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 a controlled demolition?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Forgive me but i cannot find the document showing the NYC call for the buildings to be demolished by 2012 at the moment but i'll keep looking for it.

In the meantime please look at this website as it shows a lot of details you may be overlooking .

911research.com...

Hope this helps you to understand why we think it was a CD.

Mace




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus


People who ask for an opinion are usually trying to form an answer .
You seem to either want to change peoples opinion (by offering your own)
Or it seem you have an answer you like already .


[edit on 8-1-2008 by Mindless]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 



I wasn't gonna respond anymore, but I have to.

"I do not want to get involved at this time in the 'whole 9/11 debate' as I feel it is a fruitless endeavor. Have you honestly convinced anyone to change their viewpoint based on conversations you held here on Above Top Secret? Your mind is made up and so is mine. I think the only difference is I try to understand yours while you wish to alter mine."

You don't want to get involved in "the whole 911 debate", maybe you shouldn't be asking your question then, since it involves you with "the whole 911 debate" by default. These things go hand in hand, can't you understand that?

You admit that your mind is already made up, so I was right when I said you had a set assumption. So basically you are trying to figure out why
the people you don't agree with, came to their conclusions.
So. now that a lot of opinions have been posted, what is your conclusion? There must be a conclusion, otherwise there would be no use in doing this, even if it is for your own curiousity, like you said.

I think I've definately been putting in an effort to try to understand your view. How can you say I haven't? Noone in this thread has asked you more questions than I did.
You're damn right I'm trying to alter your view, because IMO, both your view, and your motive are wrong.
It doesn't matter if I ever convinced someone on ATS. What should matter is that ignorance is denied, and that the truth is looked for, and knowing the idea behind your post, I think both values aren't being honoured.



[edit on 8/1/08 by enigmania]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Did you happen to miss the part where I stated that I was soliciting opinions?


A legitimate debate is not used to solicit others' opinions. Each side presents their own points of argument, and includes as much valid substantiation as possible. The side making the best argument, with the most valid substantiation and/or circumstantial case, wins. If people do not successfully validate their argument and/or make a stronger circumstantial case, their side does not win, and does not deserve to win.

What you are doing is called deliberately misleading bait and switch. Disreputable businesses use bait and switch all the time until they caught. Then it becomes pay up to all the customers they cheated or court time.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
I wasn't gonna respond anymore, but I have to.

You don't want to get involved in "the whole 911 debate", maybe you shouldn't be asking your question then, since it involves you with "the whole 911 debate" by default. These things go hand in hand, can't you understand that?


Do you realize that the controlled demolition aspect is only a part of a possible larger whole that not everyone agrees with. There are theories here that do not even add controlled demolition to the equation and follow the assumption that the collapse occured due to other factors. It only goes hand in hand if you chose to connect it that way, you are committing a logical fallacy based on your viewpoint.


You admit that your mind is already made up, so I was right when I said you had a set assumption. So basically you are trying to figure out why the people you don't agree with, came to their conclusions.
So. now that a lot of opinions have been posted, what is your conclusion? There must be a conclusion, otherwise there would be no use in doing this, even if it is for your own curiousity, like you said.


I have heard some theories that were not related to me previously-specifically by adjay, but there were others that piqued my curiousity. I plan on examining his comments and evidence which he so graciously provided without my prompting. If I feel I can add to another discussion in this regard I will sek the proper thread or forum.


I think I've definately been putting in an effort to try to understand your view. How can you say I haven't? Noone in this thread has asked you more questions than I did.


I appreciate your participation in this thread and I am glad you did not adhere to your remark not to post further. I am enjoying the exchange and perhaps we can have further discourse on this topic.


You're damn right I'm trying to alter your view, because IMO, both your view, and your motive are wrong.


I respectfully disagree.


It doesn't matter if I ever convinced someone on ATS. What should matter is that ignorance is denied, and that the truth is looked for, and knowing the idea behind your post, I think both values aren't being honoured.


The truth is, once again, subjective. Your truth and my truth may be two different things (or they may not), it is the journey and arrival at these truths that is to me important. To assume you definitively know my sentiments is a very broad judgement and I do not think you can divinate or presuppose my thinking on more then a superficial level.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
A legitimate debate is not used to solicit others' opinions. Each side presents their own points of argument, and includes as much valid substantiation as possible. The side making the best argument, with the most valid substantiation and/or circumstantial case, wins. If people do not successfully validate their argument and/or make a stronger circumstantial case, their side does not win, and does not deserve to win.


