Questions for those who think explosives brought down WTC.

[snagglepuss]

(FTR I don't buy the official theory but am unwilling to commit to any other theory.)


My questions: Let's say WTC was set with explosives but one of the planes for whatever reason failed to hit one of the towers. If something failed then the planned demolition would have been immediately exposed. Who would risk that?

Furthermore was it necessary to completely destroy WTC to justify the Afganistan and Iraq wars? Wouldn't Americans have wanted revenge and would have agreed to the invasion if planes simply flew into the towers, destroying a number of floors and killing a number of people?

[whatchamacallit]

1. Self delete

[Mist]

2. I'm inviting flames, but

I think the planes were remote-controlled.

The buildings were white elephants that had asbestos problems. The buildings coming down made for hellacious video, plus recompensed the owner handsomely.

Check into building 7--came down minus a jet hitting it.

[hack89]

3. There was very little asbestos in the WTC

one tower had none and the other maybe 30-40 floors.

[NYMdaveNYI]

85. Yes, common misconception.

The asbestos could have been easily removed through 6 months of renovation.


seems more practical than 10 years of reconstruction.

[Mist]

120. It wasn't the time it would take, it was the cost of removing the asbestos that

was the issue, apparently.

[SDuderstadt]

121. Says who?

I can't believe you guys keep rebunking this already debunked bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

4. What happened to the passengers?

Also, what was the occupancy rate for the towers? Hint: they were not "white elephants" by any stretch of the imagination. With respect to WTC 7, you forgot to mention it was struck by flaming debris and was on fire for most of the day.

[MrMickeysMom]

5. Mist, didn't you get the memo?

Building 7 has been scientifically explained by "experts" working for a gentleman's periodical magazine! Wow! Isn't this great? I can put my mind to rest now.

I was almost convinced by the thousands of pilots, architects, metallurgists, scientists of all kinds with scientific evidence of thermite residue at ground zero with the laws of physics on their side...

But you can relax now- there's a couple of guys who like fixing cars and playing mechanics when they were young. They've explained the whole thing to me. I can see now that all the other engineers and scientists and the evidence of my very own fucking eyes cannot be believed! See Popular Mechanics!

Thank God for plausible hocus pocus published in magazines owned and controlled by people who funded the lying evil government. Hooray!

:sarcasm:

[zappaman]

6. the truther mantra in all its glory

"anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about"

[MrMickeysMom]

9. You said that so well...

... credentials, included, of course!

[Drops_not_Dope]

18. ya, those "Truthers"

http://www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org/

U.S. Military Officers for 9/11 Truth

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

Journal of 9/11 Studies

Lawyers for 9/11 Truth

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth

Patriots Question 9/11

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Political Leaders for
9/11 Truth

Religious Leaders for
9/11 Truth

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven

Veterans for 9/11 Truth

911Truth.org

[NYMdaveNYI]

86. TrutherLand

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ-uV72pQKI

[Bolo Boffin]

10. How exactly do these people work for a gentleman's periodical magazine?

http://wtc.nist.gov

[MrMickeysMom]

12. ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGPHJLCJc-o

[Bolo Boffin]

13. That video does not answer my question to you. I'll repeat it with smaller words.

How do the scientists at NIST work for Popular Mechanics?

[zappaman]

11. LOL

really, there is not one thing in this post remotely true.
how do you do that?

[LARED]

8. 'recompensed the owner handsomely.'

Really? How?

[defendandprotect]

15. Agree with your comments ... EXCEPT "remote-controlled" planes ... why bother?

Why bother with 4 hijackings from airports and all that would entail, PLUS flying around

the skies for an hour or so wondering if NORAD was going to pop up?

Of course, they weren't going to -- NORAD was set up to go AWOL!!

Or if any of our military bases were going to send up a few planes! That never happened, either!!


Perhaps remote-controlled missiles?

[NYMdaveNYI]

87. Are you insane? nt

[deconstruct911]

7. Part of understanding why

is understanding how much evidence was destroyed on 9 11.

Wars in the middle east were not the only reason for 9 11.

[defendandprotect]

90. Very true .... much has been hidden behind this crime -- !!

In fact -- TREASON!

[defendandprotect]

14. What ...? Would have taken WEEKS to wire the WTC ... same with Murrah Building ....

and in the case of BOTH many witnesses have mentioned these "activities" for long

periods before the incidents!!

We also have information about the "power down" weekend before the 9/11 incident.

And, again, same is true with Murrah building --

in both cases, as well, as I recall it -- elevator shafts were used as access --

and, of course, there was much more extensive wiring in WTC buildings and Murrah.

But -- again -- many witnesses testify to this work going on!

[hack89]

16. There are no reports of the WTC being wired for CD

and the power down myth is an unsubstantiated story from one man - Scott Forbes.

[defendandprotect]

37. There are a myriad of reports re the wiring of WTC ... evidently began months before ....

one tenant spoke about the sealing off of one of the floors -- and the constant

heavy equipment that could be heard -- and the resulting cement "dust" falling.

Many have discussed this.

