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

reply to post by ipsedixit


Pardon me for butting in but it seems you are telling me to believe what you say rather than MIT because they are on the take. I am not sure I am that cynical or that convinced of your arguments come to that.

Could those behind the planes crashing into the WTC have also carried out a controlled demolition?

This would certainly cause division, discredit the USA and have all us conspiracy theorists running around in circles

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by iamcpc

 

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.

I agree 100%

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!

I believe that the collapse of a building after being hit by an aircraft and set on fire is something that, as you put it, is a complex event and to determine what is and is not possible requires more than a highschool education or a college degree in economics. It requires years of study and experience about phyics and engineering as well as hundreds of hours of investigation.

So the point of airplane impact collapses would the rest of the building have collapsed? I don't know. I've read complex reports and independant investigations expert testimony and evidence about the speed of the collapse. The evidence disagrees with itself (as well as the experts). If you want I present the evidence that both supports and refutes the claim that the rest of the building would not have collapsed. (one of the sources that presents evidence that supports the theory that the towers collapsed way too quickly neglected to even ATTEMPT to determine how much damage was done to the building by the airplane impacts)

When approaching from a clear headed in a conceptual sense I have determined that people who have spent 4 or more years studying or teaching engineering know more about the collapse than someone who did not. The evidence presented contradicts itself so I am unable to know who is lying.

The pancaking of one floor down upon another in a symmetrical fashion at five one hundredths of a second slower than free fall speed, 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.

Again evidence and independant investigations have been done about the speed of the collapse. I can present experts and evidence that both supports and refutes the claim that the towers collapsed at almost free fall speed. I can't see for myself. The bottom was a pile of dust. I am unable to determine who is and is not lying. The one thing that I have not found is evidence, or an investigation, or expert testimony who said that the towers collapsed at free fall speed. I can support the theory 100% that the towers fell slower than free fall speed.

"Why do a controlled demolition? The towers would have been unrepairable anyway and later demolished."

Unrepairable? Says who? There were about 7-8 floors of fire and structural damage, and I am being generous. Since when are 7-8 floors out of 110 unrepairable? Since when does such limited damage to a structure deem it a total loss? This is like getting a dent on your fender of your new car and the vehicle being deemed a total loss. Absurd, to say the least.

You think the insurance carrier would have paid Tens of Billions of Dollars to demolish them, instead of paying $1 Billion to repair them (and again, I'm being generous with the projected repair cost)? To make a statement like that, you obviously know nothing about the insurance industry.

"In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion."

whatreallyhappened.com...

If the cost to dismantle them in 1989 was $5.6 billion, imagine what the cost was twelve years later? And I'm not even going to touch on the fact that those buildings were loaded with asbestos, adding another complication and huge cost to disassemble.

Seriously, you guys should cool it with the ill informed statements, because it's really not helping your agenda.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


7-8 floors were damaged? Where do you get this stuff from? Firemen reported seeing heavy damage as low down as the 22nd floor.

And your blandishments about sticking to what you know are ironic. I work in the construction industry, and trust me, once a skyscraper has had a jet fly into it it's coming down, either on its own or because you're going to have to rebuild it.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

Pardon me for butting in but it seems you are telling me to believe what you say rather than MIT because they are on the take. I am not sure I am that cynical or that convinced of your arguments come to that.

That is a good point. Could you pay a team of MIT professors to LIE about the murder of thousands of innocent people? They investigate the collapse. Determine that it was a demolition. After they find out, and before they publish the results they are contacted by george bush (or whoever) and told not to publish the real results and told the are going to lie or the school won't get 10 million dollars next year and they all say sure! no problem! We will LIE about the murder of 3000 innocent people!

Not even one of those professors would be like, you know what, I don't want to lie about the MURDER of 3000 innocent people. I'm going to write letters with the REAL evidence and secretly mail (and e-mail) them to every college in america and all of my friends and family and i'm going to put this evidence on youtube, twitter, myspace, and facebook and mail copies to every newspaper, tv station, congressmen, senator, the FBI, the CIA, the local police station, and the president and i'm going to buy a website from godaddy.com and put my evidence there too.

