Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition on 9/11

reply to post by Alfie1

Are you suggesting that Mr. Hart is the opposite of a truther, i.e., a liar? Just a rhetorical question.

"Unnamed sources." Very common in the media world. "Protecting sources", another common phenomenon. There is a grey "off the record" area inhabited by media people and their sources of information. Hart's revelation seems to come from that grey area.

But doubters are quite right to point out that an unnamed source, to the public at large, is worth about as much as the paper a verbal contract is printed on.



[edit on 17-6-2010 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
For quite a long time now the issue has not been "were the WTC towers brought down by controlled demolition?"We know they were. There is abundant evidence of it.

Yes there is an abundant amount of evidence. Unfortunately there is an abundant amount of evidence that supports the airplane/fire theories.

Sources like the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue.

Sources cited here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which is why I will never be able to say that it was PROVEN FACT

when 6 out of ten 911 commisioners debunk the debunkers and call the
official investigation a fraud
they are also calling anyone who supports the official investigation a fraud
which is why the debunkers never present anything to back them selves up....
that can be proved
just semantics

why DO they call them "TRUTHers"?
oooohhh I KNOW!

say fingered out who killed Kennedy yet?
oooh yeah the bullet that did a "U" turn in mid air....

thats a double horse hockey
have fun at the office gents
tax dollars at work and all......

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Point of No Return

 

The thing is, when you step outside the zany world of ATS conspiracy theories : i.e. into the real world, you get these sort of opinion poll results :-

www.angus-reid.com...

If you think they are so zany then why do you spend so much time here?

Originally posted by Danbones
when 6 out of ten 911 commisioners debunk the debunkers and call the
official investigation a fraud

Cherry pick much?

This was at the beginning of the investigation.

What did they say at its conclusion?

I bet you have no idea....

reply to post by iamcpc

95% of people on ATS don't believe the OS! DUH! This is because ATS this is a conspiracy theory forum site!

Exactly, that would almost make those hardcore debunkers trolls.

Even I don't believe the OS and I believe that it was possible that the WTC towers collapsed from airplanes and fire. (unfortunately I also believe that it was possible that the WTC towers could have collapsed
from something in addition to airplanes and fire)

Are you being vague to prove a point? What part of the OS don't you believe then?

And why are you apologizing for someones post that insults a large part of the ATS community?

Those are the people who I think are delusional. The .1% and maybe even the .9%. And i'm saying, as a person who believes that it was possible that something other than fire and airplanes caused or aided in the collapse of the WTC towers, that anyone who honestly believes that the PROVEN FACT and TRUTH is that the towers were demolished is DELUSIONAL.

But if you just consider it as an option you're ok?

Do you think I don't see how you are trying to muddy the water with your post?

reply to post by iamcpc

I disagree with you. You are quoting authorities, not evidence.

I know this thread is not the place to go into matters of evidence in this case, but simply because a respected journal or institution makes a case for collapse due to aircraft impact and fire, does not mean that the case is valid or carries the day.

I've looked at representations from both sides of this case and believe that there are ample reasons that the controlled demolition scenario carries the day.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the WTC towers and building 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition. On the other hand, I'm not annoyed that others don't agree with me. I just think they are wrong.

I have debated the subject in numerous posts in this forum since 2007. I don't know everything there is to know about this subject, but after so many discussions I am confident of my opinions and judgements, at least on the issue of controlled demolition.


[edit on 17-6-2010 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by winston_jones

Originally posted by Alfie1


The world's most prominent mental institution has told me that all truthers are suffering from paranoid personality disorder.

What's the opposite of a "truther"? Someone who feels most comfortable with lies?

The opposite of a truther is a debunker. Someone who supports the OS theories that a combintation of 110-150 ton 500 mile per hour airplane impacts and fire damage caused the collapse of the twin towers.

But surely "truthers" are themselves debunkers - of the official narrative?

The problem of course with the 'impacts+fires=collapse' theory is that the collapses were total, symmetrical and at near free-fall speed. Only controlled demolitions can achieve that with steel-framed buildings.

Originally posted by winston_jones

Originally posted by Alfie1


The world's most prominent mental institution has told me that all truthers are suffering from paranoid personality disorder.

What's the opposite of a "truther"? Someone who feels most comfortable with lies?

My post about the mental institution was obviously made tongue in cheek but to demonstrate how pointless it is to open a thread about the alleged opinion of the alleged world's top construction co. without being able to name that company.

So far as lies go, I am actually very careful only to post things which I not only believe to be true but which I think have evidential support. Sadly, it is my experience that so-called truthers often post things which are outrageous imagination, totally false and could have been checked with 2 minutes googling, long long debunked, cherry-picked and distorted etc.

A truly disturbing video...relates directly to 911.
Put the pieces together, be the first on your street.

www.undersiegemovie.com...

Peace in our time.

Edit to add another resource:

www.wanttoknow.info...


[edit on 17-6-2010 by Stewie]

Originally posted by Internet Explorer

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Point of No Return

 

The thing is, when you step outside the zany world of ATS conspiracy theories : i.e. into the real world, you get these sort of opinion poll results :-

www.angus-reid.com...

If you think they are so zany then why do you spend so much time here?

