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 World Trade Towers "Must come down!"

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Hey drag ,I think you gots me discombobalated with another member.
My post was about a SIMPLE answer.
Back up and try it .




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
Theres another factor you apparently were un aware of as well there was a subway under the tower the building supports was literally the subway terminal.It was a platform the building rested on.

I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with anything?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I obviously know alot more than you about demolitions maybe we should take a test up for it? Frankly i don't care about debunking anything you can come up with all the theories in the world about the plane being faked etc and you wont here me say a word.Don't want to research it and really don't know that much beyond basic avionics and aircraft recognition and quite frankly really don't care.But when you tell me it was an explosive demolition now that i do know something about out of the 2 of us i bet I'm the only one that actually wired demolitions before.So when i tell you it wasn't demolitions and you have know idea whats involved I'm talking from experience.While on the other hand your getting your information from a conspiracy web site that gets its ideas by trying to compare photos of demolitions and the WTC.As i pointed out this is a useless endeavor because when the explosives are done a building that has a critical failure either by explosives or any other means looks identical.The reason why is simple once the collapse starts gravity is doing the work.

Want to throw up so more photos so you can show how gravity brought down the WTC?


PS I see you put alot of time in your theory here but pleasr understand you have to take another look at how demolitions are done then youll see there is no way it could have been done.(unless you like my elfin demolition team theory then maybe) Id believe a cruise missile slammed into the builing before controlled demolitions.


[edit on 8/17/09 by dragonridr]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I obviously know alot more than you about demolitions maybe we should take a test up for it.Frankly i don't care about debunking anything you can come up with all the theories in the world about the plane being faked etc and you wont here me say a word.don't want to research it and really don't know that much beyond basic avionics and quite frankly really don't care.But when you tell me it was an explosive demolition now that i do know something about out of the 2 of us i bet I'm the only one that actually wired demolitions before.So when i tell you it wasn't demolitions and you have know idea whats involved I'm talking from experience.While on the other hand your getting your information from a conspiracy web site that gets its ideas but trying to compare photos of demolitions and the WTC.As i pointed out this is a useless endeavor because when the explosives are done a building that has a critical failure either by explosives or any other means looks identical.The reason why is simple wants the collapse starts gravity is doing the work.

Want to throw up so more photos so you can show how gravity brought down the WTC?


PS I see you put alot of time in your theory here but pleasr understand you have to take another look at how demolitions are done then youll see there is no way it could have been done.(unless you like my elfin demolition team theory then maybe) Id believe a cruise missile slammed into the builing before controlled demolitions.



[edit on 8/17/09 by dragonridr]


drag,
You may think I am picking on you. I am not. It it what you post.
It would be my understanding that you are passionate about demolition.
I placed my cap and squeezed my first and last stick when I was 17.
That does not qualify me to be a pro or contradict anyone of recent knowledge of demolition.
What are your qualifications and what have you demolished that some of us members would be able to check.
I think you could do that without posting any personal information.Even a smaller builbing like #7 will do. Want to impress up?
Thanks , we are all in this together doing what is best for America

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
WTC7 is without a doubt, a controlled demolition.
The buildings AROUND WTC 1 and 2 took more damage than WTC7, yet they survived.
WTC7's collapse is identical to many past demolitions.

This then begs the question, how was it rigged so quick?
This is utterly impossible.
So then the question is, how was it rigged before the incident, who rigged it, and why did they rig it?
The answer becomes obvious.

Now, I was never on the controlled demolition bandwagon for WTC 1 and 2. But, I always knew that the planes and jet fuel was woefully unable to collapse two massive sky scrapers like that.

Why did the bottom collapse below the impact?
That was sound structure, it had held up all the floors above since day dot.
The recent evidence of thermite molecules in the dust does make one wonder.

Couple that with the US government very quickly ushering the 'evidence' to china to be destroyed, and the fact Bush clearly said he say the FIRST plane hit, also having FEMA present BEFORE hand says to me that government knew, was prepared and had a plan of action immediately after.

It becomes obvious that this government was involved.

What’s the theory of the razor?
The most likely scenario is usually correct?

