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.

 

Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

page: 14
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Alrighty roark...

Heat corrosion did not cause any collapse, if that were the case what is the source of the sulfides nessecary to induce that kind of reaction. Also heat corrosion tends to have a scaling effect, which once the outer surface of a THICK steel support beam has been subject to thermal corrosion, tends to actually reduce the heat to which the steel is exposed to. The sample to which you link and have provided a photograph is interesting but hardly supports your arguement, for one thing the source of the steel is a compelte unkown, the research on that particular steel concluded that they could not determine what part of the building it had come from. Also that severe damage isn't caused by a normal process of heat corrosion, damge that extensive would be indicitive once again of temperatures far beyond what is attainable through a conventional hydrocarbon based fire. The presence of sulfites is also consistient with explosives, not just office fires which by the way tend to generally low in sulfite compounds. Not to mention, again, no steel high rise has ever collapsed due to fire.




posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
Iv'e posted this before, dosen't anyone here have an opinion on what these Firefighter have said?


New York Firefighters Telling of 911 Controlled Demolition

Click to play

New York Firefighters Telling of 911 Controlled Demolition Windows media 0:29 sec.

or Right click and save it who knows how long this will stay on line.

[edit on 25/10/2004 by Sauron]


Yeah, not only firefighters but the FDNY Chief of Safety, reporters on the scene, eyewitnesses of every type all report multiple explosions. Or as one firefighter said "Boom boom booom booom booom it just came down."

And in January of 2001, the WTC construction and project manager
said that each of the Towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners:

"The building was designed to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid. And a jetplane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to that screen netting."



[edit on 25-10-2004 by taibunsuu]



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Yeah, not only firefighters but the FDNY Chief of Safety, reporters on the scene, eyewitnesses of every type all report multiple explosions. Or as one firefighter said "Boom boom booom booom booom it just came down."



And just what kind of sound do you think the building would make when the top of the building started smacking down on the lower floors? Personally, I think it would sound like Boom boom booom booom booom.



And in January of 2001, the WTC construction and project manager
said that each of the Towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners:

"The building was designed to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid. And a jetplane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to that screen netting." [edit on 25-10-2004 by taibunsuu]



Well, of course since they had so many examples of jetliners impacting large building to base their assumptions on, their design was 100% accurate and the building performed exactly as they expected it to.



NOT.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Yeah, not only firefighters but the FDNY Chief of Safety, reporters on the scene, eyewitnesses of every type all report multiple explosions. Or as one firefighter said "Boom boom booom booom booom it just came down."



And just what kind of sound do you think the building would make when the top of the building started smacking down on the lower floors? Personally, I think it would sound like Boom boom booom booom booom.



And in January of 2001, the WTC construction and project manager
said that each of the Towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners:

"The building was designed to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid. And a jetplane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to that screen netting." [edit on 25-10-2004 by taibunsuu]



Well, of course since they had so many examples of jetliners impacting large building to base their assumptions on, their design was 100% accurate and the building performed exactly as they expected it to.



NOT.


The towers falling made a large roar, but why did so many people their reports bombs, report explosions, and then report explosions for the building going down?

An example of a jetliner hitting a building is pretty well documented. For one, the scenario is entirely mathematics. For two, large aircraft have hit buildings before, such as the B-25 running into the Empire State Building. There isn't a lot of guesswork with designing a 110-story skyscraper.

Watch those videos. There are definitely ringed explosions going off in stages at the start of the fall and as the tower was going down.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   

large aircraft have hit buildings before, such as the B-25 running into the Empire State Building.


Ignoring both the physical differences of the building, particularly it's composition, and the sizes and loads of the aircraft in question is not the most responsible thing to do.

Taking people's statements out of context and running with them is not responsible either. "They were supposed to withstand a 707". YAY!!! They were "supposed to". Nothing bad is "Supposed to happen". Florida wasn't "Supposed to" get blasted by four hurricanes in a few weeks. We weren't "Supposed to" lose so many soldiers in Iraq, and my Yankees weren't "Supposed to" lose.

