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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminist
reply to post by _Del_
 

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


Fair enough.


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 thought it mirrored your "It's amazing what 15 seconds of googling will unvail!" pretty well
Seriously, though, if it was a jab it was only because you left yourself open when making your own swing. No ill-intent -- I'm a fairly reasonable guy (depending on who you ask). Welcome aboard from the land of lurking!




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Thanks Del.

While lurking, I learned that while I don't agree with you usually, you are defiantly reasonable.

I think your skeptic (sorry if you aren't, I just got that assumption...) on the topic, but you are definitely one who can back himself up - for that, I applaud you!



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminist
I think your skeptic (sorry if you aren't, I just got that assumption...) on the topic, but you are definitely one who can back himself up - for that, I applaud you!


My questions on the topic revolve primarily around the seemingly credible reports of explosions in the basement(s) of the WTC complex. They are rather fuzzy in the details, and I've seen a few reasonable attempts to explain them, but they remain for me a question mark.
I think the government covered up incompetence (at times seemingly gross-incompetence) to protect various people in key positions.
I think flight 93 may have been shot down, though I see nothing conclusive to this end. It was my first reaction, and so probably holds on longer because of it.
I pretty much fall in with the evil "official version of events" for the remainder. Most of my pet conspiracies have nothing to do with the events of 11 Sept.

I promise that though my tongue is sharp, it's rarely intended maliciously. I try to use it as a tool rather than a weapon. The internet being what it is, it's easy to misinterpret intentions (and of course, I sometimes fall short of my lofty ideals)...



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   


I promise that though my tongue is sharp, it's rarely intended maliciously. I try to use it as a tool rather than a weapon. The internet being what it is, it's easy to misinterpret intentions (and of course, I sometimes fall short of my lofty ideals)...


Well said!

as an ex-forum moderator (linux, gaming, and random discussion sites) and fellow who is easily enraged, I can't agree more.

With so much dis-info/propaganda on this forum, along with well put-together conspiracy theories, it's very hard to tell who the good guys are. Especially when all you know about someone is what they write in a thread.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by illuminist]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
My questions on the topic revolve primarily around the seemingly credible reports of explosions in the basement(s) of the WTC complex. They are rather fuzzy in the details, and I've seen a few reasonable attempts to explain them, but they remain for me a question mark.

one thing i try to keep in mind and at times point out is that during any event involving fire anywhere, things can explode. we have no idea the extent of the damage done to the building as a whole by the aircraft so its hard to say what it may or may not have been.

personally, ive yet to see anything that screams preplaced high explosives to me as someone who's worked with HE for a number of years.

but of course i could be wrong, ive just yet to see anything really tangible.


I think the government covered up incompetence (at times seemingly gross-incompetence) to protect various people in key positions.

this statement ive agreed with for a long time now, well said.


I think flight 93 may have been shot down, though I see nothing conclusive to this end. It was my first reaction, and so probably holds on longer because of it.

ya know, i tend to lean this way also. people ask then "if it was shot down why the story of the passengers fighting back?" well, making the victems on that plane into heros is a much better story than of an AF pilot having to do something that most pilots would list as their biggest fear in the job. just my opinion though.


I pretty much fall in with the evil "official version of events" for the remainder.

i have to side with you here as well if for no other reason than despite the gaping holes in the "official story" its still more coherent than most of the alternate theories of the day. but thats just me, and thats probably why ive been accused of being a disinfo agent more times than i can count lol.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
personally, ive yet to see anything that screams preplaced high explosives to me as someone who's worked with HE for a number of years.

but of course i could be wrong, ive just yet to see anything really tangible.


I agree. As I said the reports are rather fuzzy in the details. The most famous "pre-plane strike" explosion proponent seems to have changed his tune somewhat. Several people say the bangs occurred immediately or shortly after the plane strike. I'm simply saying because of the nature of the reports, I'm hesitant to rule conclusively one way or the other. If I were digging for conspiracy gold, this is one of two places where I'd stake my claim; the other is flight 93.
Of course you could always argue that the government conspired to cover its own tail afterwards, but even a shill like myself recognizes that already without a fancy youtube video pointing me in that direction. I think you'd find a lot of choir and little in the way of potential converts on that point.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Disgustipated
 


How hard would of it been to have built the towers with a self destruct? Are there explosives that are stable enough to not go off on their own, yet be ready to go at a moments notice even after 30 years of storage? If the towers had been built with a "just in case" self destruct system, then there would of been no need for months of hidden demo work in 2000/2001. I realize this idea is slightly "out there" but then again this IS ATS. :-)

[edit on 7-6-2008 by CnawNM]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CnawNM
 


all ordinance has a "shelf life" so to speak. dynamite is the most notorious of course as it has a habit of "sweating" nitroglycerine.

tnt and plastics are more stable but ive never seen anything that leads me to think that they would be totally reliable after 30 years. but i cant say for sure as ive never had to use any really old ordinance on a job.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Disgustipated
 


It has been stated by several people during the 9/11 investigation that 2 weeks proir to the event that power to the towers was shut down over a 4 day weekend to include security monitors. A crew of over 200 people were allegedly sent in to "upgrade" the security wiring.
Oh yes and btw way the peron heading this little event isa relative of "W".. I will do my best to get the entire scoop on this . I will get back to you asap.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Google Video "Freeman Perspective Paul Laffoley" to see an interview with an architect who actually worked on the WTC. He was fired for wanting to link towers 1 & 2 with a number of walkway bridges (which would have allowed rapid evacuation from one tower to the other). He offers a number of reasons why this was unacceptable to the owners, but the jaw dropper was when they asked where the demolition devices would be fitted. They had heard this was being done on other skyscrapers being built at the time, and wanted to incorporate this feature in the WTC design.

