Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

9/11 Controlled Demolition vs No Plane Theory

Options
1356789

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    TMoreno wrote: »
    14 seconds? Your chronometer is made in Israel? The report did not look for explosives. That's a fact. The official report ignored the witnesses who heard explosions. That's a fact and yet you believe it like the Gospels. The 9/11 commission says that the official report is not credible and yet you defend it. There is nothing I can do.
    There is no point of discussing anymore if people can't get the facts right.
    I am done with this.

    Is that a promise?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    TMoreno wrote: »
    14 seconds? Your chronometer is made in Israel?
    Yea 14 seconds plus.
    I already posted a video clearly timing the collapse:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68474364&postcount=38
    And I like how you add the little shot about the Joos.
    Adds oh so much to your credibility.
    TMoreno wrote: »
    The report did not look for explosives. That's a fact.
    The report did not look for unicorns. That's a fact.
    TMoreno wrote: »
    The official report ignored the witnesses who heard explosions. That's a fact
    That's actually not a fact at all.
    But you seriously can't understand that things might explode during a fire?
    TMoreno wrote: »
    and yet you believe it like the Gospels. The 9/11 commission says that the official report is not credible and yet you defend it.
    Well for one that's what we call an out of context quote.
    Two I don't actually need to refer to it to see the bull**** you're parroting, in fact I rarely do refer back to it, instead just showing the huge internal flaws in your theory.
    And three, I can say the same just switch official report with "Loose Change" or whatever.
    TMoreno wrote: »
    There is nothing I can do.
    There is no point of discussing anymore if people can't get the facts right.
    I am done with this.
    Dramatic walk outs don't make you right unfortunately.
    But maybe you should practise what you preach next time and try and get your facts straight?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    TMoreno wrote: »
    The report did not look for explosives. That's a fact. The official report ignored the witnesses who heard explosions.

    Well one more try
    ex·plo·sion
    –noun
    1. an act or instance of exploding; a violent expansion or bursting with noise, as of gunpowder or a boiler.
    2. the noise itself: The loud explosion woke them.
    3. a violent outburst, as of laughter or anger.
    4. a sudden, rapid, or great increase: a population explosion.
    5. the burning of the mixture of fuel and air in an internal-combustion engine.
    ex·plo·sive
    –adjective
    1. tending or serving to explode: an explosive temper; Nitroglycerin is an explosive substance.
    2. pertaining to or of the nature of an explosion: explosive violence.
    3. likely to lead to violence or hostility: an explosive issue.

    No one other than the CT's are remotely surprised that people heard explosions. You could list off dozens of things in this situation that are likely to explode or sound like an explosion. However NO ONE is saying they heard anything like the explosions you'd hear with controlled demolitions, there are no recordings of these explosions and there are no seismic readings. So as I keep saying unless they were magic explosives they simply didn't exist.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Because neither of those things are consistent with a controlled demolition.

    You are conflating everything a "CTer" has ever said to argue against me. Not very honest is it?

    Why not bring in alien abductions and bigfoot in that case? It's just as relevant
    King Mob wrote: »
    So if you are to believe those claims, then you cannot claim that the collapse is part of a controlled demolition.
    I've made it abundantly clear that I do not

    King Mob wrote: »
    No, because it lacks the multiple loud and visible explosions on multiple floors going off in sequence immediately followed by the collapse of the building.
    Not according to multiple eye-witnesses
    King Mob wrote: »
    Also coupled with the features not consistent with a controlled demolition.
    '
    Such as?
    King Mob wrote: »
    But if you're just counting the fact that buildings fell down...?
    Actually no. The acceleration. The squibs. The flashes. The explosive sounds. The explosions prior to the collapse. The collapse into the point of most resistance. The pulverised dust ejected.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Are you going to accept that all the CTers claiming that they fell at free fall speeds are either wrong or dishonest?
    Yes. Nothing wrong with being mistaken though.

