It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Controlled Demolition, Inc. Hired by NIST to Investigate WTC7?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spawwwn
so what your saying is that TRAINED PROFESSIONALS will tell you EXACTLY what many other people have been saying for years...and you will STILL not believe them???

wow man and they call the people who don't think 9-11 was a conspirocy dillusional...

I'm very curious about your belief in the official story. Do you hold this belief because "they" say so? Or, option B, do you hold this belief because you yourself have reviewed both sides of the story and feel that the official story is bulletproof.
Let's just call this a sociological experiement, and you can view these links to see what I believe to be the biggest holes in the official armor.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Now, do you have any answer to these questions. And please don't resort to "they say so."


[edit on 2/14/2007 by Sunsetspawn]




posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Actually, CDI, as the subcontractor who cleared out the debris, might actually have a legal conflict of interest.


How is it a conflict of interest?

There is no evidence that any crime was committed. They did not hide any evidence. ASCE, NIST and others had access to the steel, as well as other evidence.

Why do you even discuss this if your mind is already so made up that you have tried and convicted CDI based on zero evidence?

No one removed the dust too quickly and that was available for analysis to everyone. It did not contain high levels of nitrates, which is what you would expect when a bunch of bombs go off.

That evidence alone should cast doubt on your theories.

Why you people think that entire companies and agencies are complicit in mass murder for money based entirely on speculation?

There is as much evidence that I planted bombs in the WTC as there is that CDI did.

And there is no evidence that I did it.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by LeftBehind]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   


But wasn't it Controlled Demolition Inc. also an eyewitness to the molten steel in the basements of all the buildings that we have no explanation or evidence of how it happened.


Actually, no they werent. Mark Loizeaux, the president of CDI, is often quoted as having said he had witnessed molten steel at the WTC. However, the truth is much different. This is what he had to say about the subject when asked:



I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with.


www.911myths.com...

So far, each individual that I have seen listed as mentioning 'molten steel' on conspiracy sites, when asked, have said either they were not the ones who actually saw it OR that it was a 'molten metal' which could very well be aluminum (much lower melting point).

But since we are on the subject of Mr. Loizeaux, lets look at some other statements he has made.....

About Stephen Jones...



Jones misunderstands the properties of explosive charges. Although these charges provide intense heat, the velocity of detonation is too fast --28,000 feet per second-- to melt steel. When an explosive is detonated, it cuts through steel with force; it does not burn through it with heat.




"The difference is the duration of exposure," he says. "I can put a shaped charge on a steel column for a test shot and then walk right up and put my hand on the column. There's no heat (because it burns too fast)


On Jones' writings suggesting that 2,000 pounds of RDX linear shaped charges (easily placed by only a couple men) could bring down each building Mr. Loizeaux says.....



"The explosives configuration manufacturing technology does not exist. If someone were to attempt to make such charges, they would weigh thousands of pounds apiece . You would need a forklift to bring them into the building"




In addtion, the biggest commercial charges on the market are designed to cut through three inches of steel.....the box columns on the towers were 14 inches on a side.


Source : " Debunking 9/11 Myths", David Dunbar, Brad Reagan, 2006.


Mr. Lozieaux, is not alone in his position. I find it interesting that people are so willing to place their beliefs in papers written by cold fusion researchers that dont have the first clue about demolitions or construction instead of listening to the professionals.

One other question I have about the "CD" theory. Since we all know the Towers collapsed from the impact points down, if you TRULY think there were demolition charges in the towers, HOW did the charge NOT go off when they were subjected to the explosions of the airliners hitting them? I cannot think of any explosive that wouldnt blow in those circumstances.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

How is it a conflict of interest?


I just explained how it might be a conflict of interest. Here's a review:

1) CDI was hired to clean up the debris at the WTC.

2) CDI *may* have removed evidence that would have shed light on the CD theory.

3) Because #2 is even a *possibility* asking CDI to comment on the theory of a controlled demo is a possible conflict of interest. I.e., CDI's conclusions cannot be separated from their *possible* complicity in removing evidence.


Or how about this explanation of why hiring CDI to comment on the WTC7 collapse is a conflict of interest...

