One Problem I have with Controlled Demo

jprophet420, the $1.3 trillion is actually $2.3 trillion. Rumsfeld didn't say that the money was missing, he said that it couldn't be tracked due to outdated computer systems in the Pentagon. 9/10 wasn't the first time that the money was brought up, March 2000 was and several times in between. That figure came from a 1999 fiscal year audit. Why would he admit that there was a problem the day before the attacks if he wanted to cover it up?

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Boone 870]

Originally posted by Boone 870
Wouldn't maintenance or security personnel get to know these guys fairly well if they were going in and out of the building on a regular basis and be pointing fingers?

All I'll say is it's obvious you've never worked in a highrise building before. Let alone one as huge as the towers.

Maybe the maintenance guys but definately not the security. I've been to secure buildings after 9/11 and I can tell you security guards are just that, people paid to check ID's. Not much more. No offense to any security guards out there.

Do you think you'd remember every single person when you see thousands a day?

[edit on 8/11/2007 by Griff]

You are right Griff, I have never worked in a high-rise building. Maybe I should have been a little more clear on my last post. It is my opinion that the amount of explosives needed to bring down the towers would not have been carried in through the lobby, but would have been brought in through the basement via vehicles and would've had to go through the vehicle checkpoints that were implemented after the 1993 truck bombing. The perpetrators would have had to been extremely lucky to avoid all the various security measures that were in place.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Apex

Honestly I couldn't tell you, wish I knew.
I am with JIMC5499 on that though,

the evil US Government has hundreds of brainwashed zombies

, simply put.

Nothing like being taken out of context.

There is a very simple way to poke a hole in the CD theory. When the towers collapsed, the collapse started at the impact point of the aircraft. What kind of system of explosives is going to survive the impact of and an airliner, the resulting explosion and fire and then be functional enough to work over 30 minutes later. The easiest most efficient method of dropping the towers is to attack them at their base. If this was done the collapse would have started at the BASE, not in the middle of the tower. The entire CD issue is a load of crap.

What should be asked is who is benefiting from the controversy over this? There is your real conspiracy.

Originally posted by Boone 870
jprophet420, the $1.3 trillion is actually $2.3 trillion. Rumsfeld didn't say that the money was missing, he said that it couldn't be tracked due to outdated computer systems in the Pentagon. 9/10 wasn't the first time that the money was brought up, March 2000 was and several times in between. That figure came from a 1999 fiscal year audit. Why would he admit that there was a problem the day before the attacks if he wanted to cover it up?

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Boone 870]

you answered your own question there.

either way, the payoff was huge, regardless of any missing trillions.

and of course, we have pearl harbor. with FOIA we now see that pearl harbor was an inside job that took 11 months to pull off. in 11 months no one narc'd and no one narc'd afterwards

Originally posted by JIMC5499
There is a very simple way to poke a hole in the CD theory. When the towers collapsed, the collapse started at the impact point of the aircraft.

The easiest most efficient method of dropping the towers is to attack them at their base.

I think you've been missing Griff and Val's posts, and I'm sure you realize they're engineers (Griff a civil, even, since if you follow the herd, that's supposed to be the coup de grace of relevance, right?), and you're "very simple way to poke a hole in CD theory" is not poking any holes at all, and failure at the impact point externally makes perfect sense.


The core structures were the primary gravity-load-bearing structures of the building. Right? I've seen generalizations of the splitting of floor loads between them as 50/50 and 60/40, I suppose it depends on the situation.

If you severed the core at the closest mechanical floor, JIMC, where is the perimeter going to begin to fail, when all the core's loads from that mechanical floor and above are suddenly transferred to the corresponding section of the outer wall?

Answer: At the weakest points first.

Think about it. You say the easiest thing to do is to fail the towers at the base, but you apparently don't understand why it makes things easier. You use the weight of the building to collapse itself, by taking out the core and crushing the perimeter with all the additional loads.

[edit on 11-8-2007 by bsbray11]

Excellent point bsbray11. Apparently the way buildings are demo-d is to weaken the basement (footing), then start the top on its way down ie planes, then blow every other floor to remove resistance. Because, as stated previously the building would not follow the path of most resistance. And they definitely wouldn't have fallen at the speed of gravity like they did.

