9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

wooden framed structure, nothing left standing.
inconsistent with WTC high rise and in one tower the sides were left standing after the collapse.
it would be pretty easy to gather stuff like this after the fact.
go back before 9-11 and look at CDs from pre 9-11.
furthermore get your info from bonafide demolition sites.
the videos are out there, you just have to search for them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wasn't your point that demolitions can only be done bottom up, not top down? the video invalidates that belief:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

the structure is steel, and even if wooden makes no difference to whether top down demolition is possible. the towers were a tube in a tube so it would be expected that the outer walls at the bottom were left standing if the inner tube was demolished.

I really don't understand what point you are making, could you clarify? you seem to be saying that if video is not on a "bonafide demolition site" (what's that?), then its not valid - i would disagree with that position.
or maybe you're saying the towers were not demolished in a classic bottom up fasion - I would agree with that position.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i stated that the collapse of the twin towers was inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

does the above video look like the collapse of the towers?

on one of the towers almost one entire side was still standing shortly after the collapse, not just the bottom part.

the point i'm trying to make is that the towers fell in a manner that is not consistent with a controlled demolition.

not at all. the video speaks for itself, but one video isn't much evidence nor does it state who did the demolition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Notice the sequential sound blasts accompanied by flashes. Where were these on the WTC if we are to believe the WTC was a demolition?

 

They didn't explode top down, they collapsed top down. And if you're saying there were explosives all the way down, why did it collapse at the impact site, J?

 

I think you might be placing emphasis on the word "controlled" whereas i would emphasize "demolition". The issue is whether the towers were brought down by explosives or collapsed due to fire. the term "controlled demolition" defines a subset of "demolition" which is inappropriate to the issue of whether explosives were used. controlled demolition in the professional sense has other factors to consider - legal implication of unwanted damage, safety factors, preservation of neighbouring buildings, etc.

yes, i can visualise that kind of top down destruction to the inner core.

i don't know why this would contradict what i said - that the inner core tube was demolished top down like in the video.

what it proves is that it is possible to demolish a multi storey structure from the top down. its almost as if you need to see more than one top down demolition to believe that a top down demolition is possible.

 

They would have been in the inner core tube structure, in a manner like the top down demolition video shows. the amount of concrete that turned to "dust" in mid air concealed a lot of what was going on but you can see flashes in the other video towards the top right of the dust cloud here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&e

explosions were heard. this is an old issue that has been mentioned to you before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
118 firefighters report explosions, analysis here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

 

if you are right then i will agree with you.

because the explosions started near the impact site, and went all the way down.

 

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=conrolled demolitions&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f&aq=-1&oq=#
scroll down on the left and find some controlled demolitions.

 

I've seen demolitions, i still don't understand what you are getting at. what about the towers destruction make it impossible for it to be a demolition?

 

Can I quote your post on Loose Change again? Aldo Marquis may respond once more (he told me he tried to get an account here but couldn't; the admins told me that it may have been that he didn't have javascript on or something but I haven't heard from him since).

I'm not sure what his thoughts were on the matter. Perhaps you are afraid to face the truth. As Jack Nicholson said in "A few good men": "You can't handle the truth!" ;-).

That’s right they went out there with a belief already confirmed before gathering any evidence. They went out with preconceived notion and tried to shoehorn the evidence to fit it. They interviewed people who claimed to see the plane hitting the pentagon and then they interpreted what they wanted from the angles they described and concluded that the plane didn’t hit the pentagon!! [/quote]

They went there with the belief that the plane might not have come -at- all or if it did, to have been a much smaller one. They had no idea that the witnesses would say that there was a plane, but that it's flight path didn't comform to the official one and that, therefore, it couldn't have crashed into the pentagon because the damage would have had to have been different.

Now's the time when I think it'd be good for me to just quote you on this and see what he says.

Well you can believe that but so far what they've said has made sense to me. I can't refute everything you say here, but I attribute this to simply not knowing enough or perhaps having forgotten what I used to know on it. Aldo Marquis, on the other hand, could probably refute it all with ease.. if he were here. As it is, like I said, I may be able to get him to respond if I quote in the loose change forums..

 

Oh you mean the inner core that was seen standing after the building around it collapsed? Why would you claim the demolition charges were in the core, when the core was the last thing to collapse in the WTC?

Explosions were not heard by a single camera despite the fact many were in close proximity of the WTC.

Is this the document where most of these 'explosions' were describing the tower as it fell? Although I wasn't there in person like the firefighters, there are reliable videos standing very close to the WTC and I hear nothing other than the expected rumble of a tower collapsing. No punctuated explosives like I heard in the video you showed me of the top-down demolition.

Lets not forget that the sound of bombs demolishing a building are unmistakable to the point that they create sound blasts capable of smashing windows in surrounding buildings.

At least thermite would explain the lack of audible explosives... I don't understand why you would invoke demolition charges even though the sound would be unmistakable to all the cameras in lower Manhatten.