1) CDI gets millions of dollars in government contracts

2) The government comes up with a cockamamie theory of how WTC7 collapsed, and can't get any engineering firms to back the theory,

3) The government asks CDI to back their theory. CDI understands not to bite the hand that feeds them millions of dollars, so they back the cockamamie NIST theory.

Of course if CDI would renounce taking another dollar of government money they *might* have some credibility in this matter.

Take you pick on which scenario explains the conflict of interest better.




There is no evidence that any crime was committed. They did not hide any evidence. ASCE, NIST and others had access to the steel, as well as other evidence.


You continue to repeat the same, "there was no evidence..." mantra. Of course you don't know what evidence *might* have been removed because the steel beams were shipped out of the country. You have no idea if CDI or anybody else hid any evidence.




Why do you even discuss this if your mind is already so made up that you have tried and convicted CDI based on zero evidence?


What you try to pass off as clever manipulations of somebody else's words isn't going to work. I haven't tried and convicted anybody. If you want to debate the facts, great. If you want to misrepresent what somebody says, just to make it appear like you're making sense, go to another thread.




No one removed the dust too quickly and that was available for analysis to everyone. It did not contain high levels of nitrates, which is what you would expect when a bunch of bombs go off.


Do you have a source for this info?



That evidence alone should cast doubt on your theories.


What theories? My interest is in the data and in the facts. The fact is that after 5 years the NIST still hasn't concluded how WTC7 collapsed, and now they've hired CDI to tell us their opinion of a CD. I would find an impartial 3rd party's opinion more credible.




Why you people think that entire companies and agencies are complicit in mass murder for money based entirely on speculation?


Again, I am going to stop you from making false statements about what I think. Try to stay focused on what you think. It is dishonest to misrepresent what another person thinks. What else are you being dishonest about?


All I'm looking for are the facts. I never made any pre-determined conclusions. However, when I see that the U.S. government can't explain things like why WTC7 collapsed after 5 years, and they're the ones with access to all the physical evidence, it makes me wonder what's really going on.

The NIST WTC7 working theory of a vertical failure leading to a massive, symmetrical, simultaneous, and complete horizontal failure is total b.s., imo. The reason the report has taken so long is because there is no way to even model such an absurd theory. Asking CDI to help explain that theory isn't going to make it any more believable considering CDI makes their living from government contracts.

I'm sure you paid attention to what happened to their original "pancake" theory, didn't you? That was laughable too, but it didn't stop "organizations" from parroting that theory as if it were self-evident that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed from "pancaking."



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

I just explained how it might be a conflict of interest. Here's a review:

1) CDI was hired to clean up the debris at the WTC.


What relevance does that have on whether or not CDI could objectively research what they are experts at, the collapse of buildings.

Do you have any evidence that CDI covered up or hid evidence?

Do you have any evidence that anything was covered up or hidden during the cleanup. CDI was not in control of the entire clean up, are you insinuating that every person who helped is complicit in covering up mass murder?



2) CDI *may* have removed evidence that would have shed light on the CD theory.


Based on what? Your speculations/fantasies? Please provide a link at least to back this up. Preferably one with evidence.



3) Because #2 is even a *possibility* asking CDI to comment on the theory of a controlled demo is a possible conflict of interest. I.e., CDI's conclusions cannot be separated from their *possible* complicity in removing evidence.


So we should assume that CDI is complicit in covering up mass murder, because of the possibility of someone's hunch based entirely on speculation?

That is absurd on the face of it. When accusing someone of serious crimes it is the norm to present evidence. If our legal system used speculation to damn someone we would still be in the dark ages.



Or how about this explanation of why hiring CDI to comment on the WTC7 collapse is a conflict of interest...

1) CDI gets millions of dollars in government contracts


Many companies get government contracts, if it's the best company to use why shouldn't they get government contracts. You don't see them hiring ametuers to build weapons or airplanes do you?



2) The government comes up with a cockamamie theory of how WTC7 collapsed, and can't get any engineering firms to back the theory,


Loaded language and broad accusations do not equal evidence.



3) The government asks CDI to back their theory. CDI understands not to bite the hand that feeds them millions of dollars, so they back the cockamamie NIST theory.


Why do you assume that an entire corporation would be complicit in covering up mass murder for money. Just one member coming out with proof would make far more money and gain far more fame.



Of course if CDI would renounce taking another dollar of government money they *might* have some credibility in this matter.


