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.

 

World Trade Center + Explosives

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
People say


It couldn't be explosives. I didnt see any flashes of light or large bangs.


Yes all controlled demolitions anyone has ever seen have been loud and flashy. That is due to the fact they are not hiding it. People know the building is going to go, so they don't need to hide it. So they throw in explosives and boom its gone.

With the World Trade centers they would need to hide it.

If you have been looking into 9/11 you will have known that the main supports for the building were not on the outside, they were on the inside. All the videos I have seen the main supports have been on the outter portion.

In that case the explosives would have been harder to see due to the fact that the explosion would need to destroy the supports in the center. So no or minimal flashes of light.

Another idea for why we couldn't see the explosions is that I don't thik they all went at once. I believe that when the plane hit the explosives were detonated at the same time. Not all just enough to make the building a bit less stable.

With those explosives being detonated when the plane hit. All they needed was time. Enough time for the initial damage from the first explosives to weaken it a bit, also enough time for the world to tune in and look at the towers.

Then all they needed was to blow the final cutter chargers to take down the tower.



Edit: I edited cause I sounded like an ass people read the topic for what it is

[edit on 18-10-2006 by Pepperslappy]




posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pepperslappy
Stop being Ignorant

You surely are insulting a lot of intelligent and respected members here and abroad.

Considering there are a multitude of threads already covering this subject, that your subject seems to really be of others being ignorant, one could consider this bait.

At least, I do.

Not biting.

Misfit



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I agree with Misfit.

So some research before you post. cause your post is useless here and deserves no merrit on anything related to this forum..

It seems you want a few people to come in here and start slamming people left and right.

I will not fall for it..

Please insert a quarter and try again.

TO MODS:

Whatever happened to that 300 word essay thing people had to go thru to join this forum.... Did you guys eliminate that or something?

You should start it back up.. I will do it.. pay me in 10 points per troll I dont allow on this forum..



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I am not slamming anyone. I just do not like how people dont even take into consideration anything. They have there mind so set on something that they can't see anything. I don't know what hapened during 9/11. Everything is a theory. I do not like people who smash every theory cause tehy don't see it. Sorry if I came across as rude.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
he edited his posts in their entirety, including the name of the thread and apologized for his comments, so i'm removing my condemnation of said remarks.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Sorry guys for sounding like a jerk can you guys read the post and make comments on my idea.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by Pepperslappy]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
No I think we will keep this open so you can see where you really stand.

Do you actually think real members of this site will stand for this..... Come on man, we aren't in kindergarten anymore. This is real Internet life.

You posted, now you deal with it.. I suggest get some proof to back up your claims, cause from this point on, you name is TROLL, with BIG ass bold letters that spell out

T R O L L

Try again, you lost your quarter.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Thichheaded,

I don't think that attitude is necessary. If we can't allow a person to admit where they made a mistake and ask for a second chance to continue their effort, then we're bound to perpetuate what is tearing humanity apart.

Pepper-person,

Yeah, you had a sucky attitude. I read your theory. It's as valid a speculative theory as any other. What you need to focus on now is evidence to back it - don't ever assume any one else should just accept it because you wrote it up.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Ok lets post some evidence...lets see first that the world trade centers supports were in the center

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

That doesnt go along with my theory but on the page it shows that the main supports are in the center.

WTC 1 COLLAPSE-
www.youtube.com...


Controlled Demo-
www.youtube.com...

The only difference I noticed was the loud explosion and the flashes.

WTC 2 COLLAPSE-
www.youtube.com...

It is hard to see do to the smoke but find the top of the tower before you press play. You hear loud sounds. sounds like explosions then a second later the building starts to fall. You can see that the building doesnt move untill a few seconds after the sounds.


Now look at this

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Look at the bottom of that page. The picture shows one of the core collums and its the same angle as a demo charge.

Also on that page it shows that on the bottom of the wtc before it collapsed there was a burst of white smoke. Thermite gives off white smoke
www.hanford.gov...

Also again if you watch the video of the controlled demo it also shares the white burst of smoke before it collapses.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I missed your original apparently rude post, so I'll just respond to your ideas.

After doing quite a bit of reading I've recently come to the conclusion that I don't subscribe to the controlled defenition theory. This is largely in response to reading a report on the subject by Brent Blanchard, senior editor of Implosionworld.com. I suggest you read it. In regard to your post though:

If the explosives were on the inner core structure, as you propose, then that raises a number of problems (and I am borrowing here a little from Blanchards theories)

1. In the history of building demolition charges are always set at the lowest point of gravity - that is in the bottom portion of the building. There may be some weakening explosives placed higher up, but the majority of the demolishing force is placed at the base of the building. This WAS NOT the case with the WTC Towers and evidence of that is obvious in every video of the collapse. Watch the collapse of the building - it collapses from the point of impact - the rest of the building is collected by the collapse of the top half. This also disproves the now infamous white puffs, because, if they were explosives then the motion of collapse should be effected at that point, but there is no visible effect on the structure at that level.

2. Therefore, for your theory to work those explosives on the inner core must have been placed on the same floors as the impact of the planes. Therefore, they must have been positioned prior to September the 11th and they must have been able to withstand any damage and the tremendous heat caused by the crashing airliner. In Blanchard's experience he's not aware of any detonators capable of doing so.

