Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

page: 6
137
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Just so



Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.
edit on 14-1-2012 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
The vast majority do not - have the balls.
edit on 14-1-2012 by WeMoveUnseen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SavedOne
I am not saying the conspiracy is or is not true, but as an architect I feel a need to set the record straight whenever I see someone imply that all architects and engineers back the conspiracy. The vast majority do not.


Well ok, very simple.
First, define the conspiracy that these architects, engineers, etc are backing, then
provide a list of all the architects, engineers, experts that do not back, or oppose that conspiracy.

Otherwise, you are not helping, and you are derailing the thread.
edit on 14-1-2012 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 




Three days? You were lucky...


That was just to find reality, it has taken years to come to terms with it. Realising that man is not that far removed from the jungle that evolved our existence has helped. While some may say man is better than the other animals with our thumbs and voice boxes, with DNA's diverse search there are some of us a lot worst.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
S&F for you for this post, a lot of work went into it, putting it altogether

I personally believe the evidence is overwhelming, and I remember watching the event unfold in a daze that day, but as I watched the towers collapse I knew there was something wrong the collapses were too uniform to straight down, I said so to my wife that it was impossible as I watched it, however I am not a structural engineer and my opinion is only that opinion, but I do remember my laws of physics well enough to know that something was amiss.

I think that although this gives the evidence as to "how" the deed was done, there are other things that need to be considered, such as "who" and most importantly "why" these questions really need to be given more thought and depth, it is too simplistic to state the US government did it, even I with my conspiratorial mind can't fathom that, I am not saying elements within government could not or were not involved, I find it strange that a family member of Bush was chief of security only leaving that post on the 10th of September, the day before the attacks, but it still had to be restricted to a cabal within government if it was so, but who else is involved? And who really ordered it to happen? Not G W Bush, he was too stupid, his father? I think there are different players in this not considered, and no I don't have the answer, sadly I just know the question.

Then we come to why it was done, what was it's purpose? Again it is too simplistic to say it was to generate the war on terror, that could of been achieved with a far less complex plot than this, a dozen car bombs planted in different cities for example would have been enough to anger the US population and drag them into a war, Flying a plane into a live broadcast of a New York Yankie stadium game would of been enough, Why completely destroy all of the twin towers, why take down building 7, why hit the empty part of the pentagon? Why crash a plane into a field, what was its original target? Although I do believe the war on terror was because of this event and part of its purpose, there is far more to it, they were covering something else, something much worse to take this sort of risk



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 


Which Bush family member was Chief of Security leaving post on 10th Sept, day before attack ?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by ProudBird
 


There are dozens of witnesses who have reported hearing explosions. That's enough to convince me that explosions were heard, and this coincides with all of the other characteristics of the buildings collapses that match up with a controlled demolition.

If you want witnesses reporting explosions on all four sides, look it up yourself dude.


I just want to point out that you believing some witnesses that you have never met or talked to and then arguing for their case is kind of silly. You go on and on about believers of the "official story" and what not but honestly you are being just as gullible as anyone else here.

You assume that people hearing explosions know what they sound like. Well how many explosions have you heard in your life? Would you know if you heard one what kind it was?

I certainly wouldn't, and you assuming anything about the knowledge and intelligence and experience of anyone you don't know and never met is just plain stupid.

Just because someone is a fireman or policeman they are now experts on the sounds of explosions and their testimony is enough to convince you of something?

You seriously put that on a forum?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 


Which Bush family member was Chief of Security leaving post on 10th Sept, day before attack ?




Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne][/ex

Source



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
S&F for you for this post, a lot of work went into it, putting it altogether

....as I watched the towers collapse I knew there was something wrong the collapses were too uniform to straight down....

I think that although this gives the evidence as to "how" the deed was done, there are other things that need to be considered, such as "who" and most importantly "why"....


As he watched the towers destroyed on television a British bomb disposal technician with over twenty years experience said "There were explosives in those buildings." When the dust had cleared he said "Well where's all the steel? I've worked on loads of car bombs and things like that. There's always a lot of wreckage. Where's all the steel?" This kind of assessment is common. Some are better qualified than others but we all know it 'looked wrong'.

