The Mental Militia Forums

9/11 Discussion => 9/11 => Topic started by: Alton Speers on June 14, 2005, 11:52:55 am

Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Alton Speers on June 14, 2005, 11:52:55 am
Is the wall of silence beginning to crumble?
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20...02755-6408r.htm (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm)

Alton
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Mr. Bill on June 14, 2005, 01:09:49 pm
I guess this is the "long version" of the story:

Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? by Morgan Reynolds (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html)

I'm not very knowledgeable about "alternate explanations" of the WTC collapse, but if I'm understanding this guy right, he's saying the first plane impact DID NOT OCCUR AT ALL, and the damage was caused entirely by explosives. So what was it, mass delusion of the NYC residents who saw the plane hit? I'm sure there was even one video showing the impact, by someone who just happened to be filming when it happened.

Or maybe I'm mis-reading what he's saying.
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Jeffersoniantoo on June 14, 2005, 01:32:36 pm
The first plane is shown hitting the WTC while a French film crew as doing a documntary on the fire department.  It was shown on the CBS 911 special (which I taped).  I als have lots of video of the second plane hitting.  This is from the same day, network coverage, by NBC and FOX.

Whether they brought down the trade center or not I cannot say, but they hit the buildings.
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Mos2 on June 14, 2005, 03:00:53 pm
So we should believe an economist over a structural engineer? The documentary on TLC was fairly convincing to me - floors pancaking because the fire weakened the structrual supports. If anything is learned from this, it would be to not ban asbestos fireproofing.  
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: rhinoman on June 14, 2005, 04:31:59 pm
There are photo's of people standing on the floors in the opening were the plane entered the building, were the flames are shooting out, right BEFORE the building colapses. If the flames were hot enough to MELT the steel beams than how the heck are the people standing RIGHT THERE alive? That's wierd. I don't know what to think of all this but I do not think that the truth has been told as to how the buildings collapsed.
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Harleqwin on June 14, 2005, 04:37:13 pm
Quote
The documentary on TLC was fairly convincing to me - floors pancaking because the fire weakened the structrual supports.
Mos, what the documentary does not explain, or even mention is the construction of the WTC towers.  Both were supported by the center of the building, which were composed of 6 (?) elevators 4 stairwells and the requisite supporting columns.  In fact, the center core of the WTC towers were designed to withstand the gravity load of the building.  

Think of a strong steel rod going through  the middle of the floors, except the steel rod takes up a quarter of the floor space.

What has been "Officially explained" is that one floor fell on another, then those fell down, and so on - the "pancake theory".  That explanation ignores the center building support because it won't work the way we all saw it work.  If the pancaking started, and there is a STRONG central support to the building, one side of the building will fall faster than another side....they are seperated from each other by the considerable bulk of the center core.  Since that did not happen, not ONCE but TWICE...the pancake theory is inconsistent with the visual facts.

(grumble)  [_[  the wife is calling with dinner now, if you'd like a better explanation than I can provide, please say so.  I will post links to the longer, more detailed explanation.  But for starters, take a look at the FEMA report.  Quite interesting what the only REAL Official explanation has to say...


 
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Alton Speers on June 14, 2005, 05:45:13 pm
Here's another one to check out for alternative theories:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html)

Alton
 
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: ultralongrunner on June 14, 2005, 06:22:24 pm
As a structural fire fighter, I know that anything made of steel, when exposed to heat for a decent time, will fail. Any building that has, say a steel supported roof is a death trap.  This fact is marked by a number of deaths in the fire service.  

It seems plausible that once the fire protection was removed from the steel by the force of the impact, it would fail, no matter if it was jet fuel burning or paper/office contents. How this caused the collapse in the way it did is beyond my training and education.  Better fire protection at the contruction would have saved the building.  

ultralongrunner
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Basil Fishbone on June 14, 2005, 06:29:35 pm
From the information I've seen, there has never ever been a structural failure and collapse of a steel-framed skyscraper, even in the face of much fiercer and longer-lasting fires.

Basil
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Elias Alias on June 14, 2005, 07:58:04 pm
Quote
As a structural fire fighter, I know that anything made of steel, when exposed to heat for a decent time, will fail. Any building that has, say a steel supported roof is a death trap.  This fact is marked by a number of deaths in the fire service. 

It seems plausible that once the fire protection was removed from the steel by the force of the impact, it would fail, no matter if it was jet fuel burning or paper/office contents. How this caused the collapse in the way it did is beyond my training and education.  Better fire protection at the contruction would have saved the building. 

ultralongrunner
ultralongrunner, you may wish to tread very gently here. Anyone who assists in the government's coverup of the truth of 911 shall be revealed.

I would like to ask you to find one - just one - major steel building which has collapsed because of fire, even intense fire. Just one steel building anywhere in history which collapsed due to fire.

If you can show me that, can name the steel building and the date on which it collapsed (due to fire), I can become a hero for the government.

While you're hunting for that piece of info, I would invite you to also pay very close attention to what rhinoman has said above. I, too, have the film footage of a woman standing in the hole created by the wing of whichever plane hit the north tower. (It may not have been flight 11) She is standing there looking down to the earth at the exact place where the jet engine on the left wing of the plane entered the building. There is not sufficient heat at the impact area to prevent her from 1) being alive and 2) from walking to the face of the building and looking out the hole made by the plane. The footage I possess on that is irrefutable and came from more than one news-network's film crews which were shooting at the scene after the attacks that morning.

Anyone wishing to know the truth about the explosives inside the buildings that morning can start learning the sick facts by reading this article:

http://www.thementalmilitia.org/modules.ph...order=0&thold=0 (http://www.thementalmilitia.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=338&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)

I am on record all over the Internet with dated posts stating that elements (people) inside our own government executed the attacks of 911 for the purpose of initiating a global Empire and a domestic police state, all under the guise of a manufactured "War on Terror".  Proving James Meigs at Popular Mechanics to be a liar, and a deliberate liar at that, was so easy that I could hardly contain myself. Toward the bottom of that article I linked, above, is a statement which was filmed and broadcast nationally - by Larry Silverstein - and his statement was issued after NIST and FEMA put forth their lies about WTC7. Read the article carefully and you'll see something very frightening and very damning.

Salute!
Elias
(edited to change the building number and flight number mentioned in conjunction with the photographs of a woman standing in the hole-of-entry in the North Tower. I had wrongly stated that she was in the South Tower, which was allegedly hit by Flight 175. Flight 11 hit the North Tower, which is where the woman was filmed looking out of the hole in the side of the building.)
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Jack21221 on June 14, 2005, 08:06:57 pm
Quote
I would like to ask you to find one - just one - major steel building which has collapsed because of fire, even intense fire. Just one steel building anywhere in history which collapsed due to fire.

I can name two, and the dates:

Both world trade center towers in New York City on September 11th, 2001.

