9/11 Controlled Demolition vs No Plane Theory

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So you'd also disagree with this claims and believe them to be untrue?


And same old debunked nonsense.
There are no flashes and no squibs. Prove me wrong.


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.

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?

So down? Where are they supposed to go exactly?


Neither of which require explosives or are indicative of a demolition.

'll be honest I stopped reading half way through. If you can't post without getting lairy don't bother, I'm not interested tbh.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

'll be honest I stopped reading half way through. If you can't post without getting lairy don't bother, I'm not interested tbh.

Well any excuse to avoid backing up your claims I guess....

I mean these videos of squibs and flashs would just validate your theory, but since you know as well as i do these don't show demolition explosives you have to find some reason to avoid the issue.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Well any excuse to avoid backing up your claims I guess....

I mean these videos of squibs and flashs would just validate your theory, but since you know as well as i do these don't show demolition explosives you have to find some reason to avoid the issue.

Well no actually. The following are comments made by you in the course of this thread. Your last post was the tipping point. All I am asking is for you to tone down the aggression and treat me with the respect that I grant you regardless.

• based on nonsense, debunked arguments and pseudo-science
• And I bet you're getting this bull
• (most of which are also bull)
• not just the last half the toofer videos show
• And leaving aside everything you just said is total debunked crap
• I don't actually need to refer to it to see the bull**** you're parroting
• And same old debunked nonsense

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well no actually. The following are comments made by you in the course of this thread. Your last post was the tipping point. All I am asking is for you to tone down the aggression and treat me with the respect that I grant you regardless.

Yea most of those aren't directed at you personally just at the idea put forward by you and the other CTers, which often are long debunked nonsense and it's a fact that in all the truther videos about WTC7 only the latter half of the collapse is shown.

So BB you either have proof of these squibs and flashes or you don't.
But you seem to be far more interested in someone's tone than actually spreading the truth or relating facts, and as such you haven't provided a scrap of evidence to that effect.

Divorce Referendum

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not that I actually discount it, it's a possibilty imo as is the controlled demolition hypothesis. I have doubts on both.



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.

Fair enough I guess you are kind of sitting on the fence a bit but I respect that. It was disguised more than a normal demolition then it makes the theory very hard to prove. If you notice the squibs that some CT'ers highlight they tend to spurt out and increase over time. As far as I know a charge in a demolition doesnt increase its explosive strength with time, it has an intial spurt and thats it.

meglome

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Fair enough I guess you are kind of sitting on the fence a bit but I respect that. It was disguised more than a normal demolition then it makes the theory very hard to prove. If you notice the squibs that some CT'ers highlight they tend to spurt out and increase over time. As far as I know a charge in a demolition doesnt increase its explosive strength with time, it has an intial spurt and thats it.

Actually I'd forgotten that. The blast from these supposed squibs increase in size as the go on. No explosive does this, explosives cause a blast which is strongest at the initial moment of the blast. But the increasing air pressure from the collapse would explain these anomaly's. Strangely enough nearly all these 'squibs' appear after the building is collapsing and the air pressure is increasing. We'll ignore for now that in controlled demolition the squibs go off before the collapse and not after.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

Actually I'd forgotten that. The blast from these supposed squibs increase in size as the go on. No explosive does this,

You'll have to enlighten me I don't know what either of you two are referring to.

Here are some squibs

background info: http://xenonpup.startlogic.com/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

Video: http://xenonpup.startlogic.com/video%20archive/squibview.7.qt

And a selection more:

And just to keep a smile on King MObs face a flash:

meglome wrote: »

Strangely enough nearly all these 'squibs' appear after the building is collapsing and the air pressure is increasing. We'll ignore for now that in controlled demolition the squibs go off before the collapse and not after.

That's not actually true though is it?

How is it even possible that they could come about AFTER????

They happened prior and during as they would in a professional demolition.

Brown Bomber

& perhaps you could explain to me how it is possible how this material is ejected to what on occasions looks to be 1/3 the length of the face of the towers many floors below the "pancaking" levels above

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You'll have to enlighten me I don't know what either of you two are referring to.

