Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Controlled Demolition for what reason??

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by angel of lightangelo
 


Spot on angel...




I'm history - but...

I attempted to raise awareness for these types of threads - the OP did not say anything that would offend any particular group, but he didn't say anything; and that's just it...he asked for information readily available on this site...

You all chose to stroke him rather than demand he seek the info himself...way to maintain the integrity of this site.


Let the hate begin...


gmaramr ited!

[edit on 11/24/2008 by chapter29]




posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
It wasn't controlled demolition look at this video.

uk.youtube.com...

Building starts to collapse at 1:59 on video at the area of impact !
Not controlled in any way!



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Building starts to collapse at 1:59 on video at the area of impact !


If the core structure were compromised on the inside of the building, the exterior columns wouldn't be able to carry all the loads and the impact sites would naturally be the weakest and the first to fail, just like that.

The antenna on WTC1 sank evenly with the four corners of the building and the entire roof, suggesting its core structure (to which the antenna was attached) failed simultaneously with its exterior walls.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by chapter29
 


So, he asks a question, people answer, and then we get ANOTHER thread full of good info. Is that bad? That really bothers you? You know hard it can be to get through a thread of 543 pages right? So what is wrong with more than one thread full of good info? If people feel like answering the same old questions over and over again, then let them.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by newagent89
 


Well! Newagent89, you left out one more, how about the people who cannot believe our Government is capable of pulling off such a mission for what ever their reason are. Just the notion just the thought is disgusting, it is easier to go in to Denial than look at the “facts”.
I see this type all the time they are the easy one to pick out, they are the one’s that are the most *angry* they are the one’s that have a hidden rage. Why you ask, because they feel betrayed, lied to, let down, and really believe in our Government. They believe there are safty guards in our Government to prevent such an evil thing to ever happened, that it is imposable. These people do not want to hear that our Government had anything to do with 911.

To even think that our Government is not even capable of carrying a false flag operation such as 911 is ignorant in it self. One only need to look at the mess this Country is in since 911 One only needs to look at the 2000, and 2004 elections. One only needs to look who lied us in to a war. One only needs to look at the covering up of the Anthrax’s letters. One only need to read the 911 commission report or the FEAMA report or NORAD reports to know that *this* Government is covering up everything and lying and lying and ignoring all of our questions. Infact these very same people in the Bush administration think they are so above the laws of the land, to not even answer to the congressional subpoenas. These people have no regard for our Constitution these very same people have done their best to destroy as much of our Constitution in the past eight years since Bush has been in office. You want to talk about “evil” look no further than the Bush administration and you will see “evil” greed, and liars. You only need to see who profit off, of 911 to know who the real criminals are. You want to talk about Bin Laden if he had really done 911 we would have “nuke” the whole Country and that would have been the end of it. That is the way we Americans are, we love our Country, and we love our freedom. However there is something, more sinister going on here we are in a war with no end in sight. Meanwhile our Government has grown with leaps and bounds and the homeland security has grown and the spying on our phone calls and the spying on our internet and cameras everywhere. People can be lock away and never be charged for anything…. Please this is not America.




[edit on 11/24/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 11/24/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 11/24/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 11/24/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 11/24/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by chapter29
So, let's see - you joined a site that demands you to "deny ignorance"


First off, this site makes no such "demand", and you won't find "deny ignorance" anywhere in the Terms and Conditions of ATS. The site's motto simply describes the spirit in which one should go about while visiting. One method of living up to that ideal is... if you don't know something, then ask. That is what the OP has done here.

Second, the site does demand that you are respectful of other members.



Source
2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


Comments such as this:

Originally posted by chapter29
If you need me to pick up your laundry or wipe your a$$, let me know...I'm here to serve the mentally challenged...


certainly violate the terms you agreed to when you joined. Civility and Decorum are Required, not optional.

 

reply to post by svtman

I see it's your first day here. Welcome to ATS, and I hope you'll find things going smoother for you in the future.


Your questions are good ones; the real problem with the "whos" and "whys" is that there's almost as many different answers as there are people with an opinion on the matter. When it comes to Bin Laden, the reason 9/11 was never listed on his Most Wanted page is that the FBI openly admits that they don't have enough evidence to definitively link him to the crime. As for linking G. W. Bush, the evidence is even more circumstantial.

You may want to reassess your thesis because trying to prove/support that President George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden "secretly came together" will range from being quite difficult to impossible. The reason of "psychologically fooling the American people" can at least be supported a bit easier with a look/comparison to the effects of Germany's Reichstag fire, among other things.

