Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Former employee of Controlled Demolition, Inc. talks about the WTC collapses

page: 2
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


I was simply asking you to back the claim you made without sourcing it.

I'm not asking you for anything out of the ordinary...am i?




posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
The theory from NIST is based on sound science.

That is your opinion and you're entitled to it. Either way, it's still a theory.



Originally posted by Six Sigma
Just like silent bombs and paint on nano thermite.

There were no "silent bombs". One only needs to read the First Responder Oral Histories to know there was nothing "silent" that happened at the WTC.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

* "It was so eerily similar to another experience during the Gulf War - a missile strike that killed a Marine in my unit" Phillip Thompson
* "For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off" Terry Morin
* "A bomb had gone off. I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had been set off somewhere" Don Perkal
* "Most people knew it was a bomb" John Bowman
* "It smelled like cordite, or gun smoke" Gilah Goldsmith
* "I knew it was a bomb or something" Mike Slater



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

That is your opinion and you're entitled to it. Either way, it's still a theory.


I will support my "opinion" from scientific results and not the fantasies of a snake oil salesman who admits he is in over his head.




There were no "silent bombs". One only needs to read the First Responder Oral Histories to know there was nothing "silent" that happened at the WTC.


Explosions do not mean explosives.... there is a reason why Sophia doctored the Hoboken video.








posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
In his talking points, Sullivan talks about some of the myths surrounding 9/11 on how certain things would have been discovered in the debris pile of the collapses if explosives were used at the WTC:

1.) One of the myths is that if explosives were used, there would be pieces of the casings or other physical evidence left behind from the use of explosives. Sullivan has stated that there is nothing left of the casings.

2.) Another myth is that miles of detcord would be found in the debris pile. On this point, Sullivan mentioned the remote-controlled detonators that have been in use for many years.


So how then does he explain the complete absence of any evidence of steel showing signs of being defeated by contoled demolitions I.E. cut by torch 2/3 of the way with shaped charges used to break the remaining 1/3? NYC photographer Joel Meyweowitz was at ground zero photographing the process of the cleanup, and his photos show NO signs of sabotage whatsoever. Also, how does he explain the fact that it's utterly impossible to rig an occupied building with controlled demolitions without anyone noticing to begin with?

You're forgive me if I find the standard explanation of "10,000 secret disinformation agents" you people always use in knee-jerk reflex is somewhat lacking.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Explosions do not mean explosives

You didn't read the oral histories.




Originally posted by Six Sigma
there is a reason why Sophia doctored the Hoboken video.

The explosions are loud and clear in the Hoboken video. Especially if you have a sub-woofer hooked up to your computer. Besides, don't forget about this part in the Hoboken video:





Had you read the oral histories like I keep mentioning, you would know that there are first responders who testified to the exact number of pre-collapse explosions before WTC 2 collapsed, like is heard in the Hoboken video.

Do you know what that means? That means first responders are corroborating the Hoboken video. Try again?



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


WIND.....


Now, how come none of the videos close to the collapse, record sounds of explosions?






posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 



Why would you need to explode an area that was hit by the plane? Whether or not the explosives or detonators survived the plane impact or fires is irrelevant. You don't need the explosives to work in that area anyway, because the plane took care of that.

Saying that they wouldn't survive and therefore a controlled demolition is impossible ignores the other 95% of the building that needed to come down, forgetting also that the 5% that was destroyed didn't need working explosives anyway.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Not a single one of them think the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions.



Hmm... this guy is a controlled demolition expert, and he seems to think it was brought down by explosives too:

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 30_seconds
Why would you need to explode an area that was hit by the plane?


You don't, yet that's where the collapses initiated. Truthers believe explosives were planted at and around these areas though.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So how then does he explain the complete absence of any evidence of steel showing signs of being defeated by contoled demolitions I.E. cut by torch 2/3 of the way with shaped charges used to break the remaining 1/3?

Not every steel beam is pre-weakened, nor do they have to be. It would do you good to watch the part in "9/11 Mysteries" where cd experts show exactly how it's done. It would also do you some good to watch The History Channel and see how CDI does things. CDI has their own Youtube channel with a few videos showing a couple segments from their show on The History Channel.


Needless to say, there is not a "complete absence" of steel showing signs of being defeated by CD.

In the following image, notice the smoke coming from the ends of the steel and the middle where explosives were just detonated:




Now in the next image, look at the ends of the two core columns at center-left and notice the smoke coming from the ends of those steel columns as well:




If you can seriously look at those images and deny the implications, then the level of close-mindedness, denial, and ignorance is unfathomable.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Also, how does he explain the fact that it's utterly impossible to rig an occupied building with controlled demolitions without anyone noticing to begin with?