So who exactly do you have in mind that would willingly undertake this project for free?



"there was no evidence..." mantra. Of course you don't know what evidence *might* have been removed because the steel beams were shipped out of the country. You have no idea if CDI or anybody else hid any evidence.


Evidence that "might" have once existed, or "might" have existed is just that.

Fantasy and speculation.

Not evidence or proof. If you want to take it on faith, go a., but don't present it as anything but.



Do you have a source for this info?


pubs.usgs.gov...



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
What relevance does that have on whether or not CDI could objectively research what they are experts at, the collapse of buildings.


Let's put this another way... it might make it easier for you to understand.

I'm certain there are other organizations that are qualified to theorize about whether or not a controlled demolition helped bring down WTC7. Why hire the same company that was involved in physically removing the very steel beams that could have proven, or disproved, whether a CD took place?

Why NOT hire an independent 3rd party instead of CDI?


Do you have any evidence that CDI covered up or hid evidence?


Do you have any idea how ridiculous (and old) this same argument has become? There IS no evidence left to examine, is there? Why? Because it was taken out of lower Manhattan by CDI and shipped to China and India.

I bet even the NIST would agree that having the actual steel beams from WTC7 to examine might be useful right about now.


So we should assume that CDI is complicit in covering up mass murder, because of the possibility of someone's hunch based entirely on speculation?


Um... here's a news flash. There was no "mass murder" when WTC7 collapsed. In fact, not a single person died in WTC7.

How about this...

What if CDI helped implode WTC7 to destroy compromised high-security documents in the building that were stored by the CIA, FBI, or Secret Service? CDI was entrusted with securing classified documents from Oklahoma City, right?

Then CDI would only be complicit in helping to cover-up the implosion of WTC7, not mass murder.

And please don't argue that it would have taken too much time to set the explosive, and therefore no explosives were used. Obviously that argument is nonsense.



That is absurd on the face of it. When accusing someone of serious crimes it is the norm to present evidence. If our legal system used speculation to damn someone we would still be in the dark ages.


You mean like how the Bush administration accused bin Laden of committing "mass murder" on 9/11 without presenting any evidence? Or how the Bush adminsistration accused Saddam Hussein of stockpiling WMD's?

The U.S. invaded two countries based on accusations an no evidence.



Many companies get government contracts, if it's the best company to use why shouldn't they get government contracts.


Obviously CDI is not the best company to use to assist the NIST with their report. The best company would be a company that a) was not involved at all in the removal of evidence from WTC7, and b) was not at risk of losing millions of dollars in contracts from the Federal government if their conclusions didn't agree with the NIST theories. I.e., the best company would be a company that can make a report that is independent from the Federal government.



Why do you assume that an entire corporation would be complicit in covering up mass murder for money. Just one member coming out with proof would make far more money and gain far more fame.


Again, the implosion of WTC7 wasn't mass murder. If CDI was working under contract with the CIA then coming out with "proof" would probably result in a serious criminal charge, don't you think?



So who exactly do you have in mind that would willingly undertake this project for free?


You raise a good question. Anybody on the NIST payroll would have less credibility. This is why expert witnesses in court cases often are not given a lot of weight by the judges. They're referred to as "hired guns" because they'll say anything for a buck.

Which brings us back to CDI. Not only is CDI getting money from the NIST for the WTC7 report, but they get millions from the Federal government for a variety of jobs.

I would suggest that the Federal goverment just stop wasting money on the NIST producing a report, and outsource the entire project to a United Nations engineering committee, led by structural engineers from Iran, N. Korea, and China.

Of course I'm sure you'd agree that these engineers from Iran, N. Korea, and China would never compromise their integrity for any self-serving purpose, especially when mass murder is involved, right?



Evidence that "might" have once existed, or "might" have existed is just that.

Fantasy and speculation.

Not evidence or proof. If you want to take it on faith, go a., but don't present it as anything but.


You are misrepresenting what I said again.

Follow this scenario:

1) Steel beams collapsed at WTC7

2) The beams were removed by CDI

3) Examination of the beams would show evidence, or lack thereof, of a controlled demolition

The evidence did exist. There's no doubt about it. What is in doubt is what the evidence would have shown.



pubs.usgs.gov...