Same with Murrah building -- one or more witnesses report "workmen" with detailed

blueprints working near elevator shafts. Reports AFTER the intial explosions also

indicate bombs still going off in building.

The Power Down is also substanitated by many witnesses -- WTC towers being completely

open and "hard hat" types milling around - going in and out. This was going on for

the entire weekend.

None of this could have been done without the compicity of the "security" people --

once more coincidentally connected to the BUSH family!

[hack89]

79. No there is not - unless you have a myriad of links.

and there was no link between the Bush family and WTC security - we have discussed that here many times so you should know better.

[defendandprotect]

91. Unfortunately for us all, there was a link between Bush family + WTC security ...!!!

Who are you discussing this stuff with . . . McAdams?

The internet is also full of reports of strange goings-on at the WTC --

and one of the best witnesses for the wiring is Silverstein -- "pull it!" --

[hack89]

94. So what was that link? nt

[deconstruct911]

122. Marvin Bush securacom--WTC--United air--Dulles airport--We are saying it's guilt by association but

What about Hauer? Kroll?? Tell us if they have contracts for security? He hired John O'Neil and I'm pretty sure he was known to the Bush family. So it's kind of unknown to most people but there is a connection.

[defendandprotect]

124. Thanks -- I was just coming back to review this thread ....

and don't think I have anything in my records at the moment re Bush/WTC security --

but there's lots on it on the internet.

Thanks for supplying some of it -- :)

[deconstruct911]

125. np

Kroll's connection to Jerome Hauer, john O'Neil, AIG, Blackstone Group all at the time of 9 11 leads me to believe Kroll was the primary security for the WTC with the Port Authority. According to Jerry Mazza of Online Journal, AIG is tied to the larger insurance scam of 9 11 and explains how other insurance companies would benefit re insurance sales/9 11.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1291.shtml

Ty Rauber also dedicated tremendous time into researching AIG, Kroll etc. In a return email from awhile back he also explains in great detail these companies connection to each other and 9 11:

"I find recent history regarding AIG and the financial crisis to be extremely interesting, given AIG sold Kroll to Marsh in July 2004. In June 2008 MMC sold Kroll Government Services to Veritas Capital, which became KeyPoint Government Solutions, Inc. Veritas Capital, owners of DynCorp, are heavily interrelated with the Carlyle Group. Carlyle Group are owners in the Blackstone Group. Blackstone Group did the mortgage on the World Trade Center and invested in Kroll in 97 at the same time that AIG invested in Kroll. Blackstone did the WTC mortgage, Kroll WTC security and AIG, MMC and ACE did WTC insurance. All companies involved on that day at the WTC were financially interrelated. They can keep moving companies around, but the paper trail never goes away. And they never keep these assets to far out of their grip.

I found this article to be interesting:"

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100314/ISSUE01/303149970

[deconstruct911]

126. Didn't check 2nd link before posting

too bad, before you didn't need an account to see the page.

[terrafirma]

17. The largest demolition in history - JL Hudson Dept Store

From CDI's website:

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.


This was in a completely vacant building that the crew had access to whenever they wanted and was a fraction of the size of even one of the towers (let alone both PLUS WTC7). Please explain how it would've only taken the PTB a couple weeks to not only bring in all the equipment, but rig it under the guise of HVAC or IT guys.

[zappaman]

30. easy answer to your reasoned post

MAGIC

[defendandprotect]

39. No limits on the time ... witnesses make clear that "work" in the buildimgs ==

huge machines -- boring, drilling, etal -- going on for a long period of time in the

WTC.

PLUS, the "power down" weekend just before 9/11 -- "hard hat" types constantly coming

and going - no security.

Same with Murrah building -- one or more witnesses has pointed to construction type

workers with blueprints of the building doing work in and around the elevator shaft/s.

Evidently this latest false flag sham was being planned for perhaps up to two years --

and with part of the Bush family in charge of "security" they obviously had NO problems

with access.

Additionally, at least one of the most notable of demolition companies has pointed to

this operation being very sophisticated and probably carried out by miitary. Blackwater?

[SDuderstadt]

40. Ever notice that D&P...

never names a single one of these "witnesses"?

[terrafirma]

43. Boring and drilling??

Yeah... I heard some of that too at 120.

It's called remodeling.

It's called upgrading IT systems.

It's called maintenance.

It's called general upkeep.

[defendandprotect]

47. Hardly ... in fact, someone actually saw what was going on ....

think it was one of the janitors who stopped the elevator there and looked in --

Totally unlike any "remodeling" --

Read some of the reports sometime --

PLUS, again, WTC towers were White Elephants -- no money was being put into upgrading!

They were also under demand that the WTC towers be brought down --- WITHOUT USING DEMOLITION!!

They were going to have to build scaffolding -- presumably costing billions -- and bring the

WTC towers -- all of them -- down just they way they put them up. Piece by piece!!

[terrafirma]

48. So where is this janitor that saw the explosives?

And yeah....



That looks like a pretty vacant building. Can't believe it was still financially viable with no one occupying it.