As to the motives of the grunts. It may have went something like, 'there's this special job that pays a years wages for 6 weeks work, but you have to live on site and work 18 hr days. Then, when the job was complete, a Jim Jones style extravaganza. The few that did the poisoning specially chosen for their loyalty to The Co., or paid handsomely and warned of the consequences of any indescretion. The collapse took care of any evidence.

Originally posted by bsbray11
[The core structures were the primary gravity-load-bearing structures of the building. Right? I've seen generalizations of the splitting of floor loads between them as 50/50 and 60/40, I suppose it depends on the situation.

Think about it. You say the easiest thing to do is to fail the towers at the base, but you apparently don't understand why it makes things easier. You use the weight of the building to collapse itself, by taking out the core and crushing the perimeter with all the additional loads.

No actually I do understand. If I am going to bring the towers down by then I attack the structure on the lowest floors where the stresses on the load bearing members are the greatest. If this is done then the starting point of the collapse is the LOWER FLOORS. If you watch the video of the planes striking the towers you notice that they impacted in different areas of the towers. I have said before that the planes are one of the main reasons why I don't believe in the CD theory. Think about it. If the towers are rigged like you imply, why use planes. It would be quite simple to have a couple of tractor trailers filled with explosives jump the curb and ram into the towers. When they hit someone hits the detonators for the explosives and down comes the towers. Using the planes puts too many varibles into it. What if one of the planes missed a tower? (it almost happened) Now you have a tower rigged to explode and no reason for it to explode or do you detonate it anyway?

If there were people who were competent enough to do this, then at least give them enough credit to see how outlandish it was to ram the planes into the towers. I think they would have come up with a different plan.

If the towers are rigged like you imply, why use planes. It would be quite simple to have a couple of tractor trailers filled with explosives jump the curb and ram into the towers.

That would only be the 1st part of a demo. The collapse from the top would have to be initiated by something. Hmm... What could we use for that?

What if one of the planes missed a tower? (it almost happened) Now you have a tower rigged to explode and no reason for it to explode or do you detonate it anyway?

Same as Building 7. Pull it and claim structural damage from the other tower.

[edit on 11-8-2007 by HimWhoHathAnEar]

There is a very simple way to poke a hole in the CD theory.

a standard CD perhaps.

and as i have stated before, heres the problem with that. neither side has proven their case, the US military invaded another country over it.

rephrase:

There is a very simple way to poke a hole in the 'official' theory.

The official story claims the core of the building was hollow tubes. This is known to be false.

A falling object follows the path of least resistance.

that proves it was some sort of controlled demolition. There HAD to be a control device in place of some sort to make the building fall into itself, according to the laws of physics.

that does not mean it has to be an 'industry standard' controlled demo, but it means the building was acted upon by an outside force. The building was demolished and that demolishion was controlled.

Originally posted by JIMC5499

If there were people who were competent enough to do this, then at least give them enough credit to see how outlandish it was to ram the planes into the towers. I think they would have come up with a different plan.

Perhaps they used the planes as a decoy, so to speak. After they hit the whole world was watching and saw the towers fall. Works a little better that way, more psychologically damaging that way. Everyone got to see it instead of it just happening by, say, crashing a van into it. Only the people on the ground would see that, there would be no video evidence of either the action that caused it or the effects. Nothing to be replayed over and over a billion times.

Heck, I don't know. Just throwing ideas out there.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
No actually I do understand. If I am going to bring the towers down by then I attack the structure on the lowest floors where the stresses on the load bearing members are the greatest. If this is done then the starting point of the collapse is the LOWER FLOORS.

If that's the case, then don't do that! It's that simple. (But it wouldn't necessarily be the case -- it depends on how redundant the upper columns are compared to how redundant the lower ones are, and of course the lower ones are going to be stronger in general.)

I said the closest mechanical floors, not the very base of the buildings. If you blew the core there, then you would be putting enormous stress on the entire outer wall instead of just a small section of it. Remember that every intact floor below still translates loads to the core structure properly.

If the towers are rigged like you imply, why use planes.

Because it's easy to say terrorists hijacked two planes, but harder to say they came in after the 1993 bombing and just rigged the buildings with explosives under a security company like Securacom, let alone in an extremely sophisticated fashion, so as to not severely damage adjacent property.

