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: 39
13
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Uh, how come we can see they collapse from the top down then?

EDIT to add:

And how come there were survivors after the collapse in the bottom of the central core?

[edit on 29-3-2006 by AgentSmith]




posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Now that's a new angle on the subject, I must say. Are you implying that the USG secretly had the buildings rigged up for demolition well before 9-11, maybe even during construction; not for the purpose of bringing them down as part of a global master plan, but rather just on the one-in-a-million chance that the buildings were going to fall over some day because of who knew what?

I agree with the majority of your assessment of the collapse, but I find your guess as to the reason why they demolished the buildings a little hard to swallow...for too many reasons to mention. Can you expand on your theory a little more? And how does the demolition of WTC7 fit into your theory?



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Heh, you just said it yourself.

Bottom of the central core.

The support structure is part of the outer walls of the trade center buildings.

And the ability to drop a building in case of collapse would only be used at the very last second... if they saw part of the upper structure failing, they'd use that very second to blow the bottom supports out. Probably why you saw the upper structure shift for a second before the whole structure dropped.

They're not heartless, they want as many people to survive as possible... which is why at the last seconds their primary concern would be those in the surrounding area, and they'd assume everyone inside the building dead.

Trust me, if the bottom hadn't failed, there'd be alot fewer survivors outside the buildings.


I know motives are a little hard to grasp here, but...


Every demolition crew aims to drop a tall structure vertically.
Knowing that the trade center towers cannot natrually drop vertically themselves due to their design... it would make sense to rig it with a just in case system to save the surrounding area.

Like I said, its not exactly a happy thought to process... and its extremely hard to digest... but it would be a necessary concern to prepare for.

The whole idea makes my stomache churn... but its not whats emotionally best that was decided on here, it was whats best, in the worst case scenario.

They would have done it wether the structure started failing after the survivors got out, or wether some were still in there.

Its too bad we cant have access to that information, I could guarantee you it would be documented somewhere, plans for safer demolition in the event of structural failure.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by johnsky]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
And the ability to drop a building in case of collapse would only be used at the very last second...

So when do you surmise that they rigged the buildings up?


...and they'd assume everyone inside the building dead.

Why would they assume that? There were plenty of survivors still in the buildings, not to mention firefighters and police.


Trust me, if the bottom hadn't failed, there'd be alot fewer survivors outside the buildings.

How do you figure that? There were many, many people killed by the falling debris which showered all over Manhattan, as opposed to a toppling "cap" which would have landed on just one of the fours sides.

And again I ask you, why demolish WTC7 when there was nobody in the vicinity to be hurt by a "natural collapse"?


I know motives are a little hard to grasp here, but...

The motive you suggest isn't hard to grasp at all, it's simply hard to accept and doesn't make any sense. Why would they rig up the buildings to collapse in the event of them collapsing on their own, when no steel-structured building had ever collapsed before in the history of mankind? It'd be like spending millions to insure your house against being eaten by Godzilla. Are you suggesting that this "rig it to blow just in case it's going to fall over by itself" policy is common practice? If so, does that mean that all skyscrapers in the US are rigged up for instantaneous demolition?


Like I said, its not exactly a happy thought to process... and its extremely hard to digest... but it would be a necessary concern to prepare for.

The premise of your hypothesis is that it would be "a necessary concern to prepare for", when it is clear it would be nothing of the sort. And it being not a happy thought to process goes nowhere towards making it true either. The thought of Godzilla eating my house isn't a happy one either, coz I just painted the eaves!

Personally I am of the opinion that the towers were blown. As for the motive, I can only take wild guesses...US hegemony...peak oil...NWO...Biblical Armaggedon...who the heck knows?! But of all the crazy motives I've seen suggested, yours, despite being the most mundane, seems to make the least sense of the lot when assessed in purely logical terms. Weird, huh?



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
what is the theory based on?
is there a precedent for something like that?
so you have any information on it, news stories about it or related to it etc.?

[edit on 30-3-2006 by AdamJ]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Again, what about the possibility of bombs in WTC7?

NO PLANE to worry about there. Building just magically falls straight down later in the day.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   


So when do you surmise that they rigged the buildings up?

The buildings were probably not designed with the system in place, as the designs would most likely be thrown out for more... standard structural practices. It would have to have been added after the fact. Someone would have had to have brought up the question, 'what if?'. All buildings undergo modifications as they age, and as concepts arise. The difference here is the stucture is unique, denser than most, and tall enough to be a real problem to the surrounding area should the worst occur.


Why would they assume that? There were plenty of survivors still in the buildings, not to mention firefighters and police.

