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

page: 7
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 



the first photo however is not that of a DC-10 as you claimed; it is a 757 radio remotely flown crash test preformed by Boeing;


Ummm...I don't think so.

Care to source this?

There WAS a remote control event, with an old Boeing 720. In 1984. To test fuel anti-misting additives.

(BTW, in that test it was at landing speeds...NOT 400 MPH).

You can look that up online, and on YouTube.


You might also like to read this:

www.911myths.com...

(This does away with "R/C airplanes at the WTC", too.)


[edit on 10 May 2010 by weedwhacker]




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MolecularPhD

"How does a craft weighting 220,000 lbs with a wing span of 124 feet; made of component parts most of which are virtually indestructibly ;make such a small hole in the Pentagon; and leave nothing behind to conclusively identify it as a 757?" or for that matter that it was flight 77?




most of which are virtually indestructibly



THIS IS SOOOO WROOONG!!!
Virtually indestructible?? (And not talking about the spelling.)
So, airplanes are virtually indistructible??




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MolecularPhD


This is a photo of the plane you are talking about (notice the nose cone)




This is a photo of a 757 notice the nose cone.


AGAIN..........WROOOONG!!!

It´s a B757 alright, but different than the one from the crash photo.
Just look at the distance from the cockpit window to the frame of the door.
DIFFERENT AIRPLANE FRIEND. (From the crashed one.)



[edit on 10-5-2010 by rush969]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
I can only speak for myself; as one who has spent a whole lot of time in those same shadows you are speaking of; not everything that appears kosher is.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD


All right, fair enough...but that still doesn't give you the right to embellish things to get people to think what you want them to think. The so called "mysterious second plane" has long ago been identified as a nearby C-130 asked to follow flight 77, and all it took was a 30 second google search to find out the details. How can you call yourself a "truther" when you've been caught red handed at making paranoid "it was dropping manufactured wreckage" nonsense up off the top of your head?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What do you mean, "you'll be contacting them"? You made the claim that some explosives create black smoke while others create white smoke. You're telling me you made the claim without investigating to see whether it was even true yet?

Different types of explosives and incendiaries cause different color smoke to emanate from steel (and other things). You want the exact name/type for a specific color and I don't have that information. When I find out, you'll find out.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...and you STILL evade the point- if not all floors required controlled demolitions, then it necessarily means than none of the floors required controlled demolitions.

It absolutely does not necessarily mean that no floors required explosives besides the impact floors. Most steel-structured building demolitions have explosives from top to bottom. And that doesn't mean on every single floor either. There's a reason why they put explosives from top to bottom in those buildings. Because blowing one floor will not weaken the structure below it and the building would not completely collapse.

That massive steel structures that were the twin towers and WTC 7 would not have fallen from minimal damage, nor from fires either.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
where substancial damage from the impact and the subsequent fires

Who's concocting things now? By NIST's own numbers the damage was not substantial to either tower from the plane impacts. Remember: 15% damage to the structure in the impact zones leaving 85% of the structure intact. 15% damage is not substantial by any means. Especially the massive structures that were the twin towers.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
There you have it folks. Another truther that will ignore someone that shows them facts.

Please tell everyone here how posting the word "wind" is showing someone facts? Not only did you not provide any source that factually proves the Hoboken video was only "wind", you didn't post any source at all! You posted the word "wind"? You obviously haven't the slightest clue on what the word "facts" means.

And you ignored the real fact that your denial-driven "wind" blew 9 times before the south tower collapsed which was corroborated by first responders, and you ignored the real fact that your denial-driven "wind" blew at the exact moment all three towers collapsed and for the duration of each collapse.

Deny ignorance instead of being in love with it.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Yesterday, you could not even support your claims about "explosive squibs". It was easy to show that you really had not done any research at all:

I actually have:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by jthomas
It's quite remarkable that a photographer hired to take pictures of demolitions and do brochures can become a "demolition expert"

Photographers don't need licenses to handle explosives. It doesn't come close to shocking that you would leave out the important part the he was also an explosives tech with a license to handle explosives from the FDNY. And you've got the nerve to accuse truthers of fabricating or altering the facts?



