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.

 

Can anyone provide a technically viable method of performing a CD on the World Trade Center that is

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I think i should add if i were to guess how they actually did the demolitions that day.

Columns would be blown over a period of time so as to lower the amount of explosives/termite used at the final collapse/demolition. The floors that were impacted by the planes would be blown at time of impact or allowed to remain intact only being damage from the impact , fires and final demise of the building on collapse/demolition.
The main trick is to bring the buildings down with as few signs of conventional CD as possible.
As far as I know CD are a mix of practicality an flash as many are used for holly wood films so you cant expect the same show to be put on if it were a done to the twin towers on 9/11. Instead you would expected the majority of the big explosions to take place prior to the final fall. Just my opinion on how it many have been pulled off right under so many peoples noses.




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by patriots4truth
Can anyone provide a technically viable method of performing a CD on the World Trade Center that is consistent with all the known facts?


Considering we don't even know what technology say, the military has at its disposal, don't you think it would be conducive to try to prove they came down from the planes and fires alone first?

After all, wasn't this already supposed to have been proven?

Aren't we fighting a couple wars over this already?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by patriots4truth
Can anyone provide a technically viable method of performing a CD on the World Trade Center that is consistent with all the known facts?


Considering we don't even know what technology say, the military has at its disposal, don't you think it would be conducive to try to prove they came down from the planes and fires alone first?

After all, wasn't this already supposed to have been proven?

Aren't we fighting a couple wars over this already?


Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We are fighting wars because of Ideologies like this Project for the New American Century

They wanted to invade Iraq since Clinton but they couldn't get support so the figured it couldn't happen without a NEW PEARL HARBOR type of event.... Well I guess those think tank guys are smart cause they were right on the money..

“In the magical universe there are no coincidences and there are no accidents. Nothing happens unless someone wills it to happen.” -William Burroughs




edit on 16-9-2010 by Reality_Incognito because: typo fix



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
"We all know that nanothermite can be painted on. So if it can be painted on it can be pumped.And pumped it was- right inside the hollow core columns. Or rather a selected 30-35% of them. They were melted in a fast sequence from bottom to top with one melted section dropping down through the hole where the columns underneath had been. All the way down into the basements.

You can see where it went wrong when the steel flowed out the window on the 82nd floor of WTC2. There was presumably a blockage or a delay there and the liquefied columns above broke through the fireproofing sheath and flowed across the floor where we saw some of it pour from the window.

Hundreds of tons of nanothermite could have been pumped in broad daylight in the WTC in this way and none of the secretaries there would have noticed a darn thing."

stealing a hypothesis I read from a dude in another forum



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by patriots4truth
 


I've always said the buildings were "wired", but who wired them ???

The people who wired them know what they did, HOWEVER, these guys could blow the lid.

Whoever these guys are, they hold the secret. BUT I'm sure the "organisers" put into place a cork in the bottle.

In other words, they took all precautions so that "no one" would ever spill the beans.

THEY DID IT..............



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You'd need 400 miles of cables to pull that gigantic thing down and it'd only topple over onto neighboring buildings.

Unless, of course, they used wireless. You know, kinda like Controlled Demolition, Inc. already has and uses?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Yea ram a fully fueled 767 into building at 500 + mph - watch as resulting fires cause the steel to twist and fail

Oooh, darn. Too bad there aren't any other steel-structured highrises in history that have completely collapsed due to fires causing the steel to twist and fail. Oh well, there goes that theory.

What's even more depressing for you is that the NIST fairytale is only a theory because they used theory, guessing and calculations to posit their reports.

So now, it's just a matter of which theory the evidence fits, and then which theory you believe has merit.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reality_Incognito
Yes the building was probably wired with explosives a month prior to the attack. "Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower of the world trade center, witnessed a power-down of the tower in the weekend before 9/11." Interview with Scott Forbes Interview with Scott Forbes


Except the tower was not powered down on that date, and how do you think tonnes of explosives could be installed in a few hours - what about the other 2 buildings? Why didnt the explosive sniffer dogs notice the tonnes of explosives?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by patriots4truth
"We all know that nanothermite can be painted on


It can? Care to show us that from a valid source?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Except the tower was not powered down on that date

Oooh, darn. Here's yet another employee of Fiduciary Trust confirming the power-down:






That's the third person to confirm the power-down, for those that are counting. Not that the power-down means anything. But if someone just flat-out says there wasn't one, they are flat-out wrong.

How come people can't actually research and fact-check before just flat-out saying "this didn't happen" or "that didn't happen"? I don't get it.....



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
How come people can't actually research and fact-check before just flat-out saying "this didn't happen" or "that didn't happen"? I don't get it


And here is proof no power down occured....
forums.randi.org...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
And here is proof no power down occured....
forums.randi.org...

Dereks, you didn't even watch the video I posted. It's 7 minutes long and you posted only 4 minutes after I did.

You're flat-out calling three different employees of the WTC liars. Why? You're going to take the word of some loser at JREF over three employees that worked at the WTC?

I'll take the word of these witnesses any day over the uneducated nut jobs over at JREF.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
seriously guys, nanothermite or some combination of thermite, nanothermite and ____ was pumped up through certain beams. see my previous post


edit on 16-9-2010 by patriots4truth because: clarification



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by snowen20
My issue with CD is the following:

If for some reason a plane missed its mark or didnt make it to target, or lets just say grazed one of the WTC buildings, what would the contingency be?

PULL IT?


No, you couldn't pull it. You'd need 400 miles of cables to pull that gigantic thing down and it'd only topple over onto neighboring buildings.


I believe in this case the term "pull it" does not mean literally pulling down the building. I think "pull it" in the demolition business means to "detonate the charges"....



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

"I think "pull it" in the demolition business means to "detonate the charges"....


I have yet to find anyone who ever heard that term before 9/11 to detonate anything.

Nine years and counting with no proof of anything to support anything but basically the official story. Now, why is that?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reality_Incognito
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.


You're preaching to the choir.

Tell that to George Bush and 50% of the American people.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Dereks, you didn't even watch the video I posted. It's 7 minutes long and you posted only 4 minutes after I did.

You're flat-out calling three different employees of the WTC liars. Why? You're going to take the word of some loser at JREF over three employees that worked at the WTC?


I think there should be some rule against not reading and blatantly ignoring what's being posted, when responding to it.

Misreading something or missing something by mistake is one thing, or if you don't have time, but just ignoring things intentionally and responding as if they were never posted is wrong.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Jake the Dog Man
 


I did some checking and you're right- it doesn't mean "detonate". It is however a term that used to be used in the demolition industry years ago when crews used to have to "pull in" the walls onto the floors when demolishing a structure. If that was the connotation on 9/11, who knows.........



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Oooh, darn. Too bad there aren't any other steel-structured highrises in history that have completely collapsed due to fires causing the steel to twist and fail.


So how many other steel structured highrise have been hit by a jet airliner and not collapsed - no, so it looks like if a jet airliner hits a steel structured highrise they collapse, as has happened 100% of the time!



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Oooh, darn. Too bad there aren't any other steel-structured highrises in history that have completely collapsed due to fires causing the steel to twist and fail.


So how many other steel structured highrise have been hit by a jet airliner and not collapsed - no, so it looks like if a jet airliner hits a steel structured highrise they collapse, as has happened 100% of the time!


As simplistic as your reasoning is, it still doesn't explain WTC7.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join