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: 28
14
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic
 


And he takes the off ramp.....I knew the jet fuel comment would snag someone....

I don't attempt to quantify exactly how much jet fuel vaporized and how much flowed into elevator shafts. Yes, the investigators made a semi-educated guess, but I don't necessarily agree with them. Not to mention, it's rather irrelevant if it was 60-40, 55-45 etc.. We know that not all the jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball.

Anyway, your analogy comparing the Towers to a computer heat sink is laughable. I will leave it to you to figure out why.


Very mysterious. A "semi-educated" guess that you don't necessarily agree with in what way? How much of these investigators' report was guesswork anyway? I mean, we went to war and all, you'd think a proper investigation would have been cheaper.

What part don't you necessarily agree with, is it the elevator ride to the lobby?




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
There is a name for how the towers collapsed.
Pascal's Law.
Any change in pressure applied at any given point of the fluid is transmitted undiminished throughout the fluid.

edit on 11-12-2011 by ANGELA11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


The educated guesses made by those investigating the collapse of the buildings have absolutely NO bearing on why we went to war.

To recap.
1. We had communications from the flights to their respective airlines, identifying the names and seat numbers of the hijackers.
2. We have airline personnel who identified said hijackers as men they had checked/cleared to board those flights.
3. We have computer records showing how the tickets were purchased.
4. We have records tying the hijackers together
5. We have evidence connecting each, and every one of the hijackers, to a terrorist organization headed by Osama Bin Laden.
6. We have members of said organization in custody who have "spilled the beans" on the operation.
7. We had a President, who treated terrorism as an act of war, not the law enforcement issue the previous President had treated it as.
8. We had a President who warned the world that if you trained/harbored/supported terrorists who meant/had did the US harm, we were going to come knocking on your door.
9. Afghanistan was harboring Al Qaeda, Iraq was harboring a bunch of other terrorists on our hit lists...including some members of Al Qaeda who fled Afghanistan and ended up in Iraq. Now, I could bring up that certain Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists were listed in Iraqi government records....but why muddy the waters......

We went to war.







Oh yes....
10. Someone reading the above post will try to reply that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I know you like to talk about planes, but we were talking about the investigators and their less than educated guesses. Besides what do planes have to do with anything?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


You mentioned the investigation into the building collapses is what caused us to go to war. I pointed out how you are wrong.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
A simple demonstration would be to snap your fingers.

Mm ba ba de
Um bum ba de
Um bu bu bum da de
Pressure pushing down on me
Pressing down on you no man ask for
Under pressure - that burns a building down
Splits a family in two
Puts people on streets
Um ba ba be
Um ba ba be
De day da
Ee day da - that's o.k.
It's the terror of knowing
What this world is about
Watching some good friends
Screaming 'Let me out'
Pray tomorrow - gets me higher
Pressure on people - people on streets
Day day de mm hm
Da da da ba ba
O.k.
Chippin' around - kick my brains around the floor
These are the days it never rains but it pours
Ee do ba be
Ee da ba ba ba
Um bo bo
Be lap
People on streets - ee da de da de
People on streets - ee da de da de da de da
It's the terror of knowing
What this world is about
Watching some good friends
Screaming 'Let me out'
Pray tomorrow - gets me higher high high
Pressure on people - people on streets
Turned away from it all like a blind man
Sat on a fence but it don't work
Keep coming up with love
but it's so slashed and torn
Why - why - why ?
Love love love love love
Insanity laughs under pressure we're cracking
Can't we give ourselves one more chance
Why can't we give love that one more chance
Why can't we give love give love give love give love
give love give love give love give love give love
'Cause love's such an old fashioned word
And love dares you to care for
The people on the edge of the night
And love dares you to change our way of
Caring about ourselves
This is our last dance
This is ourselves
Under pressure
Under pressure
Pressure
edit on 11-12-2011 by ANGELA11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-12-2011 by ANGELA11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-12-2011 by ANGELA11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Does anybody know what she is talking about? Or how it fits in with the thread?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Does anybody know what she is talking about? Or how it fits in with the thread?
Not sure, but it did take 3 edits, so I'm guessing she means what she said.

