Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why a “controlled demolition”

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by learnatic
They had to completely destroy the buildings otherwise there would be a partly destroyed building that could be forerenincly examined and I don't think they would want that.

The fact that they wanted the buildings turned to pulp itself indicates it was an inside job. if OBl did it I dont think he would have cared if some of it was still standing aftterwards.





Bin Laden didn't expect New York towers to fall

A VIDEOTAPE seized by American intelligence agents in Afghanistan shows Osama bin Laden gloating over the attack on the World Trade Centre and expressing surprise that the twin towers had collapsed.
The tape, found in a private home in Jalalabad, throws doubt on whether the two aircraft flown into the towers were deliberately aimed at places where their impact would destroy the entire structure.
It emerged at the weekend that Mohammad Atta, ringleader of the terrorists and the pilot of the first aircraft to crash, had been in New York with another hijacker in spring last year.
The visit was probably to carry out a reconnaissance mission but exact details of their movements have not been established.
On the tape, bin Laden discusses the September 11 attacks in Arabic with a man who appears to be a cleric. He says he was at dinner when he heard the World Trade Centre had been hit - news that was greeted by cheers around the table.


Not even Mr. OBL himself would think the towers would fall. Is it really that insane to postulate a controlled demolition theory if the alleged "attackers" themselves would have never thought the towers could possibly collapse? Before I get verbally sodomized by the OSers, let me make it clear I said postulate, not assume.




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
This 9/11 "debate" is getting stupid (or it is for a while already)...we will never know the truth. If it was an inside job, it will never be exposed. It can't be. It must not be. America would crumble. The US government would lose political and social credibility for decades on. The nation would be devastated. All governments after the Bush administration will forcefully keep this a secret (if there is something to hide), 'cos it would hurt all of the nation, and most of the world.

It's a no win situation for the truth. This one can never be revealed. As long as none of the culprits admit to it, it will always remain...a conspiracy. A folklore. Like the Kennedy assassination.

This inevitability is somewhat demotivating.


Keep the faith. No one thought the Roman Empire or the Soviet Union would ever collapse either. This entire ruse will only last as long as the dollar system they use to pay their goons and enforcers. Everybody is on their payroll including the Supreme Court judges. Just wait until theres no more moolah.... something will happen one way or the other.... either a global Fascist Dictatorship that will result in a revolution, or the collapse of the Cabal followed by an era of peace and prosperity.

In the meantime nothing hurts them more than exposing them. The more people aware of their lies the less they can control the masses.
edit on 20-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
If one is to assume that the attack occurred in order to usher in a political climate conducive to intervention in the Middle East, and that simultaneously Larry Silverstein used this to make a fortune on an insurance scam, then you need to believe that

- The political profiteers were prepared to cut Silverstein in. If their plan didn't require CD and his did, they were apparently prepared to risk widening the conspiracy and chancing their exposure just to make money for Larry

- Insurance companies would be willing to pay out on a scam so obvious that Truthers have not been fooled

- No one in any insurance company, not even the guys at the top earning millions, is involved in the conspiracy or has any knowledge of it

- insurance stock was shorted before the event. I don't know if it was, but Truthers should find out. because if shorted airline stock is a sign of foreknowledge then there's no doubt that the insurance stock would also have been subject to put options. Why just short the airlines? Insurers were about to take a billion dollar bath as well

It seems to me that all of these are pretty unlikely.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly

This inevitability is somewhat demotivating.



9/11 Truth is pretty much designed to act as an excuse to do nothing. As long as you invent bogeymen big enough that you can never slay them it means you can pretty much just sit about lamenting the state of the world, proving how insightful you are, and not actually getting anything done. It's a handy excuse that covers all kinds of failures and shortcomings.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Keep in mind these towers were tough as nails, so was WTC 7. I love how you debunkers completely ignore tower 7, oh wait, it wasn't in the commision report, nothing happened.

WTC7, would be the first skyscraper in history to fall because fire. Note that, (from multiple videos) there were very few fires. Let's review shall we. WTC is more or less then smoking gun.



Buildings that fall from non-demolition tactics do not fall in it's own footprint at free fall speeds. This is impossible because every floor, every reinforced column would have to be destroyed at the same time for this building to fall at free fall speeds. A few fires on random floors could have not caused this oblivously. (stick with me)

Lets look at tower 5.



It's a smoldering inferno and it did not collapse.





Now this is an interesting video, many of you will say it's cgi, that's fine, but what about the black spots on the building? You can look at almost any wtc 7 video and see this. And if you think this is due to air pressure from it collapsing, that is impossible since these blasts happened BEFORE it fell.

The evidence is so in your face it's staggering. The only assumption I can make is that op is a shill or a narrow minded person.

Also, this is just a small fraction of "coincidental incidents" that happened that day.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I just found this video.



It's clear as day! The windows being blasted out before the tower collpasing is abosulte proof!

I would love to hear a debunker try to debunk this.

