WTC Collapses

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Nov 14, 2008.

?

How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

  1. Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  4. Allah!

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  5. People keep flogging a dead horse!

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    A certain title aside, I think they're fairly good.


    In the case of the one titled "9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush", I regretted the title, as it makes it seem like Marvin was running the show at the time of 9/11. I liked the article for other elements, but the title was admittedly misleading as there is no evidence that he played a part in its security on 9/11.

    You taken a good look at the link you just pointed to though? Here's an interesting excerpt:
    "Company stock became worthless after the company's de-listing. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings ceased showing Marvin Bush as a shareholder after 2000, but there are no filings indicating when his stock was sold."


    Don't you think the claim should be further investigated instead of buried under the rug simply because only one person mentioned it? As to it only being made about one tower, perhaps they only needed to do some last minute touches on that one tower. Trying to second guess why a super secretive inside job team would have done every particular little thing is a next to impossible task. I'm simply pointing out that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.


    911 review is a conspiracy debunker site; -ofcourse- they have doubts about Forbes. What I found so amusing, however, is their claims that no inside jobber would have done such a poor job of concealing their tracks. But what if 911 review had misunderestimated the inside jobbers intelligence

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I think you are overestimating it and underestimating your own. Albeit unintentionally.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to the first part of shaman_'s post 138 in this thread.

    At times, it's difficult to know what one knows and what one doesn't know. In this type of a case, it's helpful to have someone who doesn't take your word for granted. Clearly, it would be peachy if David Ray Griffin could be here to defend his logic, but he's not and I admit that I can't make his case for him this time around.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Overestimating the intelligence of the Bush Administration? Nah. Remember that Bush didn't call -all- the shots. His father was former head of the CIA and certainly played his part. And underestimating my own intelligence? That sounds like a compliment. From you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. alaska1976 Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    Scott3x..."And what if security was the one planting the explosives?"

    Anything is possible. But if it were possible, you are talking about a really huge conspiricy that would encompass dozens if not hundreds of people.

    For the security people to be the charge placers, the people behind the secret plot would have infiltrated each prior security personal one at a time by natural consequence; job loss, sick, fired, retirement, etc. That process would possibly take years. You don't go in and replace all the security personal in a day or a couple weeks with all brand new personal without raising eye brows, especially the eye brows of those getting the boot who liked working security for the towers. Next keep in mind their must of been at least a dozen security personal at night if not more. Many civilians didn't quit working because many went home. You always had night shift workers.
    Next lets say the security people were replaced. Who works and who drills? Do you work in your uniform or in over hauls? What about night time workers who are use to seeing the security personal walking around, sitting at desks? Think they won't wonder recognizing a security person drilling a hole into a piller?

    Once again, conspiricys are great. I luv 'em. But even when I thought charges were a great probability, I don't see it any more.
    This is one fact you will come to understand about the explosives theory...the less involved, the fewer would know. But the fewer to do the work, the longer it would take to place the explosives deep into those pillers.
    You are talking about a Bush scheme to topple the trade towers that would have began five to ten years prior to the 9/11 date so when he was futuristicly president he could complete a ten to twenty year old plot to invade Iraq that would have begun with his dad.
    Do you see how crazy this thing gets? I don't have any answers but I can rule out how with high probability it did not happen. Bush and cronies did not do this one.
     
  9. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    what does bush have to do with anything?
     
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I can imagine it encompassed hundreds. But not everyone needed to know everything.

    I don't think it has to be that complicated. What if the -owners- of the security company were the crooks? Then they could simply hire the people they wanted to do the job. And they'd have a lot of time to prepare for the demolition day. Perhaps 5 years, as can be deduced from an article from Margie Burns:
    **********************
    HCC Insurance/ Stratesec Links Marvin Bush & WTC

    Bush, George W.'s youngest brother, joined HCC's Board of Directors in 1999, remaining until November 2002.

    A company called Stratesec, formerly named Securacom, was a security contractor with the WTC from 1996 to 2001.

    Marvin Bush was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to 2000. Stratesec, in turn, was backed by a private Washington, DC, investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corporation (KuwAm), linked to the Bush family since the Gulf War.
    ...
    **********************

    I think we don't need to get -that- detailed on a theory as to how they did it...

