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.
Originally posted by conrad x
Ever wondered why the various videos of collapse of the twin towers didnt show these flashes?
Originally posted by conrad x
Ever wondered why the various videos of the collapse of the twin towers never picked up the same kind of audio you heard in that video you linked?
Originally posted by conrad x
How many of these people believe 9/11 was an Inside Job? You know as well as I do it's ZERO.
Originally posted by conrad x
Are you frightened about releasing this film?
Originally posted by conrad x
Not 1 demolition expert in the World believes those are plumes caused from explosives.
Originally posted by esdad71
First, the explosives are fired and you can SEE them BEFORE the collapse of a building not the other way around.
"With the use of delays, we can control pretty much where the debris lands; we can control vibration; we can control noise levels. Timing and delays are the keys to just about everything in our business."
Originally posted by esdad71
As far as your facts Bonez, they are as credible as Nancy Pelosi's expense report. You are making statements and not presenting facts.
Originally posted by conrad x
reply to post by _BoneZ_
Not 1 demolition expert in the World believes those are plumes caused from explosives.
Let me repeat that.
NOT 1 DEMOLITION EXPERT IN THE WORLD BELIEVES THOSE ARE PLUMES CAUSED FROM EXPLOSIVES.
Originally posted by plainmike
Has anyone who is interested in 911 as a conspiracy topic and who has also remained neutral thus far actually attempted to duplicate the alleged crashes on a scaled down version in the shop/garage? For me and other simpletons such as myself this crude type of experiment might just be persuasive enough to tip the balance one way or the other. Can anyone here marshall the various resources to try this; does anyone care enough to try, or are you all satisfied enough in just theorizing? Imagine the outcome of some publicized results if the scaled down versions of the trade center towers could not be brought down in the same fashion as it was alleged to've happened after multiple scientific attempts; what might happen? Has anyone done this, and if not, why?
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by esdad71
First, the explosives are fired and you can SEE them BEFORE the collapse of a building not the other way around.
Explosives are fired whenever they are activated. There's no rule book that says that the explosions have to go off first and then the building collapses. Explosives can be detonated as the building collapses. It's all up to whoever has control or how the building has to fall.
A blaster from Controlled Demolition, Inc.:
"With the use of delays, we can control pretty much where the debris lands; we can control vibration; we can control noise levels. Timing and delays are the keys to just about everything in our business."
Originally posted by esdad71
As far as your facts Bonez, they are as credible as Nancy Pelosi's expense report. You are making statements and not presenting facts.
In other words, you can't debunk them either. Gotcha!
[edit on 8-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
Originally posted by esdad71
So tell me know mister gifted, how could they do it????
You are confusing people not "debunking" your BS with people not caring a whit about some foolish compilation of wacked-out interpretations of what a a 1,000+ foot tall building looks like when it collapses.
I know you'll crow from the rooftops that since I *don't* "debunk" it that you are correct, which is fine with me. The Sunshine rule is in effect here. I *want* you to put this out, in every forum and place you can find. The School of Public Humiliation is in session and you are in the front row.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by esdad71
So tell me know mister gifted, how could they do it????
Contrary to popular belief, we don't have all the answers. Fact is, it was done. How they did it would be a great question to ask and have answered when we get our new investigation.
See, it doesn't matter if you can comprehend or not what it would take to bring the buildings down. But the buildings are down and all available evidence points to them being brought down with explosives. Evidence, I might add, that still remains undebunked. Just because we don't know exactly how much explosives or how they were planted, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
You gotta try harder than that, esdad.
posted by esdad71
So, again, this would mean that over 2 tons of explosives would be needed to bring down one tower. So tell me know mister gifted, how could they do it????
Originally posted by esdad71
What leads to explosives being used?