Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

page: 2
137
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTalk
 



I would comment on your post,but its a pm going around that you are real close friends with a mod on here,and that every body that says something to you gets banned on the spot for some reason,is it true,or is it another monicker on the ats that goes by tupac?
I don't know any mods on this website. Why is ATS spreading rumors behind my back?



Can we share mods so i can get applause for stupid u-tube threads with no conclusive evidence what so ever,i hate people that have advantages over other people.this thread is stupid and so is the mod that supports you.
Feel free to try and actually discuss what evidence presented you disagree with rather than calling it "stupid".




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


What do you think...no, WHO do you think were flying the airplanes? American 11 and United 175?
I dunno, but I would guess Al-CIAda operatives. 'Terrorists' trained by the CIA or working with whoever was really responsible for the controlled demolition to accomplish just what they did: hi-jack the planes and crash them. I can't say for sure though, I can just speculate.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Planes could have been controlled remotely as well...



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


Sure, I guess it's possible. This thread doesn't really focus on the flight of the planes though, it's about the destruction of the three buildings and how the evidence points to a controlled demolition.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
[ignorance]But I thought the jet fuel was what melted those beams in the towers, you know, because jet fuel burns for hours and stuff?

Also... WTC 7 obviously sustained enough fire damage from the plane impacts to implode on itself. High rise buildings collapse all the time from fire damage, err... right?[/ignorance]



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 



Planes could have been controlled remotely as well...


NOPE!!!

NOT possible. It is well established already, from many sources.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 
Wrong.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by andersensrm
 



Planes could have been controlled remotely as well...


NOPE!!!

NOT possible. It is well established already, from many sources.


Sure just like it has been established that there were no explosives...



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


OK, honest answer"


I dunno, but I would guess Al-CIAda operatives. 'Terrorists' trained by the CIA or working with whoever was really responsible for the controlled demolition to accomplish just what they did: hi-jack the planes and crash them. I can't say for sure though, I can just speculate.


But.....how many people can you think of, besides Religious Extremists, who are willing to be, essentially, suicide bombers??

Because, for EVERY FOUR airplanes hijacked on 9/11 (and, there is a distinct possibility that a fifth was planned....see "United 23"...)....do you really think that "CIA operatives' would be suicidal?

Just think logically about it....for a few hours......



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Sek82
 


Oh....THAT?!?

Please do some more research, I don't want to de-rail the focus of this thread.....but, no.....the possibility of "remote control" is ludicrous. For that ONE-off event, took over four years and MANY man-hours of work and testing, to accomplish.

Just do the research......(OH, and by the way.....the second airplane to hit, United 175, STILL had its transponder on....just on a different "squawk" code....this means that the original Flight Plan data dropped out of the ATC computers.....BUT, the same ATC facilities could still observe the Mode-C and other data it transmitted.

("Mode-C" is altitude information, keyed in from the Air Data Computer, via the altimeters in the cockpit...usually the Captain's).



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Unless they don't think they're going to die. Maybe they were brainwashed, you ever why mkultra just stopped suddenly......



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


"brainwashed"???

MKULTRA??

Wow.......... :shk:



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Guys, the thread is about evidence backing up a controlled demolition, not whether the planes were remote controlled or who was flying them and for what reason. I'm used to 9/11 threads going off-topic, but we're on page 2, this has got to be a record.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Of course we won't be able to explain how the planes were controlled remotely because we haven't been given access to that kind of technology yet. When they have something that is better, that ultimately makes present technology useless, then it will be ours to examine. In 50 years, we might all be saying, remember 9/11 the big set up, when they remotely flew all those planes into those buildings that were full of explosives.



Sorry to tupac, I will not post anymore about the planes on this thread
edit on 13-1-2012 by andersensrm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



I'm used to 9/11 threads going off-topic, but we're on page 2, this has got to be a record.


Back to it then....but, the disinfo needed to be nipped in the bud.


