It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Trying to resolve 9/11

page: 49
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 07:00 PM

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: NWOwned

Building demolitions are tightly structured - the idea being to drop the building into a confined area so the debris can be removed.

What happened on 9/11 was a chaotic collapse in which the stored energy was released in a sudden chaotic manner

Debris can and will be flung large distances This is why a collapse zone is at least 1.5 times the height of the building

WTC were over 1300 ft giving a collapse zone of 2000 feet

on 9/11 pieces of debris were hurled over a block, damaging numerous buildings including World Financial Center

Exactly - Chaotic. Good word, speaks to my point, now we're getting somewhere. So you agree with me that the destruction of the towers was not a classic case of Conventional Controlled Demolition (CCD). Is that correct?

But see, a gravity collapse isn't going to hurl large multi ton chunks of building across a street into an adjacent tower, and neither is a conventional controlled demolition, that is, unless it's done very badly. The fact that hurling happened is unconventional. For both Gravity and CCD. And it requires an unconventional explanation.

No one planning tower destruction would want any glaring snafus especially if the final story was going to be a gravity collapse. Therefore any CCD would not overload any supports inappropriately so as to give away any underlying plan.
Having debris fly out is an unintended consequence of Unconventional Controlled Demolition. It's like it's more unconventional and therefore maybe slightly less 'controlled'.

Conventional Controlled Demolition is minutely ordered, everything is measured out and there is ample time to clear contents, wrap, hose, set proper charges in all the proper places etc.

But there was no time on 9/11, and as a result, no real systematic intricate placement of many small individual charges.

Which makes me think the UCD was, out of necessity, a more singular approach. Not many perfectly placed tiny ultra controlled charges but just one or a mere few 'charges' with somewhat imperfect control but more comprehensive reach and impact.

And this is why there's big flying chunks.

A CCD is indeed 'controlled' but a UCD may not be so by its very nature, it's more 'chaotic'.

Conventional Controlled Demolition takes TIME and carefully managed and calibrated placement of many small charges plus the removal of walls, wiring, plumbing fixtures, furniture and whatnot.

Making the distinction between the two helps to clear up a few noted problems like the one where people say the buildings were wired with with explosives prior but then wouldn't a plane crash screw that up? Not if they weren't wired... Or that CCD takes so much time, there was no time to wire them on the day so maybe it didn't actually matter. Remove things? Hollow towers or full, probably don't matter to UCD. If it was Gravity where's all the contents? Right? Not there.

Conventional Controlled Demolition takes Time; Unconventional Controlled Demolition turns on a Dime.

UCD doesn’t care what is there it just makes it all disappear!

edit on 17-9-2019 by NWOwned because: added a line space

posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 08:31 PM
a reply to: NWOwned

But see, a gravity collapse isn't going to hurl large multi ton chunks of building across a street into an adjacent tower, and neither is a conventional controlled demolition, that is, unless it's done very badly. The fact that hurling happened is unconventional. For both Gravity and CCD. And it requires an unconventional explanation.

Sorry. Nothing was “hurled” out like your implying.

It either toppled out

Or collisions during the collapse pushed pieces of building out like the balls of a Newton’s cradle.

Amazing Demonstration Of A Giant Newton's Cradle!

edit on 17-9-2019 by neutronflux because: Added picture

posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 09:19 PM
Yeah I like that, 'sudden chaotic manner', that's exactly what I'm saying.

It's like you're hungry and you got this big can of baked beans. The regular controlled way to open a can of delicious baked beans is to slowly and carefully use a small tool, place it over the lip of the can, turn the gear knob and allow the cut blade to encircle the lid, then the magnet grabs the lid and presto you're one major step closer to dinner.

Now this is what I mean by Conventional Controlled Demolition. CCD.

There is careful coordinated planning and it takes time. You're trying hard not to make too much of a mess.

Unconventional Controlled Demolition UCD, on the other hand, is not a can opener but a shotgun.

