Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why a “controlled demolition”

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

It’s starting to seem to me that we don’t even need evidence to “debunk” a 9/11 conspiracy just some common sense. I know that this is probably very lazy but it’s still true when you just think about it logically a lot of the claims made by the so called “truthers” fall to bits.

Oh dear you used the phrase "common sense". I'm afraid it is in short supply around here at times. So time to duck as the pelters come thick and fast.

Oh and yes it is so bleedin obvious that the conspiracies have more holes than a swiss cheese all relying on an incredible amount of human cooperation, perfect timing etc etc and all perfectly secret without one single leaked email, paper or whatever !!!!!!!!!!!! Must be the first time in human history.......well since the last nonsensical conspiracy.




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I find myself doing this rather a lot just now, questioning the conspiracy theories of 9/11 like the conspiracy theorists question the official story.

This thought hit me some time ago when I witnessed a controlled demolition of a high rise building, why if on 9/11 if the used explosives to blow up the building did they make it look like an “obvious” controlled explosion. Many think that in the controlled demolition of a tower, the floors of the building fall one on top of the other in almost free fall into a tidy pile of dust and rubble within the space the former building once stood. This is not the case, in the building I saw destroyed they had do have the building crash down on its right hand side rather straight down because of nearby buildings.

So why does this make me question the idea of controlled demolition on 9/11, because I don’t understand why they would deliberately make it look like a controlled demolition. Why not have the building’s collapse onto their right or hand side. Why did they not make it look like a more “random” or “messy” collapse

And another thing, would the impact of the planes not disturb the explosives in some way by destroying the electrical cables connecting them all up? If all the explosives need to detonate in synchronicity with each other the impact of the planes would disturb this synchronicity because it is inevitable that they would have dislodged the explosives, destroyed the wiring systems and possibly even have detonated some of the explosives inside the building.

It’s starting to seem to me that we don’t even need evidence to “debunk” a 9/11 conspiracy just some common sense. I know that this is probably very lazy but it’s still true when you just think about it logically a lot of the claims made by the so called “truthers” fall to bits.


Glad you are a "Labeller".

I am a "Concerned Citizen".

I have seen demolitions just like you and I know a building can be brought down in its own footprint. That was a requirement in the codes for this particular building before it could be built.

So you think they would use some other demolition method because the one built in to the buildings would be too obvious? Using your logic you answered your own question because the buildings came down just like they would if the demolition was initiated. That alone proves it was not the planes that caused it because of the timing of the collapses and the collapse of building 7 which was unscathed.

Also the hole in the Pentagon and no wings outside the hole. I guess planes vaporize when they hit stuff now?

Either way you are just putting out a thread to bring up hostilities between people on both sides of the issue by calling them "Truthers". I bit. Now use your head and stop being lazy.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Lets keep in mind (3) buildings all collapsed the same way. Highly improbable considering all three having been a steel structure and the foundation of the buildings were not compromised. The third not being hit by a plane, yet collapsing the same way.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Hecate666
 


Let's take a quick gander at the Timothy Mcvay thing too. Apparently he was alone right? But how in the world was he able to put two other, bigger devices inside the building by himself with out being detected. My point is if the can orchestrated the uni-bomber thing...why not this?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


It seems the improbability of your scenario is beyond your ability to comprehend. Nice try, though. OS'er!!!!



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


I just have one question about your passport theory. Wasn't Satam al-Suqami, the apparent owner of the passport, on flight 11? The first plane to hit the WTC? All your photos and videos are of the second crash.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by waypastvne
 


It seems the improbability of your scenario is beyond your ability to comprehend. Nice try, though. OS'er!!!!


Thank you Truther. How is the improbability factor of the passport any different than the seat cushions and life vest seen lying on the street beside it ?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne


Truther.



You see, even after you have had it explained to you numerous times, you still you the term, you know what it really means, and you know that you really are a 'truther' because it's a government invented term.

So the fact you know what it really means and the fact you continually use it just highlights that you are deliberately here to spread disinfo.

You never present anything that is remotely accurate and that is also deliberate. It does not take much to suss you disinfo lot out, you're just not very good at it!

I would suggest that any member just ignore 'waypastvne' because they are just deliberately spreading disinfo to uphold the OS.

If you interact with 'waypastvne' then you'll just be wasting your time, and will just be giving them more opportunities to spread even more disinfo. Don't feed the rats.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by waypastvne
 


I just have one question about your passport theory. Wasn't Satam al-Suqami, the apparent owner of the passport, on flight 11? The first plane to hit the WTC? All your photos and videos are of the second crash.


Exactly, the passport video 'waypastvne' was commissioned to make is just a low budget piece of deliberate disinfo.
If you pay peanuts you get monkey's as they say. Common sense alone can debunk that stupid disinfo passport video he made! It's totally shocking.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by waypastvne
 


It seems the improbability of your scenario is beyond your ability to comprehend. Nice try, though. OS'er!!!!