BUT, even if what you say is true, the question that makes me curious is WHY? Why was is so important that those buildings came down that the US Government (or whoever) would risk trying to get massive detonators into both buildings prior to September 11, setting them up in the exact floors that the planes would crash into and then risking being found out by the hundreds of demolition experts who were involved in the cleanup.

That's something that's too hard for me to believe.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Elmo-

I agree that they always set it off in the lowest point of gravity. Take this into consideration. The impact of the plane destroyed dozens of floors. Like I said in my initial post, the only way for it to work is as the plane hit they detonated charges in the first top half of the building, to weaken stability. With that when they denonate the rest the top half would easily be destroyed. The weight of the upper half and a few charges in the lower would help the building collapse.

I am no expert or anything (who is now a days)

In LooseChange they showed reports of random security drills and drug sniffing dogs removed. Easy way to bring charges in??



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Pepperslappy: I understand what you are saying, it was easy to hide a demo job at the WTC which makes sense. But it had to be hidden so it could not be seen or detected. Also, since liability was not an issue in this demo there would have been liberties taken in this job that are not normally considered in a normal demo job.

I fail to see why you elicited the viscious attacks that you got here.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I had said in the topic that I was angered at the people who were being ignorant about it. I had said that people were just saying its not possible and leaving it at that. Which angered me but thats over now. I changed it, I got warned but oh well I learned.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
It is common around here when you encounter someone with a 180 degree opposing view that they will attack rather than make their point diplomatically.. especially on this topic. I think that 911 if the truth is revealled will lead to serious consequences for Israel and many of its supporters. That is why there is so many people fighting so hard to keep a lid on this topic.

But if you are new here then you need to start reading the other threads and discussions and decide for yourself what happened while considering a lot of differing arguments.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I found this link in another thread that seems relevant to the topic.

Implosionworld






posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Damn it, people are so quick to jump down others' throats. This thread devolved into worse than nothing very quickly.

I agree with the ideas you post, Pepperslappy. People do make often make statements as if they think the Towers should have been conventional and obvious demolitions, and I agree that these were designed to look plausible (at least in such circumstances) as "natural" collapses. They were explosions reported throughout the fires, and during the impacts, reports of partially collapsed floors way below the impacted floors before the global collapse began, etc., so I agree with all of that as well.

Whatever attitude you may have had has apparently been removed from the original post, lesson learned or whatever, I don't care, but thoughtful post nonetheless.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
The main point I was trying to come accross is, every demolition is meant to be seen. That doesnt mean it's impossible to make one look like a natural collapse



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by elmo_911
1. In the history of building demolition charges are always set at the lowest point of gravity - that is in the bottom portion of the building. There may be some weakening explosives placed higher up, but the majority of the demolishing force is placed at the base of the building.


There are reports of explosions at the B-4 level. That's the lowest point of gravity.


This WAS NOT the case with the WTC Towers and evidence of that is obvious in every video of the collapse. Watch the collapse of the building - it collapses from the point of impact - the rest of the building is collected by the collapse of the top half.


Once the core was dismantled, where do you think the outer columns are going to start to fail? I'll give you a hint: think about chains and the weekest link.


This also disproves the now infamous white puffs, because, if they were explosives then the motion of collapse should be effected at that point, but there is no visible effect on the structure at that level.


I could agree with this except for that the air pressure needed to cause the puffs couldn't be there as proven by the law of gasses. The pressure at floor 55 would only be 2 atmospheres if the building was airtight. There were puffs way before floor 55 and the building was not airtight at this point. BTW, 2 atmospheres pressure is around 33 feet of water. Divers can go far deeper than this without damage.


2. Therefore, for your theory to work those explosives on the inner core must have been placed on the same floors as the impact of the planes.


No, only if the explosives were on the outer columns...not the inner. Basically they were 2 seperate structures only attached to each other for stability. Once they weren't attached anymore, the outer columns became unstable and would start to collapse at the weekest link...i.e. the impact zones.


BUT, even if what you say is true, the question that makes me curious is WHY? Why was is so important that those buildings came down that the US Government (or whoever) would risk trying to get massive detonators into both buildings prior to September 11,


Why? The WTC buildings were a huge economic disaster for the City of New York. It cost the city millions just to operate. Plus, add in the fact that it would have taken billions to get rid of the asbestos and you have a reason why some people would be greatful to be rid of them. I'm not saying the whole city of New York was in on it but some key people could have been.


setting them up in the exact floors that the planes would crash into and then risking being found out by the hundreds of demolition experts who were involved in the cleanup.


See above for the impact zone part. Hundreds of demolition experts? The demolition company hired to do the cleanup consists of a few members of the demerioux (sp?) family. How do you get hundreds of demolition experts? BTW, this same company was the company hired to "clean-up" the Oaklahoma City bombing...which is also under suspect.


That's something that's too hard for me to believe.


Hopefully I have made it easier.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Wow Griff you replyed to his post in a way I couldnt. Yes the world trade center is basically 2 structures. The main structure is very weak the inner core holds it up...take away the core the rest dies



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pepperslappy
That doesnt mean it's impossible to make one look like a natural collapse


Nor does that make it possible or probable.

Please show us some positive evidence that it is possible to make it look like a "natural collapse".

Or even better show us how exactly they planted these explosives through out two enormous buildings with no one noticeing.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join