9/11 Controlled Demolition vs No Plane Theory

Brown Bomber

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

You obviously missed that or perhaps you are talking about a couple of months/years of lax security except guess what there is no proof of that.

This is proof. From 2000

Balcony Scene (Or Unseen) Atop the World; Episode at Trade Center Assumes Mythic Qualities


By SHAILA K. DEWAN
Published: August 18, 2001

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/18/nyregion/balcony-scene-unseen-atop-world-episode-trade-center-assumes-mythic-qualities.html

The B-Thing World Trade Center, New York, USA 2000 soloshow "And then the surgical intervention in the World Trade Center in New York City. Everything top secret and illegal of course. In days of conspiratorial work, somewhere on the 148th floor and using building site refuse they had tediously smuggled into the building under their pullovers, they constructed a functioning load-bearing balcony. In a long complicated process they scratched putty from the tall heavy window, which couldn't be opened. Then they extracted it using suction pads, shunted the balcony out, posed on it at 6 in the morning and had themselves photographed there from a helicopter for their nearest and dearest back home. They kept very mum about it all, because if word had crept out about their coup they could have been fined very heavily for sabotaging a national treasure. Even if it was built by the Japanese. Incidentally, as proof that they were there, there is now a piece of old chewing gum stuck to the outside of the building at a dizzy height.", by Tex Rubinowitz, in "The B-Thing"

You can just make him/her on the 91st floor.







Inside the WTC



And diagram complete with columns which shouldn't have been exposed. We can only guess how they knew about them.

Divorce Referendum

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is proof. From 2000[/B]



You can just make him/her on the 91st floor.







Inside the WTC



And diagram complete with columns which shouldn't have been exposed. We can only guess how they knew about them.

I assume we are blaming these guys for the explosives then:pac:. 148th floor?. What building is that?

Brown Bomber

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I assume we are blaming these guys for the explosives then:pac:. 148th floor?. What building is that?

Nah, but it is a clear indicator that security was lacking.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nah, but it is a clear indicator that security was lacking.

How do you figure that?

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

How do you figure that?

Are you taking the piss? Taking out a window in the towers, building a balcony and getting a helipcopter to photgraph you standing on the balcony and getting away with it does not = a failure in security?

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you taking the piss? Taking out a window in the towers, building a balcony and getting a helipcopter to photgraph you standing on the balcony and getting away with it does not = a failure in security?

Sorry I mean in the sense of 911. There were restaurants at the top of the towers and tourists went up for the view in their thousands. I'm wondering how truck loads of explosives got up there though.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

Sorry I mean in the sense of 911. There were restaurants at the top of the towers and tourists went up for the view in their thousands. I'm wondering how truck loads of explosives got up there though.

That makes two of us

Can anyone give a decent estimate on how much explosives would be needed to taken down the columns?

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That makes two of us

Can anyone give a decent estimate on how much explosives would be needed to taken down the columns?

Well I don't know either but from what I've seen of other buildings being prep'd it would still be a lot.

I look at this this way though... on a typical weekday 50,000 people worked in the towers and 200,000 visitors passed through. Not one of these people saw anything wrong. It's just incredibly implausible and I'd suggest basically impossible.

enno99

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Obviously you dont know what the topic was about. You do realise your original post was replying to a response that i made to brown bombers video about two employees who said that the power was down for 30 hours over the weekend and security was apparently very lax giving time for a crew to supposedly place explosives.

Thats were the 30 hour time-frame came from. You obviously missed that or perhaps you are talking about a couple of months/years of lax security except guess what there is no proof of that. There is certain proof of 30 hours of it, i suggest you deal with fact and not fiction.

Im not sure you actually understand what you are talking about or suggesting.

enno99 wrote: »

No not if the charges can be placed above the ceiling while repairing the fireproofing which was happening on a regular basis then you have the fiber optic cables in place from the broadband upgrade maybe 30 hrs is ample time for the final fix

hypothecial statement (above)

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

No they dont. Do you actually have a clue how the towers were built?

