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.

 

So if the buildings where brought down by explosion

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

IMHO Griff is one of the last guys on either side of the debate thats likely to throw out straw men. unless of course it is a halloween decoration of course...

just my opinion


Yeah, well the reason I say that is that NIST never said anything near what he's claiming. Matter of fact, they clearly state that the heat encountered would NOT have had enough of an effect on the steel that would make it collapse. I've had this discussion before with him, and I believe we agreed that NIST never states this. And yet, here it pops up again....

In other words, he's making up an argument that he can defeat.

That's a strawman.




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I have one question regarding controlled demolition and building 7:


If random damage and fires can make a building come down like building #7 did, then why do controlled demolition companies take weeks of preparation, planning, and careful placement of explosives to accomplish the same thing?


In a steel and concrete building, why not just knock down a few walls, start some fires, and stand back?




[edit on 2-6-2008 by ianr5741]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Disgustipated
 


This thread is a coy of a thread where all these questions were answered
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Maybe the explosives used were gain thru an alien goverment alliance, it could be some type of explosive that leaves no residue, is small and compact( the size of a dime) and is able to be detonated at great distances...Rosie Odonnell discusses similar aspects on her website



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ianr5741
 


the only thing that the collapses PROVED was that, ready? the buildings fell down. thats all the collapses PROVE.

sure theres lots of things that make people go "hmm thats odd" but ive yet to talk to anyone who's set off anything bigger than something they got for the 4th of july that thinks there were any preplaced HE charges in the building.

now, if some of you KNOW demo experts please bring them here, we'll compare notes, maybe they can show me where im wrong. im open minded enough to believe that is possible. but watching CD's on Youtube doesnt qualify anyone for anything.

as someone who has worked with HE, i just dont see it.

but of course, i could be wrong



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


I see.

So they hired some private contractors, who happen to be the greatest demolition team in the whole world, paid them an undisclosable amount of money to secretly plan the destruction of each building.

Then, the complicated sequence of blowing them up at the right time, and then, for extra effect, they threw in the terrorist hijacked planes....

Alllllll of that - and nobody is talking from "the inside"??

Or Bush trained himself on explosives, and he recruited Cheney, Rice, and Ethan Hawke, to come with him, in some sort of crazy "Mission: Impossible 4" scheme to blow up the towers so we can invade Afghanistan.

....yahhhhhhhhhhhhh
that makes sense



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ianr5741

In a steel and concrete building, why not just knock down a few walls, start some fires, and stand back?



Presumably, if someone was going to legally demo a building, they'd remove the contents first. This means furniture, carpets, etc. Besides, you'd never get a permit to burn these plastics, etc due to air quality concerns.

So then what's the fuel source?



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Please provide the quote from NIST that says this or retract this claim.

Or is this a strawman?


My bad. NIST didn't even go that far. Straw man indeed.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ybab hsur

I see.

So they hired some private contractors, who happen to be the greatest demolition team in the whole world, paid them an undisclosable amount of money to secretly plan the destruction of each building.

Then, the complicated sequence of blowing them up at the right time, and then, for extra effect, they threw in the terrorist hijacked planes....

Alllllll of that - and nobody is talking from "the inside"??

Or Bush trained himself on explosives, and he recruited Cheney, Rice, and Ethan Hawke, to come with him, in some sort of crazy "Mission: Impossible 4" scheme to blow up the towers so we can invade Afghanistan.

....yahhhhhhhhhhhhh
that makes sense


LOL.

Please switch sides and become a CTer.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I am starting to see now that there was no missles used in the attack, the attacks were conducted by aliens upon GWB's order. He is believed to be an alien/chimp clone. We dont have the tech for that but aliens do, so they clone the chimp/human hybrid and bring him to power so once they cause the accident they can instruct him what to do. Proof of this is here'
www.gallerize.com...



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Disgustipated
 


To the starting post:

When you think about twin towers you should also think about WTC7. Ignore the twins and ask yourself why did the WTC7 collapse and how did they know about it so early to warn people, even there was only minor damage from fallen debris and fire? If you conclude that there is something fishy in the way WTC7 came down, there should be also wondering how it happened to happen right after the twins collapsed.

I'm not an expert on demolitions so I can't really imagine how hard it is to blow up some building. But... anyone who would organize something like 911 would have to have time to plan it, and resources and power to organize it. That would mean a group of trustworthy and loyal people to be trained to do demolitions.

IF I would organize something like that (here comes the wild imagination part) I would have different cells to do different things. Those cells wouldn't know about the "masterplan". I would hire selected people from agencies and/or military. I would make sure that if they would leak any information of their cell, they would be silenced with force. I would still need high level connections to organize the attack (like sending jet fighters to some military exercise away from WTC). The beautiful part would be that after the strike those who had been involved wouldn't dare to say that they helped to execute such tragical event. They wouldn't have any documents to prove it either. Their confession wouldn't be taken seriously, and the "organizer" would silence one instantly with necessary force.