[defendandprotect]

78. Google is your friend .... you're catching up rather late with this issue ....

And, btw, here's some interesting info on 9/11 and ASBESTOS problems --

immediate and future!

http://www.mesotheliomasos.com/jobsitesWTC.php


As for your pic .... you're on the edge of disingenuous --

first, it's often DARK in NYC at 3:30 or 4:30 in the afternoon in WINTER --

notice all of the other buildings are still MAINLY lit up.

I think you should have by now realized that you've spent too much time at

your "debunking 9/11" site and not enough time doing any actual thinking!!

[terrafirma]

80. Not sure what time zone you live in....

But I lived in NYC for 4 years, and it was never THAT dark, even at 4:30 in January.

Nice try though.

[defendandprotect]

81. I'm a native New Yorker .... and yes, certainly by 5 pm it is THAT DARK in winter ......

and, again, more and more it's obvious that given the opportunity, you most frequently

choose the low road!

[SDuderstadt]

82. Now D&P can't even remember her own claim...

where she claimed it is dark by 3:30-4:30 PM in NYC during the winter.

I hereby nominate D&P as the most uninformed/misinformed poster ever to grace these pages. I must, however, that the competition is extremely stiff for this "honor".

[terrafirma]

83. Can you tell time?

3:30pm is not equal to 5:00pm.

But way to move the goal posts.

[defendandprotect]

92. Let's stick with reality .... the picture you supplied is certainly a time when other buildings also

show that the work day is still on -- AND IT IS DARK!

[SDuderstadt]

95. D&P "logic"

Most people in NYC only work until about 3:30 - 4:30 PM.

[terrafirma]

96. In the Financial District no less...

[deconstruct911]

29. Look where all the elevators happen to be in 7 world trade

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr6b307KV-Q

[terrafirma]

35. Elevators in the center of buildings!?!!?

OMG!!! I worked in 120 and 140 Broadway. Both of those buildings have the elevators IN THE CENTER OF THE STRUCTURE TOO!!!!! Ever go up to the observation deck at the ESB? Yep... in the center there too. Rockefeller? Yeah, same deal.

That video does nothing to address my point.

How did the PTB rig these buildings (2 of which were occupied almost around the clock) for demolition with NO ONE noticing what the hell was going on. If the explosives were placed in the elevator shaft core, how do you explain the "squibs" protruding the building? How would thermite/ate produce those same squibs? For the no-plane crowd, how did they place explosives ON THE OUTSIDE of the building to blow out a plane-shapped hole??

Do tell.... inquiring minds want to know.

[zappaman]

36. OMG!

The building I am working in right now has ELEVATORS IN THE CENTER OF THE STRUCTURE!!!
How is it possible!?!

[SDuderstadt]

38. They are fake elevators...

dude. Most likely CGI. Ask Spooked.

[defendandprotect]

42. Why do you presume that "squibs" preclude there being wiring for demolition in elevators shafts?

Have you invented some law of destruction which says you can only have one or the other?

:eyes:

WTC were turning into white elephants -- losing tenants -- evidently there were a number

of floors which were totally empty. Heavy equipment was being used in the buildings --

boring and drilling was constantly heard.


For the no-plane crowd, how did they place explosives ON THE OUTSIDE of the building to blow out a plane-shapped hole??

Eh ... no --

The plane -- and some suggest there was only one plane which flew towards each of the WTC towers

at different times, but always OVER the towers -- and probably also down to DC to fly OVER the

Pentagon . . . . would NOT have hit the WTC at all. Rather the EXPLOSIVES would have simply

gone off on whatever schedule was arranged. Photos of planes were produced later.

And, as at least one of the witnesses to the ABSENCE of the second made clear to a reporter --

"no plane, only an explosion" --

Some think there were also missiles used. If it was a military operation, many different methods

may have been used -- even experiemntal methods.

[terrafirma]

46. So basically you have no idea.

Must be nice to always be able to fall back on experimental, mystery forms of demolition to keep from having to face the reality that your theories couldn't stand on their own if they were enclosed in the center of a building, right next to an elevator shaft.

[defendandprotect]

49. So you're saying .... if you've wired one or more floors ... and we saw sufficient SQUIBS

to make clear that's what seems to have been done ....

then you can't have ALSO used the elevator shafts to have wired the CORE of the buildings

for demoliton?


Try answering that --

[terrafirma]

50. You're missing the point.

Covertly placing explosives in elevator shafts is one thing. Doing it in the offices and cubicles of an occupied building is something else entirely.

You have ONE janitor who saw "something". There should be hundreds of other witnesses to back up your claim.

[defendandprotect]

51. You're missing all the points ... the buildings were white elephants ...

with many vacant floors, evidently!

Also, most weekends there would have been almost no one in even the still "occupied" offices!!

Who says they wired "cubicles" ... ?

You have ONE janitor who saw "something". There should be hundreds of other witnesses to back up your claim.

These floors were sealed off from regular stops by elevators -- would have only been someone

with access to keys and controls for elevators who could have opened the doors on those floors.

"Hundreds of witnesses" .... you think hundreds of people had means of controlling elevators?

Many witnesses, however, spoke about the obvious signs of excavation on certain floors of the

buildings -- one tenant actual moved out from UNDER one of the floors being excavated because of

the noise and the cement dust.