Prove me wrong.
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: ultralongrunner on June 14, 2005, 09:48:41 pm
Quote
ultralongrunner, you may wish to tread very gently here. Anyone who assists in the government's coverup of the truth of 911 shall be revealed.

I would like to ask you to find one - just one - major steel building which has collapsed because of fire, even intense fire. Just one steel building anywhere in history which collapsed due to fire.

 
Elias:

Trust me, I'm not trying to support the government position on this at all.  But I've been in steel buildings, watching the structural members twist and bend to the heat of flames and hoping that the roof didn't come down on my head.  

Given what I know about fire fighting, building construction and what I have seen, I feel that it is quite likely that the building came down like it was described.  If anything, the government is to blame for not building the structure to the current building codes with regard to fire.

As a holder of a high explosives license, I've worked on control demolitions.  Before a building can be taken down, the structural integrity of the building must be weakened--exactly what fire did in this situation.  (Which is why OKC couldn't have happened the way it did.)

I don't want to get into a pissing match.  I've expressed my opinion and you have done so also.  No problem.

ultralongrunner
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Elias Alias on June 14, 2005, 10:22:40 pm
Quote
Quote
I would like to ask you to find one - just one - major steel building which has collapsed because of fire, even intense fire. Just one steel building anywhere in history which collapsed due to fire.

I can name two, and the dates:

Both world trade center towers in New York City on September 11th, 2001.

Prove me wrong.
First, I would like an answer from ultralongrunner, to whom I addressed the question of steel buildings which have allegedly collapsed due to fire. His statements regarding fire and steel buildings may be misleading. I am told by several sources that no steel building in the history of steel buildings has ever been collapsed by fire, yet ultralongrunner seems to have evidence to the contrary about that. If he can name just one steel building which has been collapsed by fire, I know a lot of people who would dearly love to receive that information.

Secondly, the government's official story is that the twin towers were collapsed by intense fire, despite the fact that no other steel building in history is known to have collapsed by fire, and if the government's story is true, it shall mark the first time in the history of man-made steel buildings in which a steel building was collapsed by fire. Amazingly, on 911, not just one building is alleged to have collapsed by fire, but three. You see, not only does the government state that the twin towers were brought down by fire, it also claims that WTC 7 was also brought down by a combination of fire and weakened "faces". (See my article at the link above for full details on NIST and FEMA reports as published in Popular Mechanics Magazine in their March, 2005 issue.) So when you ask me to prove that the twin towers were not brought down by fire, you are asking me to prove that the government is lying. I have already done so, as you shall see. If the government has lied about WTC 7, why should you and I think the government is not lying about WTC 1 and WTC 2? In fact, if the government has lied about WTC 7,  it should then be on the government's back to prove it is not lying about WTC 1 and WTC 2.

I do indeed claim that the government is lying. I claim that controlled demolitions brought down all three WTC buildings which collapsed on 911 - WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.  I shall consider proving that to you, providing that you'll first agree to read the materials I bring forth. For instance, in the above link in which I addressed ultralongrunner, I included a link. Did you click that link and then read that page? If you did, you already know that the  WTC lease-owner for the whole WTC complex was one Mr. Larry Silverstein, and you already know that he has stated publicly that the building WTC7 was "pulled", or, in other words, made to collapse by the use of well-engineered controlled demolition. The official government story about WTC 7 completely ignores what the owner said, that he and the FDNY decided to do to bring WTC 7 down. Either Mr. Silverstein is a liar, or the government is a liar, and if you read that article you shall see that for yourself.

So before I begin the laborious process of dragging up all the proof necessary to convince you that the government is lying about how the twin towers came down on 911,  I would like to receive your spoken agreement that you shall at least read the evidence I bring here for you. Is that fair enough? :)

As a beginning, after you read my indictment on the Editor of Popular Mechanics Magazine and his lies, why not also read this article which is over at Lew Rockwell dot com?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html)

Elias
(post edited to give the nod to Alton Speers, who posted that Lew Rockwell link earlier in the thread. Sorry to repeat that link - I had overlooked it until re-reading the thread just now. Shoulda known that Alton would already have that link, lol.)
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Elias Alias on June 14, 2005, 10:37:02 pm
Quote
Quote
ultralongrunner, you may wish to tread very gently here. Anyone who assists in the government's coverup of the truth of 911 shall be revealed.

I would like to ask you to find one - just one - major steel building which has collapsed because of fire, even intense fire. Just one steel building anywhere in history which collapsed due to fire.

 
Elias:

Trust me, I'm not trying to support the government position on this at all.  But I've been in steel buildings, watching the structural members twist and bend to the heat of flames and hoping that the roof didn't come down on my head.  

Given what I know about fire fighting, building construction and what I have seen, I feel that it is quite likely that the building came down like it was described.  If anything, the government is to blame for not building the structure to the current building codes with regard to fire.

As a holder of a high explosives license, I've worked on control demolitions.  Before a building can be taken down, the structural integrity of the building must be weakened--exactly what fire did in this situation.  (Which is why OKC couldn't have happened the way it did.)

I don't want to get into a pissing match.  I've expressed my opinion and you have done so also.  No problem.

ultralongrunner
Agreed, ultralongrunner, no "pissing match" is needed here. :)

Actually, though, you're just the guy I've been hoping to run into. You stated that you have "been in steel buildings, watching the structural members twist and bend to the heat of flames". I would like to proceed very slowly and methodically here. First, I would like to ask you if during any of your experiences inside (or nearby) steel buildings which sustained high-heat fires, you have ever seen anything like this?

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/ima...Biggart5-24.jpg (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/images/Biggart5-24.jpg)

To me, it seems that I see steel beams being jettisoned outward from the periphery of the building with great force. That is more than just "twisting and bending", wouldn't you agree?

I have another question for ya after we discuss that photo, if you're okay with me asking. It is a doozy! :)

Thanks very much in advance for your reply,
Elias
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: ultralongrunner on June 15, 2005, 12:18:37 am
Quote
Actually, though, you're just the guy I've been hoping to run into. You stated that you have "been in steel buildings, watching the structural members twist and bend to the heat of flames". I would like to proceed very slowly and methodically here. First, I would like to ask you if during any of your experiences inside (or nearby) steel buildings which sustained high-heat fires, you have ever seen anything like this?

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/ima...Biggart5-24.jpg (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/images/Biggart5-24.jpg)

To me, it seems that I see steel beams being jettisoned outward from the periphery of the building with great force. That is more than just "twisting and bending", wouldn't you agree?

I have another question for ya after we discuss that photo, if you're okay with me asking. It is a doozy! :)

Thanks very much in advance for your reply,
Elias
Elias:
 
Nope. But then again, I haven't been around many buildings that airplanes have crashed into. The closest was a Cesna that augered into a farm field. Messy.