Well, in this case you cant argue with that, being who gained in the years after the attack.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


To anser your qustion my MOS in the army was 18 c a special operations engineer.And unfortunately dont blow up comercial buildings but hey who knows what the future holds. This is why im telling you this theory breaks all the rules of demolitions.Even with what i could get in the army you could not blow up the WTC with explosives and expect it to fall. If you did do it it truly would be dumb luck.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Let me get this straight - you think intelligent people sat down and decided, FOR THE SAKE OF SAFETY, to permanently install explosives in the World Trade Center. Really? Wow.


You really should read this thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I don't know about for the 'sake of safety', but for the sake of a globalist agenda, hell yes.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


Ill give you it makes more sense than trying to have explosives planted in the building and also would explain the failure of the flooring.The only problem is i cannot figure out a compound that would maintain explosive properties in cement. unless they actually mixed coated granules into the cement but the problem i see with that is it would probably weaken the cement.The other thing is it could have not been used everywhere in the building either and how would you ignite it?



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by hooper
Let me get this straight - you think intelligent people sat down and decided, FOR THE SAKE OF SAFETY, to permanently install explosives in the World Trade Center. Really? Wow.


You really should read this thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I don't know about for the 'sake of safety', but for the sake of a globalist agenda, hell yes.


I took a look at your link. Interesting.
I find there is a lot of correlation between contemporary humor, myths, legend, and reality. A lot.
I would like to generate discussion about this on a new thread I just posted . Karl Marx and recent conspiracies.
Did your thread ever link the film industry and the Apollo missions?
I watched Get Smart on it's original run. The only thing that impressed me at 14 years old was agent 99.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



Hey, thanks for the the reply. And special thanks for concentrating on this very important subject.
I think most folks are turned off by the negativity of name calling and ridicule of a post.
I have learned the hard way. Agreeing to disagree I think always trumps a peeing contest. My Uncle was EOD two tours Gulf of Tonkin.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


I am with you here. Building Number Seven. No matter what cannot be explained In the terms of ! or 2.
Also there has been no official on record with evidence that states with out a doubt how 7 came down.
The fact that the twins fell like 7 is most suspicious.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Trust me the army taught me the government hides alot of stuff. I could still be tried by the military for discussing missions (not really sure if they would or not up kinda curious if they would bother). And i would be the first to tell you if it was a demolition the problem becomes without alot of cutting and removal work the building wouldn't demolish.At least not without enough explosives that there would be no doubt say 3000lbs of g6 and trust me they would have found parts of the building in NEW Jersey.


Just so you know to again choose to believe me or not but any prep work on a building done more than 2 months in advance increases the failure rate of explosives and most probably just wouldn't go off.If i were going to attempt it i would want explosives set within 2 weeks max with 2 days set aside to go over the connections again. Theres everyday traffic in the building connections will loosen you would have to recheck all the timing because explosives do expand and contract. This is one reason when using demolitions and setting a building the faster you can set it up the better. The longest process of demolitions is preparing the building.

Now the idea that explosives were built into a building as some sort of fail safe maybe it could be done but to my knowledge the technology isn't there. But it would have to be in the building material and if it existed i thought about this and figured only one way it would be possible. It would have to be located near structural beams and ignition would be running a large current through the steel beams. But this would be shear speculation since i know of no compound that could keep explosive properties you could use in construction.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Thanks for that info on the mini WTC. Since it was completed approximately three years after WTC 1&2. And the same specs were used could they not look at this building too for points that were lost with it's bigger brothers.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



Good ideas and concepts. Maybe there building those grave sites, jail trains and concentration camps just for folks like us. LOL
I think it takes sacrifice to maintain. They can take me. I have lived the best life possible (for a common man) the world has ever provided.
That is why I try to understand why PTB want me to leave so, so much less for my children.
Support a REINVESTIGATION of all the 911 tragedies for the future of our families. What honest person can be hurt by that?
It is most likely the 911 perps are responsible for our economic black mail as well.
Check out the new photos from the FEMA guy,on another thread. Lots of demo.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join