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.

 

I think we need a FOIA Request to the NY Building Inspections Dept.

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Fascinating thread. Indeed, there was apparently a demolition plan in place before the buildings were constructed. See this - www.project.nsearch.com...

In the article, mention is made of the plan -


Isn't this worth at least as much attention as the "nano thermite" theory especially when we learn that the WTC complex's original demolition plan was to use 150kt nuclear demolition charges because of the extreme size and rigid nature of this new type of construction.


It's interesting that Bldg 7 was "pulled" because of extreme 'fire hazard' and definitely fell into it's 'footprint'. If this was the case as stated in boon's video post, then a plan for demolition definitely had to be in place. Because of the time factors and extreme 'fire hazard' the demolition charges had to have already been strategically placed within the bldg. before the crisis point and ready to execute in order to bring about it's demolition. Which raises the obvious and most revealing question of - How did they know in advance that the building was going to need to be demolished?

Do you see my point? The answer and trail to the proof is revealed in the very question and hypothesis that boon is presenting!

More investigation needs to be done, but boon has found a critical key to fully comprehending the meaning of 9/11.




posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShakaDoodle
Do you see my point? The answer and trail to the proof is revealed in the very question and hypothesis that boon is presenting!
More investigation needs to be done, but boon has found a critical key to fully comprehending the meaning of 9/11.


thanks bro for stopping by
and commenting


Anybody who builds it is gonna
have to know how to bring it down.

If there are similarities or an exact match
between the demolition plan as submitted
in the 70's and what was actually found after 9/11,
then we def have a case for sabotage, criminal act
and not a terrorist attack.

that made the planes a diversion and a scapegoat.

edit on 6/13/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShakaDoodle
.....Indeed, there was apparently a demolition plan in place before the buildings were constructed.....
In the article, mention is made of the plan -


.....the WTC complex's original demolition plan was to use 150kt nuclear demolition charges because of the extreme size and rigid nature of this new type of construction.



Don't mind me just wanted to highlight the problem here: a 150kt nuclear charge would destroy New York. Thought I'd point that out. The Hiroshima bomb was only 1/10th of that size.

I find this "nuclear demolition" theory to be quite dubious.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
Anybody who builds it is gonna
have to know how to bring it down.


If you showed any evidence that this was true, more people might believe you.



If there are similarities or an exact match
between the demolition plan as submitted
in the 70's and what was actually found after 9/11,
then we def have a case for sabotage, criminal act
and not a terrorist attack.


Can't wait to see the results of your FOIA request. When did you file it, Boondock?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


I see you are at it trolling again. Slandering your "opponent" as an antisemite wont do nothing for you except making you look silly. See the last link in my signature about the topic and this might affect you too. de.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by ShakaDoodle
Fascinating thread. Indeed, there was apparently a demolition plan in place before the buildings were constructed. See this - www.project.nsearch.com...

In the article, mention is made of the plan -


Isn't this worth at least as much attention as the "nano thermite" theory especially when we learn that the WTC complex's original demolition plan was to use 150kt nuclear demolition charges because of the extreme size and rigid nature of this new type of construction.


It's interesting that Bldg 7 was "pulled" because of extreme 'fire hazard' and definitely fell into it's 'footprint'. If this was the case as stated in boon's video post, then a plan for demolition definitely had to be in place. Because of the time factors and extreme 'fire hazard' the demolition charges had to have already been strategically placed within the bldg. before the crisis point and ready to execute in order to bring about it's demolition. Which raises the obvious and most revealing question of - How did they know in advance that the building was going to need to be demolished?

Do you see my point? The answer and trail to the proof is revealed in the very question and hypothesis that boon is presenting!

More investigation needs to be done, but boon has found a critical key to fully comprehending the meaning of 9/11.


I think people at the time were well aware of things like nuclear contamination. I looked up A&Efor911 truth, firefightersfortruth pilotsfortruth etc. an nowhere did I find data supporting that theory, like prove of unusually high radiation at the site.
edit on 13-6-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


This thread is about the foia request and possible demolition plans for the world trade center and other new york skyscrapers, Cassius666. Please keep it on topic from here on out. We can discuss anti-semitism in one of your many threads anytime or send a PM. Let's just keep this one on topic, ok.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Please keep discussion of antisemitism to appropriate threads. This thread is concerning a possible Freedom of Information act regarding building demolition schemes. Please stay on topic.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

ATTENTION!!!!



as a reminder, here is the topic of this thread

I think we need a FOIA Request to the NY Building Inspections Dept.



Please discuss it only:

That means no belittling, off topic posts, changing member names to make a point, casting aspersions on another's character, talking down to other members, harassing or ridiculing others.

Further such remarks can and will result in post removals and/or warnings including temporary posting bans.


Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

MOD NOTE: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Ad Hominem Attacks And You

Trolling, And What To Do About It

Posting Jokes, Ridiculing, Making Fun of Others in Threads...

YOU are responsible for your own posts



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Don't mind me just wanted to highlight the problem here: a 150kt nuclear charge would destroy New York. Thought I'd point that out. The Hiroshima bomb was only 1/10th of that size.