Here is the column layout.







The core doesnt have a ceiling and there isnt one column going through the ceiling space from the core to the perimiter columns.

factual statement (above)

There were two different ceiling tile systems originally installed in the towers under Port Authority specification. The framing for each was hung from the bottom of the floor trusses, resulting in an apparent room height of 8.6 ft and an above-ceiling height of about 3.4 ft. The tiles in the tenant spaces were 20 in. square, 3/4 in. thick, lay-in pieces on an exposed tee bar grid system. The tiles in the core area were 12 in. square, 3/4 in. thick, mounted in a concealed suspension system.

-- NIST Final Report on the Twin Towers

meglome

enno99 wrote: »

factual statement (above)

There were two different ceiling tile systems originally installed in the towers under Port Authority specification. The framing for each was hung from the bottom of the floor trusses, resulting in an apparent room height of 8.6 ft and an above-ceiling height of about 3.4 ft. The tiles in the tenant spaces were 20 in. square, 3/4 in. thick, lay-in pieces on an exposed tee bar grid system. The tiles in the core area were 12 in. square, 3/4 in. thick, mounted in a concealed suspension system.

-- NIST Final Report on the Twin Towers

My experience of ceiling tiles is you do not stand on them or you'll be on the floor below but maybe the WTC tiles were different.

I'm wondering though is the NIST report only truthful or useful when it appears to agree with some aspect of the CT?

Divorce Referendum

enno99 wrote: »

hypothecial statement (above)



factual statement (above)

There were two different ceiling tile systems originally installed in the towers under Port Authority specification. The framing for each was hung from the bottom of the floor trusses, resulting in an apparent room height of 8.6 ft and an above-ceiling height of about 3.4 ft. The tiles in the tenant spaces were 20 in. square, 3/4 in. thick, lay-in pieces on an exposed tee bar grid system. The tiles in the core area were 12 in. square, 3/4 in. thick, mounted in a concealed suspension system.

-- NIST Final Report on the Twin Towers

The cores in WTC contained the stairs and elevators which dont have a ceiling and would you agree from the plans that these are 80% of the core?. I dont remember the last stairs I walked up or elevator i travelled in having a ceiling space do you? Did you think about this or just look at the post and see there was ceiling tiles used and assume sure the whole core has a ceiling. The tiles were used in the walkway from the lifts and stairs servicing the each floor it can be seen in the plan i posted. The quote you just posted says itself that it was a concealed system which means no crawl space. How does this help the theory?

Perhaps you should stop playing on my words. I admit i said it didnt have a ceiling but I meant that the stairs and elevators which make up the core dont have one.

So hypothectically 30 hrs is fine for a final fix but when I suggest that it may not be enough, it is just my concept time.

Interesting....

enno99

.

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Interesting....

Fair enough I could go on but I dont think me and you having a petty squabble would benefit the thread in any way

Divorce Referendum

enno99 wrote: »

.







Fair enough I could go on butI dont think me and you having a petty squabble would not benefit the thread

No thats fair enough, I am just trying to asscertain what you actually think happened.

As far as I can recall from your posts.

1. The conspirators firstly rigged the broadband cabling far in advance of 9/11 to be able to double function as detcord for the explosives.

2. The conspirators then planted explosives in an unknown time period using the crawl spaces in the ceiling to place explosives on the columns.

3. They then hooked up the broadband cables with the explosives

In response to point 1 this may be possible yet no one including you actually knows for sure except for perhaps a demolitions expert. The other problem I can see is that the broadband will still have to function as tenants and workers may become a tad annoyed if their broadband isnt working.

In point 2 as I said before, I think the cramped space in the crawl area may have been a hindrence to the conspirators placing the explosives. The other aspect is the timeframe. The 30 hrs the weekend before is one example of lax security. There was bomb-sniffing dogs doing extra duty there the week before also because of numerous phone-threats. This I think might have been a big problem if the explosives were placed in advance of this time.

