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.

 

Devil in the details

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 04:34 AM
link   
I'm new to this forum and very glad to find an outlet for serious discussion of 911 related topics. Whatever you believe on this subject most everyone would agree that it is a very important one. I have seen many of the videos related to the events of 911 and I believe the MYHOP theory, i.e. that elements within the Bush administration, the military, the FBI and the CIA and Israeli connected elements made it happen on purpose. The Arabs involved were of two types, agents of the US government and patsies.
Having said that, my own interest is in examining what is known and looking to understand in detail what took place in order to find chinks in the US governments "official story", hence the title of this thread, "the devil in the details."
For a long time I was bewildered by the fact that the south tower, although it was the second tower struck, collapsed first. I don't know if this has been addressed by anyone before, but I believe that the south tower collapsed first because the firemen were about to put out the fires in that tower. I believe that the radio transmission referring to "two isolated pockets of fire" that was transmitted from within the building by one of the fire chiefs (called Orio) was monitored from somewhere and made those who demolished the building realize that they could wait no longer to permit further evacuation of the building. Within seconds of that transmission being sent the building "collapsed."
The efficiency of the New York fire department presented a real problem to the perpetrators of this event. I believe that their original intention was to delay long enough to permit the complete evacuation of the buildings before they "pulled" them. The fire department was so quick to get to the source of the trouble in the south tower that the whole scenario was thrown off schedule. Having "pulled" the south tower, they were then forced to hasten the destruction of the north tower.
There was a further delay of about twenty minutes I believe, before the north tower was "pulled". There may have been a strategy session, even perhaps arguments among the perpetrators in that interval. I've seen video of a female police officer evacuationg people from around the base of the north tower, telling people that the building was going to collapse. I believe Mayor Giuliani also told some of the firemen that the building was going to come down. One of them was quoted as wondering how the mayor knew that. These thoughts and speculations flesh out some of the anomalies of that day and provide possible explanations for odd events and circumstances that took place.
Another oddity is the fact that New York police department rescue helicopters were ordered not to attempt to rescue people from the roofs of the two towers. One police officer is quoted as saying that a rescue of a dozen or so people would have been difficult but possible, and yet the helicopters were ordered away. Why? This puzzled me for some time until I finally realized that if one of the helicopters were flying close to the buildings when the detonations began, it could concievably have been shot down by the "collapsing" building. That would be hard to explain as part of the "pancake theory".
The last oddity that perplexed me for some time was the phone call from Mark Bingham aboard one of the highjacked jets to his mother in which he says "This is your son Mark Bingham" or words to that effect and later says that the "plane has been highjacked. You believe me don't you mom?" or words to that effect. A lot of people believe that these were scripted calls made using voice morphing technology. I believe that is the case. The strange wording noted above may have been cues within the script to check whether Bingham's mother was in fact accepting the morphed voice as her son's and not just clumsy doofus writing by the perpetrators.
If this stuff has been discussed previously I apologize.




posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   
ive heard of parts of your post but the sections about the scheduling of the demolitions and the helicopters is new to me, and very interesting. Do you know how they would've been able to rescue from the helicopters? I cant quite imagine how they could have done really. Also weren't there news helicopters flying about at the time? I have a vague recollection of seeing some, but perhaps they were not close enough to be hit?

But yes the whole business of the phone calls stinks, and is very obviously not right.

Its funny though, there are so many parts of the event that so obviously do not add up, such as the calls and the 'collapse' of the third building. It does make me wonder why they happened, especially the third building.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Rescue helicopters would have had to hover close to the buildings and perhaps even land on the roofs to take people off. A Gotham Gazette article in which an Air Sea Rescue cop is interviewed said that they were ordered not to attemp a rescue. This might have been because there was a danger of a helicopter being shot down by shrapnel from the explosions or because the rescue choppers might have been in the way of more sinister helicopters (see Seigel's 911 Eyewitness video) doing another sort of job that day.

