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: 6
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by brianhks
Every time the conversation of the towers comes up it is amusing to see how many "experts" there are on the subject.

Well, I'm no expert on controlled demolitions, but I am however, an expert on Participles, and as such, I found these statements very odd...


“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”
-Giuliani
Live Interview, ABC News

Hmmm "was going to"... how very odd. Stranger still is Giuliani subsequent denial that he had ever made that statement, even though you can watch the video of him saying it.
Isolated cooincidence? No...


John came to me and said you need to go find Chief Ganci and relay the following message: that the buildings have been compromised, we need to evacuate, they're going to collapse...
I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out.
He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said, hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are going to collapse. His reply was who the **** told you that? Then Steve brought me in and with Chief Ganci, Commissioner Feehan, Steve, I believe Chief Turi was initially there, I said, listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that's when the building came down, the first tower came down.
-RICHARD ZARRILLO
EMT NYC




“I was one of the few firefighters to make it out of the Marriott Hotel before the south tower landed on it and killed most of the people inside,” he recalled. “The cops had a five-minute head start. They received word that the south tower was going to come down and none of us did.
-Andrew Ansbro
NYFD




"Get behind the car ... they're waiting for another explosion."
-BBC Reporter



[edit on 21-1-2008 by twitchy]




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


i'm not trying to be semantical for no good reason. i just like to point out to people(not you, obviously), that this is an OLD CABAL, and on OLD PATTERN. only the technology has been changed to protect the guilty.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by brianhks
Every time the conversation of the towers comes up it is amusing to see how many "experts" there are on the subject. Lets look at the facts before every one jumps on the conspiracy band wagon.

Also as to the targets on the towers in the manuals. That is easy to explain. In 1993 terrorists already tried to blow up the towers and failed. Any one can figure it out that they are a potential target. So they put potential targets into training manuals. Seems logical to me.


really.

can you prove i or any other of the MILLIONS of 'conspiracy theorists', are not an expert, or at least more of an expert than you? enough with the broad brush already. who built and drives the bandwagons?

i mean, you just claimed "band wagon conspiracy theorists" are not only not qualified, but also, are the only ones claiming demolition.

you say, "let's look at the facts". well. where are they? i don't see any in your hand-waving post.

you claim that "band wagon conspiracy theorists" CAN'T know what happened, because it has never happened before, and then you get on a soap box and preach your own unsubstantiated pet theory.

there's a much bigger bandwagon full of debunkers than conspiracy theorists, although i'd dare say conspiracy theorists are making up the bigger numbers these days. the thing is, conspiracy theorists mostly follow their own critical thinking, and DON'T REALLY GET ON BANDWAGONS. it is the media-pablum eaters that all put on the knowledge silos and claim to know it all.


There has never, in the history of this planet, been a demolition of a building as tall as the WTC. No one has anything to compare it to. No one knows what will happen to metal when it is exposed to that kind of crushing, because no one has demolished a building of that size.


really.
so, what's heavier: a pound of feathers, or a pound of iron?
real science is a wonderful thing. it's too bad it had to go down the 'truthiness' hole after 9/11.


We can guess at the forces that were there but they are just guesses. In reality the planes only needed to weaken the structure enough for the upper section of the building to move probably just an inch. The inertia of the building will handle the rest from there.


really. awesome scienceyness.
can i see your calculations?

and, in fact, with the proper documentation, these "guesses" can be well within "yes" or "no" parameters, and acceptable tolerance for error. i'm sure if some 'debunker' scientist like frank greening published some numbers he (partially, he's actually a very competent scientist) pulled from his butt(which he has, in order to decieve, i believe), you'd be hollering that's it's the new gospel(which, it wouldn't be. newton's gospel still rules).

i respectfully disagree about the manuals. i think it's not so easily handwaved away as irrelevent.


[edit on 21-1-2008 by billybob]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by brianhks


We can guess at the forces that were there but they are just guesses. In reality the planes only needed to weaken the structure enough for the upper section of the building to move probably just an inch. The inertia of the building will handle the rest from there.


That is odd you would say that. It is also a dang good thing controlled demolition experts do not implode buildings according to what you think should happen, if they plan on imploding any buildings into their own footprints - legally or illegally.

The fact is the south tower top had a pre-lean, prior to massive implosion, at 23 degrees to the outside, and still hung on by the core supports parallel to the wall drop creating a rift. So much for any 767 slicing right through the center core supports. It was done with controlled demolitions to make it appear an alleged plane took out any double steel of the center cores and steel framing inside the center cores.

Yet, when the massive implosion took place in the south tower, the top was shifted back to the inside. Powerful implosions will cause that to happen very easily.

If any alleged plane hit north-south on the south tower, any alleged plane would only get about 35' before meeting up with the center core and steel framing inside the center core.

If any alleged plane hit east-west on the north tower, any alleged plane would only get about 35' before meeting up with the center core and steel framing inside the center core.

When center core support and the steel framing inside the center core can hold on at least 10 stories of the south tower, there is no 767 or jet fuel taking either tower down, particularly not straight down into its own footprint. That will never happen. We have a history of planes, complete with fuel fires, running into high rises. High rises receive some damage but were still standing. The ESB is only one such case. That building has more reinforced concrete and no heavily redundant steel as existed in the WTC towers.




top topics
 
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join