Controlled Demolitions in Action

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   

You have voted bsbray11 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Thanks for that BSBray......well done.




posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Explosion does not equal bomb, more things explode in a fire or sound like one, steel snapping, transformers blowing, cans exploding, ect...


Steel snapping?

Pls explain how, where and when steel would have snapped, before the collapse?

Cans exploding? Do cans exploding go boom boom boom?....


The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple seconds and all of a sudden you just heard like it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came and my officer just actually took all of us and just threw us 5 down on the ground and kind of just jumped on top of us, laid on top of us...NYC Firefighter Thomas Turilli


abclocal.go.com...

And as mentioned there are many more NYC firefighters talking about explosives.
They should know what cans blowing up sound like, or other sounds heard during a fire no?

A paramedic, Daniel Rivera...


It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down.


a1022.g.akamai.net...



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
bsbray11, that video doesn't show at all how thermite can melt vertical columns, which is what most of this debate recently has been about. I don't know of anyone that suggested that remote controlled thermite isn't possible, just that it melts down only.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   


Pls explain how, where and when steel would have snapped, before the collapse?




The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple seconds and all of a sudden you just heard like it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came and my officer just actually took all of us and just threw us 5 down on the ground and kind of just jumped on top of us, laid on top of us...NYC Firefighter Thomas Turilli


Before and during, this one sounds like they heard the last pieces of steel snapping before collapse. Note they never said they were bombs, just sounded like it.



It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down.


He just says thats what it sounds like, not that it was.

Video of a crane collapse.
my.break.com...

Tranformer exploding.
video.google.com...



Cans exploding? Do cans exploding go boom boom boom?....


That was just an exanple of something that can explode, it's not just cans. Any pressurised container, will explode when heated enough, fire extinguishers, paint cans, areosols. The booms in the quotes you gave are probably steel snapping, like in the video I linked.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Again pls explain this snapping steel? How do fires snap steel?

I thought the official theory was the steel got hot and failed. If that's the case the steel wouldn't snap it would bend.

But of course we know the steel didn't bend and it did snap, or was cut, BUT it would take more than fire to snap steel.

(I'm talking about the main columns, some of the smaller steel sections did bend in the collapse)



[edit on 18/8/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Okay. A controlled demoition explosion would sound unmistakable, a real big boom. Which means unconventional means like thermite. But then the thermite would get disturbed or set off by the planes impact. Someone please explain how this would work... My head hurts.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   
In my position in the US Navy, I have worked a lot with explosives. From some of the video footage I have seen of 9-11, I have noticed evidence of thermites and other types of cutting charges on WTC 1 and 2. But, the way the WTC 1 and 2 buildings were designed, you wouldn't need explosives on the outer structure to take it down. Most of the strength of the building is all in the MIDDLE of the towers. So the main explosives would be further inside the building, hidden from view. Unlike the first C.D. video the original poster provides, where the main strength of the building is spread out on to multiple pillars on the outside.

Even then, the WTC 1 and 2 buildings have two sections on them each, that are very important to the strength of the building. There are 2 strips on each building, where there are no windows. These are special sections that make the building strong enough to stand up. Place demolition charges in these positions and you can take the buildings down with little effort.




There are rumors out, that certain sections of the building were closed, weeks before 9-11 for maintinance, or remodeling or something. With pure access to the building, you wouldn't really need high explosives. What you could do is cut main support steel beams with a plasma cutter, half way or more, so that you could use less explosives to finish the cut. Thats how they do it in professional demolition.

For example in this render, the grey section is a steel beam, and the red is the explosives. You can cut a section of it, and place explosives on the uncut section, so you don't need a large amount of explosives, and the building will still have enough strength to stay up.





To end my comment, I would like to say, you can NOT compare a video of controlled demolition, with the WTC buildings because most controlled demolitions are on purpous and nobody is trying to hide it. With the WTC, they wanted the buildings to appear to come down by the jets, not explosives. They still did a horrible job hidding it, in my opinion.