Not only that but now, 10 years later, no one has come forth and said MIT lied? Also can't you say that the government paid the people who said the buildings were demolished? Maybe all these truther and debunker theories were all started by the government to muddy the waters!

And one more thing about the asbestos abatement: the huge cost for this would have come out of the landlord's pocket. The insurance carrier is not obligated to pay for this, since this was a pre-existent condition prior to the loss. This is additional motive for demolishing the Towers.

Again, you debunkers should stick to what you do best (hurling juvenile mindless insults and showing the same stupid video with boxes over and over again). No need to compound your incompetence and make complete fools out of yourselves discussing issues you know nothing about.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Again, you debunkers should stick to what you do best (hurling juvenile mindless insults and showing the same stupid video with boxes over and over again). No need to compound your incompetence and make complete fools out of yourselves discussing issues you know nothing about.

I'm not a debunker so I know that's not directed at me but still.

Pot meet kettle.

That whole snippet is an insult. Insulting debunkers, insulting the insults that debunkers use, insulting the videos that debunkers used, calling debunkers incompetent, saying that debunkers are complete fools, and saying that debunkers know nothing about the issues they discuss.

As someone who can readily admit that it is possible that the WTC collapsed was caused by something in addition to airplanes and fire I can ask you:


Sources cited on this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you think that 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 are all complete fools?

Further to my previous post, perhaps you could explain why they pulled down Buildings 5 and 6 and the Marriott. The latter wasn't even on fire.

Going by your logic they could have just done a quick patch repair and those buildings would still be there today.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


So you think the video with boxes is stupid. That at least we can agree upon.

On the wider, more serious, issue do you think 9/11 was a government
inside job with international strategic aims or a Larry Silverstein insurance scam. I really think you need to make up your minds because trying to combine the two just seems like a sick joke.

"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."

Nice backpedaling. Sadly and predictably, your insensitivity toward those who have a differing opinion from you and the mentally ill is to be expected. These types of demeaning comments say a lot more about you than the people you are being despicably judgmental towards.

reply to post by Alfie1

I am not telling you to believe anything. This is the crucial point. I am telling you to think carefully. I am not an authority figure. The real crux of the 9/11 affair is that authority figures are suspected of crimes.

In this situation people have to think for themselves. It's a marketplace of ideas. People on all sides of this issue are trying to sell their points of view in debate.

I know there are people who don't agree with what I have to say but I am confident of my views on controlled demolition.

There is no question however, that the American people as a whole do not think the 9/11 issue is worth disturbing their government over.

I dont care to convert or convince anyone,
I consume the information available and project it against what I know as fact from life experience.
I then arrive at my current state of minds conclusion.
I worked in steel, made steel, in the melt shops, in the forges.
I assembled steel, erected steel,walked high and low on steel.
I've erected buildings, set 225 ton cranes, burnt steel, heated steel, cooled steel, welded steel, drilled steel.
I've been to the world trade center, stood under it, went in it, went up it.

The only thing that should have happened that day as I watched the top of the tower begin to teeter and fall, would have been for the upper section that had compromised load bearing ability to follow its path of least resistance and continuing tilting and falling into that path.
It would have crumbled, bent, stressed and finally broken off and that rather large top section would have fallen to the streets below leaving a jagged exposed top revealing beam stubble at best.
The other building on fire would have never fallen, and the fire would have been put out with substantial damages to the interior occuring.
The seperate 5 building was clearly a demo, and those believeing it was not, that's fine hold on to that belief, but I would be suspect of every single building you enter from here on out since their integrity would be equal.
If there's some satisfaction being gained by name calling such as truther or os'er, I dont know what that satisfaction would be.
Actually it seems both view points openly share their version of what they call truth.
The reality is
Only one of those viewpoints is actually the truth.
That should be the only thing being sought and revealed, the truth.