Nothing wrong with zany in modest doses that don't actually have a real impact on anything. I can hardly argue with people who agree with me can I ?

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by iamcpc

 

I disagree with you. You are quoting authorities, not evidence.

Have you read the reports? Espeically the 300 some on page MIT report?They present evidence in the same way that steven jones presents evidence of high energy dual colored chips. Pictures, physics, mathmatical equasions, analsys, testing, etc.

If you don't think that is evidence i don't know what is! A 100% investigation about the airplane impacts and fire of the twin towers. Showing detailed diagrams, explaining, in great detail, how they determined the amount of force each part of the airplane had and the amount of force that specific parts of the building had and how the parts of the airplane with X force would interact with the parts of the building during impact and what parts of the airplane impacted what parts of the building and where the force was distributed and I was AMAZED that no one else has tried to refute this!

I want to e-mail richard gage. I want him to do an independant investigation about the amount of damage done by the airplane impacts too! I want a second opinion!

Forget petitions! Get people together and test it like MIT did! I would gladly voulenteer for that investigation!

reply to post by Alfie1

When you step even further out, you get to what people really think.

Polls anyone?

www.youtube.com...

There are a whole lot of conspiracy theorists when it comes to 911.

reply to post by iamcpc


You seriously think Richard Gage would know where to begin ?

Why do a controlled demolition? The towers would have been unrepairable anyway and later demolished. I'm on the debunker side, with reservations.

reply to post by iamcpc

I want to e-mail richard gage. I want him to do an independant investigation about the amount of damage done by the airplane impacts too! I want a second opinion!

By all means, could be entertaining....IF you're referring to THIS Richard Gage...



Oh....and that one may seem too...errmmm...disrespectful of poor Mr. Gage, so here's another (skip the first minute or so; the author discusses some arcane details relating to YouTube uploading, and categories):



[edit on 17 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by earthdude

Just a theory here,
but the WTC had asbestos issues. The cleanup involved was going to be very expensive. The building was losing tenants.

Fortunately for the owner, some terrorists hit it, insurance paid off, and the buildings problems were destroyed with the building. Stroke of luck.

That is the official story.

My theory?

You make your own luck.

Originally posted by earthdude
Why do a controlled demolition? The towers would have been unrepairable anyway and later demolished. I'm on the debunker side, with reservations.

That is a very good point and one which is totally forgotten 99.9% of the time with endless discussion of pseudo-technical minutiae.

The supposed strategic aims of the evil government perps do not make any sense anyway but certainly nothing further was to be achieved , beyond flying jets into the towers, by ensuring ( with great trouble risk and expense ) that they were razed to the ground, that the Pentagon was attacked and that a plane was flown into the ground at Shanksville.

reply to post by iamcpc

I haven't read that particular report, but people who agree with the notion of collapse due to impact and fire often refer to items from one engineering study or the other in bolstering their cases. This isn't really the thread to go into the minutiae of what people consider evidence.

All I can say is that when looking at a complex event such as the collapse of a WTC tower, it is very easy to be overwhelmed by detail and to lose contact with common sense and probability and even plausibility.

It is important to be clear headed in a conceptual sense.

One must understand that there are hierarchies of concepts and that evidence that is cited, for example, on the amount of tensile strength lost by a steel beam subjected to a given temperature for a given length of time, no matter if it is accurate or if it is fudged, might be overruled by evidence cited at a more fundamental conceptual level.

Suppose for example that steel lost 100% of it's tensile strength after being subjected to heat from a warm oven mitt for two minutes. The top of the tower might have fallen off the building 10 seconds after aircraft impact, but would the rest of the building have collapsed? Not a chance!

The pancaking of one floor down upon another in a symmetrical fashion at five one hundredths of a second slower than free fall speed per floor, right to the bottom of the building, depends on the welds and bolts of the trusses of eighty floors failing simultaneously on every floor in succession, in order to maintain symmetry.

This violates a fundamental concept.

It is a preservation of order in the midst of alleged (by the Bush administration and their scientific apologists) ungoverned chaos. It cannot happen without assistance.

It doesn't matter what MIT, an institution heavily dependant on government research grants says. People are naive when they place confidence in "experts" from MIT in this case.

Not everyone can think for themselves. It does require instruction. I will never forget the man who taught me to think. He took his Phd. at Harvard University working on the Harvard cyclotron. Many times in these discussions I have thought of him and the debt I owe him. He was a brilliant teacher.

Bottom line. I don't begrudge people their opinions. I have confidence in my own opinions. They are based on solid rational thought, particularly on the importance of hierarchies of evidence.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by ipsedixit]

"If you think they are so zany then why do you spend so much time here?"

Judging from his post and others, he spends so much time here to insult the membership who knows the Official Story was a crock and attempt to discredit the experts who also know it was a fraud. Don't blame him - it's the Admins fault for permitting these carpetbaggers to flourish here. Kind of odd, considering the Admin are allegedly such sticklers for civility.

"And, this picture has always puzzled me. I've wondered many times why the top half of the building did not continue to topple over as it seems it will in this picture, but instead "corrected" itself and went straight down."

Isn't amazing how you can cheat gravity with some well-timed explosives?