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.

 

My Gut Keeps Telling Me There Was a Controlled Demolition.

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by cobainpain
I'd like to comment on the subject of the implausibility/impossibility of the buildings being primed beforehand and going undetected. I think this is actually the weakest argument against the controlled demolition theory and one that can be easily overcome.

I used to work as an ICT systems architect and network provider, we used to design and setup fibre/cable networks for different companies. This would often involve a team of people entering a large building housing multiple offices and getting access to some of the most forgotten parts of the building. Under floors, Over Ceilings, basements, crawl spaces, behind walls, false partitions etc..you name it we laid cables there! This would often happen at weekends or evenings when people weren't working, even though some other offices and different companies in the same building might still be getting on with their own business.

Very rarely were we bothered by anyone or asked any questions. It was scheduled work, we came in, did it and went home. We could have been doing anything, including setting explosives!

My point is that I can see no reason why this couldn't have been achieved or setup under the cover of any number of remodelling/cabling/maintenance tasks. I can't think of a single multi purpose building we've ever worked on that didn't have outside contractors in to do some form of behind the scenes work.

If you haven't already seen the latest evidence provided by Architectsand Engineers for 911 Truth it really is worth watching:

Explosive Evidence


edit on 17-4-2012 by cobainpain because: added link

And yet no one has talked.
And there was no physical evidence.
And there was no paper trail.
And there was no money trail.

Only a flimsy belief by tin hatters.




posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


I'm open to many different explanations of what happened and I haven't stated what that I believe 'controlled demolition' is correct.

My statement was merely a counter to the opinion that the preparation needed could not have gone unnoticed. As someone who has worked doing cabling and restructure work at a number of different offices and multi occupational high rise buildings I can state that we were able to do our work unhindered, with very few, if any, people taking any notice of us or asking for explanations of what we were doing. We went in to do a job, did it, and left with a minimum of fuss or disruption. I'm sure there are many people working in cabling and infrastructure services that will say the same thing.

I'm not for one minute saying that this is 'proof' of any conspiracy of any type, just that this kind of background work is done on buildings on a daily basis without raising suspicion.

As for the E&A film I linked to, whether you think it provides absolute proof, or no proof, is down to your interpretation of their results. I feel at the very least it raises important questions about the removal of evidence, and the narrow scope of the NIST report.

edit on 18-4-2012 by cobainpain because: typo

edit on 18-4-2012 by cobainpain because: grammar



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by cobainpain
 



I can state that we were able to do our work unhindered, with very few, if any, people taking any notice of us or asking for explanations of what we were doing.

Did you ever do your work in a building without informing the building's owner or maintenance personnel? That's the trick. You may be right. I don't think most of the tennants would have said "Boo" seeing someone in the WTC towers running wires, etc. But how about all the maintenance personnel? They would then have to be in on it. And all you would need is for just one tennant to know more about explosives than you assume and the whole thing is a wash. Sorry, there are too many holes in this approach.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Well, invariably we were brought in by one particular company to do a specific job for example, install network infrastructure and cabling for 350 staff. We'd work with that company to design it and then enter the building to carry it out. We'd turn up in a team with our vans, cable reels, tools etc.., generally out of hours, be let in by security, taken to the basement or wherever it was we needed to start and we'd be given an access card to get wherever we needed. We'd finish up, hand the card back, and that was that. I can't remember us ever being questioned about what we were doing and we were certainly never shadowed or followed by building security.

We never specifically dealt with the building owners, only the individual businesses so the assumption is that they cleared the planned work with the building owner's before paying us to continue.

I'm not for one minute suggesting any of this is evidence of a controlled demolition or any other alternative theory.

My only point is that a team of people turning up at a building with vans, tools and trolley loads of equipment, removing walls, floors, ceilings, drilling and hammering etc.. was a regular occurrence that didn't raise suspicions of other workers or security. I believe we could have been carrying out any (insert chosen conspiracy here: bomb priming, structure identification etc..) type of work and been successful . Sometimes in the case of larger projects, we would revisit a building several times and be in and out over a period of weeks or months.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by cobainpain
 



My only point is that a team of people turning up at a building with vans, tools and trolley loads of equipment, removing walls, floors, ceilings, drilling and hammering etc.. was a regular occurrence that didn't raise suspicions of other workers or security.