Regarding the picture. Noted that there was no flame showing.  All of the high order explosives that I've worked with there is a flame with the blast. Also, I have no idea as to the structural strength of the steel that is being blown out.  Steel is strange in that way.  We all think of it as quite strong, but under the right circumstances, it falls apart.  

I have seen similar types of stuff flying out of windows during FX shoots.  We used air mortars/cannons. Quite impresive as to what air can do if used right.

Next time you are at Walmart, look at the ceiling. If they are built like the ones down here, it will be supported by steel.  When heated, directly or otherwise, these beams first expand and as they loose strength, the roof comes down.  So, you not only have to deal with collapsing walls, but the roof coming in.  It is my understanding that the WTC was built of the same sorts of materials.  

Now, was there a conspiracy regarding the WTC?  Maybe.  The paranoid side of me wonders it seems quite similar to Pearl Harbor--all the powers that be needed to do was stand aside and let someone else do their dirty work.

Someone might very well have helped the building come down.  I don't think so, given what I've seen given what my experience and training says.  But no matter what, we'll never really know as all the evidence is pretty well gone...

ultralongrunner
FF/NREMT-P
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Thunder on June 15, 2005, 08:07:31 am
It would seem to me that structural failure due to heat is the cause.  The steel did not melt, it was just heated.  Blacksmiths don't melt iron or steel to bend and shape it, they just heat it.  

Now, given that the hottest part of the fire would be in the center of the buildings where the majority of jet fuel would have been spilt, the heating of the interior center beams would be most logical.  Once those beams weaken due to the heat and can no longer hold the weight above them, they collapse.  The resulting weight slams down on those below, so on and so forth bringing the thing down.

There was no conspiracy to blow the WTC towers.  The only conspiracy at work was the R's and D's conspiring to continue the failed foreign policies that caused the terrorists to RETALIATE (note: I didn't say attack) against us.


Paranoia will destroy ya.    
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: mi6a2lm on June 15, 2005, 08:11:39 am
Quote
It would seem to me that structural failure due to heat is the cause.  The steel did not melt, it was just heated.  Blacksmiths don't melt iron or steel to bend and shape it, they just heat it.  

Now, given that the hottest part of the fire would be in the center of the buildings where the majority of jet fuel would have been spilt, the heating of the interior center beams would be most logical.  Once those beams weaken due to the heat and can no longer hold the weight above them, they collapse.  The resulting weight slams down on those below, so on and so forth bringing the thing down.

There was no conspiracy to blow the WTC towers.  The only conspiracy at work was the R's and D's conspiring to continue the failed foreign policies that caused the terrorists to RETALIATE (note: I didn't say attack) against us.


Paranoia will destroy ya.
What about building 7?  Have you seen the video of it going down?  It is similar to the demolitions of large buildings that one can see on TV.  (I can find the vid if you want.)
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: ultralongrunner on June 15, 2005, 08:35:18 am
Quote
It would seem to me that structural failure due to heat is the cause.  The steel did not melt, it was just heated.  Blacksmiths don't melt iron or steel to bend and shape it, they just heat it.  

 
I agree.  In the fire service, we have a term for elevator shafts and stairways. They are called chimneys.  It sucks to have to drag a hose up a smoke filled, very hot stairway.

ultralongrunner
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: ultralongrunner on June 15, 2005, 08:36:46 am
Quote
What about building 7?  Have you seen the video of it going down?  It is similar to the demolitions of large buildings that one can see on TV.  (I can find the vid if you want.)
Please find this. I've been right outside the danger zone during controled demolitions and would be interested.

Thanks,

ultralongrunner
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: byron on June 15, 2005, 08:38:12 am
As Elias has so well documented (and anybody can find this out independently by putting in a few key words on your search engine) :

1) Larry Silverstein owned the buidings that came down that day...any other building owners "suffer" losses and make a profit?

2) Marvin BUSH was security company director for those buildings....brother of a doubletalking crook?

Lots more  "coincidental" stuff that all came together at the very same moments on 911, that  tells me that I will not believe anything that government has tried to explain away the day. As far as I am concerned we were attacked by our own government with the plan to make a huge 1-step move to enslave the people of the US even further.

The buildings came down a little too clean, a little too staged,  for me to believe that it wasn't rigged to do so.
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Elias Alias on June 15, 2005, 08:41:38 am
ultralongrunner stated:
Quote
Nope. But then again, I haven't been around many buildings that airplanes have crashed into. The closest was a Cesna that augered into a farm field. Messy.

Okay, ultralongrunner. This photo was taken quite some time after the airplane hit the tower. This was shot as the tower was coming down, er, ?collapsing?. I note again that steel beams are being hurled outward with great force. They are not sagging or bending or twisting or crumbling ? they are being shredded from their joint connections which had previously held them together. You'll note several bondings in small groupings of three, connected by a wider cross-section. These are the exterior-wall steel girders which enclosed the exterior of the building, not the massive steel beams from the inner core of the building. You'll note that these banded groupings of three are being literally blown outward, with many of them being blown away from their cross-bands, so that we see in this photo many single arms of steel, all flying away from the building. I would like to maintain that those air-borne beams are not so much ?twisting and crumpling? as they are dislodged and displaced traumatically and sent flying through the air. Toward the bottom of the photo we can see one grouping of three which is still attached to the facing of the building at the bottom of their grouping, with the top of their grouping bending outward, away from the building. One other thing we can notice here is that the steel beams are not melted, but instead are still solid.

Quote
Regarding the picture. Noted that there was no flame showing. All of the high order explosives that I've worked with there is a flame with the blast.

Okay, good. Question:  about how long does the flame exist from the initiation of the explosion? A few seconds, or longer? Is the flame more like a ?flash?, or is it more sustained? Your point is noted, that there is no flame visible in this photo ? and I think that is important to note.

Quote
Also, I have no idea as to the structural strength of the steel that is being blown out. Steel is strange in that way. We all think of it as quite strong, but under the right circumstances, it falls apart.

Yes ? under the right circumstances it falls apart. And under demolition, it can literally blow apart, especially at welds and rivet-junctions, right?  Your experience with demolitions is very valuable here. My work with steel and torches is very small and controlled, when compared to your work with explosives and steel.  Every day, I work with torches on metals, and many times each day I use steel as a ?heat-sink?. Know what I'm talking about? I use steel to draw heat out of gold or silver which is being torched for my work's requirements, such as soldering and fusing. If I want to reduce the flow of heat running through a gold shank on a finger-ring, I place steel tweezers on either side of the area where I'm directing the torche's heat, and the greatest heat from the work-area of my torch moves outward from the direct area and into the steel tweezers. We call it ?heat sinking?, and we use it to keep the temperatures away from whatever gemstones may be set in the top of the ring. I mention this to show that steel conducts heat, as any working jeweler knows. When holding steel tweezers in one's hand, with the farther end of the tweezers receiving the flow of the heat, one is always pleased to note that as the heat travels through the steel toward the hand, the heat is absorbed by the steel and dissipates before enough of it can reach the end where the skin is; which is why we call it a ?sink? - the heat literally sinks into the steel and dissipates, loses its warmth. I note this now because when we look more closely at the construction of the Twin Towers, we're gong to see that there were massive steel columns rising from the ground all the way up to the tops of the buildings, and these were in the central core of each building, and where the jet fuel ignited up high would have to be considered the source of the heat which is stated by our dear government to have caused the steel beams of the core to melt and/or weaken so much that they could no longer bear their weight-loads. What I know directly about steel is that it is a heat-sink, a place where heat can run to get lost unless the heat's source is sustained and adjusted hotter in order to spread a critical temperature to the far reaches of the steel's other ends.  We'll get to the cores of the towers soon enough.