Covertly placing explosives in elevator shafts ... NO ----------

Obviously the elevators shafts were used to gain ACCESS to the CORE of the building --

the steel core. Without wiring that STEEL CORE for demoliton, the buildings would never have been

able to be brought down.

[terrafirma]

55. You see "many vacant floors"?

I guess in your world, WTC employees were expected to work 24/7. Otherwise it's just further evidence that no one worked there at all.

And you're really must not be aware of the various types of businesses that had offices there. It wasn't called the WORLD TRADE center for nothing. Employees were in there doing business hours before and hours after a normal 9-5, as business around the... wait for it... WORLD doesn't stop at 5pm EST. And due to that pesky little thing called the International Date Line, some business HAD to be conducted on what New Yorkers would consider a weekend.

I also see you writing a lot of 'would have's and 'could have's in your explanations. Do you really have any EVIDENCE that what the janitor saw was explosives? Or evidence that the "excavated" floors had explosives set in them?

[defendandprotect]

61. Do you understand that the WTC towers were going to have to be brought down

because of the many problems with the buildings? Asbestos being one of them?

They were going to have to build scaffolding to bring the WTC towers down the way

they were put up.

And, it does seem that the WTC towers were CLOSED much earlier in the morning of 9/11.

Some who came to the WTC reported seeing those signs at 8:00 am or even earlier in the morning.


Again -- white elephants have empty floors.

And not every employee works beyond 9-5 or on weekends.

PLUS the WTC towers were hugely expensive to run due to A/C -- Heating -- needs.


Do you have any evidence that "hundreds of witnesses" would have seen the sealed off floors?

Now -- try answering directly --

I have one rule for putting someone on ignore -- and that's for disingenuousness.


And I note you're still avoiding your issue of ONLY "squibs" being allowed --

Have you rethought this and do you now understand that they could have wired multiple floors

-- where we certainly saw squibs --

AND STILL HAVE WIRED THE STEEL CORE OF THE BUILDING?

AND BASEMENTS -- and anything else they wanted to wire?

???????????

[terrafirma]

67. I understand...

That you believe they were white elephants. I understand that you've ignored most everyone who's shown you the asbestos argument is bogus. I understand that you have it stuck in your head that the WTC towers were a liability and the only way to deal with them properly was to murder 3000 people.

Do you understand or comprehend how many people worked in those towers? Are you telling me that this Secret Ninja Demolition team was SOOOO stealthy so as not to arouse suspicion from ANYONE other than ONE. Solitary. Janitor?

And if you want to label me "disingenuous", then by all means, do so. I'll struggle a bit in life, being on your ignore list and all.

But I'll get through.

Somehow...




.... I'll get through.

[defendandprotect]

70. Officials deemed the WTC towers as problematic -- ASBESTOS --

do a little search on google and look into it --

DEMOLITION was not going to be permitted -- and the WTC towers were going to have to come down.

PLUS, the office space wasn't desirable -- and equipment/technology was dated.

Do you realize how many people REPORTED strange occurences in the buildings?

How many employees spoke about the many fire drills which would take them out of the WTC towers

for long periods of time?


You still haven't answered your own question ---

Can an entire floor be wired with explosions -- AND STILL THE CORE BE WIRED ?

Or does that still seem impossible in your mind?

:eyes:

[terrafirma]

73. Sure they can...

And I'm sure you can show that the floors that were sealed for excavation are the same floors we see those pesky squibs, right?

I mean, hell. It's been over 9 years. I figure you've probably put those damning pieces together a while ago, no?

[defendandprotect]

75. Fortunately the FILM is a record of the "squibs" which makes clear where the explosions were ....

and as the firemen give us their detailed view of the explosions going off

AROUND THE BUILDING -- sequencial --

All the way down the building -- alternating floors --

And this question . . .

And I'm sure you can show that the floors that were sealed for excavation are the same floors we see those pesky squibs, right?

in the same vein of your inability to understand that ALL of a building can be wired -

not only various floors -- but the CORE -- and the basements -- whatever --

you now try to suggest that ONLY floors that were "excavated" could possibly contain explosives.

No one is saying that but YOU.


ALL of the towers were brought down by demolition -- and the evidence is on the videos.

[terrafirma]

76. So they rigged every floor?

All 220 of them?

[defendandprotect]

77. More diversion or is it confusion? Do YOU see "squibs" on EVERY FLOOR????

But, again, why would you think whatever was necessary to pre-wire the building

and bring it down by DEMOLITION was impossible for them to do?