The sequence and timing of the twin tower collapses make no sense at all except in the light of a scenario as suggested in my original post. I believe that the perps wanted to allow the buildings to be evacuated to as great a degree as possible but were thwarted in their design by the gung ho efficiency of the NYFD. This explains Giuliani's attempt to get them to evacuate the North Tower. At that point he was sticking his neck way out and trying to minimize the suffering. He's not a good guy but I think he was one of the better bad guys on that day. The main point is that the plan started to fall apart because of the fire department. If they had put out the fires in the south tower that really would have screwed the pancake theory. To avoid that and keep the ball rolling the perps were forced to "pull" the south tower. Having "pulled" the south tower, they were then forced to hasten the pulling of the north tower to minimize the anomally they had created by destroying the towers out of sequence. (It's not easy being evil.)

WTC 7 is in many ways an "open sesame" to the mysteries of that day. Thankyou so much Larry Silverstein. Another place where there might be a lot of loose ends hanging out is in Cleveland, where it is possible that some very macabre butchery took place in regard to flight 93. There have to be people in the know in Cleveland.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   
A couple of things occurred to me as I reread this thread. The tone of a lot of the discussion of this event is along the lines that this was an operation carried out with military precision by a bunch of dummies who didn't know that steel buildings had never collapsed from fire before. I don't believe that is an accurate description of the perpetrators and their deeds on 9/11.

I think it is more accurate to say that this was a criminal plot undertaken by a lot of very smart people who were not geniuses. There is a great scene in the movie "Body Heat" where the lawyer contemplating arson is given counsel by the ex-convict arsonist to the effect that there are fifty ways a crime can go wrong and you have to be a genius to think of all fifty, "and you're no genius." I think that is closer to the real situation on 9/11.

I think the perps knew very well that steel buildings had never before collapsed from fire. However they had extra juice, the airplanes. Suppose the planes had struck the towers a little different so that most of the fuel had stayed in the buildings. Suppose the fires had burned for twenty hours and gutted several stories. Suppose they had "pulled" the buildings at that point after most of the people had been evacuated except for those killed by the impacts or trapped by the fire. There certainly would have been a much larger cushion of reasonable doubt available. They might have been able to make the pancake theory stick at that point then, "blah, blah, blah 911" and away we go to Iraq and all that oil.

That's where the "Body Heat" reference comes in. The plan as they planned it was pretty smart, but geniuses wouldn't have underestimated the NYFD and would have found some way to slow them down.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Dont have a lot of time so this will be short.

The South Tower failed first because the plane impacted it much lower, leaving TONS of more weight to be supported by the badly damaged section. See Isaac Newton for some reasons why.


kix

posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Swamp its not that easy, your post has some logic on it but its not the wight that would bring down the building first, that would have tobe that the support failed NOT THE WEIGHT.
You see columns on a tall building have compresion due to the support they give and that compresion gives strength, that is why we can build very high skyscrapers, in the evnt of the south tower the "experts" say it failed first because the weight on to was more than on the other tower.... semms rasonable what is not razonable is that if BIG IF the steel supports failded because of their destruction and breakage, then the top part would have fallen like a tree when its chopped badly and then the wind or gravity cracks it in half.

That really happened since on all videos you can see the top 30-35 floors come down then without any explanation all comes down perfectly and the top part disapears.... there is no WAY that newton can explain why that part dissapear and why some over 30 ton parts flew to land on other buildings when the panckake was ALLEGEDLY just using good ol gravity to feed it....

If weight was the bad guy in the collapse then why didnt the WT C fell when they put huge bombs in the basements years before? they had ALL the building on top.....



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Likely the reason for not sending in Helicopters is that the extreme risk involved would have put others at risk, a downed helicopter in New York City would mean thousands of pounds of explosives hurtling into another building or on people below.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Dont have a lot of time so this will be short.

The South Tower failed first because the plane impacted it much lower, leaving TONS of more weight to be supported by the badly damaged section. See Isaac Newton for some reasons why.


This is simply not true. The top section of the South Tower tilted and rotated as the collapse mechanism started. The undamaged lower sections, floors 77 down, collapsed from underneath the top causing it to stop it's angular momentum and fall vertically. The pivot point of the angular momentum was lost, and thus could not have been cause by the top itself, but by the pivot falling away from it.
As the building fell the top section was breaking up and ejecting it's steel facade horizontally up to 600 ft. Where did the mass come from that could overcome the strength of 77 undamaged floors and the massive steel core?

