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.

 

Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

page: 21
0
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Three buildings fell in on themselves!




posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Moderator Notes

Mods can't be everywhere at once, but the advantage of forums is that they are a persistent medium, so we can review threads later and take action as needed if we spot problems.

I have just reviewed the posts made since my last two contributions to this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Both requested that members stay on topic.

While reviewing the thread since then, I have:

1. Issued three warnings, two for incivility and one for gross digression from the topic.

2. Placed one member on a post ban/global ignore status while we review the T&C.

3. Issued one applause to a member who stayed cool and stayed on topic under difficult circumstances.

4. Banned one member and a related sock puppet for repeated T&C violations, including registering again after being previously banned.

5. Edited some posts for excessive quoting. I know enforcement of the quoting rules tends to be uneven, but we have to start somewhere.

I haven't issued any quote warns yet, but ask that members Trim Those Quotes to improve the readability of the threads.

The Point Of The Exercise

Thanks to all members who have stayed on topic, contributed their opinions in a cogent and civil manner and served as an example of the kind of members we could use more of.


The goal of the ATS staff is not to go around punishing people, but to promote candid, civil, topical discussion.

We do that by asking members to honor the T&C, be courteous and stay on topic. When requests don't work, we take more direct action, but do so reluctantly.

Please help us out by cooperating with staff instructions, reporting problems by submitting complaints and resisting the temptation to respond to bad behavior with bad behavior.

We welcome all opinions on the subject of 9/11, regardless of what they may be, as long as they are expressed in accordance with the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use.

Because of the recurring problems in this long thread, I wanted to clarify our role in moderating the discussions.

Please forgive this rather wordy post, which is itself off-topic. If there are no further problems in the thread, I won't make any more posts like this.


And now back to...

Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

Good luck!




[edit on 12/1/2006 by Majic]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Not to mention the radiation a nuke and even an H-bomb would have left....

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Muaddib]


I am not sure if yourself or others here are aware, but the 'radiation' left by a h-bomb would of been completely unlike what anyone would of been expecting had it been an atomic bomb. Please take some time to read the quotes below from the Finnish military expert as it will go a long way to explaining the differences and lack of detectable radiation:



An atomic bomb is built based on very heavy elements, plutonium or uranium.
An atomic bomb also is very polluting, and it has a critical mass type explosion mechanism
which does not allow very small bombs or also necessary directed energy effects. The
energy distribution of an atomic bomb is also less suitable for the purposes used in the WTC.
An atomic bomb emits 50% of it's energy in blast force, 35% in thermal radiation and the
remaining 15% in various radioactive forms (initial radiation 5%, residual radiation 10%).
The use of covert atomic bombs in the WTC towers is an utterly hopeless idea, which is
why this evil young man misrepresents my theory so eagerly offering those A-bombs.

The hydrogen bomb is very different. It uses the lightest of the elements, like various
forms of hydrogen and lithium. It has very small minimum size, the cherry-size pellets
are typical in fusion energy designs. It can be made into directed-energy device much
like conventional military explosives. And the energy distribution is more useful, some
80% is in neutron and thermal radiation (and in this case, neutrons also use most of their
energy in warming steels and other hard targets). Some 15% goes to blast effects and
the remaining 5% into various radiations. In covert operations like the WTC the residual
effects of the hydrogen bomb are neatly disappearing into the winds and this process
can be speeded up with continuous spraying of water (which also is what happened).
Some of the tritium binds with oxygen forming tritiated water (which is less harmful than
the free tritium remains) and spraying will also get these lighter-than-air molecules moving,
out into the skies.


I would of dropped the issue due to the lack of radiation evidence such a bomb would of left but this sort of information begs to differ as there were elevated levels of tritium at ground zero and high pressure water spraying.



Mini-hydrogen bombs. Any idea what is the difference of tritium and plutonium?
They create radiation, but far less (1/100) than plutonium bombs. And of different
type. The problem is, you cannot measure it without very expensive instruments.
In the first minutes at ground zero, there are hundreds of different short-lived
radioactive particles. Take a deep breath and you will propably die. Neutrons
did their damage, but they are not showing any longer. Later on, alpha and tritium
particles exist, but they are not easy to reveal. Again, some sniffing like the dogs did
and many will get internal lung damage (not always fatal, but damage anyway). Water
spraying is a good way to speed up the evaporation of these light, radioactive
elements. And that's what they used. Elevated tritium values were found in three
places at the WTC area. Five days later. Some unexpected Beta readings also have
been measured. Guess why they are not telling, what was found earlier, say 9/13?


www.saunalahti.fi...

