WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments.

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I'll start with this website its listing of those arguments.
donaldfox.wordpress.com...


There are a half-dozen or more theories about how the Twin Towers were destroyed, where, as The 2012 Vancouver Hearings have established, that the “official account”–that the buildings collapsed, due to the intense heat of the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to lose its strength and lead to a cascade of floors falling upon one another–is the least defensible and most effortlessly refuted of them all.


The discussion comes down to these theories :


The theories to be discussed include (h1) the Collapse theory, (h2) the NanoThermite theory, (h3) the DEW theory, and (h4), the Nuke theory, which should be distinguished by its own sub-theories, including (h4a) the 150kt Subbasement theory (associated with Dimitri Khalezov) and the (h4b) Mini and Micro-nuke theory (associated with :
The Anonymous Physicist; Dr. William Deagle, Dr. Ed Ward, Jeff Prager and Don Fox, among others), which appears by far the most promising.


I would like to ad on top of those above, my Thermobaric bombs WTC destruction theory, which I think I have advocated as the first ever regarding the three WTC Towers..
In 2005 already on this board, and on other boards long before that date. Because I based it on my 1995 OKC bombing research, where I found Riconosciuto's invention of TB's and the amazing story what happened to him after that.
Don Fox includes a short text about the Barometric bombs theory in his above link.
This is Michael Riconosciuto (the inventor of the a-neutronic bomb, a.k.a. barometric bomb) explaining the use of them in the OKC bombing on April 19, 1995, and how they work. Listen very carefully to his words and how these weapons can be implemented in especially hi rise buildings, f.ex. in the spaces between the lowered ceiling tiles and the concrete floors above them, which are easily flooded with the first stage gases used in TB's.
Hear him also say that a TB can be directed within a 15° segmented space and can thus shatter steel :

Barometric Bombs: From Iran-contra To 9/11
www.youtube.com...


And remember that most persons think that TB's are conventional fuel-air bombs, which they definitely are not.
That's a piece of misinformation planted in Wikipedia, which site is extensively used by three letter agencies to "muddy the waters" for knowledge they don't want to be public.
The real 3 or 4 stage TB has a much higher explosive velocity than a conventional F/A bomb.
Somewhere around 20.000 METERS per SECOND. There's no known chemical explosive that even comes near to that kind of SHATTERING power...!
Most conventional demolition professionals, be they military or civil demo-engineers, do not know at all about the real TB's shattering power and how to make or use them.
The governments who use them don't want that knowledge get out in the open, as long as they can plant the impression that TB's are some kind of F/A bombs. Again, they are definitely NOT.
When the lid was not yet on the subject stiff enough, there was a reason why f.ex. Cohen, the inventor of the Neutron bomb, called TB's : a-neutronic bombs.
Since they neared closely the shattering power of neutron bombs, which are atomic bombs, and TB's are not. No radiation, no traces left of them after use, since they are gaseous of nature. Only a very small amount of RD, the second stage explosive to disperse the third phase into the first phase has to be searched for, but will be lost in the devastation after its use. If you know what explosive or chemical is used as the second or third phase, you could start an investigation for it.
That was effectively blocked by the White House, who ordered the USGS out of the WTC Ground Zero peripheries early evening of 9/11 already. I posted that info in 2005, but as usual the link has been "disappeared", also from the web's WayBackMAchine. That's when you know that "they" are cleaning up their last mistakes.
But when you look at the HD videos from the start of both Tower collapses, you see whole floors bursting out in one ring around the floors. That's a TB effect, well calculated to just push the whole floor periphery with all external columns, a few meters outwards.
I once posted a Russian video, where they showed the result of a huge TB used on a bunch of high concrete buildings. They showed the thick layer of ultra fine concrete DUST on the ground.!


Theory 1.
I would like to start the discussion with pro and contra arguments regarding this monumental work by Jeff Prager :

911 DUST.
www.veteranstoday.com...

Dust 1. Final Dust 1 to 83.pdf
www.datafilehost.com...
(Uncheck the "download manager" box and then use the left, gray DOWNLOAD box to download faster and safer.)
Dust 2. Final Dust 110 to 199.pdf
www.box.com...
Dust 3. Final Dust 200 to 310.pdf
www.box.com...

It is also discussed here :
kennysideshow.blogspot.nl...
With all Jeff Prager links added in it.


Theory 2.
Then the Thermobaric bombs theory. Watch the above linked Riconosciuto interview first, and read all the comments under that YouTube video, then search ATS for "LaBTop thermobaric". And change LaPTop to LaBTop in the first ATS Search window it comes up with, otherwise you miss all my real posts.
It still is my favorite theory and explains a lot of what we can see in the collapse videos.


Theory 3.
Then the thermite discussion, and this is a great addition to it, send to me by member "foodstamp" :

www.youtube.com...


