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.
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.
Not sure, but it did take 3 edits, so I'm guessing she means what she said.
Originally posted by vipertech0596
Does anybody know what she is talking about? Or how it fits in with the thread?
Originally posted by vipertech0596
Does anybody know what she is talking about? Or how it fits in with the thread?
I googled the lyrics to that song....
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
Originally posted by vipertech0596
Does anybody know what she is talking about? Or how it fits in with the thread?
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)?
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.
Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Kester
Do you really believe that? All that you wrote? seriously???
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