Thanks for the link!

Maybe you can help me with this.

On fig. 4, the bar that's the 4th from the right labeled WTC0-16 shows a disproportionate amount of Barium compared to any other bar. Any idea what would cause this?

Also, this report has nothing to do with determining whether or not a CD took place. Do you have a benchmark chemical analyis of dust from CD's to compare with this report?



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 03:02 AM
link   
swamp, i just want to comment on a few of the points in your post. but before i do, remember...i more than almost anyone dont believe there were any explosives in the WTC, i simply want to clear up what may be misquotes or misinterpretations in your source material, and try to answer the question in your last paragraph. if people do or do not want to believe that there were explosives in the building its useful for the data they base their opinions on to be accurate. so in the spirit of openmindedness ill again post things that i encourage all of you to verify on your own and ive tried to clarify when i am posting my own unverifiable opinion (well, you can verify its my opinion, just ask, ill tell you)

hope this helps.

first of all, the quotes you have attributed to mr loizeaux in regards to how explosives cut through steel with force vs jones' ideas how they work are correct.

using linear shape charges, 2000lbs 'could' bring down one of those towers depending on how many floors you want rigged to blow to make it 'look natural' however, if loizeaux said:


The explosives configuration manufacturing technology does not exist. If someone were to attempt to make such charges, they would weigh thousands of pounds apiece . You would need a forklift to bring them into the building


then, i would simply direct him to: www.dynawell.de...

that companies LC425 has 425 grams of rdx based explosive per meter of length and will cut through a 40mm steel sheet.

and if he really did say:

In addtion, the biggest commercial charges on the market are designed to cut through three inches of steel.....the box columns on the towers were 14 inches on a side.


then..i really gotta wonder what kind of 'professional' this guy is.
yes, the box columns were 14" on a side...thats perimeter length/width measurements. its the thickness of the walls of the column that matters. if its 40mm thick it can be a mile long and you can cut it with that lc425. what kind of pro is going to say anything that uninformed and basic? is it possible he was misquoted? i mean, personally (MY opinion) i think jones is a whackjob and that he's wrong about pretty much everything dealing with explosives at the wtc, but for loizeaux to be quoted saying things that are THAT far off in order to discredit him is suspect to me.

now as to your question:

One other question I have about the "CD" theory. Since we all know the Towers collapsed from the impact points down, if you TRULY think there were demolition charges in the towers, HOW did the charge NOT go off when they were subjected to the explosions of the airliners hitting them?


an explosive charge typically needs both fire/heat and concussion to detonate and it has to be a pretty good concussion-flame/heat ratio. thats why you cant just take and stick a fuse into the det well of a block of tnt. fire alone wont do it. now, i will agree that a very large amount of jetfuel exploding in an enclosed space will put out one hell of a concussion, its entirely POSSIBLE that it was either:

not hot enough fast enough to coinside with the consussion and cause detonation.

too asymetrical in respect to the explosive charge to efficiently detonate it

the placement of any theoretical charges sheilded them from the initial direct flame and by the time the flames impinged on their casings that the pressure wave had passed

or honestly a long list of other POSSIBLE reasons.

the most likely scenario, if there were any explosives present which i do not believe there were, would be that the fire simply melted/burned them. C4 does make a great little fuel block for a campfire. (though they do make your marshmallows taste funny) just so long as you dont step on it to put it out.


I cannot think of any explosive that wouldnt blow in those circumstances.

i can think of a few but honestly it again depends on things like where they were placed, if they were encased or not. (military tnt comes in a casing where c4 comes wrapped in plastic) whether they were sheilded from the initial flow of the fireball in regards to the concussion pressure wave (opposite side of a beam etc)

had one or two single charges gone off, a couple might have been audibly washed out due to the jetfuels explosion and unless they were primed with detcord wouldnt have set off the rest of the ring main, but even if they were, chances are the rest of the ring main got cut off when the plane cut through the side of the building.

not trying to pick on ya swamp, i just wanted to clear up what i thought were some inaccuracies and to try to answer your last question.


on another thought though, it was mentioned that there were no traces of any explosive residue in the dust, which no one better try to say jones never analyzed cuz ive heard this what, 30 micron thing dozens of dozens of times. did jones find nitrates?