Who and why? The towers were called David and Nelson. Without the Rockefellers the towers would never have been built. The increase in oil prices following the invasions enormously boosted profits for Exxon Mobil amongst others. Exxon Mobil is the largest part of Standard Oil, David and Nelson's grandfathers business. If it was a nightclub that got burned down we'd all laugh at how obvious the fraud is. And that's just a small part of it.

The use of planes created the excuse for the TSA. Jackbooted nazis searching kids and grannies. The overall plan was to prepare the ground for the planned financial implosion. A financial implosion means the floodgates are opened transferring wealth and property ownership from 'us' to 'them'. In my opinion the 9/11 attacks were a disastrous failure. The Pentagon wall was supposed to collapse immediately. It stood for nearly half an hour giving time for plenty of photographs of that silly little hole. I am also of the opinion that both towers were meant to collapse immediately. The time between the failed detonations and the success of the backup plan resulted in the massive amount of photographic and video evidence that destroys the official story. In the first few days after 9/11 there were suggestions in the media that baggage handlers may have been involved. I think the story was meant to be that they had smuggled bombs onto the planes. That would be far more convincing than the 'intensely hot fires' theory.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 


Which Bush family member was Chief of Security leaving post on 10th Sept, day before attack ?




Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne][/ex

Source


Marvin Bush was a director of Securacom, which did do some security work for the WTC, but he ceased to be a director in June 2000. He was never "Chief of Security" at the WTC at any time, let alone 10 Sept 2001. The Head of Security at that time was John O'Neil, who died in the attack :-

conspiracies.skepticproject.com...

These myths just grow and grow.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I can't believe it took me so long to cotton on to the hash-a-boom explosions thing...

The argument runs like this:
Q) If there were explosions why did nobody hear it?
A) Lots of people reported hearing explosions.

Which is rebutted by:
"Ah! Lots of things cause loud noises, not just explosions, therefore the loud noises heard were not explosions after all."

Anybody wanna play spot-the-fallacy?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Of course they as in the OS supporters are going to attempt to discredit the credentials of the professionals themselves.

I am an Engineer and though not a structural engineer we are all required to take the same basic courses the first two years as Civil /Structural engineers do.

This is because in the field of engineering you are working with many diverse aspects of Science and need to understand the underlying principals of various disciplines in order to not impact the overall design.

Regardless, an entire structure collapsing due to steel weakening as a result of fire has only occurred on 911 in the WTC.

What made the WTC so special ?

Why did the owner specifically insured the buildings for Terrorist Attack 6 months prior with numerous insurance companies ?

Why did the Owner hire the FBI agent as head of Security at the WTC with a mandated start date at of September 11th, 2001 ?

Why did the Owner not show up at work at the WTC that day and neither did his 2 daughters ?

We have a very clear and distinct motive for destroying the WTC....for this Owner, Larry Silverstein netted 2.5 Billion Dollars in Insurance payments.

If you or I burnt our house down after insuring it to the hilt it would be considered Insurance Fraud.

But If you are a wealthy Zionist who just happens to be personal friends with the PM of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, then you get away with it scot free !


:



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I can't believe it took me so long to cotton on to the hash-a-boom explosions thing...

The argument runs like this:
Q) If there were explosions why did nobody hear it?
A) Lots of people reported hearing explosions.

Which is rebutted by:
"Ah! Lots of things cause loud noises, not just explosions, therefore the loud noises heard were not explosions after all."

Anybody wanna play spot-the-fallacy?


Try and find those explosions on tape or video/audio recordings. Maybe you will have better luck than me.
Be weary of eye witness testimony, even when it fits your theory and assumptions.

People are unreliable at best and downright stupid or deceitful at worst.

Just saying...



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I can't believe it took me so long to cotton on to the hash-a-boom explosions thing...

The argument runs like this:
Q) If there were explosions why did nobody hear it?
A) Lots of people reported hearing explosions.

