9/11 Controlled Demolition vs No Plane Theory

Blank Czech

Can anyone shed some light on this for me? Iv been reading up and watching documentaries etc on 9/11 for some time now. I first became aware of this after watching Loose Change, but as the years have passed it is pretty clear to see how much the 9/11 truth movement has grown. There are numerous documentaries, press conferences etc. on the net were professional, and what i would consider credible people, in the fields of architecture and science are stating that the events of 9/11, as told by the mainstream media, are scientifically impossible. In short, the twin towers and building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition, and did not collapse due to plane impacts and fire. Most notably from Dr. David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. Gage states "Once you get down to the science, its indisputible".

Anyway, after seeing and reading all of this evidence, and i always try to get my information on a scientific, rational basis, it seemed clear to me what really happened on that faithful day, and how we were all duped into believing the "official story".

But then i came across the "No Plane Theory" after watching a video on youtube called September Clues which sort of through a spanner in the works of what i thought was the real story. This video tells of how the 9/11 footage of planes hitting the buildings was doctored, forged, CG, what ever you want to call it. Videos such as the "Nose Out" video really raised my suspicions and i found myself thinking that this story goes a lot deeper than i had first imagined. So then i was thinking, right maybe the videos of the planes hitting the buildings were forged, but this theory goes deeper still, stating that ALL 9/11 footage was fake, including the collapses.

So this is where my problem lies, a lot of the evidence brought forward by the controlled demolition people IS the actual 9/11 footage of the collapse. They show how explosives were used and how the buildings didnt just collapse, they disintegrated into dust in the case of the towers, and imploded in a text book controlled implosion in the case of building 7. A lot of the footage of the planes hitting is extremely suspicious when pointed out and shown to you and it really has me thinking what is real and what is fake. I was ready to accept that maybe the plane footage was doctored, but ALL of it? Iv heard the comments that "No planers are idiots" and the likes, but these videos seem to show some damning evidence of tampering, if not complete forgery.

Anyway any serious input on these two conflicting theories would be appreciated

Maybe both theories are based on nonsense, debunked arguments and pseudo-science and are both therefore wrong?

That certainly would clear up any conflict between them.

meglome

You'll get a number of differing views in here. Personally I'd find the no planes theory to be one of the most far fetched. The footage used to show it is highly compressed and when you track down a decent copy of the footage the anomalies are simply not there. These planes did fly over a huge city in broad daylight and especially the second plane was witnessed by literally thousands of people.

Again personally I don't buy either theory. You should watch some of the counter videos to the likes of loose change which show just how much is wrong with it and left out of it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#

Blank Czech

Well for me, loose change was just the beginning. This is the film that brought this conspiracy to my attention, but it is not the film that makes me believe 9/11 was staged. I am aware of the arguements against it and i do think there are a lot of inconsistencies in it. Today, my main source, and the one i find most credible, would be Richard Gage, from AE 9/11 Truth. His organisation now has over 1200 professional architects and engineers, all stating that the US government's accounts of what happened are at the very least, INCORRECT. I would tend to believe a professional in the field of Architecture, with 20 plus years experience, and with the backing of over 1000 other professionals in similar fields, over a government account of an event which has changed the world, and let them wage war in the middle east, and strip its citizens of its civil liberties. Have a look at these vids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b74naeawdCs&feature=PlayList&p=621A4B03C1169C78&index=0&playnext=1

Saying that, i have only seen a few vids on the no plane theory, with no scientific backing. But any vids i have seen all seem to be suspect, ie the "Nose Out" video, wit its fade to black just as the planes nose, in tact, emerges from the other side of the building.

If it's a matter of a professional architect telling you and you believing unquestioningly, why Gage and his crowd and not the much much larger group of engineers and architects who disagree with him?

Penn

King Mob wrote: »

If it's a matter of a professional architect telling you and you believing unquestioningly, why Gage and his crowd and not the much much larger group of engineers and architects who disagree with him?

Agreed. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth or whatever they're called have 1200 or so members worldwide. But there are over 250,000 architects registered in the US alone, not even counting engineers and other professionals worldwide. Even if you take there to be maybe 600,000 professionals worldwide, Gage etc would only account for 0.2%. There will also be people who disagree with each other, or have different interpretations of what could have happened based on the way they were taught, experience, previous projects etc. Its hard for everyone to agree on what happened because the building was not monitored. We don't know exactly what temperatures the fires were. We don't know exactly how badly the fireproofing was damaged. There are countless variables which cannot be established, so some people may disagree with the official reports.

However, if only around 0.2% of architects and engineers disagree with the official report, then approximately 99.8% agree with it. You may say that they're too scared to come forward etc, but has anything bad happened to the ones who have? And if we take architects and engineers worldwide into consideration, they wouldn't be afraid of coming forward because the American government have no control over them. Unless all architects and engineers worldwide know that the nwo is real. I work for engineers and they've never mentioned it to be honest.

