It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:46 AM
watch this video for all your answers

buildings that dont resist a collapse are demolished. Simple as that. You cant even come close to 0 resistance like the buildings on 911.

Also, Barry Jennings, Michael Hess, and the firefighters testimony we got resently through FOIA...

If you are still in doubt after this, nobody can help you.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:03 AM
Well I too wonder about those things the OP posted, WTC 7 is what twigged me the most back in 2006, I believed the OS 100% until then. Then one day I came across WTC 7 which I had no idea about. I found it very amazing how fast they rebuilt a new building on that site. And poof just like that nobody even knew about WTC 7 except for the informed conspiracy sites.
The pentagon, WTC 7, there are other variables in play that make us look at the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 with a critical eye.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:08 AM
reply to post by lunarasparagus

1. They don't ... they don't explode, but burn. We're not talking about explosive, but thermite.

2. The termite is on the base columns of the building. The buildings have an outer layer of a steel net, which is intended to "catch" aeroplanes, much like a spiderweb catches flies. There is no "jolt" on the base columns, if there was such a "jolt" it would have toppled the building. The building is constructed to withstand this.

3. Thermite doesn't explode, it starts igniting at a certain temperature. The ignition temperature is the boiling point of aluminium, at around 660 degrees celcius. Kerasin burns at about 600 to 1000 degrees. While steel melts at around 2500 degrees. Kerasin or jet fuel, can't heat up steel to the 60% construction requirement strength point, but it can burn hot enough to ignite the thermite.

4. jMk&ei=kj3eTo_9C7HS4QSfwumSBw&usg=AFQjCNGVQ5ZLKMmva_m-osCBpnneL_gIeQ&sig2=az1uNQ_Juu0-Ete5WQA73Q&cad=rja

5. Who says they planned it like this? People are saying the knew, and allowed it to happen ... or perhaps "helped" in giving the idea. Nobody is saying George Bush flew the planes himself.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:16 AM
Can i ask another question?

I was actually talking about this today with my partner

How couldnt they find the black boxes and they found a passport of one of the terrorists?

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:24 AM

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by Captain Beyond

Since you want to "forget about the twin towers", I assume either you have no answers for me, or you believe only WTC 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition. Regardless, my questions were quite specific so perhaps this isn't a thread you're interested in?

It would have been far better if You said that the three towers FORGOT TO BE.
Tesla technology of resonance basis will have been used to enable each atom to FORGET to hold hands with it's neighbours hand, as such.

The planning for this goes well back , and the bathtub built down onto quartz seams is all part of it.

edit on 6-12-2011 by gravitor because: spelling corection

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:32 AM

Originally posted by azulejo
Can i ask another question?

I was actually talking about this today with my partner

How couldnt they find the black boxes and they found a passport of one of the terrorists?

Even though it's off topic, one was carried by air currents out of the tower by the explosion. The other was caught inside the tower and crushed by tons and tons of debris.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by butcherguy

In this video she claims that there was plans for controlled demolition and plane attack combined.

Why do you believe the plane attack theory, discount the NIST theory and discount the controlled demolition
combination ? (I am assuming you discount the controlled demoliton)

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

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:42 AM
24,000 gallons is the maximum amount of fuel each plane could hold. There was only about 10,000 at the time of impact.

Another idiotic thing that people get wrong after 10 years.


posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by Varemia

There were no "TONS AND TONS of debris.
They never weighed it, or the steel.
That is all part of the hurried deception.
The vast quantity of DEBRIS turned to dust, including the steel, it litterally fell apart into fine particles.

The Earths charge is where the POWER came from.
Tesla did this with Wardenclyffe tower when he drove huge steel pipes into the earth below it.

The Earths charge was then sent through the towers at their resonant signature to thus turn them to dust, the guided DRONES that hit the towers were designed to hit them and thus create a break at that level where the material above would remain reasonably intact to create the small debris pile, all below went to dust, thus the free fall rate.
There will have been multiple false trails left to send everyone off along false trails, and thus avoid them looking towards Tesla.

This is when the creative system has been weaponised, and it was used to do exactly what the zionists wanted in inducing a rampant revenge driven blood lust by the easily duped American population.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:49 AM
reply to post by gravitor

The dust came from sheetrock, fireproofing, and concrete pulverization. I don't know where you got this magical dust idea from, unless it was good ole' Judy Wood.

Every piece of steel in the WTC was coated in a spray-on fireproof foam which would crumble into powder if you so much as broke a small piece of and rubbed it. During the collapse, it was like dropped a weight on a bag of flour, though multiplied by a much larger factor.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by lunarasparagus

Not to get involved in another merry go round of EGO driven back and forth bickering. We've already covered this topic.

