It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

911 is joke in your town...CDI bought to make you cry

page: 1
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Hello again friends.

I'm going to make this short and sweet. I don't care to argue sides, nor do I care what you believe. I am simply putting this here for your information. Feel free to comment, but again, I'm not going to argue with anyone. I'm simply putting it out because it needs to be.

A brief description.
Controlled Demolition Inc. is the company that was contracted to clean up the world trade center and is a standard in the Rolodex of the US Government. Though they do clean up as well, their mainstay is demolition having exploded most of the worlds high profile structures. They are experts in every facet of imploding and exploding buildings.

That being said, I found this video on another conspiracy blog and went through hell trying to get a copy as it was embedded. I finally managed to copy it then a few days later lost the video. I went back to try and recopy it and it was gone. It was only up maybe 2 days on this site (which for the life of me I can not remember now) I wanted to cry.

Well to my surprise I found it yesterday. I have edited it down yet, kept it in context. U2U me for full length copy if you wish, but I cut it down to the important part for times sake.

Still think jet fuel brought down those buildings?

Better think again...


Peace




posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Nice find.

I am sure he was implying that he has seen the size. Not that he took the WTC down.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by gandhi
 


But the point is, he said he could do nothing with that beam because it was so big, and the WTC beams were bigger.

So it comes back to how did fire cause those massive steel beams, that a demo expert said would be a problem using explosives, to simply collapse from fire. If fire could do that then why would it be a problem for a demo expert?

And no the plane did not cause the collapse, that was local damage that could not cause the undamaged lower floors to collapse.

Yes this IS a good find.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Great video.


Watching those demolition clips, what is the common JREF line people have taken up against the "squibs"? That they keep streaming out and last too long? Looks just like all the others to me. And the subsequent dust clouds too. And the free-fall/near free-fall collapses of all those buildings, mostly straight down.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
It's little things like that which speaks volumes.

It wasn't intentioanlly said to be evidence of controlled demolition of the world trade centres, which makes it even more valuable. He stated it as a fact, that it was almost as big as the world trade centre, and this steel beam caused a massive controlled demolition problem.

This is a great find

Thanks for posting dude



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by gandhi
 


But the point is, he said he could do nothing with that beam because it was so big, and the WTC beams were bigger.

So it comes back to how did fire cause those massive steel beams, that a demo expert said would be a problem using explosives, to simply collapse from fire. If fire could do that then why would it be a problem for a demo expert?

And no the plane did not cause the collapse, that was local damage that could not cause the undamaged lower floors to collapse.

Yes this IS a good find.


The beam wasn't the problem per say. The building 20 ft away from them was. This was in Miami Beach. The beam created a problem not because they couldn't take it out, they just had to reconfigure their blast sequence...sorry I didn't make that clear. I've got the full thing as I said if anyone wants to check that.

Peace



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Great video.


Watching those demolition clips, what is the common JREF line people have taken up against the "squibs"? That they keep streaming out and last too long? Looks just like all the others to me. And the subsequent dust clouds too. And the free-fall/near free-fall collapses of all those buildings, mostly straight down.


Thanks for your post. Agreed. Even if Jet fuel caused them to collapse, only explosives could of turned steel into powder. Not only that, the squibs are clearly visible on the WTC collapse.

Thanks again

Peace



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by vanhippi
 


Hey Vanhippi, thank you for your post.

I tell you what, someone didn't want that video up on the sight I ripped it from. Like I said, it was only up for 2 days. The article it was attached with had said they had received it from someone who wanted to remain anonymous. Makes you wonder....

Thanks again

Peace



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


I'm unsure what you're suggesting. Initially I thought you were implying that because he said "that's the biggest steal beam I've ever seen other than in the world trade center" that it was proof that they imploded the building. To which I was going to state that it means nothing as he could have seen it during cleanup operations. I then read ANOK's reply and realized I might have misinterpreted what you were trying to say. Your reply didn't help me understand the actual point you're trying to prove. I say this as one who doesn't believe the OS and certainly believes it could have been imploded. Just looking for some clarification. It might not hurt to put the full video up also.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Good video
I think there is no way jet fuel can rip worldtrade center like that way.

But I still dont really get why USA would do that on them self. Was it to get a reason to attack isreal?