--Kaiser--

The controlled demolition theory has been debunked years ago;

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

The no planes theory, however, is just retarded. Hundreds and hundreds of people witnessed the planes hit the towers.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

If it's a matter of a professional architect telling you and you believing unquestioningly,

Where has he said that?

King Mob wrote: »

why Gage and his crowd and not the much much larger group of engineers and architects who disagree with him?

And why not then the legion of corrupt scientists who advocated tobacco?

Besides...that is not how the scientific process works is it? "My expert is bigger than your expert" is hardly peer-review is it?

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And why not then the legion of corrupt scientists who advocated tobacco?

Besides...that is not how the scientific process works is it? "My expert is bigger than your expert" is hardly peer-review is it?

And the scientists that say global warming isn't happening, many with shady funding. Considering what a small group Gage and Co are maybe they are being paid to spread disinfo. Just a thought.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Where has he said that?

Because he's said in no uncertain terms that one of the main reasons he believes the CTs is because of "experts" like Cage.

There are numerous documentaries, press conferences etc. on the net were professional, and what i would consider credible people, in the fields of architecture and science are stating that the events of 9/11, as told by the mainstream media, are scientifically impossible.

Today, my main source, and the one i find most credible, would be Richard Gage, from AE 9/11 Truth. His organisation now has over 1200 professional architects and engineers, all stating that the US government's accounts of what happened are at the very least, INCORRECT.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And why not then the legion of corrupt scientists who advocated tobacco?

Well if your "logic" is to hold, therefore the scientists you are holding up as truth seekers must also be part of this "legion of corrupt scientists who advocated tobacco".

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Besides...that is not how the scientific process works is it? "My expert is bigger than your expert" is hardly peer-review is it?

That's exactly my point.
It's a argument from authority and therefore a fallacy.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

And the scientists that say global warming isn't happening, many with shady funding. Considering what a small group Gage and Co are maybe they are being paid to spread disinfo. Just a thought.

I'd actually agree. Gage and co are suspect for me and I don't buy the thermite hypothesis. No planes theory is 100% disinfo for me too.

TMoreno

Blank Czech wrote: »

Can anyone shed some light on this for me? Iv been reading up and watching documentaries etc on 9/11 for some time now. I first became aware of this after watching Loose Change, but as the years have passed it is pretty clear to see how much the 9/11 truth movement has grown. There are numerous documentaries, press conferences etc. on the net were professional, and what i would consider credible people, in the fields of architecture and science are stating that the events of 9/11, as told by the mainstream media, are scientifically impossible. In short, the twin towers and building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition, and did not collapse due to plane impacts and fire. Most notably from Dr. David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. Gage states "Once you get down to the science, its indisputible".

Anyway, after seeing and reading all of this evidence, and i always try to get my information on a scientific, rational basis, it seemed clear to me what really happened on that faithful day, and how we were all duped into believing the "official story".

But then i came across the "No Plane Theory" after watching a video on youtube called September Clues which sort of through a spanner in the works of what i thought was the real story. This video tells of how the 9/11 footage of planes hitting the buildings was doctored, forged, CG, what ever you want to call it. Videos such as the "Nose Out" video really raised my suspicions and i found myself thinking that this story goes a lot deeper than i had first imagined. So then i was thinking, right maybe the videos of the planes hitting the buildings were forged, but this theory goes deeper still, stating that ALL 9/11 footage was fake, including the collapses.

So this is where my problem lies, a lot of the evidence brought forward by the controlled demolition people IS the actual 9/11 footage of the collapse. They show how explosives were used and how the buildings didn't just collapse, they disintegrated into dust in the case of the towers, and imploded in a text book controlled implosion in the case of building 7. A lot of the footage of the planes hitting is extremely suspicious when pointed out and shown to you and it really has me thinking what is real and what is fake. I was ready to accept that maybe the plane footage was doctored, but ALL of it? Iv heard the comments that "No planers are idiots" and the likes, but these videos seem to show some damning evidence of tampering, if not complete forgery.

Anyway any serious input on these two conflicting theories would be appreciated

If only 1% of this document is true, it's enough to believe that 9/11 was a scam.

September Clues is an important documentary because it shows the unquestionable role of the media in the 9 11 event. It shows that the "live pictures" have been edited and that first eye witnesses were all members of the media corporation: journalists, producers, wife of producers or just employees of TV channels. It also shows the mouth of several people interviewed slipping, talking about a missile strike.
It also shows that the journalists were the first to point the fingers to "Bin Laden" only one minute after the 2nd strike. Even Ehud Barak the former Israeli Prime Minister was by coincidence already in the studio of the BBC in London one hour after the first strike, saying that "The World has changed for Ever", the same words George W Bush used few hours later, mentioning Bin Laden two times and pointing the fingers to Iran, Iraq, Libya all Israel's enemies, also suggesting that there were explosions (his mouth almost slipped). Watch it in Youtube!



