Massive Basement Explosion at WTC caught on tape!

Originally posted by LeftBehindPerhaps you have a cheap and easy way to inflict the damage of a 757 hitting something at 500mph? Maybe a giant catapult of some sort?

Yep, they're called explosives, but I'm pretty sure the demo companies already know about them. Enough of them can simulate the damage caused by just about anything hitting something else at just about any speed. Problem is, currently they're required to be placed on the majority of floors to bring a building down into its footprint.

What would you call the impact of even part of something that enormous?

Would you prefer the phrase "being hit with chunks from the 100 story building collapsing next to it"?

Yep, I would definitely prefer that phrase. Saying that a hundred story building dropped into it quite clearly implies that all one hundred stories of debris landed directly 'into' the building. Any word on the many other buildings which were 'hit with chunks from the 100 story building collapsing next to (them)' that didn't collapse?

[edit on 20-3-2007 by TheStev]

Originally posted by TheStev Any word on the many other buildings which were 'hit with chunks from the 100 story building collapsing next to (them)' that didn't collapse?

Sure, most of them were severely damaged, and yet didnt fall down. Looks like you'll have to go back to the drawing board, it doesn't sound like hitting it with stuff and fire assure a controllable collapse. Perhaps they prefer the method they use in which no one dies.

Well Stev, since no building of anywhere near the size of 1 or 2 have ever had anything like that happen to them, it remains specultion on whether or not a simulated airliner hit with bombs would bring down a similar building.


However, seeing as the CD companies attempt to bring down buildings without killing anyone, or damaging nearby buildings, it doesn't look like they are easier alternatives to what they do.

Honestly, if demo companies lobbed missiles or mortar shells it would bring down a building faster and cheaper, but I don't think you'll see them replace controlled, or even conventional demolition.

Originally posted by TheStev
So it's to be a game of nit-picking semantics is it. I apologise for my exaggeration. It seems only 99% of the steel was shipped off and melted. 80% as of 2002, when the article I quoted was written, and the other 19% since, leaving 1% for the exhibits listed on the page I supplied. Unless you know of some hidden WTC steel that you care to tell me about?

No it's not nitpicking. You are trying to mislead people into this notion that almost all of the steel was wisked away and hindered any kind of investigation. That is 100% completely untrue. And it's dishonest to make such implications. For one thing it took them many months to remove the steel. For another thing, they couldn't just leave the steel there, it HAD to be removed. You are trying to mislead people by taking this fact and implying that it was all melted down. This of course is simply not true.

The recycling did not happen before the investigation. And even after the fact, they are not going to just let that much steel sit around taking up space and serving no purpose but to appease conspiracy theorists.

"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".

The problem is websites such as the one you refer to are not reliable source. Their goal is simply to present a conspiracy theory and only present a conspiracy theory. This is not to be confused with a source that is honestly being objective and is weighing all evidence. They cherry pick and twist information to mislead you.

And you've completely avoided the main point. Regardless of how much steel was melted down and how quickly it was melted - none of it was examined for thermite. So the steel wasn't examined for thermite, therefore there was no evidence of thermite, therefore no thermite. Bit of a self-referential argument don't you think?

You keep using the word melted down. This again is very misleading. It was removed from the site, and some of it was recycled, as it should have been. And it was not done quickly. And of course it wasn't examined for thermite because there was no evidence to suggest any. Not to mention there would be no way to conclusively test for it since there are many thing that could cause the saem results. No, not by any means a self-referential argument. The reason you think it is is because you have started your reseach with the assumption of bombs. If one were to look at all the evidence, they would see that this is pretty far fetched. The fact of the matter is that there is no physical evidence to warrant it. The collapse started from the points of impact and no floor collapsed until the floor above collapsed into it. So if they were to plant thermite, they would have had to do it between the time of impacts and the collapse. The planes would have destroyed any existing planted explosives, therefore ruling out pre-planted ones. And what is the likely hood of people going in while the building is collapsing, planting explosives, cutting into the columns, without being seen, without being burned alive, etc. It's a pretty far fetched claim. And if you don't start from the premise that it was an inside job, it's easier to realize this.

I think perhaps you're a little confused as to the meaning of 'predetermined conclusion'. Perhaps you can explain to me how 'The government was complicit on 911' is a predetermined conclusion, but 'The government was not complicit on 911' is not a predetermined conclusion.

A pre-determined conclusion. It means that instead of starting with a blank slate, taking in ALL the evidence and making a conclusion based on that, you and others start with the conclusion that it was an inside job and try to find evidence to back that conclusion up. Saying that anything that sounds like an explosion must be a bomb is NOT saying the government is complicit on 911. And the difference between the two views is that one is based on assumptions that have no evidence to back them up.

For example, you hear explosions. Instead of considering all the many possible causes of explosion sounds, you simply conclude that it must be bombs. And then you make assumptions to back that conclusion by hypothesizing that people who you think witnessed explosive devices are just being quiet and not informing the rest of the world of it because they don't want to be ridiculed.