Even if it wasn't nuclear based explosives it will take much to convince me that anything but explosives were used, for me so far the case for fires and damage is a less convincing theory (as much as i would like to believe this theory). Simple example being controlled demolitions inc. should be out of a job right now if random fires and damage created in one afternoon can create such symmetrical collapses. I have just arrived at this conclusion of nuclear based devices after many months of looking at every theory going, none of them really go as far as to explaining all the phenomenon at ground zero.

What do you guys make of this info presented by the finnish military expert?



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:16 AM
link   
It seems the Jury still needs to deliberate on the arguments regarding how the buildings fell.
The decision to go running around the planet looking for an Orwellian Goldstein and throw our Union into perpetual war for seemingly ever based on ; at the very least, our administrations own incompetence, is not just.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Insolubrious, the facts show that whoever that Finnish person is, and your whole claim is "wrong".....

There are many people who have died from radiation from H-bombs and others have suffered many side effects, including people who worked on H-bomb factories...yet you are trying to claim that an H-bomb, no matter how small it is still an H bomb, being detonated in New York city wouldn't have caused at least side effects on a lot of people in New York?... At least the people who were close to the WTC, as well as those who were trapped would be, at the least suffering radiation damage.... yet noone who survived that day has suffered from radiation damage...

Sorry, but that so called Finnish expert is obviously not who he claims to be...and this claim is just bogus.

[edit on 2-12-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I would like your opinion on this picture. I'd do a search if I could, but it seems the 9/11 Conspiracy section is not available in the search field (to narrow the search). Anyway, this picture shows what appears to be a core column cut at an 45 degree angle. This is consistent with controlled demolition. I'm guessing this has been debated already, but what do you think?





posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
First off, how is that consistent with a controlled demolition?

Secondly that picture is well into the clean up and looks to have been cut by the clean up crews.





en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
First off, how is that consistent with a controlled demolition?


If you cut the column horizontally it will simpy rest on itself, but if you cut it at a 45 degree angle the force pushing down on it will make it slide off and hence it will lose it's loadbearing capacity. If your cuting it after the collapse for cleanup then it doesn't really make much sense to cut it at an angle IMHO...


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Secondly that picture is well into the clean up and looks to have been cut by the clean up crews.

en.wikipedia.org...


That is of course totally possible. That's why I'm asking for your opinion... The only reason I'm not totally writing it off is the statement on Rense where I found the picture:



In this photo, for example, the column directly above the fireman's helmet shows that it was cut with thermite. There is a substantial amount of hardened molten iron which can be seen on both the inside and outside of the box column. This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite.

Experts who have viewed this photograph say that this column was not cut with a torch.
Evidence Of Thermite On WTC Core Columns - Photo


Doesn't seem like they have much to back up this expert claim though...

Oh and just out of curiosity, how can you tell that this picture is taken "well into the clean up" ?

[edit on 4-12-2006 by DrLeary]

[edit on 4-12-2006 by DrLeary]

[edit on 4-12-2006 by DrLeary]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrLeary

Oh and just out of curiosity, how can you tell that this picture is taken "well into the clean up" ?



He can't. I was going to point this out but since you already did, I don't have to.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrLeary

Originally posted by LeftBehind
First off, how is that consistent with a controlled demolition?


If you cut the column horizontally it will simpy rest on itself, but if you cut it at a 45 degree angle the force pushing down on it will make it slide off and hence it will lose it's loadbearing capacity. If your cuting it after the collapse for cleanup then it doesn't really make much sense to cut it at an angle IMHO...


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Secondly that picture is well into the clean up and looks to have been cut by the clean up crews.

en.wikipedia.org...


That is of course totally possible. That's why I'm asking for your opinion... The only reason I'm not totally writing it off is the statement on Rense where I found the picture:



In this photo, for example, the column directly above the fireman's helmet shows that it was cut with thermite. There is a substantial amount of hardened molten iron which can be seen on both the inside and outside of the box column. This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite.

Experts who have viewed this photograph say that this column was not cut with a torch.
Evidence Of Thermite On WTC Core Columns - Photo


Doesn't seem like they have much to back up this expert claim though...

Oh and just out of curiosity, how can you tell that this picture is taken "well into the clean up" ?

[edit on 4-12-2006 by DrLeary]

[edit on 4-12-2006 by DrLeary]

[edit on 4-12-2006 by DrLeary]


Come on now....I thought this picture was explained MONTHS ago. Why rehash the obvious. Watch the "Rebuilding America Part 2" It shows the clean up crew making the cuts. This ONE picture proves NOTHING at all.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Come on now....I thought this picture was explained MONTHS ago. Why rehash the obvious. Watch the "Rebuilding America Part 2" It shows the clean up crew making the cuts.