Oh, if it is done by USA, how did they force osama bin laden to say in his video, that he did it?
Oh, is that why Laden maybe is still alive?


and is that a helicopter or a UFO in the skies in the start of the first building rip down.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Thanks for your post. Agreed. Even if Jet fuel caused them to collapse, only explosives could of turned steel into powder. Not only that, the squibs are clearly visible on the WTC collapse.


Now, THIS is why the conspiracy theorists are getting nowhere with their conspiracy stories. It's blatantly obvious they're so in love with these conspiracy stories that they want them to be true, but becuase there isn't even a microbe of tangible evidence of any foul doing they think nothing whatsoever of making stuff up on their own. Case in point-

a) All the reports from FEMA to NIST to MIT all report the steel was warped from irregular heating where it buckled and lost structural integrity. It would be one thing if the conspiracy people read this and disagreed with it, but it's blatantly obvious they didn't read it at all. How can you say somethign is a lie when you don't even know what it is that's supposed to be a lie?

b) There was no "dustification" of steel. That comes 100% from the conspiracy people. There are enough photos of ground zero to prove all the steel lay there in piles.

c) The "squibs" were from air being forced out of the building as it collapsed, like a bellows. When the towers fell the air inside had to go somewhere. If these were genuine explosives there'd be explosive flashes seen as well.

I'm not here to insult you or to make you feel bad. I'm here to point how how these damned fool conspiracy web sites are filling your head with utter rubbish exactly like this. You yourself are merely the victim in all this becuase I know you didn't come up with this yourself, you read it from somewhere else and you posted it thinking it was correct. Even you have to agree that if someone has to lie to convince someone of something, it necessarily means they know what they're saying is false, doesn't it?



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


You guys watch the same video as I???

It destroys your "CD" argument...look at it! Buildings are stripped, weeks and months ahead of time....real CD employs the VERY LOUD detonations - they are very obvious too....AND, the buildings, every one in the video, were rigged, wired, and sequentially blown to destroy MANY LEVELS AT ONCE, to include floors near the bottom.

That is the reason they use the word "controlled" in "controlled demolition"!

Are you trying to suggest that...the company featured in the program were responsible??? If you live in the USA, why not contact them and ask? They're in Maryland, and undoubtedly have a web site and phone number.

Tell them how YOU think they covertly got inside the Towers to "rig" them**...I imagine they'll be polite, but if you persist, will either laugh at you on the phone, or later after you get off the line, they'll laugh/shake heads at the inanity of the idea.

**adding....THEY were called in to help clean up...DONTCHA think they would have recognized the signs of a controlled demolition IF THERE HAD BEEN ONE??? And said something...to someone?? I mean, they are the experts, right?


In any case,the Towers' collapses look NOTHING like the examplesin the video the OP posted!! Compare, again....NO "explosions" beneath the oncoming mass above. Trapped air blowing out, occasionally....and teh ONLY time any material is ejected, or thrown laterally is WHEN it is involved in the maelstrom of the event crashing down upon it.

Look very, very carefully (again) at the Towers' collapses. The floors that were initially undamaged remain undamaged, until the collapsing wave of debris from ABOVE impacts them, and the destruction progresses. It is ALL kinetic energy at work, "fueled" by potential energy.

The Towers were anything but "controlled" (except by gravity, once the portions above the weakened areas began to fall....it was inevitable once the damaged supports gave way.

It is really astonishing to me how people get so married to this fantasy that they alter the way they see the videos.

Shows an appalling lack of understanding of real physics...instead, the pseudo-physics of the "9/11 conspiracy" sites get their way, and hold sway....merely by suggestion, and relying on the fact that most people are easily convinced (and fooled) if you repeat the incorrect "analysis" long enough.


I contend that many things written in the OP are merely the repeated claims made by many "9/11 conspiracy" websites, most of whom are WRONG!!! The majority of those sites deal with rumors that they've heard somewhere, and they repeat it. Others come along, see the same thing on several sites, and then ASSUME it is factual, so THEY repeat it...as so it goes....(for example: The claims of the steel being "shipped" away...it was ALL inspected, examined sorted, and pieces of interest are still kept in storage. People never do the proper research, they believe everything they read instead...)


It is a merry-go-round of lies distortions, misiformation and misunderstandings. Not ONE of those "conspiracy" sites does actual research, they just build upon what they read from other sites....nattering nabobs of nonsense.


It is really sad that such baloney still provides a source of income for the many leeches out there who are pushing it on the ill-informed peoples of the world.








