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.

 

the 9/11 memory hole

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


The bolts holding on the facade were forged steel.




posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retikx
Your sarcasm is unwanted and irrelevant to what my post pointed out.


Apologies. In future my comments will cater to your strengths (i.e., retard insults).



"Haha oh yea and they "found" one of the "hijackers" passports inside the pentagon too. I mean come on, how stunned do you have to be to believe this.


And as unlikely as that is, it is still more likely than FBI agents "staging" telephone polls during rush hour traffic following the Pentagon attack.

You have your common sense nicely compartmentalized, and I applaud you for that.

But every assertion you make carries with it the additional responsibility of answering the questions "who?" and "why?"...if you cannot provide a plausible answer to those questions, then your simple observation is nothing more than an oddity...and it won't convert anyone to your opinion, especially not retards.



Soooo are you just trying to deflect? or are you in bed with the brain dead ones? I lean towards the latter.


Don't just lean, son.
Go right ahead and fall on over.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
the car bomb

any more info on the 'fake' car bomb story? why would mainstream channels, ...during the biggest news story of the latter century, ....buy and repeat such a RADICAL "truth" without first verifying it?

why were there so many red herrings on the airwaves that special day?

manufactured 'fog of war'?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Why would they repeat something without verifying it? The rush to get the story on, before everyone else. CNN came within literally a second of announcing that George H.W. Bush had died, shortly after he vomited into the Japanese Prime Minister's lap. It happens with EVERY major story, some sick b**tard calls into a news line something just to see if it gets on the air.

Dan Rather was especially vulnerable. I will never forget watching CBS coverage the day Columbia burned up, in that case, the sick creep actually made it onto the air when they were airing "witness" accounts and the guy told Rather that he was a idiot.

So, yes, on days like that, rumors fly...and some times some of them get repeated by the media



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Good report from the architect and a gutsy guy

Well anyway , the wtc owners had a maintenance problem and some of their tenants had a fiscal / secrecy problem it seems
- with 15 m? to make it usable again it sure would make an incentive to figure out parallel ways of 'disposing' of the problem [s]
the perpetrators [ pun intended] have green back blood on their hands I figure.
things appear to be out of righteous control in the Land of Liberty and elsewhere-may the Lord help us all
my .02

y



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   

I explained, in more than a few prior posts, the only steel clad in aluminum was the facade. That was attached to the outside of the building with steel to steel not aluminum to steel.


Okay. The facade was aluminum, and presumably it was attached to the building? If every other bit of metal was steel, then at some point, aluminum had to be touching steel. How can an aluminum facade be attached to the building with "steel to steel"?!? I mean, that's what you said. The aluminum has to be an active piece of that metal sandwich...

Unless there was another substance that was used to attach the aluminum facade to the steel understructure -- like plastic, or balsa wood, or cat barf -- then at some point in the chain, aluminum had to have been touching steel...



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Now all we have to do is sort out why a bunch of all-powerful and thoroughly wealthy individuals would risk high treason for the sake of power and money


Because they want more of both. Because they can. Because they want to. Hubris. History is littered with rich and powerful people putting it all on the line for more of the same. A big game of Risk, if you will.


Oh and we have to deal with the fact that, if we're saying the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled a day or two before 9/11, we're indirectly saying that it's possible to prepare the three largest controlled demolitions in history in two days...but once we prove that BLAM!! The cabal falls!!


That's not what I think, and I don't think anyone is implying that. There was plenty of opportunity in the months leading up to the event for squibs to be planted, if they were.


Oh and why would you risk crashing big planes into the buildings you just meticulously wired for demolition...once we nail that down we'll HANG Dick Chaney in Time Square!! Is it Cheney or Chaney dude I don't even know he's SCREWED though dogg YEAH!!


You really need an answer for that? The planes were the ruse to create a plausible explanation for the destruction of the buildings. They knew planes wouldn't take 'em down, but there needed to be a reason for them to fall, that could be blamed on the Iraqis... uh, I mean Al Queda... Only controlled demolition would guarantee that result...


And then there's the part about how the collapsing buildings on 9/11 didn't sound anything like controlled demolitions...but once we figure out the top secret next-level no-sound demolitions they used we'll MARCH ON WASHINGTON.


The only way for the buildings to fall at a free-fall rate, as they did, would be if the interior steel core structure was demoed. Inside the building. Hard to hear from the outside.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   
*Pre-attack warnings to / from israelis on 9/11 and 7/7 London

*Israeli agents posing as students detained in New York immediately prior 9/11

*Sound analysis of the tower collapses showing multiple explosive sounds

*Reverse angle witness describing helicopter flying into smoke above towers immediately prior to collapse with flashing extremely bright light underneath it, probable cause- rocket launches

*unidentified helicopter flying around scene later tagged as an unmarked FEMA chopper

*11 witnesses report unidentified make and model white medium sized jet "not a lear jet" overflying "Flight 93" "crater" before and after crash, extremely low altitude- one witness described it flying literally at fence to roof top height- possibly a drone rather than a conventional aircraft

*Rumsfeld disappears for 30 minutes after the Pentagon attack

*Pentagon attack hits only newly reinforced part of building

*WTC 7 is "pulled" quote unquote taking with it all the ENRON documents needed to prosecute

*there is no scientifically credible explanation to date for the spontaneous collapse of WTC 7

*melted cars

*toxic dust, exact composition unknown

*eyewitnesses describe a grey jet not a commercial passenger liner for Flight 11



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by DogHead
*Pre-attack warnings to / from israelis on 9/11 and 7/7 London

*Reverse angle witness describing helicopter flying into smoke above towers immediately prior to collapse with flashing extremely bright light underneath it, probable cause- rocket launches


If that is true, the folloing highly pertinent. as to what point in time those helicopters were seen flying through smoke flashing bright beams. I do not remember when I orginially learned the following. However, you jogged my memory of laser beams through smoke. White light through black smoke would be seen very clearly.

www.laserfx.com...