So you think. But like you said - someone involved in the building, be it a tennant or owner - invited you. They knew you were coming before you got there. Have you ever started working in the wrong building? I doubt it, but it would be roughly similar.

I believe we could have been carrying out any (insert chosen conspiracy here: bomb priming, structure identification etc..) type of work and been successful .

Believe? You're betting your life on it. Also, don't forget that two of the buildings in question, the Towers, were the subject of a terrorist bombing attack just 8 years before. I don't think people fooled around in that building without anyone noticing.

Sometimes in the case of larger projects, we would revisit a building several times and be in and out over a period of weeks or months.

You say you didn't raise suspicions, but you can't know that. People may have asked questions, just not directly to you.

I am very familiar with construction and demolition. There are too many things that can go wrong very, very easily with this kind of mission, and since we're talking about murder here the risk and potential exposure would be way too high.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by cobainpain
reply to post by hooper
 


Well, invariably we were brought in by one particular company to do a specific job for example, install network infrastructure and cabling for 350 staff. We'd work with that company to design it and then enter the building to carry it out. We'd turn up in a team with our vans, cable reels, tools etc.., generally out of hours, be let in by security, taken to the basement or wherever it was we needed to start and we'd be given an access card to get wherever we needed. We'd finish up, hand the card back, and that was that. I can't remember us ever being questioned about what we were doing and we were certainly never shadowed or followed by building security.

We never specifically dealt with the building owners, only the individual businesses so the assumption is that they cleared the planned work with the building owner's before paying us to continue.

I'm not for one minute suggesting any of this is evidence of a controlled demolition or any other alternative theory.

My only point is that a team of people turning up at a building with vans, tools and trolley loads of equipment, removing walls, floors, ceilings, drilling and hammering etc.. was a regular occurrence that didn't raise suspicions of other workers or security. I believe we could have been carrying out any (insert chosen conspiracy here: bomb priming, structure identification etc..) type of work and been successful . Sometimes in the case of larger projects, we would revisit a building several times and be in and out over a period of weeks or months.



I agree with what you're saying. If the WTC was rigged with explosives it's very easy to fathom the possibility that whichever company was hired to do any type of maintenance could have easily been a front. They could have done maintenance work while doing whatever controlled demolition preparation was needed. I know when maintenance is done at my job I go about my business and don't really question what they're doing.

People should take into consideration such things as the "Israeli Art Student Spy Ring", the Urban Moving Systems (company which apparently turned out to be a MOSSAD front) and the Saudi Arabians [in FL, & CA) who were funding the hijackers and had direct links to the Saudi Arabian government. There was a lot of deception on 9/11 whether you'd like to believe it or not. I don't find it hard to believe a group of individuals could pass as a maintenance company and wire these charges over however long it would take. Look at it like this, if the official story holds true and all sectors of the US gov't were completely thrown off guard and deceived in every manner possible by these terrorists, then why is it considered impossible for every day white collar workers to not integrate the duties of hired maintenance workers within the WTC?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


The buildings(plural) 2 struck by something that flew and 1 building(WTC7) was hit by nothing.

All 3 buildings did not collapse, they all TURNED TO POWDER BEFORE OUR VERY EYES!

The "proof" is out in the open, in plain sight for us all to....embrace.. no.. deny! Although we all know through very little research that first of all if this was a conventional controlled demolition that there should be a pile of rubble much MUCH higher than we ended up with at ground zero. The buildings were turned to powder before our very eye's in a fashion no one has ever seen before and yet we buy the OS?

Try and find any other demo or Fire or struck building that turns to POWDER in front of you and falls in it's own footprint and free fall speed. You won't find any other examples other than the WTC buildings.

Good luck with your research.
-FG



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by firegoggles
 


Here you go; plenty of dust from this cd :-

www.youtube.com...

Unlike the Towers this is a real cd as is obvious from the patterned detonation of charges and flashes.

Btw the Towers didn't fall at free-fall speed, check it out.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by firegoggles
 


Here you go; plenty of dust from this cd :-

www.youtube.com...

Unlike the Towers this is a real cd as is obvious from the patterned detonation of charges and flashes.

Btw the Towers didn't fall at free-fall speed, check it out.



