Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

i find the NIST report to be LAME. popular mechanics, .....LAME. scientific american, ......LAME.



Yeah, science and engineering can be tedious at times, but that doesn't make it less correct.



[edit on 14-6-2005 by HowardRoark]




posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul Horrorshow
In response to Slank's posting regarding the explosion discrepencies
Between the North and South tower impacts. The reason has nothing to do with a ficticious 'Pod'...It was the angle and trajectory that caused one of the towers to have a muted explosion...the reason is that the plane flew into the building rather 'head-on'....the reason why the other explosion was so "Holly-wood" as someone qualified it was becuase the plane flew into the corner of the building after the pilot made a last minute directional correction (as he was going to miss the building)...resulting in ignited jet fuel flying out of the building hence the grandiose explosive result.

Regards,
Paul



Actually, if you read some of the accounts from the building, the fireball in the north tower traveled down the elevator shafts and blew out the doors in the lobby. There is an acout out thee about one of the security gaurdes that was burned to death at his post from the fire ball.
[edit on 14-6-2005 by Paul Horrorshow]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   
For what it's worth... What strikes me as a little bit odd is the linked source itself - The Reverend Sun Myung Moon's very own The Washington Times.

In this area, to use the most obvious stereotypes, your Dems and Liberals get the Washington Post, and your Fox News watching Republican Bush types get the Times. This story would be something one would expect to see in the Washington Post in a heartbeat. The Times would never publish such "propoganda"



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
So now we're banking on an economist?

Why are we listening to this guy's opinion - please pick one of the following:

1. Because, as we all know, economists are the best in structural physics and impact dynamics.

2. Because he was on the inside (as an economist) he MUST know that his opinion is the word.

3. Because he's saying what you want to hear.

Please pick one of the above.


Here's a few select more to pick from:

— Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning..

— When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.

— The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.

— FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.

— Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."

— Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.

— The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.

— WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

— WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.

— In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.

— It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

-- No black boxes ever recovered, officially, from the wreckage.

-- All the structural steel from the wreckage was removed without inspection, and scrapped.


God

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I don't know if this would be possible....but it could end this once and for all.....


Why doesn't someone build a small-scale replica of the WTC towers......small remote control airplane.... crash it into the replica and see what happens....

I don't know if there are any other buildings anywhere similar to the WTC that are going to be demolished or need to be destroyed.....start a huge fire at top and see what happens to the building.

There has got to be a way to test the 'official' theories...


Or maybe not...
Like I said, It's just and idea.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
.
Sorry Paul Horrorshow,

I ain't buying that BS.
The floorplan of WTC is mostly open space except for the rather small core.
You can see debris exiting out of the building with NO fire when the North Tower was hit.

The fuel has the same inertia and speed as the solid chunks of plane and office junk and is fluid so will be able to keep going further through any opening.

Also fuel [or whatever was used] burning outside the south tower doesn't heat the building, steel or anything. The heat just rises up in open air.

That last minute correction swooping in on the South Tower was one incredible manuver for an experienced pilot, let alone a complete novice.

Were autopsies done on any of the recovered passenger [not WTC] bodies [parts]?
To test for drugs or anything? Or signs not consistent with an airline crash?

edit: clarity

[edit on 15-6-2005 by slank]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
edited out of courtesy


[edit on 15-6-2005 by zenlover28]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
OK... lets get this guy on FOX NEWS with Hannity/Colmes. Two chances to wring the truth out of him.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
If it weren't for tenure, this guy would be sleeping in a cardboard box.

www.lewrockwell.com...

[edit on 05/6/15 by GradyPhilpott]


dh

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
In spite of the likes of Howard, I feel this understanding has reached hundredth monkey status and is becoming held by populations far and wide
Other than another calamitous false flag attack, this cannot be buried by the main media much longer, - it's heaving its way to the surface relentlessly and cannot be held down much longer



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John


-- No black boxes ever recovered, officially, from the wreckage.



What a weiner statement...lol. Yeah - okay - there were no planes.


dh

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
The alleged black boxes were carted away by the FBI according to eyewitness reports
Though most likely there were no commercial airplanes involved in any of the attacks



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John
— When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.