as to cdi doing the cleanup at okc and wtc. has anyone considered that they may be either the low bidder or the one company that has most security clearances for most of their workers? getting a TS clearance isnt an overnight thing unless someone with lots of clout waves a wand and says "boom, yer TS" (my wife is MI in the military and after 7mos her TS isnt finished yet)



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Actually, no they werent. Mark Loizeaux, the president of CDI, is often quoted as having said he had witnessed molten steel at the WTC. However, the truth is much different. This is what he had to say about the subject when asked:


But wasn't thier a lot of other poeple that were also witness to the molten steel, like firefighters, rescue workers, and other demo and excavtions teams ? So even if Mark Loizeaux did not witness it himslef does not mean thier was no molten steel present.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
as to cdi doing the cleanup at okc and wtc. has anyone considered that they may be either the low bidder or the one company that has most security clearances for most of their workers? getting a TS clearance isnt an overnight thing unless someone with lots of clout waves a wand and says "boom, yer TS" (my wife is MI in the military and after 7mos her TS isnt finished yet)


Hi Damocles,

I appreciate the thought and expertise you put into your posts.

I have a couple of questions for you:

1) Re CDI and security clearances, from your experience, if a company does work for the military, what type of non-disclosure documents are usually required, and what type of penalty would there be if the non-disclosure was violated, especially on a high-security, classified project?

2) Let's start with the NIST theory that NO explosives were required to bring down WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7. Then it follows that only a very small amount of explosives may have been needed to initiate the collapses.

Do you know of any type of explosives, even if used in very small quantities at strategic locations, that could have been set after the planes hit the buildings?

I noticed that the NIST report specifically states that in their opinion no explosives were set BEFORE 9/11. Since WTC7 collapsed about 9 hours after the planes hit, and since there seems to be a lot of eye-witnesses that tell stories of being notified of it's impending collapse, how difficult would it have been to set up some explosives during the course of the day on 9/11 to bring down some key supports?

Since the NIST report claims that a strategic vertical collapse caused the entire horizontal failure, it seems feasible that explosives may have been used to initiate this strategic vertical failure, and that the explosives could have been set on 9/11 after the first planes hit.

(note: I use the term "explosives" loosely. I'm referring to anything that could have initiated the cutting of the steel beams, e.g., thermite, thermate, etc.)


9 hours seems like a lot of time to put charges on a few key columns, especially if there was a trained team already prepared to do this. The fact that WTC7 was the home of the CIA, etc., leads me to believe that they may have had a plan for destroying the entire building if its security was compromised.

I'm also curious if anybody knows how long the CIA, FBI, SEC, IRS, etc. was at WTC7. If the CIA was at WTC7 since the time the building was built, isn't it feasible that the entire structure was designed from the beginning with a "self-destruct" feature in the event security was breached?



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
They're going to tell you why WTC7 couldn't have been a conventional demolition by a commercial entity.

And that's going to be their report on WTC7.



"What-ifs" of military technology won't be considered, and neither will the actual physics of the building's collapse. I seriously doubt the engineering community will learn a damned thing from WTC7's collapse, which is certainly odd considering buildings have never, ever behaved that way before, outside of controlled demolitions.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


In addtion, the biggest commercial charges on the market are designed to cut through three inches of steel.....the box columns on the towers were 14 inches on a side.


Source : " Debunking 9/11 Myths", David Dunbar, Brad Reagan, 2006.


Mr. Lozieaux, is not alone in his position. I find it interesting that people are so willing to place their beliefs in papers written by cold fusion researchers that dont have the first clue about demolitions or construction instead of listening to the professionals.


So, if the biggest commercial charges can only go through 3 inches of steel and the towers had 14 inches per side, how in the hell did fire bring them down? 14 inches of steel is a lot of steel to heat to the required temperature. And that's just one side. How much heat would be needed to heat all sides evenly for a catastophic collapse into itself?

It's the same old story. Either the towers were house of cards and fire and plane damage did it. Or they were so strong that it would take tons of explosives. Which one is it again? I forget this time.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
It's the same old story. Either the towers were house of cards and fire and plane damage did it. Or they were so strong that it would take tons of explosives. Which one is it again? I forget this time.


You've summarized the problem with the official argument very well!