[mrarundale]

63. Go look up the history of the WTC

I'm not going to get you the information, because looking in the archives I see that a lot of posters give copious links and quotes only to be attacked ignored and banned. Look up some pre 2001(before censorship became the rule rather than the exception) history of the TTs. When they were originally built they could not find enough tenants...In 1975, they lost 11.9 million dollars (not kidding). WTC 7 could never be leased so they ended up filling it with government. Most of the directories of tenants are contradictory...wonder why? Also Wall Street companies had been planning to move to NJ and, in fact, the Goldman Sachs Tower is already there(nice deli across the street, btw). Their building was completed in 2004, so it must have been "in the works" pre 2001...They also are staying in lower Manhattan after getting inducements of millions of public dollars..hmm..
and if you look in certain newspaper archives you will find that there was a financial organization being operated by the FBI which had a name that everyone thought was a "real" financial company. (article doesn't say) It's purpose was as a sting operation for drug dealers. Kind of makes you wonder WTF was going on in there..
WORLD TRADE? Yeah, for what though?
Some of the WTC financial organizations had CIA and drug ties, it's fact not CT. (there is archived info on DU)
Owned by the Port Authority which has control of the Ports and the Airports in two states, both notable for organized crime? C'maaaahn you weren't born yesterday were you?

[terrafirma]

69. So I guess they're rebuilding the site,

Because Jimmy Hoffa needs a new penthouse?

[defendandprotect]

72. True -- and thank you for reposting the info --

quite a bit of it, I wasn't aware of -- !!!

:)




Go look up the history of the WTC
I'm not going to get you the information, because looking in the archives I see that a lot of posters give copious links and quotes only to be attacked ignored and banned. Look up some pre 2001(before censorship became the rule rather than the exception) history of the TTs. When they were originally built they could not find enough tenants...In 1975, they lost 11.9 million dollars (not kidding). WTC 7 could never be leased so they ended up filling it with government. Most of the directories of tenants are contradictory...wonder why? Also Wall Street companies had been planning to move to NJ and, in fact, the Goldman Sachs Tower is already there(nice deli across the street, btw). Their building was completed in 2004, so it must have been "in the works" pre 2001...They also are staying in lower Manhattan after getting inducements of millions of public dollars..hmm..
and if you look in certain newspaper archives you will find that there was a financial organization being operated by the FBI which had a name that everyone thought was a "real" financial company. (article doesn't say) It's purpose was as a sting operation for drug dealers. Kind of makes you wonder WTF was going on in there..
WORLD TRADE? Yeah, for what though?
Some of the WTC financial organizations had CIA and drug ties, it's fact not CT. (there is archived info on DU)
Owned by the Port Authority which has control of the Ports and the Airports in two states, both notable for organized crime? C'maaaahn you weren't born yesterday were you?

[defendandprotect]

41. Exactly ....!!! And, the steel core of the building which is rarely discussed, as well--!!!

:)

[deconstruct911]

52. something like 106 elevators in each tower

The core also collapsed like a regular demolition. I bet they would be able to access most areas of the core with that many elevators. Notice building 7 caved in at the center also.... This is from a different blog site but I found it interesting: http://911blogger.com/node/19889

[terrafirma]

53. So they rig the core...

And yet, in one instance, it remains standing for awhile after the collapse.

Care to explain that away?

[deconstruct911]

54. It collapsed from the bottom.

the upper part of the core collapsed to initiate the top down, and major damage to the lower part of the core remaining is visible before it collapses at the base straight down.

[terrafirma]

62. Of course.

The gaping hole in the facade of the building and the fires had nothing to do with it, I'm sure.

And the other core collapsed entirely with the building because.....? They rigged it differently?

[defendandprotect]

66. And still insisting that aluminum planes go thru steel buildings like butter .... ???

[defendandprotect]

65. Yes -- as has been explained over and again -- "cracking the top" ....

and, of course, the basement explosives!

[defendandprotect]

64. Faulty work? Failure to "pull" .... ??? Why don't you explain it?

For one thing the FIRE issue is ridiculous --

the fires were on single floors in WTC -- and as firemen noted -- they only needed one

hose to put it out -- 'CONTAINED' was their word.


Yet, we're asked to believe that steel structure and CORE ten and twenty floors below

the fire brought the tower down!!

In, fact, in WTC#7 there was no plane and no kerosene and no actual central fire --

and yet, there it went -- DEMOLITION time again!

[terrafirma]

71. Wow... And I'M disingenuous???

Please read THIS

If you're going to misquote Orio Palmer (he said TWO lines, not one), at least be honest in disclosing that he was on the 78th floor and hadn't reached where the actual inferno was.

[defendandprotect]

74. I introduced the subject of the fires . .. and you KNOW from what you

replied with that they were not a problem -- and yet you're suggesting that

I've distorted info?

As I recall it, firemen don't go up without a hose --

What they were asking for was ONE MORE LINE --

What you're trying to hide is the the reality that the fire at the site of the IMPACT

was CONTAINED.

And when do you stop distorting and wasting time and start actually replying?

[terrafirma]

84. Good God...

There were two isolated pockets of fire ON THE 78th FLOOR in STAIRWELL A in the SOUTH TOWER.

Can you honestly look at these pictures and say with a clear conscience that a pair of hoses would be able to fight this "contained" fire?

[ryan_cats]

98. That second pic is bad, how could anyone or even the building survive that?

That second pic is bad, how could anyone or even the building survive that?

The first pic shows at least one floor fully engulfed, that is not a small fire and it is extremely disingenuous to continue to say the fires were small; not to mention, the fact that she got that wrong as well. The fireman said it would take two hoses and I believe he was talking about only the 78th floor??