Originally posted by jthomas
I guess real demolition experts who would ever buy into "controlled demolition of the WTC towers" are in really short supply.

Not so much:

demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com...



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
We have a photographer and hanger-on stating his opinions.

He's also an explosives technician. Convenient you left that part out.




Originally posted by pteridine
Squibs are back in the picture

They never left the picture. They've always been in the picture for all the years I've been researching 9/11.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
Why do people like bonez chose to ignore the evidence that points away from demolition

Trust me, I don't ignore it. I just don't agree with it and neither does all available evidence concerning 9/11. Those are two separate things.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
BoneZ, I enjoy that photo of the democharges cutting that coal conveyor belt. All that coal dust.

It's not a conveyor. It's a bridge crane and the smoke is coming from the exact locations that explosives were detonated:






Try again.






[edit on 10-5-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I do not know how he was verified. You are more than welcome to contact AE911T or KPFA radio and ask them how Sullivan was verified.



Stacey Loizeaux from CDI was contacted and has admitted that she KNOWS him. Tom went to high school with Doug Loizeaux. He is a freelance still photographer. He worked on a corporate brochure for the company and tagged along on a few jobs to get still images for it.

Mr. Sullivan's opinions on 9/11 are just that. He is not a qualified demolitions expert or a Structural Engineer. He is riding the coat tails of other frauds like Richard Gage and DRG.



LOL this is why I despise skeptics! You can have all the proof and they still deny it! This is why we are a failed species!

Something this big comes out and oh he has no "true" credentials!




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
I Know I'm going to get flamed for this and that's fine. I'm just asking an innocent question and hope for a constructive answer:

Let's say if the OS is indeed true, isn't it possible that explosives in the World Trade Center buildings were planted by Muslim terrorists and not by Agents who work for the government like many 9/11 truthers believe. (At least that's what I'd imagine they'd believe in)

Once again, I'm just asking. Thank you!

[edit on 9-5-2010 by GorehoundLarry]


try ISraelis spies and agents to help these scum bags. I can see why USA is hiding a lot of things because Israel is our ally.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by daddymax

Or there is ABSOLUTELY no proof that a plane hit the pentagon, be it Cessna, Boeing, or Hot Wheels for that matter.


There's no proof that the moon exists, either. But if you can prove the moon's existence, a "cash reward of $100,000 has been offered to anyone who can send us, by e-mail, conclusive physical evidence of the existence of the moon. This reward remains unclaimed."

www.revisionism.nl...

Go for it.


Go outside at night

look up...done

make the check payable to DaddyMax

memo line: the smartass in the corner



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





Originally posted by jthomas Yesterday, you could not even support your claims about "explosive squibs". It was easy to show that you really had not done any research at all

: I actually have: Text


Jthomas . . . give it up. BoneZ has proven his credibility with posts that have research behind them. The closer we get to the day the betrayers of this country are revealed for what they are, the more absurd your arguments become.

It's crazy how those like Jthomas have tried to promote the idea that what happened to those towers can only be determined under the scrutiny of a highly scientific mind. All the physics and engineering lingo in the world isn't going to change what we saw with our own two eyes on 9/11, nor will it change what we heard from the mouths of eyewitnesses with our own ears. Two towers collapsed by demolition, and later in the day (as our good friend, Mr. Silverstein, has clearly stated), a third was brought down the same way. The attempt to put the blame on the plane has failed to stand the test of time. The longer you and those of your ilk continue to beat this dead horse, the more you will look like you're being paid to do so.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


How can you call yourself a "truther" when you've been caught red handed at making paranoid "it was dropping manufactured wreckage" nonsense up off the top of your head?

Please if you will show when I stated that as fact? If you will read what I wrote it was a hypothesis; not a fact; and I am not a "Truther" I am simply pointing out things that are not logical in my opinion.

Does it make you feel better when you can bunch all of us into the same paranoid category?

If asking for a logical explanation to the questions I have posed makes me paranoid; "WOW" there would be a lot of people in this country that are paranoid for thinking? According to certain people posting in this thread we should all just except what is sold to us by the power's to be; and if we do not suspend logical thought in order to do so, we are categorized as "PARANOID CONSPIRACY THEORISTS" which I am far from being.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53



LOL this is why I despise skeptics! You can have all the proof and they still deny it! This is why we are a failed species!

