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.

 

FIVE QUESTIONS: The Twin Towers and a Controlled Demonlition: HOW?

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Sure, he received more than 1.2 billion. But he did not receive anywhere near the amount needed to rebuild the complex. To say he benefitted from the attack does not bear any basis in reality. And Marvin Bush got rid of every single, solitary piece of stock holding him to that company. That's a public record.

And the asbestos issue....the majority of the work was going to be in WTC 1. They were about thirty stories into the construction of WTC 2 when they stopped using the asbestos fireproofing. And two hundred million.......was three-four months of revenue.......
edit on 6-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Limbo
reply to post by NotPsyOpsed
 


The EMP would have taken out a lot of electronics?
Is this reported?



The EMP and the radiation is absorbed by the rock, 50 m under WTC.
It`s only the "crushing effect" that ripps through the tower.





posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
NFPA's most basic standards, LAW in nearly 100 countries at the time, were not followed or adhered to by any fire investigator anywhere on the planet concerning the trade towers.

No official version of that fire scene was ever fully investigated by fire investigators. They were not permitted to do their job. period.

That's all I need to know.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
Then why haven't these findings been published? I see you are now resorting to attacking individuals credibility as well as the journals, rather than the information contained within them. Also, do you have any proof of them being paid, as you claim? If their findings are wrong, then publish a scientific journal to be reviewed, which anyone is yet to do, period.


That may sound fine and dandy to you, but I don't know where to get dust samples, a lab to analyze them in, and a degree to give myself credibility as I attempt to publish my paper. Someone else already did it, but I bet you forgot about them or ignored them.

This seems to sum up most of the analysis done on the dust:
911research.wtc7.net...

Number one, that website isn't a scientific journal. Number two, Dr. Jones' work and Dr. Harrit's published papers are yet to be refuted in the same manner, by publishing their findings. I quickly scanned the site you posted and it is nothing I have not seen before. The only journal I saw mentioned published on that site was published in EHP, which is government run, not independent. Not only that, your own site you posted goes on to describe how the study was inadequate. Quote from the site on the publishing:



Finally, the scientists did not broach the issue of whether the dust showed evidence of explosive residues. Their report does not appear to have sufficient detail to use it as a basis for drawing any conclusions about the question of explosives. All their disclosures of the dust composition are partial, addressing questions about the levels of heavy metals and toxic hydrocarbons, but failing to provide even complete compositional analysis of elements.



Seems you aren't even reading or checking your own sources. Is this about facts or about being right at all costs? I still haven't seen published journals that contradict the findings I listed.

Here is a 12 minute debate with Niels Harrit on his paper and nano thermite findings:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


You are speaking a GENERIC sense about "most people or some people."


Excuse me, but you responded to my reply to another poster in which he was defending the notion that the family members would lie about their loved ones for money.


I'm talking about Cheney, Silverstein, a few Bush family members, head of NORAD, head of security at the FAA, about a dozen people from Controlled Demolitions inc., who MIGHT have worked as security guards at Marvin Bush's WTC Security for a few months prepping the building.


It takes more than a dozen people a "few months" to wire a building. Especially since they have to do it in secret.


Then we've got the bag man who delivered the cash -- someone like Abramoff of the "Duke Stir" fame.


Oh christ. You've watched too many films. "bag man"... come on.



We've got maybe a few key people pushing strings in the media to control the propaganda.


This is ludicrous. How can a few people control the world's entire media? Proprietors and editors can influence what their papers or outlets say, but they can't keep millions of reporters quiet. Take the early report of building seven's collapse. For that to be a conspiracy you would need hundreds of people in on it all through the newsroom.

Explain to me how an editor of a decent-sized paper (of which there are hundreds in the west alone) would spike the story of a journalist who suspected demolition? Truthers say its self evident so a lot of journalists must try to publish that strory often. Are you seriously telling me that a cartel of a dozen media players can prevent them?




Maybe a few people at the FBI vetoing investigations


Yeah, because it would just take a few guys. Come on, you can't seriously think that FBI investigations of the kind that we're talking about can just be pulled like that? Maybe you do. But it isn't the case.

"I've found evidence that Bernie Madoff paid a 9/11 hijacker."

"Okay Dawson, drop that case."

"What?"