    Some workers did note some suspicious things, as revealed in an article from Reporter Victor Thorn:
    ***********************************
    Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down
    by Victor Thorn - April 23, 2004

    Did the World Trade Center towers undergo a deliberate “power-down” on the weekend prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks? According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. – a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton – this is precisely what took place. Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office, was working on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York’s Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC’s computer bandwidth.
    ...
    ***********************************
     
  11. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    A lot of so called Truthers won't separate the physics and engineering of what happened from the who had to be involved if the airliner could not possibly have brought the buildings down. I my opinion they are trying to analyze the problem backwards. :shrug:

    psik
     
  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    To my knowledge, there is no evidence that W. did anything. However, I definitely believe there's enough evidence in terms of Bush's -family- to warrant further investigation, as I think post 147 makes clear.
     
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I have spent a fair amount of time analyzing the issue of how the buildings were brought down. However, inevitably people move on to the issue of how the buildings could have been brought down via controlled demolition, as so I have presented them with information which suggests how it may have been done.

    Update- btw, I've found a number for how much concrete per twin tower: 90,000 tons. True, others have mentioned other figures, but I trust 9/11 Research more then most sites. Here's the relevant excerpt from The North Tower's Dust Cloud:
    ******************************
    Jerry Russell estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton. (See http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm.) That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concrete in each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction.
    ******************************
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2008
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This is a response to the second part of KennyJC's post 32.

    When did I say that the explosives exploded slowly? 9/11 Research certainly never says anything of the kind:
    High-Velocity "Demolition Squibs" Are Visible in the Twin Towers' Collapses

    I agree, there were certainly some steel girders being ejected out. But in terms of the concrete, it was mostly pulverized, as 9/11 research makes clear.

    I believe that 'solid buliding-type' stuff was mainly metal, but by all means, attempt to show me evidence that it was otherwise.


    You have a video of this supposed no explosives mid-air concrete disintegration?


    You have any evidence to support that claim? You may have noticed that psikeyhacker is -very- interested in knowing the precise amount of concrete in the twin towers.


    If you have powerful enough explosives, sure they can.


    Show me your evidence.



    More explosives would have to be used at the base of the building, because the steel framework is stronger at that point. There -were- loud explosions heard at the base of the towers prior to collapse, btw.


    Debris being ejected at explosive speed, sure.


    Read above concerning explosive concentration.


    The debris wasn't just 'falling off', it was exploding outwards.


    If by 'drift' you mean the pyroclastic flow, I'm with you.

    Research, my friend.


    I think I remember hearing somewhere that nanothermite may not make so much noise, but I haven't been able to find that information again, if I did in the past. Another possibility is that more explosives were used and thus, instead of a few sharp blasts, you had many smaller ones, which could be confused as the simple rumble of a building collapsing.


    There is evidence that the certain cuts were -not- done after, but I don't have the information to differentiate the 2 on hand at present.


    Sorry, thermate signature. And my point holds; just because you have certain elements in a building doesn't mean that they can come up with a thermate signature when pulverized. I remember Headspin saying that they'd even found -unexploded- thermate as well.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2008
  15. alaska1976 Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    After 9/11 and just before the Bush administration went after Iraq, the administration was setting the blame of the twin towers destruction on the door step of terrorists, then a second theory began to gain momentum that Bush had secretly destroyed the towers to have a reason to invade Iraq and to chase terrorists where ever they fled so the US could geographically expand itself into countries we had never set a military foot print in. Not by invitation at least.
    My reply was two fold for the Bush theory and the terrorist theory.

    My point remains the same. Attack this equation from the outside going in and you will never prove a single thing. Like the squib debate. Anyone realize that squibs will happen between different floors as a building collapses upon itself regardless if detonations are used or are not used? In doubt? Google building demolitions. Find a nice tall building they are pancaking. Find out which floors had charges and which floors did not. Guess what? Squibs happen on detonated floors and floors not detonated during a pancake collapse. That alone puts a dent in the theory that the twin tower squibs HAD to be caused by demolition charges.

    My main point is that any time you plan something on a large scale and you are going to need the recruitment of more then half a dozen people and what is happening is to be held in the strictest of secrecy on threat of death, someone ALWAYS talks. A week later, a year later, five years later, someone talks. And for the amount of people that would have had to of been involved in the 9/11 incident being they home grown terrorists, you can honestly say everyone of them apparently has a will to never tell because none are experiencing guilt?
    On the other hand we have terrorists who have taken credit for what was done. There are paper trails the lead many from across the sea to here and for some a paper trail leading back home.

