Yah..9/11 no explosives? COME AT ME BRO!

[voodoo101]

In the manner of which controlled demolitions? Oh, that's right - the CT crowd only shows you videos of controlled demolitions that appear to match these, even though by definition a controlled demolition can be made to fall any way the engineers desire (and they only show WTC7 from one angle). How come they never compare against buildings which fall sideways, because that's where the debris needed to go? How come every video of an actual controlled demolition has a massive series of audible and visible detonations - yet the destruction of two of the largest buildings on the planet has none?

Oh, and you're also presenting a false statement, since the WTC1/2 collapses (which start at the aircraft impact floors) are completely different from WTC7 (which started near the bottom).

love how nutsy prefaces everything with "the CT crowd"...the CT crowd is now HIM, believing the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory of Ali bin laden and his 20 Thieves, stealing 'Merca's innocence.

poll from 2006, number of skeptics has skyrocketed, New York Times Poll--Most Americans Believe Bush Administration is Lying or 'Hiding Facts' About 9/11
http://www.organicconsumers.org/arti...ticle_3158.cfm

[voodoo101]

it is obvious the disinfos are trying to channel much of the discussion to explosive sounds, and the squibs seen shooting from the buildings. Let's talk about the the ten and twenty -foot long pieces of cleanly cut steel beams you see spinning away laterally, at explosive speed, like they were toothpicks. Compressed air doing that too? Steel "snapping"? I thought it got soft enough to fail, so how does soft steel "snap"?

That is the real smoking gun in the OP video. What do you think those spinning stick-like object are? Office chairs? Those suckers did not "collapse" down. They were blown out.

They found these cleanly cut pieces of beam embedded in buildings two football fields away, like Bankers Trust, here:



gravitational collapse, yea right.

primary debris field:





above at http://www.naderlibrary.com/911.blue...ortruthae3.htm

demolition with sound:


firefighters testimony:



http://busharchives.org

[IndiraMethi]

Face it, the government did it, because the CT'ers wanted the government to be involved because it indulges their paranoia.

No one "wants" to believe that there were and are criminal elements within the government that were involved with the attack. It's a lot easier to believe some external, non-state sponsored threat was responsible.

Btw when people refer to "the government" being involved, they are not talking about the "elected" government the U.S. is supposed to have--they are, by default referring to the unelected, illegitimate, shadow government that fraudulently calls itself the "U.S." government. So I don't know why everyone has a knee jerk reaction as if you think other people are blaming what you think are elected leaders for the attacks. If they were blaming the Constitutional government formed in 1776--then calling everyone a "CT'er" might be justified. Last time I checked, the New World Order that George H.W. Bush referred to in his 1991 speech wasn't in control of America in 1776 like they are today. That New World Order, IS "Al-Qaeda"--except they aren't a bunch of rag heads overseas--they're the same group that Eisenhower warned the public about decades ago, the military industrial complex (which is also the Eurocratic banking globalist oligarchy).

The government did it, now they just need to find the missing puzzle peaces that make it possible, even if they have to put a lot of square pegs into round holes to get it to work.

The official mythological story is the epitome of putting square pegs into round holes. I bet you didn't know that Philip Zelikow's master thesis was on "manufacturing public myths"?

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle15398.htm

In the Orwellian world of make-believe; the narrative is everything. Invent a good story, run it through the ministry of truth (the media) and stick to it no matter how ridiculous it may sound. After all, if the media can shift the national debate from the war in Iraq, Social Security, and the enormous federal deficits to 14 weepy fundamentalists waving signs in front of a hospice in Florida where a brain-dead patient is being kept alive against her will; anything is possible. In researching the Bush administration’s manipulation of public perceptions, I came across an interesting summary of the State Department’s Philip Zelikow, who was Executive Director on the 9-11 Commission, that greatest of all charades. According to Wikipedia:

“Prof. Zelikow’s area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, ‘public myths’ or ‘public presumptions’ which he defines as ‘beliefs (1) thought to be true ( although not necessarily known with certainty) and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.’ In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called ‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events (that) take on transcendent’ importance and therefore retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene….He has noted that ‘a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make the connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all.” (“Thinking about Political History” Miller center Report, winter 1999, p 5-7)

Isn’t that the same as saying there is neither history nor truth; that what is really important is the manipulation of epochal events so they serve the interests of society’s managers? Thus, it follows that if the government can create their own “galvanizing events”, then they can write history any way they choose. If that’s the case, then perhaps the entire war on terror is cut from whole cloth; a garish public relations maneuver devoid of meaning. Wikipedia adds this about Zelikow which may help to clarify this point:

“In the Nov-Dec 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs he (Zelikow) co-authored (with the former head of the CIA) an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded ‘the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow) That was written in 1998!?!

