Okay, wandering off the well-marked path here a little...

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I'm still waiting to hear how so much explosive was planted throughout the buildings without anyone noticing. Explosive that had to be linked in sequence, carefully, throughout the entire building and hidden so that no dumb sparky would find it by accident.

Well you're not going to hear that from me, man. Not being able to tell you this does not mean there wasn't a demo. It just means there's no way for us to tell how they were set up. Just consider for a moment the *impossible* idea that these buildings were demolished. We still wouldn't be able to tell you how it happened. How could you expect us to? It's not an important issue, and it's a disinfo tactic to demand complete answers before considering any of what we're saying.

No. If you're saying it's possible, you have to tell me how. How did the explosives (or thermite) get there? It wasn't put there by the builders...Every part of the theory must be supportable, even with another theory...So start theorising.

The military does them to achieve military goals.

And with a general histlory of utter failure one wonders why they are still in use.

The Reichstag Fire worked for the Nazis, and they also staged a Polish attack to justify invading Poland. The Gulf of Tonkin got us into Vietnam despite it being a bunch of bullcrap by the virtue of propoganda. Blaming the Maine on Spain got us into war just fine the same way. I could go out into more controversial territory with the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor (foreknowledge) but those are enough of a precedent that deceptions do work at getting us into war. Can you think of any deceptions that have failed to get us into war? Then you have the Operation Northwoods documents..

Those aren't military operations, they are political. The Reichstag fire was not set by the Wehrmacht, but by the Nazis. Blaming the Maine on Spain was Charles Foster Ka...I mean, William Randolph Hearst and that was business (Tomorrow Never Dies, anybody?), but despite a clear lack of documented evidence Hearst was able to manufacture proof, Cheney tried the same thing and was forced later to say "I've never suggested there was a link between Saddam and 911". The Gulf of Tonkin had very rapid follow-up telegrams saying things like "situation unclear", but which may not have been shown to the President, or perhaps the original documents were "sexed up"...WTC didn't get you into Iraq, it got us into Afghanistan, which everyone supported. Look at what else had to be done to get troops into Iraq, Powell's visit to the UN, Condi's "smoking gun, nuclear cloud", Blair's "can deploy in 45 minutes", mobile chemical factories...

We ensure the rightfully angry people remain trapped in their third-world sinkholes while we rape them of natural resources.

Beautiful, man.

Yeah, well, I've lived in one. It just didn't have much in the way of resources.

Originally posted by Damocles
ok first we have to be able to agree that the towers were built essentially as stacked floors inside a steel/concrete tube.

No concrete in the tube.

so, if the top 13 floors drop, its not really 13 crushing 97, it would be 13 crushing one followed by 14 crushing 96 and so on. if the guts of the building were dropping from inside, and the floors were holding the outter structure together, then you have the center dropping out and the outter walls falling outwards.

The key to remember is that once the collapse began, the floors were immaterial. The floor slabs were attached via the trusses to the outer walls, the buckling if the outer walls would have pulled the the trusses out of their seats. The truss seats were not designed to withstand that type of movement. Either the angle clip would have torn, or the two 5/8 bolts per truss would have broken.

(BTW, the engineer that inspected the building fireproofing before the collapse stated that some of the trusses were not even seated properly!!!)

The collapse should be looked at more as a buckling wave through the exterior and interior columns as opposed to individual floors slamming on top of each other.

if you also compare the construction of the individual floors to that of a steel truss supported roof of an industrial building (believe stateofgrace made this comparison earlier in the thread, or i saw it in another 9-11 thread) and there are cases of the roofs of these industrial buildings failing from fire, THEN the idea that a couple floors failed and dropped onto the "roof" of the floor below, the idea of a progressive collapse due to fire isnt quite as far fetched as one may think.

It wouldn't have taken much fire to cause the trusses to fail if the fireproofing was missing or damaged.

The issue is not the floor falling on the one below, but the loss of the lateral support to the columns from the missing floor.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Your link shoots itself in the foot with that picture.

The core walls were 2" thick drywall, not concrete.