Is there planning? Ya you're planning to open a delicious can of beans with a shotgun. So yeah. Is it controlled? Well, you got to load the gun and hold it in a way that it blows the top 1/5th of the can off. So yeah it's controlled. But not as much as the can opener which you have to start by placing it on the lid. With a shotgun you just got to aim and pull the trigger the shotgun does the rest. Also it's quick. Oh and a bit messy. You might get splattered or splatter a wall with baked beans. And you know what that splatter is? It's the unintended consequence of opening a can of baked beans with a shotgun.

So that's an example of the kind of distinction I am making between CCD and UCD.

Now please, go ahead and WATCH ALL THE VIDEOS YOU WANT but then Ask Yourself...

The twin towers on 9/11:

Can Opener or Shotgun?

edit on 17-9-2019 by NWOwned because: Capitalized the word THE

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 02:07 AM

Unconventional Controlled Demolition UCD
a reply to: NWOwned

So what is this UCD or Unconventional Controlled Demolition you keep babbling about ??

As stated the collapse hurled debris for considerable distances damaging or setting on fire numerous buildings in area

Map of damage at WTC

Can see that buildings at World Financial Center across West Side Highway suffered considerable damage

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 02:45 AM

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 03:24 AM
a reply to: kwakakev

But but but the towers fell straight down in their own foot prints is the mantra of the truth movement as proof of CD.....

Did you just do some debunking.......

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 03:41 AM
a reply to: neutronflux

Supporting the thread discussion by showing the image referenced by firerescue.

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 02:45 PM
a reply to: InhaleExhale

It's easy to understand how your mind might be blown. That is rather what happens to some individuals when they are confronted with facts and reality that conflict with their view of the world, their idea of reality.

The same thing happened to me in 2006 when I realized for the first time that the official story I had believed in since 2001 was shattered.

I experienced the same cognitive dissonance then that you seem to be experiencing now.

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 03:29 PM
a reply to: Salander

Funny how you never actually answer questions leveled at you, and you never provide actual evidence of WTC CD? While individuals go through hoops answering and addressing your concerns to the Nth degree?

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 06:30 PM

originally posted by: kwakakev

Hey nice graphic I had not seen that before thanks for posting it.

So what does it tell us really?

That things were a tad bit chaotic that day the towers 'fell down'?

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 07:21 PM
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke’s 3rd Law

The other day I was watching a youtube video on World War I.

Man when it came to blowing things up they were on it. Many soldiers died and many who came home were missing limbs and probably had “shell shock” or PTSD as we call it. (How many had a higher risk for certain types of cancer we may never know, if any etc.)

The point is blowing stuff up is nothing new they were doing that in World War I. Or even earlier, like during the Civil War.

So ‘explosives’ is old technology. Right?

Like if I were rich and I gave you 50 000 dollars to personally deliver a package for me to Paris France only I stipulate that you have to do it in one of the Wright Brothers early aircraft designs would you be up for it?

Probably not right?

“Are you crazy?” you’d say, “The Wright Brothers plane is 100 year old technology!”

Or take the telephone.

Alexander Graham Bell lived in Canada I’ve been to his museum. The first phones were huge made of wood and you had to turn them with a crank.

Suffice to say Old Man Bell wasn’t posting on his Facebook page with that phone of his.

“Facebook? Internet? A wireless communication device you hold in the palm of your hand that also takes incredibly brilliant color photographs… the devil you say young man from the future! I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it.”

Now we come to 9/11.

Which I will remind everyone was 18 years ago, but it was in, get this, 2001.


So why is everyone still stuck on ‘explosives’ and ‘bombs’ in the buildings? Right? (Basically my CCD.)

“Hey, was that Orville’s single seat single engine contraption I just saw slowly flying into the South Tower?!” Umm no, no it wasn’t. “I better get my trusty 2 cans and a string phone out and call CNN!” Try again.


But everyone thinks and repeats over and over it was ‘explosives’ that brought the towers down… Really? That all you got? No, REALLY?!

“Hey wait, it's 2019, I hear a cell phone ringing, anybody here want to answer it? No? Ok I will. Wow. What?! Guys it's 1865 on the line saying something about ‘Finally Waking Up’.”