Thank you Truther. How is the improbability factor of the passport any different than the seat cushions and life vest seen lying on the street beside it ?


The passport was in immaculate condition, the other items were in pieces, and the other items could also have been staged. Not very difficult to come up with so alternative and more logical explanations!

That video you made is deliberate disinfo. Utter crap!



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

Common sense alone can debunk that stupid disinfo passport video he made! It's totally shocking.


If you really want to debunk the video you should explain to us what you think happened to the 19500 cu ft of air traveling at 680 feet per second. Where did it go ?


edit on 20-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by waypastvne
 


I just have one question about your passport theory. Wasn't Satam al-Suqami, the apparent owner of the passport, on flight 11? The first plane to hit the WTC? All your photos and videos are of the second crash.


You are correct. The stills were only meant to show evidence of the effect, which they do. There are no videos of the south side of WTC1s impact but there are some photos. In this photo you can see debris coming out of the building ahead of the fireball falling to the street. You can also see the jet fuel explosion on mechanical floor. (arrow)




Would you like to explain what you think happened to the 19500 cu ft of air traveling at 680 ft pr sec. ?





posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by kidtwist

Common sense alone can debunk that stupid disinfo passport video he made! It's totally shocking.


If you really want to debunk the video you should explain to us what you think happened to the 19500 cu ft of air traveling at 680 feet per second. Where did it go ?


It's about the passport surviving intact, in immaculate condition, and has nothing to do with the air you are going on about. You are just using that silly air idea to distract away from the obvious!

Nice try, your video is a weak attempt at spreading disinfo about the passport. I would recommend people watch it, just for the comedy value!

edit on 20-6-2012 by kidtwist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


it's simple

as we watched the buildings go down, some people thought "that looks like one of the controlled demolition thingys"

then they forced the facts to fit that idea



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

It's about the passport surviving intact, in immaculate condition,


Why should the passport be damaged it was traveling at 680 ft per sec the air it was traveling in was also traveling at 680n ft per sec. They both decelerated together outside the building. Probably the hardest impact it suffered was when it hit the street BFD. It was way ahead of the fireball. So where is the mystery ?



edit on 20-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Kang69
 


You know what Kang? You played this hoax on this thread and even brought the hoaxer video confession of the guy that did it. Now you are on another thread playing the same hoax again. Even though you know it to be a hoax.

Woops. Mods will have something to say about that I am sure.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

What cannot be twisted is my signature. Which is an observable logical fact.


You still have never specified how big and how hard something has to be in order to destroy the towers. Your signature should include that. Would John Holmes be capable of destroying the towers ?

edit on 20-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



Please note "Host object" represents : fixed and "Visiting object" represents : moving


Well it depends on what you mean by "destroy" exactly. Its could mean tipping-over by severing the base of the host object or imploding from within.


As for strength of object(density)? For starters if the host object is made from the heaviest and strongest materials then the visiting object should be equal to or stronger than to be able to "destroy".


It also depends what you interpret with the word "something". Are you stating one object or a multitude of small objects?


My guess, and it is a guess. That "something"(if its "one" visiting object) would have to be ,at least, no less than fourth in size of the host object (assuming it carries no explosives and in this case it wouldn't need to have any explosives) and made from steel or iron ;and impacting at an obtuse angle were the base of the tower is pulverized(severed) causing the tower to tip and viola = destroyed



The other "something possibility" is an implosion from with in. This will definitely need explosives.... How much ,don't know really. But I'm sure you could find that out,,, that's IF you really give hoot. I don't


What we are led to believe : A aluminum-visiting object that's weaker than the host object impacted ,not at the base, but on top floors : destroyed the host object( note: the visiting object being a fourth in size compared to the host object ). This supposedly caused a pancake-domino affect with no one explaining how weight/gravity can destroy some 80 structured-sound floors below ; In addition , the flying debris destroyed(igniting a fire!) another neighboring massive host object down to its footprint...How absurd is that?


Honestly , I hope I answered your question. If not who cares really. Doesn't change anything.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


No, WTC 7 collapsed differently from the towers. That isn't that hard to see from the various videos.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


All three buildings fell into there own foot print, including building 7.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

It's about the passport surviving intact, in immaculate condition, a




Flioght 1771. Crashed in 1987.

It was forced down in a suicide. The suicide note was found after the crash on an airsick bag.

en.wikipedia.org...

"The plane was estimated to have crashed at a speed of around 700 mph (1,100 km/h), disintegrating instantly. It is estimated that the aircraft hit the ground at five thousand times the force of gravity"

So it does in fact happen in violent plane crashes.

Educate yourself sir, or look the fool.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join