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.

 

How fast can you wire a building to blow up?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 



So I should just disregard your earlier statement?

No, you should think about it a little more.

In the first category you have the terrorist assuming the very low risk that some passenger may be armed and the even lower risk that a number of passengers on those planes would be armed and organized and trained to a sufficient level to thwart the hijacking and the almost non-existant risk that this would happen early enough in the process that it would then end the whole mission.

As opposed to the very high risk that someone in a building full of engineers and inspectors and maintenance personnel would actually discover someone trying to plant explosives.




posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1
 



So I should just disregard your earlier statement?

No, you should think about it a little more.

In the first category you have the terrorist assuming the very low risk that some passenger may be armed and the even lower risk that a number of passengers on those planes would be armed and organized and trained to a sufficient level to thwart the hijacking and the almost non-existant risk that this would happen early enough in the process that it would then end the whole mission.

As opposed to the very high risk that someone in a building full of engineers and inspectors and maintenance personnel would actually discover someone trying to plant explosives.


I'm thinking...... still thinking......

Naaaah. I'll just disregard.
LOL



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 



Naaaah. I'll just disregard.
LOL


I know you will disregard it. You have to. You have no other choice.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1
 



Naaaah. I'll just disregard.
LOL


I know you will disregard it. You have to. You have no other choice.


So now I can't disagree with you on pure speculation ?
Or are you saying that you know exactly how the terrorists evaluated risks?



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


But it was precise...to look like a collapse..so how would you do it? You could not. The attack was designed to try to 'push' one tower into the other. Just like the 93 bombing. They did not want any warning. If one tower hit the other you are not looking at 1000's but what could be 10's of thousands depending on the collapse radius. A genius attack but true. However,they have failed twice. This is why the NYPD has the task force it does because next it will be bio/chem/nuc. It is coming.

It is a testament to the actual design that they withstood the hit itself without toppling for so long.

It would take too long and you would have to talk to too many people who would ask questions. There is no way the WTC could have been wired.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


But it was precise...to look like a collapse..so how would you do it? You could not. The attack was designed to try to 'push' one tower into the other. Just like the 93 bombing. They did not want any warning. If one tower hit the other you are not looking at 1000's but what could be 10's of thousands depending on the collapse radius. A genius attack but true. However,they have failed twice. This is why the NYPD has the task force it does because next it will be bio/chem/nuc. It is coming.

It is a testament to the actual design that they withstood the hit itself without toppling for so long.

It would take too long and you would have to talk to too many people who would ask questions. There is no way the WTC could have been wired.

Case closed !
LOL



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Problem with your mathematic masturbation.....

Only one building contained any asbestos - the North Tower (WTC 1). And then only lower 1/3 of building
up to 38 th floor . In the 30 years since asbestos containing insulation was banned in NYC (1970)
the asbestos was removed or encapsulated to prevent it was flaking off


On April 13, 1970, New York City issued restrictions on the application of sprayed thermal insulation containing asbestos. The use of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D was discontinued in 1970 at the 38th floor of WTC 1. The asbestos-containing material was subsequently encapsulated with a sprayed material that provided a hard coating. A green dye was added to the encapsulating material so that the asbestos containing SFRM could be identified. Thermal protection of the remaining floors of WTC 1 and all of WTC 2 was carried out using BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F, a product that contained mineral wool (glassy fibers) in place of the crystalline asbestos fibers. On the basis of tests, it was reported that the thermal properties of BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F were equal to or "slightly better" than those of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D"



So what? Both came down deliberately regardless of which ones had asbestos! You're not going to demolish 1 building and have an old/new along side each other!