You must take us for fools if you expect us to believe in silent bombs.

 

I don't see any flashes.

Amazing that you say the dust obscured these flashes, but the 'squibs' below the collapsing dust cloud would not be obscured. There are no flashes and the 'squibs' are slow, thus ruling out explosives and confirming compressed air being forced out.

 

the complete core was not the last thing to collapse. if you do the measurements you'll see that only 30 floors height remained briefly, and the columns on the outside of the inner core were not there.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154

Nist refuse to release most of the video recordings, there are not many in the public domain that were filmed close, nothing like as close as the top down demolition video, the top of the towers were half a kilometer from the ground. I would expect the tight grid that was the external columns would dampen and reflect back inwards any shock waves to a degree.

no, you're probably thinking of some debunker speculation, this is the analysis of the testimony of the 118 firefighters describing explosions and flashes of light, which mysteriously you say wasn't picked up on any cameras.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

windows were broken in the surrounding buildings. Let us not forget that explosions 1/3 mile up in the sky are not comparable to any other building that was ever demolished.

I would suggest the sound that was the "roar" of the building coming down cannot be fully appreciated by sound recorded on cameras, this has to do with the limits that a camera has on recording amplitude.

 

perhaps you need to look again in the smoke at the top and in the middle. unmistakable sparkling flashes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&e

Any flashes occuring in the core are likely to be obscured by intact and upright perimeter columns. As the permeter columns peel away you can see flashes through the pulverised concrete cloud above the demolition wave. some of the debris ejecta were measured at 100mph.

 

I gritted my teeth and watched the first 12 minutes of SLC "Not Freakin' Again edition":
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561

Perhaps it has a point or 2, but I note that every time the creators of SLC find a claim they simply can't disprove, they simply say that there's no proof, instead of admitting that, if true, the report would be particularly damning for the official story.

 

I may be mistaken on some things, but I am telling you what I -believe- to be the truth. While there may be some divergences within the truth movement, there are also divergences amoung political parties, which are quite mainstream; no one has a lock on the truth, but I strongly believe that searching for the truth through investigation of the evidence is the way to go.

If I didn't care about the truth I would -not- bother with all this effort.

I'm not disgusted with you (though I have felt you have been rather rude at times). As to pity, I suppose. I think I prefer the term sympathy though; not so much 'poor thing'; more like 'I feel for him'. But one thing I can say Kenny is that you've got spirit and it seems to me that you respect the notion of the truth even if there are some things that obscure your view from some truths. I believe that that spirit will prevail over that which obscures your view in time.

And you think that's a benefit

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

?

The last thing I feel here is smug. I find that this place frequently drains me and yet I can't let it go. I keep on thinking of all the people who died on 9/11 and all the people who have died since and continued to die; all based on a lie. I simply can't rest easy knowing that there are still people who believe the (at times changed) official story.

 

Sorry, no

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. My exact words were "If anything, the temperature should have been -less- there if it was caused by office fires alone. After all, no plane hit WTC ". Considering all the work I've put into demonstrating that even with planes, the temperature of the office fires could never have reached temperatures to collapse the WTC buildings, I'm surprised that you'd jump to the above stated conclusion.

 

After digging a bit further, it appears I mistook your "Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse" to mean that you -agreed- with the stated reason for the collapse, something which now seems clear you didn't. My apologies. But don't you find it... interesting that the recently released report makes "no mention of evaporating steel or temperatures even remotely near what would be needed to evaporate steel"?

 

I have before; it's all on the right hand side of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth page:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Normal CDs start at the bottom, as happened in the case of WTC 7. In the twin towers, however, it started in the plane crash zones. The alternative theory argument is that this was done in order to make it appear to the average citizen that the planes and the resulting fires brought down the building instead of the truth; that they were brought down by CD.

I know of no serious debater here who refuses to quote certain authorities; whether it be from NIST or Ryan Mackey for the official story side or on Steven Jones, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, David Griffin, Jim Hoffman and others for the alternate story side. Now, can you find anything that you disagree with in their list? And if so, what and why do you disagree with it?

Only one; and yes, you're right it was leaning, something that can certainly happen in CDs (in fact, it is very hard to have a building collapse straight down even in CDs); but you didn't get a huge section of the building crashing down to the ground because it was pulverized in mid air.

For what, a second or 2? If memory serves, demolitions at times are not completely successful; sometimes explosives have to be put in again (and this time the conditions are much more dangerous). I'm sure that a side of the framework standing for a second or 2 is well within tolerance levels for a very successful CD.

Perhaps in a sustained burn. But Kevin Ryan sums it up quite well in my view:
****************************************
"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
****************************************
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired

Yes, the WTC buildings were of a stronger contruction.

One's eyes can tell us certain facts. But the brain has to interpret those facts and ascertain others from it. To do this, it frequently needs certain knowledge, knowledge that I would argue you may not yet have...