Let me also show you few examples of media hoax:

The War of the Worlds (radio) 30th of October 1938
The first two thirds of the 60-minute broadcast were presented as a series of simulated "news bulletins", which suggested to many listeners that an actual alien invasion by Martians was currently in progress. (...) Some listeners heard only a portion of the broadcast, and in the atmosphere of tension and anxiety just prior to World War II, took it to be a news broadcast. Newspapers reported that panic ensued, people fleeing the area, others thinking they could smell poison gas or could see flashes of lightning in the distance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_%28radio%29


Flemish Secession hoax:

The 13th of December 2006: Regular programming on the channel La Une was interrupted for a news bulletin which claimed the Flemish parliament had unilaterally declared independence from Belgium, thereby ending the existence of the country. Interviews with prominent Belgian politicians (some of whom had been informed about the hoax) as well as staged footage of the evacuation of the royal family gave credence to the event.

The broadcast of the report led to some consternation in French-speaking Belgium. A hot line set up by the station was swamped by calls. Thirty minutes into the broadcast, on demand of the media minister of the French speaking community in Belgium, Fadila Laanan, an on-screen message identified it as a fiction.

The hoax was prepared over a period of 2 years under the codename BBB for Bye-bye Belgium.

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

Georgia TV hoax
14 of March 2010
Russian invasion scare sweeps Georgia after TV hoax
Imedi TV broadcaster provokes panic with report claiming Russian attack in progress
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/14/russia-georgia-fake-invasion-report

9 11 was a TV event. We saw 9 11 on TV. It was as "seen on TV", it is the truth because "TV said so". Nobody read 9 11, or heard 9 11, you had to see the pictures on TV. It was better than a movie. Don't forget that the media in America are concentrated IE: Fox news is part of News Corp which owns Fox Studio. TV and Cinema work together.
Look also at all the TV program regarding 9/11 for the last 9 years. They show :
- victims of 9/11 to encourage empathy and revenge but rarely never show the victims in Afghanistan or Iraq,
- stupid and arrogant programs ridiculing alternative explanations of the events: special TV programs about 9/11 conspiracy theory on the BBC or the National Geographic channel.
- all the big media backed up the offical story never questioning it!

9/11 was a fraud!

gizmo

TMoreno wrote: »

9 11 was a TV event. We saw 9 11 on TV. It was as "seen on TV", it is the truth because "TV said so". Nobody read 9 11, or heard 9 11, you had to see the pictures on TV. It was better than a movie. Don't forget that the media in America are concentrated IE: Fox news is part of News Corp which owns Fox Studio. TV and Cinema work together.
Look also at all the TV program regarding 9/11 for the last 9 years. They show :
- victims of 9/11 to encourage empathy and revenge but rarely never show the victims in Afghanistan or Iraq,
- stupid and arrogant programs ridiculing alternative explanations of the events: special TV programs about 9/11 conspiracy theory on the BBC or the National Geographic channel.
- all the big media backed up the offical story never questioning it!

9/11 was a fraud!

I'm sorry, are you now suggesting that 9/11 didn't happen? That those planes didn't hit the buildings? That it was all CGI shown on TV by the media corporations? :pac:

--Kaiser--

gizmo wrote: »

I'm sorry, are you now suggesting that 9/11 didn't happen? That those planes didn't hit the buildings? That it was all CGI shown on TV by the media corporations? :pac:

Yes, these people would rather believe some poor quality, sensationalist Youtube videos than the testimony of 100's of live witnesses.

Bi6N

I've seen/read an extreme amount of information on 9/11
It appears to be a case by case opinion really across the board.

My views are as follows, the amount of factors that seem to have all failed, be it systems, workers, defense, intel etc is pretty insane.

You'd expect a few things to go wrong, but there appears to be some sort of domino pattern/effect over the course of 9/11 leading up to and after the event.
Everything that could have gone wrong went wrong, when you crunch the numbers and think of the possiblity logically, you begin to understand that its impossible for so many "accidents" to happen around the same time frame.

Like the Pentagon, thats a complete joke in itself. Anyone who does some research will know that.
I for one believe that it was planned, planned to enrage a nation into an unjust war. United under a common enemy, backing the troops. Stirring up the wardrums of profit. Its horrible, no one wants to believe it. Thats why its so hard for people to absorb the availble information.

I think the "no plane" theory is absolute bull****, I'm under the understanding the planes where switched. Something the Military already practised.
When it comes to controlled demo, come on really? Those buildings free falled, it was most certainly controlled.

All I'll say is continue to research it the best you can, looking for information from every source. Leave no stone unturned, think about the benifit of war for the US. War is the biggest money industry, it always has been.

TMoreno

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Yes, these people would rather believe some poor quality, sensationalist Youtube videos than the testimony of 100's of live witnesses.

The videos are not hand made. They all come from the Internet Archive:
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

Witnessess? Let's talk about the witnesses who heard explosions.

gizmo

TMoreno wrote: »

The videos are not hand made. They all come from the Internet Archive:
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

Witnessess? Let's talk about the witnesses who heard explosions.

