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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I hope this link helps. In it, it includes quotes from various officials from ground-zero at the time with regards to secondary explosions and the like.


911proof.com...



or this video of NYFD talking about a bomb in the building and to clear out:

Bomb in the building

(Can anyone confirm if that video is from 9/11 and having to do with the WTCs?)

[edit on 11/25/2006 by Masisoar]




posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
If It was a controlled demolition, surely they would of WAITED until the gold trucks had left...

I mean, having that evidenec just waiting down below for people to find would shed light on the conspiracy..

a controlled demolition wouldnt of occured until that gold was clear, thus leaving nothing suspicous.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Does anyone have access to the electrical drawings of wtc 1&2? I would love to know...was there still electricity below the crash sites....was it emergency power? What were the locations of the transformers. I have heard transformers blow up...from water..short circuits..etc. LOUD ! Like a bomb. This may be one explination as too some of the witnesses hearing explosions.

Of all the survivors that witnessed the explosions... detonators and so on, had experience they could use as a comparison? How many would know what a bomb might sound like in that environment, and how it would different from the sound of a collapse?

"It was like two bombs going off. It was like two explosions," Craig said. "When I went outside I looked around and saw the helicopters hovering over the stadium, and I could see that the crane was gone."
www.tri-cityherald.com...

www.911myths.com...
This Video is of a crane collapsing. You may not think this this makes much sence...but listen. Witnesses were claiming bombs were going off..you can actually HEAR the "bombs".
This is a great example of just what happens to steel under this kind of pressure when it loses critical support. Failure that sounds just like "bombs", for instance, but no exotic munitions required.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If It was a controlled demolition, surely they would of WAITED until the gold trucks had left...

I mean, having that evidenec just waiting down below for people to find would shed light on the conspiracy..

a controlled demolition wouldnt of occured until that gold was clear, thus leaving nothing suspicous.

Now I am not too sure about the gold but don't you think it's strange that the gold was being moved just as the towers had been struck?
Don't you think it's strange that Silverstein had bought a 99 year lease just SIX WEEKS before 9/11 therefore taking control of the entire WTC complex?
Don't you think it is a rather odd purchase considering the WTC complex was not a viable investment since it needed an estimated 2 billion $ in Asbestos insulation removal?
Ever since their inception the WTC twins were never into private hands until 6 weeks before 9/11.
Don't you think it is rather weird that bomb sniffing dogs had been pulled out of WTC just the week before 9/11?
Don't you think it's strange that ALL the WTC buildings, all seven of them were destroyed beyond repair while other surrounding buildings were somewhat damaged but all stood up and were not really structurally damaged? Somehow the box cutter terrorists destroyed only Silverstein's buildings while leaving all other close by buildings relatively intact.
Now, you could take Silverstein's "pull it" comment to mean whatever you want but you have to agree that it COULD possibly be interpreted as controlled demolition.
Now I suggest you watch this video below, it is an interview with a controlled demolition expert who was not aware of WTC7's collapse. He is absolutely convinced that WTC7 was demolished but watch his reaction when they tell him it came down on the same day. He then goes on to explain that taking it down on that day would require a good 30-40 experts who would know exactly what they were doing to pull it down so fast, they would have to work EXTREMELY fast and work together. Then the interviewer tells him there were fires going on in there .... watch his reaction:
www.youtube.com...

Now, that gold, it might have been a nice motive, but it certainly was one of the least important ones. I think they might have prefered to wait until the gold was all out but they had to blow it all up fast because the firefighters had just made it up to the first tower's crash area and they had stated that there was only two isolated pockets of fire which could be taken out with only two hoses. So they had to take it down fast before it would get too known that there wasn't that much fires going on up there.

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



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
One thing in this thin is people have been talking on how the jet fuel has been burning at a certain temperature. Heat spreads so if it even was 1300 degrees it wouldn't be constant everywhere. Heat spreads. JUST LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE SUPPORT BEAMS



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If It was a controlled demolition, surely they would of WAITED until the gold trucks had left...

I mean, having that evidenec just waiting down below for people to find would shed light on the conspiracy..

a controlled demolition wouldnt of occured until that gold was clear, thus leaving nothing suspicous.



Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
Now I am not too sure about the gold but don't you think it's strange that the gold was being moved just as the towers had been struck?


www.abovetopsecret.com...


There were no trucks full of gold. The gold was recovered from the vaults they stored it in.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pepperslappy
One thing in this thin is people have been talking on how the jet fuel has been burning at a certain temperature. Heat spreads so if it even was 1300 degrees it wouldn't be constant everywhere. Heat spreads. JUST LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE SUPPORT BEAMS

You are correct, just because a fire can burn at let's say 1300 F, that doesn't mean that the bsteel near the fire is going to raise to 1300 F as well. Unless you can provide that heat on the whole length of that given beam, that beam is not very likely to get anywhere above 1000 F easily.