Does it show this particular column being cut or does it show other columns being cut? Also, can you link to the video?


This ONE picture proves NOTHING at all.


I agree.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrLeary
I would like your opinion on this picture. I'd do a search if I could, but it seems the 9/11 Conspiracy section is not available in the search field (to narrow the search). Anyway, this picture shows what appears to be a core column cut at an 45 degree angle. This is consistent with controlled demolition. I'm guessing this has been debated already, but what do you think?




I feel its also worth mentioning this picture has been cropped.

In the full size version you can see a gz worker standing in the background holding a blow torch! I am unable to find the full size version right now but its out there!

What is worth considering is why did the picture get cropped? Purposeful dis-information by a CT pushing the thermite theory or innocent cropping to enlarge the details of the cut beam?

I have always found this more suspicious!


www.whatreallyhappened.com...




This eight ton steel I-beam is six inches thick. It was selected to be preserved for future generations for the near perfect horseshoe bend ... it bent without almost a single crack in it. It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this.


What could of produced temperatures hot enough to do this? This is certainly not the effect of thermite.

[edit on 5-12-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

I feel its also worth mentioning this picture has been cropped.

In the full size version you can see a gz worker standing in the background holding a blow torch! I am unable to find the full size version right now but its out there!

What is worth considering is why did the picture get cropped? Purposeful dis-information by a CT pushing the thermite theory or innocent cropping to enlarge the details of the cut beam?

I have always found this more suspicious!


www.whatreallyhappened.com...




This eight ton steel I-beam is six inches thick. It was selected to be preserved for future generations for the near perfect horseshoe bend ... it bent without almost a single crack in it. It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this.


What could of produced temperatures hot enough to do this? This is certainly not the effect of thermite.

[edit on 5-12-2006 by Insolubrious]


I figured it might have been debunked already yeah, but I'd still like some sources to this just to be sure... And that horse shoe shaped beam is a melonscratcher!
Certainly thermite would not do this if directly exposed to it. It would have to have been heated almost to melting point before a great force acted upon it to curl it in this way...



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   



www.whatreallyhappened.com...


One of the more unusual artefacts to emerge from the rubble is this rock-like object which has come to be known as "the meteorite". "This is a fused element of molten steel and concrete all fused by the heat into one single element."


Not just steel and concrete but other elements are fused in this meteorite. This is a phenomenon, construction and demolition experts a-like have never seen anything like it. Typical controlled demolition charges will not produce this, neither will fires or a gravity driven collapse the mechanism is just not there.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I don't personally have anything positive I can say..., therefore I try to avoid it....I'm personally just continuing to read and collect information.


i feel the EXACT same way. i happen to believe that it WAS a controlled demolition. the towers came down too perfectly, plus just a bunch of other little things that convinced me. i don't knock others' opinions that state that there was no CD, because everyone is entitled to their own interpretation and opinion.

sometimes i just grow annoyed with all the rude comments when someone states an opinion different from another's. sometimes its the OP's fault, if they start the thread off in a snide manner, but it just degrades the entire discussion as a whole in my opinion.

i read val's post and i felt like i just had to say that. Carry on.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
clear video evidence of explosions that i came accross recently :

short clip

this one too :

long clip



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Oh yeah, sure, that footage is probably all edited to include voice overs of those people so that it SOUNDS like they're talking about EXPLOSIONS when in reality they were talking about the TERRORISTS and the PANCAKE collapse of the towers and bldg 7.

I mean who do they think they are to BELIEVE they heard explosions? What, are they EXPERTS in explosives? It could have been somebody FARTING nearby that they thought was an EXPLOSION. And the dust clouds could have been caused by a passing TRUCK or some such. Personally, I think those firefighters are TRAITORS for even mentioning the word EXPLOSIONS and DEMOLITION.

Hey people, listen up, YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR YOU'RE WITH THE TERRORISTS! Anyone who questions the official story is not a PATRIOT and should move to CANADA or, better yet, IRAN.

(Damn, that was fun.)



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I don't think ANYONE in here questions that there were explosions? The question is ... WHAT exploded... and WHAT caused it to explode.


[edit on 13-12-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I would like to know when it comes to the towers why 2 builidings with different damage collapsed the same exact way.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
it was controlled demolition.Look at building 7, their is no way it could have come down in a neat little 3 story pile of rubble in any other situation.


im sorry it was controlled demo, their is video footage of thermite reactions going on outside one of the WTC buildings samples have been analyzed and they found remnants of such reactions.

buildings don't just conveniently fall on one spot!

the first osama tap was proven to be fake.

this discussion is pointless. the people who think it wasn't an inside job will always think that, and the people that don't by now will never change.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join