Oh, no, you misunderstood. I dont mean dead at that very time, I was referring to the fact that there would be such a minute chance of anyone surviving that the value of the lives of the people in the surrounding area now greatly outweighs the value of whatever lives are left inside the structure.


How do you figure that? There were many, many people killed by the falling debris which showered all over Manhattan, as opposed to a toppling "cap" which would have landed on just one of the fours sides.

That falling debris would be present in both scenarios, only, in the scenario of the 'falling cap' as you put it, you would have both, a 'falling cap' and the debris destruction. Think of branches coming off a tree... and the branches coming off the tree and that tree toppling over.

I never suggested a demolition of any other buildings other than the taller towers. I know what you are referring to, and I have only guesses about that building... best guess is it wasnt designed to withstand seismic shocks... and hence its supports gave way due to the tremors from the other towers temolitions, or even a combination of that, and the impact to the ground.
But my theory has only to do with the taller, exoskeleton framed structures. 7 is a totally different structural system, it has a standard central core.


The motive you suggest isn't hard to grasp at all, it's simply hard to accept and doesn't make any sense. Why would they rig up the buildings to collapse in the event of them collapsing on their own, when no steel-structured building had ever collapsed before in the history of mankind? It'd be like spending millions to insure your house against being eaten by Godzilla. Are you suggesting that this "rig it to blow just in case it's going to fall over by itself" policy is common practice? If so, does that mean that all skyscrapers in the US are rigged up for instantaneous demolition?


lol. I understand where you're coming from. But these questions about structural safety and what to do in the event of the unthinkable actually do come up... and actual proposals are made. I think its hilarious some of the proposals we have to deal with in engineering... but we are required to do something about the possible outcome.

Its the same reason that fire supression systems that actually sufficate people are placed into some buildings... espectially in buildings which house potentially hazardous chemicals. It seems rediculous to add... until an accident happens that causes more deaths outside the structure than within.


The premise of your hypothesis is that it would be "a necessary concern to prepare for", when it is clear it would be nothing of the sort. And it being not a happy thought to process goes nowhere towards making it true either. The thought of Godzilla eating my house isn't a happy one either, coz I just painted the eaves!


Like I said. Most of these 'what if hypothesis' are rediculous, but actual systems do get put in place because of it.

for example. A recent project I was on required the treads to be equipped to be destroyed in the event of signal loss. I asked why, I mean, its not like we were designing a killing machine, its a simple transport system. But they ensisted that it could be hazardous to people around the unit... so we had to design the one of the links in the treads to blow itself apart in the event that the connection to the control module be lost. All we really needed to do was sever the power to the drive train with a simple relay, but no, they wanted the whole thing completley immobilized... totally different scenario, but its an example of how rediculous some of these requests are.



Personally I am of the opinion that the towers were blown. As for the motive, I can only take wild guesses...US hegemony...peak oil...NWO...Biblical Armaggedon...who the heck knows?! But of all the crazy motives I've seen suggested, yours, despite being the most mundane, seems to make the least sense of the lot when assessed in purely logical terms. Weird, huh?


Well, everyone sees the world with different eyes. To me, this makes more sense. But hey, no two views are ever the same.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by johnsky]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Hm. A fascinating debate. My conclusions so far, based on what I will admit is a very brief perusal of not even close to all of the pages in this thread:

First of all, I do NOT trust HowardRoark. The way he argues is disingenuous at best.

One of the fascinating things about this board is the way the debunkers work. There is a thread on here somewhere in which there are links to two alleged UFO photographs which, to my eyes, seem to show the same craft, once in Vancouver and once in the UK. A whole BUNCH of people showed up to 'prove' these photos were of a seagull. Not only would it have had to have been a pretty deformed seagull with the light shining on it in a very particular way (and I live by the sea and I've NEVER seen a seagull looking like this) but this deformed seagull would have had to cross the Atlantic and point itself towards the camera in exactly the same attitude with similarly bizarre lighting that makes it look all shiny and metallic...

Here we have Howard and Valhall seeming to do some sort of good cop/bad cop routine. I freely admit I don't have enough physics/engineering knowledge to be able to refute or prove the possibility of the towers going down either way. All I have to go on is instinct, and my instincts tell me to trust neither of these people, partly because of the Aussie site that pointed out that the servers for this board are military/government ones in Virginia. What better place to gather conspiracy nuts and lead them in circles than their own bulletin board? While I'm in favour of critical thinking, to 'prove' using calculations that the towers collapsed just like the official fairytale says happened smacks, to me, of having an agenda.