"Drop it. YOU'RE IN TOO DEEP."

It's like a terrible movie.



So I'd say; about 2 dozen people. The rest are just everyday people doing their compartmentalized job and not knowing the bigger picture. happens all the time at the CIA and Pentagon.


I know you're not joking, but that's the most seriously preposterous number. Who faked the phone calls? Who kept the insurance companies quiet and sweet? Who faked the plane crash in Shanksville? Who shot down U93?Who fired the missile at the Pentagon? Who planted the debris there? Who falsified the missile records so that none appeared to have been fired? Who arranged for the wtc debris to be removed so quickly? Who did the million other things that an inside job usually seems to demand? Who killed the whistleblowers? Who is in place to kill any one of the killers who turns whistleblower?

You can say they are "compartmentalised" but anybody doing almost any job relevant to 9/11 would know what they had done straight after. They may not have been complicit before, but straight away after they would be. In spades.

My original point stands anyway. Nobody would base a plan on trying to murer people's loved ones and pay them to forget about it. It's clearly hugely likely to backfire.



>> And how can you say NO WHISTLEBLOWERS? I've read of many 'suspicious suicides' and we've got a few murders. Just google "whistleblower dies mysterious".


Which of the two dozen guys is killing them? He must be busy. And anyway, none of them are whistleblowers in the proper sense of the term.

Look up Kurt Sonnenfeld. He's still alive, so I guess the stone-cold killer dude must not have got round to him yet?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Many people claim to have heard explosions that day in the towers. The evidence and plenty of scientific analysis and opinions of experts can be seen in the video below. One huge question that I have is - in light of all these accounts of explosions why was no investigation ever done to determine if terrorists (or anyone) planted explosive devices in the towers? In fact the law mandates that such investigations be performed though they were not for 9/11 and vital evidence was destroyed.

Watch the video if you want the facts.

911expertsspeakout.org...



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 


Well, if we're going to believe everything that's published, then you'll love all the papers in here:

Link

I mean, I could search my university's scholarly database as well, if you want. It's not like all these people who worked out the math in the collapse were just crazy nutjobs, right?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Well, the issue is probably the fact that two chaotic events such as Jets hitting the towers both with incalcable variables, produced the exact same results not once, not twice but three times...THAT is by far more "fishy" and hard to believe than if controlled demo was used.

2 planes 3 buildings...ALL symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical damage...



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
It is my belief that the towers came down as a result of microwave beaming. It is HAARP technology - the same used now in geo-engineering and weather modification. The technology has been around for 100 plus years thanks to Nikola Tesla. Think about what a microwave does to molecules and then think about the towers. Look up the technology. The info to put it together is on the net. If I have time later, I'll come back and post some links.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NotPsyOpsed
 

That fingerprint box pdf is most interesting;

Energy Balance Calculation To illustrate this, here is a simple calculation.
The central core of the World Trade Center consisted of 47 regular steel box columns. These measured 36 by 90 centimeters and had a wall thickness of 10cms at the base, tapering to 6cms at the top (400 meters above).
There were also 236 smaller exterior steel columns which we will not consider.
• The total volumes of steel is 7,874 kgm cubed.
• Therefore the mass of steel in the central column is:
• 3333.8 x 7,874 = 26,290 tons.
• The specific heat capacity for steel is 470J/kg.K
Therefore the amount of thermal energy that would be required to raise this amount of steel to 800 degrees Centigrade from room temperature to soften it so that it might lose structural rigidity (which is extremely unlikely in any event) would be: • (800 - 25) C x 470K/kg. C x 26,290,000kg = 9.6 x 10 12 J

The amount of thermal energy available from the 10,000 gallons of JetA in the alleged B767 aircraft is calculated as appears on the following page.
• The heat of combustion of JetA is 42.8 MJ/kg.
• JetA has a mass of 6.75 lb/USG or 3.07kg/USG. • (10,000 x 3.07)kg x 42.8 MJ = 1.3 x 1 0 12 J
This is only 13% of the energy required to soften the steel of the central core columns, even assuming an impossible 100% efficiency of heat transfer from fuel to steel. In reality, the efficiency of transfer would be very low – a few percent at best.

It seems the physics of the collapse don't stack up, the NIST report does exclude some pertinent observations conveniently (including the WTC7 collapse).



