Controlled Demolitions in Action

I was posting my page to show that I am in the industry....

I never said any laughed at the theory.........I just said that I have poked around...
and asked some SE about it.

And no it's not a fake web site.......it's mine .......and it's geocity so it's
aint' the best ...but it's free for me with my internet connection.
I have done CAD drawings my hole life...the youngest trained autocad guy in the
world.

I'm not saying anyone is wronge or right....I'm just saying what i feel from
what i have seen and what i have read and people talked to (including you guys).

And the WTC 7 (not sure about that building) but I have assumed the effects of
1&2 would have a huge effect on that building...esp. from below.

Y'r Candian friend,
Sven

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Anyway... more about WTC 7, I finally took the time to read the NIST report about WTC 7 and I came to the conclusion that they don't even know what happen. They use words like "possible structure damage", and "probable", and its all theoretical.

They also:

Edit Pictures without annotation.
Claim Damage to the central South Face with no Photos
Assume the cantaleiver Truss system is "tooth picks" and the whole thing was essentially a time bomb wating to fall.
Cannot backup their claims on the amount of recovered diesel.
Ignore the squibs.
They state:

South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more
damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby

THERE IS NOT PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENE OF ANY OF THIS ANYWHERE. THEY SAY IT WAS "WITNEES REPORTED" LAUGHABLE As a matter of fact the photos that do exist show none of this damage. See: www.abovetopsecret.com...
MAny of thier "Observed Fire Locations" are unverifiable via photo or video evidence just like the MASSIVE CRATER in the south face.

Originally posted by svenglezz
I never said any laughed at the theory........

Oh yeah? Liar.

Originally posted by svenglezz
I am very interested in this topic and have personally asked (on the side) structural
engineers in the industry......there opinion ... and NOT one thinks TNT or other means then the planes taking them down.

Originally posted by svenglezz
and as noted by another post above that many have LAUGHED at the idea.

Now you say this....

Originally posted by svenglezz
And the WTC 7 (not sure about that building) but I have assumed the effects of
1&2 would have a huge effect on that building...esp. from below.

This topics subject was changed to WTC 7, because if WTC 7 was a controlled demo, there is no reason to believe WTC 1 and 2 weren't.



[edit on 23-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

They also:

Edit Pictures without annotation.
Claim Damage to the central South Face with no Photos
Assume the cantaleiver Truss system is "tooth picks" and the whole thing was essentially a time bomb wating to fall.
Cannot backup their claims on the amount of recovered diesel.
Ignore the squibs.
They state:

South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more
damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby

THERE IS NOT PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENE OF ANY OF THIS ANYWHERE. THEY SAY IT WAS "WITNEES REPORTED" LAUGHABLE As a matter of fact the photos that do exist show none of this damage. See: www.abovetopsecret.com...
MAny of thier "Observed Fire Locations" are unverifiable via photo or video evidence just like the MASSIVE CRATER in the south face.

You might have missed my edit on another post, but this is what made me laugh about the NIST report...

The NIST report is using external pictures to GUESS what caused the collapse internaly. All they can say is:

Global Collapse
- The global collapse occurred with few external signs and is postulated
to have occurred with the failure of core columns

pos·tu·late
tr.v. pos·tu·lat·ed, pos·tu·lat·ing, pos·tu·lates

1. To make claim for; demand.
2. To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.
3. To assume as a premise or axiom; take for granted. See Synonyms at presume.

assume
v 1: take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof;

So, how did all the core columns fail at the same time?

THERMITE EVIDENCE Video

www.checktheevidence.com...


REAL THERMITE IN ACTION Video

www.checktheevidence.com...














[edit on 23-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]

I posted that anoteher person on here said that SE and Demo experts laughed at the idea the WT1&2 was brought down by TNT.
And that the ones i talked to don't think so either.....that's all....so please no need for the "liar" CLAIM.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Have you guys seen this collection of photos?
www.prisonplanet.com...
Building 5 was a raging inferno for hours, and yet it remained standing, while comparitively, building 7 collapsed symmetrically with no where near the fire damage of building 5 or building 6.

The buildings are completely different in construction. It is like comparing a volvo to a Chevy. They are both cars, but worlds apart.

Comparing that thermite picture to the WTC is a joke. You need to put it with Slaps squibs.

Why do you insist on stating that the NIST report is not accurate? What authority do you use to attempt to prove a point? Study the construction of the WTC 7 building, and you may begin to understand why it failed.

So sad.

Originally posted by twitchy
while comparitively, building 7 collapsed symmetrically with no where near the fire damage of building 5 or building 6.

Do you have proof of this statement?

Originally posted by esdad71
The buildings are completely different in construction. It is like comparing a volvo to a Chevy. They are both cars, but worlds apart.

When you crash them both into a tree, does one crush itself into a neatly compacted box, as good as any modern machinery could, ready to haul away?

Originally posted by esdad71
Do you have proof of this statement?

No, at least nothing you would consider credible anyway, I just posted the link to the pictures to amuse and befuddle myself.