Amazing. It is almost like Zelikow knew what was going to happen on 9-11 and was drawing attention to the “draconian measures” (scaling back civil liberties) which may seem attractive to elites in the policy establishment. Now, coincidentally, everything has evolved just as Zelikow predicted. Just like Pearl Harbor, 9-11 has “divided our past and future into a before and after”. The post-9-11 world relates to a world in which personal liberty is no longer protected, and where surveillance, detention and the use of deadly force are all permitted. It is a world in which “America’s fundamental sense of security” has been shattered and will continue to be shattered as a way of managing public opinion. As Zelikow presciently implies, the post 9-11 world depends entirely on “public myths”; fairy tales invented by society’s supervisors which perpetuate the illusion of democracy, freedom and the rule of law.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog...harlie-skelton
'The names of the 46 military exercises and hijack drills (called things like 'Vigilant Guardian') that were actually taking place on the morning of September 11. "The greatest density of drills in US military history," Tarpley said.

Fake radar blips, dummy hijacks, dummy attacks, fighter jets sent off to Turkey, the skies left unprotected, with the FBI's top anti-terror experts stuck on a training exercise in California. The drills, said Tarpley, were important, because not only did they weaken and confuse US air defence, but there was also a military drill for each major component of the 9/11 attacks. The drills were cover, and the dummy threats were made real.

September 11, he argues, was a coup carried out by a rogue network within the US military and government. A cabal of fascists, working with (and for) a banking oligarchy, "the old boys of Wall Street".

"You want to blame Saudi Arabia, or Israel, or Pakistan? You can't. There isn't the evidence." The evidence, Tarpley says, points towards 9/11 as a false flag attack, carried out by a high level clique, that forced a shocked and awestruck US public into a vast and still ongoing war. It was America's very own Reichstag fire. And the official version of the event? "A racist, militaristic, and fascist myth that we must reject."'

[CoolDehLa]

This is what you don't get....its not 'jakes demolition crew'. There aren't a lot of companies that do this work. Its not like anyone with some dynamite and a match has the skill to drop a building in its own footprint. And if you can find an explosive that is going to evaporate a chunk out of multiple skyscraper girders and be quiet about it..you let me know.

Please respond to this conspiracy theorists.

and please don't respond solely with youtube vids.

[CoolDehLa]

Are they engineers, or are they all mostly architects and engineering students? How many are structural engineers?

If its so obviously controlled demo, why is there only a small minority that have signed onto the movement, compared to the vast majority who think a plane crash almost certainly caused the towers to collapse?

Please respond to this also

[kusok]

Please respond to this conspiracy theorists.

and please don't respond solely with youtube vids.

Been done. Who is to say technology used by US government is same as what demolition crews use regularly these days.

But the whole argument makes no sense at all, because if official story of building 7 is correct, why do demolition crews bother with expensive explosives, prep time, computerized sequences, planning etc etc etc, Why not just start fires instead? Apparently the building will simply collapse right into it's own foot print...

[Flakker]

No one "wants" to believe that there were and are criminal elements within the government that were involved with the attack. It's a lot easier to believe some external, non-state sponsored threat was responsible.

*SNIP*

You've got the cart before the horse. Just because people have manipulated America/Americans after the attacks doesn't mean that the attacks themselves were orchestrated by elements of our government. It's more of a "never let a tragedy go to waste" event than a massive secretive cabal of mastermind puppeteers calling the shots.

[kusok]

Please respond to this also

Easy. Where do you get your statistics from regarding who believes what? And who is to say that all those who are skeptical of the official story will come forward??? As far as what kind of engineer, I can't google things for you, but there are all kinds of people, lawyers, firemen, architects, demolition experts, military experts, explosives experts, former government officials sometimes senior ones etc Lots of people came forward to ask questions, and more are coming daily.