[terrafirma]

99. Correct.

Two isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor around Stairwell A in the South Tower.

Her silence regarding the pictures (just two of hundreds), is quite telling. What's more, since she's a native New Yorker, I see no reason why she can't swing by a local firehouse (maybe even Engine 3, Ladder 12, where the firefighter she misquoted, Orio Palmer, was battalion chief) and ask them if two hoses would've been enough to contain those fires.

She is, after all, in search of the truth....

[zappaman]

100. Well, she does have just about everybody on ignore

She just rants and rants to herself.
Kind of like the street person you sometimes see who is yelling at the air.

[terrafirma]

105. Ah, "ignore"....

The internet equivalent of a temper tantrum.

[SDuderstadt]

106. Just for that...

I am putting you on "ignore".

[terrafirma]

107. Aw, dude...

You know it's not directed towards you. :)

[SDuderstadt]

111. I'd answer you , but...

I have you on "ignore".

:evilgrin:

[terrafirma]

115. I'd respond to your answer...

... but you have me on "ignore".

[deconstruct911]

137. I think the lower part of the core remained

to help the building crumble so quickly. Once the office space concrete floors were turned to dust they finshed off the steel core structure that remained.

And you know what's funny? WTC 7 had tanks of diesel for genrators if I rember correctly, which they originaly said helped weaken the structure, and later they said no, just the intense fires from damage.

[defendandprotect]

56. That link is quite a goldmine of information ... in fact, I got caught up in reading ....

and didn't get to the video you were pointing me to --

YES . . . re the demolition being highly expertise, at least one of the demolition company

people said that -- that they couldn't have produced some of it -- highly sophisticated and

probably "military."

Saved the link -- thank you -- :)

[SDuderstadt]

19. If the Towers were...

demolished by controlled demolition, it's hard to believe that the 386+ tests that NIST conducted on each of the 239 critical samples of structural steel preserved from the site wouldn't have revealed it.

Unless one of our "truther experts" can tell us how the telltale signs of a "controlled demolition" could possibly be missed in an element-by-element review, this stupid "NIST did not test for controlled demolition" myth isn't worth the investment of time. This is why I keep asking "truthers" if they have even read the NIST reports.


http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3E%20Physical%20Properties.pdf

[immune]

20. Did any of those 386 tests

involve thermite, or thermate or nanothermite? I haven't seen in the NIST report where they detail exactly which explosive compounds they eliminated by all these tests.

[SDuderstadt]

21. Dude...

do you even understand what an element-by-element review is? Please explain how thermite would escape detection in that kind of test.

[immune]

22. You didn't answer the question.

DID they test for these compounds?

[SDuderstadt]

23. Dude...

I am not going to go back and forth with you on this. If you don't understand what an element by element review is and can explain how the telltale signs of ANY means of "controlled demolition" would not have been detected, there's no point in responding to your ever-increasing demands for proof of whatever.

Simple question: since thermite is an incendiary, how would the impact of the planes not have ignited it????

[immune]

24. IOW

you can't answer the question except by asking another question. So can you tell us what this alleged element by element review you claim they conducted consisted of?

What, you're pouting over someone else's demands for proof? :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

25. No, dude...

you keep missing the point. The element-by-element review that NIST conducted would have revealed the telltale signs of ANY kind of controlled demolition. I already provided the link, but, if you want to continue to parade your ignorance around, be my guest. I'll post the link again for those that might be intellectually curious and, unlike you, open-minded.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3E%20Physical%20Properties.pdf

[immune]

26. Uh uh.

Your claim, dude. You back it up.

Tell me, for example, with the shotgun shells used to blast insulation off pipe in one of their more laughable tests ... would testing each element of the shotgun shells prove why a shotgun shoots and why it might blow off the insulation? How would testing the individual elements of explosives/incindiaries be any more conclusive?

[zappaman]

27. immune

it is obvious you either did not read the link provided or you just don't understand it.
which is it?

[SDuderstadt]

28. I doubt if immune would understand it...

even if he DID read it.

The level of science-denial is troubling, to say the least.

[immune]

108. Science denial?

NIST replies to RFC, defending its failure to test for explosives by claiming that such tests might be inconclusive.

In this correspondence, NIST states, unequivocally, that it did not test for explosive residue, followed by its curious claim that testing "would not necessarily have been conclusive".

Finally, NIST has stated that if found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue and as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive. Therefore, our requests for corrections (items f-h) are denied.

Ryan shows numerous connections between NIST authors and the explosive nanocomposites NIST refuses to acknowledge
Noting NIST's struggles to settle on a theory explaining the collapse of the three WTC skyscrapers, Ryan focuses on their persistent refusal to test for incendiaries -- a violation of the national standard for fire investigation.

But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.

One of the most intriguing aspects of NIST’s diversionary posture has been their total lack of interest in explosive or pyrotechnic features in their explanations. Despite the substantial evidence for the use of explosives at the WTC (Jones 2006, Legge and Szamboti 2007), and the extensive expertise in explosives among NIST investigators (Ryan 2007), explosives were never considered in the NIST WTC investigation. Only after considerable criticism of this fact did NIST deign to add one small disclaimer to their final report on the towers, suggesting they found no evidence for explosives.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosives_evidence_timeline.html#nist_reply_to_rfc

Troubling? Yeah, to say the least!!!

