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.

 

Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Well first off I doubt it was a US operation that took the towers down, however if someone was to take them down I will answer one question dealing with why so long for the third.

From a planned perspective you get the awe value of the first one collapsing, then the second one going down brings the shock value.

Now you have two towers hit by planes that come down all areas are cleared as much as possible of civilians, of camera crews etc. for their own safety.

Now that everyone is focused on the big towers coming down and nearly all cameras pointed at them gives the perfect chance to then drop the third one which will reduce the number of camera's on it initially until the collapse begins. By doing this it just brings surprise but is written off as a no big deal because of the attention on the other two towers.

If I were in an operation to do something of this magnitude that is how I would look at getting the third building down.




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


I answered your question. Clearly and concisely. Your statement is unfounded. You are looking at this from a "well, if they were set up for demo then why not do it all at once?" when it is more of a view of "we have to try and make this look like it all happened from the planes."

I answered your question. They are trying to avoid as much BS as possible. They knew that if all three fell at once that there would have been a serious round of questions right away. People would have been up in arms immediately instead of focused on revenge like the perpetrators were hoping for.

Also, what you are missing is the fact that most people did not even know that WTC 7 collapsed. It happened later and was hardly covered. Even today when I bring up the 'third' building to collapse that day most people are like "What? Only two buildings fell that day."

The people that pulled this off know full well how to disarm the public questions. They diverted a lot of it with silence, the 'national security' blanket, with outright lies that were recanted later on and much more deflection. The Commission Report was a joke! It read like a suspense thriller instead of doing what it was supposed to do. Look at all of the facts and present them to the people that OWN ALL OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION THIS COUNTRY HAS! The United States Citizens! We pay for the information and we deserve to have ALL information from the events leading up to, during and after that day released to us. There is NOT ONE DAMN thing that should be classified from that day. Yet the pathetic 'it's a matter of national security' excuse is thrown around like a dime street hooker in Washington. It's pathetic.

Keep supporting the lies my friend. I answered the only question that was relevant of your two. You just don't want to accept that as the most plausible answer.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Dang it!

i277.photobucket.com...

That is some type of explosion.
And some molten metal yet.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Hell, I'd give that guy a Nobel Prize just for giving the "thermal expansion" presentation with a straight face.

Peace


[edit on 15-1-2009 by Dr Love]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

posted by esdad71
This is nice. I asked 2 simple questions that no one can seem to answer?


whatreallyhappened.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.americanfreepress.net...
911review.org...

They've BEEN answered adequately, you just don't like the answers.

I'm ex-air force, and have seen the wreckage of lots of aircraft, some moving a hell out lot faster than the airliners when they augered in, and they simply can't do the kind of damage that would create results like these, and milspec aluminum skin is one hell of a lot tougher than what airliners use.

For one thing, jet fuel is basically high grade kerosene whose open air burning temperature can't exceed 287.5 °C (549.5 °F), nowhere near enough to significantly weaken steel, adding office debris wouldn't make it burn hotter. In fact, black or grey smoke indicates a rather low temperature fire. Furthermore, such a fire would move as the fuel burned out and thus remove the most intense source of heat, resulting in cooling, and thus regaining any strength lost from heating. Both tower fires didn't last anywhere near long enough to significantly weaken anything. Less well-built skyscrapers around the world have burned for far longer without collapsing.

whatreallyhappened.com...
www.danwei.org...
www.zetatalk.com...

According to Michael Ruppert shortly before 9/11, the buildings were cleared for a few hours for an antiterrorist drill or some such, plenty of time to spray sol-gel explosives on the beams.

When you add this:

911research.wtc7.net...

the picture is just too clear.

As a former USAF crew chief, I know how long it takes to scramble a fighter to intercept a bogey: if a unit's on alert, less than three minutes to wheels-up; if you have to roust a pilot and crewchief from the barracks, fifteen minute or so. I know because I've done both scenarios many times. That was what bugged me from the start: why the Air Force was so incompetent. When I checked the only conclusion I could come to was that it was deliberately held on a leash, as I located at least a dozen squadrons east of the Mississippi that should have been able to intercept any of those airliners within minutes. It absolutely defies the laws of chance that there were no military aircraft airborne at that time that could be diverted to intercept, training flights are constantly airborne.