Originally posted by TheStev
No doubt I'm 'making this up', but it does stand as completely consistent. On the day, nobody was sure of anything that was going on. People could make claims of secondary devices and it could still gel with the fact that 'Arabs did it'. But once the official fairy-tale was released, there was no way these secondary explosions would gel with this story. People who heard and saw these explosions are then faced with a choice - change their story to find some explanation for what they saw that fits the official story, or deny the official story. It's pretty clear the treatment those who deny the official story get - so why wouldn't they feel compelled to change their story to fit the official story? Particularly when these people (and no doubt many millions of Americans) find it hard to believe that any other than Arabs could be responsible for such a great tragedy - let alone their own countrymen.

You can NOT be serious. If you witnessed explosive devices you would not speak out? You would sit there and say "Well I was witness to the biggest crime in the history of mankind but it doesn't gel with what the investigation determined so I will change my story to match that?"

Once again, please keep in mind that you are completely making all of this up. And once again, you are trying to twist the evidence to meet your conclusion. And the truth is that it's extremely far fetched to assume people would act in such a completely abnormal way. And this notion that people who deny the official story get treated badly. It's when people make these baseless claims that they do. if someone was a witness to something they aren't going to be treated badly. You are simply trying to make excuse after excuse and make a tale that gets taller and taller to keep your pre-determined conclusion.

Seriously though. I've explained how secondary explosions were perfectly acceptable on the day of the attacks. Now I need you to explain to me how these people can still claim they witnessed secondary explosions and stay within the official story?

No you didn't. You are assuming how they were secondary explosions. Have you spoken with the people who made the claims? And for the sounds you heard, were you there to actually see devices and handle them? No. It's a major major assumption. And yes if you are going to make such claims then you should be responsible to back them up. Simply saying that something made an explosion sound and people thinking there were explosive devices is not evidence. You are preying on natural common human behaviors to push your pre-determined conclusion.

By the way, it's interesting how these people have gone from witnessing secondary explosions to actually 'seeing bombs'. Next thing these people will be claiming to see George Bush himself planting the bombs in the WTC.

Are you claiming they now saw explosives? If so, then please present the evidence of them reporting that they saw explosives. And if they did not see them, then how would they know that they were actually explosive devices?

Great point troy - and I'm surprised it's never occurred to me before. If all that's needed to bring a massive building down in its own footprint is damage to 5 or so floors, then there are a lot of demolition experts out there that are seriously overpayed and have some kind of underhanded deal going with explosives companies to justify rigging every floor with explosives when bringing down a building.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by TheStev]

Nice try. But demolitionists have to bring down buildings without damaging the surrounding areas. Another dishonesty that you and many others share is this claim that the building fell in its own footprint. Bull-#ing-#. Anyone who can watch any video can clearly see debris being spewed outward in every direction. Demolitionists who implode buildings, actually implode them. The WTC 1&2 did not implode, and they did not fall into their own footprints. And how much do you think it would cost for the demo companies to buy a commercial jet and fly it into a building? And ironically the worlds top demolition companies also claim that they can see no evidence what so ever of a controlled demolition.

Isn't it funny how the people who are actual experts can't see something taht people with no expertise what so ever can see as common sense? Once again, starting with a conclusion and working your way backwards.

Originally posted by NegativeBeef
Are you trying to tell us that a fireball can reach all the way down the elvator shaft; cause an explosion in the lobby and the basement, and still have survivors to tell about it? LOLOLOL

Do you see how ridiculous your claims are?

[edit on 19-3-2007 by NegativeBeef]

Without any hesitation, absolutely. The only thing ridiculous is to think that is somehow impossible. heck there were people on the floor of impact who survived. And if you watched some of the documentaries besides the conspiracy ones, you would see they interview many of these people. There is a documentary based soley on surivors on the elevators. People who were in some of the elevators that crashed into the basement talked about the whole ordeal. An interesting one was a guy running one of the elevators who crashed into the basement received severe 3rd degree burns. And his wife who worked in one of the upper elevators had the same fate (only hers crashed into an upper lobby, but she too received 3rd degree burns). But they both barely survived with their lives.

And then think about your logic here. You claim a blast wave would not be survivable. But yet bombs are? Tell me how sane that sounds.

The official story lost its battle for survival a long time ago. There aren't enough verifiable facts and theories to support it. Period.

Troy

Originally posted by cybertroy
The official story lost its battle for survival a long time ago. There aren't enough verifiable facts and theories to support it. Period.

Troy

THe official story was designed to fail. It is so ludicrous that is was bound to be uncovered over time, but was believable enough to serve it's purpose. Get the American people behind an invasion/occupation of one of the worlds largest oil depositries Iraq and Afgahnistan the neighbor to the north of Iran.

Once the invasion of Iran begins the American economy will fail and they will have killed two birds with one stone. Finish off the federal reserve central bank while seizing hold of 1/2 of the the worlds oil reserves. Mission accomplished.

Originally posted by snoopy
ironically the worlds top demolition companies also claim that they can see no evidence what so ever of a controlled demolition.

Not correct. There are several demo experts who have come forward--you can check out the Dutch video on another thread here right now.

And as for those demo experts in the US speaking out, well, you'd want to work tomorrow, right?

And they can always hide behind semantics. The WTC towers weren't really classic CDs, they were planned destruction.

They fell in a pyrotechnical feat: a chrysanthemum bloom of enormous explosive power. The basements were gutted and nothing was left but 2 inches of ash and scattered debris, a hole where the remains of 2 110-story buildings, and a huge stump of the central cores, should have been.

So no, it wasn't CD at all. It was pulverization.