This is a conspiracy thread not a debate team, you may continue to posit the fallacy that we are 'debating' but I repeatedly said I am here soliciting opinions. I may ask people to clarify or elaborate their opinions and I may also point out portions of it that I think may be specious but this is not debating. If you do wish to debate me on a topic Above Top Secret offers an area where this can be accomodated.


What you are doing is called deliberately misleading bait and switch. Disreputable businesses use bait and switch all the time until they caught. Then it becomes pay up to all the customers they cheated or court time.


I suggest you immediately report me to the Department of Consumer Affairs and file a formal complaint with said agency for monetary remuneration.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


It is an informal debate forum, no different than any other Internet blog, rules of logic still apply under informal conditions at all times. Debates are best used to test one's own logical capabilities and those of opponents, whether or not people realize it. You have consistently broken several rules with your logical fallacies. You are looking for argument simply argue. That is a metaphorical flammable ingredient used to deliberately initiate a flame war in any discussion. You did it with bait and switch dirty tricking.

The one(s) being illogical is/are in no position to judge themselves
"logical" when being illogical, because they do not recognize they are being illogical. When it is drawn to their attention by those on the receiving end, they often fail to correct themselves, plus, fail to become and remain logical on all their points of argument. They have no intentions of carrying on a civil, much less cordial, discussion.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I do believe you are projecting. However feel free to indicate any and all fallacies that you feel need correction or attention.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
My 2 cents is that 9/11 was the culmination of frustrations build up over the previous two failures (1st 9/11 truck bomb and Oklahoma City) to trigger the Patriot act and get the Nazi ball rolling. Lesser attempts failed, a massive action was called for and probably the company carrying out the attacks, Control Demolition, was extorted into performing the demolition (again?). Just as in Oklahoma, they left evidence as whistle blowers, but the press is so controlled and the people so feeble, the governments so treasonous they couldn't act. Evidence for 9/11 was the vertical collapse itself, control demolition was just the guarantee of getting the job finally done, most people being gone a combination of being a compromise with Control Demolition (Corporation) and the fact that those in the know had friends and colleges they didn't want to get hurt. Who was in charge of the cleanup efforts for Oklahoma and WTC 9/11? Control Demolition Corporation.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Please think before you post;

It was necessary because it had to be a dramatic event, to imply that they actually attempted to threaten the World economic system, in order to start with everything we are seeing now, & with the bill to arrest anyone talking OUT AGAINST THE GOVWERNMENT???!?!?!! - OH mna, this one pisses me off... - The next step is a stahed alien ivasion, where we will then have the majority (who has NO idea what is really going on,) will demand a world police state.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


IMHO, there is no "logic" to understaand about the controlled demolition theory, but rather a matter of visual "evidence" which, again IMHO, looks exceedingly convincing.

The "why DO it" question cannot be answered.

However, the question really is: given what was recorded and witnessed, IS that evidence of controlled demolition?

I think it is.

One cevate (sp?) on the matter: if one were "insane" enough to DO the 9/11 stuff for self gain, or sanction, allow it, for self gain, would they NOT be insane and illogical enough to make such a decision as "to demolish" when the very action, itself, does not make sense?

Perhaps the logic as to why is in the warped minds of the perpetrators.

Just food for thought, as most of this is.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ReelView
 

I am positive,
It was the good ole US Army that provided the in house portion of the Oklahoma bomb, McViegh and accomplice the outer blast...
Unfortunately they,and the crew of the blackhawk they were escaping in, were blown to bits over Killeen Texas not more than an hour after the bombs (plural,and detected by siesmographs)went off.
This is worth checking into if you have the means...
The facts of history prove your innocent suppositions totally wrong....
The Luisitania was sent to be torpedoed by the Germans as a reason to enter the 1st world war....
Pearl harbor was a suckers game for Tojo and the people of america...
The "Gulf of Tonkin"has been proved a put up job....
Saddam Hussien had no bombs...read my lips....no bombs....
It was a lie and they knew it! They were all lies....!
Thats how major social changes get made.....
Now, tell me in all seriousness, and with a atraight face you think 9/11 was really a" terrorist" plot....dreamed up by a rich guy in a cave in afghanistan.....
And carried out by nineteen arabs whose names do not even apear on a passenger list of the aircraft involved!and five or six of which are alive and well today!
How stupid do you take the average person for?
It apears to me that you are simply trolling or a Govt Appologist/disinformation specialist....
The reasons are many and varied...the plot is levels deep!
It is so twisted and labrinthian, that several more years will be required to piece the truth together....Who gained?
Quite a few!
I believe the Female translator (FBI)who is blowing the whistle right now will provide some very decent investigatory leads that have been ignored heretofore...
Including the ISI, and others who were invloved....
If she doesnt get silenced for good soon...
bergle
PS-Wheres all the GOld that was stored in the basement?
theres another reason for destruction so totally complete.....

