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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Again, keep in mind that CD happens from the bottom up and not the top down.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by jfj123]


Which is what happened isn't it? Those towers lost all support from beneath the impact zones. You can see this from the many different video angles there are. That, with the witness accounts of explosions from below, shows that the impact zones did not have to be as important as you are stating. The charges could have been set up to a certain point within the structures. Everyone seems to assume that when CD is talked about that it means every foot of every floor had to have charges placed on them in order for the buildings to fall.

It is ONLY my opinion, an opinion based on witnessing multiple CDs of buildings and the Kingdome in Seattle, that ALL of the buildings that fell that day were controlled. I also have a solid grasp on structural support and design for buildings. There simply was NO SUPPORT for the collapse of those buildings.

In other words, the bottoms simply dropped out from beneath them.




posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I love Griff. He does at least try to keep things real. I completely understand why he brings the arguments that he does.

I haven't gone through the following thread entirely so I don't know if you have responded there yet Griff. Please check it out. It's a thread created by Zorgon in response to an article where many many many military officers (some very high ranking) have come out questioning the 'Official Story'. In other words calling it BS.

Are they all part of a propoganda machine against this administration? Are they all just miraculously nuts and bonkers now even though they have held very high clearances and high presitigious positions?

This is what I don't get with all of the 'official story' supporters. There are SO MANY people coming out against it that are in very high positions in government and the military. WHY WOULD THEY LIE?

Military Officers Question Official Story



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Just a thought. (ATS Reader - First Post)

Now I totally agree on the CD theory.

I have thought of something that might be worth thinking about

Now, if terrorists did crash the planes into the towers, why would they go through so much trouble on an operation most likely to fail?

What I mean is this; Chances are, the planes would no bring down the towers as skyscrapers are built WITH this in mind. (You think anyone construction company building a couple really tall skyscrapers - specifically THE WORLD TRADE CENTER - without keeping in mind an accidental plane crash or a terrorist attack by way of aircraft? - Of course not) Now the if these terrorists were crafty enough to pull of such a damn operation, I think they would have kept in mind the fact that there plan most likely WONT WORK. Yet they go through all the dang trouble anyways? What if it didn't work? They would look like fools!

Im sure terrorist crafty enough to pull this off (including insane aircraft maneuvers that not even the most skilled pilots can pull off - www.pilotsfor911truth.org) they would have come up with a better, more failsafe plan in the first damn place. Why waste the resources on an op with little chance to succeed according to common sense and physics?

This, along with all the other "evidence" and whatnot, leads me to believe that there WAS an inside job. The only people crafty enough to pull this off is us or our allies. Everyone else is still for the most part catching up to the power and skills of the US and Israel. Not to mention Britain. If you have ever read any Andy McNabb you would know exactly how skilled British SAS guys are, and the kind of deniable ops they are recruited into. Andy McNabb , the most famous ex-British Special Forces officer (also a Demo expert) even talks about in one of his novels (very realistic ones) where his character is recruited by the CIA, and eventually uncovers their plot to BLOW UP A CRUISE LINER FULL OF AMERICANS so they can send military into the country. All his FICTION is based on things he personally knows and experienced. So this tells me that not only was 9/11 and inside job, its the most likely conclusion!!!!

Thank you.

-Guy afraid to reveal himself on this shifty forum!
:-)



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel.

Try again Butz.


You're basing your statements off of a FAQ sheet intended for the totally uneducated?

There's much better sources for informing yourself as to what NIST actually says. More than 1 reason is given, not just heat. I give just the summary, but NIST states just what I say - namely that the steel didn't just get hot to the point of collapse. All are detailed in this doc.

Better source : wtc.nist.gov...