Those maths were pretty accurate BTW! Another shill reply thedman.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Terrific, that's all you got? I find it so funny that one little point is meant to discredit a complete operation, of course that's the way disinformation works. The most important things are, they could have gotten the buildings wired during evening and night shifts in 60 days or less, Larry what's-his-face did insure for buildings for terrorism insurance 6 weeks prior to 9/11 and of course he also had a pair of white elephants that were costing him megabucks in maintenance. Oh and he was also a friend of GW Bush. Seems like a few too many linkages there for me? That simple glaring "fact" remains, the buildings were taken down, not by airplanes, but demolition crews.

Oh and btw, my math was for illustration purposes only, at least I took the time.

Cheers - Dave


Well, he totally debunked your asbestos and insurance theories...I'm sure thedman wouldn't have any problem debunking the rest of your post. For instance - you make a claim without any evidence whatsoever that three very large skyscrapers can be wired for demolition in 60 days or less.... during night shifts?


Are you aware that all three of those buildings were open 24 hours a day - 7 days a week? Do you know there were elevator mechanics and engineers on duty 365 days a year? 24 hours a day? I would mention Security - but I'm hoping you would know that. Oh...were they in on it too?
edit on 23-4-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)


All you shills think you have debunked everything! That is your supposed 'trump' card.

"yeah, we debunked it, me and my shill bro's' In your own minds you have debunked it, wow, about a dozen pid shills debunked their own lies! cool story bro!

Unfortunately you are the minority, and the majority pay no attention to your failed attempts to debunk your own lies.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1
 



It cracks me up how they insist that the 19 hijackers were able to pull it off because of government incompetence....

Well, not just, or even primarily because of incompetence, mainly because the hijackers were able to exploit some well known weaknesses in the system, like that boxcutters were not considered weapons and that most people would cooperate with hijackers pre-9/11.


What utter rubbish, of course boxcutters are considered weapons, always have done and always will be.

these are knives with a different name, no airport will let anyone through with knife of any kind!

there were no hijackers or boxcutters!



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooperIs it the consensus here that because someone is a soldier in the US military that they are automatically mass murderers? Do people really believe that because someone volunteers to serve and defend his/her country that they will automatically kill anyone they are told to kill?


Not at all, it was sarcasm directed at another sarcastic remark.

That said, there are some people in the military like that, though not the majority.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1
 



It cracks me up how they insist that the 19 hijackers were able to pull it off because of government incompetence....

Well, not just, or even primarily because of incompetence, mainly because the hijackers were able to exploit some well known weaknesses in the system, like that boxcutters were not considered weapons and that most people would cooperate with hijackers pre-9/11.


What utter rubbish, of course boxcutters are considered weapons, always have done and always will be.

these are knives with a different name, no airport will let anyone through with knife of any kind!

there were no hijackers or boxcutters!


When people post something as a bald fact I think it is reasonable to expect them to have made some sort of check.

It would only have taken seconds for you to learn that FAA regulations pre 9/11 only prohibited knives with blades 4 inches long or longer.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Cecilofs
 



That said, there are some people in the military like that, though not the majority.

Really? You think there are folks in the military that will kill anyone just because they are ordered to? By the "not the majority" do you mean like 45%? 30%? 10%? .01%?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cecilofs
 



That said, there are some people in the military like that, though not the majority.

Really? You think there are folks in the military that will kill anyone just because they are ordered to? By the "not the majority" do you mean like 45%? 30%? 10%? .01%?


Our abused young men and women volunteer to risk their lives for America, once they get there they kill and risk their lives for each other.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


But it was precise...to look like a collapse..so how would you do it? You could not. The attack was designed to try to 'push' one tower into the other. Just like the 93 bombing. They did not want any warning. If one tower hit the other you are not looking at 1000's but what could be 10's of thousands depending on the collapse radius. A genius attack but true. However,they have failed twice. This is why the NYPD has the task force it does because next it will be bio/chem/nuc. It is coming.

It is a testament to the actual design that they withstood the hit itself without toppling for so long.

It would take too long and you would have to talk to too many people who would ask questions. There is no way the WTC could have been wired.