She is a truther, maybe that is part of the answer to your question.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Does anybody know what she is talking about? Or how it fits in with the thread?

www.youtube.com...
Queens song....another one bites the dust, is also rather appropriate???
gravitor



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by gravitor

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Does anybody know what she is talking about? Or how it fits in with the thread?

www.youtube.com...
Queens song....another one bites the dust, is also rather appropriate???
gravitor
I googled the lyrics to that song....

Not a match, unless she is onto a group of verses that weren't published.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Does anybody know what she is talking about? Or how it fits in with the thread?


It's a great song about life and living.

It is relevant to everything.




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 

You get a star.

That's a match for what she wrote.

And yes, I felt stupid for not connecting it after the earlier Queen reference.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Thanks, stars are hard won for a guy like me in a place like this. We must realize we have much more in common with each other, than we do with the people who are telling us to kill each other.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Went to war in Afghanistan. We went into Iraq officially because of a UN Resolution. It also gives us the ability to build and 'leave' bases to be used in the future if needed. If Turkey invaded Iraq, would we stand by?

9/11 changed no thoughts on war. So many here say they should have known and acted well #, we did not find out we were told. Then we acted. In the days after 9/11 if we would have glassed Mecca it would have been accepted. In the weeks to come there would be hell on earth but it could have happened. A radical faction of Islam attacked us. Not a sovereign nation. So we did what we needed, we cleaned up Afghanistan, opened the drug trade and money flowed.

Our government as a collective works...some of the parts however would not be believed in a Clancy novel.

I still ask, pages in, where is one piece of demolition equipment?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic


You guys and your creative reading skills!

Have you never heard of a telephoto lens (it's in the post you replied to)?



Yes. ANd unlike you I actually know what one is. A telephoto lens is not going to help you get a "close up" of the damage in the manner you think it will.

You see, when most people make their minds up about the world, they don't base it on stuff they're just assuming to be the case.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
I have an open mind. I believe there are unanswered questions regarding 9/11. But I can't yet seem to buy this notion of a "controlled demolition" of the WTC. When watching closely footage of either tower collapsing, it--to me--really does look like a collapse. I can see the top section begin to sag just above the glowing red heat:



So here's what I don't get about the demolition theory in regards to the two towers--perhaps someone can help me out with this. I don't mean for this to digress into a general discussion of conspiracies, inside jobs, who had foreknowledge, etc. I have a few SPECIFIC questions I've yet to see answered regarding the logistics of such a controlled demolition (pertaining specifically to WTC 1 and 2 as opposed to WTC 7).

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?

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.

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?



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?

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


Thanks.

edit on 5-12-2011 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-12-2011 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)

1: The explosives were built in throughout most of the structures at the time of construction. The intention was to detonate at any point with an aircraft within a few years of completion. Both towers failed to detonate and the difficult and dangerous back-up plan was used. The impact points were manually primed.
2: The original explosives were built into the concrete and the connections between floors were not standard rigging. Of course the explosives were old and seriously degraded, several extra methods were added on.
3: Placement inside concrete means smaller quantities and less noise. A number of separate circuits exploding in sequence causes a roar rather than a series of bangs.
4: No way to secretly test such a huge demolition. It didn't go as planned. First two failures to detonate followed by massive overkill.
5: They would have liked to be able to call it off if it didn't seem to be going according to plan but they passed the point of no return before it went bad. Success would have been impact followed immediately by total destruction. Very little video or photographic evidence. Much higher death toll. Congress also attacked. Emergency government. Martial Law. Massive recruiting tool.
Instead we saw the biggest fail in history.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 


Do you really believe that? All that you wrote? seriously???



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 



1: The explosives were built in throughout most of the structures at the time of construction. The intention was to detonate at any point with an aircraft within a few years of completion. Both towers failed to detonate and the difficult and dangerous back-up plan was used. The impact points were manually primed.
2: The original explosives were built into the concrete and the connections between floors were not standard rigging. Of course the explosives were old and seriously degraded, several extra methods were added on.
3: Placement inside concrete means smaller quantities and less noise. A number of separate circuits exploding in sequence causes a roar rather than a series of bangs.
4: No way to secretly test such a huge demolition. It didn't go as planned. First two failures to detonate followed by massive overkill.
5: They would have liked to be able to call it off if it didn't seem to be going according to plan but they passed the point of no return before it went bad. Success would have been impact followed immediately by total destruction. Very little video or photographic evidence. Much higher death toll. Congress also attacked. Emergency government. Martial Law. Massive recruiting tool.
Instead we saw the biggest fail in history.