I'm going to check out Valhall's analysis that can demonstrate just how a whole airliner can fit through a 16-foot hole in the Pentagon, leaving no wreckage behind. According to Loose Change 2nd Edition, the 'plane' - if it were such - made some manoevres that are impossible in a passenger jet and would have led to a high-speed stall. Air traffic controllers are quoted as saying "we were sure we were watching a military plane".

I can only say that when I watched TV that day, I was immediately made suspicious by the speed with which the names of the highjackers were broadcast. Then when the towers collapsed, I thought, what are the odds of those things coming down in their own footprint? Not good, surely. Since then a mountain of evidence has emerged that supports me in my suspicions. You can get hung up on the physics all you want, but the politics surrounding the event are pretty persuasive to me.

Firstly, the event was adumbrated in the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses, written by a bunch of people who wound up surrounding Dubya in the White House.

Secondly, the ironically named PATRIOT Act (right up there with operations Enduring Freedom, Infinite Justice and - my all-time favourite! - Restore Democracy as top examples of Orwellian doublespeak) was ready to go only a couple of weeks after the tragedy. You don't draft an act that dense in a couple of weeks. That was ready to go beforehand.

Third, the reaction at the time of Dubya and his minders was bizarre to say the least.

Fourth, the investigation was stonewalled, misled, cost only just over a half million dollars - a fraction of what was spent on investigating Bill's sexual shenanigans (and PLEASE don't think I'm a Clinton fan, far from it!). That just does NOT make sense, any way you look at it. Plus the report, when it was published, was full of holes. Oh, and anyone remember the fuss when Kissinger was nominated to head up the commission? A classic move - offer someone so unacceptable so that when you get your real placeman nominated, he'll slide in without a murmur.

Fifth... does anyone remember the anthrax attacks? I remember waiting in vain to hear any EVIDENCE on the news to link - other than by proximity - the words "anthrax attacks" and "foreign terrorists" and thinking, hm, this is a classic psyops job. Minimal casualties, maximum fear. Plus the manufacturers of cipro were really coining it. And then how the story went quiet... how many of you actually know where that investigation led? Fort Detrick, Maryland.

Coming right between 9/11 and the vote on the PATRIOT Act, those attacks took an already off-balance public and persuaded them that for their own safety they had to accept living in a police state.

Sixth, the trading in put options - way higher than it should have been: according to the official report, it wasn't linked to 'terrorists'. So THAT's ok then... not.

Seventh... why haven't we seen any decent CCTV footage of the Pentagon crash? Even if it came out now, they've had enough time to doctor it...

And eighth... how come the guy who was supposed to have been the airline pilot of the plane which crashed into the Pentagon had, less than a year earlier, been working AT the Pentagon on drills involving crashing an airliner INTO the Pentagon? He then retired, taking, one assumes, something of a pay cut, to become a commercial pilot and... UNLUCKYYYYY! drew the short straw and got hijacked.

This is not even the tiniest fraction of the rum things surrounding the events of that day. For all Valhall's impressive sums - which may or may not be accurate and complete, for all I know - the whole thing still STINKS.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Specifically, what do you find to be disingenuous about my arguments?

Is it the fact that I back up my arguments with data and not uninformed speculation?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Well, everyone sees the world with different eyes. To me, this makes more sense. But hey, no two views are ever the same.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by johnsky]


Most see them with blinders on and try to make excuses so they dont have to realise in what sort of world we are living in.

Your hypothesis makes no sense what so ever, why pull the buildings after an hour while they could seal off the area and do it after 4 or 5 hours (or more)when most firefighters and civilians could be safely evecuated!?
Surely the structure would have holded that much.

Also why pull the building first that was hit by the second plane?

And who would had control over the demolitions used??why was the fire department not informed of this?

etc..etc...

You surely are not looking at the whole picture of 9-11 with all the political background etc, otherwise you would realise that the demolitions used are not the only clues that dont add up.
For me its the whole picture that lead me to know that this was an inside job, dont worry about your bubble being bursted and look objectivally to all the events arround and concerning 9-11.



[edit on 13-4-2006 by motionknight]

[edit on 13-4-2006 by motionknight]

[edit on 13-4-2006 by motionknight]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Specifically, what do you find to be disingenuous about my arguments?

Is it the fact that I back up my arguments with data and not uninformed speculation?


Yes Howard. Presenting credible, verifiable evidence is bad, very bad. It means that you haven't unchained your mind from the fetters of reality, to allow you to pull insanely fanciful theories from your nether regions and stun people with your ability to think outside the box in which the Government/Aliens/NWO/people in my head (delete as appropriate) wants people to conform to.
I seem to be a tad snarky today. EVIDENCE! Post bloody EVIDENCE like Howard does, and stop speculating over bollocks!