You keep forgetting that there were always construction projects going on at any time of the day, every day at the WTC. Any work could have been done under the guise of construction.

The only places explosives would have needed to have been placed is the cores and the mechanical floors. The public had access to neither.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by 30_seconds
Why would you need to explode an area that was hit by the plane?


You don't, yet that's where the collapses initiated. Truthers believe explosives were planted at and around these areas though.


And Jreffers don't believe in love. Stop generalizing people please.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
WIND.....

Hold on, you're accusing the first responders that heard the exact number of pre-collapse explosions of only hearing wind? You're kidding me?

How does wind blow the exact number of times that first responders heard before the south tower collapsed?

How does wind know when to blow at the exact time both towers and WTC 7 collapsed, and for the duration of all three collapses?


It is absolutely unbelievable that you would have to make up something so blatantly ridiculous and dishonest to explain away evidence and facts.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You keep forgetting that there were always construction projects going on at any time of the day, every day at the WTC. Any work could have been done under the guise of construction.

The only places explosives would have needed to have been placed is the cores and the mechanical floors. The public had access to neither.



You lack knowledge regarding building management. I on the other hand have over 15 years experience. I have been involved in new builds and worked in skyscrapers in NYC and in Boston. (most recently at a 50+ story near GZ)

I am aware of EVERYTHING that goes on in any of my buildings regardless of the extent of the work.

In regards to the WTC, most of the construction done in there were soft renovations. If it were structural, permits would have to be pulled. (look into the UPS installation for Fuji Bank)

Access to the core columns in the elevator shaft does NOT happen unless licensed elevator personal are notified and ON SITE AT ALL TIMES.

If you are unfamiliar with the Elevators Union in NYC, I suggest you look into that.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Hold on, you're accusing the first responders that heard the exact number of pre-collapse explosions of only hearing wind?


Your Hoboken video is wind. That's what I was saying...

Now, where are the explosions in the two videos I posted?



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


Stop generalizing people please.


explain in detail how the buildings collapsed.

thank you for your understanding



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Not every steel beam is pre-weakened, nor do they have to be. It would do you good to watch the part in "9/11 Mysteries" where cd experts show exactly how it's done. It would also do you some good to watch The History Channel and see how CDI does things. CDI has their own Youtube channel with a few videos showing a couple segments from their show on The History Channel.


Are your genuinely saying that not every floor needed to have controlled demolitions planted on it for the structure to collapse? If so then you just lost the argument.

If the falling wreckage from the cascading structural failure had sufficient force to defeat the structural integrity of any given floor that it impacted, on its own without the assistance of controlled demolitions, then the cascading structural failure necessarily had the force to defeat the structural integrity of EVERY floor since every floor was designed exactly the same. All that was necessary for the towers to fall was therefore the initial collapse at the point of impact from the planes, which is exactly what the NIST report, the FEMA report, the MIT report, etc all say. What you're interpreting as controlled demolitions is really a cascading structural failure that destroyed the towers in the exact same chain reaction of events that controlled demolitions takes advantage of.


Now in the next image, look at the ends of the two core columns at center-left and notice the smoke coming from the ends of those steel columns as well:


The former was emitting black smoke, like it was created by somethign being burned. The latter was emitting white smoke, the exact same color as all the dust created by the crushed concrete, drywall, etc in every direction around it. Therefore, it's unlikely the latter was actually smoke, and more likely that it was simply more dust.

You are repeatedly streching things here to absurd lengths to see what you yourself want to see, but as you are a declared conspiracy theorist, this observation is redundent.


[edit on 9-5-2010 by GoodOlDave]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


You say "smoke" - I say dust or most likely fireproofing being dislodged

You are aware that steel in buildings is coated with fireproofing?

The fire proofing at WTC was made of mineral fibers m ixed with cement
binders (originally asbestos was used)

The fire proofing was applied to steelwork - one of the reasons WTC collapsed was that steel in impact area had the fireproofing stripped
off by the aircraft impacts.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Your Hoboken video is wind. That's what I was saying...

Then you're saying it with your fingers in your ears and ignoring the evidence that was directly presented to you.

It's obvious that you are purposely denying the evidence and misrepresenting the facts. For that, you have zero credibility and will now be ignored.








[edit on 9-5-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Also the piece you show was not a structural column - it was a truss
from the floor supports.





new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join