9/11 Demolition Challenged

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Most skeptics are not Bush lovers.. or "sheep"...skeptics deal with facts..and think critically.

A true sceptic is equally sceptical of the various conspiracy theories - especially when there are many variations amongst them.

As regards the collapse of the towers, I remain convinced by my own observations - I saw them collapse from the top down and the fact that both fell in the same manner is suggestive to me of a structural flaw in the buildings.

I personally am not ruling out that it was God's intervention that allowed those buildings to do a straight down vertical drop like they did on that day whereby saving hundreds if not thousands of lives in those other buildings located in that same area outside the WTC.

It was a miracle from heaven! God's angel's came down and held on to the sides of those buildings to keep them from toppling over onto other buildings nearby. To me, this explanation for what happened that day is far more plausible than the Official version presented to us in the 9/11 Commission Report.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Palasheea
It was a miracle from heaven! God's angel's came down and held on to the sides of those buildings to keep them from toppling over onto other buildings nearby. To me, this explanation for what happened that day is far more plausible than the Official version presented to us in the 9/11 Commission Report.

the 911 report presented an offical version as to why the buildings collapsed? Please point out where it is..I'd love to read it!

Here's an amazing 10 minute lecture given by Jeff King, an MIT engineer, as to why the WTC's building 1,2, and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition.

I think he has alot more credentials that most here, (no offense), and especially the guys from popular mechanics who's area of expertise is future cars, and the like.

I suggest skeptics, and truthers to watch this with an open mind:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Also Griff...what if anything will this do to your opinion in regards to the CD theory, IF (and only if) his paper is accurate?

His paper really has no affect on my theory as far as I know. Remember my CD theory is that the towers were helped with a bomb or 3 in the core. Not a conventional demolition with cutter charges on every floor.

If my theory of severing the core at key points is correct, then his analysis of the global collapse could actually coincide with it.

Originally posted by Essan
Scientists actually sometimes do research work other than on the direct orders / pay of the US government

Where do they get the funding for their research? Did the government help him in his analysis by letting him see the documents?

CaptObvious this point is directed to you lets see if you can sight the Obvious.

After six years and all the information that has surfaced about what happened on 911 one video stands out to the testament of 100's of people of what they heard saw and experienced.

And that is the audio of this video.

If the audio in this film is correct how can you say those buildings were not blown to kingdom come.


video.google.com...


But were there explosions that were captured over two miles away?

What about these rummbles ? could the sound waves travel across the river to Richard Segals camera that day?

www.youtube.com...

The more I listen to the sounds on Richard Segals camera and more video evidence comes out at ground zero of clear audio of huge explosions I don't have any doubts that those sounds registered on the camera two miles away are indeed authentic and very real before those towers came down.

That wasen't thunder in the background or steel hitting steel those were bombs.

No matter how hard you wish to hide behind the official lie the truth will always be there stairing at you in the face , you know your heart is telling you something is a miss as well as us all. Pleasent Dreams.

P.S After seeing this movie two years ago I must admit i have had a many sleepless nights because of it .

reply to post by CaptainObvious


I am impressed that you know so much about me as to say what I have and have not “studied”. On 911 I was at a facility that if properly attacked would take Boston off the map. The first action by the US (other than to stop Algerian LNG ships from docking in the US) was to invade Afghanistan. This action created an opening to re-establish the opium trade in Afghanistan. You see the Taliban had destroyed the poppies there and with so much drug trade in the world banks the economies of many nations were suffering ($800 Billion annually in the US alone). Now the US has managed to spend over 700 million dollars annually for the eradication of these new poppies. So successful has this operation been (read: the money was pocketed) that Afghanistan presently accounts for 93% of the world opiate trade.

I made the greatest headway in the curtailment of the largest pedophile organization in the US. Some young kids were sold for just over one million dollars to particular Saudi clients. Continued ongoing investigations were going on into the money trails all leading to the World Trade Buildings.
If you look into the training of the pilots they were all well versed and showed interest in altimeter readings. Now if you look into the five floors in both building in the area that each plane hit you will find only one facility is the same in both buildings. It was a check issuing facility. My thoughts are some one in the states wanted a “laundry” taken out. They wanted and took out the paper trail.

Now the oddity that the location of the pentagon that was hit just happened to be the new strengthened section seems odd to me. I would think such an expense would be given a section involved with investigation of the greatest threat to our nation. A threat from within. But I have only inspected the most sensitive facilities in US defense and assisted in four of the most successful operations in the FBI’s history (don’t look for them to be published).

reply to post by CaptainObvious


I have four words for you CaptainObvious:

Thermite and molten metal.

Molten metal was around for weeks after the event in the ruins of the WTC towers. Fires, jet fuel, and everything we have been led to believe was the cause of the collapse of the WTC buildings DOES NOT BURN HOT ENOUGH TO CREATE POOLS OF MOLTEN METAL!

Also, anyone of who possesses standard logic and observatory skills can see that the buildings collapsed not only at free-fall speed but into themselves (i.e. when the towers fell it looked exactly the same as any standard building demolition, an implosion that creates a safe destruction - and very little damage was done to the surrounding buildings in the scope of such a giant 'unseeable' catastrophe - did the terrorists want to create destruction and havoc but only to their designated targets? Are we looking at kindly and clean terrorists? ... The way the buildings fall just does not add up with the official explanations... ). Even if standard demo-explosives (thermite) were not used on every floor, it stands to reason that only the destruction of key points along with sleight of hand (i.e. careful timing and editing) could get the job done.

It also stands to reason that if parts of our media and government are this deep into the actual 9/11 event, would it not be an easy thing to hire some guy with credentials to say whatever the heck they wanted him to say?

All I mean by this is that it would do all of us very good to keep an open mind while being discerning in our facts. There are far too many logical holes in the official explanation to take any of it, let alone all of it, at face value. It is apparent that we are being lied to. The next question is, what is the lie trying to hide? Incompetence... or something deeper?



P.S.
So... you consider yourself a skeptic, eh?

Dictionary.com

skep·tic
-noun
---------------------------
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

It seems to me that the true and honest skeptics here would be those who question the validity and authenticity of what the government/media/machine has purported to be factual.

A skeptic should (in most circumstances) be a person who questions the mainstream and the status quo. Of course, when taken out of this context EVERYONE here is a skeptic - as we are either questioning the validity of the standard explanations or the alternate ones.

Perhaps we should further define ourselves?

YOU ARE a skeptic of the unofficial explanations of the 9/11 event.
I AM a skeptic of the official explanations of the 9/11 event.

There! Now we both get to be skeptics!



P.S.S.
My intentions here are to share my observations and to shine my light!
If you took offense, it was certainly not intentional on my behalf! I respect you (as a person, as a entity, and as a soul) - but your opinions seem to be solely based in the official story...

As I said above, there are too many holes in the official story for this guy (meaning me! ) to trust anything that was officially told to the public. We have been denied many things during this ordeal, information and honest investigation being the highest. Due to these reasons, I trust my rationality, my observations, and the big picture that is being painted by them. I cannot trust someone who has lied to me consistently.

That would just be insanity.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by tyranny22

 

[sarcasm]This was reported by the BBC... we know that they are a puppet government of the United States!![/sarcasm]

This will be interesting. There are a few in here that have asked for mathimatical explinations. I highly doubt this will change their minds....

[edit on 11-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]

no, but the math will.

I was always old if you want to find a criminal follow the money trail:

What crop was removed by the Taliban from Afghanistan prior to 911?
What is the primary income crop grown in Afghanistan after the US invasion?

No post reply needed (I know the answer).