2" thick DRYWALL???

You obviously didn't read the link.

Above: The north tower core was oriented east west, so we are looking at the wide side. On the right tower fr then project that dddistance down to a cross section. We see, from right to left; a light space from the out side to a dark column which represents the floor space to the interior box column, then there is another narrow light space left of that. That is the space between the interior box column and the concrete core face. Going leftward we see the facing concrete shear wall, then the hallway crossing the narrow axis, then the core face again, then the space between the east core face, then interior box column, then floor space to the east side of the building.

He gives other sources referrencing the concrete core Howard.

Why don't you read it?

Originally posted by Damocles
(all sarcasm intentional, figure out where, or dont i dont care)

Actually I thought that Howard was talking about the core......regardless...he has said many times that the core was not concrete reinforced and even still denies it although I have proven him wrong.

Originally posted by Damocles
NEW THEORY!!

OK KIDS lets all gather in a circle for story time

alright, no matter if you believe that the us govt was responsible for 9-11 or not, lets all pretend for a few minutes that GW and his boys REALLY DID pull this off for personal gain. k?

ok, lets then presume that if they did do it, and that it was being planned by them from the late 90's, (this would also really seal up the election conspiracies) that they will also want to ensure that the republicans stay in office for another few terms.

so they win the election and they immediatly put their plan into action and on 9-11 BOOM! its like christmas for them. the towers fall, the american people are all pissed off and ready for blood and vengeance.

ok, 5 years later we're bogged down in iraq, which admittedly would work out well for them financially but politically is a nightmare. approval ratings are in the toilet and right now, if this was the end of GW's first term, theres no way he'd be re elected if lindon larouche was the only guy running against him. but its not, he's in his second term but for their grand plan to come off and for them to continue to prosper from the war in iraq, they need the next president to be a republican.

heres the crux of it, if the elections were this year, we'd have a democrat as the next president. anyone who disagrees wtih that statement is pretty deluded. i was a pretty stout bush supporter for a long time and ill even be the first to say, if the elections were this year, we'd have a democrat as our next president. probably the next few presidents.

so, the republicans NEED, read that MUST HAVE a MAJOR victory for bush in order for the grand plan to continue to work. (thier cashcow that is)

so, given that about the ONLY hope they have for a "major" victory is for osama to show up in US custody and for us to crush al qaeda totally and completely...where is he?

if the US govt is behind 9-11 then Osama is a patsy who could be delivered on demand to the US public.

yet, he's oddly absent.

think about that...i mean REALLY think about that.

now having said all that...if osama is mysteriously 'brought to justice' in the next 12 months...then i may just start to belive some of the 9-11 conspiracies.

Here is the problem with all of this.

It doesn't have to be limited to the "bush administration" or "the republicans" to be an inside job.

This was a rogue group of elite globalist, zionist, collectivists that control both parties.

It is likely part of the plan to make everyone so upset with republicans so they can easily install Hitlary Klinton so everyone will think that everything is fiiiiiiiiine while she goes along with the same globalist, imperialist, militaristic agenda.

Originally posted by Damocles
lol sorry little slow tonight...apologies for my last post.

i had been subquoted so i thought that was directed at me.

No problem.

I am impressed with your ability to debate fairly, intellectually, and to admit you can see the other person's point.



I certainly couldn't say anything near the same for Howard.

Originally posted by Damocles
so, if the top 13 floors drop, its not really 13 crushing 97, it would be 13 crushing one followed by 14 crushing 96 and so on. if the guts of the building were dropping from inside, and the floors were holding the outter structure together, then you have the center dropping out and the outter walls falling outwards.

This didn't happen on 9/11 because most of the debris fell outside of the footprints, and didn't just fall straight down. Even as the collapse was just beginning in one of the buildings (I forget which), the uppermost floors that originally drove the collapse began falling off the side in large chunks. Most of the debris either similarly fell off the sides or was just straight-up ejected outwards with some force. That's why I noted that the masses were decreasing as the collapses continued, because of the majority of the debris not falling straight down onto lower floors as that would require.