Look at it this way, many of those 'squibs' are like jets of material rushing out. An explosive is fast and furious, it won't cause a jetting effect like these. But air pressure certainly will.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Here are some squibs

background info: http://xenonpup.startlogic.com/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

Video: http://xenonpup.startlogic.com/video%20archive/squibview.7.qt

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_timing.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_enhancements.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/must_be_explosives.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/high_velocity_effects.html

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe this proves my point above.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And just to keep a smile on King MObs face a flash:

Seriously that video is so crap it could have been the New York Yankees on a flyby.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's not actually true though is it?

How is it even possible that they could come about AFTER????

They happened prior and during as they would in a professional demolition.

In a controlled demolition the charges go off before the collapse. But if these are explosives they are going off after a catastrophic collapse has begun. Which obviously makes it not like a controlled demolition.

I'm genuinely curious as to where the CT supporters think the air pressure build-up went to, a massive amount of air was being forced down into the building but somehow this didn't burst out anywhere?
It seems obvious to me that this air pressure would burst out, would do so violently and would look exactly like it does in the videos.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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



This is regular fibre optic cable



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.

Damn. iPhone just ate my response when I was nearly done. I'll try a shorter version now.

With regards to setting off explosives on some walls before setting off the main explosives, I highly doubt it. I'm far from an expert in demolition, I generally plan for anything I design to stay up. But removing some load-bearing walls transfers the load to other members, which could cause failure, which could trigger an early collapse. If the building began to collapse before all the explosives were set off, they could trigger during the collapse, which could be noticeable. I'm not saying its not possible, I just see more disadvantages than advantages.

As for the wires, no, I cant tell the difference. And if electricians came in and started installing wires, I wouldn't question it. But my bosses would. If maintenance works are going to disrupt your workforce, there has to be a reason. The amount of work needed to not only install explosives on structural members (which could take upwards of a month), hide the evidence, hide all the wiring, and not raise suspicion, an advantage to the occupants of the building would be required. If they said thy had to do work on the wiring etc to upgrade servers or whatever, the servers would have to be upgraded, and it would have to have justified spending that time doing those works.

Not only that, but the building was occupied before the planes hit. I've only worked with explosives once (quarry, not building) but I don't think we were allowed mobile phones there. The amount of wireless devices and mobiles in that building possibly could have set the explosives off. Or at least the risk of doing so would be pretty high.

As I've said before, if they wanted to destroy the towers, fly planes into them. Fly 3 planes into each to make sure. If other CTs are true that the likes of remote control planes or even that the terrorists were allowed on the planes with weapons, do it right. If the towers are already collapsed by the time the other planes get there, hit other buildings.

But in my opinion, even if the towers hadn't collapsed. The fact that terrorists hit the buildings with planes could have been enough to warrant their later actions with the war on terror

chainsaws

The conspirators supposedly went into the Twin Towers with great big rolls of detcord and rigged the building with explosives and NONE of the office workers said 'Hey pal, whaddya doin'?

Thousands of people were evacuated from the towers before they came down which means that thousands of them must have witnessed the demolition guys going floor to floor rigging their workplace?

None of the people on say floor 55 got talking to anybody on floor 56 or 54 and asked over the watercooler 'Say, Bob, have you seen these guys going around with great big rolls of cable?'

Penn

In fairness, with a building like that, regular maintenance works would probably be happening all the time, and its not like whoever installing the detcord would say it to them. They'd just say they're replacing faulty wiring or upgrading.

It's the actual explosives which would be most intrusive and raise the most questions. Walls taken apart, desks moved, repainting etc in order to place the explosives on the structural members.

The general workforce may not have questioned what was going on, but managers and supervisors almost definitely would have

chainsaws

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

In fairness, with a building like that, regular maintenance works would probably be happening all the time, and its not like whoever installing the detcord would say it to them. They'd just say they're replacing faulty wiring or upgrading.

It's the actual explosives which would be most intrusive and raise the most questions. Walls taken apart, desks moved, repainting etc in order to place the explosives on the structural members.