And then, of course, within the steel industry we have the fact that there are a number of ?types? and ?grades? of steel, ranging from highly-tempered to 'dead-soft', or completely untempered, with all sorts of strengths ranging in between, as well as variations on molecular-compositions.

Quote
I have seen similar types of stuff flying out of windows during FX shoots. We used air mortars/cannons. Quite impresive as to what air can do if used right.

Question: the stuff you've seen flying out of windows due to air cannons ? would that stuff also be seen flying out of windows if there were no man-made causes of blasts or explosions or air-cannons? In other words, would simple fire cause pieces of steel to launch themselves outward from the center of the fire, or, rather, would human-sourced 'causes' (such as an air-mortar) be needed to launch the pieces outward?
Please define for me what you mean by ?FX shoots??  
Now we notice in the photo that the debris (pieces of steel and other materials) are not just flying out of windows,  but, instead, the entire facing of the building is flying apart and outward from the building itself.
Also, am I correct in thinking that when you demolish a building you sometimes use ?air cannons?? What the heck is an ?air-cannon? and/or an ?air-mortar?? I take it that you want to derive from the use of such things a force-current of expelled air, which may be directed as needed?

Quote
Next time you are at Walmart, look at the ceiling. If they are built like the ones down here, it will be supported by steel. When heated, directly or otherwise, these beams first expand and as they loose strength, the roof comes down. So, you not only have to deal with collapsing walls, but the roof coming in. It is my understanding that the WTC was built of the same sorts of materials.

Well, in the case of overhead steel ?trusses? and triangled-beams and etc, which would be proportionately smaller in a Walmart store's building than in a skyscraper building, I sure do understand just what you're saying there. However, the materials may be the same, but the proportionate thickness of the steel members would be, in the case of one-hundred-plus-storey buildings, much much thicker, don't you agree?

Quote
Now, was there a conspiracy regarding the WTC? Maybe. The paranoid side of me wonders it seems quite similar to Pearl Harbor--all the powers that be needed to do was stand aside and let someone else do their dirty work.

One would certainly think that all they would need to do is stand aside and let it happen. But the truth shall reveal that they were doing much more than simply standing aside.  What Dick Cheney to this day has never admitted is the fact that he was running five wargame drills on that morning, one of which involved pilotless aircraft being controlled in flight from bunkers on the ground, and another of which was inserting false ?hijack blips? onto the FAA's and NORAD's radar screens ? among other cute tricks which, unfortunately, allowed the events of 911 to happen. We now know that had Cheney's wargame drills not been operating that morning, the four 'hijackings' could not have reached successful conclusions. It's that simple ? yet Dick Cheney has never spoken about these drills. But the rabbit hole goes even much deeper than just that, though I suppose on this thread we'll focus only on the collapses of three tall buildings.

But here is a very important question for you please: If I were to state that ?we're going to pull building number 6 now?, and if I were working for a demolition company which had been tasked with bringing down a building named ?number 6?, when I said that ? what would the term ?pull? mean to you if you heard me say that at the site of the soon-to-be-executed demolition of the building? Specifically, would ?pull the building? mean ?implode the building with controlled demolition techniques?? I ask this because Larry Silverstein said that FDNY and he ?decided to pull it?. He said this on a film which was broadcast nationally. When we look at the ?pulling? of WTC 7, we note that the building came down perfectly, and we  can see that from several different cameras' points of perspective. The CBS newscasters who covered the pulling of WTC 7 that afternoon said on national tv that it was like a controlled demolition, and when you look at the films of the building going down,  it is almost impossible for me to conceive of any other manner by which a building can collapse that perfectly ? other than controlled demolition.

Quote
Someone might very well have helped the building come down. I don't think so, given what I've seen given what my experience and training says. But no matter what, we'll never really know as all the evidence is pretty well gone...

Well, here is one sad fact: the WTC on the morning of 911 became a ?crime scene?, and Fedgov hustled to remove all the evidence of that crime from the crime scene. Have you any idea how bold the Fedgov was to remove all that evidence? That itself is against the law. Why would the government remove all the evidence which could have, under study and research, reveal the truth about how the buildings came down? I'm calling that ?evidence-tampering?.

Truthfully, I have various film-clips here at my place, films of New York City firemen and some NYC policemen, who were on the scene that morning, and they state excitedly that they heard explosions. I also have a number of films from the major news services on which the anchormen are talking about the ?loud explosions?. These films were broadcast live and some are on the French journalists' film ?911?, but the tv networks never showed the footages again after that day.  Curiously, the U.S. Department of Justice has placed the New York Fire Department personnel who were at the scene under a gag order, forbidding them to talk about the explosions they saw and heard. I wonder why Fedgov doesn't want eye-witnesses talking about explosions? Here is a page which gives some of their statements. (it's better of course to see their faces while they're saying these things, but unless you buy the videos we'll have to settle for text transcriptions only.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/e...ewitnesses.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html)

To wrap-up this post, I'd like to ask you the most important question I can imagine ? If you owned a demolition company, and if I were to hire your company to demolish a forty-seven story skyscraper in downtown New York City, with fires on the fifth floor and ninth floor and maybe a small fire or two on other floors, with total pandemonium going on all over the site (caused by aircraft diving into tall buildings in the complex in which I wanted to "pull" the building,  how long would it take your crews to get the building ready to ?pull?, and about how much sheer weight in explosives would you need to bring down that 47 story building perfectly?

Thanks so much for your help! I really appreciate your being willing to talk about these questions. :)

Salute!
Elias
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Joel on June 15, 2005, 08:42:42 am
I don't have a dog in this race, so don't anybody tear into me.  I agree with the "controlled demolition" advocates that the destruction of the buildings looks for all the world like a planned demolition, with the exception that there are no flashes from the phased detonations.  I've read the articles posted, some months ago.  But they leave me with two questions.

First, a controlled demolition of a large structure is not a clandestine business.  You've got to have access to every inch of the building.  There are demo packs against every load-bearing structure, det cord and cables are strung everywhere, sometimes you've got to saw partway through structural members.  It would take weeks of loud and obvious work for trained teams to prep a building the size of a WTC tower for a demo like that, and the traces would be everywhere.  Somebody would comment.