Originally posted by esdad71
Comparing that thermite picture to the WTC is a joke.

How is it a joke? I have been trained by the United States Navy with many different types of incendiaries. I know first hand what they look like, smell like, and how hot they get, and the many different ways to use them to my advantage. From the video's I have seen, it is obvious that thermite was used.

Also a Brigham Young University Physics Professor Steven Jones, who conducted his PhD research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, has analyzed materials from WTC and has detected the existence of thermate, used for "cutting" the steel support columns.

portland.indymedia.org...

So who are you going to trust? A demolitions expert from the US Navy, and a Physics Professor, and many other of his 60+ colleagues?

www.rense.com...

Or a half assed report from the National Institute of Standards funded by the US Government, that has unfinished GUESSES like this one from the WTC 7 collapse?

Global Collapse
- The global collapse occurred with few external signs and is postulated
to have occurred with the failure of core columns

Postulated is another word for GUESSED. Also, nowhere in the NIST report does it say why and how they failed.

Originally posted by esdad71
Why do you insist on stating that the NIST report is not accurate? What authority do you use to attempt to prove a point? Study the construction of the WTC 7 building, and you may begin to understand why it failed.
So sad.

NIST is controlled by the government. www.nist.gov...

Thats like asking the coach of a football team to referee for the game his team is playing.

I did study the design of WTC 7, just as much and probably more than you did. I still don't know why it failed, but the clues point more towards an inside job of controlled demo. What could have possibly damaged all the steel I beams that held it up? FIRE? Debris from WTC 1 and 2? Since when does cement and fire break 6 inch thick steel beams? A 6 inch thick steel beam crashing into another 6 inch thick beam wont even damage it. It will dent it a little, but thats it.

Look at this video.
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
Thats what happens to steel beams, they dont snap, they bend and only under enormous amounts of heat, or weights.

Now look at this picture below:


Wow.. proof... that center steel beam almost appears to have a perfect 45 degree angle cut on it.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...



[edit on 24-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]

[edit on 24-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]

did study the design of WTC 7, just as much and probably more than you did. I still don't know why it failed, but the clues point more towards an inside job of controlled demo. What could have possibly damaged all the steel I beams that held it up? FIRE? Debris from WTC 1 and 2? Since when does cement and fire break 6 inch thick steel beams? A 6 inch thick steel beam crashing into another 6 inch thick beam wont even damage it. It will dent it a little, but thats it.

What clues point to an inside job. Look, this is the first time I have said this in as many time as I have posted, but I have been involved in the engineering and architecture industry since I was in high school. I was using CAD in 86 at age 13, and designed my first home at 19. I then moved onto commercial structure and development, so I am well aware of how things are designed(blueprints), created (modeling)and what it takes for a project(building). I just never wanted to openly say it here because I did not want to be marked as a 'wanna be expert' like they try to tear apart Howard. I am familiar with alot of the things we talk about with this case.

Trust me, I find it odd that these were the first steel framed buildings ever in the US to be destroyed by fire. However, what it has done is make aware those who will design and need to retrofit existing structures going forward. These were recommedations by NIST so that this never happens again.


Bottom line is I believe the NIST report, along with the others, more than I do media whores. That is what I think of the 9/11 truth movement, and Mr Jones. I think it is all mainly disinfo to make sure you vote Democrat in the next election, and you are swallowing it hook, line and sinker.

WTC 7 burned from the inside out, and based on the design it collapsed. It was not a strong, solid building such as the Empire state building that was mentioned earlier. Look at the design of the building. Lower 6-7 floors were a solid structure and the rest was like a large 'frame' without the core of the WTC even. They burned for 7 hours. They were not designed to withstand that.

Originally posted by esdad71

I was using CAD in 86 at age 13, and designed my first home at 19. I then moved onto commercial structure and development, so I am well aware of how things are designed(blueprints), created (modeling)and what it takes for a project(building). I just never wanted to openly say it here because I did not want to be marked as a 'wanna be expert' like they try to tear apart Howard.

I do not think anyone is questioning what you know. We are questioning the sources of your definitive statements. If the source for all of your definitive statements is simply the pile of NIST reports, there aer individual threads for those topics, HOWEVER, claiming things like jet fuel poured down to the basements and providing no source makes whatever experience or training you have MOOT. You could at leats preceed such statemntes with "I believe" or "I think it is possible that jet fuel poured down the elevator shafts" as you provide ZERO evidence to backup your claims.

Originally posted by esdad71
What clues point to an inside job.

I beleve there are a couple of HUNDRED threads here ALL about clues pointing to an inside job. Are you asking to have these hundrededs of pieces of evidence and coincidences outlined for you here?

Actually that picture with the 45 degree angle cut proves that workers were on the scene cutting beams. Why don't you look into the background of the picture before jumping to conclusions about thermite.

www.debunking911.com...



And slapnuts, why don't you post those pictures you think NIST altered again. Those are not the same pictures.

