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.

 

Crew welds 200 plates to Building for 3 months "almost unknown"

page: 7
46
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jfj123
Typical based on minimum requirements needed to drop a building in it's own footprint.


Why into its footprint? What was so wrong with them being thrown around in all over the complex? They just tore the whole site down, instead of just the towers, as the only major difference after it was all said and done. (Not to mention that much symmetry, would be a dead give away. It would also be harder to hide the charges on every floor if you didn't throw debris outwards.)

When you set up all these nonsense conditions to be met, that really didn't need to be, it's no wonder you have such problems imaging how easy it would be to do to those buildings, exactly what was done.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by bsbray11]


Nonsense
That's funny coming from someone who's doing nothing but deflecting


You keep saying how easy it would be. Fine. Explain it in detail.
How would the charges be attached to the buildings?
How would the charges be shaped?
How many charges would have been needed?
What type of charges would have been used?
How would all the charges be wired/connected?
How would they be timed?
How would the charges detonate/implode the buildings? from top to bottom? or bottom to top?
What area's of the buildings structure would need to be physically weakened ahead of time? How and why would those area's be weakened?

Since it's so easy, I await your answers


[edit on 2-2-2009 by jfj123]




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Type in "explosions" in the Search engine of this board, and there you will find all your answers, btw, my name will be in quite a few of them.

Just realize yourself that every sky scraper has miles of IT cabling layed all over the place. And the questions asked by some clean-up workers, why there were just such small pieces of debris left, the biggest one about half of a telephone dialing pad.

I would use computer boxes stocked full with let's say thermobarics, and ignite them via the IT cabling.

Just pump a lot of amperage through them, much more than ever will be used normally, and that will set off all the charges. Use time delaying techniques to implement the rings of cascading-down explosions so clearly to be seen in many lately posted videos.

EDIT: I even offered the calculations to the pound, of the exact amount of explosives to be used in the WTC 7 tower, all based on the official theories.
You will be amazed how little amount you needed to severe that ONE column they (NIST) say was needed to initiate collapse.


[edit on 2/2/09 by LaBTop]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

posted by CameronFox

I have worked in many (5) rather large buildings in my city. My position at these facilities is to know exactly what is going on in my building.

How would I know? I hire all the contractors. I know who is coming in my building to do work. I know what work is being done.

AT ALL TIMES

Could someone sneak a bomb in here?

Sure

Could someone wire this building I am in now for demolition?

No way.



Sure they could if you gave them security passes and you covered for them. If tenants asked you what the contractors were doing, you could just tell them simple maintenance. Nobody would even look in the many boxes they were carrying into the building through the service entrances.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
All this toing and froing...why dont you go watch this powerpoint presentation and then have another discussion.

www.ae911truth.net...



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Just bustin chops Griff.


There were actually more than 19 hijackers. One was the person to took out FLight 587. He was linked to Moussai and could not get into the country. There were a few others which I have read is why there were only 4 planes. The original plan was more from certain stuff I have read in books of intel we and others had prior to 9/11.

Also, welding 300 plates is not the same as a few tons of explosives being bought into a building along with all the cabling, triggers, caps.etc that would be used.


To DariusG - There was actually a command center created in the WTC that was bombproof. They designed it after the 93 bombing since they were scared that terrorists may also try to bring explosives to a higher point in the building. I think it was in the 20's as what floor.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm a person who looks at facts. I haven't seen any to this point to suggest there was anything more then massive amounts of incompetence within the walls of our government which allowed 19 terrorists to strike on Sept 11, 2001 causing massive amounts of damage.


Can you honestly say that after watching this 10 minute video comprised of 9/11 news clips? Why do you ignore the FACTS of secondary explosions/




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Just curious but why do you say there was only structural damage on one floor? Which building are you referring to?


I'm not. I'm saying that the OS is that one floor critically collapsed.


This leads to creep buckling of columns (e.g., Baˇzant
and Cedolin 1991, Sec. 9), which consequently lose their load carrying capacity (stage 2).
Once more than about a half of the columns in the critical floor that is heated most suffer
buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no
longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the
critical floor
, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part. At that moment, the upper
part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity.


www-math.mit.edu...

Or are you trying to say that the OS tells a different story?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 


Okay, I didn't go through the whole thread to see if anyone else noticed this or not. Between 27 and 38 seconds when the camera is focused on the tower and the explosion, THERE IS NO PLANE! I have zero knowledge of video but shouldn't that plane have been seen?

I sat for 5 minutes going over and over that few seconds and I don't see anything but hear the sound, see the tower, and poof explosion but not one second of frame shows a plane.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You keep saying how easy it would be. Fine. Explain it in detail.


I could give scenarios, but I would be completely fabricating them out of my own imagination, and I know your attention span is so short that you would not take them for what they are (examples), but simply attack them as having no proof. And of course you would be right. If you are an intelligent person, think about how I could possibly know who planted what and where. I couldn't.