I find some theories more plausible than the controlled demolition theory to be honest

My name is URL

Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth are launching a new advertising campaign to draw attention to the collapse of WTC 7 and to attempt to pressurise the government to look at the evidence again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF6EV2MDvAA

stoneill

I'm still open minded to the lack of airplane at the Pentagon debate.
The paltry evidence we are allowed to glimpse does make a convincing case for a missile or bomb.

The WTC conspiracy I'm not so sure about. The biggest flaw in all this is making the US government complicit in bringing down the towers, no matter how open minded you are, the last thing you can claim George Dubya Bush to be was an Evil Genius!
Evil - argueably yes
Genius - not in any stretch of the imagination.

keithc83

stoneill wrote: »

I'm still open minded to the lack of airplane at the Pentagon debate.
The paltry evidence we are allowed to glimpse does make a convincing case for a missile or bomb.

Totally agree. Wasn't there something being talked about how a drone could have been used for this? I must check up some 9/11 reports to find which one mentioned that but i do remember that being used as a possibility also.

aidan24326

stoneill wrote: »

I'm still open minded to the lack of airplane at the Pentagon debate.
The paltry evidence we are allowed to glimpse does make a convincing case for a missile or bomb.

It does seem strange that they never released more convincing footage from the Pentagon. There were multiple cctv cameras in the area, and reports that the FBI quickly confiscated all of them. Why not just release some proper footage of the plane on approach and let that be the end of it?

The WTC conspiracy I'm not so sure about. The biggest flaw in all this is making the US government complicit in bringing down the towers

It isn't really, as I don't think I'd put anything past the US government to be honest, including murdering their own people. How they could actually have planned all that is a whole other matter though.

The biggest problem with the controlled demolition theory is the amount of personnel and equipment it would have taken, and the amount of time.

I watched a program about that one night where they spoke with demolitions experts and asked their view on it, and they said that the amount of equipment, wires, explosive charges required would be huge for buildings of that size, and that it would have taken a team of explosives technicians weeks if not months to get everything set up. It would have been virtually impossible to do undetected.

Talk E

Interesting angle. No vortices in the 9/11 smoke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw8ZvGEsc8c

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

Interesting angle. No vortices in the 9/11 smoke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw8ZvGEsc8c

So did you notice that in all the examples they give of planes causing vortexs the plane flies through the smoke?
And that the second plane on 9/11 didn't fly through the smoke?

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

So did you notice that in all the examples they give of planes causing vortexs the plane flies through the smoke?
And that the second plane on 9/11 didn't fly through the smoke?

You are missing the point. A vortice can linger for several minutes. Maybe because the plane made a full stop at the building the vortice was eliminated, is that what you mean ? Because I dont think thats the situation here tbh.

I mean now that you think of it, it does look kinda strange doesnt it ?

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

You are missing the point. A vortice can linger for several minutes.

Unless of course there's something that forces the air away, disrupting the vortex before smoke gets sicked into it.
Oh like say the shockwave of a plane hitting the building... or the massive rush of air as a jetliner's fuel explodes.

Talk E wrote: »

I mean now that you think of it, it does look kinda strange doesnt it ?

It only looks strange if you've convinced yourself it looks strange to back up a theory that doesn't have any other support.

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

Unless of course there's something that forces the air away, disrupting the vortex before smoke gets sicked into it.
Oh like say the shockwave of a plane hitting the building... or the massive rush of air as a jetliner's fuel explodes.


It only looks strange if you've convinced yourself it looks strange to back up a theory that doesn't have any other support.

Easy there chief, I am not convinced of this. I am just throwing it out there.

It does seem strange to me.

I'm not convinced of your theory either. Have you anything to back it up ?


EDIT:
If there were forces pushing the vortex away.. those forces would push the black smoke away also.....

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

Easy there chief, I am not convinced of this. I am just throwing it out there.

It does seem strange to me.

