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.

 

Secret Demolition Technique amd 9/11?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
The FACT you actually think i'm referring to the explosions is far more comical


The FACT that you didn't seem to understand the context of the post is what's comical.



except once again, there's testimony from firefighters that contradict what you claim was never heard including secondary explosions,


Yes, there were random explosions here and there, but nothing like what you would hear in a real demolition.


not to mention you've ignored addressing the SOUND recording equipment issue/speed of light vs sound issue,


LO!. I cannot wait to hear this one.


the footage that contains NO AUDIO (how convenient) the footage that passed through Fbi (perps) hands


You are the one trying to muddy up the issue since you obviously don't have an answer to the Naudet video which disproves conventional explosives, with yes, perfectly clear audio.... gee one can hear the rumbling collapse of the building but hear no explosions nor does anyone on the scene experience the concussive blast that would happen from being that close. You based your silly argument around the opinion that the video is "suspect".



and you also fail to offer any logical argument against military incidiaries, advanced demolition tech that can CONTROL the emission of SOUND,


Didn't you just claim above that eyewitnesses reported the sounds of explosions? We know these were mysteriously absent in the Naudet footage.

I think your just pulling things out of thin air to see if it sticks. Make up your mind already, which is it? Hush-a-booms? Or conventional that everyone heard but that the actual video's don't seem to show?


and on top of all that, i see no logical explanation for how explosions (if they weren't masked and assuming they were traditional) occurring TOP to BOTTOM could be heard or distinguished by EVERYONE in the immediate area (such as the location of the firefighters you're talking about) during the "collapse" which would itself mask any explosions that might be occurring.


The video had no problem picking up the rumbling of the building, of course it would have picked up the explosions as they would have been much louder than just a collapse. You still have the problem of the concussive force from them as well. Even if the very first explosion would have started at the very top of the tower, it would have only taken roughly 1.25 seconds or so to reach the crew at the bottom, followed by the others in rapid succession.

This clearly did not happen.



by that logic, i guess you'd have to be a closet no-planer SC fan too then since you're saying witnesses are trumped by video/audio which contain irrefutable evidence of fakery.


There was no fakery, as far as no planes go. You are wildly off-topic here, however to answer to that, I worked for one of the big 3 that day, and was in the control room as the FBI protected our building and essential personnel. Nothing was faked, so no, I am not a "closet no-planer".


so the op is suggesting the CD charges would have knocked them to their feet etc?


No, I'm suggesting it. We would see some evidence of concussive force, either on the people standing at the base during the "demo" or acting upon the camera equipment. Remember the claim from "truthers" is that the "demo" triggered rather large seismic readings, not the collapse itself.




posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
your point is moot until you can first explain the dustification/pulverization anomaly that occurred at wtc 1&2 and explain the dustification of the spire for starters. Just because there's steel that wasn't "pulverized" hardly invalidates the possibility of an unknown energy source which evidence suggests was some type of DEW.


"Dustification" is a made up term coined by the conspiracy theorists (specifically, Judy Wood) so explaining how a process unfolded according to a made up word is absurd. The dust we all saw was a combination of a) the concrete floor, b) the drywall that made up the walls of the tenent areas c) everything else that was pulverized beneath fifty thousand tons, including desks, telephones, and people. If that's what your bunch refers to as, "dustification", then there you go.


which shows me you've done little or no research nor have any knowledge about something called FIELD EFFECTS...i suggest you educate yourself a bit more and hopefully you'll realize how ignorant your remark is.


All right then, presume I'm a blithering idiot. In your own words, without mindlessly cutting and pasting some sexy sounding jibberish that one of these damned fool conspiracy web sites is putting out, explain to me and the rest of us blithering idiots how an energy beam can destroy a building but not disintergrate all the people in the vicinity. Simply saying how ignorant we all are before running away giggling is about a nothing answer as a nothing answer can get.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by grom0007
The reason I bring this up is because the WTC collapse exhibited similar characteristics...


Not quite.

This building collapsed from the bottom up.

The WTC towers collapsed from the point of impact down.

Nice try though.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   

What I am guessing here...is TOO MANY Hollywood movies, which (before CGI was commonly used) relied on miniatures, to depict buildings blowing up, being destroyed, etc....those images )fake) have left an entire generation of people with incredibly false impressions, of how they "think" it "should" look, when a real building collapses.