[Flakker]

Been done. Who is to say technology used by US government is same as what demolition crews use regularly these days.

But the whole argument makes no sense at all, because if official story of building 7 is correct, why do demolition crews bother with expensive explosives, prep time, computerized sequences, planning etc etc etc, Why not just start fires instead? Apparently the building will simply collapse right into it's own foot print...

Because explosives are predictable and controllable. Fires are not.

[CoolDehLa]

Who is to say technology used by US government is same as what demolition crews use regularly these days.

This is an argument from ignorance and copping out.

Thread went like this
A: it was demolition, see the vids and pics (OP)
B: no, because this is how a demolition looks like (other vid)
A: but the government has a different kind yo ==> fail. You do not know that so you can't point it as a valid argument.

This is called an argument from ignorance ( It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).)


And i'm not sure what your second argument is about, I can't quite follow what you are trying to say

[Dr Miscer]

The whole fact that it was a controlled demolition is so hilarious to me.

I don't see how it is so unreasonable that these buildings would collapse after 9/11, not to mention that the floors pancaked because of the domino effect.

The top of the structure of one tower fell to the side because the structural damage was beneath it.

/thread

[kusok]

The whole fact that it was a controlled demolition is so hilarious to me.

I don't see how it is so unreasonable that these buildings would collapse after 9/11, not to mention that the floors pancaked because of the domino effect.

The top of the structure of one tower fell to the side because the structural damage was beneath it.

/thread

Interesting that you mention pancaked floors, but there were none cement was pulverized. This doesn't happen in collapses. This happens in explosions. if what you say is true there should be many many pancaked floors on the bottom, as always the case in collapses.

Another fail is that you point out to the top of one of the towers falling to the side, which would then mean there was no even downward pressure to cause the even domino pancake collapse

[y0lked]

I did explosives and demo for 4 years in the military. We did countless controlled demos and its more or less a hobby of mine. That was not a controlled demo.

. This is just 10 stories, listen to the explosions that happen. There would be no mistaking this for a 'pop'..especially considering that the girders of the WTC were probably more numerous and larger

This is only 12 stories in texas...notice the lines of flashes when the explosions go off and the sound echoing through the city


This is what a building looks like that is prepped for a controlled demo. Notice how there are no walls,furniture, door frames..nothing but the skeleton of the building. If you dont do this prep, you can't accurately figure out where that building is going to go because as it falls, all that crap starts piling up and as it piles up the strength of those items starts increasing and throws off the trajectory of the fall

A controlled detonation of a building to bring it down within its own footprint is practically a scientific art form. You dont just slap det cord on the girders and hit the button. It takes weeks to prep the building, the explosives have to be detonated in a certain pattern and if things like the internal support walls of the building are removed to take out the variable for a drop it is only logical that the body of a commerical aircraft that is on fire would probably also be a variable that would make the fall uncontrollable.


It wasn't explosives..get over it.

what i want to know is..... if its sooo freaking hard to make a building collapse in its own footprint. And ONLY can be done with extreme precision.... how the fawk did an aircraft and a fire do it to once the two tallest buildings in the world? if its soo easy to make a PERFECT collapse, why dont they just re-create what happened on 9/11 for every other building that needs demolishing? it would be cheaper and quicker.

ohh wait, cause u cant do that. the only way to make a building collapse like that is to use 2nd hand devices.

[kusok]

Because explosives are predictable and controllable. Fires are not.

???

What did you expect to happen to building 7?

[CoolDehLa]

Easy. Where do you get your statistics from regarding who believes what? And who is to say that all those who are skeptical of the official story will come forward??? As far as what kind of engineer, I can't google things for you, but there are all kinds of people, lawyers, firemen, architects, demolition experts, military experts, explosives experts, former government officials sometimes senior ones etc Lots of people came forward to ask questions, and more are coming daily.

You actually just tell people what they believe in. Via simple questionnaires. If people are not motivated by lying, this method is reliable and valid. What are your arguments against it more specifically ? Psychology and sociology uses questionnaires frequently.

But I will tell you this because I believe this is the huge problem of conspiracy theorists and it is that they have not a single clue of how the scientific process works. Because if they did, they would know it would be IMPOSSIBLE to censor the truth if the vast majority of the experts believed in a demolition theory. It would be all over the scientific journals, then the media and the inevitable fall of the bush administration (or whoever was responsible.)