Mr Cole shows that thermite can explode, I only have the impression that it takes far too much of it and it still is too slow burning/exploding to be the main culprit for the WTC destructions.
It could have played a secondary role however.
He showed in an excellent manner, that simple original thinking and executing those thoughts, can deliver quite surprising results.


Theory 4.
Then the official gravitational collapse theory.
Planes and fire did it. No explosives used.
Usual "debunk" argument is that explosions were from gas or transformers.
But gas was not allowed in NY high risers, and the CON.ED station's electrical power in WTC 7 was cut off early in the morning already. Only diesel emergency power sources for lights in stairwells and very shortly for elevators. Then elevators ceased to function.
And why would generators or transformers explode in much lower than plane impacted floors, which were in perfect condition until collapse started?


Theory 5.
Then the DEW theory. Years ago proposed by Prof. Judy Woods. Also a monumental work done by her. Her site is often linked here at ATS.
Read what Don Fox has to say about her theory and which words she really uses in her arguments online.

Clare Kuehn, Were DEWs used to decimate the Twin Towers?


And any other convincing other Theory 6 etcetera.
That any of you can come up with here.
Perhaps one not mentioned yet, conventional HE explosives.Cutter charges and known bomb types.




posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
IMHO
The Vancover hearings were nothing more than a conspiracy convention for profit.
Any results that came from it are merely laying the foundation for more profits.

Why would 'real' hearings be held in a foreign country?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
the rockefeller's desinged and built the towers specificaly for their destruction.

the thermite that was used was part of the system placed in taller high rises to implode them in case they happen to sway too far sideways... in which case they would crush 'n toppel other buildings. it was modified by turner construction for demolition use.
the towers were mostly empty ... literaly! many floors did not even exist the call it the hollow tower theory. notice most all the business listed there were on the same floor.
fake victims fake jumpers fake flight plans and passengerlists fake passports.

good thing i watched it [live] on TV.
i wouldn't have had any proof it actully happend at all
.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 




the rockefeller's desinged and built the towers specificaly for their destruction.

the thermite that was used was part of the system placed in taller high rises to implode them in case they happen to sway too far sideways... in which case they would crush 'n toppel other buildings. it was modified by turner construction for demolition use.
the towers were mostly empty ... literaly! many floors did not even exist the call it the hollow tower theory. notice most all the business listed there were on the same floor.
fake victims fake jumpers fake flight plans and passengerlists fake passports.

All of that with no proof.
Unless you count Youtube and conspiracy sites.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Sam, did you read, in those 4 minutes it did cost you to post, all that material we normally call at least an attempt to prove something, to give evidence of something (Dust 1 especially).
It cost me a month.
To read only these links I provided, and then another month to follow all the leads to other links, which brought me to highly interesting, new to me, places on the web.

We should discuss the PROOF, a.k.a. evidence, these people brought to the table.
You however, on forehand, kick the table in a corner.
Try to offer serious arguments we can discuss. Just an opinion you post in nearly every post of yours is not highly interesting.
So make room for serious debaters with better arguments, or try to ad your own.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
To start a serious discussion off, why does everybody believing in a demolition, give so much attention to the basement explosions?
They were of no value for eventual 9/11 planning.
Since we all saw with our own eyes that the towers started to come down from a point near the plane impact regions. Everything under those 2 regions high up, stood rigid, until the collapse fronts reached it.

So, why weaken the basements with explosions?
This is only done in a bottom-down demolition, and then you see the WHOLE building facade sink down, just as at WTC 7.
We did not see any extraordinary sinking-down of the WTC 2 and then 1 facades below both their collapse initiation regions so high up.

So what use did such heavy explosions had in a demolition scenario?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
At 1:18 to 1:21 in this YouTube video :

Murder Victim's Daughter Speaks Out
www.youtube.com...



You will see a original sworn statement from Michael J. Riconosciuto, that he acted during the early 1980's as the Director of Research of a joint venture between the Wackenhut Corporation of Coral Gables, Florida and the Cabazon Band of Indians of Indio, California, on their Indian reservation.

The Wackenhut-Cabazon joint venture sought to develop and MANUFACTURE certain materials that are used in military and NATIONAL SECURITY operations, including night vision goggles, machine guns, FUEL-AIR explosives, and biological and chemical WARFARE weapons.

In the end of the video you hear the reporter mention that "heavy weapons were tested in the reservations".
This all is evidence that what Riconosciuto said many years ago already, about the first TB tested in some remote area and that the ground was dented 30 feet deep under the explosion center, and that 2 assistants died from that explosion, because the planners had not expected such an immense explosive force from this new, small device.
The shattering force extended far further then what they had calculated and for the most part, guessed.