AND, Larry Silverstein himself, with his own mouth, on camera, told the world that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Controlled demolition takes weeks to prepare, that means 9-11 was planned.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Mr_pointy.. the video of the crain falling, you aren't hearing steem beams snapping, you are hearing high tention steel cables snapping.

I only skimmed through this thread, but i read something about brackets. You don't need brackets, you only need magnets.


Also.. here is proof of thermite.

video.google.com...

I've been in the Navy long enough to know, that is deffinetly thermite.


AND....

Did you know a B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building? The Empire State Building is still standing to this day....

www.google.com...

[edit on 18-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
I think you're just guessing that the explosive sounds are the cables snapping and not the steel. This is because you want it to be that way. How are you so sure its cables? If the cables snapped it should have released the tension on the structure and it would not have collapsed.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
In my position in the US Navy, I have worked a lot with explosives. From some of the video footage I have seen of 9-11, I have noticed evidence of thermites and other types of cutting charges on WTC 1 and 2. But, the way the WTC 1 and 2 buildings were designed, you wouldn't need explosives on the outer structure to take it down. Most of the strength of the building is all in the MIDDLE of the towers. So the main explosives would be further inside the building, hidden from view. Unlike the first C.D. video the original poster provides, where the main strength of the building is spread out on to multiple pillars on the outside.

Even then, the WTC 1 and 2 buildings have two sections on them each, that are very important to the strength of the building. There are 2 strips on each building, where there are no windows. These are special sections that make the building strong enough to stand up. Place demolition charges in these positions and you can take the buildings down with little effort.






This goes along exactly with my thermite in the core theory. Notice that the windowless floors are 1/3 and 2/3 of the building approximately. My theory is that thermite/mate was used to sever the core columns at the base, 1/3 and 2/3 points. And please people quit with the "how did they know to place the thermite at the impact zones" nonsense. The impact zones where the weekest point in the outer column structure. Where does a chain break? The weekest point. So, obviously the towers would start to collapse at the weekest point...the impact zones.

Also, they did IMO get lucky on WTC2. The impact was around the 2/3 mark. I believe that is why we see the tilt of the cap...because the core was severed very close to the impact zone....thus leaving the cap able to tilt....otherwise, all 47 core columns wouldn't have buckled in the same direction at the same point.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
NO, they don't assume this, they are saying it doesn't LOOK the one, that is all.


OK, one last round of fun with Mr. Pointy... I cannot even decipher what the above senctence says, BUT I will attempt to respond. So, in summation, "They" a company that DOCUMENTS things, think it did not look like a standard CD... Big deal. Millions think it DOES look like CD, there is a mounting pile of evidence outlined on this site that heavily implies it was and the best they can come up with is "Well, It just doesn't look like a CD..." Laughable at best. Intentional disionformation at worst. Not science ro even evidence backed opinion for sure.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Why would he have to show how much HE, if it can't survive the impact and/or fires, it's useless.


They are making too many gross assumptions:
1. HE WAS used AND
2. It was on the floors the planes hit AND
3. It was not thermally shielded AND
4. It could not withstand a fuel oil fire

Understand this, most D theory does not include HE at the impact points. Melt the core BASE and the building gets "pulled down" by the falling core FROM THE TOP.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Because that's what is used to demolish building, Do you know of any non HE demolitions tools that could suvive the impact and fires?


Yes. Thermit, Thermate, Nano-Thermite... I am also sure that the military can shield a charge from fire if that is what they used. I have a fire safe... Not so difficult.

You also are assuming that there is only one way to bring down a building which makes your point 100% moot.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
What's so funny about the pdf's?


You explainging to me that "PFD's" are "used by professionals" was prety funny. I was talking about "locking" a PDF and you are talking about lifejackets.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Again, patents mean nothing, there is even a patent on a method of making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Remember, it's your claim, you have to prove the device can acually do this.


United States Patent 6183569 is an example of a linear thermite cutting charge designed to cut through think metals.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Then find an expert that disaggrees, until then domeone that talked to real experts carries far more weight than anything you say.


