It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by butcherguy
That is correct. It would not fall freely. It would fall at near free fall speeds. The falling floors impart momentum to the floors that they are tearing loose.
Originally posted by Limbo
Even with outer structure intact it still would not fall freely yeah? (Or am I missing something)?
The conservation of momentum just disappeared.
The energy lost needed to break the connections just disappeared.
This propaganda physics is just so cool.
Controlled Demolitions make noise, alot. Conspiracy theorists ignore that part all the time. A series of explosions would be heard.
1. The planes were fitted with remote control equipment which had already been developed for Jet Airliners at the time - similar to what is now used in Drones - this is where the original tech was developed along with landing fighter jets on carriers.
I'm sorry but you and your opinions have ZERO credibility in my book. You would lie through teeth to your own Mother and Grandmother if it suited your official agenda.
There absolutely is remote systems to fly airplanes that can be installed.
Not to mention that the planes that hit the towers could have been switched with look alike planes.
A kids toy has the technology to fly a remote plane but the Government doesn't? Come on.. what a joke.
A simple software upgrade to the auto-pilot controls and the remote signal equipment might be enough.
....they have been flying remote aircraft forever.
I don't have them on my phone but I'm sure someone else can post the video of the crash tests I'm referring to.
We can put a man on the moon but remote flight is preposterous, come on. Remote flying of the planes fits perfectly in line with the reality of events that day.
Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by septic
Some of you are making arguments for and against 9/11 conspiracy theories (at the same time), and the overall debate is turning into a massive mess of colliding theoretical ideas.
You set them up in such a way that the core fails in the area that the plane damage is located at, and once the building begins to drop from that, set off the rest of the explosives and start the demolition. The rate of gravity for the chunk that will fall would be the same whether the plane hit on floor 90 or floor 100, so the timing wouldn't exactly be astronomically difficult.
1: Why and/or how would the pre-rigged explosives begin detonating exactly at the point of impact on both towers? How would this have been accomplished so precisely?
Because explosives require an extremely high temperature to initiate the reaction. It's not as simple as putting a match up against it, they need blasting caps which are in the thousands of degrees to ignite it.
2. How would pre-rigged explosives planted throughout the building survive the extreme impact (jolt) of a commercial jet, subsequent explosion, and resulting fire (which raged for more than an hour)--and still work perfectly when detonated--in sequence, resulting in a "free fall" of the building? It seems like a controlled demolition on such an enormous scale and with such precise timing would leave little room for error, especially from potential prior damage to the rigging.
Why aren't they heard in any footage? Good question, I don't have an answer for that. However there are dozens and dozens of witnesses who reported explosions, but I can't say why they aren't heard on the video footage. I remember one video taken from the water, and since sound waves travel better across water for whatever reason, and if I recall correctly loud explosion like sounds were audible. I don't have the time to look for it right now though.
3. Imploding either tower would have been the largest controlled demolition in history (as far as I know). The amount of explosive needed would have been emormous, meaning a series of VERY LOUD explosions with each collapse. I know there were peripheral explosions heard and reported prior to the collapses and some claim to see explosions in the collapse footage, but it seems like detonated charges from the amount of explosives necessary to bring down such massive structures would have been salient, LOUD, and unmistakeable (see below). Why are no such explosives heard in any of the footage of Twin Towers collapsing?
Yes, there are different methods, but top-down demolitions have been done before. Again, I don't have the time to track down videos of these, but I'm sure if you google/youtube "top-down demolition" or something like that you'll find a few examples. I made a thread about "Blueprint for 9/11 Truth", and I believe there are examples in that one if you want to look for it in my profile.
4. I've never seen a controlled demolition of a large building which begins at the top and progresses downwards (as seen with the twin towers). Has this kind of demolition been used before on other structures? Is this a tried and tested technique?
Those varibles are taken out of the equation when you consider that force/jet fuel heat cannot ignite explosive packages.
5. Why would the perpetrators have rested with assured minds that all would go perfectly as planned despite myriad unknown variables inherent with such a violent inferno?
They can also be successful.
Even well planned, well controlled demolitions can and do go awry with much smaller structures and without the additional 767 impact subsequent to the preparation.
Very sick and twisted people with terrible intentions in mind. 9/11 arguably sparked the beginning of the systematic dismantling of the US Constitution and American liberty. The Fourth Amendment is no longer valid due to the Patriot Act and TSA which spy on and search Americans without probable cause or a warrant.
Who would have considered this feasible and without high risk of possible exposure due to the potential for error?
Originally posted by ProudBird
United 175 was still squawking a transponder code, unlike the other three hijacked terrorist airplanes. In that case, the hijacker simply changed the four-digit code. The Controllers saw it on radar, and it continued all the way to impact, with altitude and groundspeed information all the way in.
They saw it also deviate initially, from its normal course, and make the left turn back to the East. They watched it all the way. There were no "switched" airplanes, and no "look-alikes". That is also ludicrous, as especially in the case of UAL 175, since it is in many videos and still photos. It IS a Boeing 767, it is clear as day, and you don't just have "spare" 767s lying around, unaccounted for, to be used as a "look alike".
Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
This is a completely false statement. Noise made by controlled demolitions all depend on the type of explosive used.
If you even do minimal research on this subject you will find that Thermite or Thermate is one of the types of demolition charges suspected to have been used to melt through the steel support beams.
It takes a very small blasting cap to set off the Thermite reaction. At 90 stories up in the air you would not hear anything from the ground at all.
Notice how these experiments using Thermite are done. In the first reaction the Thermite makes a bang about as loud as a firecracker. In the second reaction there isn't much of a sound created at all. All it took to begin the reaction was a fuse and a cigarette lighter.