No it seems strange to you because you've been told it's strange.

Talk E wrote: »

I'm not convinced of your theory either. Have you anything to back it up ?

What do I need to back up?
That large objects hitting buildings causes a shockwave?
That sudden fireballs causes air to rush about?

Yup, equal footing to a holographic plane alright.

Talk E wrote: »

EDIT:
If there were forces pushing the vortex away.. those forces would push the black smoke away also.....

Which it did.

RMD

Pretty simple question but do people actually think such a large secret could be kept underground for more than 9 years? If it was a controlled demolition, it's safe to say it would have emerged. Western society loves to gossip.

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

No it seems strange to you because you've been told it's strange.


What do I need to back up?
That large objects hitting buildings causes a shockwave?
That sudden fireballs causes air to rush about?

Yup, equal footing to a holographic plane alright.


Which it did.

I highly doubt the impact (lasting a couple of seconds) would cancel out several minutes of forward pushing vortex.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyAyd4WnvhU

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

I highly doubt the impact (lasting a couple of seconds) would cancel out several minutes of forward pushing vortex.

And most sane rational people doubt that a holographic plane exists.

Also your video shows that the vortexes aren't forward pushing, they are little spirals of air, that hang or drop behind the plane.

And remember it's the impact and the fireball..

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

And most sane rational people doubt that a holographic plane exists.

You really have a horrible vibe man. I wont be conversing with you again.

Welcome to my blocked list.

seannash

Talk E wrote: »

You really have a horrible vibe man. I wont be conversing with you again.

Welcome to my blocked list.

Might aswell put your fingers in your ears and start repaeting "I'm not listening,I'm not listening"

He never said anything really confrontational
Absolutely Pathetic

King Mob

seannash wrote: »

Might aswell put your fingers in your ears and start repaeting "I'm not listening,I'm not listening"

He never said anything really confrontational
Absolutely Pathetic

Personally I like how they announce it.

Talk E

Vortexes move forward.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=9wmgYl49YQ0C&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=are+vortexes+forward+moning+?&source=bl&ots=12bzw31nyP&sig=V6TkSHzo1Npd_CwsXqOIymGgNBU&hl=en&ei=-TOzTZW7FtGahQft9LjkDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

Vortexes move forward.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=9wmgYl49YQ0C&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=are+vortexes+forward+moning+?&source=bl&ots=12bzw31nyP&sig=V6TkSHzo1Npd_CwsXqOIymGgNBU&hl=en&ei=-TOzTZW7FtGahQft9LjkDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

No, the plane moves forward, creating the vortex behind it.
This is plainly visible in the video Talk E posted. When the plane goes through the curtain of smoke, the spiral shapes stay in line with the curtain and fall.

but this doesn't support the conspiracy theory and is thus ignored.

Talk E

seannash wrote: »

Might aswell put your fingers in your ears and start repaeting "I'm not listening,I'm not listening"

He never said anything really confrontational
Absolutely Pathetic

It's not necessarily what he said, although it did play a part. I have always had a disliking to kingmob. He has an arrogant and condescending attitude.
This comment :

And most sane rational people doubt that a holographic plane exists.

I found to be very obnoxious, and I just thought, "why am I bothering with the chap"?

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

I found to be very obnoxious, and I just thought, "why am I bothering with the chap"?

Yea, why address someone's points when you can find an excuse to ignore them?

tim allen

The right engine must be in between the first and second slat. The fake image shows the first slat too close to the fuselage, therefore that one fact proves it's fake. The fake engine's in front of the first slat that is too close to the fuselage. This floundering, fake image flop has the flap open on the front of the left wing, not rear where it must be. Yet, another devastating blow to the real planes myth.

tim allen

WB11's, wackadoodle coverage of a flying bomb and failed computer graphics

She first described it as what might be a police helicopter and after she realized it caused the explosion, changed her thoughts in that moment. These women literally got trapped in the twilight zone. If it wasn't a helicopter, (no propeller) it certainly could not have been a plane. She simply repeated what it was supposed to be, but the orb was shown at least six more times and was described as a plane or twin engine jet.