In fact, a firm made experiments in a steel made multi level car park and even with sustained fires, the steel didn't raise at temps above 400 degrees (but I don't remember if that is C or F degrees)



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Way too much speculation...how about some PEER REVIEW PAPERS from REAL ENGINEERS...

Engineers Explain WTC Collapse
www.architectureweek.com...

Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures
enr.construction.com...

IT WAS THE FIRE, CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE - icivilengineer.com
www.icivilengineer.com...

Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact - Lu XZ., Yang N., Jiang JJ. Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

Glover, N.J.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

The Towers Lost and Beyond
web.mit.edu...
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Meg Hendry-Brogan, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, Yossi Sheffi



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Does any of your numerous sources explain how WTC7 collapsed inside 7 seconds with it's penthouse sinking in first (just like a typical controlled demolition)?
Do any of your sources explain how WTC7 with only some damage to one side collapsed completely vertically without the help of any bombs into a neat little pile without eriously damaging any of the adjacent buildings?

It's not sufficient to provide a ton of links and claim that's the answer. You have to show me which one explains the collapse of WTC7, can you do that?

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



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I have heard some say that there were many unoccupied offices that were under construction.... We all agree that charges..wether it be conventional, nanothermite, mini-nukes, or a combination...would require access to several different parts of the structures.....
well.. just a little info on Occupancy Levels at the WTC:

''In January 1997 we had about an 80 percent occupancy rate,'' said Cherrie Nanninga, director of real estate for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the complex. Twenty percent of 10.5 million square feet of space is 2.1 million, which would be a substantial building by itself.

But as a result of the last year's work, Ms. Nanninga, said the complex is over 90 percent occupied and expects to it reach the 95 percent mark by the end of the year. That, she said, would be about as full as the center is likely to get, since there is almost always someone moving in or out. ''Ninety-seven percent occupancy would be full,'' said Ms. Nanninga, whose name is pronounced NAN-in-gay.

Downtown; At the World Trade Center, Things Are Looking Up

February 12, 2001

As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center's mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled.

Today, only about 250,000 of the 10.4 million square feet of office space in the trade center remains vacant. And the legal center has an occupancy rate of over 99 percent.

www.panynj.gov...
PressRelease/index.php?id=61

I guess Silverstein really was having money problems... Must have been all the asbestos that had to get removed.... There was NONE at wtc2 and wtc 1 only had it up to the 38th floor.

[edit on 25-11-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
Does any of your numerous sources explain how WTC7 collapsed inside 7 seconds with it's penthouse sinking in first (just like a typical controlled demolition)?
Do any of your sources explain how WTC7 with only some damage to one side collapsed completely vertically without the help of any bombs into a neat little pile without eriously damaging any of the adjacent buildings?

It's not sufficient to provide a ton of links and claim that's the answer. You have to show me which one explains the collapse of WTC7, can you do that?

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



Pepe -

My previous post was to show that there are countless numbers of Engineers that have supported the NIST report. All their papers are peer reviewed. They are not internet junkies that spend the day googling . We all have a right to our opinions...but I like to have my backed up with a little factual data. I will see if I can find any info on WTC 7 for you.

Thanks !



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Way too much speculation...how about some PEER REVIEW PAPERS from REAL ENGINEERS...



Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

The Towers Lost and Beyond
web.mit.edu...
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Meg Hendry-Brogan, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, Yossi Sheffi



You had all your references ready to go, but you did not answer my question.

You really look like a shill now.
You ignore the fact that EXPLOSIONS OCCURRED BEFORE THE PLANE HIT, which is indicative of controlled demoliton, coverup and complicity, and this ignorance on your part indicates you're not worth communicating with any longer. If you're not getting paid to do this, you're still a shill because of your intellectual dishonesty.

But whatever shill game you're playing, it's not working.

You may now join the rest of them--you lose too. You tried to dodge the question. Tsk, tsk.

“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: www.studyof911.com...

Summary:
This precision data has yet to be refuted. It is from the two highest governmental entities charged with looking into what happened on 9/11. Both declared these times as accurate, and in doing so corroborate William Rodriguez and the many eyewitnesses the morning of 9/11 who testified of explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 before American Airlines Flight 11 struck the building. This is indicting evidence of governmental coverup, and thus implication of complicity.

Demand a new, truly independent, criminal investigation of 9/11, this time a real one.
Justice waits...[and there is no statute of time limitation on murder]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
This is part of an interview:



BATTALION CHIEF KENAHAN: Today's date is
December 6, 2001. The time is 3:36 p.m. This is
Battalion Chief Kenahan of the Safety Battalion of the
Fire Department of the City of New York. I'm conducting
an interview with Richard Banaciski of Ladder 22.