[edit on 17 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You rock! I know because I thought the same thing you said.
Now if you will excuse me I must seal the leaks in my tinfoil hat.

reply to post by Three_moons
 


Now to find out if this demolition expert added his help to the PD/FD in their cleanup efforts of the towers.
I’m sure this gentleman is a red blooded American, but that would be akin to Donald trump filling in as a bagger boy at the grocery store.
Still plausible though.

reply to post by ypperst
 



I used to work at a spring shop so I had some experience with furnaces and forges.
I agree, the only way to slag metal is to keep the metal at a high heat for a bit of time.
The twin towers would have to have been able to support and sustain that kind of heat.
But that is just my thinking, no “scientific” proof.
And about osama,usama or however they are spelling it, did he really say that?
Did we really get the audio track with that video?
And if so did we get a good translation?
I dunno.

reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Good observations there,
What about the angle cuts on the I-beams at the base?
They look just like det cord or whatever it is called
Now I understand conspiracy theorists are some of the dumbest craziest folk in the woods but, …what about the 3rd building that freefell in NYC? Did a Olympic pool size load of fuel spill over into that one also?
Why did that building mirror the other 2?



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
"Now, THIS is why the conspiracy theorists are getting nowhere with their conspiracy stories."

So, you obviously have made a career out of responding and rebutting people who are getting nowhere. What does that say about you?


"All the reports from FEMA to NIST to MIT all report the steel was warped from irregular heating where it buckled and lost structural integrity. It would be one thing if the conspiracy people read this and disagreed with it, but it's blatantly obvious they didn't read it at all. How can you say somethign is a lie when you don't even know what it is that's supposed to be a lie?"

You hear that folks? The Government investigated itself and came up with an objective, non-biased conclusion. So do them a favor and believe them, will ya?


"There was no "dustification" of steel. That comes 100% from the conspiracy people. There are enough photos of ground zero to prove all the steel lay there in piles."

If that was the case, the steel rubble from those two towers would have been 20-30 stories high. It was barely even a couple of stories high. But you know what, all the steel was there. The fire must have melted it to a fraction of its size.



"The "squibs" were from air being forced out of the building as it collapsed, like a bellows. When the towers fell the air inside had to go somewhere. If these were genuine explosives there'd be explosive flashes seen as well."

Who cares? Since demolishing the center core column was the key to the collapse, you probably would not see any explosive squibs due to their interior positioning.


"I'm not here to insult you or to make you feel bad. I'm here to point how how these damned fool conspiracy web sites are filling your head with utter rubbish exactly like this. You yourself are merely the victim in all this becuase I know you didn't come up with this yourself, you read it from somewhere else and you posted it thinking it was correct."

Cue the sappy violin music.


"It destroys your "CD" argument...look at it! Buildings are stripped, weeks and months ahead of time...."

I don't think you need to strip a building to demolish it. This is done so they can remove the contents and sell them for salvage or whatever. It also cuts down on the cleanup time. And who is to say the WTC wasn't prepared weeks and months in advance?


"real CD employs the VERY LOUD detonations"

Sure...because technology does not move ahead and newer classified quieter explosives have not been developed. Only a moron would believe your statement as an absolute.


"Are you trying to suggest that...the company featured in the program were responsible??? If you live in the USA, why not contact them and ask? They're in Maryland, and undoubtedly have a web site and phone number."

I'm not suggesting anything about that company. Yeah, give them a call. The person who will answer the phone and talk to you will know if the company was involved in 9/11 and will be more than happy to admit it to you if they were.



"adding....THEY were called in to help clean up...DONTCHA think they would have recognized the signs of a controlled demolition IF THERE HAD BEEN ONE??? And said something...to someone?? I mean, they are the experts, right?"

Of course they would have said something to someone and forfeited the multi-million dollar contract for cleaning up the WTC site and probably end up being sued as well. I'm sure they had to sign a non-disclosure agreement with the client prior to securing this job. You know, like the non-disclosure agreement the victims families had to sign who listened to the cockpit recording from one of the bogus flights.


"In any case,the Towers' collapses look NOTHING like the examples in the video the OP posted!! Compare, again....NO "explosions" beneath the oncoming mass above. Trapped air blowing out, occasionally....and teh ONLY time any material is ejected, or thrown laterally is WHEN it is involved in the maelstrom of the event crashing down upon it."

That's funny, I don't see any buildings being demolished that look like the Towers in the video.