    King Mob wrote: »
    So then why where you able to see past the rest of their cunning ruse?
    I haven't claimed that have I? I'm just asking questions.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why do CTers keep pointing out stuff that they believe show there was a plot?
    Because there is good reason to believe that justice has not been served. Some people value justice.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why do they then claim stuff like Silverstien admitting to being involved in the plot on camera?
    Because it is an ambigous statement. Why are you asking me for anyway?
    King Mob wrote: »
    It's almost as if your position is inherently self contradictory.....
    Don't see how.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    meglome wrote: »
    I'm not saying anything is impossible, some things are very very unlikely though.

    In the experiments I've seen they couldn't get thermite to cut steel beams. No one has shown that to be possible on a large steel beam. And even if it was possible you are talking literally truck loads of the stuff. But 20 thousand people worked between WTC1 and 2 and not one of them saw anything.

    I can understand if people think the US had some involvement in 911. But I believe anyone who spends a few hours looking at controlled demolition videos on the internet will see that the WTC collapses lack the same characteristics other than very superficially, i.e. the buildings did collapse.

    We know other steel framed buildings have collapsed just from fire, these are documented facts no matter how many times the CT sites say otherwise. Structural steel in buildings is always fire proofed exactly because it's well known to be vulnerable to direct fire. But the WTC 1 and 2 were hit by planes and left to burn, plus given their cone in a cone design the only surprising thing is they stood as long as they did.

    At the end of the day we can speculate that it was space lasers or the Martians did it but what is the most likely reason... planes hits and fires.

    Why are you talking to me about thermate?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Why are you talking to me about thermate?

    We'll what are the options, thermite, explosives, evil ninjas, When good pets go bad?

    I'm discussing the options, and not inventing even more far fetched reason for how it happened.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    meglome wrote: »
    We'll what are the options, thermite, explosives, evil ninjas, When good pets go bad?

    I'm discussing the options, and not inventing even more far fetched reason for how it happened.

    That doesn't answer my question. Why did you quote my post and debunk thermite? I never made any mention of thermite.

    Here is (PETN?) explosives slicing through metal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You are conflating everything a "CTer" has ever said to argue against me. Not very honest is it?

    Why not bring in alien abductions and bigfoot in that case? It's just as relevant

    I've made it abundantly clear that I do not
    I made it very clear I was refering to other CTers. I never said that you held these beliefs. Just that the claims you did make puts you at odds with many of the other claims made by CTers.
    Not according to multiple eye-witnesses
    Who reported explosions going off at random times well before the collapse.
    Not multiple loud and visible explosions on multiple floors going off in sequence immediately followed by the collapse of the building, which would be very apparent on the videos of the buildings.
    Such as?
    Being a total stealth demolition?
    Having a huge portion of the top of the building tilt?
    Spreading debris all over other buildings and the streets.
    Having explosions going off at random times well before the collapse.
    Oh and also having a gaping flaming hole in the sides of the buildings.
    Actually no. The acceleration. The squibs. The flashes. The explosive sounds. The explosions prior to the collapse. The collapse into the point of most resistance. The pulverised dust ejected.
    Well there is no squibs. or flashes.
    The explosions reported by witnesses are much much prior to the collapse.
    The collapse to the point of most resistance seems to be an entirly CTer invention.
    So the only one I'll give you is the dust, but that's also a feature of a building collapsing and forcing the dust out.
    Yes. Nothing wrong with being mistaken though.
    So it doesn't bother you when people hammer on about something you believe is true then use something you know is untrue to prove it?
    I haven't claimed that have I? I'm just asking questions.
    Right....
    But you think there is a ruse, but you can't know if there is one...
    Because there is good reason to believe that justice has not been served.
    Some people value justice.
    But how can they know this if people who are much smarter are covering it up?
    Because it is an ambigous statement. Why are you asking me for anyway?
    So it's ambiguous whether or not he's admitting to being involved on camera? Really?
    Don't see how.
    See above.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    meglome wrote: »
    Well one more try





    No one other than the CT's are remotely surprised that people heard explosions. You could list off dozens of things in this situation that are likely to explode or sound like an explosion. However NO ONE is saying they heard anything like the explosions you'd hear with controlled demolitions, there are no recordings of these explosions and there are no seismic readings. So as I keep saying unless they were magic explosives they simply didn't exist.


    heres a new study on seismic data on 911

    http://www.sott.net/articles/show/209899-A-New-Study-of-the-Seismic-Signals-on-September-11-2001-in-New-York


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    That doesn't answer my question. Why did you quote my post and debunk thermite? I never made any mention of thermite.