There’s this soldier on his string phone on a Civil War battlefield calling completely astounded after I inform him that explosives and explosive technology hasn’t evolved or advanced all that much in 135 years! Even after all that time and literally TRILLIONS of dollars spent on Black Projects? Amazing.

I mean just imagine if there was modern day explosive technology like there are modern day airplanes and modern day phones!

Oh well I guess you can’t have everything.

I’m gonna go now and cook supper, yes you guessed it, baked beans, heated up the only way I know, the only way there is to heat up food, you know – over an open fire.

It’s getting pretty late, I mean I think, it’s just that at night, it’s too dark to see the sundial.

Alas, what can you do?

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 07:42 PM
a reply to: NWOwned

So why is everyone still stuck on ‘explosives’ and ‘bombs’ in the buildings? Right? (Basically my CCD.)

Because the minimal pressure wave generated by an explosive with the force to cut WTC columns would still be very LOUD, and result in a visible shockwave and shrapnel

Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

Katie was was killed instantly by a steel fragment sent flying from 430 metres across the lake. It was thought to be travelling at 140km/h.

Canberra Hospital Implosion 1997

Flying Demolition Debris Nearly Hits Spectators

If thermite was used to burn through the columns. The flashing, burning, smoke, the three thousand degree Fahrenheit fires of the thermite cutting column by column floor by floor would be obvious. With UV light thrown in. Eye damage.

1000 pounds of thermite laying horizontal on a 4000 lbs SUV couldn’t even cut the SUV in half.

1/2 ton of thermite VS SUV mythbusters

Thermite burns too slow and inconsistently to cause large number of columns to fail at the exact same instance.

It’s the physics you have to get past. The minimum amount of pressure or temperature is cut steel columns is still a constant no matter the technology.

And. There is no way any controlled demolition system would survive jet impacts that destroyed steel columns, debris impacts that cut a multi story gash in WTC 7, and hours of fires.

edit on 18-9-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 08:25 PM
a reply to: neutronflux

You and I agree on a few things, one being, no Conventional Controlled Demolition.

I don't rule out bombs and explosives necessarily, they may have played some role. Witnesses do talk of explosions and some booms are heard and caught on tape. I just think there's much more actually going on. That's why I make a distinction between conventional controlled demolition and unconventional controlled demolition.

I addressed the idea of a plane wrecking the demolition plan as evidence the towers were not wired.

Coming back to the baked beans. If you have a shotgun and a can of baked beans you want opened are you really going to put in the time and effort to cut tiny perforations every 1/4 inch in the lid to help it come off? Of course not. it would not be necessary.

I am suspicious of Thermite. Because it gets talked about mostly. Which comes under what I like to call the "CNN Effect".

If they're going on about something over and over (as CNN does) then it's probably bogus etc.

Thermite... blah blah blah, Explosives blah blah blah, Controlled Demolition blah blah blah. I'm suspicious of all of that.

I think they bring up thermite because of the high heat but it don't last no 3 months etc.

posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 03:38 AM
a reply to: NWOwned

So? What would have either cut the columns by pressure or heat? With there being no evidence the columns were “wasted away”?

Speaking of wasted and baked.......

posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 04:29 PM
a reply to: neutronflux

Who says the columns were cut?

What evidence of no "wasted away"?

posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 04:33 PM
certain posters here really need their own dedicated 9/11 OS championing forums. then they wouldn't incessantly muddy up EVERY SINGLE 9/11 thread with their mantras.

posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 05:21 PM

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
certain posters here really need their own dedicated 9/11 OS championing forums. then they wouldn't incessantly muddy up EVERY SINGLE 9/11 thread with their mantras.

Do you have evidence the twin tower fell through the path of greatest resistance as claimed by Richard Gage?

Do you have proof of thermite? Can you name a thermite study that completed the scientific discovery process? Was the WTC dust burnt in an inert atmosphere to prove it could sustain a thermite reaction? Was the Dust from Jones study released for independent confirmation?

Thermite paint or ceiling tiles?

Or you a hologram with missile/laser person?


Dr Wood and dustification?

Yes the government should be questioned and scrutinized. But if you hold the truth movement and it’s long list of out of context comments, misquotes, falsehoods, and right out lies (Like Richard Gage claiming columns cut by thermal lance at cleanup was cut by thermite), the truth movement horribly fails.