As it was happening live on MSNBC it was reported as CD by an expert. Also, experts have chimed in after the fact. Some agree and some disagree that it was CD. Hollywood has little if nothing to do with it unfortunately.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
"Dustification" is a made up term coined by the conspiracy theorists (specifically, Judy Wood) so explaining how a process unfolded according to a made up word is absurd.


Wow. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly "truth seekers" like GoodOlDave will make accusations and criticisms about others without providing any links or proofs to back up their claim. For example, implying that Dr. Judy Wood is a 'conspiracy theorist' instead of a scientist, or implying that her conclusions are 'absurd', without providing any proof or evidence to back up such outrageous and offensive claims, really shows what kind of "truth seeker" GoodOlDave really is. As for the term "dustification"...

Scientists often have to create terms to describe new phenomena as it is observed. Scientists observe things, describe them, analyze them, and try to explain why. They do not point fingers or cast blame unless the evidence clearly fingers the bad guy, and even then they are usually reluctant. I know, because I vigorously studied the Biological and Chemical sciences for 5 years, and now I am studying Medical Sciences and all related fields (biochemistry, immunology, physiology, embryology, anatomy, microbiology, neuroscience, genetics, etc. etc. etc.)

In the case of Dr. Judy Wood, you have a very intelligent scientist who has meticulously gathered tons and tons of evidence (thousands of photos, graphs, documents, videos, testimonies, and more), and who is attempting to explain ALL of that evidence. She is not a 'conspiracy theorist', she is merely a scientist who is attempting to explain and analyze all the available evidence.

Not only is Dr. Wood the only 9/11 researcher to put forth a conclusion that actually explains ALL the evidence, but she is also the ONLY 9/11 researcher EVER to file evidence in a court of law. One of her cases made it to the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009, and you can read about her court cases here: www.drjudywood.com...

I strongly encourage each and everyone of you to view the massive amount of evidence Dr. Wood has gathered for YOURSELF before making up your own mind. The evidence she has gathered is available for public review, analysis, and scrutiny, at www.drjudywood.com.... No scientist in the world has put forth a theory that explains all of the evidence except for her, and no scientist in the world has been able to prove Dr. Wood's conclusions wrong.

I support Dr. Wood, and if you want to learn more as to why I do, please feel free to check out this outline I made, entitled '9/11 & Free Energy'.

9/11 & Free Energy: mindoutpsyde.com...

The truth is coming out, and it feels damn good.

Cheers to our future,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

www.Facebook.com...
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 20-6-2010 by PookztA]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Interesting how the building in the video does not seem to collapse until about the ninth or tenth explosion. This would explain the multiple explosions heard by witnesses prior to the Towers collapsing. This supports the theory of multiple staggered and timed explosions spaced out over an extended time period.

If all of the steel and everything elses at the WTC did not turn to dust, there would have been a rubble pile 25-30 stories high, instead of a rubble pile 4-5 stories high. A fire induced pancake collapse, as advocated by the delusional, would never have left such a small pile of rubble.

Obviously, some people have no clue as to how much steel, concrete, drywall, furniture, machinery, etc. was in those buildings. Probably too busy visiting those damn debunker conspiracy web sites which promote the official propaganda fairy tale.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 





If all of the steel and everything elses at the WTC did not turn to dust, there would have been a rubble pile 25-30 stories high, instead of a rubble pile 4-5 stories high. A fire induced pancake collapse, as advocated by the delusional, would never have left such a small pile of rubble.


90-95 of room space is air - squeze it down and crush everything in the room and you are left with small pile of debris



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PookztA

Wow. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly "truth seekers" like GoodOlDave will make accusations and criticisms about others without providing any links or proofs to back up their claim. For example, implying that Dr. Judy Wood is a 'conspiracy theorist' instead of a scientist, or implying that her conclusions are 'absurd', without providing any proof or evidence to back up such outrageous and offensive claims, really shows what kind of "truth seeker" GoodOlDave really is.


Come on now, you're certainly not stupid. We both know Dr. Judy Wood supports the "energy beam from outer space" theory, and we both know every analysis report from NIST to FEMa to Perdue to MIT all conclude the towers fell instead from irregular thermal expansion. Dr. Woods even went as far as to sue NIST on the grounds that they were systematically ignoring her research, so by definition this is a conspiracy which in turn makes her a conspiracy theorist. Your not liking the fact does not make it any less of a fact.