The first computer generated image was first shown only one minute after the last orb. You can see the time change to 9:27. The fake image is so poor that it has no wings and two dots for engines. Notice the bogey move directly east and cgi more left/north.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKj0H2fCpo4&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9KQ&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=34

tim allen

Four flying bombs were captured on film and survived without alteration. The only inconsistency is chopper 4 disappears behind the top of tower 1, while the other three are lower but at the same level. Here they are in this order; NY1, WB11, CBS, and Chopper 4, aka WNBC. Only the CBS bogey did not air live. The Today Show aired the orb but changed camera angles before it could complete its path to explosion.

The final 14 seconds of approach by nist was south to north, not west to east. The drone/orb cannot visually be a chopper or plane and its float path would have crashed into the west side of T2, not southeast corner. The drone literally circled the towers just like Matt Lauer said after he saw it.

tim allen

The following three were filmed on 911; Chopper 4 orb, WB11 chopper, and a plane that evening. It is clear that camera zoom on a distant object will reveal more detail and will often provide positive identification as it does with the chopper and plane. The orb shows no identifying characteristics of any known flying object or aircraft, staying true to its drone status. Note the speed and efficiency of the chopper and plane compared to the laughable cartoon dive of the orb.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DahTYtdHLA&feature=related

tim allen

I was wrong about Anthony Lawson, he's an arrogant Aussie who got a popular yt channel to say the ball was a plane.LOL This proves how willingly ignorant people can be when it comes to avoiding obvious truths. I will dig up a post that pertains in more detail to this issue but for now take a look at this vid. The altered footage that hazed out the orb was done by the media.

A small circular object could never be a plane, nor could any real plane have come from anywhere but south of the towers in its final seconds of approach. This excludes all overlays that rode the bogey on a more southwest path. The government provided the only possible path for flight 175, if it had really existed and that excludes any divebomber, southwest, or west bogey path from being UA175.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymf30rN4Mxo&feature=related

tim allen

911conspiracy.tv - 2nd WTC Attack Plane Crash Videos

The drone circled the building just as many witnesses had stated and that is corroborated by 4 broadcasts showing the bogey do just that from the north view. It's logical that with so much footage being released, something from the south would show the bogey's goofy bee-bop behind the towers.

We don't get the drone here but a fake plane exacting it as it circled the Towers. It is most logical that Manos Megagiannis turned his footage over to law enforcement and got it back this way. This man clearly captured the drone coming from over west (left of screen) before circling the buildings which is exactly why that whole part was edited out by starting the fake plane just as it passes east of Tower 1.





41. Here is the story behind my videos: The distance is about 6 miles, (according to Google Earth), recorded using a Sony PC1. After I got a call from a friend of mine about the first plane, I started filming from inside my apartment. To get a bit better view I went to the roof of the building, and the moment I pointed the camera to the WTC and started recording, without even realizing it I captured the second plane hitting the tower. Actually if you see the original tape you will notice that I move the camera so I can confirm with my own eyes the explosion that I saw through the viewfinder. The rest is just very basic digital zoom (very amateurish I admit). The woman's voice, was some tenant in the same building.

The videos have NOT being edited to make the plane disappear or anything like that (as some claim). One of these days, if I find some free time I may go back to the master and re-master the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG25MRnPy1o&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=62&feature=plpp_video

tim allen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRAyGO2oDac
Jennifer Spell, in her own words: "Just about five minutes after I got outside and was shooting, the second plane circle around and it flew out over New Jersey and then it came in, it just."

She, very clearly did not see what her video shows, a supposed black plane coming from directly south of T2, vanishing into the southeast corner. Her description is also shared by her male companion, (who said at least twice, it circled around) other witnesses and three live broadcasts showing a slow moving drone coming from exactly where Spell said it came from, 'the Jersey side.'