There's plenty of opportunity for one of the "big boys" in the demo world to come out and share their honest insight and determinations,
We've seen them on the TV, on the net and such.
Maybe the men that own and run those companies would be men enough to go public, even covertly at first, if it was fear, or is fear that keeps them silent.
All I know is, I know what I know, and my experience has me still saddened and concerned about that day.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by HappilyEverAfter]

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
There's plenty of opportunity for one of the "big boys" in the demo world to come out and share their honest insight and determinations,
We've seen them on the TV, on the net and such.
Maybe the men that own and run those companies would be men enough to go public, even covertly at first, if it was fear, or is fear that keeps them silent.
All I know is, I know what I know, and my experience has me still saddened and concerned about that day.

There is a video on YouTube of the president or some high official of Controlled Demolitions Inc., supporting the official explanation for the tower collapses.

People might think that this person is a reliable authority whose opinion should be trusted. They are wrong. People who believe that do not know what world they are living in.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
There's plenty of opportunity for one of the "big boys" in the demo world to come out and share their honest insight and determinations,
We've seen them on the TV, on the net and such.
Maybe the men that own and run those companies would be men enough to go public, even covertly at first, if it was fear, or is fear that keeps them silent.
All I know is, I know what I know, and my experience has me still saddened and concerned about that day.

There is a video on YouTube of the president or some high official of Controlled Demolitions Inc., supporting the official explanation for the tower collapses.

People might think that this person is a reliable authority whose opinion should be trusted. They are wrong. People who believe that do not know what world they are living in.

Suddenly this is seemling a lot less like a debate. This is the second time that you have simply said that the people who offer evidence or expert testimony that support the airplane fire theories are liars. How do you know they are the liars and not the other way around?

I don't believe you really do. I believe you just go with your gut and not with the evidence. Your gut says demolition so everyone else is wrong, paid by the government, or liars.

I really wish I could just believe one side or the other and call the opposite side liars. When you resort to calling people liars then it's impossible to debate anything. You can say something like superman demolished the WTC towers. Both truthers and debunkers do it!

I was there, I saw the towers collapse, there was no superman.

LIAR! Just to play devils advocate I think i'm going to simply say that everyones source for information are liars.



That's how you decide what to believe. 50 people present evidence that the milk is good and 50 people present evidence that milk is bad. Is milk good or bad? I don't know everyone disagrees. I ask you if milk is good or bad. You say Milk is good! Everyone that says milk is bad is a LIARS!






[edit on 17-6-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by ipsedixit
People might think that this person is a reliable authority whose opinion should be trusted. They are wrong. People who believe that do not know what world they are living in.

Suddenly this is seemling a lot less like a debate. This is the second time that you have simply said that the people who offer evidence or expert testimony that support the airplane fire theories are liars.

That's an oversimplification of my opinion of this person. There used to be a slogan that advertised Coca Cola, "Coke is the real thing." Is Coke the real thing? Are people who advertise it liars?

My basic position is think for yourself. Look at the evidence. Live with your judgement about it. 9/11 is an important issue, as important as the Reichstag fire was.

How do you know they are the liars and not the other way around?

Rational thought. Weighing evidence. Making informed judgements. It is a learned skill. In the study of physics it is done by solving tricky problems.

One of the most important hurdles is to develope trust in the power of rational thought. Logic is more powerful than the MIT engineering department.

I don't believe you really do. I believe you just go with your gut and not with the evidence. Your gut says demolition so everyone else is wrong, paid by the government, or liars.

I can tell you that is not the case.

I really wish I could just believe one side or the other and call the opposite side liars.

The more desirable thing would be to have the capacity to come to your own conclusions without having to depend on "belief".

When you resort to calling people liars then it's impossible to debate anything.

I agree that discussion or debate ends when it descends to name calling.

LIAR! Just to play devils advocate I think i'm going to simply say that everyones source for information are liars.