"One of the most important pieces of outboard equipment (for laser beam displays) is the smoke machine. Since light itself is invisible, the eye only sees the reflection of light from objects and surfaces, laserists need to put particulate matter (haze or smoke) into the air to make the laser beams visible. The fine particles from the smoke machine deflect the light from the laser towards your eye so you can see the beam effects in the air."




*unidentified helicopter flying around scene later tagged as an unmarked FEMA chopper


Is it beige? Because a beige colored helicopter can be seen in the upper right hand corner of a photo Ivan placed in one of these discussions.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by cranium
 


It is not a presumption. That was the way it was attached - the outside as facades normally are. So were the perimeter primary load bearing 3-story high sections of steel framing.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by cranium
 


The facade was steel clad aluminum. Aluminum could not have withstood the pressures of the atmospheric elements and survived. What is the issue of aluminum clad outside attached steel facade? It was blown off by the implosion pressure from inside the twin towers. It was explosively thrown out all over 16 acres and more of Manhattan.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Please keep in mind, in 1975, in WTC 1, there was a fire described as a blowtorch type fire through the cores and the exterior and interior walls. No aluminum was "corroded" against steel then. The issue is irrelevant in 2001. We have a precedent from 1975, in one of the same buildings, through 6 stories, and concentrated on the 11th floor where it started in the B. F. Goodrich office.

I do not know why people keep bringing in the facade in 2001, considering the history of WTC 1 for 1975 fire and 1993 bomb in the sub-level.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Unfortunately not. But I can assure you, that's something we would ALL like to see. Just as polanski said, "Why was all the scrap metal quickly spirited away without any significant independent testing done?".

911review.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Then for those who need pictures...
you have this little oddity released prior to 9-11...



And this one from 1997...



And these...




(note that one is called terrorist nuke)



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by cranium
Okay. The facade was aluminum, and presumably it was attached to the building? If every other bit of metal was steel, then at some point, aluminum had to be touching steel. How can an aluminum facade be attached to the building with "steel to steel"?!? I mean, that's what you said. The aluminum has to be an active piece of that metal sandwich...

Unless there was another substance that was used to attach the aluminum facade to the steel understructure -- like plastic, or balsa wood, or cat barf -- then at some point in the chain, aluminum had to have been touching steel...


Usually it's achieved with neoprene washers. Which are pretty much rubber. If constructed right, galvanic corrosion is inhibited.

There's also "galvanized steel". Which already has a protective coating.

But, this is today, who knows how they constructed the towers. Sure would be nice to have a complete set of construction documents.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
However, coming into contact with the exterior steel walls was not going to hurt the exterior walls, or steel clad in aluminum, or it would have done it years ago. No signs of that happening ever occurred.


I love how you speak in such absolute terms. Kind of like me saying no one walked into a bar in Michigan last year with their hat on upside-down. That would be a pretty bizarre thing for me to say that I know. I could really only say that, as far as I am aware, it never happened.

Not trying to come across as an ass but wouldn't it suck to argue with someone who thought they knew things for sure that they really didn't? I mean those were very large buildings that stood for about 30 years, and no doubt had many various inspections, but for which little to no records are available. Did you know the North Tower caught on fire in 1999? That there were more than 10 major fires in the towers since their construction, before they were destroyed? There was a significant fire in WTC7 in 1988 if I'm not mistaken. If I had asked you if any of those events ever occurred before you knew about them, would you have said "yes" or "no" or "I don't know"? It really does make a big difference.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


The POTUS left exposed in a Florida classroom for nearly an hour after the second plane hit, in contravention to all Secret Service protocols re: his safety.

Tangential to that, AF 1 flying aimlessly for 2 hours without fighter escort.

Two ME "journalists" in a ratty van attempted to "interview" Bush outside his hotel before he headed off to Booker Elementary School.

This was the same MO that was used to assassinate the leader of the Afghan Northern Alliance on Sept. 9 or 10.

Bush ending up at Offutt AFB, our StratCom HQ, where Warren Buffett, about the richest man in the US, was hosting a charity golf tournament. (No, I'm not making that one up). Several CEOs in attendance would otherwise have been in the WTC towers.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


good one. i forgot about the CEO golf tournament. that's why i started this thread. there is so much info and disinfo and misinfo, that it is good not to solidify belief too much based on the uber repetition of media's dogma, or the 'far out' conspiracy theories' 'facts'.

all these factoids are the kind of thing that can start to materialize into a hazy picture of the 'plan' the perps used, and some of the methods of conspiring.

and, twitchy, i believe those pics you linked to, are genuinely directly related to 'the plan'. folded money, too. that's too 'out there' for most. oh, well.

the gunshot into the israeli MOSSAD agent is a real sore thumb. as is the reports of vans loaded with explosives at the bases of the towers.
the exploda-vans were reported on 9/11, but never mentioned in the 911 commision report, or the NIST report.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

But, this is today, who knows how they constructed the towers. Sure would be nice to have a complete set of construction documents.


I would give eye teeth to see all the material specs on the buildings. We have access to the blueprints but no actual material specs available.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Bsbray, we have a precedent of fire effect in WTC 1 in 1975. We know what did not happen in 1975. That was not the same type of fire as 2001. It was worse with far more thermal energy in concentration at the 11th floor.

It is easy to speak in "absolute terms" when there is already a precedent set from a prior period. Do you still have a problem with assessing and evaluating 2001 by 1975? If so, what exactly would it be?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join