"The Towers were anything but "controlled" (except by gravity, once the portions above the weakened areas began to fall....it was inevitable once the damaged supports gave way."

Of course it was inevitable. The real question is why did the damaged supports give way in two buildings which were designed to take multiple hits from large commercial airliners?


"It is really astonishing to me how people get so married to this fantasy that they alter the way they see the videos."

The same can be said about the official news videos on 9/11.


"Shows an appalling lack of understanding of real physics...instead, the pseudo-physics of the "9/11 conspiracy" sites get their way, and hold sway....merely by suggestion, and relying on the fact that most people are easily convinced (and fooled) if you repeat the incorrect "analysis" long enough. I contend that many things written in the OP are merely the repeated claims made by many "9/11 conspiracy" websites, most of whom are WRONG!!!"

What were you saying about repeating something long enough? How many times do you and your buddy Davey intend on playing and repeating the conspiracy website card? If you're going to be a hypocrite, try not to be obvious about it. At least try not to do it in back to back sentences.


"(for example: The claims of the steel being "shipped" away...it was ALL inspected, examined sorted, and pieces of interest are still kept in storage. People never do the proper research, they believe everything they read instead...)"

Where are the photographs and tags of every piece? Where are the metallurgical studies and reports? In other words, where is this proper research you speak about? Is it in your imagination?


"It is a merry-go-round of lies distortions, misiformation and misunderstandings. Not ONE of those "conspiracy" sites does actual research, they just build upon what they read from other sites....nattering nabobs of nonsense."

And here we go...continuing on with the conspiracy website card several paragraphs down the post. We got your message; just because you keep repeating does not mean people will believe it. And if riding the merry-go-round makes you dizzy, why don't you just get off?


"It is really sad that such baloney still provides a source of income for the many leeches out there who are pushing it on the ill-informed peoples of the world."

Yep. I hear selling t-shirts, baseball caps and DVDs even rivals the income one can make from selling fake wars.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Nice find.

This is my own personal suspicion and is based on nothing but intuition, but I suspect that in addition to doing the clean up at the WTC, Controlled Demolitions Incorporated could very well have been consultants, perhaps unwitting ones, on its demolition.

I'd be willing to bet that Silverstein consulted with them prior to 9/11 as a result of his asbestos problem at the WTC. They may even have submitted some kind of plan to him for a legit controlled demolition. They may even have nixed the plan due to the obvious danger of collateral damage in the neighborhood. Controlling an explosive demolition of a building that tall would obviously be and indeed was an insurmountable problem on 9/11.

It does not surprise me at all to hear that comment from Mr. Loiseaux.

What happened next after CDI declined to do the demo (in my imaginary scenario) is that individuals interested in perpetrating the false flag attack of 9/11, then took the plan sketched out by CDI (I'm speculating here) to "friends of friends, hora dancers and matzoh ball makers", to remake a famous Howard Stern phrase, and these foreignpersons with interests allied to those of the criminal Bush administration (in my imagined scenario) then went ahead and did the demolition to order, to further mutual political goals and for "considerations" to be named down the road.

You can buy a fake Cartier watch on the street and if you are clever, you can get a world class demolition done by military journeymen from overseas. Shalom.


[edit on 17-7-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
"The twin towers would have to have been able to support and sustain that kind of heat. But that is just my thinking, no “scientific” proof."

Who needs scientific proof when you can use common sense?

On February 14, 1975, one of the WTC buildings had no trouble sustaining even more heat than on 9/11 in a 6-floor three alarm fire which lasted three hours (three times longer than the 9/11 fires). And the building was holding up 100 stories of weight, not just 30 stories of weight as on 9/11.

Why did the steel support columns not weaken and cause a collapse in the 1975 fire? The fires burned three times longer and the building was holding up over three times the weight as it was on 9/11.

These buildings were designed, if not overdesigned, to withstand aircraft impacts, fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and other disasters. For some reason, on 9/11, they were unable to survive a couple of oxygen starved fires.

www.grandtheftcountry.com...



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Three_moons
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


I'm unsure what you're suggesting. Initially I thought you were implying that because he said "that's the biggest steal beam I've ever seen other than in the world trade center" that it was proof that they imploded the building. To which I was going to state that it means nothing as he could have seen it during cleanup operations. I then read ANOK's reply and realized I might have misinterpreted what you were trying to say. Your reply didn't help me understand the actual point you're trying to prove. I say this as one who doesn't believe the OS and certainly believes it could have been imploded. Just looking for some clarification. It might not hurt to put the full video up also.