The explosions thing has been done to death in the other threads but you still haven't clarified something. Are you saying those planes didn't hit the towers?

Bi6N

Bi6N wrote: »

When it comes to controlled demo, come on really? Those buildings free falled, it was most certainly controlled.

Well you see in controlled demolitions the building doesn't free fall in the first place.
Also the WTC didn't either.

In your quest to leave on stone unturned did you actually go and verify that these buildings free felled?

--Kaiser--

TMoreno wrote: »

The videos are not hand made. They all come from the Internet Archive:
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

Witnessess? Let's talk about the witnesses who heard explosions.

I didn't say handmade i said POOR QUALITY. Low resolution, pixellated, compressed etc....

Firstly, two airplanes full of jet fuel crashed into the towers (if you are going to suggest this didn't happen there is no help for you), the buildings were on fire, of course people heard explosions.

Secondly, the towers were around 95 % air, the towers collapsed so quickly that this air was forced out and would feed the initial fires caused by the plane crashes. Also lots of air being forced out so quickly would make whoosh/explosion noises.

Bi6N

King Mob wrote: »

Well you see in controlled demolitions the building doesn't free fall in the first place.
Also the WTC didn't either.

In your quest to leave on stone unturned did you actually go and verify that these buildings free felled?

Well King I've seen plenty of controlled demos, even one in real life. If you put any footage up against the twin tower footage, its clear as day.

Building 7 was pulled by a demo company (this is well known, admitted by staff etc), you can even use the footage of it falling against the twin towers.

Open your eyes

Jayob10

Just reading through this thread, and I appreciate probably everyone in here knows more the technical side of things.

But in relation to the no plane theory. how on earth can this no be bulls*t????

Thousands of people on the ground actually saw the planes, mainly the second one. And also how do they account for the people who died on the scheduled flights???

Its frankly a bizarre theory that no planes actually hit.

Bi6N

Bi6N wrote: »

Well King I've seen plenty of controlled demos, even one in real life.

Then you should have no proble actually providing an example of a definite controlled demolition bringing a building down a free fall speed.

Bi6N wrote: »

If you put any footage up against the twin tower footage, its clear as day.

Execpt for the fact that all the WTC collapses lacked the very, very loud sequence of bangs and very visible flashes followed immediately by the collapse of the building.
So yea, they're similar in that a building fell down.

Bi6N wrote: »

Building 7 was pulled by a demo company, you can even use the footage of it falling against the twin towers.

And I bet you're getting this bull from that same old out of context quote....

Bi6N wrote: »

Open your eyes

I'm trying to, but I don't just believe everything I'm told on the internet.
How exactly do you know the buildings fell at free fall speed.
Please show us exactly where this is coming from.

Bi6N

Jayob10 wrote: »

Just reading through this thread, and I appreciate probably everyone in here knows more the technical side of things.

But in relation to the no plane theory. how on earth can this no be bulls*t????

Thousands of people on the ground actually saw the planes, mainly the second one. And also how do they account for the people who died on the scheduled flights???

Its frankly a bizarre theory that no planes actually hit.

The whole no planes theory is insane alright man, I agree.
Its possible it was started to discredit other theorys indirectly like "Oh look now the theorists think no planes even hit the towers, what will they think next" I'm in work so can't link any information yet.

Load of auld Bollocks
But as I said, information points to them switching the planes.

Jayob10

Bi6N wrote: »

The whole no planes theory is insane alright man, I agree.
Its possible it was started to discredit other theorys indirectly like "Oh look now the theorists think no planes even hit the towers, what will they think next" I'm in work so can't link any information yet.

Load of auld Bollocks
But as I said, information points to them switching the planes.

how do you mean? explain the basic theory of this bolded part?

meglome

Bi6N wrote: »

Everything that could have gone wrong went wrong, when you crunch the numbers and think of the possiblity logically, you begin to understand that its impossible for so many "accidents" to happen around the same time frame.

So this is how you logically think 911 was a big CT, fair enough. To have all this happen would take literally thousands of people being involved and staying quiet. You really think thousand of people would be involved in the mass murder of their fellow countrymen and women and not one speaks out after all these years? How does your 'logic' work with that?

TMoreno wrote: »

Witnessess? Let's talk about the witnesses who heard explosions.

Sweet mother of jesus... explosion is not the same fúcking word as explosive. Lot's of things can explode given the right circumstances.

Bi6N wrote: »

Well King I've seen plenty of controlled demos, even one in real life. If you put any footage up against the twin tower footage, its clear as day.

So somehow the dust and debris fell ahead of a building falling at free-fall speeds? Just like magic obviously. OR I dunno it wasn't falling at free-fall speeds.

Bi6N wrote: »

Building 7 was pulled by a demo company, you can even use the footage of it falling against the twin towers.

So even with the many hundreds of people, rescue workers etc in the area not one saw cables being placed on a 50 storey building? No one with a vantage point of that side of the building saw these cables either. I dunno it's almost like they weren't there.