So what would it need?

- A group of powerful men with a common goal and personal gain
- power and high level connections
- time to make proper plans
- money
- military connections and military technology
- few cells to do the dirty work (less than 100 people combined) who are well paid and well silenced with fear
- military people/agents to do low level stuff by orders without questioning and they might not even now realize that they helped to do such thing


What would you get of it?

+ War
+ Re-election and more power for the president
+ more money and power for "the group"


I admit that I pulled these answers right out of my ass to the hypothetical question - what would it take IF the 911 would have been inside job. Some people think such thing can't be done and I believe it can. I sincerely hope that I did not offend anyone because it was not my goal.

What if...



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
1/2 full???? Buildings were actually about 90% full. If you are structural
engineer as you say - then you should know that demolition experts
blow out the bottom columns, not 1000 ft above street....


Actually, since you people believe that the top 10% can crush the entire building all the way down, why would we need to blast it from the bottom? Wouldn't the top third work just as well?



Reply to Damocles, I don't believe in HE demolitions either thanks to you. Unless they were "hush-a-boom". Didn't you coin that phrase?



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Ok, building 7? I honestly can't believe anyone can watch it collapse and conclude anything but CD. Sorry but anything else is is just sad in my book. My stomach turns every time I see building 7 collapse on video.

Buildings 1 and 2? Enough doubt to get me thinking but that's about it. I'm about 99 percent convicted that 911 was an inside job. If something is wrong with building 7, there is something wrong with ALL of it.

Also, to the people who argue that CDs usually happen from the "bottom up".. Building 7 happened precisely in this fashion and 1 and 2 cominng down "top to bottom" doesn't mean much to me.. Why? because Building 1 and 2 had a very unique, extraordinarily strong exoskeleton. From what I have been told this Exoskeleton could probably stand on it's own WITHOUT the core. Because this exterior skin was so strong, in order to get towers 1 and 2 to collapse from the "bottom up" would have required some very noticeable global destructive forces acting on the exterior skin. The core being taken out in buildings 1 and 2 would have caused those buildings to have collapsed exactly the way they did, "top to bottom" with the interior falling and "pulling" the outer skin in on the way down.



[edit on 2-6-2008 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Reply to Damocles, I don't believe in HE demolitions either thanks to you. Unless they were "hush-a-boom". Didn't you coin that phrase?


as much as i would LOVE to take credit for it, sadly i cannot. i dont recall who did use it in this context first but it wasnt me, im just someone who thought it was amusing


though i almost cringe to ask what you think DID bring it down



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ViewFromTheStars
 


ive said openly that a top down CD is POSSIBLE, it would just need more demo (which of course would have been louder but lets face it anything louder than nothing would be pretty loud as far as demo charges go)

but still, in regards to building seven im going to quote one of my heros. marvin the martian and ask "wheres the kaboom?! there was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom!" (or in this case a wtc7 shattering kaboom, which there was not....)



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Matter of fact, they clearly state that the heat encountered would NOT have had enough of an effect on the steel that would make it collapse.


Then what exactly made it collapse? Pulling floor trusses? How does this produce enough energy to blast through the rest of the building? Ask NIST this and they say that the cap fell at freefall energy. How is this possible when buckled columns still have strength and resistance?


I've had this discussion before with him, and I believe we agreed that NIST never states this.


I don't remember this conversation. Course I really have to say I'm starting to turn a blind ear to you. Not because you don't have anything to say, but because you say it with vitriol. You could learn a lesson or two from Damocles. We disagree about alot but we are civil and actually quite good friends.


In other words, he's making up an argument that he can defeat.


Which part? And I've always said, if I can be proven wrong, I'd gladly accept it. I'd sleep better at night knowing I was wrong.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
though i almost cringe to ask what you think DID bring it down


I don't know. My gut feeling is that it couldn't happen. My professional side says to hold off until I can do some calcs. I'm actually looking into getting some structural failure analysis software. Hopefully I can solve it. Right or wrong. I'd actually sleep better at night if my gut feeling is wrong.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I don't know.


Smartest thing anyones said in this debate (all threads) in a LONG time.

knew there was a reason i respected you Griff



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


forgive me for my ignorance, but what is a CTer?

Very interested now ...



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
The kabooms (or lack thereof) on 911 are debatable. Thermite cutting charges don't really 'explode'. There are eyewitness accounts of some types of 'booms' occurring on 911 as mentioned and illustrated earlier in this thread. Explosives or no explosives, catastrophic failure of support columns by thermite would have caused an 'explosive' failure mode due to massive weight shifting and air compression events.

I do know that in controlled demolitions, there are different types of devices to 'crack' different types of supports/collumns. In building 1 and 2, since there was no concrete around the steel collumns (except basement levels) "explosions" would not have been necessary. Like I said earlier, thermite does not "explode". It burns extremely hot and fast.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join