Link below
(sorry I haven't advanced to such wizardry as embedding videos)


video.google.com.au...:010939979509778825522&hl=en



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by CnawNM
 


...or if a self destruct system was built-in right from the start, all wired up and ready to go, could it be left 'unarmed' and the active explosive put in place at the last minute?
I'm assuming they were planning for a possible controlled demolition, sometime in the very distant future, eg 100 yrs or at the end of the design life of the structure.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard67
 


The one issue with the whole "pre-built self-destruct" idea is what would happen if on a random normal day, it just glitched and went off?

No system is 100% perfect. I wonder how the explanation for that one would be spun to the public. You'd have one hell of a mass panic across the entire nation as no one will feel safe going into a skyscraper anymore.

That and if it was pre-built, why none of the workers who worked on it or the engineers who designed it came forward and said such was true. For a large public project, something like that would have leaked long ago when it was first being erected.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 

The scenario I'm envisioning would have everything but explosives - ie wiring/timers/electronics/detonators etc - installed during construction, with the thermite placed at the last minute.

And just to be clear - I'm not saying they were ever installed. Only that the building's owner enquired about them during the design stage. This is according to Paul Laffoley, an architect who worked on the project (and subsequently got fired, basically for having too many good ideas). But apparently the whole concept was not that uncommon - in the video linked above he talks about the casinos of Las Vegas, which were routinely torn down, remodelled, renovated etc and all of which was planned for during construction.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
all i can comment on this is that if i was the demo guy called in to drop a building and someone said "oh everything is built in, just place the charges" id laugh, by the time i tested all of the wiring etc i could just restring everything new, not to mention that in a city scenario in particular you would use as few "wires" as possible and go with non-electric blasting caps and det cord to reduce the chance of a premature detonation due to induction.

but, thats just me



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Just wondering.....
IF explosives were used, surely there must be CCTV of the inside of both towers belonging to companies who were renting the offices. If so, would the live feed have been recorded in premises outside the WTC complex, and maybe show charges going off.
Just a thought...



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
My questions on the topic revolve primarily around the seemingly credible reports of explosions in the basement(s) of the WTC complex. They are rather fuzzy in the details, and I've seen a few reasonable attempts to explain them, but they remain for me a question mark.


Well there is the video of the firemen entering the lobby and seeing the people severaly burned.

If your thinking jet fuel then the jet fuel would have made its way down the 1 and only elevator shaft that went from the upper floors to the basement levels.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard67
 


Possble. But you have to figure out how to keep the components from being chewed on/through by bugs and rodents and corrosion in general.

30 years is a long time and there has to be a lot of upkeep on those components.

Unless every employee that was sent to do upkeep on that system was "in on it", I'm sure we would have heard something about the building being wired. Information like that leaks. It's the nature of humans to want to tell.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Disgustipated
 


OK people here ya go, yes the twin towers were brought down by our government (world leaders)accidently; this is why , in case of invation from enemies forien or yes from space (E.T.'s) (if its a posibility we must prepare !!if anyone thinks its not possible think again!!)their is a safty measure, its called "SELF DISTRUCT"we will distroy the information stored in our secrete offices in that building before letting "them" get it,anyone want to know what kind of information?open your eyes and just look around.(heres a clue~ s8int.com)(heres another~Submarines what are we looking for at the bottom of the oceans? ) anyone remember startrek? what happens when the bad guys try to over run and take the Enterprise, yes you guessed it, self distruct is activated by the "captan."(N.W.O.)But in this case the planes activated the S.D. sequince and it couldn't be stopped (we tryed),but we didnt prepare for them flying planes in to the buildings,we didnt account for that~sorry~ thats why everthing was distroyed by countless internal Explosions and only bits and pieces of everything I.E. phones, desks, file cabs etc, were found,just for the record it was in frount of your faces the hole time,you all aked the questions but no one wanted to admit it in fear of giving up ancient secrete knowlage we are hiding, from past history,what do you think Alexander the great was looking for all over everywhere,hello-do you see now, of course most if not all wont beleave me anyway, thanks for your ignorance, it make it easier for us to hide the truth from you all, "no offence intended" just the truth,as it is. Thanks for your time,maybe someone will sleep better tonight.(your welcome)this is the "Screaming Eagle."an American Patriot.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join