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.

 

Nice footage of skyscraper demolision..

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
I love how obsessed you are with these conspiracy theories.....not every event in human history is a god damned conspiracy!.


I am not even going to quote the rest of your factless drivel of a tirade as I find it a waste of DB space, however, I will say that I find your posts to be ill-informed, uneducated, close minded and generally with little or no merit.

As with those that have come before you, I guess a simple "Next!" will do so...


Next!



JAK

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I'd suggest everyone take a peek at the following before making any further posts.

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY... ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ

**POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ**

Jak

[edit on 20/9/06 by JAK]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Samblack, any one of us here can ramble on and on about how we think we're right.

Griff asked you to provide evidence to support your statements. This would mean more to us than anything like your last post ever would. Do some research.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
I love how obsessed you are with these conspiracy theories..calm down bud.


Obsessed? Hardly. Seeking truth...yes.


You know im right.


Do I? Or have a shown you that not ALL implosions using explosives/incendiaries are not always loud?


You have to realize that not every event in human history is a god damned conspiracy!


This is about the only thing I agree. BTW, I'd watch my language....you don't want to be banned the first month you are here.


Do I think certain people had prior knowledge to these events?Yes I do,but I do not believe there were explosive devices planted in the towers.


Why does explosives in the towers always have to be the U.S.? It could have been anyone.


Why can't people accept that a giant plane flying at a very high speed smashed into a Tower and took it down?


Read through some posts and you'll find out. You're new here so I'll give you a little time to catch up.



How did they plant explosives in the buildings? You dont just tear apart Drywall place an explosive on a beam and Patch the Drywall in a matter of minutes?The ammount of time it would of taken to do that would of taken months.


Exactly why we feel that the U.S. at least had SOME involvment. If not...it took the planners of 9/11 YEARS to plan...what's a couple of months to plant some explosives?



And one more thing every single Demolision Ive ever seen in my 30 years of life on this planet has been LOUD!!!


Maybe you haven't seen/heard the softer ones? I've already shown you that there are ways to do CD without being heard. Why are you so stuborn? Denial?


[edit on 9/20/2006 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
So you've never seen footage of buildings being demod?Ive probly seen a hundred in my lifetime and they were all loud.If they did use incineraries how did they get them in there?Where there exposed beams inside the Towers where they set up these eplosives?If there were everyone would see them.They would of had to literally tear through walls to set up these explosives and that my friends takes alot of work and alot of time.

I just find it hard to believe that the ammount of work involved setting up these explosive's and having nobody notice it is quite strange.Ive worked in the Prudential Tower in Boston,there are inspectors around every corner,people just walking around being curious etc...what were they specially trained CIA construction worker's?
It would of taken quite a few people to pull this off,how do you get that many people under your control to tell them to set explosives in a Tower where thousands of people in it could be killed and then not 1 of them leak info?

[edit on 20-9-2006 by Samblack]

[edit on 20-9-2006 by Samblack]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Not neccessarily. There were many open duct ways, elevator shafts, etc. in the core already open for placement of explosives/thermite. It's not as big an operation as many would have you believe. BTW, it only takes months when they have to be precise not to harm other adjacent buildings. If you want it to look like a terror strike by planes alone, you don't have to worry about adjacent buildings, so it would take a lot less as far as planning and placing. Furthermore, what if they actually needed to harm adjacent buildings? Think building 7...to give them an excuse for CDing that building also.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
I love how obsessed you are with these conspiracy theories..calm down bud.You know im right.You have to realize that not every event in human history is a god damned conspiracy!


Of course everything in history is a "damned conspiracy". Check this out man.

Reichstag:

It has been proven that Hitler was in fact behind that burning so he can gain support to become dictator of Germany.

Nero burning Rome:
Well that speaks for its self.

Gulf of Tonkin:

Where Isreali planes and such were blowing the hell out of an American ship. Only stopped because of a Russian ship came into view of it.

Kennedy:

That goes without saying.

SO yes everything is a conspiracy until the facts are straight.


Originally posted by Samblack
Why can't people accept that a giant plane flying at a very high speed smashed into a Tower and took it down?


Because as it has been stated I would guess a gazillion times on this board No steel structure has ever collapsed due to a fire in human history before or after 9/11.

As for the pancake theory if it holds water, where the hell are the core columns? You know those 47 big steel beams holding the tower together?


Originally posted by Samblack
How did they plant explosives in the buildings? You dont just tear apart Drywall place an explosive on a beam and Patch the Drywall in a matter of minutes,first off you have to reainstall the wall that was destroyed,then apply tape and mud to hide the seam wich has to dry for hours,then you sand the seam before painting it and then after its painted the fresh paint stands out and looks quite obvious that somebody was doing work there.?The amount of time it would of taken to do that would of taken months considering the amount of explosives it would of taken to take those two towers down.


Actually as soon as Silverstein acquired the lease on WTC there were reports of odd construction going on in the towers for the 6 weeks he had the lease up until 9/11.

And no you don't need to put a hole in drywall or whatever it is you said. The core columns were in the middle of the tower where the elevators and such were. So therefor a maintenance guy would be able to do it within a 6 week period.

There were wide reports of power downs in the WTC weeks before 9/11, and also the bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the tower prior to 9/11.