Second, the article(s) I read seemed to argue that the airplanes were a hoax.  There was more of the "hole's too small" argument.  But the planes hit the buildings in a very, very public manner; especially the second one.  It wasn't a mass hallucination.  The planes were there.

I'm prepared to believe that there was government complicity in the WTC disaster.  I enjoy believing things like that.  But in this case, while I can believe that somebody greased the skids for the planes to be hijacked, I don't believe some super-demo team faked the way the WTC was destroyed.  
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Scarmiglione' on June 15, 2005, 08:49:04 am
Just to add some fuel to throw around the fire (puns intended)...


Pictures of recent high rises that actually had steel-softening infernos as compared to WTC.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm)
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Thunder on June 15, 2005, 09:48:35 am
Not to mention the fact that the buildings had 2 big-assed planes flying into them at around 3-400 mph.  I'm quite sure the impact they had caused quite a bit of structural damage as well.  Remember, the planes didn't splat on the glass like a bug on a windshield.  Combined with burning jet fuel and office debris, you get a hot fire that heated already weakened structural steel.

JDW makes an excellent point about controlled demos.  Also, in order for the demo guys to get the biuldings to fall the way they want them to, the charges have to be timed in a certain sequence.  There's no explosions spaced at exact intervals all the way down the entire buildings as one has for controlled implosion demolition.  That's also assuming that they were able to wire the entire building to blow in the first place, which is ludicrous.

There is no conspiracy to blow the WTC towers up.  To believe that there is one would be granting the gov WAY too much intelligence.  We all know they are much more incompetent than that.
   
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Ted Nielsen on June 15, 2005, 09:58:12 am
WTC 7 videos:

Link 1 (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg)

Link 2 (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse.mpg)

My question is: were the WTC structures interconnected below street level? That would be the only way #7 and first tower that was hit could have collasped. The tower that was hit first would not have collasped on its own, it was hit to high. IIRC, it collasped from the bottom. Right? My point being the first tower that went down copromised the foundation to such an extent the rest of the WTC structures collasped.

 
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Ted Nielsen on June 15, 2005, 10:14:24 am
Elias wrote:
Quote
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/ima...Biggart5-24.jpg (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/ima...Biggart5-24.jpg)

To me, it seems that I see steel beams being jettisoned outward from the periphery of the building with great force. That is more than just "twisting and bending", wouldn't you agree?

I don't think you can detmine the trajectory of the steel beams (if that's what they really are) from one picture.  
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Harleqwin on June 15, 2005, 10:15:15 am
Quote
It would seem to me that structural failure due to heat is the cause.  The steel did not melt, it was just heated.
....
Now, given that the hottest part of the fire would be in the center of the buildings where the majority of jet fuel would have been spilt, the heating of the interior center beams would be most logical.  Once those beams weaken due to the heat and can no longer hold the weight above them, they collapse.  The resulting weight slams down on those below, so on and so forth bringing the thing down.
Thunder, please read about this more if you do not believe what I state here.  The one little piece of info comes from the FEMA report, chapter 7 I believe.  (still at work, cannot get my copy of the report, yet)

the jet fuel burned off within 10 or 15 minutes ACCORDING to FEMA.  They state this in their report.  (They also state that they were unable to investigate what happened to building 7, and then they INFER what happened to it, based on what they INFER happend to WTC 1 and 2).

SO, the jet fuel has burned up 15 minutes after impact.  What is burning so HOT that the second tower hit is the first to fall 46ish minutes later?  What is burning (not so) hot that the first tower to be hit is the second tower to fall one hour after impact?

Sadly the OFFICIAL (FEMA) explanation does not tell us what burned so hot as to cause the extreme temperatures required to weaken steel.  It is obvious that a normal office fire will not weaken the steel; rather, I should say that this has never happened in the past.

Jet Fuel gone in 15 minutes.  What was causing all that heat?

Every attempt to support the official theory has assumed that the heat existed to weaken the steel.  They HAVE TO ASSUME THIS, because if there is no heat, well, there is no collapse due to fire; no collapse due to an overall weakening of the structure.  no perfect symmetrical "pancake collapse"

HEAT; it is the weakest point in the whole story of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.


Elias, I have wondered what the insurance trial transripts would tell us?  I am referring to the trial wherein Silverstein was paid for the "accident".  Those transcripts should contain some information, possibly very valuable info about the causes of the collapse.  Or do you think that they avoided the issue?  Regardless, I would like to check into that.  Do you know where in New York the trial was held?  I might be able to travel to that courthouse and request a copy of that trial.

Every time I hear Silverstein, or I read about his admission, I can actually feel my mental resistance to the whole idea kick in....kinda like that is such a huge, shocking OH MY GOD!!!   if that guy said that, then that means......NO, it can't be I won't believe it I can't believe THAT!

so very wierd that feeling is...
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Elias Alias on June 15, 2005, 10:34:27 am
Quote
There is no conspiracy to blow the WTC towers up.  To believe that there is one would be granting the gov WAY too much intelligence.  We all know they are much more incompetent than that.
As a culmination of years of top-secret planning which involved literally thousands of people, and which was successfully kept secret for years, the U.S. government blew up Nagasaki and Hiroshima with weapons undreamed of prior to that time - the weapons are now called "Atomic Bombs". The secret project was called "The Manhattan Project". The U.S. government can do all sorts of cute tricks, including reading your license plate from outer space and putting space ships into orbit around the moon.

The sheer logistics and engineering feats necessary for the execution of what happened in New York City and at the Pentagon on the morning of 911 are so staggeringly huge that it is much easier for me to believe that criminal elements within the government using government offices and resources and military equipment and Secret Service and CIA and FEMA assets, among other toys such as those featured by the Pentagon, arranged and carried out the attacks, than it is for me to believe that a bearded guerrilla fighter with a kidney problem living in a cave in Afghanistan could have done it.

But let me ask you - what about those five wargame drills which Cheney was running that morning? Have you somehow managed to deprive yourself of that knowledge? Are you aware of the fact that the FAA and NORAD at times that morning were seeing as many as 22 "hijackings" in progress on their radar screens? Are you aware that there were U.S. military Boeing 767s in the air that morning over the east coast which were being flown by ground controls?

Why do you resist so adamantly the supposition that there may be a criminal syndicate hidden inside our secretive government? Who was Ted Shackley? What was Oliver North doing during the Reagan administration? Who landed fifteen-hundred U.S. trained-and-supplied troops on the shores of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs? Why did Eisenhower lie outright about the Gary Powers U-2 shootdown over Russia? But mostly - and this is something I'd really like to hear you comment upon - what in the name of hell was going on under Admiral L. L. Lemnitzer in 1962 when he was head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon?

http://www.thementalmilitia.org/modules.ph...article&sid=301 (http://www.thementalmilitia.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=301)

If you read that, you'll see that our dearly-beloved government is quite capable of planning terrorist events inside the borders of the United States for the purpose of gaining public support for a foreign war. They have been thinking this way since at least 1962, as these documents show.