We do not argure peoples baseless opinions here. (OK we do sometimes) but wihtout any data being presented there is NOTHING to argue. He says potato I say PO-TA-TOE.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
WOW, you never even look at what I linked. You wouldn't look at the photo of what you asked for, just because of the site it's on.


I do not post links to Alex Jones' opinions here as they are too biased. The site you referenc... I cannot trust their photos. Find the photo in a mainstream publication.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
I don't know what it is, because you are just making up stuff, where is the picture? How can you tell what type of metal it is?


The photo is everywhere, including Steven Jones' peer reviewed paper. You can easily search and find it.

Since the buildings were steel construcion... AND it is the shape, size and color of the steel colums, what else can it be? Magic Alien rods?


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
He did show his case...


For the last time... no he did not. He staed an opinion without presenting any data. He is not qualified to present this opinion as he is not a CD specialist. He is a glorified secretary RECORDING and DOCUMENTING the effects of such things from a safe distance.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Again, it's probably something he did in his free time, not for submission to any peer review process.


So that excuses him from presenting the data he used to make is gross assumptions?


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
So, you want him to illegally release private property, or give people names out for harrassment?


Why not just ask the photogs for permission? Why no tfind some public domain photos from reliable sources? Who is going to "harass" anyone? These peole are babies... at least Steven Jones stands behind his work, does not hid in anonymity and uses and presents the evidence of his findings.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Yes, but why should he bother, you aren't important to them.


More Two-year old logic.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
You have yet to counter anythiing he wrote, where is it wrong?


His points have been countetred HUNDREDS of times in hundreds of threads here. I personally do not see the point in arguing with his OPINION which he does not backup with ANY DATA. It is an act in futility. Show me data and I will use that data to form an opinion and refute it. Show me an opinion with "secret hidden data" and I will laugh at how pointless the "publication" is.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
What is there to refute, your personal opinion, and strawmen?


No, read other threads I have started... Read what others have posted here. Educate yourself on how we look at evidence and data, present it with sources and try to form logical educated deductions from said inputs.

For the last time... the article that has been presented here as "professional" and "conclusive" qualifies as neither of these two things. That is the point I have been trying to make. I do not argue about aliens, I do not attempt to refute baseless opinion with "hidden secret data" being used to support such opinion.

It is worthless and will go no where. It will only help dilute the real issues.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Has anyone tried an experiment to simulate the 9/11 WTC destruction using scaled down versions of the towers and airplanes? I think it is the only way to estimate if the free fall of the towers was natural or not.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
1. There is NO proof of Thermite
2. The video cleary shows thetilting, and the collapse from the top.
3. If a car backfires, someone may say "that sounded like a shotgun". I find it funny that some people will trust an 'eyewitness who describes a sound" to a certified CD expert.
4. Why use planes? Why not reattmept the 93 bombings, and this time take them both down with 10,000 people??? Wouldn't that have been easier than trying to hide all the passengers, use remote controlled planes and top secret thermite compounds?
5. Ground zero was a toxic site that needed to be cleaned up immediately, there was no conspriacy to clean it up.
6. How could the government have kept this secret for 5 years??? If the NYT knows what is on Cheneys Ipod, I am sure they could uncover this, but there is nothing to uncover, except for specific Political agendas to make sure specific people are removed from office and others are entered.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
1. There is NO proof of Thermite
2. The video cleary shows thetilting, and the collapse from the top.
3. If a car backfires, someone may say "that sounded like a shotgun". I find it funny that some people will trust an 'eyewitness who describes a sound" to a certified CD expert.
4. Why use planes? Why not reattmept the 93 bombings, and this time take them both down with 10,000 people??? Wouldn't that have been easier than trying to hide all the passengers, use remote controlled planes and top secret thermite compounds?
5. Ground zero was a toxic site that needed to be cleaned up immediately, there was no conspriacy to clean it up.
6. How could the government have kept this secret for 5 years??? If the NYT knows what is on Cheneys Ipod, I am sure they could uncover this, but there is nothing to uncover, except for specific Political agendas to make sure specific people are removed from office and others are entered.