Arguments like these:
- scientists do not come forward
- scientists themselves do not know the truth themselves
- scientists are in on the conspiracy

..
It just shows how ignorant then the conspiracy theorists are in how the scientific process works.
Please please, don't tell me you have none arguments besides these.

You will never ever get the ears of the majority if your conspiracy theory isn't backed up by respected scientists and it seems the majority rejects your idea. Discrediting the vast majority of scientists like the above three arguments is just shooting yourself in the foot and in your cause.

[y0lked]

Because explosives are predictable and controllable. Fires are not.

yet iin one day, two of the tallest buildings in the world and another sky scraper did it perfectly with fires? strong logic

[kusok]

This is an argument from ignorance and copping out.

Thread went like this
A: it was demolition, see the vids and pics (OP)
B: no, because this is how a demolition looks like (other vid)
A: but the government has a different kind yo ==> fail. You do not know that so you can't point it as a valid argument.

This is called an argument from ignorance ( It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).)


And i'm not sure what your second argument is about, I can't quite follow what you are trying to say

Ironic post ^^^

Actually thread went like this:
1- see demolition-like explosions and other vids of demolitions that look like that, yet there are no videos of collapses that look like this.
2- You're a CT nut! It's not possible! Government can't do this! it's too impossible to blow up a building like this.
3- ???

Second argument is about what fires do and what explosions do. Fires don't do to buildings what happen to building 7. Check history.

[CoolDehLa]

what i want to know is..... if its sooo freaking hard to make a building collapse in its own footprint. And ONLY can be done with extreme precision.... how the fawk did an aircraft and a fire do it to once the two tallest buildings in the world? if its soo easy to make a PERFECT collapse, why dont they just re-create what happened on 9/11 for every other building that needs demolishing? it would be cheaper and quicker.

ohh wait, cause u cant do that. the only way to make a building collapse like that is to use 2nd hand devices.

This is the problem of almost every conspiracy theorists. Why is this and why is that ? You actually trust your common sense ? Huge mistake nr 1. You haven't studies shet, absolutely nothing of sorts and you jump to conclusions like crazy. I'm sorry to say this but you must be a very stupid person.

[kusok]

You actually just tell people what they believe in. Via simple questionnaires. If people are not motivated by lying, this method is reliable and valid. What are your arguments against it more specifically ? Psychology and sociology uses questionnaires frequently.

But I will tell you this because I believe this is the huge problem of conspiracy theorists and it is that they have not a single clue of how the scientific process works. Because if they did, they would know it would be IMPOSSIBLE to censor the truth if the vast majority of the experts believed in a demolition theory. It would be all over the scientific journals, then the media and the inevitable fall of the bush administration (or whoever was responsible.)

Arguments like these:
- scientists do not come forward
- scientists themselves do not know the truth themselves
- scientists are in on the conspiracy

..
It just shows how ignorant then the conspiracy theorists are in how the scientific process works.
Please please, don't tell me you have none arguments besides these.

You will never ever get the ears of the majority if your conspiracy theory isn't backed up by respected scientists and it seems the majority rejects your idea. Discrediting the vast majority of scientists like the above three arguments is just shooting yourself in the foot and in your cause.

Actually those who believe the official story are a minority. 40% last time I checked. And the numbers of those who don't buy the official story are growing.

Gage has plenty of credentials, and peers with likewise legit credentials. Plenty of scientists came forward.

[CoolDehLa]

Ironic post ^^^

Actually thread went like this:
1- see demolition-like explosions and other vids of demolitions that look like that, yet there are no videos of collapses that look like this.
2- You're a CT nut! It's not possible! Government can't do this! it's too impossible to blow up a building like this.
3- ???

Second argument is about what fires do and what explosions do. Fires don't do to buildings what happen to building 7. Check history.

Wait, you do agree that Op was a conspiracy theorists right ?

1) His Op is a single video of youtube of a rare view of WTC and he claims it's '''''proof'''' of demolition.
2) another one comes along and says demolition look nothing like that
3) very quiet
4) i say please respond
5) you come along and say the government has other materials.

You agree with this or not ?

[Flakker]

???

What did you expect to happen to building 7?

I'm not sure what you are asking.