Guessed, since they took the known calculations for F/A explosions.
They misjudged the real power immensely, and Michael had warned them in advance that they underestimated the power of this new device enormously.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
So, why weaken the basements with explosions?

So what use did such heavy explosions had in a demolition scenario?


The core was connected to the hat truss, connecting it to the facade. Weakening the core in the basement essentially would weaken the facade too. Where does a chain break? It's weakest link (i.e. plane impacted regions).

edit on 5-12-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
I'll start with this website its listing of those arguments.
donaldfox.wordpress.com...

There are a half-dozen or more theories about how the Twin Towers were destroyed, where, as The 2012 Vancouver Hearings have established, that the “official account”–that the buildings collapsed, due to the intense heat of the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to lose its strength and lead to a cascade of floors falling upon one another–is the least defensible and most effortlessly refuted of them all.


I would really like to know how they determined this to be "the least defensible" and "most effortlessly refuted" theory when noone, not even FEMA or NIST, knew what was going on inside the building between the impact time and the time the towers collapsed to indefensibly rule what happened one way or the other.

Unless you want to go into the really outer space fringe theories of hologram planes and armies of sinister secret agents planted everywhere, the only irrefutable evidence we have is that the buildings stood reliably for around 30 years until the planes flew into them, and both buildings began collapsing at the point of impact of the planes. Everything else is connjecture, be it from NIST or those damned fool conspiracy web sites.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by LaBTop
So, why weaken the basements with explosions?

So what use did such heavy explosions had in a demolition scenario?


The core was connected to the hat truss, connecting it to the facade. Weakening the core in the basement essentially would weaken the facade too. Where does a chain break? It's weakest link (i.e. plane impacted regions).

edit on 5-12-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)




What if these basement explosions just before, and after the plane impacts were "safe crackers".?
There were quite some secret and important commodities stored in those basements. And perhaps we should not look for the later acknowledged banknotes, gold, platinum and gemstones, but for something much more important for the organizers, like truck-loads of dangerous for these bankers, files.
And now, after six to eleven years, we saw what those bankers did to us ALL, again.


The whole idea of weakening the core columns deep in the basements has no sense, when one wants to show to the TV viewers worldwide, that a seemingly gravitational and thus "naturally" occurring collapse was occurring at the plane impact region.

And that is what we saw, both WTC Towers "knacking" at those regions first, WITHOUT any movement of the four facades UNDER it. Proving that no big chunk of the basement columns suddenly disappeared. Thus, no bottom down demolition.

Also at the second collapse, the Tower 1 (North Tower) one, we saw no movement of the 4 facades UNDER the "knacking" point, proving that the failure of the main column packet that was holding up the massive hat-truss + roof and the Antenna mast on top of it, occurred at one of the plane impacted floors. Which OF COURSE had to be planned like that. Otherwise the whole world would have cried wolf immediately if that occurred in any other manner.
The only effect they could not masque was the ring-shaped explosive expulsions all around all four facades, at all four sides instantly. And the tiny flashes from the TB's their second phase HE explosives, RDX or so.

And those 2 collapse initiation regions were in BOTH towers occupied by big Banking Institutions (Japanese and ? ), which had expanded/combined two floors to one floor, double as high, where huge backup accumulator racks were situated. In principle, big containers, they said were filled with lead accumulators filled with H2SO4. They were never tested, according to a former employee.
And what, when these containers were filled with anything else than that? To aid in the "knacking".?
For example thermitic mixtures, like Mr Cole showed examples from in his above video.

Not really far fetched. Look up, at what facade sides these huge, heavy "back-up power" racks were standing in each tower, and look up if the planes flew through them, or missed them....



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave, what about all the eye and ear witnesses in the 11,000 NIST Report pages, where I posted numerous ones from in the past years here, who all talked about huge explosions, sometimes from below them.
One firefighter even said it blew him UP the stairs and his helmet UP from his head.

Concentrate on the word UP. Meaning the explosive force came from UNDER him.
While he was on his way UP to the impact zones, but still had to go halfway UP to that region.

You should concentrate your quest for the real truth, on the three double high Maintenance floors. Full of heavy equipment, which had to have been hauled up there once.... What better places to blow the spine out of the main columns packet.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Well, I certainly won't knock you for sharing this thread with us.

Another theory on how the towers fell is , I think worthy of checking out.
I've never believed the official theory on how they came down so I'm open to checking ANYthing out if it can lead me to an answer.
I, like most on here have looked at all the theories you mentioned in the OP so I look forward to reading your thread.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


where does hollow towers/conventional demolition behind a smoke screen/faked
demolition software generated fantastical video fit in with you?
It didn't even make into your top five when it is the truth!