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
To All you 9/11 conspiracy believers,

I know, all the evidence you believers say you have is the "smokin gun".

I just don't believe it.

Check out my references;

Science & Technology at Scientific American.com: Fahrenheit 2777 -- 9/11 has g
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

REFUTING THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES

PM: Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story

NOVA Online/Kidnapped by UFOs/Carl Sagan (I have listed this site due to the fact that Carl Sagan has excellent insights on conspiracies).

Nyctohylophobia

The Public Eye : Website of Political Research Associates



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Getting back to All Seeing Eye's original post:



"Our [U.S.] Government... used [9/11 as an] excuse to pass *Unconstitutional Laws* and wage Wars resulting in (Record Corporate) Oil Profits.

This Atrocity (i.e. 9/11) is proving to advance the *Domestic Police State Agendas* and consolidate [or Annex] the Middle East's oil reserves.

Those wishing to implement World Government through their control over (Corporate) Finance, (Corporate) Media and Militaries are Guilty of most heinous crimes. "


Yes - I agree! It also conveniently eliminates Israel's enemies one by one. I don't see much HARD proof that Israel - had a "direct" hand in 9/11. However I DO wonder who controls the
Mainstream Media in the U.S. - especially since anytime anyone ever dares to criticize the *COUNTRY/STATE/GOVERNMENT* of Israel - they are labeled as "Anti-Semitic" (every time without fail)!
The "Anti-Semitic" Canard is not working anymore guys, plenty of people see right through it at this point. You will have to come up with some new diversionary tactics eventually.

It must be SOOOO easy to use the Arab Moslems as a Scape Goat - Americans are so Biased in that regard to Culture, Religion & Race - it is ingrained. Besides these "Jihadi" Morons seem to be Incriminating themselves ALL of the time - Imagine how easy it must have been for them to just link/blame 9/11 on "Al-Queada" - but the question remains, were is the *HARD PROOF*? It seems as if we have the *EXACT OPPOSITE* going on = *INTERNAL COVERUP*!

I believe that 9/11 & Terrorism in general - is the result of all manner of Corruption. Madmen who see no end to how much Money & Power they could posses or people they could control. It all goes around & around in circles. They don't care who is En-Slaved or who DIES - as long as they get what they want! The ABUSE of Religion (ANY Religion) also plays a large role in this - no matter how you slice it!

The state of this World is Sad
- but Unfortunately - quite True.


[edit on 13-4-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Seraphim_Serpente, thanks for the unique but redundant perspective.

At any rate, my theory, in regards to the World Trade Center and 9/11, is if Muslim fundamentalists can strike once, they certainly can strike again.
Strike one: 1993 World Trade Center Bombing
Strike Two: 9/11.

See a striking, forgive the pun, commonality between the two separate events?

One: done by Islamic/Muslim fundamentalists.
Two: use of explosive devices--car bomb and flying commerical 'missile' aircraft.
Three: same target--the World Trade Center.
Four: terrorists associated and connected with Al-Qaeda.






seekerof

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Seekerof, regarding the 1993 WTC bombing, do you know who Emad A. Salem is?


Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. [1] He substantiated his claims with hundreds of hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made during discussions held after the bombings. They are currrently in possession of the FBI.


Source.

The reference (1) is:

Blumenthal, Ralph, "Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast", New York Times, p. Section A, Page 1, Column 4.

This was chalked up to incompetence too, but looking over some of the issues of the court cases that followed suggest it was more than that.

The September 14, 1995 Washington Post reported that, regarding an FBI crime lab, "the Justice Department is investigating complaints that workers in the bureau's crime laboratory have offered misleading or fabricated evidence in a number of major criminal cases." One of the cases specifically pointed out by the whistleblower, agent Frederic Whitehurst, was that of the '93 bombing. Would that be incompetence, too?

And more incompetence:


Dr. Whitehurst was asked the following questions in the course of his testimony, as mentioned in an official court transcript, page 16337:
Q: “During your examination of the bomb residue materials and the chemicals associated with the defendants, you became aware that the FBI agents investigating the case had developed a preliminary theory that the bomb that blew up the World Trade Center was a urea nitrate bomb?”
A: “Yes, that is correct.”
Q: “Did there come a time when you began to experience pressure from within the FBI to reach certain conclusions that supported that theory of the investigation?”
A: “Yes, that is correct.”
Q: “In other words, you began to experience pressure on you to say that the explosion was caused by a urea nitrate bomb?”
A: “Yes, that is correct.”
Q: “And you were aware that such a finding would strengthen the prosecution of the defendants who were on trial, who were going on trial in that case, correct?”
A: “Absolutely.”
Special agent Frederic Whitehurst, the senior FBI explosives expert, was demoted to paint analysis.