And finally, remember the golfer Payne Stewart? Fighters intercepted his aircraft within minutes of it going off-course: the system worked as designed, just as it has before and since.

www.airsafe.com...

So let me turn your questions around:

Show me, with proof , please, how the events of 9/11 could possibly have so many one-offs: the only skyscrapers to fall from fire, the only time the Air Force, Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard all had no aircraft in the air at the same time or were so far away as to be useless (on an antiterrorist exercise in Alaska/Canada, no less!!!), an antihijacking exercise placing spoof targerts on radar at precisely the time required to allow this to happen, every SOP ignored; especially show me the physics that adequately describes what occurred without internal demolition.

Finally, explain to me why a terrorist bent on maximizing damage flew right over the very best target he could hope for, twice even, without a second thought. I'm referring to the nuclear plant that was overflown twice. Any terrorist with two brain cells to click together would see this as a vastly better cost/benefit ratio, more neatly dovetailing with their stated goals.

On the other hand, what happened fits better with the goals of Bush & co: Patriot Act and war excuse.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by apacheman]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Wow, what a nice guy you are. Tell me where the evidence is then Captain Knowledge. That is the problem with conspiracy theorists, they always want someone else to prove their theory for them.To think I do not believe in conspiracy is not true is wrong.


I'm not here to be nice, especially to people who want to spread lies.

This is not about government conspiracy, it's about physical evidence.
If you refuse see the physical evidence, because you don't want to except it could have been an inside job, then you are not being honest with us, or yourself.

Your whole argument is based on the fact that you refuse to believe it could have been an inside job, you never want to discus actual evidence without reverting to 'our government wouldn't do that', and ignore the facts that point to it.

If you don't believe in conspiracies, what are you doing here, and you need to learn what a conspiracy is?


You see, it is not that I do not want to see the other side. I am asking for evidence.


You will never see the evidence if you don't open your eyes and your brain. You refuse to believe us, saying there is not enough evidence, yet you believe the official story that has less evidence and is outright wrong in a lot of it's conclusions according to physics.6

I refuse to answer your questions because they're silly and irrelevant. You refuse to debate my points because you can't.
You debunkers are so transparent, and anyone with an smidgen of intelligence can see right through you.

For example esdad, explain the south tower tilt in a couple of sentences for us, shouldn't be hard for an 9/11 expert like you.
Your words only please, no linking to greening and running away. You either know your stuff, or you're bluffing like all the other debunkers. Which is it esdad? (if you come back with 'this is off-topic' I'll just take it as you can't deliver, it's all 9/11, nothing is off-topic)



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Then you know that Flight 93 was shot down?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by apacheman
 


Then you know that Flight 93 was shot down?


Excuse me?

I never mentioned Flight 93, I'm talking about the towers and their collapse: physics, mostly. What does Flight 93 have to do with that?

Answer the questions I posed please; if you wish to discuss Flight 93 that's another thread.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
I never mentioned Flight 93, I'm talking about the towers and their collapse: physics, mostly. What does Flight 93 have to do with that?


As I'm sure you know, it's called redirection and obfuscation. It's basically a stalling tactic to give more time to come up with an answer that will attempt to create even more redirection and obfuscation. It's like a neverending loop.

Peace


[edit on 15-1-2009 by Dr Love]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   


or example esdad, explain the south tower tilt in a couple of sentences for us, shouldn't be hard for an 9/11 expert like you. Your words only please, no linking to greening and running away. You either know your stuff, or you're bluffing like all the other debunkers. Which is it esdad? (if you come back with 'this is off-topic' I'll just take it as you can't deliver, it's all 9/11, nothing is off-topic)


OK..ummm...errrrr....the south tower tilt? ON the morning of September 11th, 2001, the WTC 2 South tower was struck. It was the second plane to strike that morning. It was struck at approx the 79th floor and the plane entered at a slight angle unlike the plane that struck the WTC 1.

During impact, the key columns were destroyed and there was a gaping hoping in the south/southeast corner. Fires ensued caused by jet fuel that was quickly burned but created fires within the office space that broke windows and was easily seen during the time WTC 2 still stood. The air aided in the spread of the fires as well as the fireproofing that was removed on impact. Much of the jet fuel was actually included in the large fireball that escaped during impact. the East face of the building contained the majority of the ongoing fire prior to collapse.