Also, Larry Silverstein (zinoist btw) admitted in an interview to pull it. Pull it as industry jargon for taking down a building with explosives.



And now he denies it. Why would he deny it?

He and his family btw took a sick day on 9/11. Pretty convenient.

Let's see. Cheney was in charge of NORAD. Check.
Cheney was an ex-director of the CFR check.
Almost every media, textbook, newspaper and magazine outlet are in the CFR. Check.
Oh and Cheney used to be CEO of Halliburton. Check.

Geez I wouldn't know why a ARMS and OIL company wouldn't want an excuse to go to the middle east.

Can you think of one? Nope me either. It just slips my mind. You know what also slips my mind? The Gulf of Tonkin.

And the 9/11 commission report did not mention a word of a 50 story building collapsing, and the interview with Bush and Cheney was not under oath, and it was not recorded. My head starting to hurt, oh well, a cia funded terrorist cell evaded norad for 1 hour while they hit 75% of their targets. That sounds better.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kang69






Now this is an interesting video, many of you will say it's cgi, that's fine, but what about the black spots on the building? You can look at almost any wtc 7 video and see this. And if you think this is due to air pressure from it collapsing, that is impossible since these blasts happened BEFORE it fell.

The evidence is so in your face it's staggering. The only assumption I can make is that op is a shill or a narrow minded person.

Also, this is just a small fraction of "coincidental incidents" that happened that day.


In my mind that is pretty damn good proof, as far as debunking (and I'm no engineer) the only way to do so would be to find the original video (if this does infact happened to be edited)

The only reason I would doubt this video is because this is something I've never seen before and it's been 11 years since then.

Good find Kang69.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


I've been starting to see more and more videos of wtc 7 over the years. Maybe something to do with wiki leaks. I'm not sure. But, like I said, if you look at almost every video, (even the msm ones) you will see these black spots erupt from the building before it collapses.

I mean, it bewilders me how a person could think a skyscraper could fall due to a few fires and debris damage. For this building to fall the way it did, every critical core column would have had to been destroyed precisely at the same time.

It really is insanity how you could believe the official story. Anyway I'm preaching to the choir and I hope more videos come out.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


The WTC was full of asbestos and it would have costed millions or more to safely remove it.


And the giant dust cloud after the collapses were safer??
and what does insurance have to do with it? 3.5billion payoff for the government? thats a drop in the bucket even for states. The port authority sold the complex in 2000 to a private owner... and that DID NOT include building 7..



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters



Go watch the collapses with the time code on screen. The top of the tower, instead of disintegrating around the outside edges or toppling over the side, came down through the rest of the structure, to the ground, taking the path of most resistance.



your forgetting the fact that both aircraft made contact with the main support beams.. and the top of both buildings was a 5-6ft thick slab of concrete... surely physics would have something to say about the force of the impacts, the heat of a jet fuel fire, and the weight of a huge slab of concrete on top of a continuously weakening structure.

and jet fuel fires don't have to melt steel, but it can weaken metal enough to give especially if its already under pressure I.E supporting a structure



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kang69
reply to post by homervb
 


I've been starting to see more and more videos of wtc 7 over the years. Maybe something to do with wiki leaks. I'm not sure. But, like I said, if you look at almost every video, (even the msm ones) you will see these black spots erupt from the building before it collapses.

I mean, it bewilders me how a person could think a skyscraper could fall due to a few fires and debris damage. For this building to fall the way it did, every critical core column would have had to been destroyed precisely at the same time.

It really is insanity how you could believe the official story. Anyway I'm preaching to the choir and I hope more videos come out.


Well this video seems real to me because of how the camera person zoomed in on the certain area where the explosions were happening. I don't know if those explosions have been discussed before but I found them a few other videos.



0:13 - you can see the same explosions starting from the left



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I agree with in your post. The idea that they were destroyed because of the cost of removing asbestos was cost prohibitive, is a silly idea. That would be ludicrous. I did a complete abatement on 140 Broadway. It's a 51 story building that is near 700ft. in height. It was done as part of a lease negotiation. It's expensive, but you don't destroy buildings to get rid of the stuff. Just a crazy and uninformed idea.


Originally posted by LoonyConservative

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


The WTC was full of asbestos and it would have costed millions or more to safely remove it.


And the giant dust cloud after the collapses were safer??
and what does insurance have to do with it? 3.5billion payoff for the government? thats a drop in the bucket even for states. The port authority sold the complex in 2000 to a private owner... and that DID NOT include building 7..



