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.

 

Why crush down the towers?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
That's the thing I don't get, though. Why crush down the towers and kill amount of people?

I mean, if the government had to make it seem like a terrorist attack, then they didn't have to crush down the towers, right?

I hear some say the planes shouldn't have made the towers crush, so, therefore, that would've been better if none of collapsing was involved. Less deaths. Wouldn't you agree? It would've been better if [if the government did it, that is] they left like that, without having to collapsing the towers.

But then the question is, what if the towers didn't collapse? Would people talk like it was an inside job and everything to this day? What's your comment on this?




posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
They had to match or exceed the death toll of Pearl Harbor, and they had to do so in shocking fashion in order to rally the American people into wanting War. Judging by the last 6 years I would say they succeeded.

People talk about an inside job because the evidence runs contrary to the official story. If the attack had been different then we would have gone over the evidence, and decided from there.



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheoOne
 


There's been reports of suspicious financial transactions running thru the WTC computers just prior to collapse. Destroy the towers, destroy the evidence. Furthermore, it would be harder for people to swallow a lie that there were no black boxes found if the towers were still standing.

www.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by uberarcanist
 


*Dons bomb-suit*

*Approaches unseen facet of 9/11 evidence with EXTREME care*



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
'Why crush the towers and kill amount of people?' Why not? Get the populace chanting USA USA USA, get the masses ready to kick the nearest ass in question. A la, the mushroom cloud Iraq. Could it be any more apparent?



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 02:50 AM
link   
1. Shock and Awe.
2. Destroy evidence
3. Gain support from public for war

So simple...



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I think the new and rediculous Thought Crime Prevention bill proves that 9/11 was an inside job, myself. Why target civilians inside the USA for THINKING??? Well, we can't have them thinking about how suspicious everything is, now can we? They might get mad and be thinking about forcing some sort of revolution because the government is murdering its own citizens and it's become aparent to those who don't wear blinders all the live long day... and well, that's just criminal to disagree with murderous regimes.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   
and the towers fell because they wanted to destroy security in the minds of everyone. Not injure it with a plane or two, but completely destroy it, so we will BEG for protection and restriction of freedom. Symbolicly, it's a pretty effective image.

[edit on 28-10-2007 by indierockalien]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheoOne
But then the question is, what if the towers didn't collapse? Would people talk like it was an inside job and everything to this day? What's your comment on this?


That's also occurred to me
Considering that no-one has ever totally demolished such a building the outcome would be unpredictable with a distinct possibility of one or both towers surviving in part at least. Too big a risk for anyone to be taking regardless of their sinister motives. 4 co-ordinated domestic airliner hijackings and a total disregard for human life already took care of the expression of unthinkable terror against western politics and economic policy.

My opinion is that the collapses were just a faint hope in the minds of the architects of the event which initially appeared to have failed. The direction of the attacks indicates a similar hope to the '93 bombing which attempted to cause a tower to fall like a tree into the adjacent tower and onto the city below with a far more devastating outcome than the actual event.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.


Did they need to go down because of the difficulty in demolishing asbestos buildings?

Worth pondering.. There's a lot of "coincidence" in all that..



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Hmmmm - getting rid of the asbestos threat by spreading it all over the city in it's most dangerous form (dust) is a novel approach to say the least.
Who will the possible throng of victims be suing when they develop asbestos related cancers will be the question for the future.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TheoOne
 



Larry A. Silverstein, owns the land of the towers. Insured them from 7 million each on April '01 for acts of terrorism (funny how he knew to do that a few months before the attacks) and was rewarded for 8 billion dollars.
He's wanted to rebuild the towers due to the fact that the towers weren't up to code, and the cost to revamp the towers would cost more then to build two new towers. But you can't take down a national landmark...so...you make something happen to that landmark.

Proof? I remember the interviews found of him on Loose Change. Is it good enough proof? Will you ever believe the truth even if it pisses you off? Too many hands were in game the day of 9/11.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Or maybe no-one expected the towers to collapse. And when the did, a major cover up was instigated to avoid trillion dollar lawsuits ......

The real conspiracy - the construction of the towers was flawed (by incompetence or design)? And talk about nuclear bombs and holograms continues to divert attention away from the real conspiracy



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Does anyone have any idea of the logistics involved in planting the demolituion explosives necessary to implode the towers? The tons of TNT, the miles and miles of cable, the amount of prep work in weakening the beams and columns and girders before even placing demolitions, the amount of equipment and the size of the crews necessary to perform the work, the time it would take, and no one noticed? Are the conspiracy theorists implying that the buildings tenents of were such thick dullards that no one questioned why all the demo fuses, cables, and such were snaking through the building prior to the impact? It would take months to prep those towers for implosion. No one noticed the drywall getting torn down or the rotohammers jacking away on the beams or columns? There was no dust raised? And, most of all...No one who would have been involved has broken there silence? Man, that must be some code of silence! Let's really examine the logistics, and the reality of human psyche, and stop the nonsensical idea that this was a controlled demo.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Well I think the latest theory is that the Starship Enterprise used a photon torpedo with a holographic field wrapped around it to make people think it was an aircraft ....