See my thread here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

[edit on 20/1/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I like the title of this thread, it is very relevant to 9/11. If you have the stamina (which many don't) to look into the details surrounding this case, the devils starts to shows his ugly face.

AAC



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   
When I started this thread I was coming from a position of about a year's worth of web homework on the subject of 911 and a position of having come to some conculsions about the events of that day. I laid them out at the beginning of my first posting to the thread.

For me personally the issue of whether the official explanation for the collapse of the south tower is true or not has been settled long ago. I realize that that is not the case for everyone. They will want to examine the evidence presented by the various people who have chosen to make themselves heard on this issue and then discuss and decide for themselves where the truth of the matter is.

In starting the thread what I was trying to generate was a discussion of plausible scenarios that would fit the established but disjointed and seemingly inexplicable facts of the case.

Many, many strange things happened that day. By themselves some of the events seem almost ludicrous (the dancing Israelis for example), some are extremely bizarre (exploding automobiles on the streets near the towers, cited by an EMS worker), some reek of skullduggery (the events surrounding the evacuation of Cleveland airport on that morning), some are real "oops, you didn't see that" moments (like the "pulling" of WTC7, and Rummy's slip of the tongue referring to the missle at the Pentagon). What I am hoping for is a discussion that looks creatively and with some insight into these facts and then attempts to insert them into the large jigsaw puzzle that is the whole event, beginning, middle and end.

The material I posted on the sequence of the collapse of the two towers is an example of trying to come up with a rational and plausible explanation for what is otherwise incomprehensible. (As a gesture to people who haven't decided about the pancake theory one suggestion is to view and evaluate the scientific observations made in the Rick Siegel video and elsewhere, Stephen Jones' work for example. That's all I can reasonably say on that subject. Personally I applaud anyone discussing these things pro or con but I'd like to see a more restricted focus in this thread.)

There is another thread in this forum that makes a case that flight 93 was likely headed for WTC7 but never arrived for reasons that are debated. That scenario explains why mysterious fires appeared in the building before it was, in Larry Silverstein's word, "pulled". (Gotta get the fire somewhere since the plane failed to arrive and ignite it's fuel. These are mysterious fires to the 911 commission but hey, nevermind, someone in this forum is putting it together.)

Prior to the discovery of the shape of the DNA molecule Linus Pauling had developed a method of model building, in which molecules were constructed in three dimensional forms out of lego-like pieces representing the bonding properties of proteins and amino acids. Not all of the models created represented DNA. Pauling himself was not able to hit on the right three dimensional representation of the molecule. Crick and Watson finally did.

When the model was finally achieved strategies for further study and eventual exploitation of this new discovery could be decided upon. Similarly when a rational, plausible, detailed explanation of the events of 9/11 is arrived at, I believe it will yield numerous avenues for further investigation and hopefully the eventual prosecution of the perpetrators.

One very important theatre of activity that day, which intrigues me personally, is the Cleveland airport. I have read a suggested scenario involving two evacuated airplanes but I would really like to know more about what occurred that morning in Cleveland. Being new to the forum I haven't had time to check whatever postings might deal with this part of the days events.

Once again, I'm sorry if I seem to be speaking against a line of discussion. I'm not. I'm just suggesting that a different thread might be better for pancake vs thermate discussions.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Swampfox46_1999 posted on 20-1-2007 at 04:45 PM

Dont have a lot of time so this will be short.

The South Tower failed first because the plane impacted it much lower, leaving TONS of more weight to be supported by the badly damaged section. See Isaac Newton for some reasons why.
========================================

THESE BUILDINGS WERE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO TAKE PLANE IMPACTS.!!!!
=========================================
Follow up with some research first and look for the photo and video proof of squibs puffing out of all three towers before they fell. Newton's apple would have fallen quicker if he used explosives to fragment and pulverside the whole tree that was supporting the apple.

PS a squib is a smokey blowout from the building caused by an explosive charge close by, and there are heaps of them popping out many floors below the collapsing tower in a OBVIOUS TIMED SEQUENCE....




posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   


THESE BUILDINGS WERE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO TAKE PLANE IMPACTS.!!!!