Scientists often have to create terms to describe new phenomena as it is observed. Scientists observe things, describe them, analyze them, and try to explain why. They do not point fingers or cast blame unless the evidence clearly fingers the bad guy, and even then they are usually reluctant. I know, because I vigorously studied the Biological and Chemical sciences for 5 years, and now I am studying Medical Sciences and all related fields (biochemistry, immunology, physiology, embryology, anatomy, microbiology, neuroscience, genetics, etc. etc. etc.)


Ah, good, then you're the person to ask this question- why were the people in the vicinity of the WTC not dustified (or squishified or crushified or whatever name you want to invent to describe it) along with the structures when they were beamified? I tried asking that other guy but he just called me ignorant before running away giggling, which is not what I woudl expect from someone genuinely interested in researching the events of 9/11. Perhaps you can give me an actual adult answer.


Not only is Dr. Wood the only 9/11 researcher to put forth a conclusion that actually explains ALL the evidence, but she is also the ONLY 9/11 researcher EVER to file evidence in a court of law. One of her cases made it to the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009, and you can read about her court cases here:


Read that again. That was the United States district court for southern New York, not the US supreme court. District courts were just the entry point, and her lawsuit was laughed out of court long before it reached the USSC. If you're familiar with that court's response, you'll know it specifically warned her not to waste their time with this foolishness any more.

Would you like to see the court's response? I will be more than happy to show it to you.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Math Questions:

If there was a World Trade Center complex in LA right now - an exact copy of the one in NYC prior-9/11:

[imagine all initial conditions - planes, weather, direction, speed etc - are the same as 9/11]

1) what would be the probability of one of the Twin Towers being totally floored from the impact of an airliner?
2) what would be the probability of both being floored by such impacts?
3) if the Twin Towers were both hit, what would be the probability of a third building being floored, despite not being hit by an airliner itself?

According to the events of 9/11 - the only precedent we have - the probability of all of these things would be 1 (i.e. 100%).

That's worrying math.

Now, either you Americans are really bad at construction (I don't think so) or some kind of freak mathematical anomaly happened that day. Or something more sinister...





posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Math Questions:

If there was a World Trade Center complex in LA right now - an exact copy of the one in NYC prior-9/11:

[imagine all initial conditions - planes, weather, direction, speed etc - are the same as 9/11]

1) what would be the probability of one of the Twin Towers being totally floored from the impact of an airliner?
2) what would be the probability of both being floored by such impacts?
3) if the Twin Towers were both hit, what would be the probability of a third building being floored, despite not being hit by an airliner itself?



1) Seeing that every structure built with that peculiar design had collapsed after an aircraft had hit it, statistically speaking: 100%

2) If both structures had the same peculiar design and bboth structures were hit by aircraft, see above: 100%

3) This would depend entirely upon how much damage would be inflicted when wreckage from the aforementioned collapsing structures fell on it. 1/2 of WTC 6 (the building between WTC 1 and WTC 7) was fully crushed.


Now, either you Americans are really bad at construction (I don't think so) or some kind of freak mathematical anomaly happened that day. Or something more sinister...


No, more like you foreigners have an America bashing fetish that only makes you look bad, rather than us....

a) The towers were designed by a Japanese architect.

b) Fire works the same way wherever you come from that it does here.

c) Islamic fundamentalists don't like you either.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Nuclear demolition was the secret technique. Here, watch this informative and educational video:



Radiation and other safety problems are subject to control by selecting the minimum yield necessary to do the job.

When burying a nuclear explosive (or encasing it within thousands of tons of steel and concrete), a major part of the radioactivity will be swallowed in the rubble of the crater. But the most promising results have been gained by improving the design of the explosive itself.

Nuclear demolition offers the potential for providing the practical and economical needs.

See the potential of nuclear demolition with rows of nuclear explosives!

1/3 the cost of conventional demolition and done in considerably less time. The end result being a much more thorough and total demolition of building material.





posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





1) Seeing that every structure built with that peculiar design had collapsed after an aircraft had hit it, statistically speaking: 100%


Yoda "there is another."




[edit on 21-7-2010 by Blue_Jay33]




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join