But ....from a hypothetical perspective.
Who has this type of capability to pull this off ?

The Pentagon does.

If we could level an entire city using 1940's technology 60 years ago I can imagine what we are capable of demolitions wise today.... 911 merely exemplified this likely advancement in technology.

This would also explain why it didn't necessarily fit the model of a traditional demolition for they're working with more advanced technology. In fact 60 years MORE advanced.

Prior to 911 The FBI was investigating one tenant of the WTC who also happened to have had a construction permit.

As far as the HOW...
I think that I'd pose that question to the Israeli company ZIM American Israeli Shipping Co.that occupied offices on the 16th and 17th floors of the north tower WTC prior to 911 and conveniently moved out 1 week before the collapse and also forfeited $50,000. in security deposits.

During their tenancy ZIM with their construction permit had ample time to do whatever it was they wanted AND even had a complete power outage the weekend prior to the Big Day to connect and test everything !

But suddenly they had an urgent need to vacate the premises.

It appears as if a number of people such as FBI Agent John P. O'Neil who had evidence as to the "WHO" and "HOW" are no longer with us any longer ....or as is the case with ZIM are back home in Israel ....gee, I wonder why that is ?

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by nh_ee

Yes, but all that suggests is prior knowledge, something that has been proven a number of times. The government and others knew well ahead of time that attacks on the towers were imminent. They just didn't stop it, or even helped the attacks happen. This has no bearing on the usage of demolitions, however, as those must still be proven.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 11:00 AM
Also I would like to point out something strange about the controlled demolition theory.
We know WTC7 was not hit by a plane and yet it collapsed.

It would be an inexact science to assume that the tower would be hit by falling debris AND to rig the tower full of charges. If the tower was not hit by debris and it collapsed controlled demolition style it would
look pretty dumb for the perpetrators.

So basically at the moment I am in Limbo

Please enlighten me!

Was the plane that was allegedly "shot down" going to hit WTC7 and the fact that WTC7 was hit by debris a lucky break for the conspirators? Ir just co-incidence it collapsed?


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

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by gravitor

The dust came from sheetrock, fireproofing, and concrete pulverization. I don't know where you got this magical dust idea from, unless it was good ole' Judy Wood.

Every piece of steel in the WTC was coated in a spray-on fireproof foam which would crumble into powder if you so much as broke a small piece of and rubbed it. During the collapse, it was like dropped a weight on a bag of flour, though multiplied by a much larger factor.

I study how creation operates, and recognise what Nikola tesla knew.
Of course some dust came from the construction materials, but the vast majority was from materials that FORGOT to be.
To be or not to be, that is the question.
You appear to be a believer?

But there are ffar more things in heaven and earth than meets the eyes.

Unless You drop the programming that has so brilliantly beamed into everyone, You will struggle to look at what is possible , and how it has been weaponised, the hole cut through the pentagon will have been similer, with the drones merely to create the illusion for the BELIEVERS to fight to defend their belief of what they have been TOLD.
edit on 6-12-2011 by gravitor because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 11:11 AM
Everyone IMO are barking up the wrong tree.
Nothing here would account for why the towers came down,except some kind of exotic weapon.
Every time I see the collapse of tower 1 or 2 or WTC 7,It appears that the towers turn to dust long
before they hit the ground.The Famous spire is proof of this.
Every time I see that spire turn to dust in mid air,I wonder what on earth can do that.
Thier was once a video of the empire state building reflecting some kind of beam coming down from the sky on the WTC.I could never find it since

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 11:18 AM
How could it be a Demolition?

Well, we could offer how it COULDN'T be a normal collapse; the rate of fall means that a "pancake collapse" is out of the question. Sure, the "suspended flooring" using the inner core and curtain wall as support, leads to a "faster collapse" -- but that would require the vertical supports to turn to jello. The resistance to collapse is the same for floors unaffected by heat -- and they barely slowed down the onslaught of floors. WTC 7 was designed as a normal office building -- so there was no pancake collapse, yet video evidence showed it fell at near free-fall speed (which the officials had said did not happen in their models -- and when faced with the video evidence admitted they lied, however their model did not change).

