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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

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?

I mean whats the plan if their plan go's south?
So you collapse one building and then claim that its debris destroyed the other tower in the same way it was destroyed; they just go ahead and detonate the other building even though the damage was far less than what would be required to take down a building?

What if the plane never even made it, but the whole 911 thing is in full swing?
blow the buildings up anyway and just say that the terrorists planted bombs?
this whole thing smells like low tide at the docks from both angles, truther and debunker.


Didn't they do exactly that with building 7? That building "collapsed" from a "fire." Pretend the plane was meant for 7 and missed, they got it down anyway right...




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Call up Los Alamos and see if they'll send you a sample.
www.p2pays.org...


Nothing there about paint on nano thermite.... care to post the exact quote that shows that paint on nanothermite exists..



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by frozenspark
The problem with "fully fueled" is that most of the jet fuel escaped in the fireball immediately after impact. So it's really irrelevant how much fuel was in those planes. Whatever little did make it inside, was considerably insubstantial to cause steel to melt. Another problem with 9/11 OS is that most people agree that the planes were traveling well over 500 miles per hour at sea level before the impact. Remember, this wasn't a dive. They approached the towers at sea level for a while. Having listened to many engineers, I am forced to conclude that a normal Boeing 747 could not have traveled over 500 miles per hour at sea level without it beginning to disintegrate and the pilots losing virtually all of the control of the aircraft.

Not really addressing the "demolition" theory, just another anomaly that really bothers me.
Yes, impossible!
Right.
Boeing engineers almost crapped in their collective pants when Tex Johnson pulled a 360 degree aileron roll during flight testing of the then new 707-80. They said it couldn't be done without the airframe breaking up.

So you say that a 747 can't travel 500 mph at sea level without breaking up? It wasn't designed to handle that?

But when it comes to the WTC towers, they were, from what I read on the truther threads, designed to be hit with airplanes and burn every piece of combustible material in them without suffering any damage to their structural integrity?



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I was wondering if you could describe the signal reflection issues that you seem to think are impossible to get around.

In this day and age of technology, anywhere a cell phone works, demonstrates conclusively that ordered electronic information exchanges can successfully take place such that would initiate a chain of electronic events. In that case, your cell phone ringing and then hooking up via satellite or whatever the case may be so that a phone call can take place.


Now you see, here you are using make believe (wireless detonation devices) to explain other make believe (secret controlled demolitions), to justify yet more make believe (The WTC attack was a staged event) which is apparently acceptable research methodology for you, but to me, this is worthless. You're imagining that you're solving the mysytery when in actuality all you're doing is using circular logic to repeat the original argument in different terms in order to explain itself. It doesn't address the fact that the steelworkers picking up the wreckage at ground zero found ZERO evidence of an damage from sabotage, nor does it adress how the explosives got into an occupied building without even being noticed, nor does it even address why anyone would waste time concealing it with some convoluted scheme involving staged hijacked aircraft impacts when bombs were already used back in 1993. The reason you don't address any of this is obvious- you can't- so you prefer instead to dwell on this side fantasia of the efficiency of 4,000 wireless detonator receivers in some unable-to-see-the-forest-for-the-trees mental exercise.

Sorry, but such games don't work on me. If someone used a gun to kill someone else there'd necessarily be a gunshot wound. If someone crashed their car into a wall there's necessarily be front end damage on the car. Likewise, if controlled demolitions were used to destroy a building there'd necessarily be blatant signs of explosives damage. Your constant use of "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" to conceal the glaring flaws in your conspiracy stories didn't work on Dorothy and it's certainly not going to work on me.



Aw, not this crap again. Before I even address the content of your post, you are still spelling the word "because" the same wrong way you have been for weeks! What is up with that "Dave"? If you can't correct something that simple how can we ever hope to correct anything else you post to any effect?


Dunno. Maybe my misspellings are really just of the secret conspiracy, which is calculated to get you all annoyed at my substandard grammar in order to distract you and let your guard down again my gov't disinformation.

OR, maybe a cigar is just a cigar and I simply type too fast for my own good. Don't read into it, dude.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skippy1138

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"....


I think when silverstein said "pull it" he was talking about the team of firefighters at wtc 7. IT meant the team.



new topics

top topics
 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join