There's not a better witness than those who described what they saw as they filmed it live and those on the ground without cameras or access to television. And how ironic and fitting it is that some poor guy named Manos actually filmed and got back altered footage showing a fake plane image literally circle the towers before impacting tower 2. The overwhelming existence of something not a plane coming from the west/Jersey side cleanly exposes disinformationlists like Anthony Lawson who work hard to keep the obvious drone from human understanding.

clever_name

Hi Tim,

Thats a lot of stuff you have posted, it (IMO) looks like the same old low res images with the same arguments on top of them, but I wont debate them with you (looks like your mind is pretty much made up on the topic) so I dont think your in the mood for listening to a dissenting voice. One line that you posted did seem interesting to me "this proves how willingly ignorant people can be when it comes to avoiding obvious truths"


You might want to have a look here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1489

AngryBollix

There are definite anomalies in the official story. The no planes theory does appear to be rather far fetched.

There have been reports that the planes appeared to have been perhaps a cargo or military plane

Di0genes

AngryBollix wrote: »

There are definite anomalies in the official story. The no planes theory does appear to be rather far fetched.

There have been reports that the planes appeared to have been perhaps a cargo or military plane

What happened to American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175? What about the phone call from Betty Ong a Stewardess on AA11 who phoned her airline and clearly described Manhattan.

What about the fact that this happened in broad daylight in the middle of the one of the largest cities in the world?

ronsgonawin

Im not sure

tim allen

The fake image faces north headed straight for the southwest corner of T1, turns right/east, moving across the entire width of the tower 1, then must turn right, facing south because it didn't impact the west side of T2. It would then have to do a 180 degree u-turn facing, finally, north again, then it does its weird bee-bop across the rear of T2. The nose would have been facing north, east, south, before making an impossible u-turn, now facing north again before its final bee-bop. All that craziness with around 500 feet to create this fiction.

That's two right turns, an impossible u-turn, and the goofy movement across the rear of the south tower. Of course the film was altered, and the only question is who mimiced the drone circling the buildings with this laughable cgi. It's most logical that Manos turned his footage over to law enforcement.

Di0genes

tim allen wrote: »

Don't waste my time with babble- I want facts or interesting questions asked. I want theories and ideas. I am fact-minded on this, but part of being open minded is listening to the other side's fantasies, so I will entertain you all.

Keep in mind I did my own 9/11 research in the last four months, and a silly looking drone came from the west and exploded the south tower, so I am well versed on the topic. So, tell me your fake delusions of planes for either tower and I will show facts derived from video and eyewitnesses.

Leaving aside the many many many flaws in all this. How do you explain the Naudet brother's footage released the next day?

tim allen

The truth is the lie, and the lie is the truth. No commercial airliner impacted either tower on 911, but small remote controlled drones were the real weapons which ignited bombs planted inside the buildings. Very obvious fake imagery was aired on TV which the average person had no knowledge or reference with which to understand what they were seeing was failed computer generated imagery that didn't produce a single image that came close to depicting a real boeing 767.

tim allen

Di0genes wrote: »

Leaving aside the many many many flaws in all this. How do you explain the Naudet brother's footage released the next day?

They filmed an unidentifiable blob that plopped in. It was some type of drone.

SdoowSirhc

Sorry if I'm being ignorant, but if there was no plane what happened to the two planes with all the people who were said to have died?

clever_name

tim allen wrote: »

The truth is the lie, and the lie is the truth. No commercial airliner impacted either tower on 911, but small remote controlled drones were the real weapons which ignited bombs planted inside the buildings.

What about all the eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit?

tim allen wrote: »

Very obvious fake imagery was aired on TV which the average person had no knowledge or reference with which to understand what they were seeing was failed computer generated imagery that didn't produce a single image that came close to depicting a real boeing 767.

If people planned far enough ahead to have bombs in the buildings and managed to alter every image taken of the event why could they not do a better job than make "very obvious fake imagery"?