    I challenge anyone that loves this so called mystery to begin to assemble your own data begining with the time and man power and how the charges would have been set and to work your theory from the inside out. Which ever camp your in for detonation charges or natural collapse after jet impact, your going to find out building a solid theory from the inside out much more difficult then coming from the opposite direction.
    Good luck!
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    True.

    I liked it anyway

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .


    Not so fast. The problem here is that squibs can be seen -way- below the collapse point. What's more, the squibs in the WTC buildings were fast ones and it may be that air alone may not be able to produce those.


    Indeed. Let's assume, for a second, that 9/11 really was an inside job. Do you really think they would mind killing one more to keep themselves out of trouble? A certain source who apparently had foreknowledge that the twin towers would come down 11 months before they did certainly thinks so:
    Investigative Reporter Breaks Israeli 9/11 Foreknowledge
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to psikeyhackr's post 2160 in the 9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!).

    Well, you make take heart in what one -particular- MIT student thinks about it. He's no longer a 'kid' though

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnVIogawlmk
     
  18. alaska1976 Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    "Not so fast. The problem here is that squibs can be seen -way- below the collapse point. What's more, the squibs in the WTC buildings were fast ones and it may be that air alone may not be able to produce those."

    I watched many of the movies of the collapsing towers. There were squibs I agree. But what I saw were to few squibs for at least 20 pillers that would have exploded simutaneously or one after another. In one film two squibs were accounted for an entire side.
    Squibs don't have a case. Many squibs are normally produced from many charges going off on many floors of a multi-story building that was gutted and pancaked.
     
  19. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I guess in the end we may have to agree to disagree. I don't know how many squibs were on any particular side. All I know is that both Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, 9/11 Research and Steven Jones all concur that the squibs were clear evidence of a controlled demolition and that the arguments that NIST made to explain them away as air are simply false. Steven Jones goes into more detail regarding the squibs on WTC 7in his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":
    ******************************
    4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.

    However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side of the building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be observed at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.html. The same site shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It is instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web site.) Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence for the use of pre-placed explosives.

    ******************************
     
  21. alaska1976 Registered Member

    Messages:
    50

    http://www.biggerblast.com/
    The above is another link for building demolition. The initial blasts ALWAYS comes from the bottom of the building. That is just a simple fact that works with gravity. Not all of the above floors are even set with charges. Demolition companies know that the building will literally destroy itself once it begins to collapse after the initial blasts begin from the bottom going up. There are close ups of the first tower collapsing. They were standing at the base where the biggest blast should have torn them to sherds followed by successive blasts going up the floors. Those blasts were not recorded on any videos. What we have missing in the collapse of the world trade towers that baffel the truth seekers who believe in a conspiricy is that prior to each tower collapse, there were NO huge blasts, working up from the bottom of the towers to their tops. At least no NORMAL explosions that happen in 99% of all building collapses that are as small as ten floors.
    The explosion on the bottom floors are the most explosive to cause a collapse of the building upon itself.
    In the towers scenairo, a blast of smoke at the bottom happened AFTER the top began to collapse. Debunkos for the truth can't explain that. They try but their explanations really make no sense.
     
  22. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Welcome Alaska...We'll have none of that common sense around here!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    In all of those demolition videos...you always hear the charges go off BEFORE the building starts to collapse. I wonder why we don't hear anything on the video tape of the WTC just before it starts to collapse?...nothing...nada...buttkiss...zip. I'm sure they have an explanation for that one.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Actually, I once saw one where it was started at the top; unusual but it has been done before. I don't have the link for it right now though. However, no one has ever said that it's not possible to start from the top. More complicated, yes, but if you want to fool people into thinking that the planes collapsed the building, quite necessary. WTC 7 was brought down in normal demolition style.


    Should have according to whom?


    Blast sounds -were- recorded prior to the collapse of the towers. Again, I don't have them on me right now but they certainly exist.


    9/11 Research certainly doesn't think that the towers were brought down by basement explosions. However, while they may not have brought the towers down, there -were- documented cases of basement blasts:
    New Eyewitness To WTC Basement Level Explosions


    I know of no one who believes that the demolitions of the twin towers were normal demolitions. Only that, while unusual demolitions, they were still definitely demolitions.


    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page