Which is rebutted by:
"Ah! Lots of things cause loud noises, not just explosions, therefore the loud noises heard were not explosions after all."

Anybody wanna play spot-the-fallacy?


I am not sure why you direceted your post to me but, as you have, I will give you my opinion.

Explosions heard at the WTC were few, random, variable in loudness and preceded collapse.

With a real controlled demolition; as here :-

www.youtube.com...

The explosions are rythmic, sharp and loud and accompany collapse.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


This is what I've been saying myself ever since 9/11!

It is illegal to destroy evidence which hasn't been examined.Especially in a mass murder crime!

Because that steel could have had proof of explosions.

And when you are told by firemen,the police and people who actually worked in the buildings that they were hearing,seeing and feeling explosions going off all day..you would look into it.Well,any other normal investigator would.

Not NIST!Nope!NIST went with the "well,2 planes hit 2 buildings and that's why 3 buildings fell" theory!

That's all it was..a theory.And not even a good one.

Why did they leave out the explosions?

Why didn't they even investigate the explosions?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Clark
reply to post by pteridine
 


Possibly the least logical answer ever. It is an investigator's job to go down every avenue to find out what the actual cause is. Disproving the author's idea is not relevant to the physical evidence which the author shows. Further, you talk about physics and laws.. Newtonian possibly. Quantum mechanics allows for many of the physical events portrayed by the author. Dr. Judy Wood has done the most comprehensive forensic analysis. Check it out. Also, all of your conclusions only work in a world where the speed of light is constant.. I guess the most recent papers from Cern stating the speed of light might not be constant does not help your argument.

I think you have just taken the crown for "Possibly the least logical answer ever." Possibly you are entangled with a troll somewhere.
You can recover by showing how the speed of light affects any conclusions about the WTC. Or, you can worry about who you will ask to the Junior Prom.
edit on 1/14/2012 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I'll bet if you gather all the empirical data that exists for high-rise steel structures subjected to fires and compare it with high-rise steel structures subjected to controlled demolitions, you'll find a probability of free-fall collapse for the former is close to 0, while a probability of free-fall collapse for the latter is close to 1.

On 9/11 three extremely strong redundant steel structures collapsed at exactly the same free-fall rate ( 9.8 meters per second squared ). Even to the uninitiated observer, it should be plainly obvious that these structures were subjected to symmetric controlled demolitions.

NIST's explanation and "official story" is B.S.
edit on 14-1-2012 by seasoul because: F.T.G.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Great post. A lot of detailed information here. I doubt I have the time to go through all of it right now, however I will def check the rest out later to see if you have any new information in there somewhere.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I never could understand how a few terrorists hijacked a plane full of people, but that's just me. Seems like the dumbest plan anyone ever came up with, really who would've thought of this? That and if you watch the video of the tower coming down you can literally see some kind of explosives going off ahead of the falling structures, some of that "falling debris" looks rather suspiciously like a line of explosive charges as well.



I'm not an expert on this, but it smells fishy... it always has.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Tupac, I feel bad for you. You have taken the time and effort to construct a thread full of some great info.

Even though most of it seems like a more refined model of previous posts, it's good to see more intelligent people like yourself express it in your own way. Always good to remind the people to re-examine their beliefs once in a while. The evidence at least needs to be looked at from all possible perspectives, fairly and openly.

AND...

Why can't posters keep comments to themselves unless they are willing to examine solely what the OP has put forth, and respectfully discuss what he is capable of debating?

INSTEAD...

You get linguistic sword fighting, manipulative snares, quick branded mentality and pushed out of context. I swear, robot ninja posters who are like trying to play a game of computer chess...

They are programed to beat you.

If you guys don't see it then I don't know what to say.
The first page is full of subliminal wordplay, along with the rest of the posts.

You guys need a new outfit. Your old one is starting to smell...

~Glu
edit on 14-1-2012 by ElmersGluon because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2012 by ElmersGluon because: (no reason given)





 
137
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join