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.

 

Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

page: 12
137
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sek82
It's poorly explained perfect collapse was not worth including in the 9/11 report,


You STILL have not read the purpose of that report, although it has been posted twice in this thread....


I heard that before 9/11, there had never been a highrise building that collapsed from fire


I also heard that before 9/11 no highrise building had been hit by a loaded jet airliner....




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ThoughtForms
 



and please, shut up with your bs debunking. your attempts to appear knowledgeable in the aspects of the topic you are attempting to refute are transparent.


I'll take you flying, sometime.....will be FUN!!!! To compare............



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WhereAreTheGoodguys
 



What search for explosives? NIST themselves said they did not look. What a weak attempt at debunking..


You had police officers, Firefighters and construction/demolition engineers crawling over the site for months

Nobody found anything associated with explosives - ie. no demolition wiring, no blown caps, shock tubes,
detonators, etc

The bomb squad from my local sheriff department (Passaic County NJ) spent 3 weeks on the scene doing
search and recovery

Talked to several of them about their experiences - no sign of explosives

Presume members of NYPD bomb squad was also there along with arson invesigators from FDNY and ATF

Again nobody saw anything related to explosives

Considering that WTC towers was tallest buildings in world rigging them for demolition would require tons of
explosives, miles of det cord to tie explosives togather . multiple detonaters

So where is the evidence...?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Watch the Tom Sullivan interview in which he describes explosive charges that get rid of all of that stuff upon detonation. There wouldn't be anything like that left in the debris were those used: no blasting caps, no wiring, none of that stuff.

Please watch the interview and hear what he says about that exact criticism before you reply.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 



I also heard that before 9/11 no highrise building had been hit by a loaded jet airliner....
Oh?

Plane hits Milan skyscraper


C-130 hits apartment building

They're not perfect replicas, since the aircrafts and buildings are different, but still, planes have hit buildings before without causing a collapse.
edit on 14-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
They're not perfect replicas, since the aircrafts and buildings are different


That must be the understatement of the year, one plane weighed under 1000kg and just the wing of the other one clipped the building....



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


El Al crash in Amsterdam

Please, read and learn.......and learn.....


edit on Sat 14 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Then there's this one: B-25 bomber crashes into Empire State Building

I know, I know, that doesn't weigh as much as the planes that struck the towers, it's smaller. Spare me all of that stuff. My point is simply that planes have hit buildings before, causing fires, without causing even as much as a partial collapse.

Fires have burned for much longer in skyscrapers, covering a large area of the building, without causing a collapse. The only thing even close to this was a partial collapse in a building in Madrid, but this was because the structure in that portion of the building was concrete reinforced with rebar I believe.

There have been conditions similar to those seen on 9/11, some less severe such as smaller planes hitting buldings, some more severe such as fires burning for much longer in skyscrapers, but there have never been any collapses.

But we get three collapses in one day. These collapses exhibited many signs of controlled demolitions. But the fire caused it in an unprecedented fashion, three times, as well as damage from the plane in two towers that still left 85% of the structure according to what Bonez was saying earlier ( I can't confirm or deny those numbers, and I'm too lazy to look them up right now
)

Fire doesn't bring skyscrapers down to the ground. It never has before 9/11, and never will, because the towers were demolished. That explains the conditions that matches those of a controlled demolition: fire and gravity doesn't.
edit on 14-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Hey I just read about that a few hours ago in this book I'm reading called "Great disasters in history"! How odd that things work out like that in life...



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
My point is simply that planes have hit buildings before, causing fires, without causing even as much as a partial collapse.


but everytime a jet airliner has struck a building, down it came.... so it appears jet airliners hitting buildings cause them to collapse!


These collapses exhibited many signs of controlled demolitions.


No, actually they show no signs of controlled demolition



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 



No, actually they show no signs of controlled demolition
Liar. It's fine to disagree with the controlled demolition scenario, but stating things like that as factual when in reality it's a blatant lie only serves to illustrate your ignorance and willingness to discount any evidence that goes against your view.


Characteristics of the collapse of WTC7 vs. controlled demolitions:
WTC7: Symmetrical collapse
Controlled Demolition: Symmetrical collapse (unless the building is rigged to fall into a parking lot or an empty space rather than straight down)
WTC7: Free-fall during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: Free-fall during the collapse
WTC7: Explosions heard before/during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: Explosions heard before/during the collapse
WTC7: A fault during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: A fault during the collapse (implosions)
WTC7: A neat pile of debris
Controlled Demolition: A neat pile of debris

edit on 15-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



Fire doesn't bring skyscrapers down to the ground. It never has before 9/11, and never will, because the towers were demolished. That explains the conditions that matches those of a controlled demolition: fire and gravity doesn't.


It did......sorry to tell you, but it did.....based on the design.....it did.

No, NOT a "controlled demolition".....GRAVITY, pure and simple.....and the connections of each individual piece, as it broke.....over and over and over, again......



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird

El Al crash in Amsterdam

Please, read and learn.......and learn.....


Very interesting, especially these bits.


The remains of the plane were transported to Schiphol for analysis. The parts were not used by investigators to reconstruct the aircraft.


I remember truthers claiming planes are always reconstructed...