I'd seriously recommend trying to narrow down your focus. If you want to focus on the psychological impact of the event, and how it's been used/abused, then go for it. Maybe you want to assess the possible motives from all angles (U.S. Gov., Al Qaeda, the Military Industrial Complex, The Mossad, ect.) to come to your own conclusions on who stood the most to gain from the event. Another option would simply be to address the possibility of the official explanation for the collapse (fires) v.s. a controlled demolition scenerio. Whatever aspect of the event you choose, I think it would be best for the sake of the paper to really narrow it down to one thing, and try to tackle that aspect alone. The good thing is that there's a plethora of info out there no matter what aspect you finally decide upon.

Best of luck on your paper.


[edit on 11/24/08 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Ok now that everyone is aware of the Terms & Conditions Of Use and our policy of Civility and Decorum we can get back to the topic.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Building starts to collapse at 1:59 on video at the area of impact !


If the core structure were compromised on the inside of the building, the exterior columns wouldn't be able to carry all the loads and the impact sites would naturally be the weakest and the first to fail, just like that.

The antenna on WTC1 sank evenly with the four corners of the building and the entire roof, suggesting its core structure (to which the antenna was attached) failed simultaneously with its exterior walls.


Are you trying to suggest that the core had been damaged deliberately?
The planes hit the building at approx 500mph many components on the plane would cause a great deal of damage to structural components of the building,things such as the engines the landing gear components also the resultant fires once the steel had started to weaken it could not support the load from floors above look at both towers they start to collapse above the impact point. No conspiracy,no hidden bombs just simple physics and structural failure it is that simple!



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I have heard all of that countless times and I have still seen enough information to convince me otherwise.

The planes really did not do much damage to the buildings. They severed less than 15% of the exterior columns across the impacted floors (this from the FEMA report), and NIST did modeling where they even changed the impact trajectories to directly hit the core, and they still couldn't get a realistic scenario where more than a few of the 47 core columns were heavily damaged. The engines could have taken out a core column each maybe, sure, but they would've actually had to hit the columns (not necessarily going to happen), and then that's only 2 out of 47 and the rest of the plane isn't going to do much, especially after it's already been shredded by the exterior columns. Skyscrapers are built with too much redundancy to fail from so few columns being damaged.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


THankyou very much for that buddy


Yea i knew using Usama and Bush was going to result in sometime of inbalance. Altough i see where you mentioned to include the government or Al queda for example. NOw although i also wanted to do this, my prof. told me that i must legitimatley list specific people only, no groups


Hahaha yea alittle strict! But i really appreciate all that info. thanx again!!!



Mod edit: Removed large quote.

[edit on 11/25/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by svtman
THankyou very much for that buddy


Yea i knew using Usama and Bush was going to result in sometime of inbalance. Altough i see where you mentioned to include the government or Al queda for example. NOw although i also wanted to do this, my prof. told me that i must legitimatley list specific people only, no groups




All you can do is look at those who suppressed, stone walled, lied, was connected to prior knowledge, had access and tampered etc with evidence. BUSH, CHENEY, JEROME HAUER, CHERTNOFF, SILVERSTEIN, etc and those in the media, witnessess who lied or changed stories etc... its goes on and on and there's so much blatant data proving clear examples of this BS game.

These people are connected to if not pure EVIL since theres plenty of evidence showing their connections they're just a few specific names you could use and dig up facts about. But this conspiracy is so profound, runs so deep and literally hundreds would have to be in on it... its NOT just 10 to 20 individuals... its global if ZIONISTS, the mossad etc are apart of it for one.

Missinglinks.com is a good doc to check out imo... it has good info, but i don't particularly like its presentation... its LONG and not the greatest production... SEPTEMBER CLUES is a great video doc. zeitgiest is worth checkin out.


Mod edit: Fixed quote.

[edit on 11/25/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   




excellent points as usual... especially:

"it is easier to go in to Denial than look at the “facts”.

You're right... this is not America anymore... this nation died on 9/11. so Unless the truth takes hold en masse ASAP, and our government is held accountable for 9/11, this country is finished. adios, bye bye now, game over.

There is no rule of law when the elected leaders of a nation are above the law and not bound by the law of the land which is supposed to be run by the PEOPLE, of the people and for the people.

So start packing. Martial Law is coming...

and where's the hell is paul revere



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
It's interesting why no one ever thinks that the terrorists possibly planted the bombs in the building...



