WTC Collapses

[phlogistician]

i have no idea what this has to do with explosives or even if it's true.

Indeed, the article was written pretty soon after 9/11, and has an overestimate of the death toll too. I don't see what significance it has, it states the scrap was found, and it was stolen for profit, not as part of some coverup (although that's probably what Tony is alluding to.)

[Ganymede]

That is because you dont know what you are talking about and have zero practical experience in investigating bombings and controlled demos.

And you do?

[John99]

didnt you read my post?

[MacGyver1968]

The only bombing investigation I've participated in lately, was waking up super-hungover from getting bombed, trying to figure out how I got home, who I drunk dialed, and where these bruises came from.

[leopold]

The only bombing investigation I've participated in lately, was waking up super-hungover from getting bombed, trying to figure out how I got home, who I drunk dialed, and where these bruises came from.

and the million dollar question: "where did all this dental floss come from?"

[Tony Szamboti]

That is because you dont know what you are talking about and have zero practical experience in investigating bombings and controlled demos. Just because you lack experience does not mean everyone does as well. At any controlled demo there is evidence left behind because it is impossible to hide.

John, this isn't an argument here. It is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority.

You, or any of the conspiracy theorists, do not have a sensible answer as to how the charges could have been set to facilitate a controlled demo without no one noticing the monumental task of setting hundreds\thousands of points where they would need to be or the impossibility of putting them there unnoticed.

Sure we do. There was a new security system put in place by people under the direction of Marvin Bush for one and there was an elevator renovation project going on during the year before Sept. 11, 2001 occurred. The core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts without being seen and when you have control over the security company you can do a lot of things without being seen.

Good luck on making more legitimate arguments in the future.

[Tony Szamboti]

[QUOTE]

cutting charges are bolted onto the girder to prevent dislodging during the collapse. i know this to be true because i've seen videos on how charges are placed in a building to be demolished. the vidoe also demonstrated that wire cables are used to aid in the collapse. these cables run from the perimeter of the building to the cut member so that the building collapses as intended.
who reported seeing these cables tony?

All controlled demolitions aren't performed with cables and the charges do not have to be bolted to the columns. There are other ways of fastening.

publish in december 2008? hardly a first hand account.

The fact that forensic testing wasn't performed on the steel from WTC 7 and the twin towers is a reality no matter when the point is made.

taken out of context.
the video cuts off immediately after the word seven.
what wasn't he able to do scott? pick up each piece and examine it?
photograph extensively?
look at each piece?
look at each element?

i have no idea what this has to do with explosives or even if it's true.

Scott isn't taking Barnett out of context. Here is a link to the entire video with the part in question starting at the 3:00 minute mark.

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/vid...xplanation.wmv

It isn't cut off here and Jonathan Barnett discusses just what you appear to be imagining. It is true that they weren't allowed to investigate WTC 7's collapse in a normal way. Any claim that this was due to search and rescue isn't legitimate as nobody was injured or killed in WTC 7's collapse.

[John99]

Logical fallacy?

Access to elevator shafts alone is not even a consideration for the kind of work needed to acheive a controlled demo scenario. You just say that because you have no other explanation, but that is not good enough because it is entirely impossible and fantasy.

The amount of explosives needed and the precision of placing them cannot be done sneakily and unnoticed to do a job like that would take an incredible amount of planning and there would be evidence left behind but there was no evidence of explosives at all and the elevators alone would not be enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wo...Arrangment.svg

[Tony Szamboti]

Do you mean 'Logical Fallacy'?

Beleive me, the theory put forth bu toofers is just not possible. It is not a workable theory, therefore it is fantasy and without merit.

Didn't you mean "Believe" and "by toofers" in your comment above?

Elevator shafts? You cannot be serious. The amount of explosives needed the time involved the planning involved and getting to elevator shafts alone would not have worked in a controlled demo scenario. Not to mention ZERO signs of explosives or evidence of such makes this not even a viable consideration.