>> Without some "advanced" demolition device or DARPA weapon, here's how I THINK that it was done;
>> Neal Bush, was a part owner of the company that started WTC security AFTER Silverstein bought it from Ports Authority for just under $200 million (if memory serves). Not that this was a White Elephant -- there were perhaps $1-$2 Billion of necessary work to remove Asbestos from the building, so I'm sure the Ports Authority was relieved to dump it. Silverstein must have looked like a fool. He then doubled the insurance for "terrorist acts" in July (just mention these things in case someone didn't see other fishy things going on).
>> Likely, a group like "Controlled Demolitions" -- the same group that investigated for evidence of demolition, might have been hired to work as Security Guards for WTC at night. They would have had months to prep the building.
>> When setting the charges, it was likely MUCH of the columns would be simply "repainted" -- as Jesse Ventura has said; a new nano-thermite looks a lot like paint, and goes on wet. Though you might find Jesse tilting at windmills and not a credible source -- it seems to me that a compound of aluminum and iron can take on a lot of forms. Shaped charges, using something like C4 and copper, would be placed at key joists or to destroy columns - likely with a "sharp angled cut" -- not flat because you don't want the floors to 'stick'. An angled cut cannot possibly happen from a collapse -- and this started a lot of controversy in the beginning as photos of angled cuts on steel frame made their way to the internet. The Deniers claimed this was standard for "cleanup." Since we don't have any untampered evidence photos of 9/11 -- we can't really prove this one way or the other. Also, having a steel beam from the collapse with an angled 'shaped charge' cut would be obvious, because you would have deposits of melted ash from the collapse and nothing from an arc welder. Once again -- we can't prove this one way or another because all the steel was shipped to China for recycling even though a Jersey smelter offered more money. It's really HARD for me to believe something wasn't covered up.
>> The only explosion that might be detected would be the destruction of the Core supports at the base of the building -- if it were me, I'd time it for when the plane hit the building. Reports of a few survivors reveal that they had heard huge explosions in the basement. Pyroclastic dust was found in the lobby when the Firemen arrived and this is consistent with this theory -- there has been no REASONABLE alternative explanation of the dust before the collapse to my knowledge.
>> Setting off the shaped charges in sequence would likely be controlled by a wireless system from a computer -- not difficult at all.
>> The LACK of explosions doesn't surprise me; unless a shaped charge were NOT focused in towards the building, it wouldn't show any debris or dust. It's sound wouldn't be any louder than something like an M80 firework (about ten firecrackers) -- nobody who wasn't within 100 yards of one of these shaped charges would have heard it.
>> Removal of the Curtain Wall joists might have been the trickiest -- shaped charges would be too close to the exterior. The MOST LIKELY technique for those, would be some sort of acid or binary solution that dissolves steel. Maybe Hydrofluoric Acid in a container that ruptures with a "very tiny" charge -- no more than a firecracker; 15 minutes before you set off the shaped charges, you rupture the acid to destroy joists and start a charge (electric or flame) that would set the painted on Thermate on fire to start removing the cylindrical columns.

>> I've seen a couple Mythbusters episodes that showed how Thermite could NOT destroy a column (their 911 special), and I've seen them use Thermite to go through an entire engine block like a hot knife through butter -- so WHICH episode should I believe?

>>>> There were a thousand and one strange coincidences on 9/11 -- like security cameras failing, that make me suspicious. I believe it's an absolute fact that current techniques can be used to demolish that building -- otherwise HOW COULD A PLANE DO IT BETTER THAN SET CHARGES? Symmetrical and fast.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by moondoggy2

Lets not forget this small point: EVERYONE HAS A PRICE!

Truthers always say this, as though it's some sort of sophisticated point about the world and the quality of people in it.

I suppose it may be true, but in my experience there are extraordinarily few people who will lie about the deaths of their family, say, for money. You might. I wouldn't.

You also have to think about the practicality of it. If you were the husband of a woman on the plane and soemone came to see you and said she was going to be killed, but you would get a secret million dollars, how do they know for sure that you wouldn't expose them? They couldn't.

Furthermore, assuming there are lots of people who will do anything for money, it seems odd that none of them have exposed the conspiracy - which would of course net them huge sums. I mean, why not? They are the kind of people who will do anything for cash. It's not as though you could trust them.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 11:22 AM

Originally posted by B1ayneO
the most obvious thing about the whole 9/11 situation is that there was a HUGE store of gold in the basement of both the towers and it was moved just days before...

I need a source for that. I have heard speculation that metal may have been moved prior. I know it was moved after the attack. Where did you get info that all the gold and silver was moved before sept 11?

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by gravitor

It depends upon WHICH DUST you are referring to;

The "pyroclastic dust" is a very different beast form anything that collapse of a building (pulverized sheetrock), or a normal fire can create.

Also, there was dust found in the lower Lobby of the building by firemen -- HOW could explosions and pyroclastic dust show up in the lower lobby BEFORE the collapse when the explosion was 70 stories overhead?

I can't really track either of your discussion -- it seems kind of confused.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

There was no pyroclastic cloud. Where do you get this misinformation?

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in