I will continue.....given that you agree on the airplanes being the (in a term) "guided missiles" to impact.....another question:

How could anyone have anticipated the exact point (height, or range of floors) that each airplane: American 11 and United 175, would impact?

Secondly:

Since it is obvious that United 175 impacted a bit "off"....only correcting at the last few seconds, and nearly giving a "glancing blow", how does THAT fit in to the "pre-planned demolition theory"??



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 




How could anyone have anticipated the exact point (height, or range of floors) that each airplane: American 11 and United 175, would impact?
It could have been a good pilot. Or maybe the location was irrelevant, because the explosives could have been rigged in such a way that the demolition could begin at a certain height.


Since it is obvious that United 175 impacted a bit "off"....only correcting at the last few seconds, and nearly giving a "glancing blow", how does THAT fit in to the "pre-planned demolition theory"??
The location must have been not very important for the demolition, just as long as the planes impacted. And look at the collapse of the South tower, it tilts severely, yet the tower still collapses entirely symmetrically:

The pre-collapse conditions were both different for several different reasons, the amount of jet fuel spilled in the building, the speed and mass of the planes, and so on, but the actual collapse of the towers were identical: symmetrical damage patterns ejecting massive steal beams laterally, and the tower was progressively pulverized to the ground.

edit on 13-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 

There is no evidence for demolition. There is only imaginative interpretations of videos and wishful thinking by those who are desperate for demolition.
There were no beams and columns seen that were sheared by linear cutter charges. There is no way to time thermite for a demolition that must clear each floor in under 200 milliseconds; it just isn't fast or predictable enough. As far as I can see, about all you can hope to claim is initiation of the WTC collapses. The rest was gravity driven.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



There is no evidence for demolition.
Then you must not have watched the film or read the OP. They're filled with evidence that backs up a controlled demolition and can't be explained by the fire/gravity hypothesis. Simply saying that there isn't evidence doesn't magically make all of the evidence disappear just because you say it's not there. Perhaps you should watch the section of the film about psychology and coping with information and evidence supporting a demolition?


One thing I really should have clarified and elaborated more on in the OP that you brought up was that the thermite itself would not solely be responsible for the demolition of the towers. I did describe how it's not explosive, but I didn't really explain much more.

The thermite could not produce the explosive force necessary to pulverize the cement or hurl the massive steel gerders laterally at speeds of up to 70 mph (And neither could gravity).Thermite is not explosive, it's an incendiary, which can be used to cut steel by producing an extreme heat reaction. It can't however produce explosive results such as C4 or RDX charges, which obviously would have had to accompany the thermite in the building in order to bring the buildings down.
edit on 13-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Cool thread TupacShakur


I ain't no building expert but can put together enough brain cells to distinguish the difference between a collapse due to fire or explosives. When comparing the arguments by AE911 and NIST one makes sense and is able to account for all the characteristics of the collapse and one does not.

The case for explosive demolition is now a very clear and simple one, it is the implications and resolution where things start to get harder. There is a lot of great work getting done within the truth movement and many of its professional fields of inquiry. In trying to make heads and tails of this messed up situation it is with the public, peer reviewed work that I find the most trust, reason and responsibility in search for the truth.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


But:


It could have been a good pilot.


Really??!!??

Who, in your rational mind, do you think would be a "good pilot" and also be "suicidal"??? I mean, we all see, in Hollywood films, the "valiant sacrifice" and such.....(think the move "Titanic", for example....or Captain Kirk, in the movie "Generations"...[although he didn't really die, at first....he "time traveled"....Oy!!!])....


Just try to THINK for yourself, please!!! Apply some logic, and a greater understanding of physics, as it applies to gravity, and the dynamics of a building that has been rendered unstable, because of (A) severe lateral impact damage and, (B) Severe uneven heating due to uncontrolled fires affecting the expansion rates of various structural members.

Just THINK!


edit on Fri 13 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
137
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join