TMoreno

gizmo wrote: »

The explosions thing has been done to death in the other threads but you still haven't clarified something. Are you saying those planes didn't hit the towers?

I think two planes hit the towers but I am not sure that they were Flight 11 and Flight 175. They could be. However the architect of the WTC, who died during 9/11, said in an interview in January 2001 that the towers were like cages and that the towers could sustain multiple airplane impacts and that it would be like "throwing a pencil into a cage" while those planes entered into the building like hot knives into butter and made the towers collapse.

I also think that the pictures that we saw were edited. Look at the documentary. Again, you don't have to believe everything to find it interesting and ask yourself questions.

When I say 9/11 was a fraud I mean that there is a difference between what we saw and what really happened. Remember those claims that we hear sometimes? "as seen on TV", "TV says so, it must be true". I also mean that there is a difference between a historical event, what ever it is, and its meaning. When politicians and journalists say our world has changed forever, I find that odd and I think that the media make the events and certainly make them look important and sometimes historical IE: celebrities or sport events.

Bi6N

King Mob wrote: »

Then you should have no proble actually providing an example of a definite controlled demolition bringing a building down a free fall speed.


Execpt for the fact that all the WTC collapses lacked the very, very loud sequence of bangs and very visible flashes followed immediately by the collapse of the building.
So yea, they're similar in that a building fell down.


And I bet you're getting this bull from that same old out of context quote....

I'm trying to, but I don't just believe everything I'm told on the internet.
How exactly do you know the buildings fell at free fall speed.
Please show us exactly where this is coming from.

I can tell you have certainly made up your mind, I'm in work so can't link anything. But I'll take pleasure in it, once I get a chance.
Of course I don't believe everything I read online, really? Are you serious?

You can try belittle my opinion as much as you like, there will always be for and against. You picked one point I made in my previous comment, dicided "this is what I'll attack."

What about the rest?? you agree?? you disagree? or do you enjoy being a smug git ? When you outway the pros and cons for America, what is 3000 deaths?? Think about it? How much that country has gained from 9/11
The ability to break laws, massive control of its population, an ideal big brother socity. The right to reserve, remove or disallow human rights.
Insane monertary gain.

1.2million deaths to 1.6million deaths in Iraq and Afganistan so far.

Its a bigger picture then, "Oh hey guy, that building was not a controlled demo"

How about the FACT that the twin towers are the first EVER steel framed buildings to fall from fire? Those fires where not burning long, if anything the buildings should have leaned or sagged majorly since the structure was damaged closer to the top. Not pancaked down.

You have the right to your opinion, and me mine.
I wish you the best along the path of knowledge

TMoreno

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I didn't say handmade i said POOR QUALITY. Low resolution, pixellated, compressed etc....

Firstly, two airplanes full of jet fuel crashed into the towers (if you are going to suggest this didn't happen there is no help for you), the buildings were on fire, of course people heard explosions.

Secondly, the towers were around 95 % air, the towers collapsed so quickly that this air was forced out and would feed the initial fires caused by the plane crashes. Also lots of air being forced out so quickly would make whoosh/explosion noises.

This is exactly the problem. Those videos come from TV network and cables TV and yet they are of a very poor quality. Is it not strange?
Regarding the explosions they were heard before the towers were hit and came from the lobby, even journalists heard them and those people were interviewed, it was broadcasted live on TV and yet the only thing we saw after 9/11 are the planes hitting the buildings. We only focus our attention on the planes not on the explosions and the testimonies.

humanji

Bi6N wrote:

How about the FACT that the twin towers are the first EVER steel framed buildings to fall from fire?

Has anyone ever actually claimed that?

meglome

humanji wrote: »

Has anyone ever actually claimed that?

Well the CT'ers say it all the time, unfortunately as you know it isn't true.

Here's a little link for a our friend to start off with. http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Bi6N

meglome wrote: »

So this is how you logically think 911 was a big CT, fair enough. To have all this happen would take literally thousands of people being involved and staying quiet..

The Military works on a need to know, don't ask system. So very easyly to be honest. In saying that there are hundreds of wistle blowers too, who clearly haven't stayed all hush.

meglome wrote: »

So even with the many hundreds of people, rescue workers etc in the area not one saw cables being placed on a 50 storey building? No one with a vantage point of that side of the building saw these cables either. I dunno it's almost like they weren't there.

bahahaha, oh man should I even reply to this?? yes when I said "pull" I was clearly talking about them using big cables to pull the building down.:rolleyes:
These "rescue workers" have in fact reported explosions and other oddites.
Its a fact that number 7 was a controlled demo. Whats odd is that the BBC, reported 7 falling half an hour before it did. You even see building 7 behind the on scene reporter who quickly changes the subject.

Bi6N

Bi6N wrote: »

Of course I don't believe everything I read online, really? Are you serious?

And yet you seem to think that either people will agree with your claims without sources or they are closed minded.

Bi6N wrote: »

You can try belittle my opinion as much as you like, there will always be for and against. You picked one point I made in my previous comment, dicided "this is what I'll attack."