Wow full on delusional truther mode....

Do you seriously believe that explosives were planted in the WTC 30 YEARS BEFORE!

Explosives degrade with age becoming unstable and either failing to explode or going off unexpectedly

Explain how in 30 years nobody found anyone explosives considering that there were multiple alterations
to the building (every time new tenant rented the space)

Explain why someone would plant explosives in a building to use in some conspiracy 30 years later

At the time the mythical explosives were planted Geogre Bush was just some college punk. Nobody had
ever heard of the New World Order, Northwoods or any of the other paranoid conspiracy loon theories making
the rounds



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Kester
 


Do you really believe that? All that you wrote? seriously???

Belief doesn't come into it. Everyone who has been through complex investigations knows it can all be turned on its head by one fresh piece of information. What happens to your beliefs then? There are around a million tons of physical evidence on the Fresh Kills Landfill. Analysis of this evidence by independent experts around the world will solve this case. Remember, NIST haven't tested for explosive residue.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Kester
 



1: The explosives were built in throughout most of the structures at the time of construction. The intention was to detonate at any point with an aircraft within a few years of completion. Both towers failed to detonate and the difficult and dangerous back-up plan was used. The impact points were manually primed.
2: The original explosives were built into the concrete and the connections between floors were not standard rigging. Of course the explosives were old and seriously degraded, several extra methods were added on.
3: Placement inside concrete means smaller quantities and less noise. A number of separate circuits exploding in sequence causes a roar rather than a series of bangs.
4: No way to secretly test such a huge demolition. It didn't go as planned. First two failures to detonate followed by massive overkill.
5: They would have liked to be able to call it off if it didn't seem to be going according to plan but they passed the point of no return before it went bad. Success would have been impact followed immediately by total destruction. Very little video or photographic evidence. Much higher death toll. Congress also attacked. Emergency government. Martial Law. Massive recruiting tool.
Instead we saw the biggest fail in history.


Wow full on delusional truther mode....

Do you seriously believe that explosives were planted in the WTC 30 YEARS BEFORE!

Explosives degrade with age becoming unstable and either failing to explode or going off unexpectedly

Explain how in 30 years nobody found anyone explosives considering that there were multiple alterations
to the building (every time new tenant rented the space)

Explain why someone would plant explosives in a building to use in some conspiracy 30 years later

At the time the mythical explosives were planted Geogre Bush was just some college punk. Nobody had
ever heard of the New World Order, Northwoods or any of the other paranoid conspiracy loon theories making
the rounds

The buildings were Rockefellers Wicker Men. Built for sacrifice. "I believe that the rendering of useful service is the common duty of mankind and that only in the purifying fire of sacrifice is the dross of selfishness consumed and the greatness of the human soul set free." Not planted, built in.
Obviously seriously degraded. Hence multiple add-ons. The intention was to detonate a few years after construction. Many delays then a disastrous fail.
Alterations to what? The floors? How many alterations to the core walls? What do you expect they would find? Would it be obvious what it was? Who analysed the coating on the inside of the exterior walls? The same coating we see streaming off in a very visible reaction during the destruction. Who exactly were the workmen? Did the new tenants take off their smart jackets and do the work themselves? Was there an approved team of workers adding the extra stairs etc.?
As explained the plan was to detonate the buildings soon after construction, OR, leave them for a hundred years. The unexpected corrosion dictated the need for demolition. They had to be used once they were built but this wasn't understood until the corrosion had set in.
Bush is a very small player in this. The towers were called David and Nelson. Without them would the towers have been built? Exxon Mobil profited massively from the rise in oil prices following the wars after the 9/11 atrocities. What connection is there between the Rockefeller family and Exxon Mobil? If a nightclub suddenly burnt down, creating huge profits for the family of the people who created it, the public would roll about laughing at the obvious crime. The intention was to dramatically increase control of all of us prior to the long planned economic implosion.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join