[edit on 12-8-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
There is a very simple way to poke a hole in the CD theory. When the towers collapsed, the collapse started at the impact point of the aircraft. What kind of system of explosives is going to survive the impact of and an airliner, the resulting explosion and fire and then be functional enough to work over 30 minutes later. The easiest most efficient method of dropping the towers is to attack them at their base. If this was done the collapse would have started at the BASE, not in the middle of the tower. The entire CD issue is a load of crap.

And here I thought you were an engineer who would have taken statics, dynamics and strength of materials. My bad.

Let me ask Jim. Where would the OUTSIDE start to fail if the core failed first on the INSIDE? At it's weakest point (the impact zones) or the strong, undisturbed base?


[edit on 8/13/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by TheLoony
Perhaps they used the planes as a decoy, so to speak. After they hit the whole world was watching and saw the towers fall. Works a little better that way, more psychologically damaging that way. Everyone got to see it instead of it just happening by, say, crashing a van into it. Only the people on the ground would see that, there would be no video evidence of either the action that caused it or the effects. Nothing to be replayed over and over a billion times.

If it had just been a truck with explosives, then that would give the investigators reason to start digging deeper into the types of explosives etc. With a plane, they can wave their arms and say "plane damage and fire" and no investigation into explosives. Which is what happened. remember, NIST even states that no tests were done on the steel for explosives. Had a truck bomb gone off, then there definately WOULD be tests done for explosives.

Originally posted by TheLoony
Perhaps they used the planes as a decoy, so to speak. After they hit the whole world was watching and saw the towers fall. Works a little better that way, more psychologically damaging that way. Everyone got to see it instead of it just happening by, say, crashing a van into it. Only the people on the ground would see that, there would be no video evidence of either the action that caused it or the effects. Nothing to be replayed over and over a billion times.

Bingo. Shock and Awe a term coined by the Neocons themselves... The planes were the shock and the collapses the Awe. You need to get people WATCHING a psy-op like this ore they AWE will have a far lesser impact.

I think the use of planes was a combination of the shock and awe and what I said before. With plane damage and fire being the culprit, who needs to test the steel for explosives? If there had been a truck bomb instead, then there would definately be an investigation into explosives.

I see this "controlled" demo theory just won't die....

Man people should come to grips with what happened.

The buildings w'r taken down by the plains it's simple and
people are trying so hard to twist this into more...guess to sell
books.

I know this topic has gon' on and on in other threads and always
comes down to the proof?

Even some have claimed they even had pre-installed panels in the WTC 1 and 2 for this TNT just in case.....and there was no proof....just like most of the ideas that have come up of HOW the towers came down.

All I got'a say is thank god they had video of the planes crashing into the towers otherwise people would be saying the plains never hit the buildings.

Come on people if you got some real proof that it was TNT then show it
something other then "I know or I heard or it says' on this web site".

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Originally posted by svenglezz
I see this "controlled" demo theory just won't die....

Nope. Not until there is a full investigation.

Man people should come to grips with what happened.

I believe that is what we are trying to do.

The buildings w'r taken down by the plains it's simple and
people are trying so hard to twist this into more...guess to sell
books.

Hmmm...forgot that I had written a book?

I know this topic has gon' on and on in other threads and always
comes down to the proof?

Without physical proof there is still the proof of physics (which by the way never lie...like say a government).

Come on people if you got some real proof that it was TNT then show it
something other then "I know or I heard or it says' on this web site".

So, the only way to settle it in your mind is if I come out with a device found at the tower? Way to put the onus on us. How about the proof the official story is correct? Oh, that's right, NIST ignored their own studies and concluded something that doesn't fit their own "proof".

Y'r friend to the south.

See like all the other replies....just talk and twisting things....
just like how other posts end....people have tried to show the
proof....with VIDEO and PICTURE of the SITE at hand
and still people just pass it off....

So that's right ..........unless you GOT something to say.... otherwise....
it's just a story or your own' PERSONAL view....but NOT FACT so till you got something with REAL proof' that has not been discussed in great detail already on this web site then it's just a story.

I could sit here all day to and just make up things to differ witht he original story but I go by what I saw that day and the video of the event...
not some guy on this web site say.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Originally posted by svenglezz
Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Again. I'll ask. Show me the proof of the official story. Maybe then I'll take your word for it. Have you even read the NIST report? If not, go read it and then come back here and argue. Until then, buh, bye.