Something this big comes out and oh he has no "true" credentials!



I can't see his credentials anywhere. He may have some kind of certification but it appears that his job is to take photos.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
Yesterday, you could not even support your claims about "explosive squibs". It was easy to show that you really had not done any research at all:

I actually have:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


No, you were shown to be wrong and could not refute the evidence:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by jthomas
It's quite remarkable that a photographer hired to take pictures of demolitions and do brochures can become a "demolition expert"


Photographers don't need licenses to handle explosives. It doesn't come close to shocking that you would leave out the important part the he was also an explosives tech with a license to handle explosives from the FDNY.


"Handling" explosives certainly is irrelevant. He was not an "explosives expert" as his very own "user profile" clearly demonstrates:

www.ae911truth.org...

Why would you rely on an unqualified photographer?


Originally posted by jthomas
I guess real demolition experts who would ever buy into "controlled demolition of the WTC towers" are in really short supply.

Not so much:

demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com...


Your photographer is at the top of the list. Along with Jesse Ventura. But why would demolition experts need to have unqualified people as their own "experts?"

Let's be clear. The whole "explosive demolition" claims have failed in the face of evidence and won't convince anyone of a need for another investigation.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddymax

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by daddymax

Or there is ABSOLUTELY no proof that a plane hit the pentagon, be it Cessna, Boeing, or Hot Wheels for that matter.


There's no proof that the moon exists, either. But if you can prove the moon's existence, a "cash reward of $100,000 has been offered to anyone who can send us, by e-mail, conclusive physical evidence of the existence of the moon. This reward remains unclaimed."

www.revisionism.nl...

Go for it.


Go outside at night

look up...done


"But think about it – without the help of so-called "experts", how do you really know what you’re looking at? It could be a hologram, projected from various government installations throughout the world. It could be a large, crudely painted balloon, held in place by helium and propelled by tiny sails and rudders (which is why it moves across the sky so slowly). Or, most likely, it could have been different things at different times and different places, depending on the technology available to the conspirators and the culture and beliefs of the population being deceived. "



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy

BoneZ has proven his credibility with posts that have research behind them. The closer we get to the day the betrayers of this country are revealed for what they are, the more absurd your arguments become.


"Research" in this case consists of cut-and-paste from somegroup-for-911-truth websites.
I have asked before and have never had a reasoned answer to the following:
People have seen many videos of controlled demolition of buildings but have not seen videos of accidental collapse to compare them with. If WTC was brought down with CD, how would accidental collapse, as described by the NIST report, have differed?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
If asking for a logical explanation to the questions I have posed makes me paranoid; "WOW" there would be a lot of people in this country that are paranoid for thinking? According to certain people posting in this thread we should all just except what is sold to us by the power's to be; and if we do not suspend logical thought in order to do so, we are categorized as "PARANOID CONSPIRACY THEORISTS" which I am far from being.


All right then, let's look at the facts- it's already been established years ago that the second plane over the Pentagon was a C-130 that had been asked by controllers at Reagan to follow and identify flight 77. If memory serves, it even discusses this in the 9/11 commission report. Yet, you still speculate what the "mysterious plane" could have been, which can only mean you haven't even bothered to try to find out whether the plane had been identified. Your hypothesis doesn't explain how the "manufactured wreckage" the mysterious plane dropped got *inside" the Pentagon, telling me you didn't know that wreckage was found inside the Pentagon either.

It'd be one thing if you looked at the facts and disagreed with them, but it's clear you didn't look at the facts *at all*. If you take umbrage when I point out than in absence of the facts your natural inclination is to side in with explanations of conspiracy, which by definition declares you a "paranoid conspiracy theorist", well, I'm sorry, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

Please bear in mind that I'm not here to embarass you, or to make you look stupid. You certainly aren't stupid and I know you mean well. I'm simply here to expose the disgusting con artists (I.E. Dylan Avery) behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites spreading these idiotic conspiracy stories to get people all paranoid over shadows. You yourself are merely the victim in their con.





new topics
 
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join