behaviours, not simultaneous failure of all core colums, trusses and outter supports.


Originally posted by esdad71
WTC 7 is another arguement all together. It however was not a controlled demo either. It took close to 30 seconds for the tower to fall from the first indication of failure. You can see the 'penthouse' elevators as they were called, sinking into the building.


Again, source of your timing info? 30 seconds is way above what many have timed it at. You also assume that a CD CANNOT behave this way and I will assert that it very well could have.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esdad71
As far as the NYPD helicopters, yes, they can show that the official story is true. Take some time and look it up, they saw the damage and the buckling, and the shifting minutes before they fell.


Maybe this is the problem.

Esdad seems to think steel columns buckling/sagging/etc. from fire means that a global collapse is imminent, when this has never been established, and has never, ever been the case with skyscraper fires, excluding theories on the WTC on 9/11.

And as already pointed out, incendiaries on the columns would have caused the exact same thing on those floors.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
WTC 7 is another arguement all together. It however was not a controlled demo either.


esdad.... please comment on this video of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC's, saying they "pulled" WTC 7.

Click here to watch...

You wanted proof? There is your proof, Larry Silverstein himsellf saying WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

If you didn't already know, the term "pull it" is commonly used with ALL controlled demolition crews. Tell me, why does it take only 1 short day to perfectly demolish the WTC 7 building, but it takes up to 2 to 3 weeks of planning to destroy every other building professionaly? Also, tell me why on this Earth would a fire department have the correct high explosives, and the correct amount of explosives, and the correct knowledge of C.D. to bring down the WTC 7 building?

If I had to guess, the WTC 7 buildings were pre-wired with explosives. Which means 9-11 was predicted, or planned, and we had edvanced knowledge of the "attacks". If WTC 7 was pre-wired, you could only imagine that WTC 1 and 2 had explosives as well.

On top of that, Larry Silverstein was awarded 4.7 BILLION dollars from his insurance to rebuild.

Maybe Flight 93 was supposed to hit WTC 7, but something went wrong and they pulled WTC 7 anyway.

[edit on 22-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Please show me another building, similar in design to the WTC that is currently standing. I know of one. It is not designed like anything else. There are so many documentaries on TV right now with excellent footage since we are coming up to the anniversary of 9/11. I ask you to please watch these instead of loose change. They show footage from the NYPD copters.

You have an opinion, but no facts which makes it difficult to try to absorb your ideas. However, since I decide that the 'official' story is correct, I have to defend my views. Choosing to not beleive something is a choice, but that does not make is correct. 4 different investigations were performed, and if you choose not to beleive it, that is your choice. There is no precedence to what happened that day. It set one that now will be adhered to and you will never see another construted like the WTC. This was not a steel frame, but a steel core 'column' that had suspended truss floors.


As far as "pull it", if this was really the case, do you really think the insurance company would have paid him 4.7 million? NFW they would. Pull it was referring to the fact that there would be now way to save the building and they needed to stop the effort from the NYPD, FDNY and PA workers. Pull it. like pull the plug maybe? Oh, but it couldn't be explained away that easily, could it. That would be too easy even though it makes sense. Silverstien did not want loss of life.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
You have an opinion, but no facts which makes it difficult to try to absorb your ideas. However, since I decide that the 'official' story is correct, I have to defend my views.


I would agree that the Official Story (NIST Report) has a ton of speculation and opinion but very little fact. Same with the 9/11 Comission which admits that much of it's report is based on lies... RE: NOT FACTS.

Where are the FACTS that suport the OFFICAL CONSPIRACY THEORY?

If they gave us FACTS... We eould not be searching for our own.

The NIST holds the FACTS but will not release them... 7,000 Photos Unreleased, 6,000 + video segments Unreleased, Physical evidence samples... YOU GOT IT... Unreleased.

Pentagon security camera footage... Unreleased.

All have been legally requested via FOIA filings yet they refuse to show the evidence.. . I wonder WHY esdad?