"The finite element analyses (FEA) of the global models and of the component and subsystem models
showed that the key structural responses that led to the collapse of the towers were as follows: 1) floor
sagging caused by the failure of thermally-weakened truss members, resulting in pull-in forces between
the floor and the exterior wall, and in some cases, disconnection of the floor from the exterior wall;
2) downward displacement of the core due to aircraft impact damage and shortening of the remaining core
columns from increased load, plasticity, creep of steel at high temperatures, and buckling resulting from
fire-induced high temperatures, and unloading of the core; 3) bowing and buckling of exterior walls
caused by the pull-in forces and loss of lateral support from the sagged floors, and floor/wall
disconnections at high temperatures; and 4) redistribution of gravity loads among the columns locally,
among the exterior walls, and between the exterior walls and the core, resulting from impact damage,
relative thermal expansion, shortening of core columns, tilting of the tower above the impact zone, and
bowing and buckling of exterior walls."



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Seymour,

What really makes it funny is that you claim the "twoofers" don't have a single original thought but yet I have not heard ONE word from you that I can't quote directly out of "debunking9/11.com".


Really?

I guess you missed my post in the celeb thread where I admit that the PA and Robertson may indeed have something to hide.

Ya won't find that at a debunker site.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
All are detailed in this doc.

Better source : wtc.nist.gov...


"The finite element analyses (FEA) of the global models and of the component and subsystem models
showed that the key structural responses that led to the collapse of the towers were as follows: 1) floor
sagging caused by the failure of thermally-weakened truss members, resulting in pull-in forces between
the floor and the exterior wall, and in some cases, disconnection of the floor from the exterior wall;
2) downward displacement of the core due to aircraft impact damage and shortening of the remaining core
columns from increased load, plasticity, creep of steel at high temperatures, and buckling resulting from
fire-induced high temperatures
, and unloading of the core; 3) bowing and buckling of exterior walls
caused by the pull-in forces and loss of lateral support from the sagged floors, and floor/wall
disconnections at high temperatures;
and 4) redistribution of gravity loads among the columns locally,
among the exterior walls, and between the exterior walls and the core, resulting from impact damage,
relative thermal expansion, shortening of core columns, tilting of the tower above the impact zone, and
bowing and buckling of exterior walls."



Hmm...seems to be saying what I was saying.


So, I guess your beef with me is that I didn't mention all the other things NIST lists?

But, NIST DOES list high temperature steel as a cause, so I am still waiting for your apology on the strawman comment. Good day.

[edit on 6/3/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I guess you missed my post in the celeb thread where I admit that the PA and Robertson may indeed have something to hide.


So, why have you hounded me about the structural documents and how I feel they are hiding them?

You are quite the enigma and a half all wrapped up in one contradiction. I mean that with no intent to offend.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

So, why have you hounded me about the structural documents and how I feel they are hiding them?



Hounded? Not at all.

Just pointing out the fact that I wouldn't want property and privacy rights infringed upon just to appease CTerz. I also gave my reasons why.

Frivolous lawsuits.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


Hmm...seems to be saying what I was saying.


So, I guess your beef with me is that I didn't mention all the other things NIST lists?



Yes, when i read about "degraded steel" I think something else. Unfortunately, I don't have the technical lingo to express what I'm thinking. bsbray had a post in another thread that expresses exactly what I think.

However, I am also correct when I say that there are other factors involved. Multiple factors.

FYI - NIST says that high temp effects were the most important determining factor for 1, but the plane damage was the most important for 2.

No modeling, eh?

Anyways, now that i see what you're saying...Apologizes extended.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Anyways, now that i see what you're saying...Apologizes extended.


And accepted. This is the way it should be. We can agree to disagree, I just don't like the vitriol. Plus, as you've seen, I'm probably not so far off on my theories to yours as I appear to be sometimes.