1. No. Most of the evidence that could prove it has been destroyed by our government. There is however some left. It is being gathered and tested. There are many anomalies that suggest thermite/thermate/nano-thermite or superthermite was used.

2. The vidoe of the collapse of WTC2 shows tiliting and that tilting goes DIRECTLY AGAINST the progressive collapse and pancake theories as the mass required for the crushing had rotational momentum moving the kenetic energy from the core to the edge if over the building at all. I would stay away from the "tilting block" of WTC2 if you support the "Official Conspiracy Theory".

3. I do not like eywitness accounts as ALL human minds are fallible and malleable, HOWEVER, firemen are exposed to the sounds of all sorts of things blowing up in fires. I think that their statements regarding explosions should carry some amount of water as they are involved in fires with 'popping', 'snapping' and exploding items constantly.

4. The planes served multiple roles in 'my' theory.
a. They drew attention to the buildings. Got EVERYONE watching, got the cameras there. The "shock" in the "shock and Awe". The "awe" came when the buildings collapsed. Instilling FEAR and RAGE in the American public was a large part of this operation, or, "New Pearl Harbor". Without the planes and the delay prior to collapse, the world would not have had time to get to a tv and be watching.
b. If they just demolished the buildings it would be a lot harder to explain how 'terrorists' breched building security to plant explosives. Instead just blame it on the planes.
c. Shoot, I have another one...


EDIT 4: Why not kill 10,000? Good question... seems a terrorist would MAXIMIZE death... not MINIMIZE it (hit high as possible, hit the 'vacant' reinforced side of the Pentagon). Again, if you "tow the line" I would avoid this argument.

5. The EPA said it was safe... at least the air. The toxcicity does NOT override the investigation of 2,000+ murders and justify SHIPPING the STEEL off. I am sure that, much like the NTSB would have done, if could have been moved to a large storage area, cataloged and thoroughly investigated. It also could have been inspected by someone other than FEMA. Check the timeline on who controlled the scene, when agencies got to look at samples, how many and thier COMPLAINTS regarding lack iof access. Even the NIST complained about lack of access to the steel.

6. Conspiracies happen all of the time and are kept secret. How does the military have MILLIONS of pages of "Top Secret" classified documents that have never been leaked or spoken about? (I am aware that a tiny fraction have been leaked) This argument is weak as "fear of death", payoffs, grants, threats and contracts tend to keep those involved quiet. Alos, coming foreward would probably implicate the whistleblower too so unless they are granted immunity, then it is dangerous to speak out.

People DO come foreward, just CAREFULLY. When the heads of the 9/11 Comission came out last week and announced they were LIED to by the DoD, NORAD and the FAA all of the Official Line Towers just brushed it off as if it was perfectly acceptable and made excuses. I think they are trying to say a LOT more but must be careful as those in power have the power to silence and hurt in many ways. they are BI-PARTISAN... BI-PARTISAN as in they shouldn't be sharing a political "agenda" as you put it.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Personally if t' towers were taken down by explosives and the feds want the world to think it was the terrorists, then why use the planes?

The towers devastation and cleanup would have removed most evidence, as some 911 conspiracy types keep saying.

What would have been wrong in the feds etc blowing one tower internally (two would be a bit optimistic IMHO, the way the yanks organise themselves:lol
and saying publicly it was done by muslim misogynists who had a beef against unkie sam, lets invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Fact is, with a rotational administration if anything dodgy were to occur at any stage the relevant administration would be out of office and doing fine elsewhere before they were found out, making name calling and pointing pointless. It could be by wasting resources seeking the "truth" from then, that we may be prevented from seeing the truth happening now.

Personally I think there is some scope for disinformation here anyway. The administration was caught with its trousers down. Perhaps they knew more, perhaps they could have done more to prevent it from happening. Disinformation would take the heat away from that the truth.