Rational debate also ends when people parachute into irrationality or whimsicality.

reply to post by ipsedixit


I agree that " the American people as a whole do not think the 9/11 issue is worth disturbing their government over. " I believe this is because the vast majority accept that it was an external terrorist attack . Many probably suspect some cover up of negligence but go along with that as par for the course. Personally, I am one of those who advocates pursuing war criminals even if they are 110 and I am sure many Americans feel the same way but just do not believe in the conspiracy theories.

I have thought about the issue carefully, as you suggest, but none of it makes sense to me as an inside job. The whole thing is usually blamed on Bush / Cheney, mostly the latter, although they had been in office only months when it happened. In the space of months these two, otherwise rather ineffective men, are supposed to have prepared two huge skyscrapers and a more modest one for controlled demolition while people continued to work there. To have rigged explosives at the Pentagon. To have prepared a phony crash site in a field in Pennsylvania. To have devised substitute planes or remote controlled existing passenger liners.To have faked the most stupendous array of records and artifacts including flight training invoices and e-mails visas, passports etc relating to the terrorists and to have prepared to fake, for the day itself, radar contacts, air traffic control communications, cockpit voice recorder, flight data recorders, telephonic communications from the doomed flights to loved ones etc.

Obviously, in support of this, Bush/Cheney had no trouble in recruiting an army of psychopaths who had no problem with murdering thousands of innocent men, women and children and remaining for ever silent.

And for what ? war on Iraq ? How come the hi-jackers were 15 Saudi nationals, 2 United Arab Emirates, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese. Brilliant planning there for these otherwise superhuman conspirators, not one Iraqi. Fact is the only target indicated by 9/11 was Afghanistan with its terrorist training camps which was a diversionary pain in the butt.

So yes, I have carefully thought about it and the inside job theories are bilge.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

One of the most important hurdles is to develope trust in the power of rational thought. Logic is more powerful than the MIT engineering department.

What if the MIT engineering department also uses sound logic?

Then how can anyone logically come to a conclusion about what caused the collapse of a building that was hit by an airplane and set on fire without first finding out how much damage was caused the the building by the airplane impacts?

I don't believe you really do. I believe you just go with your gut and not with the evidence. Your gut says demolition so everyone else is wrong, paid by the government, or liars.

I can tell you that is not the case.

Well this was the case when I told you about the MIT investigation who were one of the few people or groups of people I found that actually tried to determine how much damage was caused to the WTC by the airplane impacts.

The more desirable thing would be to have the capacity to come to your own conclusions without having to depend on "belief".

Coming to your own conclusion and belief are not mutually exclusive. You can come to your own conclusion and believe the sources of information that led you to your own conclusion. The whole scientific process is based on belief and testing belief and analyzing belief to support beliefs or theories with evidence.


I have come to a conclusion after much research and based on belief.
I believe that the truther/debunker movement was started via government propoganda online and spread via propoganda websites promoting both false and true evidence and information in order to force almost half of the people in america to believe they were or were not lied to about what happened on 9/11.

I have also come to the conclusion that no one knows what caused the collapse of the WTC towers and no one ever will. Ever. We will only have theories and delusions.



[edit on 17-6-2010 by iamcpc]

reply to post by astrogolf


YEP YOU TOUCH IT WITH A NEEDLE I WAS THERE I MEAN REALLY THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT WAS THAT DAY . NONE!

reply to post by Alfie1

I don't have time to respond chapter and verse to your post, but I will say that there is a tendancy among some people, who dismiss the conspiracy theories of 9/11, to over simplifications.

Some people believe that the idea for 9/11 was in the making for years prior to the actual event. In Crossing the Rubicon, Mike Ruppert refers to an awareness of potential problems with energy resources within the CIA back in the 1970's. There was also Berzhinski's book The Grand Chessboard, which emphasized the importance of Central Asia and the Middle East in American strategic thinking.

This has been in the works for a long time.

After 9/11, Bush didn't even want to bother with Afghanistan. He had to be persuaded to go into Afghanistan instead of invading the real objective, Iraq, immediately.

9/11 was an inside job. There is a mountain of corroburating circumstantial evidence in addition to forensic evidence regarding controlled demolitions etc.