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MaxJohnson
 


Another shining example of goldfish memory ladies and gents. Cannot even remember his own posts.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Sure, he received more than 1.2 billion. But he did not receive anywhere near the amount needed to rebuild the complex. To say he benefitted from the attack does not bear any basis in reality. And Marvin Bush got rid of every single, solitary piece of stock holding him to that company. That's a public record.

And the asbestos issue....the majority of the work was going to be in WTC 1. They were about thirty stories into the construction of WTC 2 when they stopped using the asbestos fireproofing. And two hundred million.......was three-four months of revenue.......
edit on 6-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)


I am of the same opinion now.

I think it was a combination of luck, serious failings in the construction of the buildings and people who knew of the weaknesses and exploited them (hence the eye witness reports of explosions).

I would say that the only complicity here was that certain people in power "nudged" the perpetrators and used the opportunity to exploit the situation for their own end.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by digitalf
 


Excellent!

The Physics of 9/11 is a complete travesty. The whole idea of fire starting a collapse in that little time is laughable. And then most people on either side won't demand accurate distribution of steel information on the buildings. All of the physicists in the country need to be smacked up side the head with a heaviest edition of Principia Mathematica that can be found in celebration of Newton's birthday.

But after TEN YEARS how can they come out and say there is no way planes could have accomplished that?

psik



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by septic
Sure seems to be a lot of sheetrock and fireproofing dust for the top third of the building. This is where the top portion commits hari kari:


Source




edit on 6-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)


Yes. Every steel member was layered in thick, powdery fireproofing. Every floor had sheetrock and concrete. Since the upper section was 20-30 floors of this stuff, that is not a surprising amount of dust.


How thick?

A little sheet rock and crumbling spray on insulation certainly didn't account for that gigantic cloud.




Source
edit on 6-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





I mean, I could search my university's scholarly database as well, if you want. It's not like all these people who worked out the math in the collapse were just crazy nutjobs, right?


No, the only nutjobs are the people who believe a blizzard of calculations can explain how a light weight aluminum wing can slice through steel like it wasn't even there.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by downunderET
 


Well, make that three of us.
Isn't it amazing no one else really wants to know the REAL truth.

dubiousone writes, "The perps went too far. It wouldn't do to have those unsightly building cores remain standing after the other portions of the towers were destroyed, now would it? " And Wide-Eyes writes, "I will never be 100% sure about the official story or the conspiracy theories. I will however admit that it looked like controlled demolition. And the Pentagon hit looked like a cruise missile hit but that's up for debate.

"I guess we will never know for sure."

I'd say "the perps" did an excellent job! They have folks arguing between two false choices and disregarding the truth and walking away in disgust.
Now that's good planning!

Do you think the perps didn't plan a cover up?
They could expect people to begin questioning what happened. So why not lead a misdirection movement to control them? Many of the joiners unknowingly become part of the cover up. That's how it works.

The truth is known. How much longer will it be until folks realize they have been diverted away from looking at the evidence and trained to reject the evidence and to feel helpless and resign themselves from looking any further?

Again, the truth is known!

Watch this presentation and tell us exactly why it should be discarded -- other than "'cause the Truther movement told us so."

Presentation in the UK (10/24/11) Part 1
blip.tv...


and this one:

CMN Interview (9/10/11)
www.youtube.com...

and this one:

Theo Chalmers interview (10/25/11)
www.youtube.com...

and this one:

Richard Hall interview (11/19/11)
www.youtube.com...

and this one:

The Veritas Show interview - (9/11/11)
www.youtube.com...

and this one:

Coast to Coast interview (3/4/11)
www.youtube.com...

and most of all, this one:

Where Did The Towers Go?
wheredidthetowersgo.com...

edit on 6-12-2011 by Truthseekerofthefarnorth because: quotation left out in error

edit on 6-12-2011 by Truthseekerofthefarnorth because: correct English in sentence.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Truthseekerofthefarnorth
 


I was with you until Judy Wood but I was once with her too, so I don' t blame you, but no longer. I'm now of the mind that with so much at stake, they wouldn't have used anything exotic, just tried and true conventional means and good old-fashioned corruption.

Here's more recommended reading:
The Media Are The Enemy
911 for Psychos
edit on 6-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)







 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join