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


They ('they' being our own government) used very small sized nukes, preplanted on every other floor and controlled remotely from Bldg 7 which was then taken out to hide the command center. Since nuclear weapon development has been hidden from the public since the 60s (you don't think they stopped working on making them as big as possible, and then again as small as possible, do you?) no one would suspect that the buildings were nuked. But there is NOTHING, not a single other known weapon or group of weapons, which accounts for the observed effects that day and in the rubble thereafter. The prolonged heat in the basements along with evidence of melted bedrock, and the general dustification of those massive buildings, tells the story. The new nukes have very low radiation signatures and can be set to have whatever power output is needed, in this case just to take out the WTCs and not much else. How else do you think massive beams were thrown sideways? Not gravity... Where did all the interior building elements, the tens of thousands of computers, phones, chairs, desks, water fountains and toilets go? The beams that were melted instantaneously into U-shapes without even so much as a crack on their surfaces? Search the pictures of the rubble. It's what you DON'T see, not what you do. Any controlled demolition of the usual sort, a variant on pancake collapse, would have had all these things still there, if crushed, but they were gone, evaporated instantaneously.

Open your eyes, people. The evidence is obvious.

Why would 'they' do this? I dunno, ask them. An indictment of the people in charge and some strategic waterboarding of these consummate cowards would sure be interesting, wouldn't it? Why did Bush disappear for the entire month of August? Why did he continue to stare off into space when he was supposedly told 'we're under attack'? Why did he later claim he had seen the first plane enter a building? Why did he and Cheney resist all attempts at investigation and then agree to 'testify' but only in private, together, with no recording devices present? (Obviously to avoid the questions history wanted to ask and possible perjury and treason charges...). Our governments are evil and capable of killing a few thousand civilians just for target practice, before lunch. What's a few more anytime they want to?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
When i just look at the core of the situation and avoid most of the obscurity that fogs it up the most prominent facts to me are :


.3 steel scrapers collapsed into their own footprint in 1 day withing mere hours of each other

Sure they were hit by planes , lot of variables there regardless, the first 2 towers collapsed in identical manner.
but ok sure..


.Building 7 was not hit by a plane and supposedly had sufficient structural damage (on one side) but eventually collapsed into itself because of random fires inside the building.

How does a steel high rise like that in a situation like that collapse in perfect symmetry into itself ?
Fire was the cause of WTC 7 according to NIST. couple that with the damage to one face of the building how will such a structure ever fall down the way it did ?


Believing the official story of 9/11 is as ridiculous as believing the Warren report's magic bullet theory which was accepted into the report.Denial is a very reliable response to count on in the face of these sorts of things and we all know what they say , history repeats itself.





However the truth may be it is not in the official story.
edit on 20-6-2012 by Djack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kang69



Now this is an interesting video, many of you will say it's cgi, that's fine, but what about the black spots on the building? You can look at almost any wtc 7 video and see this. And if you think this is due to air pressure from it collapsing, that is impossible since these blasts happened BEFORE it fell.

The evidence is so in your face it's staggering. The only assumption I can make is that op is a shill or a narrow minded person.

Also, this is just a small fraction of "coincidental incidents" that happened that day.


You DO realize that if it can be PROVEN by experts that this video is not CGI, its pretty much lights out in Shillsville?

Great find.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


The weird part about this is, appeatentely the video was made by a guy that wanted to prank truthers.

It's amazing how many likes this video got. It dosen't even matter if he faked the flashes or sounds, the exploding windows are in every wtc7 video. Just looking at the comments, is terrifying.








posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I love how you failed to address tower 7 at all, but it wouldn't be hard to use just one remote detonator depending on the placement of the charges. Also do you really think there would be no way for military grade detonator's to be used....I mean really. It's not that hard. Especially if the person doing it wasn't far away.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Wow....that "new" building seven video almost made me swallow my gum...

I was duped and confused for several minutes....I had just figured out that something was
amiss with the timing of the explosive sounds, the flashes, and the perspective of the camera,
and then I saw it was a fake by resident youtube christian satirist Edward Currant.

Had me for a minute though...whew



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 



....with little to no resistance....

Says who? I see this all the time. What would resistance "look" like? There was resistance, hence all the dust and broken and twisted structural material. It doesn't take long for things to break once they have been stressed beyond their capacity. Milliseconds. That's why "resistance" isn't visibile to the naked eye.


If you get up and sprint as fast as you can into a brick wall, you will soon see what resistance looks like. You stop dead in your track with a broken nose and concussion.

If a car hits another car in a crash or a car hits a wall the cars slow down. Hence as the floors collapsed they should slow down. They didnt and actually kept the same speed for the total collapse.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Kang69



Now this is an interesting video, many of you will say it's cgi, that's fine, but what about the black spots on the building? You can look at almost any wtc 7 video and see this. And if you think this is due to air pressure from it collapsing, that is impossible since these blasts happened BEFORE it fell.

The evidence is so in your face it's staggering. The only assumption I can make is that op is a shill or a narrow minded person.

Also, this is just a small fraction of "coincidental incidents" that happened that day.


You DO realize that if it can be PROVEN by experts that this video is not CGI, its pretty much lights out in Shillsville?

Great find.


And you DO realize that that video is actually reversed, a mirror image, and the "explosions" are CGI and inserted into the video? I mean damn, the penthouse is on the wrong side! Sorry Truthers, you lose again.






top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join