What is wrong with this logic?

a) It would have taken tons of explosives and weeks, if not months, to set the explosives to take down the WTC, and this couldn't have been accomplished without people observing the explosives being rigged..

Therefore,

b) It would have been impossible to set the explosives needed to bring down the towers,

Thus...

c) The only conclusion that can be reached is that because so many explosives would have been needed to bring down the towers, NO explosives were needed to bring down the towers!

Does that make sense to anybody?

(By "anybody", I mean "anybody" who doesn't work for the government.)



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
In addtion, the biggest commercial charges on the market are designed to cut through three inches of steel.....the box columns on the towers were 14 inches on a side.


I missed this before, and I know Damocles has already addressed it, but seriously. When do we stop taking this crap at face value and THINK ABOUT IT? That goes for both "sides".

This point in particular, really, should be common sense. 14 inches on a side? This guy is giving you a length and selling it like it's a thickness, and you bought it hook line and sinker just because of who is saying it, Swampfox. This is like the pinnacle of blindly following the herd, because that statement needed about all of 2 seconds to realize it's total BS. Damocles doesn't think the towers were rigged with charges, and he even felt obligated to correct that.


Originally posted by Damocles
is it possible he was misquoted?


Probably either that (didn't this come from the "Popular Mechanics" book?), or (more likely imo) this guy is just a total ass and is saying whatever he knows people will buy. CDI is contracted to do all of this sensitive work for the federal government, including illegally rounding up and shipping out physical evidence from Ground Zero, and then they get contracted into the investigation as to what happened.

Does anyone think CDI would actually be honest if WTC7 was pulled and they knew it? Does anyone think they would write that up in a formal report and just hand it over to the public?



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Does anyone think CDI would actually be honest if WTC7 was pulled and they knew it? Does anyone think they would write that up in a formal report and just hand it over to the public?


Does anyone know which organization contracted CDI to do the clean-up? Are these contracts public, or can they be accessed through FOIA requests?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
nick:
good questions. sorry it took so long to respond.

on point one. when you get a TS clearance for this kind of work you are automatically bound by secrecy. there are still things i cant talk of even though ive been out a few years and much of what i knew about is public domain. (nk's nukes for example)

so to answer, to violate that is a one way ticket to a, to quote office space, "federal pound me in the (you get the idea) prison".

that alone is usually enough to keep someone quiet. or, if you are the conspiracy minded type, they may feel taht to talk could lead to an 'accident' but in my own experience, that doesnt really happen. not saying it doesnt, jsut saying ive never seen it. nor has anyone ive eer worked with, my disclaimer on that is that my world wasnt totally black, just dark gray.

your second point is tough to answer as it calls for a LOT of speculation and working with incomplete data. and under one point you have an array of questions, so ill try to answer them individually and ill note where im speculating and where not. also, to be clear, ill avoid speculating on things like thermite/mate. while ive used thermite it was limited to incendiary grenades so i wont even try to claim to be an expert on the stuff. anytime i mention thermite/mate its totally my own opinion on the matter.


Do you know of any type of explosives, even if used in very small quantities at strategic locations, that could have been set after the planes hit the buildings?


yes, linear shape charges would be the best choice for this in my mind. the problem remains though that even a strategic location isnt going to be easy to blow covertly. [speculation] say for example i wanted to cut the core columns on just ONE floor. each of the 47 core columns is what...12"x14" and 2" thick? (someone PLEASE find me a dimension on these, ive seen several and id like to use one we all agree on) so each of these using those dimensions is 52" at the permimeter. that is 1.3 meters. now, the lsc's id use are 1kg/m in weight. so to cut all of them would be 62kg in weight. the explosive component is 425g/m so thats 26kg of explosive yeild. lsc's are comparatively quiet individually, but 60lbs of rdx is LOUD, no matter what you do, if thats the blast that initiated the collapse its the shot heard round the world so to speak. [/speculation]


I noticed that the NIST report specifically states that in their opinion no explosives were set BEFORE 9/11. Since WTC7 collapsed about 9 hours after the planes hit, and since there seems to be a lot of eye-witnesses that tell stories of being notified of it's impending collapse, how difficult would it have been to set up some explosives during the course of the day on 9/11 to bring down some key supports?


well, this one is more ambiguous as im totally not up to speed on the construction of the building.