[CoolDehLa]

Actually those who believe the official story are a minority. 40% last time I checked. And the numbers of those who don't buy the official story are growing.

Gage has plenty of credentials, and peers with likewise legit credentials. Plenty of scientists came forward.

Source ?
You're talking of actual scientists or the general population (if it's the latter, i'm not interested)

[y0lked]

This is the problem of almost every conspiracy theorists. Why is this and why is that ? You actually trust your common sense ? Huge mistake nr 1. You haven't studies shet, absolutely nothing of sorts and you jump to conclusions like crazy. I'm sorry to say this but you must be a very stupid person.

lol and the people who refuse to ask questions are the sheep in this world. what u are doing is what they want u to do.

lemme guess, your one of thoes "Ignorace is bliss" people

[Flakker]

yet iin one day, two of the tallest buildings in the world and another sky scraper did it perfectly with fires? strong logic

Both towers had the same construction and were attacked in the same way.

WTC 7 had a problem that has been known to the insurance industry for years, the failure was extreme, but not outside of the realm of possibility.

[CoolDehLa]

lol and the people who refuse to ask questions are the sheep in this world. what u are doing is what they want u to do.

lemme guess, your one of thoes "Ignorace is bliss" people

Asking questions is good, it's super.
But you should stop just right there! Do not answer them yourself. You're not credible for it. If you have a question and you want an answer, just ask a credible person for it.

[flairon]

it is obvious the disinfos are trying to channel much of the discussion to explosive sounds, and the squibs seen shooting from the buildings. Let's talk about the the ten and twenty -foot long pieces of cleanly cut steel beams you see spinning away laterally, at explosive speed, like they were toothpicks. Compressed air doing that too? Steel "snapping"? I thought it got soft enough to fail, so how does soft steel "snap"?

That is the real smoking gun in the OP video. What do you think those spinning stick-like object are? Office chairs? Those suckers did not "collapse" down. They were blown out.

They found these cleanly cut pieces of beam embedded in buildings two football fields away, like Bankers Trust, here:

you mean the pieces of steel that got snapped like twigs when 30+ floors of a building started shoving down on them?

[y0lked]

Asking questions is good, it's super.
But you should stop just right there! Do not answer them yourself. You're not credible for it. If you have a question and you want an answer, just ask a credible person for it.

when did i answer my own question?

Both towers had the same construction and were attacked in the same way.

WTC 7 had a problem that has been known to the insurance industry for years, the failure was extreme, but not outside of the realm of possibility.

go ahead and beat around the bush again trying to answer my question.....

[voodoo101]

you mean the pieces of steel that got snapped like twigs when 30+ floors of a building started shoving down on them?

You mean the 30+ floors they were built to support, times a factor of six-times stronger than they needed to be for maximum live load? You are in fantasy physics. The towers were not built teetering at the edge of instability and at first you guys said the fires made the steel soft (not melted) so it lost its structural strength. Now the steel was not soft, but "snapped" like a dry twig into straight pieces of beam, cut cleanly at the ends. So which is it? Did it get soft so the vertical columns kind of mushed down or did it snap itself into little pieces? You guys are tying yourself in knots now.

The concrete floor slabs were only 4 inches thick poured over lightweight steel pans and trusses. There were not "Thousands of tons of concrete crashing down." That's for the stupider Americans. The floors themselves were mostly empty space. The towers were like steel cages with 47 continuous, 5-foot-wide steel box columns running up the core, with glass and thin concrete at intervals. Steel cages don't roll down on themselves, or snap apart.



Carpet of clean-cut steel beam pieces mostly far outside tower footprints, aerial photo immediately after attack before clean-up had begun (CLICK FOR CLOSE-UPS OF DEBRIS):

[CoolDehLa]

when did i answer my own question?

This was your question(s):

if its sooo freaking hard to make a building collapse in its own footprint. And ONLY can be done with extreme precision.... how the fawk did an aircraft and a fire do it to once the two tallest buildings in the world? if its soo easy to make a PERFECT collapse, why dont they just re-create what happened on 9/11 for every other building that needs demolishing? it would be cheaper and quicker.

This was your answer:

ohh wait, cause u cant do that. the only way to make a building collapse like that is to use 2nd hand devices.

[CoolDehLa]

Source ?
You're talking of actual scientists or the general population (if it's the latter, i'm not interested)

Please respond