Originally posted by LeftBehind
Bsbray are you honestly trying to say that 767's crashing into the building only caused minor damage?

I posted the figures. The WTC was massive. Put the damage in perspective. It wasn't as much as you'd think. Again, I posted the figures from the gov. agencies themselves above.

Originally posted by Master Wu
I have plenty of pictures and diagrams to go with all this, i just don't know how to post them. Any help would be appreciated.

To post a picture you just have to click that little icon that looks like a (paint palette and computer screen) Then just copy and paste the url address of the picture you want to post. To find the URL address of any picture simply right click on the picture and select properties and you will see its URL.

Also try to use the quote tab found on the post you are trying to reply too when quoting someone. It puts it into a neat little box and makes the post easier to read.

* The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" - and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."

* No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.

* WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors - and intact steel support columns - the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

* With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing - and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

* Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

* Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel - and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

* Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.

* Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.


I still have seen no explaination for WTC-7. Anyone have any ideas?

When calling the WTC a controlled demolition, it's irrelevant to sight other controlled demolitions as proof of required planning and as a time factor for installing the bombs needed for a proper demolition.

The WTC had to come down, it didn't have to come down as perfect as a commercial controlled demolition.

There was plenty of time to plan the installation of the bombs on a computer using the plans which are now unobtainable by Port Authority and FEMA (only an undated FEMA plan is available, which was also used for the 9/11 Commission).

They had to plan for bringing it down, they didn't have to plan for making the most efficient and tidy mess afterwards as a proper controlled demolition will try it's best to do.

This cuts down the planning, installation and amount of bombs needed.

We shouldn't even expect industry standard explosives to have been used.

This was a huge event orchestrated by parties with bottomless funds and resources, including those inside US agencies and also from other countries.

The line seperating 'us and them' is non-existant at the highest levels, only on our level - the one controlled by the media who are fed by 'them' - are we given this illusion that there's two sides fighting each other, rather than one ideal achieving one goal that's being sold as two opposing forces in a 'struggle'.

the original post was about how bombs or controlled demolition charges brought down the towers. WHY? were the owners of the wtc in financial trouble? did they want to "torch" the buildings to get out from under. sounds a bit extreme. many a small buisness owner has taken a few gallons of gas and burned his failing buisness to the ground to collect the insurance money. is that what we're getting at here? mind you i am just a lowly machinist from Ct. but i dont need a buch of computer generated crap to tell me what happened. these "squibs" or as described puffs of smoke, they couldn't be the air being forced out of the lower floors by the upper ones collapsing on top of them could they? theres no doubt that that the preparations to blow the building could have been done secretly. when the engineer that designed the citi bank building discovered after reviewing his work that a hurricaine could take down his building, a team of welders where working every night to correct the problem in total secrecy to avoid public panic. so it could be done but why? it's not simple enough that a bunch of religious zealots got on planes and ran them into the buildings and the damage caused them to collapse? what has been left out of the whole thing is who planned the whole thing. ossama bin laden a highly educated structural engineer. before i say whats next let me tell you all that i would take great pleasure in personally putting a bullet through mr bin ladens turbin. anyway was it a controlled demolition of the wtc? well sort of. bin laden was just thinking out of the box. why truck in the tons of explosives required to do the job when you can just fly them in. as stated in a previous post a planes fuel isn't the only flammable thing on a plane. i was on a helicopter carrier in the navy and my job during flight quarters was to stand by on a rough terrain forklift incase of an aircraft fire. why? because once the metals in an aircraft get burning there is no putting them out so my job was to push the flaming wreck overboard. why? because if you just continue dumping water on it, its burning a hole through the STEEL deck. (see where i'm going with this?) it's not just the thousands of gallons of jet fuel but also the thousands of pounds of flammable metal capable of burning through steel faster than a cutting torch. titainium, magnesium, aluminum. grey smoke, black smoke. anyone ever see a metal fire? grey smoke. petroleum fire black smoke. think bin laden didn't take all of these factors into account. is he nuts? absolutely. is he smart? maybe, but some pretty smart people have been trying to catch him and nothing so far. theres a $25 million reward for his capture problem is nobody over there knows what $25 million is or what it can get them. 70 virgins when they get to heaven huh. show some of those guys what 25 mil will get you here and we'll have bin laden handcuff to a lamp post in times square in under a week

Bush, Silverstein, Neocons etc. had lots of reasons to bring down the WTCs .... considering that SIlverstein had only 200 million invested in the complex with insurance set at 3.2-3.5 Billion (incidently he got twice the amount because he claimed 2 planes = 2 terrorist strikes = 2 insurance payouts) ............. Bush needed a reason to go invade Iraq and Cheney wanted Haliburton to make him billions with no-bid contracts .... and Israel wanted the big U.S. military to fight a battle against the arabs to eradicate them. Also the WTC towers were filled formaldyhide/asbestos and needed a billion renovation to remove it .... total collapse would help this problem.