The general workforce may not have questioned what was going on, but managers and supervisors almost definitely would have

Surely the guy rigging the building would have talked? Hundreds of people would have been needed to plant all the explosives.
Now that the U.S. economy has tanked and if each of these guys got a few million in a suitcase tax free, they have probably lost all their investments by now and would want payback by breaking the story.
So where the hell are they?

Penn

I agree. I'm just saying that some elements of the controlled demolition story are plausible, but the vast majority and the most important elements in my opinion are not.

chainsaws

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I agree. I'm just saying that some elements of the controlled demolition story are plausible, but the vast majority and the most important elements in my opinion are not.

There's an old saying that two people can't keep a secret unless one is dead.

The conspiracy theorists expect us to believe that the U.S. government employs tens of thousands of people who are blindly obedient.

There is just no way in hell anyone would agree to orders to destroy the Twin Towers and kill thousands of their fellow citizens.

It's totally ludicrious.

You have to wonder that so many allow themselves to be taken in by such obvious nonsense.

I think it has more to do with people refusing to believe how vulnerable free societies are to terrorism and how paper thin American 'hyperpower' really is and how dangerous the world is despite our high technology and comfortable lives in the West.

It is comforting to believe in a conspiracy rather than face up to how exposed America was and still is to a gang of committed religious fanatics or anyone else perpared to immolate themselves in an attack.

enno99

chainsaws wrote: »

Surely the guy rigging the building would have talked? Hundreds of people would have been needed to plant all the explosives.
Now that the U.S. economy has tanked and if each of these guys got a few million in a suitcase tax free, they have probably lost all their investments by now and would want payback by breaking the story.
So where the hell are they?

295 employees & 60 contractors were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks; they were working in Marsh's One World Trade Center offices located in the heart of the impact zone

Who were these 60 contractors?

How hard do you think it would be to have the guys who carried out the rigging to be in one place at the same time?

Brown Bomber

chainsaws wrote: »

Surely the guy rigging the building would have talked? Hundreds of people would have been needed to plant all the explosives.
Now that the U.S. economy has tanked and if each of these guys got a few million in a suitcase tax free, they have probably lost all their investments by now and would want payback by breaking the story.
So where the hell are they?

Assuming Controlled demolition:

a) They're probably dead and if they tried to speak out they would be dead.

b) 9/11 would 've been the greatest payday of their life. What need would they have to invest?

c) They would have been chosen for the job based on pschyological profiling on the basis that they would be least likely to talk.

d) If they did go on record of claiming responsibility no mainstream news outlets would touch it nor would the majority take it seriously. It'd be relegated to sites like this.

e) Why in the name of all that is good would they freely admit to mass-murder and terrorism when they have gotten away it?

Brown Bomber

chainsaws wrote: »

It is comforting to believe in a conspiracy rather than face up to how exposed America was and still is to a gang of committed religious fanatics or anyone else perpared to immolate themselves in an attack.

Religous fanatics who gamble, drink alcohol, go to strip clubs right?

Or just religious suicide hijackers who can't fly planes and some are still alive?

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

Look at it this way, many of those 'squibs' are like jets of material rushing out. An explosive is fast and furious, it won't cause a jetting effect like these. But air pressure certainly will.



http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_timing.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_enhancements.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/must_be_explosives.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/high_velocity_effects.html



I believe this proves my point above.



Seriously that video is so crap it could have been the New York Yankees on a flyby.



In a controlled demolition the charges go off before the collapse. But if these are explosives they are going off after a catastrophic collapse has begun. Which obviously makes it not like a controlled demolition.

I'm genuinely curious as to where the CT supporters think the air pressure build-up went to, a massive amount of air was being forced down into the building but somehow this didn't burst out anywhere?
It seems obvious to me that this air pressure would burst out, would do so violently and would look exactly like it does in the videos.

none of what you said or provided links for disproves controlled demolition. In fact all it does is provide an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis - one which I was already aware of.

Brown Bomber

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Damn. iPhone just ate my response when I was nearly done. I'll try a shorter version now.