Source; also the transcript reference mentioned in the external quote can be checked out. There's a good deal of information on that webpage as well.

I could go on, but the point is the '93 bombing wasn't what we're supposed to remember as a stereotypical al Qaeda attack either. It was a pretty stereotypical "al Qaeda" attack, but like I said, not in the way we're supposed to remember it. And not in the way you apparently do remember it. It's not something you want to point to as an example of unadultered Islamic terrorism.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
the thing that proves coverup to me is the fact that there have been over 800 hijackings of aircraft, and only four that have not been investigated...9/11 hijackings....this makes no sense...the alleged 19 hijackers were named within hours of this tragedy, many proved to be false , and nothing done about it...that smacks of coverup to me...just a thought.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   


See a striking, forgive the pun, commonality between the two separate events?
...Terrorists associated and connected with Al-Qaeda.


Wow what solid "Proof" & "Evidence" you have there my friend!!! You might as well just have Grunted & said "Moslem Bad". It is the Government that is leaving this stuff vague on purpose - leaving it up to the Media to link those two events up in peoples heads!!!

P.S. Oh yeah BTW the U.S. Government CREATED "Al-Qaeda" which is just a general term for "Islamic Extremist/Radical Jihadi Terrorist." The CIA supported them with Money & Weapons in the 80's when they were convenient in fighting the Soviet Union. They U.S. Government also supported Sadam Hussien with weapons initially (hmm.. that Iran Contra thing rings a Bell - no?)! Both Sadam Hussien & Osama Bin Laden had CIA contacts!!!

Also official U.S. Policy also encourages Terrorism against us because we support the State of Israel & we want to build those Military Bases in the Middle East to "Guard all that Oil". But alas there is nothing much we can say or do to change this - just don't say some ridiculous crap like "They hate us for our Freedom".

What do you think - just try to refute me!

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
You have voted rich23 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Wow, that was a great post!


I like your speculation on the good cop bad cop thing. And, that thing about the servers...I dunno, but something does seem strange about this site sometimes.

Seekerof, thanks for the laughs, as usual.
Bsbray beat me to the punch on the Fed's involvement in WTC 1. Find a different example next time.
But, while you're on Muslims/Arabs/radicals, why don't you complain about the Mid Eastern guy who was with Tim McVeigh in OKC?
Oh, of course, because it ain't part of the official party line you tow with gusto.

WCIP,
. That analogy to Godzilla insurance killed me! But hey, in the reality that Karl Rove and the rest of the pack of criminals "create" (Rove is quoted as saying this), these things happen.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
This is my first reply on these forums i have read a couple now but this has to be the most interesting so far, i have been facinated
with all the different stories in the media and accounts of what happened on 9/11. I have felt for some time now that not every thing was as it seemed but was not sure why? or where i could find out more. After reading i now have many more questions i personally had never previously heard any info about explosions but thinking about it now it always seemed strange to me how the buildings collapsed.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
All I have to go on is instinct, and my instincts tell me to trust neither of these people, partly because of the Aussie site that pointed out that the servers for this board are military/government ones in Virginia.


Yes, quite a few truthseeking sites like to say that, this is the evidence they use:


Originally posted by Kinglizard
posted on 1-4-2004 at 16:39 - printer friendly 100 recent

I did a trace route on www.abovetopsecret.com... the Node Name is listed and maintained by the government.

IP Address
213.206.128
213.206.129
213.206.130

Node Name
Gov-bb21-lan-14
Gov-bb22-lan-15
Gov-bb23-lan-16

Location
Langley, Virginia

MS
60

Network Used
whois.nic.mil (for military network information)

It was difficult to get the IP Address, It was spoofed and looped over 9 times. Anyway Langley, Virginia is where the CIA headquarters is. I�m more than concerned.



(april fools)
www.belowtopsecret.com...


Of course they usually miss out the fact it was written by a Moderator on April 1st and the fact it says 'april fools' at the bottom.
They also fail to notice with all their expertise that the IP addresses have only 3 groups instead of the required 4.

I'm sure it's all a genuine mistake of course, these people wouldn't ever lie would they? After all, they're here to help....

[edit on 19-4-2006 by AgentSmith]




top topics



 
13
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join