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: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
A building cannot fall vertically anymore than a tree can fall vertically, and for the same reason. The strongest axis of a structure is in the vertical axis; this by several orders of magnitude. Just as electricity seeks the path of least resistance, so does a moving mass. The mass, when meeting the resistance of the solid structure below, will always shift to the side (lower resistance). For this reason, a proper (straight-down) demolition MUST fall at free-fall speed. If it does not achieve free-fall, it will fall to the side.




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Limbo
Even with outer structure intact it still would not fall freely yeah? (Or am I missing something)?
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.


OOPS!!!

The conservation of momentum just disappeared.

The energy lost needed to break the connections just disappeared.

This propaganda physics is just so cool.

psik


butcherguy:
We are talking WTC7 falling free fall right or the other 2?
Would the outer shell (as you claim) would impart a force as it snaps and buckles and thereforce affect acceleration?
edit on 6-12-2011 by Limbo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Hi,
I'm not a real believer in the idea of explosives etc - I do think it was an inside job based on the CIA bringing the hijackers into the US - which is an established fact.

However to answer your questions the process in my mind would have been fairly easy to carry out with only a small team - here is how :

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. This operation was conducted from WTC7 which had a perfect view and command center for the operation. Planes could have been flown precisely to where ever was needed - however a rough top third of the building sufficed.

2. All metal supports, beams and joints in the building were routinely sprayed with fire retardant - it was shown after the collapse that this had failed or was not maintained - the fire retardant could have easily been switched out with a thermate /mite compound which was sprayed on instead - thermite is ignited easily from an electrical swith which just as easily could have been placed there.

3. Alternatively electrical remote detonators could have been placed on only five to ten floors across the major supports allowing for the initiation of the collapse.

4. There is every conceivable possibility that any of these easily achieved options were undertaken in order only INITIATE a collapse or create a partial collapse which would have created the desired effect. the subsequent pancake could have been achieved through only initiating the initial top section, hence aiming for this section with the guided planes (It would make a LOT MORE sense to flay the planes into the bottom of the building ensuring a maximum hit - and also ensuring more casualties - flying them into the top section had a high probability of failure and far less damage - there is no way teh terrorists could have relied on those buildings collapsing - far more likely to collapse taking out the footing of he building).


5. You assume that this was their plan - if it was their plan to collapse the buildings I would have flown them at the base, hoping that the weight of the building would force them over, it makes little sense to hit the top - in fact no sense at all.

The fact that they flew them into the top tells me that they did not plan to collapse the building at all - I would not try and cut a tree down from the top, in fact as you said demolitions do not start from the top.

The planes trajectory and course was clearly being controlled when you consider the in flight corrections that are being made in some of the videos - the ability of a pilot to hit that specific section of the building like that is amazing - why not do a kamakiazee dive into the base of the building and if you miss you still take out half the city ??

Once the planes have struck allowing them to burn for a degree of time provides maximum impact for news, shock and the theory that the fuel caused it all - then press the damn button from building 7, then evacuate building 7 then press another button and demolish the control headquarters fro the whole damn operation.


Fitting out the planes - team of two guys could have done them all a few weeks in advance, two or few more could have laid the twenty or thirty remote detonators required to take out the primary supports in the top floors of the building to know it over - total collapse may have been an unintended bonus.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Laxpla
 



Controlled Demolitions make noise, alot. Conspiracy theorists ignore that part all the time. A series of explosions would be heard.


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.




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I think we would all like to have more answers to our unanswered questions.

However, we don't have to have every question answered to conclude events didnt occur the way the Government says they did.

When I watch a magician saw a woman in half, levitate someone, disappear, etc..... I can't always figure out exactly how they are pulling off the illusion, but I do know with certainty what I am seeing is not real, because what i am seeing defies the laws of nature as we know them.
edit on 6-12-2011 by skull_bones because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aristophrenia
 



Sorry, but in a long post full of a lot of misconceptions and flaws, I will just stop you right here:


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.


This is ludicrous.

There was (and still is not) any "remote control equipment .... already developed for Jet Airliners"...

It is not as "simple" as suggested, and has nothing at all to do with UAV "drones", that are design specifically for remote control operation.