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by svtman

So where can i find some good info. to prove my thesis that this was caused in order to go into war, or in a simple sense..for money? Im open to changes, and opinons are welcome.




There are scores of vids on 9/11. I suggest you watch as many as you can locate thru google. You'll be putting in some serious hours.

My take is that there is a moderate working group involved. Group members are Bush, Cheney, Silverstein, and a small element of CIA. I think they made scores of mistakes because the group was too small for the skillsets needed.

I think Flight 93, was shot by missiles after passengers started to take back the aircraft. I think Flight 93 was supposed to crash into WTC7.

Videos show numerous squibs going off in the twin towers and WTC7. A medic on the scene said that explosives were also in WTC6. WTC7 contained the government's prosecution file for several high visibility Wall Street fraud cases.

The explosives were there to guarantee the building came down while providing a horiffic visual. Untold number of workers and first responders report explosions. Audio recordings capture scores of first responders taking about secondary explosions during the event.

The crime scene was immediately sanitized. Dissenters in government positions were fired. I think a *lot* of government employees know the government was behind this attack. The 9/11 commission was a joke -- a rather poor one at that.



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   

posted by Anonymous ATS
It's interesting why no one ever thinks that the terrorists possibly planted the bombs in the building...

You are joking right? The clowns pretending to be the 19 alleged 'hijackers' could not even stay out of girlie bars. They could not keep their big mouths shut, nor keep from leaving all kinds of documents and personal effects behind. They did not even have enough competence to successfully learn how to fly Cessnas. Their flight instructors wanted nothing to do with them. Why would they need to plant explosives if they were going to fly airplanes into the towers? Where would they possibly get the military expertise at planting and timing exotic explosives?

How would these imbeciles get into the WTC Towers through security to plant enough explosives to destroy the core sections of both towers? Your fellow OFFICIAL STORY believers claim even US Military demolition teams could not have gotten through Tower security; so how would a bunch of dumb 'terrorists' do so?



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   

posted by svtman
So where can i find some good info. to prove my thesis that this was caused in order to go into war, or in a simple sense..for money? Im open to changes, and opinons are welcome.


posted by anonymousATS
There are scores of vids on 9/11. I suggest you watch as many as you can locate thru google. You'll be putting in some serious hours.

My take is that there is a moderate working group involved. Group members are Bush, Cheney, Silverstein, and a small element of CIA. I think they made scores of mistakes because the group was too small for the skillsets needed.

I think Flight 93, was shot by missiles after passengers started to take back the aircraft. I think Flight 93 was supposed to crash into WTC7.

Videos show numerous squibs going off in the twin towers and WTC7. A medic on the scene said that explosives were also in WTC6. WTC7 contained the government's prosecution file for several high visibility Wall Street fraud cases.

The explosives were there to guarantee the building came down while providing a horiffic visual. Untold number of workers and first responders report explosions. Audio recordings capture scores of first responders taking about secondary explosions during the event.

The crime scene was immediately sanitized. Dissenters in government positions were fired. I think a *lot* of government employees know the government was behind this attack. The 9/11 commission was a joke -- a rather poor one at that.



You left out the entire group of traitors from the NeoCON political core. They were setting 9-11 up way back when GHW Bush was President.




posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   
When I worked in architect offices in Surfers Paradise (Australia's answer to Miami) in the eighties, it was common knowledge amongst Architects, Engineers, developers, councils etc., that high-rises could only be insured for a period of 25 years.
Potentially very costly re-insurance after this period was not part of the initial contract.

I do not know what the laws and procedures was in USA in this regard, at the time the WTC's was first thought of, but I imagine that the question of insurance would be one of
the topics most hotly discussed around the various boardroom-tables at the time.

Because of this rather contentious and very important aspect to take into consideration,
when building a 110 story sky-scraper, there's no doubt both the developer and
landowner would have brought up the question of "demolition", and how to deal with
this very controversial subject.

I think therefore that no contract would ever have been signed, unless, and before, this
problem would have been solved to everybody's full and total satisfaction.

How they solved this, I will leave to others to work out - who are so much more
knowledgeable about these difficult matters!
















[edit on 25-11-2008 by djeminy]



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I have heard all of that countless times and I have still seen enough information to convince me otherwise.