Based on the 200 million investment by Silverstein ... he a 3500% increase in profit in one day ... not a bad investment.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
The WTC had to come down, it didn't have to come down as perfect as a commercial controlled demolition.

They had to plan for bringing it down, they didn't have to plan for making the most efficient and tidy mess afterwards as a proper controlled demolition will try it's best to do.

This cuts down the planning, installation and amount of bombs needed.

This is just wrong

That would cut down on planning and installation but it would not, I repeat would not cut down on amounts of explosives needed. It would infact increase the amount of explosives needed. Thanks to all the prep work that goes into a building before demolition drilling holes cutting beams etc.. it greatly reduces the amuont of explosives needed. By doing that stuff demo guys get a much better effect for the amount of explosives they use.

You cut out all that work they do and the amount of explosives you need increases it does not decrease. I dont know where you got that from.

Originally posted by ZPE StarPilot
And just a bit of calculations, a proper demolition of a 110 floor building would require approximately 975,927,727 holes drilled, 24,593,583 pounds of explosives, 116,432,086 blasting caps, and 501,304,813 feet of detonating cord.

I'd like to see what type of 110-floor building you are basing this on, the types of explosives you are assuming were used, and what methods you are assuming were used. And then I'd like to see how assumptions are scientific.

ShadowXIX, why do you remind me so much of Howard?

I didn't know if there had been an update on the Scott Forbes story. I find it imperative to debunk false conspiracy theories as it is to find out the truth behind "official stories".

Did the CIA really meet with bin Laden in July 2001? Was NORAD truly running war games simulating a 9/11 like attack on sept 11? Was CIA linked drug money and Pakistani ISI funds behind the attacks? These are things that are still out there, lingering.

For the skeptics of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, notice they never try to defend WTC7, only the explosions in WTC1&2 story.

8bitagent.

Skeptics do indeed try to debunk WTC7 but the other two towers are posted about much more often.

Also there are many more photos and video of the first two towers, leaving much more room for speculation.

Here is a great picture of WTC7 entirely covered with smoke on one side. You probably won't see this one on sites dedicated to the demo theory.

Originally posted by 8bitagent
Was NORAD truly running war games simulating a 9/11 like attack on sept 11?

Actually, this isn't really much to speculate on anymore, as the Pentagon itself has confirmed such war games were going on. However, I don't think the number of war games, nor their contents have been released, and the Pentagon has been trying to portray the war games as some coincidence that simply helped them respond.

What's that saying? When the government says something, the opposite is true?


LeftBehind,

What about that picture shows that the Building 7 is about to fall straight down into its footprint?

Originally posted by bsbray11


What about that picture shows that the Building 7 is about to fall straight down into its footprint?

That picture is meant to show that the claims of minor damage to WTC7 have been greatly exagerated.

The building was extremely damaged and not that stable to begin with.


The fact that it fell into it's own footprint is not "proof" that it was blown up with demo charges. The problem of "when and where" in regards to the actual smuggling of bombs into the building, applies as much to WTC7 as it does to the other two.

That picture is meant to show that the claims of minor damage to WTC7 have been greatly exagerated.

Well then this picture is just to show that the claims of Building 7 being "extremely damaged" are greatly exaggerated:



I wouldn't exactly call that extreme.

And I certainly wouldn't expect that to fall straight down onto its footpring as a result.

The fact that it fell into it's own footprint is not "proof" that it was blown up with demo charges. The problem of "when and where" in regards to the actual smuggling of bombs into the building, applies as much to WTC7 as it does to the other two.

There is no evidence as to the "when and where" the universe was created; only theories based on circumstantial evidence. But I would say that we exist; wouldn't you?

The problem of how the buildings must have been set up, the logistics for it all, is no reasonable counter to the amount of scientific evidence there is against a gravity-driven collapse. Those buildings have absolutely no scientific evidence going for them to favor a gravity collapse over a demolition, and seemingly unlikely logistics, unfortunately, is not scientific evidence against demolition.

Using the logistics as an excuse for not accepting the legitimate points showing the collapse as stated by NIST, etc. is impossible, seems kind of naive to me. We're talking about the most powerful nation in the world, with by far the most advanced military, with the most advanced military and explosive technology, with the most money invested into these sorts of researches, with completely monster corporations working for it (or we should say the US is working for the corporations), and you will not look the science of the event in the face because you do not think this lone world superpower would be capable of pulling it off?

Well, regardless of whether or not we know how they did it, we still have the evidence that they did do it. I wouldn't be too concerned with the how: you'd be surprised what human beings can accomplish when they have the means and the determination.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by bsbray11]

I won't say much about these pictures I think they explain them selves