I never belittled your opinion, unless you think asking you to back it up counts.

Bi6N wrote: »

What about the rest?? you agree?? you disagree? or do you enjoy being a smug git ? When you outway the pros and cons for America, what is 3000 deaths?? Think about it? How much that country has gained from 9/11
The ability to break laws, massive control of its population, an ideal big brother socity. The right to reserve, remove or disallow human rights.
Insane monertary gain.

1.2million deaths to 1.6million deaths in Iraq and Afganistan so far.

Its a bigger picture then, "Oh hey guy, that building was not a controlled demo"

Well seeing as your case for accusing America of these things (most of which are also bull) hinge on the towers coming down by a controlled demolition.....
Yea, in a 9/11 thread, I attack the one claim that keeps going around but I've yet to see being backed up.
Also I do enjoy being a smug git.

Bi6N wrote: »

How about the FACT that the twin towers are the first EVER steel framed buildings to fall from fire? Those fires where not burning long, if anything the buildings should have leaned or sagged majorly since the structure was damaged closer to the top. Not pancaked down.

Well for one that's not a fact, at all, on any level.
First: there are plenty of examples of steel framed buildings collapsing or partially collapsing, you're just not told about them on CTer sites.
Second: The twin towers didn't collapse solely due to fire. They were hit by planes.

But do you know what they would be the first EVER of?
The first totally stealth demolition.
The first demolition of a skyscraper hit by a plane.
The first demolition to have it's charges go off at random times well before the collapse.

And depending on what else you believe it would also be:
The first demolition to turn the building to dust.
The first demolition to cause the building to fall at free fall speed.
The first demolition to be caused by Thermite.
The first demolition to be caused by space lasers.
And so on....

But I think we'll just stick to this claim of free fall speed for now.

meglome

Bi6N wrote: »

The Military works on a need to know, don't ask system. So very easyly to be honest. In saying that there are hundreds of wistle blowers too, who clearly haven't stayed all hush.

But it's not just the military is it. It would need to be everyone involved from the military to the guys sweeping the streets after the clean-up. Funny I haven't heard of any so called whistle blowers, maybe you can list them?

Bi6N wrote: »

bahahaha, oh man should I even reply to this?? yes when I said "pull" I was clearly talking about them using big cables to pull the building down.:rolleyes:
These "rescue workers" have in fact reported explosions and other oddites.
Its a fact that number 7 was a controlled demo. Whats odd is that the BBC, reported 7 falling half an hour before it did. You even see building 7 behind the on scene reporter who quickly changes the subject.

So let's see now. Pull is a term sometimes used by demolition companies to take down a building using cables. It is not used ever to take down a building using explosives so why is pull relevant? Seems way more likely to mean to pull the fire crews, which is what actually happened.
In my dictionary the words explosion and explosives clearly mean different things. Lot's of things can explode, I've heard many things explode over the years but only twice in the flesh have I heard explosives.
Building 7 had been evacuated and was making noises that were understood to be signs of collapse. So someone jumped the gun and reported it beforehand. There is a video of that BBC reporter online saying how it was just a mistake, nothing more.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

But it's not just the military is it. It would need to be everyone involved from the military to the guys sweeping the streets after the clean-up. Funny I haven't heard of any so called whistle blowers, maybe you can list them?



So let's see now. Pull is a term sometimes used by demolition companies to take down a building using cables. It is not used ever to take down a building using explosives so why is pull relevant? Seems way more likely to mean to pull the fire crews, which is what actually happened.
In my dictionary the words explosion and explosives clearly mean different things. Lot's of things can explode, I've heard many things explode over the years but only twice in the flesh have I heard explosives.
Building 7 had been evacuated and was making noises that were understood to be signs of collapse. So someone jumped the gun and reported it beforehand. There is a video of that BBC reporter online saying how it was just a mistake, nothing more.

What sound do explosives make?

gizmo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What sound do explosives make?

BOOOOOOOM usually, other times KABOOOOOM but they're the ones the US government plant there. :pac:

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What sound do explosives make?

What sound does a exploding transformer or gas tank make?

Blank Czech

Here is my take on the controlled demolition theory and what i consider to be the evidence of such. Im not gonna link everything but ill put here to best of my recollection. If i am wrong please correct me.

From what i have i seen the towers were brought down by controlled explosions and building 7 was brought down by implosion. The case of building 7 is probably the most suspicious collapse because it only suffered a few localised fires yet it fell symetrically, straight down, at free fall speed, through the path of most resistence. For this to happen, all the support collumns and some of the floors in the building would have to be knocked out at the same time, removing the resistence it should have encountered as each floor fell on the one beneath. The building took about 6 seconds to fall. This is said to be free fall speed, if u dropped a stone from the roof of the building it should take the same time to hit the ground.

