I agree that the time required for setting up explosives, and the oppurtunity for such has not only been missing; but has not been fully explored.
All we've seen is a report or two about 36 hour power downs a couple weeks before 9/11 on floor 50 and above, and the removal of bomb sniffing dogs.

Originally posted by bsbray11

So all of these people are such craven cowards, that they are only concerned about money, right?

You are aware that all the policemen, firemen, etc. involved with the response on 9/11 were ordered to not discuss what they had seen, correct? A gag order upon them, as well as FAA personnel?

Wrong. There have been no gag orders issued by any judges to the any of the first responders of 911

The only legal gag order was issued to that one person and this had nothing to do with the firemen and policemen at the WTC on 911.

As for any “gag order” issued by the fire department brass, if you think that the rank and file FDNY thought that there was a cover up, that they would just sit around and not say anything about the deaths of 343 of their brothers just because some administrator told them not to, you really don’t understand the fireman mentality.

Do you really think this?

Do you think that these guys are that chickenbleep?


What about the guys that have retired or have left the force for other reasons?

Why don't they talk?






[edit on 8-11-2005 by HowardRoark]

Look at the article I linked to above. If they were going to raise hell, who are they going to call, Howard? Are they going to call Homeland Security and tip them off? Are they going to call the local authorities? Go to the major media? How do you expect their testimony would even reach you? More likely, you would only have articles like the one above.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Wrong. There have been no gag orders issued by any judges to the any of the first responders of 911

Howard, thats the second time I've seen you use terms only people of or very close to the brotherhood use. Are you smoke suckin c-spine holdin bunker pants wearin brother?

Howard, there could be a huge multitude of reasons why the retired personnel aren't talking. I believe that if these guys really wanted to say what they heard or saw, they would come out and say flat out what they heard. If a gag order was issued, I don't believe that it would have came from the department heads. The firemen's mentality is if you experience a traumatic event, like 9-11, they don't like to talk about it unless they absolutely have to during therapy.

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
Howard, there could be a huge multitude of reasons why the retired personnel aren't talking. I believe that if these guys really wanted to say what they heard or saw, they would come out and say flat out what they heard. If a gag order was issued, I don't believe that it would have came from the department heads. The firemen's mentality is if you experience a traumatic event, like 9-11, they don't like to talk about it unless they absolutely have to during therapy.

Not only that, but with the new HIPAA laws in place they can be sued if they talk about a scene, and someone who had a family member die on that scene they could get into real trouble. I am sure their Chiefs said "Keep your mouths shut about 911" and the retired personel doesnt want to get sued for HIPAA infractions.

Originally posted by 8bitagent
I agree that the time required for setting up explosives, and the oppurtunity for such has not only been missing; but has not been fully explored.
All we've seen is a report or two about 36 hour power downs a couple weeks before 9/11 on floor 50 and above, and the removal of bomb sniffing dogs.

The easiest thing for an intelligence agency to do, the most simple trick in their repertoire, is to make a front company. Heck, even terrorist organizations do it and operate in the US - just ask Iran's MEK. Those front companies can then do whatever they want, including rent office space.

Demolition of tall, thin buildings is often carried out by severing the supports at key segments in the structure, effectively letting each section crush the one below it under its own weight. (In fact bsbray has posted file photos of this very method before). Performing this sequentially would be an ideal way to make the towers appear to collapse on themselves. Demolition experts have gone on record saying if they were hired to bring down the WTC towers, they would simply cut core columns at certain points and let the buildings bring themselves down under their own weight.

The oft-repeated "need for cutting charges on every single column on every single floor" is utter nonsense. But the same people who try to sell this rubbish will, in the very same post, tell you that the entire mass of each tower collapsed into dust and pick-up-sticks down to the very pavement simply because the caps were crushing down on them. However the paradoxical nature of this stance does not seem to bother them in the slightest.


Remember folks, all is not as it seems...





[edit on 2005-11-9 by wecomeinpeace]

It's also pretty ironic that the same people who tell you that progressive collapse is impossible when a plane weakens core structures, say that you only need to rent an office, weaken a few core structures with explosives, and then progressive collapse is possible.

wecomeinepeace wrote:
Demolition of tall, thin buildings is often carried out by severing the supports at key segments in the structure, effectively letting each section crush the one below it under its own weight.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
It's also pretty ironic that the same people who tell you that progressive collapse is impossible when a plane weakens core structures, say that you only need to rent an office, weaken a few core structures with explosives, and then progressive collapse is possible.

Here's a clue: Grab yourself a dictionary. Look up the word plural. Then look up the words segments, sever, each,and section. Finally, look up the word ironic. Come back when your done.



[edit on 2005-11-9 by wecomeinpeace]

I got an idea

How about you grab up dictionary, look up civil and see if your behavior on these threads matches their description.

I don't see how being insulting adds to the conversation anyway.

You are the one who has consistently stated that progressive collapse is impossible.

Now your singing a different tune and saying that it's possible to take out small sections and cause a collapse.

Precisely what the official story says, but with explosives instead of airplanes.


BTW, being a jerk doesnt hide the flimsiness of your argument. Do you have any evidence to back up what you say, or is it pure speculation?

I still have yet to here any plausible explanation as to how the bombs got there. Your new "rented office" theory doesn't quite fit with the previous "demolition squib" argument either.

If all they had to do was rent an office in strategic locations, then were the "squibs" caused by air now? Are you now accepting the "syringe theory" that you have blasted so vehemently before?

I'm curious as to which one you believe in.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
How about you grab up dictionary, look up civil and see if your behavior on these threads matches their description.

Fair comment...my apologies.

I'm not talking about "progressive collapse", i.e. a domino effect - that's your theory. I'm talking about staying within the laws of physics, where the system can't output more energy than is inputed.

Whether you severed all the supports at the airplane impact point by explosives or by weakened supports, the effect would be the same. The difference lies in the caps not being enough to demolish the building to the ground, break all those steel connections and welds, and pulverize most of that concrete, furniture and people to dust. There's just not enough potential energy in the cap to do all that work. Secondly, the cap and the lower sections destroy each other equally in the crushing and grinding process - as was observed in the footage of the collapses, and as was further confirmed by the demolition expert QuietSoul liaised with in the Progressive Collapse Challenge thread. The only way it would be possible to completely destroy the building using its own weight would be to sever it into a number of sections. You see the difference?

I'll have a look around or U2U bsbray and see if I can dig up those pics of the demolition method I'm referring to.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
You are the one who has consistently stated that progressive collapse is impossible.

Progressive collapse and demolition are, by definition, two very, very different things. When a building is brought down by demolition, it's not called a "progressive collapse." Though, I can understand your confusion, as in all practicality they are the exact same thing.

IMHO those pictures show buildings collapsing in a much different fashion than the WTC. In those pictures there are initial huge blasts all throughout the building. I don't see those on WTC footage.

All those buildings collapsed from the bottom up. The two towers collapsed from the top down.

I wonder what key points were needed to be bombed and who had the leases for those areas. Which point in the video do you think shows the initial blast that started the collapse?

If the building wasn't completely lined with explosives, are the "squibs" proof of anything?

I was under the impression that "squibs" were evidence towards having the entire building wired up. If we say that only key points were bombed, were the squibs caused by something else?