Until I am shown concrete evidence that the mostly metal buildings were designed to withstand impact from the aircraft THAT ACTUALLY HIT IT, and the associated issues of fuel-fed fires at high temperatures, I'm really not interested in Tom Dick and Harry Theoretical Engineers deciding what it was "Supposed to" do.

Comments will come every day that say the same thing. Of course the WTC designer is going to say that his crew was careful. I'm sure they were. I'm sure the thought never crossed that man's mind that something like this would happen. But it did. We can't live in his theories or anyone else's theories of what should or should not have gone on. Unless they tested it before construction which such circumstances, there is no way they can even dare to say ANYTHING like that for certain. They did not know. Period.

[edit on 10-26-2004 by Djarums]



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums

large aircraft have hit buildings before, such as the B-25 running into the Empire State Building.


Ignoring both the physical differences of the building, particularly it's composition, and the sizes and loads of the aircraft in question is not the most responsible thing to do.

Taking people's statements out of context and running with them is not responsible either. "They were supposed to withstand a 707". YAY!!! They were "supposed to". Nothing bad is "Supposed to happen". Florida wasn't "Supposed to" get blasted by four hurricanes in a few weeks. We weren't "Supposed to" lose so many soldiers in Iraq, and my Yankees weren't "Supposed to" lose.

Until I am shown concrete evidence that the mostly metal buildings were designed to withstand impact from the aircraft THAT ACTUALLY HIT IT, and the associated issues of fuel-fed fires at high temperatures, I'm really not interested in Tom Dick and Harry Theoretical Engineers deciding what it was "Supposed to" do.

Comments will come every day that say the same thing. Of course the WTC designer is going to say that his crew was careful. I'm sure they were. I'm sure the thought never crossed that man's mind that something like this would happen. But it did. We can't live in his theories or anyone else's theories of what should or should not have gone on. Unless they tested it before construction which such circumstances, there is no way they can even dare to say ANYTHING like that for certain. They did not know. Period.

[edit on 10-26-2004 by Djarums]


And in January of 2001, the WTC construction and project manager
said that each of the Towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners:

"The building was designed to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid. And a jetplane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to that screen netting."

The guy who built the towers isn't an idiot.

If you don't believe him, look at the videos on www.911uncovered.com... , anyway.

Look at the admission by the property owner that 7 WTC was 'pulled.'

Look at the way explosions ring out around the towers ahead of the collapse in sequence, three clearly visible rings of explosions happening before the dust overtakes the rest of the tower.

The majority of the fuel on those planes went straight out the other side of the towers in huge fireballs. The firefighters that were in the towers were not describing raging infernos that could melt steel.

The structural support of the WTC towers was in the outer shells of the building.

Even though plenty of people say "there's no way they were demo'd," NO ONE ABSOLUTELY NO ONE has ever been able to refute the fact that 7 WTC was pulled, come up with adequate explanations of the rings of explosions preceding the collapses, etc.

There was no way those towers collapsed simply from the planes. The towers were demo'd, just like 7 WTC.

For a long time, about three years, I never gave the idea of the towers being demo'd a second thought, even passed over threads about it here simply thinking there was no way. I always felt 7 WTC was demo'd even from seeing it collapse live on TV, because it wasn't burning, and it fell exactly like a building being demo'd. I posted in here earlier where I said forget the towers, what about 7 WTC? But after viewing the footage on that site, of which there is tons, I'm convinced the towers were also demo'd.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Taib, I would never say that the person who designed the towers is an idiot, nor would I call him a liar. I call him wrong. I say he didn't know. He didn't anticipate that, and he didn't know.

You know what, as someone who was within earshot of both towers throughout much of that morning, I've posted a couple of times about some of the noises I heard coming out of there including bangs, pops, screams, and creaks. The creaks were apparently the groaning noises made by the steel beams that were under too much stress. The bangs? Who knows? I always wondered what would happen if a computer server room was heated to 2000 degrees. Or all sorts of other things we've debated here before. Maybe some deisel powered backup generators? Those existed on that scene too you know.