911 was an inside job.

Dick Cheney is a former Director at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ali Mohammed was on the FBI's payroll when he wrote the manual for Jihad for al Qeada.

The Federal Reserve System, Inc., is the biggest counterfeit operation on earth.

Waco happened.

Who's side are you on?

Why would you wish to believe that this current Federal government is not trying to install a police state in America?

Why did George Walker Bush state twice, publicly and on film, that he had seen the first plane dive into the first tower on the morning of 911 before he went into that Florida classroom?

I invite you to go here and start catching up on your homework....

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Con...the%20Evidence/ (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Confronting%20the%20Evidence/)

Salute!
Elias

 
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Elias Alias on June 15, 2005, 10:39:11 am
Quote
I don't think you can detmine the trajectory of the steel beams (if that's what they really are) from one picture.
I have quite a few different videos of the events of  911. (What would you expect, lol - I'm one who is convinced that the government did 911!)

In the film footage, which has not been shown since the day of 911, you can see the entire footage of the collapses in vivid detail.  Next time you're down my way, I'll be delighted to show you all the videos I've collected up. In fact, I've also given copies of the tapes to Basil, so he now also has a nice library of films Fedgov does not want us to see.

Ths sick truth is that not only are those steel beams being jettisoned outward from the building, they are also being jettisoned up first, then arcing downward, right before your very eyes. :)

Salute!
Elias
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Thunder on June 15, 2005, 10:46:54 am
Just looking into the heat issue is still missing the fact that the buildings structural members were FIRST hit by an airplane that weighed 315,000 lbs, not including fuel, passengers, cargo, etc.  I don't know of much that could withstand that without some damage.  Add a fire on top of that and the thing fell like a house of cards.

As I said before, the government is too stupid to be able to pull something like a controlled demo off.  Don't give them credit they don't deserve.


 
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Elias Alias on June 15, 2005, 10:58:26 am
Quote
First, a controlled demolition of a large structure is not a clandestine business.  You've got to have access to every inch of the building.  There are demo packs against every load-bearing structure, det cord and cables are strung everywhere, sometimes you've got to saw partway through structural members.  It would take weeks of loud and obvious work for trained teams to prep a building the size of a WTC tower for a demo like that, and the traces would be everywhere.  Somebody would comment.

Second, the article(s) I read seemed to argue that the airplanes were a hoax.  There was more of the "hole's too small" argument.  But the planes hit the buildings in a very, very public manner; especially the second one.  It wasn't a mass hallucination.  The planes were there.

 
Okay. First, as noted already, George Walker Bush's youngest brother was on the board of the company which ran the "security" for Larry Silverstein's properties at the WTC. That security company had every access to the buildings for a long time before 911.

Secondly, I've proven that the NIST and FEMA have both lied outright about how WTC 7 came down, and the building's owner himself says publicly, as broadcast on PBS, that he and FDNY decided to "pull it" (WTC 7). Since the decision to "pull it" came after FDNY had called Silverstein with the bad news that FDNY could not put out the fires in WTC 7, that means that the entire preparation for the demolition of WTC 7 would have had to be executed in less than five hours. *That* of course is impossible to do, as you've so correctly noted. *That* means that the explosives were already in the buildihg before the morning of 911. And *that* means that 911 was an inside job.

Thirdly, I agree with you that the airplanes were not a hoax, that there were two airliners (of debatable types) which dove into the twin towers. What that does not prove, however, is that the airliners which hit the buildings were flghts 11 and 175 - they could have been U.S. Air Force tankers full of fuel. We all know that the 757 and the 767 both come stock from Boeing with ground-control systems which allow for FAA and/or NORAD to take over control of the flight of the plane from the ground.

We also now know that on the 23rd floor of WTC 7 was a Secret Service, CIA, Port Authority, FEMA, and U.S. military command, control, and communications bunker using state-of-the-art PROMISS software which was capable of over-riding Pentagon, FEMA, NSA, CIA, FAA, and NORAD  communications and radar systems. And we know that all of that was under the command of Dick Cheney, who just chanced on that morning to be running five wargame drills which included "live-fly" exercises and fake "insertions" of false hijack "blips" on the FAA's and NORAD's  radar screens - which showed up at FAA and NORAD as 22 hijackings in progress at the same time.

Knowing that much, we must ask ourselves this - How the hell did Osama bin Laden know that Dick Cheney's wargame drills would effectively shut down the entire east coast's air defense system for several hours on the morning of 911, and know that information well in advance, so he could order his nineteen "hijackers" to the proper airports for boarding the proper flights?

WTC 7 is the slip-up which shall bring down this criminal syndicate's entire house of cards.

Think on these things...

:)

Elias
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Elias Alias on June 15, 2005, 11:11:01 am
Quote
Just looking into the heat issue is still missing the fact that the buildings structural members were FIRST hit by an airplane that weighed 315,000 lbs, not including fuel, passengers, cargo, etc.  I don't know of much that could withstand that without some damage.  Add a fire on top of that and the thing fell like a house of cards.

As I said before, the government is too stupid to be able to pull something like a controlled demo off.  Don't give them credit they don't deserve.
We have seismic evidence showing that the towers both "stabilized" after the impacts. They stood for quite some time before collapsing. Again, I admonish you to get some of the videos which are readily available. One I've already linked for you. Another great one is the Directors Cut of "911 In Plane Site" by Dave von Kleist. In the director's cut version of this film, he goes to great lengths to show how the government's lies simply won't hold water in the light of scrutiny. The visiuals are amazing. Go get this film before you stick your foot deeper into your mouth, lol!

http://www.911inplanesite.com/911review_di...fotainment.html (http://www.911inplanesite.com/911review_disinfotainment.html)

:)
Elias
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Elias Alias on June 15, 2005, 11:15:10 am
Quote
Quote
It would seem to me that structural failure due to heat is the cause.  The steel did not melt, it was just heated.  Blacksmiths don't melt iron or steel to bend and shape it, they just heat it. 

 
I agree.  In the fire service, we have a term for elevator shafts and stairways. They are called chimneys.  It sucks to have to drag a hose up a smoke filled, very hot stairway.

ultralongrunner
The core shafts of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were both constructed so as to "hermetically seal" off entire sections of the buildings in case of fire. The engineers who designed the buildings wanted to prevent the "chimney effect".