So do you want a make-believe scenario, or do you want me to keep repeating that there is no possible way for me to know exactly who planted what and where? I wasn't there, I haven't seen any security videos, I don't have buddies that are Navy seals, you know. That absolutely does not mean it could not have happened.

I'd be interested to know if there is anything in particular you think would make this difficult, considering that people REALLY aren't that nosy, especially when you have clearance, and getting access to a building in the first place is not THAT hard either. So what's the big deal? Why should I think this would be impossible?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


I'm sure Cameron would admit that if it weren't someone like himself in his position, but crooks doing the contracting (ie someone planted, or even someone ignorant that is simply told by a higher-up to contract so-and-so, etc., etc., etc., so many possibilities), then bringing in a front team would not be an issue.

In the WTC Towers I believe tenants also had the right to contract out for maintenance, even though the PA usually used their own team. Hell, the PA themselves are suspect in my book simply because they were investigating ways in which the towers could be destroyed in the 1980's. Not to mention the security company that handled them for the longest time was involved with a number of infamous breaches, and one of George Bush's cousins (elitist political family) was even on the board of supervisors at one point. So you have ugly connections all around this issue.

Also, ask Griff, you can't even find records for permits of what maintenance was done to the towers during large spans of years, even though the construction worker interviewed on 9/11 said there was always construction going on in and around the buildings.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Scenario -

Zim American Israeli Shipping Company could have been used. Are there not ties to Mossad ? They contract IT people to convert data/server migration and they will be contracted for quite some time. Now, since they are on the 17th floor, it is a perfect place to plant exotic explosives to assist with the planes that will slam into the towers on 9/11 to make sure they will come down.

Now, since they can have multiple people coming and going, and if you have ever see an HP box for a blade server rack you would know that they could smuggle in whatever they want, they can create a base of operations to set the explosives.

So, they move out a week prior to 9/11 but 5 employees are left behind to make sure that no one accesses the floor in speculation.

That wasn't so hard and it could be taken right from a conspiracy site but should it be believed...hmmmm....



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Exactly, there are a whole spectrum of possibilities like that, but none of them could be proven, especially since the buildings and all of the security tapes were destroyed. So I can't really concern myself with those kinds of details, as I have no way of really knowing them. But the point remains that bringing any devices like that inside of such a large building wouldn't be that hard, or at the very least would not be impossible.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
There's generally 4 people that no one pays attention to in a building and can generally get free run of the place. Janitors, construction workers, mail shop people and IT people. More or less, if you have a cart, no one looks at you. Period. I've been in some places with high security, and been walked right in. People even holding doors open for me. Even if I was stopped, I'd just look lost, say I'm supposed to go to location so and so and sometimes I'd be lead right there. Want to know the kicker? the higher the security, the more helpful people are.

If you act like you belong there, people will believe you do. Seems like most places big enough to be a target have so many people, so many departments, and are so compartmentalized that its easy to get lost in the crowd since no one knows everyone. Smaller shops are whats hard to weasel your way into.

jus one of those basic facts



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Here's a scenario: During the course of a few weeks a black-ops unit infiltrated the TWC's posing as construction crews,janitorial workers or even delivery people and who knows even as IT contractors laying out where the charges would be placed and scouting out the area.Then the planes hit on 9/11 and the controllers up in the Office of Emergency Management over in TWC7 hit the switch or give the orders to take the buildings down.Rudy and the others are on Pier 92 in their make shift HQ's oblivious to the op that is happening right in front of them due to the war games going on at the time and there you have it they took down TWC7 to cover up the entire op.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Science Channel Video re: Secret Retrofit of NY CitiBank Building (1977).






www.youtube.com...


[edit on 3/2/2009 by Sauron]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mike dangerously
 



Here's a theory:
People who believe the buildings were brought down by explosives ignore factual post such as mine here, because it actually shows actual real world evidence.

*Test explosions
*Weakening of the structure
*Containment of the explosives


This is all just for a thousand room hotel.

So go on, keep ignoring the facts, doesn't bother me in the end.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
There was some evidence of high velocity bursts of debris.

www.journalof911studies.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jfj123
You keep saying how easy it would be. Fine. Explain it in detail.


I could give scenarios, but I would be completely fabricating them out of my own imagination,

Wait a minute. You just said it would be easy so you should be able to give example based on factual information for controlled demolitions of the buildings. Anyone can make up things out of their own imagination. You're making a claim that in actuality, it would be easy to rig the towers. I'm just asking you to back up that statement.


and I know your attention span is so short that you would not take them for what they are (examples),

Excellent. You get caught in your own statement so you try and deflect away from yourself by insulting me and blaming me for the reason why you won't post all the information you have
Good excuse



but simply attack them as having no proof.

I wasn't asking you to prove that your hypothesis of how the buildings could have been rigged is really what happened and you know it. If I were to do this, you can easily come back and say, "look what you typed jfj. Nowhere did you say you asked for proof, you asked me to show you how it COULD HAVE been done.


And of course you would be right. If you are an intelligent person, think about how I could possibly know who planted what and where. I couldn't.

