Dubai demolition firm destroyed the twin towers...

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by darkstar57
ok, so this is crazy tin foil hat conspiracy mongering. but wait.
take a look at the halliburton twin towers in dubai. Cheneys corruption.

twintowers dubai

Oh Pleeeeeaaassse!

That's the Jumeirah Emirates Towers. It's a luxury hotel with rooms starting from $259.00.

Don't people check anything anymore??

They have nothing to do with Halliburton!

Here for the lazy.

That's the problem with these conspiracy theories. They are all rumors based on hunches wrapped in misinformation.

In the dream these are Cheney Towers in Dubai. Lol

Sorry, I'm getting a bit lost here. What do these towers have to do specifically with what the OP suggests?

Originally posted by darkstar57
reply to post by samkent

 

i did a bing search for halliburton dubai office and the first image was this

directional-driller.com...

which is the twin towers mentioned in my post above.

so please check your sources.

Let's say you are right, although you aren't.......What does it matter?? What does this bring to the table in this discussion?? NOTHING!! You just saw an opportunity to bring the name Halliburton to the table for absolutely NO reason whatsoever.......

Time to head back under your bridge....!

Now, OP.......This is a very interesting theory you have here.......I like it!! I think something like this is completely plausable and like you said, nobody will ever admit to it.......Time to do some digging, you might be able to put an end to the reason these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, which most of us know, is the real way they were brought down!!

If you can find any evidence to support your theory, please post!! I would be very intrigued to see this as the real reason behind this, and some lawsuits would be in order I would imagine!!

Sorry to all that lost loved ones this day!! Hopefully someone will help you find closure to the real reason you are without your loved ones today!! S&F for the excellent theory!!

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


Thanks. When I have a bit more time, I'll try and look into it. (I come on here as an alternative to cigarette breaks during the day )

I kind of hope I don't start to unravel any threads as I would probably be held responsible for breaching national security or something or worse 'have an accident'! Then again, I could be completely wrong. Who knows?

Originally posted by darkstar57
reply to post by samkent

 

so samkent,
you say, That's the problem with these conspiracy theories. They are all rumors based on hunches wrapped in misinformation.

do you still hold i am reporting a hunch and a rumor after reading the "directional driller" web page??

Halliburton Dubia address

Location10th Floor, Al Moosa Tower, Sh Zayed Road, Dubai

Are you saying that the building had an implode feature built in based on danger to the building.
My question was it auto activated, or manually activated ?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Are you saying that the building had an implode feature built in based on danger to the building.
My question was it auto activated, or manually activated ?

edit on 3-12-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

Hi. Before I answer now, this has gone from a dream to a theory in itself so I have connected dots and assumed a little bit to make the theory make sense in my own mind.

It would have been automatically activated. So when the system detected stresses or 'leaning' at a certain point, it activates. It would have been at the point that the building or part of it was going to collapse anyway, by collapsing the building vertically in a controlled demo, it would have prevented complete destruction of buildings several blocks away and only affected the surrounding buildings of the WTC. Think of a Jenga tower, if it topples sideways, the blocks can scatter much further than the actual height of the tower. If (i know Jenga can't collapse straight down) the Tower is collapsed straight down onto itself, the damage radius is going to be significantly less.

You have to think, if one tower was damaged and collapsed sideways onto the second tower, the damage would be catastrophic to both towers and many surrounding buildings. Unfortunately, the occupants are collateral damage and the main aim is to protect the majorly important buildings in the area. What are the chances of both towers falling straight down from a side impact? This has to be a design feature and doesn't necessarily mean 'inside job'.

reply to post by fiftyfifty

Think in terms of strength.
If 10 floors lean to one side then the entire weight of those floors is being put on the side in the direction of the lean. That would include that half of the weight the 'core' would carry from the opposite side. Combine that with the fact that many of the exterior steel supports were severed on the 'lean' side.

reply to post by samkent


Exactly, so the building would naturally fall over in the direction of the lean, not down equally on all sides.

Okay it is a theory. You said it yourself. Do you have any indication that it might be more than a theory, such a name of a Dubai Demolition firm that did similiar projects in the past? Or is it just a theory of yours with nothing to go on, where you can swap Dubai with Norway (not attacking you here, just asking).

Originally posted by Merinda
Okay it is a theory. You said it yourself. Do you have any indication that it might be more than a theory, such a name of a Dubai Demolition firm that did similiar projects in the past? Or is it just a theory of yours with nothing to go on, where you can swap Dubai with Norway (not attacking you here, just asking).

No, there is no specific reason for it being Dubai other than it being a part of the dream. I have no idea why Dubai would be a likely place for this to have been designed. I haven't had any interest in conspiracy theories on 9/11 before now and my knowledge of the event I'm afraid is pretty much limited to what the media has shown and the conspiracies I've occasionally read on here. I haven't done or don't intend to research the subject as I don't have the time.

This popular theory is called the 911 Controlled Demolition Theory, of which there are many dozens of variations to the hypothesis.

You can search - 911 AND Controlled Demolition Theory - or even Kroll AND 911 - or a dozen other keywords like AIG to get one of many perspectives.

one example - 911review.com...

If you truly came up with that from a dream and never, ever read the theories before ... you have a natural knack for CT.

reply to post by Trexter Ziam


Thanks, I'll have a look into it. I have heard that there are many theories of a controlled demolition but they have differed to this quite significantly.