:)
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Elias Alias on June 15, 2005, 11:18:14 am
Quote
WTC 7 videos:

Link 1 (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg)

Link 2 (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse.mpg)

My question is: were the WTC structures interconnected below street level? That would be the only way #7 and first tower that was hit could have collasped. The tower that was hit first would not have collasped on its own, it was hit to high. IIRC, it collasped from the bottom. Right? My point being the first tower that went down copromised the foundation to such an extent the rest of the WTC structures collasped.
I've seen the satellite imagery on the heat-fields below the rubble days and even weeks later. There is considerable reason to suspect that a mini-nuke was in the basement of each of the twin towers. That could explain the molten steel days after the collapses.

:)
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Elias Alias on June 15, 2005, 11:27:50 am
Quote
HEAT; it is the weakest point in the whole story of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.


Elias, I have wondered what the insurance trial transripts would tell us?  I am referring to the trial wherein Silverstein was paid for the "accident".  Those transcripts should contain some information, possibly very valuable info about the causes of the collapse.  Or do you think that they avoided the issue?  Regardless, I would like to check into that.  Do you know where in New York the trial was held?  I might be able to travel to that courthouse and request a copy of that trial.

Every time I hear Silverstein, or I read about his admission, I can actually feel my mental resistance to the whole idea kick in....kinda like that is such a huge, shocking OH MY GOD!!!   if that guy said that, then that means......NO, it can't be I won't believe it I can't believe THAT!

so very wierd that feeling is...
I agree with you, that questions about "heat" are a very damning problem for the criminals inside the government who committed the mass murders of 911. The towers stood with streams of black smoke for some time before their collapses. Black smoke indicates lower burning temps.  

About Silverstein's settlement with the insurance company - I'm not sure if there was even a trial, but if there was a trial, you can bet your last dollar that the Fedgov has already put a gag order on the transcript. But Silverstein may have settled out of court. According to Alex Jones, Silverstein netted a cool five hundred million bucks for his pains on that day. That is "Net", not gross. :)

I must have watched Silverstein's live statement forty or more times. It's on quite a few films which I watch here. One thing which brings a smile to my face is the fact that he waited so long to announce that. By the time he came out with it, FEMA had already made complete fools and liars of themselves with their "official" report.

Oh, well.... at least, we all know that Roosevelt did not break the Japanese code before Pearl Harbor, right?

:)

Salute!
Elias
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Thunder on June 15, 2005, 11:28:00 am
Quote
There is considerable reason to suspect that a mini-nuke was in the basement of each of the twin towers.
Oh, dear God!

I like you and all that, Elias, but you just lost all credibility with that statement.

And you had the gall to warn ME about sticking my foot in my mouth?

Here's some info that might help you out:  Not everything that happens is a government conspiracy and a cover-up.  I took a dump this morning before I came into work.  Do you think the gov was behind that, too?  Maybe they genetically altered my DNA to make it so I had to defecate shortly after I woke in the morning.

I say that in jest, but I hope you understand how senseless and paranoid my above example is.  It's the exact same impression that you are giving with your explanation of 9/11.

Take some meds.  Or stop taking whatever it is you are taking.  Whatever you're doing or not doing, it isn't helping you to maintain a grasp on reality.

 
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Bill St. Clair on June 15, 2005, 11:28:18 am
Quote
I've seen the satellite imagery on the heat-fields below the rubble days and even weeks later. There is considerable reason to suspect that a mini-nuke was in the basement of each of the twin towers. That could explain the molten steel days after the collapses.

:)
I mini-nuke, eh? That's the first I've heard of that theory. Or does your smiley mean that you're joking?

I've read a lot of theories about the disaster on 9/11/2001. Many of them sound plausible, including the official story. I have even mirrored a couple of 9/11 web sites on my own, just to make sure they survive. Bottom line: I don't know whether it was a planned controlled demolition carried out by our government, or a collapse caused by bad engineering and two jet planes. Most of the players in the official story are dead, so we'll never hear a confession from them. If it was carried out by the government, we'll likely hear confessions a few years down the pike, or maybe not.

I do know one thing, however. The 9/11 "attack" has been used by the U.S. government as an excuse to massively curtail our civil liberties. If they didn't plan it, they might as well have. The result has been the same as if they had.
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Mostly Harmless on June 15, 2005, 11:34:22 am
Quote
911 was an inside job.

Dick Cheney is a former Director at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ali Mohammed was on the FBI's payroll when he wrote the manual for Jihad for al Qeada.

The Federal Reserve System, Inc., is the biggest counterfeit operation on earth.
 
IIRC, that "bearded guerrilla fighter with a kidney problem living in a cave in Afghanistan" was a CIA (and I don't mean the Culinary Institute of America) asset for many years.

If you've lived all your life within the borders of ConUSA, you probably have a very limited knowledge of just how much the various dirty tricks departments of Fed.gov interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations. Even their allies are not off-limits -- they've messed around with the Brits for years.

In countries where the police state, uh "development", is lagging behind the USA and Western Europe they don't even bother to cover their tracks very much.

Apart from sheer raw power, I can't for the life of me fathom why they do what they do.  And I must be seriously lacking in testosterone or something, because I just don't get off on the whole "unlimited power" kick.... :(  :rolleyes:  
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Elias Alias on June 15, 2005, 11:36:48 am
Quote
Take some meds.  Or stop taking whatever it is you are taking.  Whatever you're doing or not doing, it isn't helping you to maintain a grasp on reality.
Well, we shall see what we shall see. I think I'm gonna stick to my guns on this. I did not state as fact that a mini-nuke was in the basement of each building, I stated that there is reason to look into that as a possibility. I am convinced that a criminal element within our government did 911. Our government does possess mini-nukes. You apparently don't choose to think that. No point in arguing with you about it, I'm sure, so like I just said, we shall see what we shall see.

But btw, did you read that Northwoods Document yet?

One thing I like about message boards is that the posts are dated when they are made. It's like they become a record of who said what when, y'kno?

:)

Salute!
Elias
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Harleqwin on June 15, 2005, 11:39:32 am
The second tower hit, first to fall was hit by the airplane at an angle, not dead on perpendicular.  That means that most of the kinetic energy would project along that same path; a path that would avoid the central core of the building.  This is a plausible explanation that leaves very little structural damage to what is holding up the building.  (also, an undetermined amount of the fuel burned at that time - outside the envelope of the building.)

That is the first tower to fall.  No major fire, no major structural damage to the central core.

Which law of Physics is it that would apply to an object in motion?  Inertia?

Thunder, I do not wish to argue nor do I want to be unfriendly.  I shall again ask you to read the FEMA report, both the beginning (Preface?) and the chapter that deals with WTC 1 and 2.  There are also several good diagrams of the floor layout that will visually show much better than I can explain.

Jet fuel is gone in 15 minutes; normal office fire; no other explanation, no other fuel souce.
That train of fact points to no evidence of steel weakening temperatures.  That is what is left unsaid, unproven in the FEMA report.
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Joel on June 15, 2005, 11:41:21 am
On whatever details we may differ, I think we can all agree that:
Quote
The 9/11 "attack" has been used by the U.S. government as an excuse to massively curtail our civil liberties. If they didn't plan it, they might as well have. The result has been the same as if they had.
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Elias Alias on June 15, 2005, 11:42:41 am
Quote
Quote
911 was an inside job.