Don't start with the copyright argument either as once the photos became part of the public record, they are required to be released BUT the reciever may not copy or distribute the photos without the owners consent.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
As far as "pull it", if this was really the case, do you really think the insurance company would have paid him 4.7 million? NFW they would. Pull it was referring to the fact that there would be now way to save the building and they needed to stop the effort from the NYPD, FDNY and PA workers. Pull it. like pull the plug maybe? Oh, but it couldn't be explained away that easily, could it. That would be too easy even though it makes sense. Silverstien did not want loss of life.


Thats all you can come up with? Since the insurance company payed Silverstein, it must have not been a controlled demo? LOL. Ever herd of insurance fraud? Did the insurance company have all the evidence? Did the insurance company even question what happened on 9-11? Why would they, after all, they saw jets crash into the buildings.

Pull it, means one thing, demolish it. But that doesn't matter, why? Because the WTC 7 building STILL COLLAPSED. In the history of the world, no steel building as ever been destroyed by a fire. How did the WTC 7 building collapse so perfectly? FIRE? NO!

You are telling us, that a fire did this:



A FIRE CAN NOT MAKE A STEEL BUILDING FALL STRAIGHT DOWN, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY.

You can give 100 people plasma cutters, and have them cut each steel beam at the same time, and the building still wouldn't fall this perfectly.



[edit on 22-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   
I just really don't understand how people can watch building 7 go straight down and still believe that it was a fire related collapse. Actually it pisses me off that people are that gulliable. I always wondered why people bought the whole Kennedy Assasination, now I think I truly understand magic bullets. Allegorically, if I say the sky is purple, you're a damned fool to think it's blue.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
No, actually Kennedy was killed by his own government.



As far as WTC 7, wtc.nist.gov...=%22collapse%20of%20WTC%207%22

Please take a read, even though you are not gulliable enough to beleive it, you might actually learn something about the structure of the building and realize when you stress ALL STEEL STRUCTURE in caps, you should know how it is actually built. Take a look at the pictures and realize it was not until the 2nd tower collapse that it was damaged.

There was no evidence found by NIST of any type of demo or explosive in WTC 7.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Originally posted by esdad71
WTC 7 is another arguement all together. It however was not a controlled demo either.


esdad.... please comment on this video of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC's, saying they "pulled" WTC 7.

Click here to watch...

You wanted proof? There is your proof, Larry Silverstein himsellf saying WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

If you didn't already know, the term "pull it" is commonly used with ALL controlled demolition crews. Tell me, why does it take only 1 short day to perfectly demolish the WTC 7 building, but it takes up to 2 to 3 weeks of planning to destroy every other building professionaly? Also, tell me why on this Earth would a fire department have the correct high explosives, and the correct amount of explosives, and the correct knowledge of C.D. to bring down the WTC 7 building?

If I had to guess, the WTC 7 buildings were pre-wired with explosives. Which means 9-11 was predicted, or planned, and we had edvanced knowledge of the "attacks". If WTC 7 was pre-wired, you could only imagine that WTC 1 and 2 had explosives as well.

On top of that, Larry Silverstein was awarded 4.7 BILLION dollars from his insurance to rebuild.

Maybe Flight 93 was supposed to hit WTC 7, but something went wrong and they pulled WTC 7 anyway.

[edit on 22-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



video.google.com...

13 seconds in you hear "thats why he pulled everybody out of here"

www.nytimes.com...
"Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there."



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
There was no evidence found by NIST of any type of demo or explosive in WTC 7.


LOL. No wonder why you are so brainwashed, you believe the NIST reports.
NIST ignored the evidence, and even tried to hide it from you.

During the collapse of the WTC 7 building you can see plumes of smoke come shooting out from the right side of the building in a "Sequence of Explosions". B.t.w I found this photo with a simple google image search for "WTC 7". I did not put "sequence of explosions" caption on it.



Now... look at this SAME picture, from the SAME camera, from the SAME angle. NIST edited these photos and white washed them to hide the evidence. The funny part is, they named it the "Sequence of Failures".



They even used lines, and words to hide it, its pretty obivous they are trying to cover up the plumes of smoke...