Lastly, I've mentioned before the argument regarding the "pull" comments and I'm not going to turn this thread into a repeat of that, but I think you're not being fair by not considering the common meaning of pull at a fire rather than assuming this version of the word that has been invented is the true one. Keep in mind your assumption includes the Fire Department having the order to blow up a building broadcast on their publicly accessible radio frequency, and included the person you blame for blowing the building up admitting to it in an interview. The devious man who was part of a group that planned the biggest conspiracy in world history then isn't smart enough not to blab about it on tv? Yes, that makes sense.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I am a volunteer firefighter 45 minutes away from NY. I recently met several from the city and the talk of 911 is forbidden. I asked a couple about and they told me that they could not discuss it, but not to believe the official version. Thats all I could get.

With 7WTC being demolished, so soon after the towers fell, that means the building was already wired to go. Ask yourself one question - 'Hows that?'.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ilovepizza
How can we spread the news so justice happens. I have read many articles on this, but i have not come to a solution to this problem.

Is there any law that demands evidence to be gone over again. There must be something we can do. Please justice needs to be served.


Justice will be served on 11-02-2004 when John Kerry is elected President and the murderers are sent out on their lying arses.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism


Don't get me wrong that was well put together but come on. Ha Ha Ha


Something is erie about the whole situation but why would we kill 3,000 of our own citizens just so we can go to Iraq and Afghanistan for oil?

Sorry, not buying it for the thousandth time. You never know though, one more might turn me.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And just what kind of sound do you think the building would make when the top of the building started smacking down on the lower floors? Personally, I think it would sound like Boom boom booom booom booom.

Well, of course since they had so many examples of jetliners impacting large building to base their assumptions on, their design was 100% accurate and the building performed exactly as they expected it to.



NOT.


Exactly, alot of spewed information isn't enough to make me believe. I do believe the huge floors pancaking together would make a boom booom boooom. And the noide would get louder as it gets closer.

Think for yourself people, just think. Why would G.W. Bush do this? Why? If you think Bush would have benefited from this you are as crazy as the writer.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Taibunsuu, have you ever physically witnessed a controlled demolition? I have, seven in fact. I have been as close as a couple of hundred feet and as far as a quarter mile from the implosions, and I can assure you that the sounds and sights of a controlled demolition are quite distinctive. I have not seen any evidence to support the theory that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. The biggest lack of supporting evidence is the lack of any audio confirmation of explosions. As the buildings started to collapse, there would have been a number of Boom, Boom, Boom sounds as the structural members failed and the floors gave way. This is to be expected and is supported by witnesses. As Djarums said you expect to hear a lot of noises in a burning building. The sound of a demolition charge going off, however is quite a different story, however. First of all, you dont just hear the sound of a demo charge, you feel it. Even at a quarter mile away, a demolition charge that is powerful enough to cut a 3 thick steel beam will send out a palpable shock wave that you can actually feel in your chest when it hits you. According to your theory, it wouldnt be just once but rather a rapid succession of bangs in a regular order. Djarums, how does that jibe with your experience?

Secondly, these sounds are quite a bit louder and sharper than the sound of a falling floor or a falling beam. They are not Boom, Boom, Boom, but rather BANG, .BANG, BANG,

Third, these sounds also carry quite a distance. There were enough cameras pointed at the buildings when they collapsed, that one of them must have picked up the sounds of the charges going off, but none of them did.

How do you explain the fact that the collapses started on the impact floors? How did the explosives, as well as the wiring survive the destruction of the impact and the fire?

Finally, if you think that those fireballs represented the combustion of all of the fuel in the airplane, then, to put it as nicely as I can, you are completely wrong.

If it helps, try thinking of it this way. The planes carried enough fuel to stay aloft for over 5.5 hours, and to push a 30 ton aircraft from Boston to LA. The fireball outside of the building was only a small fraction of the energy that this would require.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
And in January of 2001, the WTC construction and project manager
said that each of the Towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners:


The titantic was unsinkable too. Hmmm



The guy who built the towers isn't an idiot.


I am sure he is not BUT he is also not capable to make such a comment. Sure he is going to say his ship unsinkable, i am sure he wants the chance to build more.