With regards to setting off explosives on some walls before setting off the main explosives, I highly doubt it. I'm far from an expert in demolition, I generally plan for anything I design to stay up. But removing some load-bearing walls transfers the load to other members, which could cause failure, which could trigger an early collapse. If the building began to collapse before all the explosives were set off, they could trigger during the collapse, which could be noticeable. I'm not saying its not possible, I just see more disadvantages than advantages.

As for the wires, no, I cant tell the difference. And if electricians came in and started installing wires, I wouldn't question it. But my bosses would. If maintenance works are going to disrupt your workforce, there has to be a reason. The amount of work needed to not only install explosives on structural members (which could take upwards of a month), hide the evidence, hide all the wiring, and not raise suspicion, an advantage to the occupants of the building would be required. If they said thy had to do work on the wiring etc to upgrade servers or whatever, the servers would have to be upgraded, and it would have to have justified spending that time doing those works.

Not only that, but the building was occupied before the planes hit. I've only worked with explosives once (quarry, not building) but I don't think we were allowed mobile phones there. The amount of wireless devices and mobiles in that building possibly could have set the explosives off. Or at least the risk of doing so would be pretty high.

As I've said before, if they wanted to destroy the towers, fly planes into them. Fly 3 planes into each to make sure. If other CTs are true that the likes of remote control planes or even that the terrorists were allowed on the planes with weapons, do it right. If the towers are already collapsed by the time the other planes get there, hit other buildings.

But in my opinion, even if the towers hadn't collapsed. The fact that terrorists hit the buildings with planes could have been enough to warrant their later actions with the war on terror

I appreciate your detailed but simple explanations. It helps me visualise better.

I take your point about the sensitivity of the charges, something that troubles me too. Especially on the blasting caps but I can't rule out military technologyin this case.

I've been looking through some demolition journals and strategically demoloshing (through explosives) sections of the core structure prior to the final implosion phase is not uncommon.

Brown Bomber

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

In fairness, with a building like that, regular maintenance works would probably be happening all the time, and its not like whoever installing the detcord would say it to them. They'd just say they're replacing faulty wiring or upgrading.

It's the actual explosives which would be most intrusive and raise the most questions. Walls taken apart, desks moved, repainting etc in order to place the explosives on the structural members.

The general workforce may not have questioned what was going on, but managers and supervisors almost definitely would have

Check this out:

FROM JUN 6 2001

EurekaGGN, a full-service integrated communications provider, announced that its wholly owned subsidiary, Building Riser Access Management, or BRAM, will install an advanced fiber-optic and telecommunications infrastructure at the World Trade Center. The selection was made by New York Telecom Partners, a subsidiary of Concourse Communications Group, LLC. as part of a transaction with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the World Trade Center's current owner.


Through this undertaking, BRAM will provide a telecommunications infrastructure that will enable the more than 450 commercial tenants of the World Trade Center to have exceptional access to virtually unlimited broadband communications services.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_44_47/ai_76297016/

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

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

Here is a case where a 17 story building was rigged in 96 hours.

At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/services-emergency-services

enno99

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Check this out:

FROM JUN 6 2001


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_44_47/ai_76297016/

More recent developments have used pulsed laser diodes to detonate initiators through fiber-optic cables, which subsequently fire the main charge

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

could this type be used or a modified version ?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

none of what you said or provided links for disproves controlled demolition. In fact all it does is provide an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis - one which I was already aware of.

Yea, it kinda does.

You argument is based on "A controlled demolition is the only explanation for X."
The X here being the squibs.
The simple fact that there exists an alternative explanation means the argument "a controlled demolition is the only explanation" is false.
And this is before we examine the fact that the non demolition explanation is a much better one and is way more likely.

Now even assuming that none of this counts, you are left with a puff of smoke during the collapse.
This is decidedly not the rapid sequence of loud and visible explosions before the collapse that are present in controlled demolitions.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, it kinda does.

You argument is based on "A controlled demolition is the only explanation for X."
The X here being the squibs.
The simple fact that there exists an alternative explanation means the argument "a controlled demolition is the only explanation" is false.
And this is before we examine the fact that the non demolition explanation is a much better one and is way more likely.