So those are imaginary flames, Huh?



— The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.


What about all the office furniture, paper, carpeting, etc?

Doesn't that count as fuel?


August 31, 2003 -- The fiery hell that raged inside the World Trade Center on 9/11 has been recreated in a test that highlights how today's office space can be dangerously flammable, as these dramatic pictures show.

Using a cubicle based on the offices of insurance firm Marsh & McLennan - a north tower tenant that lost 295 employees - federal fire experts conclude it was more likely the heat of burning office materials brought down the tower, rather than jet-fuel-fed flames.

This test, conducted by National Institute of Standards and Technology last month, showed the fuel from the plane that crashed into the tower burned out quickly - but the fire it created grew in intensity by up to another 300 degrees as it consumed office products and structures.

The computers, cubicle walls, furniture, files and paper - recreated on detailed information supplied by the insurance company on the exact materials used in their offices - blazed at temperatures that reached 1,200 degrees, the NIST test found.

The test fire burned for 33 minutes before the 386 pounds of material were consumed and reduced mostly to ash and gases.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
This guy is an Economist. What does he know about demolition, or anything for that matter!

Ronald Reagan put it best: "If you could take all the economists and lay them head to toe around the world, it'd be a good thing!"



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   


This would make a lot of sense because there is no way that Norad would let 4 planes fly around off course for over an hour without radio contact. Has anybody found any hard evidence of this claim?

I don't think NORAD is charged with tracking all the air traffic over the US.
Unless they have like 1,000 air traffic controllers ready 24/7



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John


-- No black boxes ever recovered, officially, from the wreckage.



What a weiner statement...lol. Yeah - okay - there were no planes.


Don't be a dick.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
This guy is an Economist. What does he know about demolition, or anything for that matter!



It doesn't take an economist to know that Enron had bad accounting. It doesn't take a PHD in structural engineering to see that the NIST report about how these buildings fell leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

Also, Underwriters Laboratories doesn't agree with the official version. They have PHDs in structural engineering.

NIST Report / WTC Collapse



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
This is seems to be another example of someone who believes they are so clever that they they can comment on subjects they no nothing about and start all sorts of stupid rumours. If this guy was a leading structural engineer or demolition expert I would sit up take notice, as it is he knows about as much about it as me.

As it is thousands of demolition experts all over the world would have watched this over and over again and many will have read the official reports. How many have have spoken out like this guy? Any expert worth his salt would have taken one look at the towers collapsing and gone "Woh, that was taken down by controlled charges", if that had been the case, but they didn't.

Much of the story around 911 stinks so very much, but the basic premise that some hijacked planes flew into the WTC (causing their collapse) and the pentagon is obviously true.

The cover up comes over who the guys were who did it and how they pulled off such an operation. This is probably due to them being Saudi Arabians who could well have been trained for this "mission" by elements within the Saudi security forces..... Though this last part is mainly speculation. The rest of the cover up probably comes from how such an atrocity was ever allowed to happen in the US and the blatent incompatence in the US security forces.

You guys with your "cruise missle in the pentagon" and "drones hitting the WTC" nonsense are just letting the government off the hook by obscuring the true scandal and the stink of corrupt behind the scenes deals that have gone on around it.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Much of the story around 911 stinks so very much, but the basic premise that some hijacked planes flew into the WTC (causing their collapse) and the pentagon is obviously true.


yes. obviously. HAHAHAHA! that's why the good people of earth type about a gazillion words a day discussing how 'obvious' it all is. HAHAHA!
you're not drunk, are you, father?




posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John

Originally posted by Rasputin13
This guy is an Economist. What does he know about demolition, or anything for that matter!



It doesn't take an economist to know that Enron had bad accounting. It doesn't take a PHD in structural engineering to see that the NIST report about how these buildings fell leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

Also, Underwriters Laboratories doesn't agree with the official version. They have PHDs in structural engineering.

NIST Report / WTC Collapse



Oh, really? Can you provide me with an official statement from UL to that effect?

Can you provide the name and C.V. of the Phd that has made this claim?





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join