You're right there is plenty of dust, the problem is that all the dust is coming out of the base of the building. He's referring to the WTC turning to dust in the process of the collapse. In your video all of the dust is coming out from the base and is increasing as each floor hits the ground. In this picture [
] of the South Tower it seems to show each floor turning to dust as it collapses.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Good debate and I'm happy to chime in and answer but please don't place any assumptions on what I do or don't believe. The biggest argument I hear against any of the demolition theories are that it would take a long time, need careful organisation and couldn't go unnoticed. I'm only talking about this because from my experience I just don't believe this is a strong argument. There are plenty of different theories, ideas and evidence for each side of the argument but for 10 years or more my team and I would have had ample opportunity to put such preparations in place in a number of different buildings. None of this proves anything, it's just my experience. If the quotes don't work out properly I do apologise, I've only just started to post here.


Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by cobainpain
 



My only point is that a team of people turning up at a building with vans, tools and trolley loads of equipment, removing walls, floors, ceilings, drilling and hammering etc.. was a regular occurrence that didn't raise suspicions of other workers or security.

So you think. But like you said - someone involved in the building, be it a tennant or owner - invited you. They knew you were coming before you got there. Have you ever started working in the wrong building? I doubt it, but it would be roughly similar.

Absolutely correct. This would need to be done covertly but by a legitimate (or at least appearing to be outwardly legitimate) business with a legitimate reason for being there, an IT Company laying cabling, Safety inspectors checking asbestos etc..


I believe we could have been carrying out any (insert chosen conspiracy here: bomb priming, structure identification etc..) type of work and been successful .

Believe? You're betting your life on it. Also, don't forget that two of the buildings in question, the Towers, were the subject of a terrorist bombing attack just 8 years before. I don't think people fooled around in that building without anyone noticing.

Getting into that position and being allowed access to the building, or specific areas within it, are the only barriers. Once you're in and working you're effectively free to do your job whatever that may be. Like I said earlier, I've done hundreds of jobs in numerous buildings and never had anybody (security or otherwise) monitor our work or what we were doing. Whether that would be the case in WTC or not is another question, but I've done structural work and cabling in important buildings such as the Gherkin building in London without interference or monitoring. I stand by the fact that if you're invited to do work in a building and abide by whatever security protocol the building has you will be allowed to work unmonitored.


Sometimes in the case of larger projects, we would revisit a building several times and be in and out over a period of weeks or months.

You say you didn't raise suspicions, but you can't know that. People may have asked questions, just not directly to you.

Very true, people may well have been suspicious without alerting us. However our progress or finished work has never been investigated or tampered with. This leads me to believe that if we were doing anything other than just laying miles of Cat5 (perhaps setting in place bio agents, detonation charges etc..) that would also have not been investigated or tampered with and will remain in place until it was needed.

I am very familiar with construction and demolition. There are too many things that can go wrong very, very easily with this kind of mission, and since we're talking about murder here the risk and potential exposure would be way too high.

I have no doubt there are untold things that can go wrong but getting into a building legitimately and having a genuine reason for tampering with the fabric of the building are, to my eyes at least, the largest of the obstacles.




posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
3 demolitions in one day. No way 3 buildings came down like that because of fire! Especially seeing as 2 were only hit by a missile, and WTC7 had minor fires.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is either working for the system, or brainwashed by the system.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
To which I will respond...

a) Your own examples actually show that the WTC collapses were *not* controlled demolitions. The examples of legitimate CD you provide show that the collapse begins at the base of the building, while every video of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 show the collapse began at the upper areas, at the precise location where the planes impacted the structures. Logically, we need to conclude the plane impacts caused a chain reaction that started the collapse in some way. If there are those who want to debate the precise reason they caused the collapse, fine, but at the end of the day it was still the impacts that caused the collapse in some way. Claiming that controlled demolitions were secretly planted in a heavily occupied building at such a weird place without anyone noticing and faked hijacked planes were crashed into the precise location where the controlled demolitions were planted is just Rube Goldberg logic of adding layers of unnecessary convolusion for convolusion's sake

b) It isn't your gut that's telling you there was a controlled demolitions. It's those damned fool conspiracy web sites deliberately instigating abject paranoia that telling you it was a controlled demolitions. Case in point- Take a look at your video again showing the collapse of WTC 7, and then look at the raw video of the collapse as it looked before they got their hands on it:

NIST video of the collapse of WTC 7

Notice any difference? The Penthouse collapsed into the interior of WTC 7 six seconds before the rest of the building collapsed, and you can see from the broken windows how far down it fell. Those damned fool conspiracy web sites can't explain how controlled demolitions would blow up a building from the inside out with a six second delay so they simply snip that part of the video off to artificially get you to believe the sexy sounding explanations they want you to believe. Changing the evidence around to suit their purpose is LYING, regardless of whatever pretty word they want to use to describe this behavior.