So in that I believe we have a conspiracy. Why don't you show us different, with facts that a fire from jet fuel can actually cause a 110 story building to fall. Cause if the NIST and FEMA cant, I am damned sure you won't be able to.. Oh ya their little computer models couldn't show the effects of 9/11 either. But I bet you looked that up also didn't you?

as Slap Nuts said "Next"


[edit on 9/20/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
There would have to be to many people involved,I just dont think you could get that many people to do that sort of thing without having someone disagree and expose what happened.So what did they do ask 20 certain people to do this and they all said "sure" ill do it? You would think that there would be people they asked that would have said NO and would of mentioned it by now.

If it were some other country/terrorist group that planted them they probly would of admitted it by now.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Because as it has been stated I would guess a gazillion times on this board No steel structure has ever collapsed due to a fire in human history before or after 9/11


Yes I realise this statement,but keep in mind that 2 massive jetliners smashed into it first,you can clearly see the towers were starting to buckle before they fell.The way the towers were built was so the Exoskeleton was the main support,the exoskleton took alot of damage that day.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
2 massive jetliners smashed into it first,


Actually, if you look at the masses of the towers vs. the airplanes...

The towers were MASSIVE and the airplanes were PUNY.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
The way the towers were built was so the Exoskeleton was the main support,the exoskleton took alot of damage that day.


Factually false. I've heard anywhere from 60% core to 50% core...depending on source. So, no...the "exoskeleton" was not the main support.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
There would have to be to many people involved,I just dont think you could get that many people to do that sort of thing without having someone disagree and expose what happened.So what did they do ask 20 certain people to do this and they all said "sure" ill do it? You would think that there would be people they asked that would have said NO and would of mentioned it by now.

If it were some other country/terrorist group that planted them they probly would of admitted it by now.


You know how much crap that goes on in this country and you don't know about?

There is things coming out now that we never knew before.

Like Golf of Tonkin. Johnson was on the phone telling someone "I want that god damn ship at the bottom of the ocean."

I bet you knew that right? We only know it now because it has be 40 odd yrs and nobody really gives a crap about it anymore.

So yes a lot of things can stay secret for a long time.

[edit on 9/20/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Samblack
2 massive jetliners smashed into it first,


Actually, if you look at the masses of the towers vs. the airplanes...

The towers were MASSIVE and the airplanes were PUNY.


You forgot to add that when they made the towers that they were to withstand multiple impacts from a 707 at the time.

707's are bigger than a 767.

[edit on 9/20/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Yes the towers are massive and so are the planes,if you take out 3-5 floors out of something that heavy,there is quite a good chance that the weight of something that large could casue it to colapse.Keep in mind that these towers were not built like a steel cage,ive seen various documentaries that were made PRE-911 that state that the exoskeleton was its main source of structural integrity and not the center of the tower.Even the floors of the WTC were not that structurally strong ,consisting of mainly concrete wich fails horribly when it gets hot.


If it would of been the Empire State Building that would of been hit it more then likely would of taken explosions cause those types of buildings were basically steel cages where as the WTC were basically hollow buildings with its structural integrity was mainly on the exoskeleton. Place a large whole in its exoskeleton and add a little heat=FAILURE.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Actually that is why these guys built the towers to withstand a plane impact.

The Empire State Building had a run in with a plane and still stood. I think it was a B-4 or something. Anyway these guys knew about that and tried make it a tad better when they built the towers.

So still false.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
You forgot to add that when they made the towers that they were to withstand multiple impacts from a 707 at the time.

So engineers are always right?Especially back then when computer's were next to non existent to calculate these type of things?There are just to many things going on when a jetliner hits a tower to possibly calculate and engineer something like that,especially at the time they were built.

Nowadays yes they could more then likely engineer this into buildings for obvious reasons,lol.

[edit on 20-9-2006 by Samblack]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
The empire state building is alot stronger then the WTC towers,it has alot more steal havnt you seen the old movies of that thing being built?Its a steal cage.

[edit on 20-9-2006 by Samblack]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Has anyone, ever, before 9/11, crashed very large airliners into skyscrapers before? No? Then how do we know what that does or does not look like?

True, the videos of 9/11 look somewhat like a controlled demolition. But where are you getting your information that a 757 crashing into the towers can't bring it down, and look like...the videos we all saw on 9/11?

I think this question needs to be answered before you can, with any authority, state that the buildings could only have been brought down by a controlled demolition.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Samblack
The way the towers were built was so the Exoskeleton was the main support,the exoskleton took alot of damage that day.


Factually false. I've heard anywhere from 60% core to 50% core...depending on source. So, no...the "exoskeleton" was not the main support.


Sorry to say, but you are both worng on a TECHNICALITY.

Because the towers have been quoted as being 2-3x redundant by the designers, even if the load bearing was split 50/50; TECHNICALLY either could support the entire mass.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Observer
But where are you getting your information that a 757 crashing into the towers can't bring it down, and look like...the videos we all saw on 9/11?


There are MANY threads addressing the ENERGY and FORCES required for the towers to fail and collapse as they did.

The force of gravity alone does not nearly account for all of the energy required to snap the steel core colums to pieces, pulverize concrete into powder and eject giant pieces of steel great horozontal distances.

Search and ye shall find.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join