[SDuderstadt]

112. Dude...

Yeah, denial. NIST explained the situation quite nicely, if not perfectly. Maybe you should read what NIST actually does and the purpose of their investigation.

This is getting stupid.

[defendandprotect]

44. Interesting question ... NIST is also a private company, dependent upon government contracts--!!

Obviously, most of the right wing violence is dependent upon cover ups afterward --

you need a lot of cooperative people lined up to keep those cover ups going!!

:)

[SDuderstadt]

45. Jesus fucking christ...

NIST is NOT a "private company". It is part of the Department of Commerce.

Is there no end to this woman's misinformation?

[NYMdaveNYI]

88. She’s blocked you too, I’d guess....

Meaning, she gets to shout her misinformed bullshit into an endless echo chamber.

[zappaman]

89. yep

ridiculous, huh?

[immune]

109. It appears to be just another one of those

public/private arrangements that makes it impossible to fignre out which end of the dog is doing all the wagging and which end "lies" down on command from its master.

NIST had an operating budget for fiscal year 2007 (October 1, 2006-September 30, 2007) of about $843.3 million. NIST's 2009 budget was $992 million, but it also received $610 million as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.<2> NIST employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel. About 1,800 NIST associates (guest researchers and engineers from American companies and foreign nations) complement the staff. In addition, NIST partners with 1,400 manufacturing specialists and staff at nearly 350 affiliated centers around the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST

[SDuderstadt]

114. Maybe if you tried to understand what NIST...

actually does, this wouldn't seem so "suspect" to you.

[immune]

116. Oh, I think we've pretty much figured out what they do.

ob·fus·cate   /ˈɒbfəˌskeɪt, ɒbˈfʌskeɪt/ Show Spelled
Show IPA

–verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3. to darken.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1525–35; < LL obfuscātus (ptp. of obfuscāre to darken), equiv. to L ob- ob- + fusc ( us ) dark + -ātus -ate1

—Synonyms
1. muddle, perplex. 2. cloud.

—Antonyms
1. clarify.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obfuscate

[SDuderstadt]

117. More of your bullshit...

dude.

Let me ask you a question. Did you trust NIST when Bill Clinton was President? Did they, all of a sudden, go bad when Bush was "selected"? Do you honestly think they didn't care about getting to the bottom of the Towers collapse?

Tell me something...why isn't the engineering and physicist community up in arms over their work like you "truthers"?

[immune]

118. Up in arms?

As far as I can tell, no one is up in arms .... well, unless you'd count the military, which is armed to the teeth and spread all over the world fighting bogeymen (and small children).

[SDuderstadt]

119. I KNEW you wouldn't have a...

serious response to what I asked.

If it weren't for D&P, you'd easily be the most uninformed/misinformed poster here, dude.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

128. It's a perfectly valid question...

dude. Of course, when confronted with questions you cannot answer, you just start sputtering and name-calling. It's really quite comical.

In the meantime, nine years on and no groundswell from the professional community. ASCE and the AIA have a combined membership of nearly 250k. If AE911truth was to recruit a mere 10% of those organizations, it would have roughly 25k members. Nine years later, why can't you guys do that?
As an aside, I'd love to know what you believe is being covered up in the OKC bombing case.

[immune]

129. Of course its a perfectly valid question

But like NIST, you won't find (valid) answers by looking in all the wrong places.

So why don't you run along now and go ask the professional people who have the answer. And maybe take that cocky attitude about millions of dead people and our destroyed economy along for the ride.

[deconstruct911]

130. The destruction is to great to stop now

lets keep on trucking, after all they say it's a war of 100 years. Where the fuck is all that money going to come from?????

[immune]

131. It absolutely is too late to stop it now

and we're in for some long term pain because there IS no money .. just chits that aren't worth the paper they're printed on and computer entries that are worth even less. Oh, and enemies, we've got plenty of those, most of whom look and talk just like us. But they don't need more money, they just want more bloodshed. What I'm wondering is where the fuck all that blood is going to come from.

[SDuderstadt]

133. Another one of your stupid strawman arguments...

dude. Just because I don't buy your goofy "9/11 was an inside job" CT bullshit, doesn't mean I am not concerned about the cost and casualties. This is just another example of your underhanded tactic of character assassination, since you cannot debate on the facts, dude.

Just one more of many reasons why you aren't taken seriously here.

[immune]

135. LOL, somehow I just knew you

didn't really want a "serious response".

I welcome open and honest discussion with serious players who don't feel the need to run to mommy everytime they get their feelings hurt.

So buh bye, dude. Enjoy the silence from this end.

[SDuderstadt]

136. Oh, yes...

by all means, run away from the debate while whining that someone other than you is responsible for you violating DU rules.

Typical "truther". Well, at least you've dropped the pretense that you haven't drawn any "conclusions" and that you just have "questions" and betrayed your true agenda.