Trust me when I say the NIST reports are disinformation. I could find other buildings that were professionaly demolished, that show the exact same small plumes of smoke, but I hope you can trust me enough so I don't have to.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
www.nytimes.com...



We were there, I don't know, maybe 10, 15
minutes and then I just remember there was just an
explosion. It seemed like on television when they blow
up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the
way around like a belt, all these explosions.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Just reading this thread and must say .........WOW this just wont' die......

There are other threads here that discuss this issue in way more detail....
(and lot's of great pics' and diagrams etc. etc.)

Just seems so many people want to believe (without real proof) that the
cause was from the planes hitting the buildings (even with video of such).

Still to date..........not one "structural" engineer has come forward to
say otherwise (and i have asked many to date).

Please keep in mind that the WTC buildings are NOT typical high rise buildings.
Due to the "structural" components (not t'a mention during the construction phase that certain items to the design may have been revised to suit costs).
Thus we can NOT compare the WTC building to other high rise building (that are mainly concreate and rebarb) believe me BIG difference in structural design.

So unless you have REAL info to show TNT was used ....then I would read other posts in the other threads....to see that the PLANES took the buildings down.

And please believe me that I have looked at this topic with open eyes just like many others on here that the planes are responsible.

Please also keep in mind that myself like others on here are in the industry....
thus we have a bit of insight on this issue.

As always y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   
LEAS: Can you link me to the NIST report with the whitewashed picture in it? I have not seen that photo in any of the "NCSTAR" series.

Good find. What a STEAMING PILE OF BULL PUCKEY. They turned the brightness up in Photoshop to hide the squibs... What a bunch of tools.

I would like to add this dis-info to this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
LEAS: Can you link me to the NIST report with the whitewashed picture in it? I have not seen that photo in any of the "NCSTAR" series.

Good find. What a STEAMING PILE OF BULL PUCKEY. They turned the brightness up in Photoshop to hide the squibs... What a bunch of tools.

I would like to add this dis-info to this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...



Photos were located in this PDF.

wtc.nist.gov...=%22collapse%20of%20WTC%207%22

Although, I captured them and submited them to www.imageshack.us to put them on this web page. The links for those are:

img182.imageshack.us...

and

img246.imageshack.us...

Funny part is, the only photos with the angle that show the plumes or squibs are white washed. All other photos are normal.


[edit on 23-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
Still to date..........not one "structural" engineer has come forward to
say otherwise (and i have asked many to date).

So unless you have REAL info to show TNT was used ....then I would read other posts in the other threads....to see that the PLANES took the buildings down.


Ahhh... the old "structural engineer" argument... ARe you sure Howardroark did not put you up to this? SEs do not know jack about demolishing a building so how is their input so valuable... more valuable than a physicist, military demolition expert, civilain demolition expert, mathmatician, MEchanical Engineer... This is a WEAK argument so let it go. NO ONE WANTS TO GO ON RECORD FOR MANY REASONS: jobs, family, grants, fear, pay-offs...

I do not think ANYONE here is arguing that TNT was used in the demolitions. You cliam to have done a bunch of research, but this statement alone impeaches any info you bring to the table. Some speculate it was incendaries (Thermate, Thermite, nano-thermite, super-thermite) others some form of HE like RDX, HMX, or PETN... The most comon theories seem to include a combination of both large incendary cutting charges (WTC 1 and 2 cores) and smaller HE charges. (WTC 7 squibs)



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
OK so now y'r saying a STRUCTURAL engineer knows' nothing about how the buildings
came down...........they just design the buildings to suit all different conditions (earthquake etc. etc.)

I am very interested in this topic and have personally asked (on the side) structural
engineers in the industry......there opinion [without the threat of them losing there jobs (give me a break)....remember many have there own firms so need to worry losing them]...and NOT one thinks TNT or other means then the planes taking them down.

So to you ...BUD....what you got??????????? anything to bring to the table ?
Then to try to proove others wrong with y'r NON-table-talk

And what do you know about building structures????

And please just because I believe with Howard views don't mean he put me up to it.
I have never even chatted to the guy....so please refrain from making claims....just show's you got nothing to bring to the table, then blah blah blah.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join