Then you can't say, with any credibility, it would have been easy. Can you?


So do you want a make-believe scenario, or do you want me to keep repeating that there is no possible way for me to know exactly who planted what and where?

or what was planted.
or how it was planted.
etc...
You can't back up your own statement but you want people to believe your statement is correct.


I wasn't there, I haven't seen any security videos, I don't have buddies that are Navy seals, you know. That absolutely does not mean it could not have happened.

Anything is hypothetically possible. Maybe space aliens used their phaser beams and destroyed the buildings. That could have happened too.


I'd be interested to know if there is anything in particular you think would make this difficult, considering that people REALLY aren't that nosy, especially when you have clearance, and getting access to a building in the first place is not THAT hard either. So what's the big deal? Why should I think this would be impossible?

Again, if it's so easy, why can't you answer my previous questions? I even gave you most of the questions you'd need to answer to prove it would be easy or not to rig those buildings. What more can you ask for?

AGAIN, you may have not noticed but I run into nosey people almost every day and so do other contractors that have posted here. You keep making a statement that people wouldn't notice and are not nosey. Your blanket statement is incorrect. Unless we too are part of the massive conspiracy? Maybe that's it ?!?! The conspiracy just keeps getting bigger and bigger
Before you know it, everyone but the truthers will need to be involved in the conspiracy for it to be legit



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You keep making a statement that people wouldn't notice and are not nosey.


No. YOU keep making the statement that we are saying that no one would notice and are not nosey. See how that works? YOU set up the strawman to be burnt down.

What WE are saying is if this was a false flag. Someone high up would be giving out badges to the perps. Being badged in a building gives you leeway as far as nosey people.

Sure there would be nosey people asking what you are doing.

A simple "We are fixing the cable lines" would shut these people up.

Or do you want us to believe that the nosey people who are bothering you all day long won't leave it at that and will continue to hound you all day long until you are out of their building?

Please. You are insulting our intelligence and really insulting those of us who know better and who have been badged for ...Oh, I don't know. The freeking Capitol Building.


Or is it that you have never been to a building where you need to be badged?

Because once you've obtained that security badge, no one, and I'll repeat, no one will look at you twice. Since you've already been through the security process.

How hard is this to understand? Really?


Your blanket statement is incorrect. Unless we too are part of the massive conspiracy? Maybe that's it ?!?! The conspiracy just keeps getting bigger and bigger
Before you know it, everyone but the truthers will need to be involved in the conspiracy for it to be legit


Ignorant people who allowed others to get away with it. Yes.

In on it. No.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

How would all the charges be wired/connected?
How would they be timed?


Actually started a thread explaining this over a year and a half ago. It concerns US patent 6161481, for "Optopyrotechnic demolition installation," issued on March 13, 2001.

In a nutshell, this is a highly secure method of initiating CD using detonators wired with fibre optic cables and a computerized laser firing unit.

From the abstract:


The purpose of the present invention is a demolition installation, the original design of which enables it to eliminate all disadvantages of existing electrically controlled installations, and in particular, eliminates all risks of accidental or mischievous firing both during work to install charges and priming operations, and during prior storage and transport of components of the installation.

According to the present invention, this result is obtained by means of a demolition installation characterized by the fact that it comprises at least two independent groups, each including:

a control unit with several outputs, each comprising at least one laser source and at least one control switch for the said laser source, in which closure will cause the laser source to emit a laser beam at one or more of the said outputs;

optically controlled pyrotechnic initiators placed at determined locations in the structure to be demolished; and

optical fibers connecting each of the pyrotechnic initiators to one of the outputs of the control unit.

In an installation designed in this way, pyrotechnic initiators are only fired optically through the optical fibers. Therefore, firing is absolutely independent of stray currents. This procures optimum safety, particularly when the construction to be demolished is located in or close to electrical substations or under catenary lines. Furthermore, stormy weather has no influence on the work progress or safety.

The characteristic mentioned above also means that constructions located in large urban centers can be demolished at no risk, despite the large amount of electronic equipment present in these centers.

Furthermore, firing triggered by mischievous persons is impossible, since these persons would need a laser and the laser will have to be compatible with the precise frequency of the laser used in the installation.

Since firing is controlled optically, ignition cannot be disturbed by any metal mass. Safety during transport and during storage of components is also guaranteed.


From a technical standpoint, this system is ideal. Guaranteed detonation on level of precision heretofore impossible. Patented in March of 2001.

The obvious drawback: you still have "wires," BUT these are fibre optic strands, indistinguishable from the masses of fibre-optics that were used throughout the WTC for communications and to service the computing needs of the various trading floors of its financial-industry tenants.

Clearly, workers laying yet another layer of fibre-optics would be a common-place occurrence in the WTC complex, easily disguised to be indistinguishable from any other such legitimate work. Much of the work, in fact, could be done as a routine installation by workers none the wiser about its real purpose.

Here is your "real world" scenario for a critical aspect of planning destruction of the towers.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join