[edit on 10-1-2008 by bergle]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Oh so many reasons....most already covered...

- 25 wargame senarios being played out
- abestos abaitment of WTC structures
- destruction of SEC evidence for pending litigation
- insurance fraud to the tune of 4.7 billion dollars
- the murder of people working on technological advances needed to do this (look at the Pentagon flight passenger manifest!)
- MOST IMPORTANT: shock and awe providing a reason to go to war, our generations' new Pearl Harbor...just as Bush wrote in his diary that very evening!

THE MISSING ONE...

a full-scale live test of the newest Directed Energy Weapon (moon based?, ISS based?) Would explain the top-down implosional effect and the total pulverization of materials into such a fine dust)

Who Ever is really in charge: "Okay, we can make ourselfs a shield in the ionsphere and magnetosphere with HAARP, we can target incoming missles and aircraft from the air (ABL, hmmm. a modified 737 and grey too!) and from the ground, but can we take down a 1300 ft tall skyscraper with such technologies???"

Yes they can. Can they make up reality and blame it on jet fuel fires...Yes they can and the majority of sheep buy it and the rest are conspirary theorists and NOW homegrown domestic terrorists!



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Although I have not read all posts here, I read the first page and was rather surprised to see no mention of a fact I learned about on another thread here a while back.

Seems the Towers had issues with steel and aluminum placed together, creating some sort of corrosion. (Wish I could remember the details.) Anyway, after being inspected the Towers were slated to be decommissioned in 2007, but implosion was not an option because of the height - too dangerous. Some huge amount of money was to be spent building a scaffolding to deconstruct them.

Whoever it was I was discussing this with searched for the inspection reports - he lived in NYC and was somehow affiliated with construction and inspection... He came back very disturbed because the inspection reports for a number of years back were "missing."

A while ago I looked up the links provided in that thread that had a deposition from some guy who got caught up in a weird situation where they discussed some of this and it seemed to show an intent to implode the buildings, IIRC. When I revisited the link, all of that story was gone. Very little was left at all.

I'm sure I could search for it here, but I have limited time, and figure you all might do the legwork. I think it was called something about a "deposition."



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I found the deposition site again...

redlineav.com...

redlineav.com...

After reviewing it, I see that what I remember was there is still there. I can't find the thread where I was discussing this with the guy who lived in NYC though...

Anyway, here is another reason they CDed the Towers. If they didn't bring them down, they would have the embarrassment of explaining why the Towers were build of steel & aluminum in such a way that they corroded and weakened, along with the enormous expense of deconstructing them.

They were killing a great many birds with this stone, I tell ya.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Seems the Towers had issues with steel and aluminum placed together, creating some sort of corrosion. (Wish I could remember the details.)


That's galvanic corrosion and it occurs whenever two dissimilar metals are placed next to each other because of a slight difference in their electrical conductances. I've heard the same thing.



he lived in NYC and was somehow affiliated with construction and inspection... He came back very disturbed because the inspection reports for a number of years back were "missing."


Sounds like Griff (the member here). He noticed and posted earlier that records of maintenance projects, just things that would have to have permits issued and etc. for routine things in the towers, don't go back beyond around 1998 or so.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
For those not familiar with the proved final effect of controlled demoltion implosion, the photos at the website are highly helpful and effective visual aids:

cryptome.org...



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
What aluminum in the WTC towers? Where exactly was it located on what steel placed where?



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
What aluminum in the WTC towers? Where exactly was it located on what steel placed where?


All that silvery color you see all over the outside faces of the WTC towers is not steel, but thin aluminum covers.

Here's one leaning on a cop car:




posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


That looks to be HVAC ductwork made from galvanized steel, in the days the WTC complex orginally went up. That would be dust clinging when air is moved on intake and output of heat or cooling - cold air returns during ventilation. That is part of ventilation duct and not aluminum.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join