Look at the way explosions ring out around the towers ahead of the collapse in sequence, three clearly visible rings of explosions happening before the dust overtakes the rest of the tower.


That is dust pushed out by one floor slamming down on the floor below and so on.



There was no way those towers collapsed simply from the planes. The towers were demo'd, just like 7 WTC.


Let me remind you that this is a theory, not fact. The planes FULL of fuel would be enough to bring down the WTC buildings. Just like the "Unsinkable" Titantic was brought down by a glacier.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Alrighty roark...

Heat corrosion did not cause any collapse, if that were the case what is the source of the sulfides nessecary to induce that kind of reaction.


The primary ingredient of drywall is calcium sulfate.

Anyway. The point is that a lot of weird things happen inside a building when it burns. For anyone to make categorical statements like the temperature could not have exceeded X degrees, or There could not have been any molten metal at the base of the elevator shafts. Is rather silly.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Look at the way explosions ring out around the towers ahead of the collapse in sequence, three clearly visible rings of explosions happening before the dust overtakes the rest of the tower.


That is dust pushed out by one floor slamming down on the floor below and so on.







Actually if you think about it, the collapse was like a giant piston driving into a huge cylinder. As the top of the building fell, it pushed a huge column of air in front of it. Confined to the building envelope this pressure wave would have pushed out the dust on each floor as the successive curtain walls ruptured at each floor. This would have proceeded ahead of the falling mass of the top of the building as the pressure built up.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Taibunsuu, have you ever physically witnessed a controlled demolition? I have, seven in fact. I have been as close as a couple of hundred feet and as far as a quarter mile from the implosions, and I can assure you that the sounds and sights of a controlled demolition are quite distinctive.


why am i not surprised? HAHA!

what would that shock wave that hits you in the chest look like on a siesmograph, howard? a big spike, perhaps?
it was the people at the university who spend their time learning about seismographs who said there were spikes before each tower fell. not tinfoil-hatters.

i hope the when the black magicians supplant the white magicians in the whitehouse, there will be some information clearing going on.(which of course is strictly for the benefit of the controllers, but we the sheeple get a little respite in truth, hopefully, as the black team uses the advantage to hammer the white(don't be fooled by my use of white and black, ....they're BOTH EVIL. don't think it is an american thing, either. it is the global elite rich controllers who battle. that is the only real war there is. big money, vs. big money))

thank you, firemen guy, for confirming the GAG ORDER placed on our 'heroes'. land of free speech, myass.
i can't wait to watch the house of cards lie, 'pancake down'.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Taibunsuu, have you ever physically witnessed a controlled demolition? I have, seven in fact. I have been as close as a couple of hundred feet and as far as a quarter mile from the implosions, and I can assure you that the sounds and sights of a controlled demolition are quite distinctive. I have not seen any evidence to support the theory that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.


That's cool. Yes, I have, and have participated in them. I told you to look at that site, then you'll see some evidence.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There could not have been any molten metal at the base of the elevator shafts. Is rather silly.

There were pools of molten steel, not just metal, steel. There were survivors looking out through the holes in the holes in the building where the fire was supposed to be the steel melting raging inferno. At the point where the fire should have been the hottest, people were standing there.
You still haven't answered my question abot the bomb sniffing dogs being pulled out of the buildings the weekend before 9-11



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
There is a lot of replies here but not many people commenting on the things documented on this site:

www.911uncovered.com...

Now I'm not saying it was any particular individual that did this. I have no idea exactly who could benefit and in what ways. What I do know is that after repeatedly watching the videos on this site and my own footage from that day which I taped to compare, I believe those buildings were demolished by pre-planted explosives.

I did not even consider the possibility that WTC 1 and 2 were blown before going to this site. Now, I cannot consider the possibility that they weren't.

I implore you to take a good look at the site. Everyone I talk to about it has an immediate reaction: This is impossible. But if they actually view it they cannot explain the evidence there, or they accept the theory that there were pre-placed demolitions in those buildings.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
There were pools of molten steel, not just metal, steel.


Prove it.




top topics



 
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join