[speculation] IF, and this if is pretty big...if the supporting columns in the basement or where ever were not encased in concrete, it wouldnt be that hard with the exception of getting the material into the building unnoticed, same should have been stated above RE the towers, but if you could do that, and the supports werent encased in concrete..shouldnt have been hard to be honest. now, if they were encased, you'd have two options. wrap a bunch of c4 to the outside or drill holes into it to place charges in. neither of these is guaranteed to also cut the girder inside the concrete unless you use a lot of demo. this is a brute force blast and is NOT covert by any definition of the term. [/speculation]

so to actually answer, IF the fires were in fact not very bad or widespread, getting a team in wouldnt be hard, but again, pulling the end job off covertly would be the trick.


I'm also curious if anybody knows how long the CIA, FBI, SEC, IRS, etc. was at WTC7. If the CIA was at WTC7 since the time the building was built, isn't it feasible that the entire structure was designed from the beginning with a "self-destruct" feature in the event security was breached?


ok, i can see where you would ask this, but whole building self destructs are a hollywood thing. blowing up a building to hide data isnt a very efficient or secure way to do it. look how many random papers survivied the wtc collapses. especially in light of the fact that there are much easier ways to do it, especially if you want it covert.

[speculation] ok, say there are 5 govt offices in the building and there are way to many papers and computers to get out in time. send in 10 guys with a few fugas bombs (thickened fuel, essentially homemade napalm or as we used to say "field expedient") a few empty buckets and a few gallons of sulpheric acid (available at home depot). one guy pulls hard drives out and dumps them in a bucket of acid while the toher guys empties out file cabinets and scatters the papers around (more surface area) the fugas bombs are put in place and 10 mins later the "fire has spread to other parts of the building" and no one is the wiser. fugas bombs have almost no explosive component and for the size of an office can be very effectivly set off by a single blasting cap each. now, thats still going to give off some noise, but a lot easier to explain than the sounds of 50lbs or more of c4 going off.[/speculation]

one thing that no one seems to realize is that i personally cant think of a single explosive out there that leaves NO traces. even blasting caps leave shrapnel and can sometimes be identified as what they are. imagine if a guy like me was a FDNY firefighter and was on scene and happened to find something that was still identifiable as part of an explosive device. think a 'gag order' is going to keep that quiet?

also, explosives by there very nature release a lot of energy. the most efficient explosives detonate at roughly 26000 fps (ok the range is 24k-32k so lets not get hooked on semantics here. 26ish is hte most common). that makes noise. very distinguishable noise. think of the loudest firework youve ever heard ever. thats usually just a pound or two of powder. gunfire is a few grams of cordite.

again, im not talking about thermite. its not my field and all i can do is speculate.

hope that helps even a little.

bsb:

They're going to tell you why WTC7 couldn't have been a conventional demolition by a commercial entity.

And that's going to be their report on WTC7.


"What-ifs" of military technology won't be considered, and neither will the actual physics of the building's collapse. I seriously doubt the engineering community will learn a damned thing from WTC7's collapse, which is certainly odd considering buildings have never, ever behaved that way before, outside of controlled demolitions.

i cant disagree on any particular point, however: ok, lets say they do conclude that there were NO conventional explosives at the wtc site. lets then also assume that they submit all of their findings to the public adn we can review them and then lets also pretend that we cant really find a hole in their findings. wouldnt that also be helpful to the overall truth movement? we know what DIDNT do it so we dont waste time speculating any more? then we can all look and say ok, the physics dont work...why specifically? if we can rule out ANYTHING of that day its one less thing to worry about.

as to the 'what ifs' part...is it really good science to speculate and take it as fact? i mean we can all what if to death on anything. the problem is that what ifs can get in the way of fact.