-- "we actually searched the Verizon building,
because there was reports of fires in there. Basically our
whole house searched that building.

They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

www.nytimes.com...


Mod Edit: No Quote – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 25/11/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Quick....

I think you should read some of my posts.... I told you ..and others...SEVERAL TIMES.. I am still looking for the data. I was searching for Transponder information...my GUESS was...that the several seconds difference between the Seismic activity and the FAA loss from Radar was the time it took for the transponder to become completely destroyed. I was also told flight 11 didnt have theirs on....So... as I get the info.. i wll pass it along to you... in the mean time..like i said in the LAST post to you...I AGREE ... there is some discrepancies with the time...That does not by ANYWAY PROVE explosives.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Think about this:

What sense does it make that the WTC Towers 1 and 2 collapsed like peeling bananas, yet, WTC 7 collapses neatly into its own footprint?

World Trade Centers One and Two Collapsed Where they were hit by the planes.

World Trade Center Two gave out where the plane hit (lower left side of building). The above floors tilted to the left (as though the building would snap in two and then fell inward as the steel gave out from the friction. The remnants of the building peeling outward.

World Trade Center One was hit roughly in the center of the building. The top portion of the building collapsed and the antenna fell to the left. The remainder of the building began to peel outward and fall.

World Trade Center Three partially collapsed. The portions of the building that collapsed outward and away from the building.


World Trade Center Seven, however, has a different story. WTC 7 was not in the direct line of fire for major damage by debris. However, the building managed to collapse. But, it does not fall in the same pattern as the other buildings. Eyewitnesses report large lights and smoke emenating from WTC 7 shortly before collapse. The penthouse on the roof of WTC7 fell into the building, and the rest of the building followed. However, the building collapsed neatly within its own footprint, as would a building that was envolved in a controlled demolition.


Fishy, huh?

[edit on 11/26/2006 by TheRanchMan]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ViolatoR
heres one I whipped up for fun.


Pre-911 physics vs. 7WTC picture.

(compare the Windsor pic with the pic I quoted above (of a woman standing in the entry point of one of the towers where the fire has long since gone out.))

Windsor Madrid. After two days of a raging inferno blazing through almost the entire structure, only outside portions of the building where the fire started broke away leaving the internal supports still standing from top to bottom.

7WTC. After several hours of only 2 floors of visible fires, and minimal damage (no where near the damage of buildings 3,4,5&6 and surrounding structures), building 7 gets a signature demolition kink/fault which caused the building to fall inward upon itself. pic of 7

Im not going to say which side of the argument I agree with, as I like to play devil's advocate alot, so please dont harrass me; and keep an open mind - both sides. A teacher I once had told me that I cannont effectively argue my side of the story unless I can argue the other side also. This way I can include 'negative-facts' into my argument and explain them away. Keep that in mind, investigate all sides of the story.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
OK, while you do that, perhaps we can find some stuff we can agree on ... ok?

Do we agree that NIST claims the impact helped weaken the steel's resistance to fire by dislodging the Asbestos insulation?
Of course, they never refer to it as Asbestos, they call it the "foam insulation" but it is never the less Asbestos.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Fishy is right! Come on Cameron! Who do you work for? The Fed Building in Oklahoma City was blown to pieces, yet it still stayed up (partially). The WTC7 had small packs of fires and went down PERFECTLY! All of this other stuff is non-sense....WAKE UP MAN....

The building was totally evacuated a long before all of this started. Silverstein said "Pull it down". GET OUT OF LALA LAND!!



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Yeah, quit with your apologists remaking of the CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of the Silverstein bldgs. Any thinking homo sapien who has reviewed the available information will come to the same conclusion. DEMOLITION!


You have voted Pepe Lapiu for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.


Lapiu set out the major conundrums for the apologists. These MOFOS clearly planned this event. The fact that they relied on the witless trust of the vast majority of the public to pull it off does not lend credence to the government sponsored and constantly shifting conspiracy theory.

We are thinking beings here, you're efforts are in vain.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
For me the last straw was when the neocons who planned for imperialism and stated their need for a new pearl harbor in 1999 in the PNAC plans blocked very effort at a decent investigation and immediately had hauled all the steel that could give evidence to explosive deviced planted in the buildings overseas by a demolition company.

After the WTC bombing in 1992 why would they refuse to even investigate a contemporaneous bombing on site by the terrorists unless they knew the truth? For all major catastrophes be them plane crashes or Space Shuttle, etc., they always rebuild the planes or structures to determine what caused the failures. In the 9/11 incident they did nothing - absolutely nothing. For me that is the answer to govt. involvement at least at the Bush level of things. But, when you add that to all the other information the truth simply SCREAMS at you.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join