It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Controlled Demolition for what reason??

page: 12
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 05:15 PM

government admits freefall speed of WTC7.
Deductive reasoning= If WTC7 then WTC1&2 are freefall as well.

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 09:27 PM

posted by A W Smith
. . . . . You may recall that the US, the most powerful country on earth. Some conspiracy theorists say so powerful as to successfully create a huge false flag operation killing almost three thousand of its own citizens. somehow failed to plant a single WMD. Why is that?

Apparently I missed this until Spreston reposted it but it leads me to wonder....what would have happened to Bush's war if there were no WMD found anyway.....oh right, this!

Whether they tried to plant them or not, it did not matter if they were there did it?

We never found any but....
We still invaded.
We are still there.
We are forcing them to let us stay longer against their will.

I am not sure where any WMDs mattered in this plan other than a pretext and something to keep us distracted.

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

Not only did it not make any difference whatsoever since we already had these brilliantly emperialist new "War on Terror" policies, the UN already knew Saddam didn't have weapons. It wasn't a serious question in any other country's mind. And if we planted them, you are looking at international investigations, not just domestic ones where you control all the evidence freely and legally. Of course even international investigations can be whitewashes if you populate the investigating teams with the right people.

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 09:54 PM
reply to post by bsbray11

Yeah well that was why I just could never understand why we heard WMD so much when we were gonna do what we were gonna do anyway, and we did and we still hear WMD. Just watch Sean Hannity, he still claims they were there. It is amazing what 3 letter combos do to the American Populace.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:19 AM

posted by wmd_2008
Have a looK at this link all of YOU who believe in the demolition this is posted on another site (that thinks that way) look at the e-mail shown

After the first paragraph they have this sentance

That the towers were demolished in a controlled manner was noted immediately by some astute observers:

Read the e-mail sent by David Rostcheck-David Rostcheck one of the SUPPOSED astute observers

Please read his e-mail can you spot THE MISTAKE he makes!


Now if people DONT even know HOW the building is made YET they all seem to be able to spot explosives going off!


You certainly took Mr David Rostcheck completely out of context didn't you? Was that on purpose? Is that called dishonesty? How did you overlook the fact that Mr David Rostcheck posted that e-mail on 9-11-2001? There was not much information on the construction of the WTC Towers on 9-11-2001 at 3:12 pm was there? As you likely knew, the 'terrorist bomb' Mr David Rostcheck referred to was the 1993 bombing.

Was that also deliberate disnonesty on your part? Mr David Rostcheck reported the obvious deliberate demolition of the towers from his personal observations on that very day and here 7 years later you cynically castigated him because he did not know the construction method of the Towers on 9-11? You are something else. Why are you people always so inevitably dishonest? Isn't this your nation and the future for your children also?

Let us take a look at the remainder of Mr David Rostcheck's very observant e-mail.

From: "David Rostcheck"
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: WTC bombing

- The stories from the impact point up burn horribly. Note, fire moves upward, not downward.

- The second plane hits the second tower, lower and moving faster. It blows a bigger hole through it, showering debris on the street, but the building is clearly still standing and still looks quite solid.

- The second building begins burning, also from the impact point up.

- Perhaps a half hour later, the fire in the first building *goes out*. It is still smouldering and letting off black smoke, but there is no flame. Anyone who saw the documentary on that horrid skyscraper fire in Philadelphia that led to the codes requiring sprinklers on every floor knows why. There's no way to get fire apparatus into a skyscraper effectively, so it needs to be designed into the structure - which it is. The water flows from the roof reservoirs down. Sprinklers can kill incredible infernos, and that's what these do.

- The fire in the second building goes out.

- Then, later, the second building suddenly crumbles into dust, in a smooth wave running from the top of the building (above the burned part) down through all the stories at an equal speed. The debris falls primarily inward. The tower does not break off intact and collapse into other buildings. The bottom does not crumble before the top. The burned out section crumbles also. The crumbling comes from the top (above the damage). It moves at a uniform rate. All of the structural members are destroyed in a smooth pattern, so there is no remaining skeleton. The damage is uniform, symmetric, and total.

In summary, it looks exactly like a demolition - because that's what it is.

- The first tower collapses in a similar demolition wave.

There's no doubt that the planes hit the building and did a lot of damage. But look at the footage - those buildings were *demolished*. To demolish a building, you don't need all that much explosive but it needs to be placed in the correct places (in direct contact with the structural members) and ignited in a smooth, timed sequence. Someone had to have had a lot of access to all of both towers and a lot of time to do this.

This is pretty grim. The really dire part is - what were the planes for? If you're going to demolish the building, what's the point of the flashy display?

The way they're cutting the footage on the news now makes it look like the buildings crumbled soon after being hit by the planes, which is not true. They've also started slowing the clips from after the demolition explosion starts, so you don't see the top of the building go first - but those who taped it, go back and look at the early first-run clips.

If, in a few days, not one official has mentioned anything about the demolition part, I think we have a REALLY serious problem.

— davidr

This message was posted to the internet on September 11th 2001, within hours of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Right from the beginning, some people were not deceived. As the third anniversary of this event approached many Americans were still clueless.

[edit on 12/13/08 by SPreston]

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by mmiichael
Having the main centre of commerce in the US and the headqurters for defence attacked is about as serious as things get. It’s of course far more complex than a war with the Muslim world. If the US wanted an excuse to invade the Middle East, a few bombs in high profile but irrelevant places, with manufactured evidence would have done just fine. You don’t gut off a leg to get you needs known.

Mmiichael, your logic is simply overwhelming to me. I think this is one of the best debunking paragraphs I´ve read. As I have said before, a little common sense is one of the most valuable assets when analyzing 9/11.

top topics
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in