"what if it was explosives"
"it wasnt explosives"
"what if it was some super secret government explosives that make no sound and leave no trace?"
"like what?"
"i dont know, but what if?"

boom, dead end.

in the end we have to go with what we know and more importantly what we can prove.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
another thought is about the director of CDI...whats this guys personal quals? i mean was he a blasting tech that took over the family business and has real experience or was he the son that went to college for business management and has never calculated a blast in his life? you dont have to KNOW a business inside and out to run one. how many hospitals have an actual MD on as CEO? (just for example)

he's quoted as an expert a lot, and yeah, he may know what his TEAM can do, but what does he know for sure? i mean the guy doesnt even seem to understand demo 101, hell your dumbest army engineer seems smarter about demo than i get the impression this guy is. but, all i have to go on is out of context quotes i guess...but anyone else see what i mean?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
lets say they do conclude that there were NO conventional explosives at the wtc site. lets then also assume that they submit all of their findings to the public adn we can review them and then lets also pretend that we cant really find a hole in their findings. wouldnt that also be helpful to the overall truth movement? we know what DIDNT do it so we dont waste time speculating any more?


That's not telling me anything personally, and I have the feeling that most people want to see more of what did cause it (with genuine support) than simply what didn't. Especially so when what they tell us didn't bring it down is a very narrow field of study on the building.

When something accelerates at the rate of gravity then there is no friction acting to slow the object down in any way. This is what happened when Building 7 fell.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
another thought is about the director of CDI...whats this guys personal quals? i mean was he a blasting tech that took over the family business and has real experience or was he the son that went to college for business management and has never calculated a blast in his life? you dont have to KNOW a business inside and out to run one. how many hospitals have an actual MD on as CEO? (just for example)

he's quoted as an expert a lot, and yeah, he may know what his TEAM can do, but what does he know for sure? i mean the guy doesnt even seem to understand demo 101, hell your dumbest army engineer seems smarter about demo than i get the impression this guy is. but, all i have to go on is out of context quotes i guess...but anyone else see what i mean?


I see what you mean. I once e-mailed CDI to see about what qualifications to get into the demolition business. Here is Stacey Loizeaux's response.


Though there are no formal education/training requirements for entrance into the explosives demolition industry, the industry is an incredibly small one, and the few companies that do exist are fairly small and family-run, like ours. Our employee turnover is virtually nonexistent and our company, alone, receives about two employment inquiries a day.



Unfortunately, getting into the business is often dependent on who you know, rather than what you know, and to be honest, our employees consist of either family members or individuals with whom we’ve worked with on previous demolition projects.



Because our employees come from such varied degree backgrounds, it is hard for me to tell you where to start. A background in conventional demolition, rock blasting, construction, or engineering can be helpful; however, your real limitation is that only 1% of total demolition is comprised of explosives demolition and there just aren't many positions available.



I cannot speak for other companies, however, and would suggest contacting the following entities, as they may provide you with additional information or possible employment contacts:



International Society of Explosives Engineers: www.isee.org

The National Demolition Association: www.demolitionassociation.com...

Construction Jobs www.constructionjobs.com...



Best of luck in your endeavors.



======================



Stacey S. Loizeaux

The Loizeaux Group, LLC

Controlled Demolition, Inc.

2737 Merryman's Mill Road

Phoenix, Maryland 21131 USA

+1-410-667-6610

+1-410-667-6624 fax



Please Visit CDI's Web Site !! ===> www.controlled-demolition.com...





So, it seams it's more of who you know than what you know. It doesn't answer the question of Mark's knowledge though.

[edit on 2/16/2007 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's not telling me anything personally, and I have the feeling that most people want to see more of what did cause it (with genuine support) than simply what didn't. Especially so when what they tell us didn't bring it down is a very narrow field of study on the building.

When something accelerates at the rate of gravity then there is no friction acting to slow the object down in any way. This is what happened when Building 7 fell.


i see what you mean but isnt the scientific method based much on the process of elimination?

isnt studying to death every possibility detracting from at least one area?

so if we make a list of ALL the possibilities then systematically cross off the ones that can be shown to be incorrect, arent we eventually left with the one that is correct?

yes, we'd all like them to tell us what DID bring the buildings down, but thats outside of CDI's pervue. they are here to verify yes or no if it was a conventional controlled demo, and what i am most interested in, why yes or no. trust me, even though i dont think it was, if they say no it wasnt and present their findings, ill be going over them as much as you are looking for inconsistancies and straight up lies.

despite my own current opinions, i want to know as much as anyone. and i remain open minded about it.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
What was CDI doing inside the WTC's 1 and 2 on Sat Sept 8th and Sun Sept 9th 2001? CDI was in NYC just days prior to 911 giving interviews with NPR about how good they are at blowing up buildings.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join