Hello Three Moons. To be honest I'm not suggesting anything nor trying to prove anything. I don't make up other peoples minds for them, that is their job.

I do question why members of the "Explosives team" would make such a comment. CDI has many departments and though they do work together an explosives team member usually doesn't hang around once their job is done. Granted this is the world trade center and I'm sure many different people saw the aftermath as recycling is a "billion" dollar industry, I just still found it odd that the video was yanked after anonymously being given. A loose end is a loose end.

I will put up the whole video shortly here, I just didn't want to do it on yt. Like I said, the video disappeared almost as fast as I found it.

Thanks for your post

Peace



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ypperst
Good video
I think there is no way jet fuel can rip worldtrade center like that way.

But I still dont really get why USA would do that on them self. Was it to get a reason to attack isreal?

Oh, if it is done by USA, how did they force osama bin laden to say in his video, that he did it?
Oh, is that why Laden maybe is still alive?


and is that a helicopter or a UFO in the skies in the start of the first building rip down.


Listen to James Baker here...


You've heard Osama Bin Laden say that he did it? I didn't know he could speak English. I've never heard him say that he did it....not once. Then again, there are about 4 or 5 different Osamas. Maybe one of them did, but I've never heard him say in a language I could understand that he did...which ever one he is.

I don't know who did it, but I don't need to know that. I only know that fire doesn't turn steel into powder and that after it is put out it doesn't leave the ground at over a 1000 degrees months after extinguishing it.

I'm pretty sure that was a Helicopter, but then again it is unidentifiable.

Thanks for your post

Peace



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Thanks for your post. Agreed. Even if Jet fuel caused them to collapse, only explosives could of turned steel into powder. Not only that, the squibs are clearly visible on the WTC collapse.


Now, THIS is why the conspiracy theorists are getting nowhere with their conspiracy stories. It's blatantly obvious they're so in love with these conspiracy stories that they want them to be true, but becuase there isn't even a microbe of tangible evidence of any foul doing they think nothing whatsoever of making stuff up on their own. Case in point-

a) All the reports from FEMA to NIST to MIT all report the steel was warped from irregular heating where it buckled and lost structural integrity. It would be one thing if the conspiracy people read this and disagreed with it, but it's blatantly obvious they didn't read it at all. How can you say somethign is a lie when you don't even know what it is that's supposed to be a lie?

b) There was no "dustification" of steel. That comes 100% from the conspiracy people. There are enough photos of ground zero to prove all the steel lay there in piles.

c) The "squibs" were from air being forced out of the building as it collapsed, like a bellows. When the towers fell the air inside had to go somewhere. If these were genuine explosives there'd be explosive flashes seen as well.

I'm not here to insult you or to make you feel bad. I'm here to point how how these damned fool conspiracy web sites are filling your head with utter rubbish exactly like this. You yourself are merely the victim in all this becuase I know you didn't come up with this yourself, you read it from somewhere else and you posted it thinking it was correct. Even you have to agree that if someone has to lie to convince someone of something, it necessarily means they know what they're saying is false, doesn't it?


Hello Dave and thank you for your response. I take no insult and thank you for your apology, but it is truly unnecessary.

First, the video in and of itself had nothing to do with conspiracy as you will see when I post it in it's entirety, though it is more revealing, i feel, when it gets into the recycling portion which I had originally left in, but cut for times sake.

Second, as far as the steel goes we can put that to rest simply. All we need to do is to subtract how much steel was towed away from how much steel was used to build. I don't have those figures but will get them and post them. If I'm wrong I will concede. Fair?

Third, if the "squib" like pops had not come from literal squibs, why would they pop like them? Why wouldn't whole floors burst out if there was so much pressure to cause that in the first place. What do you say about the Naudet Documentary with the firemen describing the sequenced "booms".



Compared too...




or



I can't stand Alex Jones, but here is a first responders testimony.


More testimony of explosions...


Now, no doubt there was explosions which could of been caused from fuel tanks, propane and such, but listen to how many people state they heard rapid fire detonations....it can't be ignored i believe.

Again, I don't know who did this, but I know that these witnesses statements are just as valid as any others.

I'll get working on the steel figures and I need to get the rest of the video up...till then.

Peace

[edit on 18-7-2010 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
As promised. The full length version.

media.abovetopsecret.com...

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join