9/11 Controlled Demolition vs No Plane Theory

Brown Bomber · 16-10-2010 05:28PM

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 · 16-10-2010 08:59PM

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 · 16-10-2010 11:12PM

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 · 17-10-2010 01:48AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

How do you figure that?

Brown Bomber · 17-10-2010 02:09AM

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 · 17-10-2010 02:32AM

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 · 17-10-2010 03:11AM

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 · 17-10-2010 04:05AM

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 · 17-10-2010 03:30PM

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 · 17-10-2010 04:23PM

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 · 17-10-2010 04:29PM

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 · 17-10-2010 06:40PM

.

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 · 17-10-2010 07:02PM

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 · 01-04-2011 03:06PM

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 · 05-04-2011 11:52PM

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 · 07-04-2011 10:49PM

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 · 08-04-2011 12:21PM

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 · 23-04-2011 05:56PM

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

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

23-04-2011 06:27PM

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 · 23-04-2011 06:36PM

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 ?

23-04-2011 06:44PM

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 · 23-04-2011 06:50PM

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.....

23-04-2011 06:59PM

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 · 23-04-2011 07:03PM

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 · 23-04-2011 07:09PM

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

23-04-2011 07:15PM

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 · 23-04-2011 07:53PM

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 · 23-04-2011 08:00PM

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

23-04-2011 08:02PM

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 · 23-04-2011 08:20PM

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

9/11 Controlled Demolition vs No Plane Theory

Comments