I find this "nuclear demolition" theory to be quite dubious.


not entirely true, 2 different scenarios.

a 150kt device could have been used
if it was underground and directed in
one direction, upward.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both
above ground detonations and NOT restrained
in blast radius.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


If a nuclear device had been detonated somehere below ground, why was the "slurry wall" left intact, yet the building destroyed.? FYI the slurry wall was located below ground at the perimeter of the site foundation. it was often referred to as the "bathtub".

If it had been damaged seriously, the entire underground area beneath the towers would be subject to flooding, as well as the adjoining PATH train station. However, there was only a relatively small amount of damage, and very little leakage was observed.

Furthermore, the collapse of the twin towers initiated at the crash sites. Why would this be the case if the cause of collapse was a nuclear bomb located underground?

Taken together, along with the fact that there have been no reports of excess radation from the area, and the relative isolation of the collapses, I remain unconvinced by the "nuclear" hypothesis.

However, I don't want to get too off-topic, as we have been warned. Keep us posted on the FOIA process.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ShakaDoodle
 



It's interesting that Bldg 7 was "pulled" because of extreme 'fire hazard' and definitely fell into it's 'footprint'.

And if the building was not "pulled" but instead the fire fighting team was pulled out because of the extreme fire hazard and the building did not fall into its own footprint - is it still as interesting?

If this was the case as stated in boon's video post, then a plan for demolition definitely had to be in place.

Why? Why couldn't they didn't just let the building burn? Why did it have to be demolished? What was the purpose?

Because of the time factors and extreme 'fire hazard' the demolition charges had to have already been strategically placed within the bldg. before the crisis point and ready to execute in order to bring about it's demolition.

Again, why did this building have to be demo'd? If there was anything in there that they didn't want found what sense does it make to collapse the building and expose everything in the building to the thousands of first repsonders and workers that would be wandering around the site? Was it to achieve some political mathematics that required that at least 3 buildings collapse along with 3000 dead Americans?

Which raises the obvious and most revealing question of - How did they know in advance that the building was going to need to be demolished?

They didn't.

Do you see my point? The answer and trail to the proof is revealed in the very question and hypothesis that boon is presenting!

Yes, I see your point. If you use the word "if" enough you can create any fantasy you so desire.

More investigation needs to be done, but boon has found a critical key to fully comprehending the meaning of 9/11

Boon has found what?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Ok Sherlock - ever hear of PROJECT SEDAN?

en.wikipedia.org...(nuclear_test)

It was a test using nuclear weapon to see if feasible for excavating purposes

Used 104 KT warhead detonated underground


Storax Sedan was a shallow underground nuclear test conducted in Area 10 of Yucca Flat at the Nevada National Security Site on 6 July 1962 as part of Operation Plowshare, a program to investigate the use of nuclear weapons for mining, cratering, and other civilian purposes. The radioactive fallout from the test contaminated more US residents than any other nuclear test, and the Sedan Crater is the largest man-made crater in the United States, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.



The explosive device was lowered into a shaft drilled into the desert alluvium 194 m (636 ft) deep. The fusion-fission blast had a yield equivalent to 104 kilotons of TNT (435 terajoules) and lifted a dome of earth 290 feet (90 m) above the desert floor before it vented at three seconds after detonation, exploding upward and outward displacing more than 11,000,000 t (11,000,000 LT; 12,000,000 ST) of soil The resulting crater is 100 m (330 ft) deep with a diameter of about 390 m (1,280 ft). A circular area of the desert floor five miles across was obscured by fast-expanding dust clouds moving out horizontally from the base surge, akin to pyroclastic surge. The blast caused seismic waves equivalent to an earthquake of 4.75 on the Richter scale. The radiation level on the crater lip at 1 hour after burst was 500 R per hour (130 mC/(kg·h)).


Operative phrases here

Left crater over 330 ft deep and 1280 feet across

Radiation level at crater 500 rad/hr - ie lethal after 1 hour exposure

See explain why the "bathtub" or basement walls of WTC were still standing?

Why no radiation beyond normal backgound was detected by Haz MAt teams ?

So tell us again how a 150 kt weapon was detonated at the WTC......



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Dang boon!
You sure opened a can of damage control up in here, didn't you?


Well, I followed your link and have been reading pages and pages and pages from this search term.

There are two separate I'll call 'em pdf books.

Obviously, there is too much for two or ten guys to go through thoroughly, in a day or two. I inadvertently downloaded one of two building codes booklet/pdf onto my hard-drive, accidentally hit the wrong damn button. 75mb large. I ain't going to click the second codes book pdf.

But I'll gladly provide links...
opt to view as image when clicking pdfs; I learned the hard way...

You guys in here doing damage control are welcome to post your findings based upon a source. You can even provide a link to that source too! Other-wise it's clear what your motives are, is it not?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I am surprised that it has not been done.

You may very well be onto something.

Or at least the FOIA may have records of any government agency that may of requested this information itself.

Nice thought. Its about time people started looking outside the box.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
How long after the 2 towers fell did WTC7 collapse?

Who was the brave soul that ventured into WTC7 during all this commotion to set charges in the building so they could "pull in down"?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
So, guys, any progress made yet? A single reference to a demolition plan that needs to be filed when a building is constructed would be progress.

Anybody?

How about that FOIA request?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join