I don't know about you, but to me, when someone needs to resort to lying to convince people of something, it's a de facto admission they know what they're saying is false.
edit on 14-6-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)


goodoldave, 1st to reply as usual, anyone would think you didnt have a life or a normal regular job! Oh, you dont, you're a paid shill, so you're regualrly going to be first to reply. Try being a little more covert eh, you andf your buddies obviously werent trained on being covert!

OP, your gut is correct, similar to the WTC collapses, including the explosions. Goodoldave might be fooled by the OS because he;s paid to, but the majority of us dont buy the OS.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
To which I will respond...

a) Your own examples actually show that the WTC collapses were *not* controlled demolitions. The examples of legitimate CD you provide show that the collapse begins at the base of the building, while every video of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 show the collapse began at the upper areas, at the precise location where the planes impacted the structures. Logically, we need to conclude the plane impacts caused a chain reaction that started the collapse in some way. If there are those who want to debate the precise reason they caused the collapse, fine, but at the end of the day it was still the impacts that caused the collapse in some way. Claiming that controlled demolitions were secretly planted in a heavily occupied building at such a weird place without anyone noticing and faked hijacked planes were crashed into the precise location where the controlled demolitions were planted is just Rube Goldberg logic of adding layers of unnecessary convolusion for convolusion's sake

b) It isn't your gut that's telling you there was a controlled demolitions. It's those damned fool conspiracy web sites deliberately instigating abject paranoia that telling you it was a controlled demolitions. Case in point- Take a look at your video again showing the collapse of WTC 7, and then look at the raw video of the collapse as it looked before they got their hands on it:

NIST video of the collapse of WTC 7

Notice any difference? The Penthouse collapsed into the interior of WTC 7 six seconds before the rest of the building collapsed, and you can see from the broken windows how far down it fell. Those damned fool conspiracy web sites can't explain how controlled demolitions would blow up a building from the inside out with a six second delay so they simply snip that part of the video off to artificially get you to believe the sexy sounding explanations they want you to believe. Changing the evidence around to suit their purpose is LYING, regardless of whatever pretty word they want to use to describe this behavior.

I don't know about you, but to me, when someone needs to resort to lying to convince people of something, it's a de facto admission they know what they're saying is false.
edit on 14-6-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)


goodoldave, 1st to reply as usual, anyone would think you didnt have a life or a normal regular job! Oh, you dont, you're a paid shill, so you're regualrly going to be first to reply. Try being a little more covert eh, you andf your buddies obviously werent trained on being covert!

OP, your gut is correct, similar to the WTC collapses, including the explosions. Goodoldave might be fooled by the OS because he;s paid to, but the majority of us dont buy the OS.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
To which I will respond...


b) It isn't your gut that's telling you there was a controlled demolitions. It's those damned fool conspiracy web sites deliberately instigating abject paranoia that telling you it was a controlled demolitions. Case in point- Take a look at your video again showing the collapse of WTC 7, and then look at the raw video of the collapse as it looked before they got their hands on it:



Funny how you always make references to 'damned fool conspiracy websites' and even claimed that ATS is a conspiracy forum, not a website, I think you are deliberately trying to make people feel foolish, shill tactic, and secondly confused as to what a conspiracy website is!

Your script is weak, tell your bosses to get you some new material bcos the stuff you regurgitate is getting ridiculous now!



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

And yet no one has talked.
And there was no physical evidence.
And there was no paper trail.
And there was no money trail.

Only a flimsy belief by tin hatters.


People were paid not to talk, and will get killed if they do.
Plenty of evidence to prove this was an inside job.
obviously no paper trail! Use your brain, they're not going to leave a paper or money trail.

Only tin hatters believe the OS.
Nothing 'flimsy' about the truth.

We know you're yet another paid shill! What a tragic job you have!



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I just came so I am replying to the OP original post:
Let's not forget... the molecular desintegration of parts of the ruins. Some parts were literally desintegrated into macromoleculres. That was aheck of a plane crash!
I am suspecting the use of positrons as explosive: Those are particles that destroy molecular bindings.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join