Now even assuming that none of this counts, you are left with a puff of smoke during the collapse.
This is decidedly not the rapid sequence of loud and visible explosions before the collapse that are present in controlled demolitions.

Well no actually. Try to concentrate.

It's not that I actually discount it (pancake theory), it's a possibilty imo as is the controlled demolition hypothesis. I have doubts on both.

Brown Bomber

TWO SEPERATE WTC EMPLOYEES CONFIRM WTC POWER DOWN IN WEEKEND BEFORE ATTACK

Blank Czech

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, it kinda does.

You argument is based on "A controlled demolition is the only explanation for X."
The X here being the squibs.
The simple fact that there exists an alternative explanation means the argument "a controlled demolition is the only explanation" is false.
And this is before we examine the fact that the non demolition explanation is a much better one and is way more likely.

Now even assuming that none of this counts, you are left with a puff of smoke during the collapse.
This is decidedly not the rapid sequence of loud and visible explosions before the collapse that are present in controlled demolitions.

Ok so if it wasnt a controlled demolition answers these questions:


Why was the lobby blown out when the first plane hit?

Why were the support girders at the bottom of the rubble pile cut at a 45 degree angle with solidified molten metal on the edges?

Why was there molten metal still flowing at the bottom of the rubble pile weeks after the event?

Why were the temperatures so high weeks after the event?

Why can you see molten metal pouring from the side of one of the towers prior to collapse?

Why was there molten metal at all? Jet fuel, offices fires and a building collapsing do not create foundry conditions.

Why did fire fighters say they heard explosions, and not any explosions, explosions like a controlled demo ie. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang.

Explain the seismic data

Why did building 7 just drop straight to the ground just like a controlled implosion.

How can you look at the footage of building 7 and not see that it AT LEAST LOOKS like a controlled demolition. It comes down identically to other known controlled demos.

King Mob

Blank Czech wrote: »

Ok so if it wasnt a controlled demolition answers these questions:

Why was the lobby blown out when the first plane hit?

Why were the support girders at the bottom of the rubble pile cut at a 45 degree angle with solidified molten metal on the edges?

Why was there molten metal still flowing at the bottom of the rubble pile weeks after the event?

Why were the temperatures so high weeks after the event?

Why can you see molten metal pouring from the side of one of the towers prior to collapse?

Why was there molten metal at all? Jet fuel, offices fires and a building collapsing do not create foundry conditions.

Why did fire fighters say they heard explosions, and not any explosions, explosions like a controlled demo ie. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang.

Explain the seismic data

Why did building 7 just drop straight to the ground just like a controlled implosion.

I don't have to explain them, as they are all long debunked nonsense.
And most of them, especially the ones with molten Steel are in fact not features of a controlled demolition at all.

So instead of ending up with a wall of quoted posts, why don't you pick the most damning and incontrovertible evidence from that list and we can focus on that?

Blank Czech wrote: »

How can you look at the footage of building 7 and not see that it AT LEAST LOOKS like a controlled demolition. It comes down identically to other known controlled demos.

I looks like a controlled demolition in that a building collapsed.
WTC7 lacks all of the other features, notably the total lack of loud and very visible explosions in sequence right before the collapse.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well no actually. Try to concentrate.

So is the argument "a controlled demolition is the only explanation" still valid yes or no?

Divorce Referendum

Brown Bomber wrote: »

TWO SEPERATE WTC EMPLOYEES CONFIRM WTC POWER DOWN IN WEEKEND BEFORE ATTACK

30 hours to rig explosives to 2 110 storeys buildings and one 47 storey building. I dont know about that.

Brown Bomber

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

30 hours to rig explosives to 2 110 storeys buildings and one 47 storey building. I dont know about that.

Me neither. To be fair though it is not 30 hours/ 3 buildings it'd be 30 hours for EACH building and this would be working on the assumption that the detcord has been succesfully positioned in the concrete floors/ceilings covertly by agents under the cover of maintenance workers. So all that would be needed to be placed would be the charges on the central columns.