The sheer complexity of trying to install ANY sort of retro-fitted R/C apparatus into not just one, but FOUR stock Boeing Transport Category jets? AND, the numbers of people needed, the man-hours required, and somehow it is all "secret"?

Not to also mention, the incredible difficulty in actually controlling the things. NO, and NOT from WTC 7!!

Honestly people can make junk like this up all day long, doesn't make it real.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


No, you are right - he received nearly $13 billion in compensation.

here is an article regarding his claim

www.nytimes.com...

He had already received $4.6 billion in compensation - while paying only $3 billion for the site only a couple of years earlier I believe - not bad.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Aristophrenia
 


Still looking for where it says the court awarded him that. All I see is that the judge had not set a court date.....
edit on 6-12-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


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.






posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


All planes in the military are landed on aircraft carriers by computer as standard practice and this has been the case for many years prior to 9/11,

secondly all airliners have auto pilot, and have had auto pilot for decades - not just years.

thirdly airliners were flown remotely as a matter of course for crash testing and analysis as far back as 1984 - in fact here is a great video for you to realise how wrong you are -

www.youtube.com...


Oh oh -

www.public-action.com...

PLanes making trips half way around the world prior to 911

web.archive.org...://itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm

Now remember things like the global Hawk are SELF FLYING - that means they are controlling their flight by themselves - whilest all that was needed on 911 was to control the the most basic of functions (yaw pitch roll etc) which are controlled on military jets all the time (prior to 911) as it is really, really easy to do once the plane is in the air - in fact it is done in order to land the plane on the deck of a moving air craft carrier at night - in fact these systems are built in order to be fitted directly to planes so that they can be used on carriers when not designed to.



Ohhh you really, really, really, think that fitting a plane, which already has auto pilot on it (computer controlled flight) would be a hard thing, even remotely difficult thing for the US military acheive in 2001 since they had already been doing it for almost 20 years.


Come on mate - that is the worst reponse I have ever read.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


You have absolutely zero practical knowledge on this topic, since you think an R/C model can be the "same" as flying a full scale airliner. I have flown both, and I know the differences.


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.


"official agenda"??


What does that even mean, exactly?



There absolutely is remote systems to fly airplanes that can be installed.


Oh?? Somehow just your opinion and that claim isn't quite good enough. Show the evidence.



Not to mention that the planes that hit the towers could have been switched with look alike planes.


More baseless assertions.

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".



A kids toy has the technology to fly a remote plane but the Government doesn't? Come on.. what a joke.


Yeah, this idea in the post is a joke, and obviously so. Since, it indicates a complete lack of understanding about the technical aspects.



A simple software upgrade to the auto-pilot controls and the remote signal equipment might be enough.


....."simple'?? ....."might be"??

NO, it doesn't work that way. Certainly not "simple", and most definitely not via the Auto Flight systems. Not in the manner we saw the airplanes flown.

In addition, for two jets (American 77 and United 93) with the recovered Flight Data Recorders, there are various controls that can ONLY be altered or manipulated by a Human hand, in the cockpit. These are referenced in the data from those Recorders. There is no reason to not presume it is the same for AAL 11 and UAL 175.

Only people with zero knowledge will persist in these fantasies, and misconceptions. In fact, just about every aspect of the so-called "9/11 conspiracy" has components of this sort of similar shallow grasp on the actual facts and realities.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I see your avitar is a plane so I give you the benefit of the doubt, however, they have been flying remote aircraft forever. Unless you think all the available crash test videos used real pilots. 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.

Already posted above, thanks : )

edit on 6-12-2011 by Wizayne because: turk 911



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizayne
 


I don't want to continue off the topic of controlled demolition any longer, but just for this:


....they have been flying remote aircraft forever.


Not in the way that is commonly "thought" by laypeople.



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.


I know all of the videos, have seen them. The most extravagant one ever done was an old Boeing 720 that they spent over four years preparing for a flight, by remote, to culminate in a crash test to see if a new type of fuel vaporization inhibitor would be effective. The hope was to reduce the flammability of the fuel, in a crash.

Even at slow speeds, and after a great deal of practice flying for months (with safety pilots onboard) the guy flying by remote still had great difficulty, and didn't hit the "target" properly.

NASA Dryden Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft



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.