Utter rubbish. If one tower was supposed to tilt and push into the other then why have two planes?

psik
edit on 28-4-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cecilofs
 



That said, there are some people in the military like that, though not the majority.

Really? You think there are folks in the military that will kill anyone just because they are ordered to? By the "not the majority" do you mean like 45%? 30%? 10%? .01%?


I have no idea the percentage, but the evidence is Afghanis dying at the hands of our militaries. So obviously yes there are people who will kill because they are told to.

But I know you are just trying to derail the thread, so that's the last I will say about it. As I said, it was just a sarcastic retort to someone else's sarcastic remark, but in classic Hooper style you are trying to make the whole thread about it and get away from the original topic.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


But it was precise...to look like a collapse..so how would you do it? You could not. The attack was designed to try to 'push' one tower into the other. Just like the 93 bombing. They did not want any warning. If one tower hit the other you are not looking at 1000's but what could be 10's of thousands depending on the collapse radius. A genius attack but true. However,they have failed twice. This is why the NYPD has the task force it does because next it will be bio/chem/nuc. It is coming.

It is a testament to the actual design that they withstood the hit itself without toppling for so long.

It would take too long and you would have to talk to too many people who would ask questions. There is no way the WTC could have been wired.


Utter rubbish. If one tower was supposed to tilt and push into the other then why have two planes?

psik
edit on 28-4-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)


"http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80331&page=1#.T57VjLNSTwM"

"Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all we had hoped for," the translation reads."- Osama bin Laden

"bin Laden" never expected the towers to fall.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Cecilofs
 



I have no idea the percentage, but the evidence is Afghanis dying at the hands of our militaries. So obviously yes there are people who will kill because they are told to.

You missed the word "anyone". That's very important. Yes, we all know that members of the military will engage in combat and so engage will cause casaulties. Thats a far, far, far cry from someone killing anyone they are told to kill at any time and in any place. That's the argument.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cecilofs

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cecilofs
 



That said, there are some people in the military like that, though not the majority.

Really? You think there are folks in the military that will kill anyone just because they are ordered to? By the "not the majority" do you mean like 45%? 30%? 10%? .01%?


I have no idea the percentage, but the evidence is Afghanis dying at the hands of our militaries. So obviously yes there are people who will kill because they are told to.

But I know you are just trying to derail the thread, so that's the last I will say about it. As I said, it was just a sarcastic retort to someone else's sarcastic remark, but in classic Hooper style you are trying to make the whole thread about it and get away from the original topic.


Iv'e tried to use this argument to open peoples eyes but they just don't get it man.

Rare photos of CIA drone 'Bugsplat' bodies in secret blackhole battle released

The U.S. government (not the military) is killing innocent people. The CIA has coined the term "bug splat" for a drone strike in which a multitude of innocent humans are killed along with someone who they think is a terrorist. It doesn't have to be confirmed.

For all of you that support the OS and really feed into this "war on terror" b.s., here's a pic of some of your dead terrorists:








posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 



The U.S. government (not the military) is killing innocent people. The CIA has coined the term "bug splat" for a drone strike in which a multitude of innocent humans are killed along with someone who they think is a terrorist. It doesn't have to be confirmed.


And you think that the death of innocent people in war is something new? Really. Its been a reality for centuries.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb



For all of you that support the OS and really feed into this "war on terror" b.s., here's a pic of some of your dead terrorists:







I'm absolutely appalled that you think that the Truth Movement is the only relevant voice opposing the war on terror. Partly because you're just completely wrong, and partly because the Truth Movement, with its stupid preoccupations and fatalistic notions of not being able to actually do anything against the bogey men it invents for itself, is actually making the war on terror a little bit easier. I'll leave aside the gross slander that supporting something called the "OS" - which the Truth Movement invented anyway - makes one complicit in this kind of crime.

The issues you're raising are real and pressing. They are not solved by people inventing nonsense about demolitions and missiles.

Is this really the state of opposition in America? It's unbelievably depressing.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join