With the damage to the South Face as it was as well as the sustained fires the floors began to sag and pulled the outer columns inward as the steel cross sections weakened. This is in photographs. Once they began to sag with the weight of the floors above is pressing down and stressing the columns, it is only a matter of time before collapse. It titled towards the Southeast corner and then collapsed.

There you go. A few sentences explaining why it titled.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Sorry, esdad, you "explained" nothing. You are making assertations without proof; not the same thing.

Please prove your assertations with physics (known and accepted physics, preferably).

To fall as the government asserts they did would have necessarily entailed more time as the weight of the first floor to collapse would not have immediately and evenly broken through all supports simultaneously. Some areas would have had more mass on top of them than others, therefore giving way nonsimultaneously and nonuniformly, leading to differing breakpoints: the towers simply could not have collapsed as they did without help: it's pretty much physically impossible.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Then you know that Flight 93 was shot down?


I love how you just tried to derail your own thread! Lol
Talk about a red herring. What does flight 93 have to do with?
(Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...)



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



OK..ummm...errrrr....the south tower tilt? ON the morning of September 11th, 2001, the WTC 2 South tower was struck. It was the second plane to strike that morning. It was struck at approx the 79th floor and the plane entered at a slight angle unlike the plane that struck the WTC 1.

During impact, the key columns were destroyed and there was a gaping hoping in the south/southeast corner. Fires ensued caused by jet fuel that was quickly burned but created fires within the office space that broke windows and was easily seen during the time WTC 2 still stood. The air aided in the spread of the fires as well as the fireproofing that was removed on impact. Much of the jet fuel was actually included in the large fireball that escaped during impact. the East face of the building contained the majority of the ongoing fire prior to collapse.


We are not here to discuss the Official story, because no one believes it, only you believe in the government conspiracies theories. Look at all the poster in your thread they are telling you to WAKE UP! Stop parroting the Official lies that have been proven over, and, over, and over, and over, and, over, and over, and, over that are LIES. Your two questions have been answered with creditable sources, and interviews, and photos, and videos. We are in here to deny “ignorance”!



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by SPreston
 


Dang it!

i277.photobucket.com...

That is some type of explosion.
And some molten metal yet.




Larger image below crop was taken from

Yes indeed. That is the blast wave on the South Tower proceeding down 7-10 floors ahead of the collapse wave. You can see the floors still intact at the corners, above the simultaneous explosions erupting out of the tower.



The 30 story top block of floors started to topple off the South Tower, and it should have continued toppling off the side into the streets below, leaving the remaining 80 stories still standing there strong and unyielding for a long long time.



But the 30 story block did not topple into the streets below, but ceased toppling and disintegrated into dust, as the top-down explosive demolition destroyed it, and the remaining 80 stories all the way to the ground. In this video is the exact same effect as the top-down explosive demolition destroys the remaining 90 or so floors of the North Tower.

by David S Chandler - Physics-Mathematics Educator - BS-Physics (IPS); MS-Mathematics



And we all know WTC7 was destroyed by demolition don't we?

New collapse footage of WTC7 and North Tower - Nov 2008





[edit on 1/15/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
During impact, the key columns were destroyed and there was a gaping hoping in the south/southeast corner. Fires ensued caused by jet fuel that was quickly burned but created fires within the office space that broke windows and was easily seen during the time WTC 2 still stood....blah blah blah...


Yes I know, and you know I know, the 'official story'. None of that explains the tilt and how its angular momentum was changed. But what should I expect from you?

Why are we here esdad? Because we don't believe the 'official story'.

Everything you claim is unsubstantiated ASSUMPTIONS that there is ZERO evidence for, but are REQUIRED for official story to have SOMETHING that appears to make sense. Take away the ASSUMPTIONS and what are you left with esdad?

We are here because there are HUGE holes left in the 'official story' when the unsubstantiated ASSUMPTIONS are ignored, as they should be in ANY scientific investigation. Science does not work with ASSUMPTIONS, only verifiable FACTS.