The planes really did not do much damage to the buildings. They severed less than 15% of the exterior columns across the impacted floors (this from the FEMA report), and NIST did modeling where they even changed the impact trajectories to directly hit the core, and they still couldn't get a realistic scenario where more than a few of the 47 core columns were heavily damaged. The engines could have taken out a core column each maybe, sure, but they would've actually had to hit the columns (not necessarily going to happen), and then that's only 2 out of 47 and the rest of the plane isn't going to do much, especially after it's already been shredded by the exterior columns. Skyscrapers are built with too much redundancy to fail from so few columns being damaged.


First of all HOW do YOU know what damage the planes did lets see your FACTS not internet hearsay!
Look at the LOADS above the impacted area if the structural steel had been weakend enough that a partial failure occured and all of the floors above impact area DROPPED which you CAN see in the video then the load cannot be supported.
Have a look at these videos of building demoltion lets see who can spot
what is common on a controlled building demolition lets see who replys first to this!


uk.youtube.com...

uk.youtube.com...

uk.youtube.com...

What do they all have in COMMON to do a CONTROLLED demolition.



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
First of all HOW do YOU know what damage the planes did lets see your FACTS not internet hearsay!


I just told you, FEMA and NIST. Specifically, FEMA chapters 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.1 have the information on the numbers of perimeter columns severed. They were simply counted, since you could see them from the outside. And like I mentioned, NIST did computer modeling to determine the damages the cores could have sustained at a maximum, even going so far as changing the impact location of Flight 175. I don't know page numbers or anything like that but if you do a Google search I'm sure you would save us both some time.


Look at the LOADS above the impacted area if the structural steel had been weakend enough that a partial failure occured and all of the floors above impact area DROPPED which you CAN see in the video then the load cannot be supported.


Something definitely caused the columns to fail, you're right. Your implication that overloading caused the building to start dropping vertically is unsupported.


Have a look at these videos of building demoltion lets see who can spot
what is common


What is "common" does not necessarily have anything to do with what happened to the WTC towers, unless you have some information I have not seen that requires the towers to have been conventional demolitions.

Realize that "controlled demolition" is simply two words to me. There are an infinite number of ways to bring any building down. Every job is different, and in reality few skyscrapers have ever been demolished explosively anyway. There is no standard that every "controlled demolition" must follow. The biggest commonality between the ones you linked to: they were all done legally and by commercial entities.



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by wmd_2008
First of all HOW do YOU know what damage the planes did lets see your FACTS not internet hearsay!


I just told you, FEMA and NIST. Specifically, FEMA chapters 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.1 have the information on the numbers of perimeter columns severed. They were simply counted, since you could see them from the outside. And like I mentioned, NIST did computer modeling to determine the damages the cores could have sustained at a maximum, even going so far as changing the impact location of Flight 175. I don't know page numbers or anything like that but if you do a Google search I'm sure you would save us both some time.


Look at the LOADS above the impacted area if the structural steel had been weakend enough that a partial failure occured and all of the floors above impact area DROPPED which you CAN see in the video then the load cannot be supported.


Something definitely caused the columns to fail, you're right. Your implication that overloading caused the building to start dropping vertically is unsupported.


Have a look at these videos of building demoltion lets see who can spot
what is common


What is "common" does not necessarily have anything to do with what happened to the WTC towers, unless you have some information I have not seen that requires the towers to have been conventional demolitions.

Realize that "controlled demolition" is simply two words to me. There are an infinite number of ways to bring any building down. Every job is different, and in reality few skyscrapers have ever been demolished explosively anyway. There is no standard that every "controlled demolition" must follow. The biggest commonality between the ones you linked to: they were all done legally and by commercial entities.




Central core designed to take most of the dead load of structure ie the floor loads building contents etc exterior walls designed to resist the wind loadings on the structure. The aircraft obviously took out most of the steel work on impact wall and part of another you can see on video.
Have a look at this study! Look at animation.

news.uns.purdue.edu...

Controlled demolitions all have one thing in COMMON as seen on my previous post.
Weeks/months of planning , major structural components HAVE to be exposed to get the explosives on them. Large amount if not all of supporting
walls etc are removed and LOOK at the start of the explosions at the BASE of the buildings not at the top.
People have commented on minor explosions heard in the Towers &
WTC 7 on this and other sites on the net BUT how many items in a building can go bang under the heat of a fire! at the right temperature even concrete will make a lot of noise also when structral fixings & components fail they go BANG as well.
As a worker on a hoist with me found out 8 floors up on a building when I did a destruction test on a structural component he s**t himself he thought the hoist was collapsing


Re comment about building dropping vertically 40,000+ tons drops on floors below gravity tells you the only way is down!!!!






top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join