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.

 

9/11 Rare-New Evidence Of Controlled Demo?

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
the media is propaganda...

NORAD in 2001 had a 100% success ratio 64 hijacked airlines...64 successes on september 11th 2001 there was a training exercise which involved false radar blips all supposed hijacked airplanes, they really had no idea if it was real or not. the exact same scenario, the exact same time.

when the bombs went off in london(thats in england) the english anti terror peeps...were informed about an exercise...in teh exact same station...at the exact same time...ooooo

wheres that on the news?




posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
actually theres some stuff on youtube... that janitor from the WTCs said something about it. ill try and find the link...


Please don't get me started with Willie Rodreiquez !! Hero turned Truther turned LIAR!


Originally posted by Odessyand no, i obviously wasnt being serious about my debunk world or warcraft statement... but i like that i made u laugh... you shouldnt laugh about something so horendous!

I wasnt laughing at the acts of 911 I was laughing at your absurd theory. (thank GOD you were kidding)



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZGhorus

oh and one further thing...look at the support beam, sliced diagonally, thats another tell tale sign that its a demo job...


God...the same old beams that have been PROVEN to be cut by torches AFTER the collapse.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Let me ask. What do you expect to happen if those squibs are for weakening the core to aid in collapse?

My take. If they were to weaken (not fully collapse) the core, then there would be no immediate structural failure (at least that we could see).


If they were intended to "weaken" the core why didn't they all detonate at the same time?

If they were intended to "weaken" the core, why do we see them on perimeter columns?

Why get fancy with all the weakening? Why not just bring the bastard down and be down with it?

I'm sorry, but an airplane impact, followed by an initial large explosion to commence the collapse, followed by precisely timed weakening detonations is too far over the top for me to believe. We are however all entitled to our own opinions, so I'll leave you with yours.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
This is the ~location I was standing at when the first tower fell:

I tried, unsuccessful to post this as a pic:

maps.google.com...,+ny,+ny&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=94.436798,113.378906&ie=UTF8&ll=40.709538,-74.011698& spn=0.001472,0.00261&t=h&z=19&om=1&layer=c&cbll=40.709188,-74.011679&cbp=1,352.076495176849,0.5,0

[edit on 2-8-2007 by ferretman2]

You have to copy the location in your browser...otherwise it will only show 25 broadway. (Google street view is cool)

[edit on 2-8-2007 by ferretman2]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZGhorus
i am changing this due to hind sight...again...
the 9/11 comittee people met with mr bush and the vice pres...secretly...with no notes to be taken, no recording material to be used in any way shape or form...why? if it was this pancake effect...what did he have to hide?


What does the "pancake effect" have to do with Bush and Cheney meeeting with the 911 committee? This thread is about rare video footage of the collapse. IT was not secret that they met with the 911 commision.... But you are right about the rest of it.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
This tower is a little bit taller than the WTC tower. The WTC was basically a tower like this with a skeleton and floors between them.
To demolish a towered building like WTC, it would have to be like this.

You can pull the entire core columns and still have the skeleton left to a point.... after that the top gets pulled down and is used a wrecking ball so to speak demolitiong all the pre-weakened core-less skeleton on the way down at almost terminal velocity.



Video ---> www.controlled-demolition.com...

This quote i liked from the CDI webpage.

"Inadvertently, and without damage to the helix house, a far more aggressive means of felling large guyed towers was demonstrated. Subsequent analysis of the structural release sequence of the guys has yielded predictable data which CDI intends to use in the felling of large, cable-stayed towers in the future "
www.controlled-demolition.com...

A better quality version of the topic video
www.webfives.com...





[edit on 2-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   
No one has of yet debunked these flashes.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I guess Leslie Robinson (the guy who designed the towers) and Bart Voorsanger (the architect hired for the memorial) aren't enough for you?


Griff, was the molten material tested to see what it was? Nope. I dont care who you are, you cant tell the composite of a molten material by visual analisis. I do not disagree that there was molten material at ground zero.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky


If they were intended to "weaken" the core why didn't they all detonate at the same time?

If they were intended to "weaken" the core, why do we see them on perimeter columns?

Why get fancy with all the weakening? Why not just bring the bastard down and be down with it?

I'm sorry, but an airplane impact, followed by an initial large explosion to commence the collapse, followed by precisely timed weakening detonations is too far over the top for me to believe. We are however all entitled to our own opinions, so I'll leave you with yours.







because of all the other buildings nearby? which i should point out were'nt damaged.

and as for them being cut after the fact all...PROVEN...like...who proved it? the same people who proved that 2 of the planes vaporised? luckily the "plane" that hit the pentagon hit an empty wing...refurbishment...heh...thems the breaks



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutoftheSky
No one has of yet debunked these flashes.



What flashes? The pieces of debris that was falling? it was paper... and has been discussed on MANY threads here at ATS.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Griff, was the molten material tested to see what it was? Nope.


You are right. But shouldn't it have been? If there was a REAL investigation?


I dont care who you are, you cant tell the composite of a molten material by visual analisis.


But, you can tell the difference between iron, aluminum, and copper. The three main metals that made up the towers. Lead would be pretty easy to tell the difference also.

Can you tell me. What other metals melt at a temperature lower than steel that actually would look like steel once it has hardened? There aren't many and I can't think of any off the top of my head.


I do not disagree that there was molten material at ground zero.


See above about other metals that it could have been.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
do we get different paper over here? mine doesnt flash....damn you americans and your fancy flashing paper!...okay so i'm a little heavy on the sarcasm but paper? maybe it was the suns rays reflectling through the minimal atmosphere of venus and through dire chance and fateful cockup happened to shine directly over the WTC, this combined with the air pressure the pancakes was causing turned the air into some sort of micro transmitter and in effect ended the world.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
What flashes? The pieces of debris that was falling? it was paper... and has been discussed on MANY threads here at ATS.


I would be more willing to believe glass reflecting in the sunlight rather than paper. But, if that's what it suppossedly is.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZGhorus

because of all the other buildings nearby? which i should point out were'nt damaged.

and as for them being cut after the fact all...PROVEN...like...who proved it?


Um.... no other building near by were damaged??? WHAT?


I have posted photos of the men cutting the beams at ground zero!! So has about 50 other members.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
After viewing this video www.metacafe.com...

I WAS CONVINCED OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I would be more willing to believe glass reflecting in the sunlight rather than paper. But, if that's what it suppossedly is.


I'll agree with you. There was some paper that was shown as a flash in a couple threads. Thanks Griff



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


Griff, was the molten material tested to see what it was? Nope. I dont care who you are, you cant tell the composite of a molten material by visual analisis. I do not disagree that there was molten material at ground zero.





Here it is, your molten material, AKA the WTC Meteor, composed of molten steel and concrete. Yup Molten steel.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Hmm. I think I may see the "flashes" that you mention, but I don't see how that's evidence of controlled demolition. I see maybe 2 flashes, spaced far apart. If this was a controlled demo job, wouldn't there be lots of flashes?

And if 9/11 was an inside job, why would the pentagon be hit too? It seems completely unnecessary for our government to attack the heart of our government.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutoftheSky
After viewing this video


After viewing THIS:



This Flea Market is just like a mini - mall





new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join