Dick Cheney is a former Director at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ali Mohammed was on the FBI's payroll when he wrote the manual for Jihad for al Qeada.

The Federal Reserve System, Inc., is the biggest counterfeit operation on earth.
 
IIRC, that "bearded guerrilla fighter with a kidney problem living in a cave in Afghanistan" was a CIA (and I don't mean the Culinary Institute of America) asset for many years.

If you've lived all your life within the borders of ConUSA, you probably have a very limited knowledge of just how much the various dirty tricks departments of Fed.gov interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations. Even their allies are not off-limits -- they've messed around with the Brits for years.

In countries where the police state, uh "development", is lagging behind the USA and Western Europe they don't even bother to cover their tracks very much.

Apart from sheer raw power, I can't for the life of me fathom why they do what they do.  And I must be seriously lacking in testosterone or something, because I just don't get off on the whole "unlimited power" kick.... :(  :rolleyes:
Exactly.

And as we know, any CIA asset shall be given only the knowledge deemed necessary by his superior commanders, which, regarding the operation on 911,  I believe was Dick Cheney. I seriously doubt that Cheney felt Osama had a "need to know", so I don't think bin Laden even knew what was going down with the Secret Service and CIA and the Pentagon and etc that morning, you know, all the things relating to the five wargame drills.

I agree with you. I think that the CIA's tasks nowadays include the very important task of creating "enemies" so that the public will continue to feed the Defense contracting community through a tax base. I'm pretty sure that if we were not creating enemies, the Fed's fake economy would fall in upon itself with even more fanfare than we see in the collapse of the twin towers.

Salute!
Elias
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Thunder on June 15, 2005, 12:02:45 pm
I don't want to get into a big argument, either.  Nor do I want this to escalate into personal attacks (which it kinda almost did).  Elias and I like each other and I'm sure neither of us intended any ill will.  I know I didn't and I'm quite positive Elias didn't either.

What we have to look at here are that in order to cull out any theories in order to find the one that explains what happened, there are 2 major things that have to be answered:  Was it possible?  Was it PROBABLE?

Considering that almost anything is possible, the big factor that removes the majority of theories is probability.  Take the argument that .50 cal rifles should be banned that is so often used.  The argument is that 'terrorists' could use the rifles to shoot down a plane.

Is it POSSIBLE to do this?  Yes.  Lobbing a projectile in the air at another object and having that projectile hit it is absolutely possible.

Is it PROBABLE that this could be done?  The answer is no.  Hitting a moving object flying at 300+ mph is extremely difficult to do, especially with a rifle that weighs so damned much.

Now, is it possible that hundreds of government people all worked together to plan this out and execute a controlled demo or mini-nuke or whathave you?  Yes, it is possible.

Is it probable?  Absolutely not.

Remember Occam's Razor.  The simplest solution is more than likely the correct one.  2 planes flew into the towers, burned up the jet fuel, cargo (which included a lot of flammable clothing, etc), and office equipment and papers.  The planes impact with the buildings structural members weakened them so that the resulting fire could further weaken them to the point of failure.

Is the government criminal?  Abso-frickin-lutely.  No argument from me there.  

Was 9/11 the government's fault?  Absolutely.  Again, no argument from me.

Did they do it?  Absolutely not.  To say that they did gives them much more credit than they'd ever deserve.  
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Bill St. Clair on June 15, 2005, 12:04:16 pm
Quote
Apart from sheer raw power, I can't for the life of me fathom why they do what they do.  And I must be seriously lacking in testosterone or something, because I just don't get off on the whole "unlimited power" kick.... :(  :rolleyes:
I'm with you. I don't understand why some people want power over others. To me, power over another person implies a huge responsibility, and I already have enough responsibility just keeping myself and my family fed, clothed, sheltered, and loved.
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Thunder on June 15, 2005, 12:21:50 pm
That's because you're a rational human being that just wants to live your life.  You don't have any ego problems or anything like that to cause you to want to have power over someone else.

If for some odd reason I was put into a situation where I was king or something, I'd have the most boring reign as I wouldn't do a damned thing.   :lol:   Go ahead, lead your lives.  I'll be over here in the corner reading a book or taking a nap.  Wake me when my term is up.
 
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Delos on June 15, 2005, 02:26:51 pm
Thunder,

Not to piss you off, but it is exactly the kind of blind and adamant incredulity that you continue to display, in the the face of overwhelming evidence pointing to a us.gov staged "attack," that the us.gov perps were counting on to make their scheme an ultimate success.

Rather than continue to discount the ability of the sick us.gov control freaks to execute a grand plan such as 911, why don't you explain, for starters, the photos of the people in the holes in TWC where the building collapsing heat is purported to have been?

I must say that the only things more disturbing to me than criminal governments, are their apologists, unwitting or not!
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Thunder on June 15, 2005, 02:38:31 pm
Quote
Not to piss you off, but it is exactly the kind of blind and adamant incredulity that you continue to display, in the the face of overwhelming evidence pointing to a us.gov staged "attack," that the us.gov perps were counting on to make their scheme an ultimate success.
And not to piss you off, but it is the blatant lack of logic that conspiracy theorists display that make us all look like a bunch of idiots.

I am not nor will I ever be a government apologist.  Perhaps you need to go back a bit and re-read my previous posts.


As for the explanation of the fire behind the people, would you care to tell me exactly how big each floor of the towers was?  Considering the fact that the planes are 159 ft long and 156 ft wide and were completely dwarfed by the sheer size of the towers, did you ever stop to think that the people could be at least 100 ft away from the fire, possibly more?

Oh, no wait.  You couldn't think that because that would require logic and analytical thinking and doesn't implicate the government in every little thing that happens in the world.

Again, let me reiterate.  The government is responsible for the attack, but the government did NOT commit the attack.  How exactly that makes me a government apologist, I have no idea.  But then again, I live in the real world.

Quote
I  must say that the only things more disturbing to me than criminal governments, are their apologists, unwitting or not!

And the only thing that is more disturbing to me are people that rant on about conspiracies, making us that are against the government look like we are whackos and have no credibility.


P.S.  Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy aren't real!  Sorry to break the news to ya.

I won't be posting on this topic anymore.  I won't argue with irrational people.  Enjoy!
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: Scarmiglione' on June 15, 2005, 02:47:30 pm
Wouldn't an oxygen-hungry inferno be moving rapidly towards the open holes in the building where unlimited supplies of oxygen were available?

Any fire experts how know fire reacts in enclosed spaces like that?
Title: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
Post by: debra on June 15, 2005, 02:50:08 pm
Locking. No explanation required, I think. Those still interested in debating may switch to email or PMs.