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.

 

My Advice to The 9/11 CT'ers

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Here is my opinion of what happned to the towers and it is from information gathered from some government and professional research sites.

The 9/11 attacks used unconventional high explosives (commercial jet fuel), unconventional delivery (aluminum aircraft, associated metals and oxides) to create high explosive blasts, exteme temperatures and thermite reactions that caused the collapse of the towers.

Does that apply to WTC7 as well? remember that WTC7 didn't suffer any airplane crash and it fell down inside 7 seconds into it's own footprint like a perfectly executed controlled demolition job. Heck, many controlled demolition guys would have done a worst job but Osama sure knew how to do it well ...... telepathically from within his cave ..... with the help of his trusty goat.




posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Here is my opinion of what happned to the towers and it is from information gathered from some government and professional research sites.

The 9/11 attacks used unconventional high explosives (commercial jet fuel), unconventional delivery (aluminum aircraft, associated metals and oxides) to create high explosive blasts, exteme temperatures and thermite reactions that caused the collapse of the towers.

Does that apply to WTC7 as well? remember that WTC7 didn't suffer any airplane crash and it fell down inside 7 seconds into it's own footprint like a perfectly executed controlled demolition job. Heck, many controlled demolition guys would have done a worst job but Osama sure knew how to do it well ...... telepathically from within his cave ..... with the help of his trusty goat.


No that does not apply to WTC 7. I stated it was my opinion of what happened to the towers.

As far as WTC 7, Larry Silverstein stated that the fire chief made the choice to pull builidng 7 and they watched it collapse.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As far as WTC 7, Larry Silverstein stated that the fire chief made the choice to pull builidng 7 and they watched it collapse.

And what do you think he meant by pulling WTC7?
Controlled demolition with explosives?

[edit on 25-11-2006 by Pepe Lapiu]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As far as WTC 7, Larry Silverstein stated that the fire chief made the choice to pull builidng 7 and they watched it collapse.

And what do you think he meant by pulling WTC7?
Controlled demolition with explosives?

[edit on 25-11-2006 by Pepe Lapiu]


Yes, "PULL" means the same for building 7 as it did for building 6. Now weither it was by explosives or beam cutters we do not know exactly what they used.

"PULL" is a term thet means to bring down a building. Just like they PULLED building 6.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
So you think the building was brought down by explosives?
There are a few problems with this idea:
First of all, putting together a team of demolition experts, mobilizing the plans and determine how it's going to be done, getting permission from the city (which there are no records of) and finally sending those experts to set up bombs, charge and wiring all around a building that would be smoking and afire is not doable inside that 7 hour window frame, they would have had to do some of this work before 9/11 (which would probably explain why bomb sniffing dogs were pulled out a week prior)
Just think about this, would you be willing to walk around fires with explosives in hand setting up charges here and there?
And if it really were controlled demolition, why are FEMA and NIST both working very hard at hiding this from us?
If Silverstein really meant that he was demolishing the building with bombs, why did he later on change his story and claim that's not what he meant?



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
So you think the building was brought down by explosives?
There are a few problems with this idea:
First of all, putting together a team of demolition experts, mobilizing the plans and determine how it's going to be done, getting permission from the city (which there are no records of) and finally sending those experts to set up bombs, charge and wiring all around a building that would be smoking and afire is not doable inside that 7 hour window frame, they would have had to do some of this work before 9/11 (which would probably explain why bomb sniffing dogs were pulled out a week prior)
Just think about this, would you be willing to walk around fires with explosives in hand setting up charges here and there?
And if it really were controlled demolition, why are FEMA and NIST both working very hard at hiding this from us?
If Silverstein really meant that he was demolishing the building with bombs, why did he later on change his story and claim that's not what he meant?


We do not know what was used to bring down the building. It could have been explosives or some kind of beam cutters.

The incident commander did not need permission to bring down the building he was in charge and made the choice to bring down the buiding, he only called Silverstien to let him know what was going on.

You should do some research on Emergency Incident Command.

You really do not need a big team of experts to bring down a building that is damaged and gutted by fire.

FEMA report stating thier was no fire on the ground floor.

www.wtc7.net...

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.



Also check out this letter.

www.valis.cjb.cc...

Open letter and e-mails for the attention of:

Andrew Gould, Chairman and chief executive officer of Schlumberger Ltd.
Care of the Schlumberger Limited Secretary, Schlumberger Limited
153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 100222

James R. Boyd, Chairman of the Board, Halliburton Company
C/o Director of Business Conduct, Halliburton Company
5 Houston Center, 1401 McKinney, Suite 2400, Houston, TX 77010
BoardofDirectors@halliburton.com

And their companies’ respective boards of directors and shareholders

From: David Hawkins david@eazeway.org Forensic Economist at Hawks' CAFE,
Foundation Scholar, Cambridge University, Co-host Black Hawk Investigations,
British Columbia, Canada Tel: 604-542-0891

Copy:
U.S. Vice-President Richard Cheney,
Former Chairman & CEO of Halliburton Company (1996 – 2000)

Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer, Co-chairs Scholars for 9/11 Truth www.st911.org/

E-mailed: Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Dear Mr. Gould and Mr. Boyd

Re: Were oil company bombs, cutters used to 'pull' WTC #7?

A former (1965-1980) Schlumberger field engineer and researcher into computerized real-world data fusion, I am now a forensic economist investigating the special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams used to execute the precise and co-ordinated series of attacks on 9/11.

I invite the board of directors of both of your companies to investigate the possible use of oil company remote-controlled bomb and cutter technologies by as-yet unidentified organizations which decided to ‘pull’ – industry jargon for demolish – WTC building #7.

WTC#7 became the first steel-frame building in history to collapse through fire. The collapse generated pools of molten steel in the debris piles at the site, consistent with the ignition of chemical (thermite) cutters pre-positioned by wireline inside its structural box columns and the remote-controlled detonation of atomized aluminum powder or ‘rocket fuel’ bombs in segregated column sections.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
umm there was no heavy fires...the majority of the fuel was spent in the fireball outside the building...they burned for like an hour, and according to FDNY reports, they were containable with one or two lines of water only.....so my advice to you is stop lying



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
For starters I would like to point out that 3 years of heavy research has lead me to the belief that 9/11 conspiracy theories are false.


How old are you really?




WTC collapsed due to heavy fires and damage later that evening.
[edit on 31/10/2006 by doctorfungi]


I will stop here... Come on, don't you know you'll get flamed for this stuff here? This board is for well thought out ideas... LIKE THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT!

AAC



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join