Anyway, cheers to civility.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Hi throatyogurt,
check out the researched documentary movie: Loose Change- 2nd edition, or Loose Change Final cut. In the 2nd edition, it gives a comprehensive discussion of all aspects of the 9/11 enigma. For example: the years of planning to execute this operation, evidence presented by engineers, and experts involved with the design of WtC, eyewitness accounts from bystanders, rescue crews and WTC employees, timelapse video ( multi angle), and audio analysis of explosions etc- from the "collapse", computer generated models ETC; this also includes analysis of the Pentagon crash incident, as well as WTC#7.
It is a very concise and informative perspective; and should provide answers
to most questions presented. I might also add that it was a film that was produced Not For Profit! and is available for download on most torrent sites.
Hope this was helpful!!!



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Just pointing out the fact that I wouldn't want property and privacy rights infringed upon just to appease CTerz. I also gave my reasons why.

Frivolous lawsuits.


It is my understanding that construction documentation is considered a service and doesn't fall under private property when it comes to public safety and failure of buildings. I could be wrong, but I asked around here and the consensus is that you can't claim privacy, it could be considered obstruction in a way.

Can you point out the law that says you have the right to claim that your construction documentation is private after the building has collapsed?

And I know you'll say that you mean CTers. But, I'm not talking about just any Tom, Dick and Harry. I'm talking about more than one body to study the collapse. Has anyone other than NIST seen the documentation?



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

It is my understanding that construction documentation is considered a service and doesn't fall under private property when it comes to public safety and failure of buildings. I could be wrong, but I asked around here and the consensus is that you can't claim privacy, it could be considered obstruction in a way.



I'm only saying that someone doesn't have to supply these types of docs to the public. NIST, FBI, NYCPD, etc presumably have powers of subpeona, and refusing to supply these to them would indeed be obstruction, IMHO.

I'm not aware of anyone other than NIST looking at the docs.

But I'm not aware of any requirement to supply them to any private person. Again, I use the Zapruder film as my precedent. The film was known to exist and the Warren Comission viewed it, but then Time-Life put the film into storage and never let the public see it, for whatever reason. That was their right to do so, and no matter what, that right was never overruled, even though I fairly sure that there were PLENTY of folks that wanted to see it.

I posted 2 relevant laws somewhere here, fairly recently, but I'm too lazy to go search for it again. Basically, it says that police, etc can subpeona what they consider to be evidence, but are legally prohibited from releasing them to the public. However, when the investigation is over, the evidence is released BACK and the owner has 60 days to reclaim it, otherwise it becomes the property of the investigating body. Presumably, this is how the CITGO and Sheraton videos were released.

Personally, I'd like for the construction docs made public also, but I can see a reason why that won't happen, from the PA's point of view. If a deal could be worked out that they would be given freedom from lawsuits that WOULD arise when CTers get their hands on them, maybe that would do the trick. Cuz I could see at least a few of the CTers of Judy Wood's level of logical thinking ability bringing lawsuits even if Gage, Jones, and Griffin, etc all said that they accept NIST's findings now that they have the docs.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Personally, I'd like for the construction docs made public also, but I can see a reason why that won't happen, from the PA's point of view. If a deal could be worked out that they would be given freedom from lawsuits that WOULD arise when CTers get their hands on them, maybe that would do the trick. Cuz I could see at least a few of the CTers of Judy Wood's level of logical thinking ability bringing lawsuits even if Gage, Jones, and Griffin, etc all said that they accept NIST's findings now that they have the docs.


I can see what you are saying. And I have to agree.

Maybe that's the key. Exempt the PA and Robertson from frivilous lawsuites. I was going to say that: isn't there a law that lawsuites aren't to be frivilous, but we've all seen where people are being able to sue over the stupidest things. Hot McDonald's coffee comes to mind.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Maybe that's the key. Exempt the PA and Robertson from frivilous lawsuites. I was going to say that: isn't there a law that lawsuites aren't to be frivilous, but we've all seen where people are being able to sue over the stupidest things. Hot McDonald's coffee comes to mind.


LOL, hot coffee.....

That didn't prevent Wood from bringing a lawsuit against those that in no way would be responsble for 9/11 under a CT view. I believe they're sueing the folks that were there AFTER the event for covering up.