Wh

You simply have no basis for saying that the planting of explosives was impossible, and after being shown how it could have been done you now mutter something about the planning and time needed couldn't have happened. The elevator project was going on for a year prior to 911. Did you miss that part? The new security system was installed over a couple of years time.

The use of explosives was never tested for by FEMA or NIST and it is ludicrous to say there would have been obvious large remains of explosives afterwards. Only lab testing could discern whether or not they were used.

[John99]

Didn't you mean "Believe" and "by toofers" in your comment above?



You simply have no basis for saying that the planting of explosives was impossible, and after being shown how it could have been done you now mutter something about the planning and time needed couldn't have happened. The elevator project was going on for a year prior to 911. Did you miss that part? The new security system was installed over a couple of years time.

The use of explosives was never tested for by FEMA or NIST and it is ludicrous to say there would have been obvious large remains of explosives afterwards. Only lab testing could discern whether or not they were used.

First of all, i hit the send button by mistake so the post was made not ready to go- #2148.

You are wrong about lab testing for explosives because both the police and fire dept. had experts on site (teams of experts) to examine the collapse. This is how it is always done.

[leopold]

All controlled demolitions aren't performed with cables and the charges do not have to be bolted to the columns. There are other ways of fastening.

the video i seen shows the charges being bolted on and the cables are used to to direct the fall.

Scott isn't taking Barnett out of context. Here is a link to the entire video with the part in question starting at the 3:00 minute mark.

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/vid...xplanation.wmv

again, he doesn't elaborate on what he wasn't able to do.
but he does make the following statement" it doesn't take much removal of the insulation for the steel to fail".

It is true that they weren't allowed to investigate WTC 7's collapse in a normal way.

this by no means says WTC7 wasn't investigated.

[Tony Szamboti]

the video i seen shows the charges being bolted on and the cables are used to to direct the fall.

One instance doesn't mean it is a standard rule.

again, he doesn't elaborate on what he wasn't able to do.
but he does make the following statement" it doesn't take much removal of the insulation for the steel to fail".

You need to watch the clip at the 3:00 minute mark where Barnett does discuss what is normally done in cases of collapse where they examine and photograph every piece of the structrue and then say and says they were not able to do that with Bldg. 7. It doesn't sound like you watched that part.

this by no means says WTC7 wasn't investigated.

Okay, tell us when the WTC 7 steel was examined and analyzed.

[psikeyhackr]

You, or any of the conspiracy theorists, do not have a sensible answer as to how the charges could have been set to facilitate a controlled demo without no one noticing the monumental task of setting hundreds\thousands of points where they would need to be or the impossibility of putting them there unnoticed.

.
Does this mean you "have a sensible answer as to how" the top of the north tower destroyed everything below in less than 18 seconds and enplains why the distribution of steel and concrete is irrelevant to that answer even though skyscrapers can't be built without that information.

The only floors in the core as far as I know were in front of the elevators. I have heard there were a number of empty floors in the building. So the perps get two empty floors, one near the top and the other further down around 40 or so. Punch holes through the walls into the core to climb up and down inside the core to place the explosives. That is why so much excessive force was used and we see those banana plumes of smoke shooting out of the top of the building during the "so called" collapse. A solid piece coming down from the top crushing stuff below would not do that. There had to be enough power to destroy the building from all of the way inside the core.

psik

[Stryder]

The fact that forensic testing wasn't performed on the steel from WTC 7 and the twin towers is a reality no matter when the point is made.

"The Evidence of Absence does not mean the Absence of Evidence". If something stuck out a mile, investigators would of found it. you aren't talking about a sophisticated data crime that can go nearly transparent, you are referring to the destruction of an entire building.

[Stryder]

This thread has long run out of debate material, it's the same circular arguments with the same tired points argued again and again. It's not new and it can only get old fast, so I'm going to do the only sane thing which should have been done a long time ago, This thread is now closed. If you feel the need to complain about this closure, Feel free to take this up with Plazma or James.

(After months of threads on this subject and no conclusion other than "The building was destroyed by Terrorists alone" has truly come to light, everything else is just conspiracy. [not even feasible speculation])