Apples and Oranges. And, no...it does NOT "fit" into that day's events. It is not "impossible" to be able to retrofit a modern jet, but the sheer complexity and scope of doing it, not to mention all the other factors, the cameras needed, so the remote pilot can see what's happening, etc. It just cannot be done "secretly", would require a huge team of designers and engineers and installers, plus extensive testing on prototypes, etc.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

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.


Debate?

Please, this site does not debate. Mayhem is the name of the game on ATS. That way nothing gets accomplished.

My stance is simple, I don't buy nukes, they fit the hoax model. I don't buy Apollo for the same reasons. 911 fits the same bill; hoax, all the way. Our masters are not masters of the universe, but history has shown this is how they like to present themselves. No, they can't blow up the planet, but they love to pretend they can.

No planes, because planes crash into steel buildings, not through them.

So how did they demolish the towers? Why so little damage? No office contents, no generators, no restaurant contents, no glass, no plumbing, no elevators, no escalators, blah, blah, blah. Gone, turned to dust according to many officials and alleged eye witnesses.

OSers try to explain it away as the contents being pulverized in the destruction, while Truthers try to explain it away as "nukes" or "directed energy" weapons. Nonsense...there was a small debris pile because like every demolished building, everything not structurally attached to the building was removed prior to demolition.

The easiest way to explain the burned cars is with insurance fraud. The NYPD, FDNY, and more lost innumerable vehicles on that day. Everyone got a new car after 911, all the old stuff was burned up. Hell, it's the NYPD that's touting the claim that concrete reached 3000 degrees, turned molten, then cooled encasing the firearms of two cops. Who writes this tripe?

911 was a huge coverup, insurance scam, bankrupt the Soviet Union scam, destroy the evidence scam, eliminate the competition scam, kill the investigators scam, steal the gold scam, destroy the useless WTC scam and start a world war scam all rolled into one.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


You are the layman here bird boy

Go ahead and keep squawking about your transponders this and official story that.

No one is going to buy your preposterous opinions.

I only used the remote control toy planes as an example.

Of course you wish to imply that I meant it to be an exact representation.

But only you would be so inclined to believe such gibberish.

Why do you claim to be so knowledgeable yet post such ridiculous comments all the time.

Only the most gullible and naive fools would believe the things that come from your one track mind.

EDIT:

Didn't you used to use the screen name "weedwhacker" ?
edit on 6-12-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Wow, I too cant believe that were on a conspiracy website and still kicking this one around. One word "Nanothermite". This is what got it hot enough to melt the steel. You can see in plenty of pics of ground zero the telltale signs of controlled demolition in the 45 degree shape charge cuts on the main support beams. And no, the jet fuel was not able to burn long or hot enough to melt or weaken any steel. www.seattle911visibilityproject.org...
911research.wtc7.net...
community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...
Do me a favor and spend a few hours on you tube or just googling 9/11 and you will find an enormous amout of evidence about everything you need to know about 9/11.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

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?
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.

One might say that having the planes hit a certain floor would be how this is accomplished, and I'm no pilot, however this seems impractical to me. I can't imagine that even an expert piloting a large commercial airplane let alone a stunt plane could count how many floors there are on a building and slam into a certain one.


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.
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.


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?
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.


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?
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.



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?
Those varibles are taken out of the equation when you consider that force/jet fuel heat cannot ignite explosive packages.


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.
They can also be successful.


Who would have considered this feasible and without high risk of possible exposure due to the potential for error?
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.

Now there is a bill which passed the senate 93-7 which will allow the military to indefinitely imprison an American citizen if they're even so much as suspected of being involved in "terrorism". That violates the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendment, as well as the Posse Comitatus Act. Although it's definitely a piece of the pie, the sole reason behind this wasn't "oil" like many believe. There are much more sinister and truly terrifying intentions behind this.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

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".


Why are you assuming Flight 175 actually hit the World Trade Center? Because the Goverment told you it did so it must be true?? LOL... Can you please provide actual 'Evidence' to support this? Otherwise your argument is pointless.

Let me remind you that there were lots of eye witnesses who saw a gray 'military' looking plane and NOT a commercial airliner hit the WTC.




edit on 7-12-2011 by hero_25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

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.



You can see what appears to be Molten Metal coming out of the South Tower.



edit on 7-12-2011 by hero_25 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join