Stop supporting debunked conspiracists that exploit 9/11 for personal gain. Or cough up actual credible evidence that hasn’t been repeatedly debunked.

Innuendo about who wouldn’t fly commercial jets before 9/11, and falsely implying calls that were not made by cellphone as being made by cellphone is not physical evidence of pyrotechnics at the WTC.

edit on 19-9-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 05:24 PM

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
certain posters here really need their own dedicated 9/11 OS championing forums. then they wouldn't incessantly muddy up EVERY SINGLE 9/11 thread with their mantras.

Or just post something not debunked that is actual physical evidence of WTC CD.

posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 05:57 PM
a reply to: neutronflux

actual physical evidence of WTC CD.

The thing is, one doesn't need evidence for every single aspect to resolve 9/11 as a conspiracy with the goal to take our rights and start wars on the basis of lies and deception. That's pretty much what happened, right?

Anyhow. The missing "actual physical evidence" in form of a hardness evaluation for the "fire weakened steel" in the NIST report was none of your concern, either. Or was it? Why bother this time?

That's double-standards, not debunking. Keep bumping those threats, yo! Baked and wasted, eh? Good for you!

posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 06:06 PM
Many people say they began to question the Official Story in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008 etc., remarking that they woke up then to the realization the OS just couldn't possibly be true. I realized that in 2001. I remember it clearly, it was in September, the 11th I think, right when the towers 'collapsed'.

I never woke up from the Official Story some time later, I never bought it even as it was unfolding on 9/11.

Now that don't mean I knew how they did it or even who 'they' were, I just thought here we go this is another JFK but like 2.0.

And like JFK we'll probably never know.

Looking at the endless video clips it looks like the towers were blown up. Hey, that's what it looks like. But even then, even so, I was ambivalent about it. It didn't seem elaborate or sophisticated enough for me really. Could that be the answer? Really? You would think that would be easy to prove. If somebody, all of a sudden one day, thought there was something fishy with the Official Story and the idea of a damage induced gravity pancake collapse was off the table, looking at the videos, the next logical step is to postulate 'explosives' and CD, Controlled Demolition.

And the thing that bothers me about that is it's the inevitable next position. And the general public have all watched different controlled demolitions on tv prior. So it seems strange to me that there's only two options.

1. Gravity Collapse
2. Explosives or/as in Controlled Demolition

If you were an evil genius and you came to me with a plan to destroy the WTC and not get fingered and your plan involved preplanted explosives, I'd say wait a minute, that won't work, everyone watches tv if you blow up those buildings everyone will say "That's just like a controlled demolition like countless ones I seen on tv!" For an evil genius plan that's not very impressive.

And what did we have right after people started waking up?

We had people saying the building collapses looked like Controlled Demolition.

A case in point is this guy, Richard Gage. He woke up in 2004 and immediately he started in with explosives and CD.

Later he adds in thermite. But this is in 2004. Since he's spent the last 15 years doing lectures and presentations all over the world. He's like the unofficial spokesperson for Controlled Demolition.

But where has it lead? There is even a new report out of Alaska refuting Nist's calculations and conclusions. He just keeps booking auditoriums. Maybe he's trying to wake people up, but only to CD, again, the first natural thing anyone who gravitates away from the OS gravitates to.

"It's explosives, just look at these paint chips! In May 2020 we'll be in Seattle book your seats now."

Check out this video:

In this video Gage mentions he's now comparing the tower collapses in his presentations to a, wait for it, A VOLCANO.

That's what he said.

The Controlled Demolition Guy is comparing the tower collapses to a volcano. Curious. Isn't that just a bit odd?

What does a controlled demolition have to do with a volcano Richard?! Just what are you trying to say?

All the ones I ever seen on tv I never once thought of a volcano.

The tower collapses remind Richard Gage of a volcano, even so, he's still pushing Classic Conventional Controlled Demolition.

Isn't that interesting?

I think the next thing to Wake Up from on 9/11 is Conventional Controlled Demolition.

top topics

<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in