You act smug because you THINK you know what you're talking about, truth is you've been blinded by hollywood science.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 

Stop it! Stop it! I can’t handle it You are showing the TRUTH! Please stop, I cannot take it anymore, (SOME ONE HELP ME!) I can’t run, I can’t find a sand box to bury my head in. The government would not do those thing to us, they are very good people who do not tell lies. These people are not greedy (snicker) and are not interested in money they just want to run the Country that’s all.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   


As a former USAF crew chief, I know how long it takes to scramble a fighter to intercept a bogey: if a unit's on alert, less than three minutes to wheels-up; if you have to roust a pilot and crewchief from the barracks, fifteen minute or so. I know because I've done both scenarios many times. That was what bugged me from the start: why the Air Force was so incompetent. When I checked the only conclusion I could come to was that it was deliberately held on a leash, as I located at least a dozen squadrons east of the Mississippi that should have been able to intercept any of those airliners within minutes. It absolutely defies the laws of chance that there were no military aircraft airborne at that time that could be diverted to intercept, training flights are constantly airborne.


Well good, then you would know how many aircraft were on alert for the entire continental 48 states that morning right? A whopping FOURTEEN aircraft. I would guess that your time as a crew chief (if you were indeed a crew chief) was during the Cold War. The US Air Force had long since stopped keeping large numbers of fully armed aircraft on round the clock alert in the 90s. No one deliberately held us on a leash that day. We got caught with our pants down, no one had ever seriously considered an attack like 9/11.

As for your comments about training flights, sure some planes were in the air, but they were unarmed, not much use for an air to air intercept.

As for Payne Stewart, you might want to reread the reports and remember that EDT and CDT are different time zones.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gonenuts
reply to post by SPreston
 

Stop it! Stop it! I can’t handle it You are showing the TRUTH! Please stop, I cannot take it anymore, (SOME ONE HELP ME!) I can’t run, I can’t find a sand box to bury my head in. The government would not do those thing to us, they are very good people who do not tell lies. These people are not greedy (snicker) and are not interested in money they just want to run the Country that’s all.


Looks like there are limits to which we can be governed.
That's what we make of a conspiracy world.
If anything taught to us 2009 years ago by JC and his band of followers.
Well "I, Claudius " had its own conspiracies way back when and even
mentioned the anti JC conspiracy.

Oh we got a bunch and we should strive in 2009 to sum them all up.
The Hitler death, Tesla Free Energy UFO, the JFKs conspiracies might
as well go on and on like WTC explosions but it does not mean
we should sweep them all under the carpet.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


If fourteen were on alert, then that's fourteen failures to launch against a known threat.

Whether or not they were armed is completely immaterial: even training aircraft could have, and in the past have, been diverted to intercept in order to find out why they were off-course. The first mission is observation and intel: after you've identified the target and determined whether equipment failure is a component of the problem or if a hijacking has occurred, then you can direct armed fighters if need be.

The fact that not a single SOP was followed that day is telling. I might buy one or two breakdowns, but I have too much faith in the competencies of the average pilots and groundcrews of our military to buy into the "caught with our pants down" theory. Our airspace was deliberately cleared of defense and SOP's ignored to allow this unspeakable crime.

If you believe our military was so incompetent as to be unable to intercept a single one of those airliners with all the time they had, then you've obviously never served. To believe that is a gross insult to the professionalism of the services, and I take offense at that, sir: too many of my friends and colleagues gave their lives not just in the performance of their duty but also in the hard training required to achieve the level of competence and professionalism the duty demands. For myself, I spent far too many days and nights under conditions you wouldn't want to hear about, much less experience, protecting the Constitution of this country and its people, even the ones who in ignorance disrespect those who protect them, to accept such a slur lightly.

What are your credentials that qualify you make such a statement? Not saying that you aren't, but please give a reason or set of reasons why you feel our military is so incompetent.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by apacheman]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I would guess that your time as a crew chief (if you were indeed a crew chief) was during the Cold War. The US Air Force had long since stopped keeping large numbers of fully armed aircraft on round the clock alert in the 90s. No one deliberately held us on a leash that day.


And you don't think this may have been by choice? Or is this just another coincidence?


We got caught with our pants down, no one had ever seriously considered an attack like 9/11.


Then why were you having live simulations on the very same day that simulated the very same thing?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join