So even the crazy people get their day in court. But I believe there's no prevention from it - SOMEONE needs to rule whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous, and it is in the defendant's best interest to mount a defense, no matter how ridiculous. I think the deal is that if someone brings a frivolous lawsuit, then they pay for the defense's attorney fees. But like I also said, I think she's broke, so how do you squeeze blood from a turnip. You'll get a judgement, but never get paid for your lawyer expense.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
So if the buildings where brought down by explosion ..
-- Well -- there is no other explanation for what we
see in the video's, A smooth faster than gravity collapse
appeared to be well executed and had to be done by
only the best in the industry. hold them all in contempt
until you pressure the guilty party to admit guilty.
European Italian Source, Operation Gladio operative,
States with 100% accuracy that 911 was done by
the CIA and the MOSSAD, Mossad vamoosed after 911.
So, thats sort of suspicious behavour. and we arrest
2 Isis-ra-el's Mossad with a truck load of explosives
and the two were under arrest. about 60 ISISRAELI's
were arrested, with 1,000 muslims and then the
ISISRAELI's end up on TV telling the media that
he is Mossad and he was sent to NY to document
911, with video and he did..... did get that statement....?
we have Isisraeli's Art Students that occupy floor without
rent and they made a balcony giving them access to outside
at night ... aluminum is soft.
The Plane hit the building the building fall down is so stupid
I dont even want to give the author credit for quoting such
stupidness... black smoke and life forms equal COLD FIRE and Fire Chief says he can knock it down with 2 fire hoses.... says, no way JOSE..
We have major problems to resolve america.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by 888LetsRoll
 


so, how exactly are explosives going to bring the building down FASTER than gravity? even if they knocked out the core columns on every floor all at the same time, the building is only going to come down as fast as gravity can pull it down.

if you hold something in your hand and just quickly remove your hand, the object is just going to fall straight down at the speed of gravity, the only way it will fall faster than gravity is if you throw it down.

so how EXACTLY do you accomplish this with explosives? ive blown up a lot of things and i dont know so i view this as a learning opportunity. please, enlighten me.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
It's amazing what 15 seconds of googling will unvail!

Ex-Italian President Knows whats-up!

Gladio

NATO's secret armies

Btw. Finally made an account because Anonymous fella's can only post every 24 hours.

-Peace



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminist
It's amazing what 15 seconds of googling will unvail!

Ex-Italian President Knows whats-up!


Welcome to ATS. Another 15 seconds of googling would unveil this article written by Cossiga:

Ex-Italian President Knows What's Up!

Yahoo Translation


"I reject the conspiracy theory, which is a smart and sometimes sincere counterfeiting of reality caused by the fear of that (reality)"....
... Remembering how "open" American society is, I think it's very unlikely, I may say impossible, that the events of Sept 11 were fruit of an American conspiracy".


In the quote you used he is actually mocking the Italian left wing by satirizing their conspiracy theories. Though it doesn't translate well...



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


I'm sorry,

I just woke up so I might be off.

It is hard to know exactly what he was trying to say as online translators are crap.

lol, I mean, I could just be tired (I worked from 3 AM to 10 AM - and have gotten little sleep) but man I found it hard to follow that translation. The same thing with the actual article from the Italian news paper (translation from italian paper)

I do get the impression what you said is right, but until I see proper translation I can make no conclusion on it.

Also, the fact remains that Operation Gladio EXISTED and was pretty much the same thing as the 9/11 conspiracies (except done by NATO throughout Europe.) Plus, he still mentions that "middle-left?" members of the Italian political parties say the intel services of the world claim to KNOW the truth of the matter (being CIA and Musad pulled it off - which seems like a likely combo to do such a thing.)

Anyways, thanks for your input, much appreciated, although I don't appreciate the condescending attitude i.e. mocking me; "15 seconds of googling," etc.

I mean no disrespect, your input IS appreciated!

[edit on 5-6-2008 by illuminist]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join