P.S - This theroy isn't a conspiracy per sé as it wouldn't have been done with any malicious intent, the intention was to protect the WTC and potentially save more lives of people in surrounding buildings and at ground level...

Well, that might explain how Larry Silverstein, owner of the towers, was able to give permission for WTC7 to be "pulled", i.e., demolished, without days or weeks of wiring. Paul Laffoley, who briefly did design work on the South Tower, revealed in 2007 that explosive charges had been built into the towers at the time they were built.
www.mikehagan.com...
www.mikehagan.com...

Of course, Larry denied his public admission a year later with his semantic stunt about his remarks meaning the withdrawal of non-existent fire fighters from WTC7 (a quick research will reveal three public records that fire fighting was stopped by mid day because of damage to water hydrants). But, then, he had to, didn't he, otherwise, he would have been admitting his illegal insurance claim!

reply to post by fiftyfifty

Exactly, so the building would naturally fall over in the direction of the lean, not down equally on all sides.

No. The structure buckles before the top can build up much horizontal speed.
Try building a tower of cards and see if you can get it to topple sideways. Or a jenga tower?

Countries like Iran and North Korea have structual engineers. Why haven't they been saying the buildings should have toppled over? Don't you think they would love to poke their finger in the eye of the US?

just my 2 bobs worth guys, dont want the 911 threads closed again do we ?!


Referance a discussion about tactical battlefield nukes, Incase the USSR "crazy ivan" tank battalions didnt stop at the iron curtain.

From Arrse.co.uk. Drawf posted this.

I have had a flashback to being on radio stag in battlegroup HQ alongside the RSO. Having changed the codes and bored sh!tless, I sat and looked at all the rarely-used pages in the Slidex wallet that nobody else had anyway.

One box contained "ADM". I turned and asked, "What's an ADM?"

He quickly shushed me and told me not to even think the term. If the commies got a sniff, even if it was encoded, they might argue that they had int that we were about to go nuclear and escalate.

"Yes, but what's an ADM?"

"It's an Atomic Demolition Mine. Every major bridge in FRG that is deemed a primary demolition has been built with a chamber to accommodate one."

"Oh." ....

So they where about no doubt.

Just saying. Fox

Just a little snippet of information reguarding Atomic Demolition Mines,

The W54 warhead used on the Davy Crockett weighed just 51 pounds and was the smallest and lightest fission bomb (implosion type) ever deployed by the United States, with a variable explosive yield of 0.01 kilotons (equivalent to 10 tons of TNT, or two to four times as powerful as the ammonium nitrate bomb which destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995), or 0.02 kilotons-1 kiloton.

A 58.6 pound variant—the B54—was used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM), a nuclear land mine deployed in Europe, South Korea, Guam, and the United States from 1964-1989

This is the only board that I know of that has a sizable percentage of members interested in the 9/11 twin tower collapses that honestly believe that an enormous official conspiracy existed to implant demolition explosives within the towers (and Bldg #7 - don't forget that this imploded into its footprint as well) as some sort of years old ongoing Sophie's Choice real estate protection strategy that never bothered with the obvious (and constant) threat of an accidental complete demolition of either or both of the principle structures within the largest corporate office space building complex in the largest and most important city in the United States. As if such a bizarre strategy wouldn't be more potentially dangerous and absolutely illegal than anyone (other than the most psychopathic of city planners, building administrators and demolition company technicians) would ever be a part of or even allow to happen. That's odd enough, but what's really odd is that this same group of researchers claim that it would've been completely impossible for a smaller group of conspirators, with less connection to the city or the complex itself, to rig the towers (and Bldg #7) in anticipation of the attacks during the summer of 2001 without someone involved needing to confess to someone about his crime.

The 9/11 Truthers at least suggest that the demo techs and planners were soulless murderers who were motivated by greed and a complete lack of humanity, and not misguided city planners who created an insane death trap for thousands that could be inadvertently triggered in their good-intention effort to mitigate real estate damage. That's the really troubling aspect of this inane theory and the other theories that suggest the same sort of built-in self-destruct mechanism. The way I see it, you really have to be missing some critical "humanness" qualities in your psyche or even just your personality to see such a twisted notion as reasonable - let alone a plausible, agreed upon (and implemented) solution to what would only otherwise be a concern over a very remote possibility of a toppling of one of these buildings.

Let's face it, a glitch causing a disastrous chain reaction within the kind of complete obliteration demolition structure that happened on the morning of 9/11 would have been overwhelmingly more likely than a toppling of any of the three buildings, for any reason anyone could imagine. Video footage indicates that no such toppling ever initiated at all, but that's besides the point in this case. Just the idea that any group of ordinary city planners or building managers would have had the sheer balls to install what triggered and obliterated those three buildings, even if they would've seen it as a good idea is weird thinking at the very least

Why any of you guys could think that this sort of disaster-preparedness is a good idea is enough of a mystery for me. This is the sort of thing that The Onion might suggest. Not rational people.

reply to post by NorEaster
Onion heads, Well thats your opinion so be it friend.

Im glad the 911 twin towers board is back up and running again, It was my sole reason for becoming a member of ATS,
I have made my own conclusions reguarding the towers collapse and am far from happy with the official version off events that fateful day for America and the knock on effects that the war on terror has had for us all in the world.

Just my two bobs worth. Fox

Originally posted by foxhoundone
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Onion heads, Well thats your opinion so be it friend.

Onion heads? What's that?

This is what I was referring to

It's a parody of a news magazine.