[mrarundale]

31. I think we need to look at local entities rather than Feds

regarding the WTC destruction. The Port Authority and real estate interests are more the beneficiaries of that operation and the towers coming all the way down. Also, why didn't the tenants go after the city and the PA for unsafe conditions? I'm sure there was no shortage of lawyers in those buildings. The Towers were money losers (on paper) from the beginning and I think one of the only reasons they were built was to create Battery Park City with the landfill and millions/billions in new real estate...also they wiped out thousands of small, thriving businesses (and wonderful old buildings) to replace with big (probably criminal IMO) businesses, setting the stage for the Big Box takeover of the US....Evil.

I don't see many posters here saying they think that explosives brought the towers down so much as they want to know why so many witnesses reported explosions.

It's pretty obvious to me that planes didn't cause the towers demise, since fire travels up , not down...and fire in the wtc (of which there were many previous incidents) traveled up through ducks and pipes.

[SDuderstadt]

32. "traveled up through ducks (sic) and pipes. "

Dude, do you AIM for incoherence?

[mrarundale]

57. Ok; ducts, the "stack effect" according to

"City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center "

"..by 1972, the wtc had had more than 40 fires. The fires would spread through ducts and shafts dozens of floors above where the fires had started.... experts called the phenomenon the stack effect.."

Spellcheck is obviously in on the conspiracy and trying to sabotage me ;)

[deconstruct911]

58. Oh you bet

it's a method used to apparently attack your credibility.

[zappaman]

59. with you its easy

nothing you post is credible!

[deconstruct911]

60. coming from you that means a lot.

[mrarundale]

93. Tell me who/what do YOU think is credible?

The Wall Street Journal? Fox? The NYTimes? The Poughkeepsie Herald? (I made that one up).. DO tell..It is so sad that a source has to be owned by a corporation to be "credible" when corporations have the biggest incentive to lie

[zappaman]

97. If any of those publications

believe crazy things like "no planes hit the WTC", then they, like you, are not credible.

[deconstruct911]

33. yea but these were magic fires

The fireballs traveled to the bottom of the elevators, got off, got back on and rode another 30 floors and did the same until they reached the lobby and blew off the elevator doors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gornqHgiG0A

[SDuderstadt]

34. Do you know what a shock wave is...

dude?

[defendandprotect]

68. Thank you! We need these regular reminders of the magic of 9/11 ... !!

[immune]

110. Well put!

:thumbsup:

[SDuderstadt]

113. Apparently neither of you know...

what a shock wave is.

[spooked911]

101. many witnesses reported explosions because there WERE explosions

and anyone who has done some reading on this, with an open mind, knows that the towers were blown to kingdom come. NO DOUBT.

[terrafirma]

104. Correct.

But as many have said on here ad nauseum (and what you apparently lack the ability to understand) is that explosions do not equal explosives.

Go watch some video of actual controlled demolitions. You will hear (and even see) the charges going off. Nothing like that can be heard (or seen, contrary to your belief) in either Tower 1, Tower 2 or WTC7.

[SDuderstadt]

134. If there was....

"N0 DOUBT", Spooked, you'd have actual evidence of it.

[terrafirma]

132. Yeah... the planes had nothing to do with it.

It's just sheer coincidence that both collapses initated at the impact zones.

[spooked911]

102. Video fakery, high precision missiles and pre-planted explosives ensured that a "plane"

hit each of the towers.

[zappaman]

103. "Video fakery, high precision missiles and pre-planted explosives ensured that a "plane"

You have no idea what you are talking about!
You conveniently ignore the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw PLANES crash into the towers.
Video fakery is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.
You really think the networks were in on it?
Obviously, you have no idea how video effects work. You couldn't possibly believe it was "green screen technology"(as you mentioned before) if you understood how the process works.
But, not understanding something but drawing a conclusion from the things you don't understand, seems to be your standard M.O.
You are beyond goofy.

[Fire Walk With Me]

123. A co-worker at the company I was at during 9/11 said, on 9/11 during the replays

of the collapse of the buildings, that it looked like a controlled demolition. At the time, I thought it too ridiculous and was too blasted by my reactions to adequately consider it as a possibility.

Regarding "Why" it would be necessary to destroy the WTC, remember the concept of "Disaster Capitalism". If a group of extremely rich people with government positions and power (this includes foreigners, especially as part of said money group), can work to privatize (read, install their corporations and interests) the ruins, install extreme law ("patriot" act), etc., and overall, work to bring the western economy to ruins, because the amount of money and power one may grab, through such a smash-and-grab, is astonishing. Social policy may be nearly completely set to their whim, a state of constant fear set in place ("1984"'s "wars"), and basically, allows sadistic assholes to lord it over everyone as they wish, treating people like playthings.

Rove and others exhibited true sadistic behaviour and tactics throughout the Bush years. Make no mistake about how far they would go in order to gain their goals. Considering the results we can see: the near crash of the economy into what Obama called a potential second great depression, Cheney making millions through no-bid contracts, everything leading to a steady-state economy known as the company store.

Which is why it's imperative to vote this fall, because corporations are poised to become our lords and masters (even more so). Vote!