And the Titanic was designed and constructed to be unsinkable...nuff said.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
LOL the Titanic was not a 110 story building and as no relevance at all to the WTC.

The boat sank because they used cheap brittle steel. The steel used for the towers was certified construction steel.

How about looking at the thread I linked to? You can't explain that with a comparison to a boat that sunk...



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   


LOL the Titanic was not a 110 story building and as no relevance at all to the WTC.


Human arrogance is human arrogance, whether you are building a ship or a skyscraper. In other words, yes it is very relevant.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
They were designed to take the impact of much smaller commercial planes that were state of the art when the towers were built. Planes have gotten bigger, the towers didn't



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by cw034
They were designed to take the impact of much smaller commercial planes that were state of the art when the towers were built. Planes have gotten bigger, the towers didn't


That's not really true either, you guys need to check your facts. A 707 is not that much smaller than a 757, and weighs more.

707-320B four engines, empty weight 146,000 lbs, max take-off weight 333,600 lbs., lenght 152ft., wing span 145ft.
757-300 two engines, empty weight 127,800lbs, max take-off weight 272,500, length 178ft., wing span 124ft.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Human arrogance is human arrogance, whether you are building a ship or a skyscraper. In other words, yes it is very relevant.


No it isn't, the physics of the collapse disputes your claim, so it is irrelevant.

The physical construction of the building itself, the outer facade design, would allow a lot of damage without compromising the rest of the structure.
It's got nothing to do with arrogance.

Did you check out my thread btw?



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Swamp its not that easy, your post has some logic on it but its not the wight that would bring down the building first, that would have tobe that the support failed NOT THE WEIGHT.
You see columns on a tall building have compresion due to the support they give and that compresion gives strength, that is why we can build very high skyscrapers, in the evnt of the south tower the "experts" say it failed first because the weight on to was more than on the other tower.... semms rasonable what is not razonable is that if BIG IF the steel supports failded because of their destruction and breakage, then the top part would have fallen like a tree when its chopped badly and then the wind or gravity cracks it in half.

That really happened since on all videos you can see the top 30-35 floors come down then without any explanation all comes down perfectly and the top part disapears.... there is no WAY that newton can explain why that part dissapear and why some over 30 ton parts flew to land on other buildings when the panckake was ALLEGEDLY just using good ol gravity to feed it....

If weight was the bad guy in the collapse then why didnt the WT C fell when they put huge bombs in the basements years before? they had ALL the building on top.....



stop kidding yourself. The steel structual strength of the twin towers was not compromised when the airplane hit it. Jetfuel burns way below the melting point of steel. Almost 2 times the heat of jetfuel would require steel to melt. I think you're just bogus this gravity lie is bogus.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   


No it isn't, the physics of the collapse disputes your claim, so it is irrelevant.


No human being on this planet will ever know exactly what happened to the structure of the towers that day. You can claim "the physics disputes" all you want. Fact remains there is NO (valid) evidence to support your claim.

Yes, I did check out your thread, doesnt change the fact that because of the impact of the jets, the fire, and the enviromental forces the towers collapsed.



The steel structual strength of the twin towers was not compromised when the airplane hit it.


And if you really believe that those two buildings DIDNT have their structural strength damaged by the jets slamming into them, PLEASE dont become an engineer.........



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And if you really believe that those two buildings DIDNT have their structural strength damaged by the jets slamming into them, PLEASE dont become an engineer.........


No valid evidence? Then you pls explain how the South Tower did what it did as explained in that other thread? There is NO valid evidence that the planes impact and fire alone caused the towers to collapse, and to think it did is just not not realistic.

I'm not saying the planes didn't cause any damage, but there is no way in hell that the planes impact and fires caused what happened to the south tower. The planes DIDN'T damage anything bellow the 77th floor, there was no fires either, so there is no way floors 77 and bellow could have been collapsed to its foundations from the floors 78 and up crushing them when the top was was rotating, tilting and breaking apart.

If you think so then you'd better not become an engineer either...
You obviously don't understand the physics involved.

[edit on 21/1/2007 by ANOK]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join