It's not like more brightness made a difference to the NIST argument in the context they used that photo. They could have used any photo of 7 intact and it would have made no difference. It is ludicrous to say that the photo has to be fake, as if no pictures were taken from that angle before the building collapsed.

Wheres your proof that they altered the photo to hide broken windows?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Actually that picture with the 45 degree angle cut proves that workers were on the scene cutting beams. Why don't you look into the background of the picture before jumping to conclusions about thermite.

You have no source for the timiing of your photo AND notice how their cuts are not leaving DRIPPING MASSES OF MOLTEN STEEL? Sure you didn't.

What building and when are they doing that cutting?

I do not see firemen standing around like in the photo presented to you.

Is that even WTC?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
And slapnuts, why don't you post those pictures you think NIST altered again. Those are not the same pictures.

Why re-post? They are from the same exact position, within SECONDS od eachothetr and 99.9% taken by the same camera... unless someone pushed one photog out of the way to get a second shot???

Originally posted by LeftBehind
It's not like more brightness made a difference to the NIST argument in the context they used that photo. They could have used any photo of 7 intact and it would have made no difference. It is ludicrous to say that the photo has to be fake, as if no pictures were taken from that angle before the building collapsed.

I did not say it was FAKE. GROW UP. I said the brightness and contrast were adjusted on a VERY LARGE scale to obscure what Stephen Jones pointed out MONTHS ago coming out of the right side of the building... Very likely demolition sqibs. Look like squibs, are timed and coordinated like squibs and they would appear in the nIST photos if not for the brightness adjustments. ALll I said is that THEY SHOULD HAVWE NOTED that they altered the picture for "clarity" and also presented the original like ANY OTHER SCIENTISTS would be expected to do.

Why do they get a free pass to alter things and not let the reader know?

Originally posted by LeftBehindWheres your proof that they altered the photo to hide broken windows?

I do not think they were hiding broken windows. But, since we have photos taken from the same spot, in the same minute, probably from the same camera...

How do you account for the super bright light that appears in the NIST version?

SUPERNOVA on Vessey St.?
Giant "Flash bulb"?
Solar flare?
Burning magnesium from the wheels of one of the planes?

[edit on 24-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

There is no altering of the pictures to change the information, but to allow the overlay of the explanation of the collapse. I did not respond to the steel at a 45 angle because it is a clean up picture. Remember, they were at ground zero for months clearing it out. I would believe what you are seeing is slag, something you will see with torches, and I do not think they had portable plasma cutters that I am aware of.

This is the same as our justice system. Innocent until proven guilty, and if I was on a jury, with the evidence I have been presented from every site from 9/11truth to prisonplanet to, well, you know them all. I took the time to read them, and where some of them do over a convincing arguement, it is not enough to sway me.

They hit the towers in opposite directions hoping to tumble them into one another. This was the plan in 93. They had 2 shots, and the towers withstood the impact. However, the thousands of punds of jet fuel ignited the buildings contents and a fire that covered multiple floors ensued. People reported the floors sagging and giving way prior to the collapse (this is in 102 minutes, a book). Here is a report from independent researchers from MIT.

www.cbsnews.com...


and here is another industry standard publication

www.architectureweek.com...

Why would so many people come to the same conclusion? I am sure that they are not all 'stupid' or in the CIA payroll.


Also, it is documented that over 600 died below the impact points, and there are attributed to those who died in the elevator corridors, staging areas and I remember also workers on the sub floors. This is where one of hte original "a bomb exploded' reports came from when the doors blew of the elevator shaft.

[edit on 24-8-2006 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
... I have been presented from every site from 9/11truth to prisonplanet to, well, you know them all. I took the time to read them, and where some of them do over a convincing arguement, it is not enough to sway me.

See, I avoid most of those sites and look for errors, clues, omissions, distortions, lies and missing information in the OFFICIAL sources. You are trying to "debunk" THEORIES, I try to point out the many, many problems with what we are being forcefed as FACT.

There is a lot of bull puckey on the sites you point out, but also some real info. If you have noticed, on this sitem, you will rarely see people citing these sorts of sites. Instead, most of the serious and educated posters cite Offical reports (9/11 Comission, NIST, FEMA), "Respectable News Outlets" (CNN, CBS, Etc.) and statements made by Public Officials. I also occasionaly cite Professors, Doctors, Engineers, Philosophers and Politicians.

Anyway, if you do not "believe in this stuff" and it does not "sway you" why bother being here?

You did notice this is a forum for discussing clues, coincidences, omissions, etc. regarding alternative theories for 9/11 didn't you?

So I ask you, if you just want to keep reposting the official line, which we all kinow as well or better than you.... WHy do you post here?

I am not debunking, I am defending. You however are attemepting to debunk and discredit the official stories. I used those sites as examples as the places to where you will get the ideas as to what could have actually happened instead of the official story.

Where is your proof that the official stories are not true? That is what I am looking for, not pictures, text or the same rehashed BS we have all seen, and it has still not been presented 5 years later.

What is your basis for believing the official story is not true? Personal belief or gut feeling would be my guesses to that answer. I guess you got nothing out of the articles I posted, right?