The video of this collapse has been put side by side with other known controlled demolitions and they fall pretty much the same way and take the same amount of time to hit the ground. As the building collapses there is a visible crimp in the roof of the building, instead of the build being horizontal across at the roof there is a visible V shaped crimp as it comes down, also the penthouse falls into the building first then it comes down. Demolition people from what i have seen say this crimp is from knocking out the central support collumns first so the building falls in on itself and not outwards. This V shaped crimp is visible in a lot of controlled implosion videos.

In my opinion this building should not have fallen at all, considering the damage sustained to WTC 3,4,5 and 6 which were right under the towers as they fell. These buildings were pulled down afterwards in the clean up, they were severly damaged but more to the point, they remained standing. There is also a video of what i think is a fire fighter saying something along the lines of "watch that building, its gonna come down soon". Which suggests prior knowledge, and of course the infamous video of Silverstein saying he told them to "Pull it".

As for the towers collapsing, they were brought down by explosions rather than implosions. Steel girders weighing tons were hurled outwards and embedded in buildings across the street. There is evidence of explosions going off beneath the collapse, the so called squibs, some say this is just air blowing out windows as the towers came down but from what i have seen it is said that it is pulverised building material shooting out the sides. If you consider the size of the building and the distance these ejections go out i find it hard to believe what we are seeing is just air. And if you watch the towers collapse, they dont really collapse, they are obliterated systematically from the top down. They turn to dust, they dont just fall over. There are huge clouds of dust and debris which travel outwards and engulf the surrounding area, similar to pyroclastic flows from volcanoes. These debris clouds can only be formed from a sudden release of massive heat and pressure, according to what we'll call the experts. There are also videos of what looks like molten steel pouring from one of the towers prior to collapse. There are pictures of the support collumns at the bottom of the towers which have been cut at 45 degree angles with solidified molten steel on their edges. There are videos and reports of molten metal still flowing weeks after the collapse. The temperatures at ground zero defy logic and science from what i can see if we are to believe that they simply collapsed. Take not that these building were designed with plane crashes in mind.

These are some of the most important issues, i feel, that are touched on by the controlled demolition people, and all of this can be seen on 9/11- Blueprint For Truth, which i linked earlier. These are not wild accusations in my opinion, but genuine suspicions being raised from video footage of the event.
Here it is again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b74naeawdCs

Blank Czech

Blank Czech wrote: »

The building took about 6 seconds to fall. This is said to be free fall speed, if u dropped a stone from the roof of the building it should take the same time to hit the ground.

But it didn't take 6 seconds to collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA
At about 1:26 seconds into this video they show the collapse (the whole collapse, not just the last half the toofer videos show) as taking upwards of 13 seconds.

We can't tell for sure because the actual bottom of the building is obscured.
But it's clearly well over 6 seconds, and therefore not a free fall.

Blank Czech wrote: »

There is also a video of what i think is a fire fighter saying something along the lines of "watch that building, its gonna come down soon". Which suggests prior knowledge, and of course the infamous video of Silverstein saying he told them to "Pull it".

That's not what it suggests at all.
But that aside, why do you think Silverstien admitted to being involved in the greatest crime ever on tape?
I honestly don't understand how some one can seriously believe this little factoid.

Blank Czech wrote: »

As for the towers collapsing, they were brought down by explosions rather than implosions. Steel girders weighing tons were hurled outwards and embedded in buildings across the street. There is evidence of explosions going off beneath the collapse, the so called squibs, some say this is just air blowing out windows as the towers came down but from what i have seen it is said that it is pulverised building material shooting out the sides. If you consider the size of the building and the distance these ejections go out i find it hard to believe what we are seeing is just air. And if you watch the towers collapse, they dont really collapse, they are obliterated systematically from the top down. They turn to dust, they dont just fall over. There are huge clouds of dust and debris which travel outwards and engulf the surrounding area, similar to pyroclastic flows from volcanoes. These debris clouds can only be formed from a sudden release of massive heat and pressure, according to what we'll call the experts. There are also videos of what looks like molten steel pouring from one of the towers prior to collapse. There are pictures of the support collumns at the bottom of the towers which have been cut at 45 degree angles with solidified molten steel on their edges. There are videos and reports of molten metal still flowing weeks after the collapse. The temperatures at ground zero defy logic and science from what i can see if we are to believe that they simply collapsed. Take not that these building were designed with plane crashes in mind.

And leaving aside everything you just said is total debunked crap, none of these things are features of controlled demolitions.

meglome

Blank Czech wrote: »

Steel girders weighing tons were hurled outwards and embedded in buildings across the street. There is evidence of explosions going off beneath the collapse, the so called squibs, some say this is just air blowing out windows as the towers came down but from what i have seen it is said that it is pulverised building material shooting out the sides. If you consider the size of the building and the distance these ejections go out i find it hard to believe what we are seeing is just air.