    As I said if it wasn't the planes and fires then there are a limited number of things if could be. I'm discussing those things.

    Have i taken you up wrong, you do think it was planes and fires?
    Here is (PETN?) explosives slicing through metal.

    ... video snipped...

    As I've said before if we are to believe these buildings were too strong to collapse from a plane hit and fires then presumably you'd also need a large amount of explosive to take them down. They were built in two steel 'cones'. So following this logic numerous beams would need to be blown. Given that the sounds of the explosives were clearly audible in your video with only two thinner beams (after the prep work) it seems your proving my point that the explosives would be easily heard.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    TMoreno wrote: »
    14 seconds? Your chronometer is made in Israel? The report did not look for explosives. That's a fact. The official report ignored the witnesses who heard explosions. That's a fact and yet you believe it like the Gospels. The 9/11 commission says that the official report is not credible and yet you defend it. There is nothing I can do.
    There is no point of discussing anymore if people can't get the facts right.
    I am done with this.

    The 9/11 comission report and the NIST 9/11 report are two seperate reports with NIST being a scientific one. How can someone doing the 9/11 commision report comment on the NIST report when it followed it later.

    I think you need to get your facts right to be honest


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    fontanalis wrote: »
    A process which takes weeks if not months.

    If these buildings had to be rigged was there a certain time frame ?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    meglome wrote: »
    As I said if it wasn't the planes and fires then there are a limited number of things if could be. I'm discussing those things.
    Lets be honest here. You clearly don't view thermite as a possibility. Accept it for what it was - a strawman.
    meglome wrote: »
    Have i taken you up wrong, you do think it was planes and fires?
    I haven't ruled out the possibility. However, regardless of how the towers came down it does not implicate beyond reasonable doubt CIA asset Osama and his rent-a-crew of monkey bar training terrorists.


    meglome wrote: »
    As I've said before if we are to believe these buildings were too strong to collapse from a plane hit and fires then presumably you'd also need a large amount of explosive to take them down. They were built in two steel 'cones'. So following this logic numerous beams would need to be blown. Given that the sounds of the explosives were clearly audible in your video with only two thinner beams (after the prep work) it seems your proving my point that the explosives would be easily heard.
    And they were by multiple witnesses. It is not very sceptical to blindly trust the audio from the youtube films and news reports as they can easily be doctored; as they have been done omitting and drowning out the sounds of explosives.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    I made it very clear I was refering to other CTers. I never said that you held these beliefs. Just that the claims you did make puts you at odds with many of the other claims made by CTers.

    Well actually you said "in the same breath..." since nobody else is capable of breathing for me it was obviously directed at me. But again why is it important what someone, anyone else has said when you are conversing with me?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Well there is no squibs.
    Yes there was
    King Mob wrote: »
    or flashes.
    Again there was. All you need is 5mins and youtube to verify these.

    King Mob wrote: »
    The explosions reported by witnesses are much much prior to the collapse.
    Correction SOME of the reported explosions are prior to collapse(s). There are many reports of explosions immediately prior to the collapse. The earlier reports of explosions are also consistent with controlled demolition as non supporting walls are taken out prior to the final demolition.
    King Mob wrote: »
    The collapse to the point of most resistance seems to be an entirly CTer invention.
    huh? Obviously the floors beneath them are the point of most resistance
    King Mob wrote: »
    So the only one I'll give you is the dust, but that's also a feature of a building collapsing and forcing the dust out.
    OK so thats 2: Dust and acceleration.


  • Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum




    And they were by multiple witnesses. It is not very sceptical to blindly trust the audio from the youtube films and news reports as they can easily be doctored; as they have been done omitting and drowning out the sounds of explosives.

    Whatever about the news reports who could have doctored them under direction of the government, what about the videos taken from people with their own cameras. Why would they be doctored and how perhaps is a better question?


  • Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum



    Yes there was

    Again there was. All you need is 5mins and youtube to verify these.



    .

    Please do post these youtube videos of squibs or flashes. Bear in mind the WTC is a big building, and I would expect to see more than two or three.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Whatever about the news reports who could have doctored them under direction of the government, what about the videos taken from people with their own cameras. Why would they be doctored and how perhaps is a better question?

    Do you have a link to any video that you think is beyond reproach


  • Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    enno99 wrote: »
    Do you have a link to any video that you think is beyond reproach

    Thats not answering my question is it? Hypothetical Scenario: I was in New York the day of the attacks. I film the events as they unfold. I hot foot it out of there with everyone leaving manhattan. I post my video on youtube. Thats me and countless others. Where does the doctoring take place do you think?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    enno99 wrote: »
    If these buildings had to be rigged was there a certain time frame ?

    You might find this interesting about wtc access

    http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html

    http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html

    http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Please do post these youtube videos of squibs or flashes. Bear in mind the WTC is a big building, and I would expect to see more than two or three.

    your youtube broke?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    Please do post these youtube videos of squibs or flashes. Bear in mind the WTC is a big building, and I would expect to see more than two or three.
    your youtube broke?

    These words are very important in my question. Such a video doesnt exist unless you have a special youtube.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6 Blank Czech


    Thats not answering my question is it? Hypothetical Scenario: I was in New York the day of the attacks. I film the events as they unfold. I hot foot it out of there with everyone leaving manhattan. I post my video on youtube. Thats me and countless others. Where does the doctoring take place do you think?

    How many home videos of the main events of 9/11 can you find on youtube that you havn't seen before? More to the point, how many of these hypothetical scenario videos can you find? Still doesn't answer your question but it is the other side to it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    How many home videos of the main events of 9/11 can you find on youtube that you havn't seen before? More to the point, how many of these hypothetical scenario videos can you find? Still doesn't answer your question but it is the other side to it.

    What exactly are you on about? There are countless examples of people with their own videos. Its kind of obvious that I would have seen most as most people beacause it happened 9 years ago:rolleyes:.

    This is definitely the best of the 'home videos' I have seen.




    Do you think there is only a few videos filmed by people? Were these people all stopped by the FBI or something before they uploaded?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    These words are very important in my question. Such a video doesnt exist unless you have a special youtube.

    Why don't you just cut to the chase and quit with the cat and mouse stuff? I'll go to the trouble of going through youtube videos tto find a good example of the squibs that we have both already seen and you'll respond with "haha thats air being forced out through compression". Can't see ther point, nothing personal though. Far easier if youi just make your point.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Well actually you said "in the same breath..." since nobody else is capable of breathing for me it was obviously directed at me. But again why is it important what someone, anyone else has said when you are conversing with me?
    So you'd also disagree with this claims and believe them to be untrue?
    Yes there was

    Again there was. All you need is 5mins and youtube to verify these.
    And same old debunked nonsense.
    There are no flashes and no squibs. Prove me wrong.
    Correction SOME of the reported explosions are prior to collapse(s). There are many reports of explosions immediately prior to the collapse.
    Again put up or shut up.

    Also none of these are on any of the video despite the fact that they would be very very apparent.
    The earlier reports of explosions are also consistent with controlled demolition as non supporting walls are taken out prior to the final demolition.
    No they are not. That's not how they do demolitions at all. They remove any supporting walls before they set explosives and this is a very hard and labour intensive and very very visible.
    So any chance you can provide any examples of supporting walls being taken out prior to collapse?
    huh? Obviously the floors beneath them are the point of most resistance
    So down? Where are they supposed to go exactly?
    OK so thats 2: Dust and acceleration.
    Neither of which require explosives or are indicative of a demolition.


  • Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    Why don't you just cut to the chase and quit with the cat and mouse stuff? I'll go to the trouble of going through youtube videos tto find a good example of the squibs that we have both already seen and you'll respond with "haha thats air being forced out through compression". Can't see ther point, nothing personal though. Far easier if youi just make your point.

    Why do you not believe its air/debris being forced out through the window from the stairwells? The reason i ask is the supposed squibs dont appear that often. If they were to demolish the WTC I would imagine alot of them going off i.e. alot of explosives. If you saw a video with a good number of squibs I might change my mind. I am open to any theory especially if its shown to me by video.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,702 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    King Mob wrote: »
    No they are not. That's not how they do demolitions at all. They remove any supporting walls before they set explosives and this is a very hard and labour intensive and very very visible.
    So any chance you can provide any examples of supporting walls being taken out prior to collapse?

    Brown Bomber said non-supporting walls. From what I know, they may remove some non load-bearing walls, but this is mostly in order to make it easier to set the explosives on the load-bearing walls, including all the wires between the explosives.

    However, they would not remove non load-bearing walls using explosives. I'm sorry, but that makes very little sense. I can't imagine the non load-bearing walls offering any sort of real resistance, and if they somehow had the building rigged to blow in such a non-conventional way that it was unaffected by the fires, the impact of the plane and could be hidden in such a way that nobody working in the building noticed them, they would have focused on the load-bearing elements. Blowing up the non load-bearing walls with explosives before blowing up the rest of the building makes very little sense and very amateurish for what would need to be a precision operation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber said non-supporting walls. From what I know, they may remove some non load-bearing walls, but this is mostly in order to make it easier to set the explosives on the load-bearing walls, including all the wires between the explosives.
    I meant non-supporting. I forgot the non :o


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Why do you not believe its air/debris being forced out through the window from the stairwells?

    It's not that I actually discount it, it's a possibilty imo as is the controlled demolition hypothesis. I have doubts on both.
    The reason i ask is the supposed squibs dont appear that often. If they were to demolish the WTC I would imagine alot of them going off i.e. alot of explosives. If you saw a video with a good number of squibs I might change my mind. I am open to any theory especially if its shown to me by video.

    All perfectly reasonable and I can't argue with it. I think it is also reasonable to assume that if it was a controlled demolition then it would be disguised as such in the greatest amount possible at the time.


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Brown Bomber said non-supporting walls. From what I know, they may remove some non load-bearing walls, but this is mostly in order to make it easier to set the explosives on the load-bearing walls, including all the wires between the explosives.

    However, they would not remove non load-bearing walls using explosives. I'm sorry, but that makes very little sense. I can't imagine the non load-bearing walls offering any sort of real resistance, and if they somehow had the building rigged to blow in such a non-conventional way that it was unaffected by the fires, the impact of the plane and could be hidden in such a way that nobody working in the building noticed them, they would have focused on the load-bearing elements. Blowing up the non load-bearing walls with explosives before blowing up the rest of the building makes very little sense and very amateurish for what would need to be a precision operation.

    I bow to your far superior knowledge and experience as an engineer. Not being sarcastic btw.

    Could we agree that the explosions prior to collapse could have been prep work weakening the central structure for the final demolition?

    As for getting the explosives in...

    This is detcord


    Resource.ashx?File=%2F4%2F250Cordtex_5P_1.jpg

    This is regular fibre optic cable


    multimode-duplex-bulk-fiber-62.5-125-500-feet.jpg

    Now you as an engineer might be able to tell the difference just by looking at them but I surely can't. When I lived in Ireland I worked in big offices for years and numerous times tech/comms guys or whatever would be doing installation or maintenance work in the ceiling or elsewhere and they'd be virtually invisible to me. They could be working literally over my head installing this detcord and I'd be none the wiser.


Advertisement