So I guess all those involved are now enjoying a drink with the Ferengi on DS9



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   


Larry A. Silverstein, owns the land of the towers. Insured them from 7 million each on April '01 for acts of terrorism (funny how he knew to do that a few months before the attacks) and was rewarded for 8 billion dollars


Silverstein was required by lenders putting up the money for the purchase
to buy insurance against terrorism - the towers had been attacked in
1993 by truck bomb. In fact Silverstien tried to get away with buying
only 1 billion for each building, lenders wanted 5 billion, settled on
3.5 billion In fact Silverstein lost money on deal as still had to pay rent
to Port Authority and was required to rebuild on the site. Even with
the 7 billion payout by insurers has to spend that money in rebuilding.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmsbois
Does anyone have any idea of the logistics involved in planting the demolituion explosives necessary to implode the towers? The tons of TNT, the miles and miles of cable, the amount of prep work in weakening the beams and columns and girders before even placing demolitions, the amount of equipment and the size of the crews necessary to perform the work, the time it would take, and no one noticed? Are the conspiracy theorists implying that the buildings tenents of were such thick dullards that no one questioned why all the demo fuses, cables, and such were snaking through the building prior to the impact? It would take months to prep those towers for implosion. No one noticed the drywall getting torn down or the rotohammers jacking away on the beams or columns? There was no dust raised? And, most of all...No one who would have been involved has broken there silence? Man, that must be some code of silence! Let's really examine the logistics, and the reality of human psyche, and stop the nonsensical idea that this was a controlled demo.


C4 my friend not TNT, wireless timed detonation. And they did notice the crews. Apparently in the Loose Change documentary, September 9th 2001 was the first time in WTC history that they people were notified not to come into work due to electrical repairs. 2 days later the towers went down.

And it is a great code of silence$$$$$$$.

And how about you start explaining the logistics of the human pysche. We are a destructive greedy spieces, enough said.

Something like the events of 9/11 don't take a few days to plan. Look at the form Rebuilding America's Defenses, created by PNAC (men behind the curtain) it was released in 1997, then to the public after 9/11. In that article it's stated that America needs to keep there dominance of the nmber one super power. That was established well in the cold war...the main goal was to protect homeland security, by, prevent a nuclear war with Russia, done.

At that time America was the super. As the decades went on, the failure of the Gulf War, America was started to loose there image. With no large force to be any sort of enemy at the time (1997) the US had to devise a plan to maintain there status as the global super power. But with no general enemy they had to create an enemy, hence Al Queda.

The WTC collapse was the "Pearl Harbour" event that Rebuilding America's defenses stated needed to occur. An attack on home, perfect, let's revamp our global image. The problem is that you CANNOT keep everyone silent, someone will always open there mouth, yet so many disbelieve these people when they do.

I know it's hard to believe your own gov't would do such a thing as to kill it's own people...but that's been happening through time since Man can remember.

In the big picture, American globalization is good....to Westerners and there beliefs. But the world isn't called America. America is the land of the free...to it's people and there way of life. Culture, that's the war, it's not a holy war, it's a culture war. You fear what you don't understand and as a human you're destructive mentality begins to kick in.

I recommend reading Rebuilding America's Defesnses. Simple 90 page read. And one hell of an American plan at that.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unplugged
1. Shock and Awe.
2. Destroy evidence
3. Gain support from public for war

So simple...





I agree. Moreover making a big Reichstag-like event to be adressed this time to the entire world.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



Larry A. Silverstein, owns the land of the towers. Insured them from 7 million each on April '01 for acts of terrorism (funny how he knew to do that a few months before the attacks) and was rewarded for 8 billion dollars


Silverstein was required by lenders putting up the money for the purchase
to buy insurance against terrorism - the towers had been attacked in
1993 by truck bomb. In fact Silverstien tried to get away with buying
only 1 billion for each building, lenders wanted 5 billion, settled on
3.5 billion In fact Silverstein lost money on deal as still had to pay rent
to Port Authority and was required to rebuild on the site. Even with
the 7 billion payout by insurers has to spend that money in rebuilding.


Excellent point my friend.

Do you find it interesting that Israel warned America about the attacks? Or that Israel notified there establishments within the WTC to stay home on 9/11. Silverstein, what are the orgins of that name I ask you?

I've gone off topic.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis


C4 my friend not TNT, wireless timed detonation. And they did notice the crews. Apparently in the Loose Change documentary, September 9th 2001 was the first time in WTC history that they people were notified not to come into work due to electrical repairs. 2 days later the towers went down.


This claim is based on one person out of the 10s of thousands of people who all would have been effected by this. One single person. And his claims are refuted by others who saw the lights on that night during the time he claims half a building was powered down. People still have their receipts from their trips to the observation deck that day as well, which also proves the guys claims of a power outage to be untrue. And again, there is no record of any of this except one single persons claim which he cannot back up with any kind of documentation and he can't in any way verify covered anything more than his floor. He even claims his co-workers can back up his claim, yet they don't.

This of course ignoring the fact that powering down one half of one building doesn't explain being able to wire the other building for explosives, and the many other absurdities that would be involved in this claim.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join