The cockpit voice recorder, however, had been destroyed


I also remember truthers claiming 9/11 is the first time it was not recovered....

edit on 15-1-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


I just read about that in a book, and there were actually documents released that indicated that the cockpit recorder was taken away secretly. The cargo of the plane contained weapons and some sort of chemicals used in sarin. I'll transcribe the quote from teh book for you:

Almost six years after the disaster, further details were made public, confirming that the jet's cargo documents had been manipulated and that the "missing" cockpit voice recorder had been covertly shipped to Israel.
Source: Great Disasters In History, page 228

This isn't a conspiratorial book in any way either. Don't believe everything you read on those "silly" websites spoor!

edit on 15-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


GREAT!!!

Another "conspiracy" to unravel......

Heh.

*(BTW.....you, sir or madam, have a great mind. Please put it to good use....)

EDIT....speaking of "GREAT" minds.....this may be off the subject, but just let it stimulate the senses.....


([Quite Interesting])


Part 2....I hope you LYAO !!! ( lol) (Because, I sense you have a GREAT sense of humor....
)





edit on Sun 15 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


The "conspiracy" is pretty simple. A bunch of people near the crash location began getting sick, exhibiting signs such as kidney problems, hair loss, exczemas and miscarriages. This was caused by the crash which released chemical substances used for the manufacture of the poison gas sauron, as well as several hundred pounds of uranium. They kept it on the down low. The public was originally told that the plane carried "flowers and perfume"! :shk:

So really, that quote which spoor used as proof that cockpit voice recorders can get destroyed is actually proof that cockpit voice recorders can get intentionally withheld from the public! Talk about a backfire

edit on 15-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 

Originally posted by spoor
You STILL have not read the purpose of that report, although it has been posted twice in this thread....

Oh but I have.

The purposes of the Commission are to-- (1) examine and report upon the facts and causes relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at the World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia;

And 7 WTC's collapse was a fact, directly relating to the "terrorist" attacks that day. And it's collapse was not mentioned in it at all. See below.

reply to post by thedman
 

Originally posted by thedman
WTC 7 was not part of their commision as its collapse was result of "collateral damage" from debris thrown out
by the collapse of WTC towers
Good point there. Why then, was The Marriott Hotel mentioned (numerous times in the report) as suffering significant damage (collateral as well, it eventually mostly collapsed) But WTC 7's was not? As Rumsfeld answered when asked, "What building 7?"
Don't forget, on BBC it's collapse was announced, what, 5 or 6 minutes before it even occurred? Oops! Also, WTC 6 was in between WTC 7 and WTC 1/2, and even it too did not fully collapse. WTC 7 was intentionally demolished in my opinion, tell me I'm wrong and you'd be wasting your breath.

While we're on the topic of airplanes hitting highrises though, that building in Amsterdam is hardly a highrise, and it only partially collapsed... Anyway, will check back in this thread later... Take care.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


On a serious note:


........cockpit voice recorders can get destroyed is actually proof that cockpit voice recorders can get intentionally withheld from the public! Talk about a backfire....


NONE of the FDR, nor CVR were found intact, both from onboard AAL 11 and UAL 175.

Hardly surprising, actually....given the devastation.

Hey!!!! Did you know there is a "re-boot: of the movie "Total Recall", due in August, 2012???

I am WAY excited about it!!!! Star is Colin Farrell....so dreamy, better than Aaaaaaanlold!!!!

Part 3, of A1 (See the whole show, please).





(You will LYAO)......



edit on Sun 15 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhereAreTheGoodguys

Originally posted by pteridine
....
If this was an "inside job" as you say how do you think it would be done? Have you ever planned a miltary operation? The first principal is to minimize moving parts and keep things simple at each step. Make sure the plan can't be tracked back to you. Involve as few people as possible.
Here's how it would have been planned:
1. Allow the hijackers to think it was their idea.
2. Allow the hijackers to train as pilots.
3. Allow the hijackers to get to the plane.
4. Make sure no air marshalls were on the planes.
5. Allow the planes to hit targets.
6. Stand back and let things happen.

The complicated Rube Goldberg plots are just for entertainment and minor bilkings of a few suckers who really need a conspiracy. No planner would have put explosives in the buildings because explosions are obvious and wiring 100+ stories would have far too many risks of discovery.

Get smart. Think for yourself. Ask questions. Question the truther sites.
.


You obviously have no idea how intel or even how the goverment plans stuff. It is called compartmentalization.

www.truthmove.org...

en.wikipedia.org...(intelligence)

A good example of this is The Manhattan Project.


We were discussing how it would be done, not how the plotters would be organized. One trip to wikipedia and you have confused yourself.
Compartmentalize all you want but there may be only one compartment with the string pullers in it. Those acting in the field might not know who was pulling the strings.

The first principal is to minimize moving parts and keep things simple at each step.
Make sure the plan can't be tracked back to you.
Involve as few people as possible. That way they can be more easily monitored eliminated if their conscience gets the better of them.
edit on 1/15/2012 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

How did the plane have any effect on the building bellow where they hit? None, so the plane had nothing to do with the complete collapse.
Anyway your arguments are moot mate. You need to start offering some real evidence, and sound physics, before anyone is going to take you even remotely serious. All you seem to be able to do is tell others they are wrong, without offering anything to support your claims other than what we've already heard, and addressed a million time already (yes it is a million times, +1, don't believe me? Start counting mate).


Anok, you wouldn't know 'sound physics' if it bit you. Addressing this post and explaining all of this again is tedious. It seems that your position is that of the Cardboard Tycoon, Richard Gage. Before we get into this, see if you can discern the difference between a static load and a live load. Then see if you can calculate the energy of all the top floors falling on the first floor below the impact.
edit on 1/15/2012 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
137
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join