I don't suppose these girders were ejected by the large section of building falling on the rest of the building?
It's one thing to say the buildings were brought down by explosives but unless they were magic explosives that don't make any sound then it didn't happen. Find any controlled demolition video you like on the internet, there are loads of them. You'll find in all those videos the very clear and distinctive sound of explosives going off but this is completely lacking at the WTC. Of course as King Mob points out the way the buildings collapsed isn't actually like a controlled demolition anyhow, other than superficially.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

You'll find in all those videos the very clear and distinctive sound of explosives going off but this is completely lacking at the WTC..

You mean sounds like these?

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You mean sounds like these?

That's what you call a loud rumble, as you'd expect with a building collapsing.

This is a controlled demolition... obviously feel free to watch the large number of other videos on the internet for the exact same type of distinct sounds. The same distinct sounds that are not present at the WTC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

That's what you call a loud rumble,

"A loud rumble" :D;)

Is that a scientific term? Or are you some kind of authority on applying meaningless vague terms to sounds?

meglome wrote: »

as you'd expect with a building collapsing.

I was actually pointing out the sounds prior to the building collapse.

meglome wrote: »

This is a controlled demolition...

'

And this is a building collapse

Yitzhak Rabin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And this is a building collapse

A building nothing like the WTC, and also seemed to give way from the bottom. The WTC didn't happen like that, it 'pancaked' from the upper sections downwards.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"A loud rumble" :D;)

Is that a scientific term? Or are you some kind of authority on applying meaningless vague terms to sounds?

Okay BB let's look at it this way. The sounds in the video you linked and the sounds in all of the controlled demolition videos are very different. The sounds of the controlled demotions are quite interesting in that they are all very similar but these sounds are not found at the WTC. I'm no expert in sounds or controlled demolition or buildings but I have ears and I can very easily tell there is an unambiguous difference.

So I see two options... A. it was a controlled demolition using methods not known to be used in any other controlled demolition ever or using explosives that don't make a sound. OR. B. It was a plane hit and fires.
To accept A. we need to also accept a way of taking down a building that has never ever been used in controlled demolition or has been shown to work at all in experiments (thermite). Or we need to accept that someone has broken the laws of physics and made explosives quiet. So you'll forgive me for choosing B.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And this is a building collapse
... video snipped...

And there are many more of these types of collapses from areas around the world that have earthquakes. I fail to see the connection though.

Brown Bomber

yekahs wrote: »

A building nothing like the WTC, and also seemed to give way from the bottom. The WTC didn't happen like that, it 'pancaked' from the upper sections downwards.

That video just a joke but what you have just described equally applies to a controlled demolition - gravity taking the building down, not the explosives.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That video just a joke but what you have just described equally applies to a controlled demolition - gravity taking the building down, not the explosives.

And yet in the same breath we hear about the building falling at free fall speed and instantly vaporising into dust....

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That video just a joke but what you have just described equally applies to a controlled demolition - gravity taking the building down, not the explosives.

Gravity does ultimately take down a building during controlled demolition. But of course that's after the weeks to months of preparation and a crap load of explosives.

(And before you ask 'crap load' is the scientific term).

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And yet in the same breath we hear about the building falling at free fall speed and instantly vaporising into dust....

So by your changing of the subject can I assume you agree with what I said?

Anyway, control demoliton does not = free fall speed does it? That would imply that there is zero resistance.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So by your changing of the subject can I assume you agree with what I said?

I wasn't changing the subject just showing how your claim inherently contradicts other common CTer ones.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Anyway, control demoliton does not = free fall speed does it?
That would imply that there is zero resistance.

Your terrible grammar makes what you're trying to say unclear.
But I assume you mean that controlled demolition does not lead to a free fall collapse.
This is correct, as in real demolitions they only remove as many supports as necessary then allow the weight of the collapsing building to bring down the rest.
So there is resistance.

And most importantly none of the WTC towers fell at free fall speeds.

TMoreno

King Mob wrote: »

I wasn't changing the subject just showing how your claim inherently contradicts other common CTer ones.


Your terrible grammar makes what you're trying to say unclear.
But I assume you mean that controlled demolition does not lead to a free fall collapse.
This is correct, as in real demolitions they only remove as many supports as necessary then allow the weight of the collapsing building to bring down the rest.
So there is resistance.

And most importantly none of the WTC towers fell at free fall speeds.

The NIST report SAID that Building 7 fell at free fall speed. Did you read this report that you believe like the gospels?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I wasn't changing the subject just showing how your claim inherently contradicts other common CTer ones.

ok but why? It's not the topic and has zero relevance. Do you agree that the towers fell in a manner consitent with a controlled demolition? Yes or No?

King Mob wrote: »

Your terrible grammar makes what you're trying to say unclear.

aww

King Mob wrote: »

But I assume you mean that controlled demolition does not lead to a free fall collapse.
This is correct, as in real demolitions they only remove as many supports as necessary then allow the weight of the collapsing building to bring down the rest.
So there is resistance.

OK. Can you accept that the towers fell with an acceleration comparable to controlled demolition?

King Mob wrote: »

And most importantly none of the WTC towers fell at free fall speeds.

And neither to buildings from controlled demolitions as we've just established.