Just 2 cents...

Edit: Removed blanket insult.


[edit on 18-8-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
Personally if t' towers were taken down by explosives and the feds want the world to think it was the terrorists, then why use the planes?


As stated above:

4. The planes served multiple roles in 'alternative' theory.

a. They drew attention to the buildings. Got EVERYONE watching, got the cameras there. The "shock" in the "shock and Awe". The "awe" came when the buildings collapsed. Instilling FEAR and RAGE in the American public was a large part of this operation, or, "New Pearl Harbor". Without the planes and the delay prior to collapse, the world would not have had time to get to a tv and be watching.

b. If they just demolished the buildings it would be a lot harder to explain how 'terrorists' breched building security to plant explosives. Instead just blame it on the planes.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Has anyone tried an experiment to simulate the 9/11 WTC destruction using scaled down versions of the towers and airplanes? I think it is the only way to estimate if the free fall of the towers was natural or not.


That wouldn't work. Mass is the key and a scaled down version wouldn't have the same mass. What I mean is force equals mass times acceleration. Without the same mass, the forces would be totally different. Unless you could use a scaled down version of steel (that would have it's strength scaled down) but even then you'd get into trouble with bolts, welds (the welds would have the same strength as the towers...not scaled down) and other connections. Not to mention the concrete, gypsum, elevators, etc. It would be extremely hard to do. Plus, you'd need to have the construction documents which no one has been able to obtain....not even NIST or FEMA.

Edit: I forgot to mention the potential energy of the scaled down building would be totally different. There's too many variables for this to work.

[edit on 8/18/2006 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
4. Why use planes? Why not reattmept the 93 bombings, and this time take them both down with 10,000 people??? Wouldn't that have been easier than trying to hide all the passengers, use remote controlled planes and top secret thermite compounds?


I always find it funny when people try and debunk something with something else. "Look everyone, the pod is false, so everything else the CTers say is false". Failed logic IMO.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I am not debunking, I am asking simple questions.

I have a Belief, and I believe from failed intel due to non cooperation interdeapartmentally we we able to be attacked on 9/11.

My opinion is that the WTC 1, 2, and 7 theories are disinfo to keep people occupied and not question the downing of flight 93. They have now made a few movies, people have that image in their heads and will gradually accept it and it will go away. That is called disinfo.

If you were the government and wanted maximum carnage and martial law, Why not just recreate the 93 bombing? How much more Shock and Awe can you get from those towers collapsing? Use thermite and then in one swoop, bring them down and you have a terror attack that could lead to the Pat Act. There would be no need for the other 2 planes where they attacked, except that they were after targets in Washington. The Pentagon plane choose the Pentagon as a secondary since it was lost (this may explain the circling), and it was such a large landmark.

The towers were struck in opposite directions, hoping that the impacts of the planes would cause them to fall into one another, and with 2 planes, they had 2 chances. In 93 they planted the bomb in the garage to make sure if it did aid in the collaspe, it would take out the other towers. This was not a plan to light them on fire, but to topple then into one another, jsut as planned in 93.

Our government has not gained anything from 9/11. THere is no martial law, and we do not have barcodes on our necks. Our foriegn policy is more to blame than anything for creating situations that are bringing terror to the US homefront. If we are not careful, something will happen to make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. Sadly there is no going back, and I hope that we have a very,very strong president elected in 2008, or we are SOL.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Our government has not gained anything from 9/11.


Advancement of the neo-cons (PNAC)'s PUBLICLY AVAILABLE agenda
A New Pearl Harbor environment of FEAR.
Forward operating bases established in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Patritot Act II
Freedom to strike anywhere anytime (War on Terror)
Massive Domestic Populace Data Gathering and Warehousing
Contracts, contracts, contracts...

Corporate Friends that benifitted:

Insurance Companies
Defense Contractors
Security Contractors
Oil Companies
Technology Firms

Shall I continue?

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join