Look at the video you posted, for god sake. It is in your face computer generated rubbish.
wakey wakey time. we were duped.
www.cluesforum.info....

everything else is conspiracy junk deliberately added to the mix, to confuse, confound, occupy and divide.

pfft! so you can lead a horse to water and make him drink!



how come you can make a thread here and i can't? you know something i don't?

ridiculous denial page ats offers up, to insult our intelligence.

tight squeeze.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
You must have at least 10 WayAboveTopSecret points (W10 under your Avatar) to start your own thread in this 9/11 forum. This is to let hotheaded fresh members or old trouble makers with new accounts cool off a bit and get used to the civic debate style which is from 9/11/12 on, expected from posters here.

These page numbers 19-42 from Jeff Prager's DUST trilogy are at first glance in the eyes of a fresh 9/11-Conspiracy theories-reader probably just as controversial as the Video-fakery theory you support.

It's my opinion that any theory deserves attention, however, it will be the arguments that needs to convince the readers.
And your peers argumentation over the years seems to have met quite some bad press.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I am very curious what press Jeff Prager's DUST theory gets here from the scientifically schooled members.
His conclusion at page 23 is a solid one in my opinion.
There is in the 9/11 dust an amazing amount/lockstep of elements found by the USGS Report #01-0429, in lockstep at every sample position.
The amounts differ per sample position, but all elements per position are constantly in the same proportionated lockstep, seemingly originating from a fission process.

Here you can read an excerpt by Jeff Prager explaining his theory :


JEFF PRAGER:
The USGS study was primarily based on examining the dust for asbestos, chrysolites. It was not a physics study but a chemistry study that did also employ physics on a very limited basis. The objective was to determine chrysolite content in the atmosphere via the dust. The samples were taken with nitrile gloved hands and placed into a bag and then into another bag. I have full confidence in the USGS data because it would, and did, take several physicists many months to dissect and analyze the data and correlate the 2 dozen+ elements across 14 sample locations to both see and prove fission.

Proving fission, ternary fission at that with the possibility of quaternary fission with the USGS data was not easy nor did anyone think to use the data for a number of years. The USGS data was collected by chemists, not physicists. I spoke with 3 of the chemists at the USGS who participated in the study, the three top people. I’ve spoken to one of them 3 times. I was asked what the daughter products of strontium are because these are chemists, not physicists, and they never would have seen fission in the data.

However, I do want to state, ANY physicist working intimately with current explosive nuclear devices could look at the USGS Chemistry Table 1 data and see fission in an instant. There are, perhaps, 100-200 people on earth, if that, because I’m being generous, with the skill set required to see fission instantly in the data. Dr. Jones is one of them.

Dr. Jones’ samples were acquired, handled and used in such a way that anyone, including Dr. Jones himself, could have tampered with those samples and as I’ve stated previously, no true scientist in his right mind would use them, yet Jones did.

The USGS does not claim to have found no thermite. That’s my claim. The USGS used all of the same methods of analysis Jones used and them some. They took far more sub-micron images than Jones supplied in his Bentham Open essay and their dust analysis is far more complex and infinitely more thorough than that of Jones. My examination of the USGS dust samples and the examination of those same samples by both physicists and chemists indicates no evidence of conventional explosives, thermite or nano-chemical explosives or any type of incendiary residues and they would be there if they were used.


I would like to point again on the fact that TB's also leave no traces that can be found back in such a huge rubble pile. Since researchers would search for conventional explosives traces, and those they will not find from a TB explosion or a row of them, it's mostly gaseous which bleed off in the atmosphere. The very small amount of RDX used to get the thermobaric device airborne, so its piezoelectric bottom device can electrify the cloud, is extremely difficult to find, in fact it will drown in the overwhelming amount of other elements in that several blocks big rubble pile.
And there was no one in the USGS who ordered to specifically search for such traces, since they even didn't know of the existence of such TB devices, and the White House ordered them away from the Ground Zero positions. They were only allowed to sample their dust around the rubble piles. You can see for yourself in their reports:

pubs.usgs.gov...
pubs.usgs.gov...
pubs.usgs.gov... (chemistry Fig 1)
pubs.usgs.gov... (chemistry Table 1)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Jeff was so honest to also post a critique from Dr. Chris Busby :


WTC trace elements arguments


Dear Jeff

I have briefly examined the paper presenting an argument on the basis of “trace element” concentrations in dust and on girder residues from the WTC that the buildings that they were destroyed by nuclear fission.

The arguments are incorrect for a number of reasons. However, the evidence is interesting and I will briefly discuss the issues.

Barium and Strontium are not trace elements, they are common constituents of any material that contains Calcium (concrete) as they are in the same chemical group and occur together. I agree however that they are present in very much higher amounts than they should.
Both elements are toxic but not highly toxic
A correlation between Ba and Ca would be expected in any sample since they occur together and with Ca because they are in Group II of the periodic table and share chemistry.
But it is highly unusual to find such high levels of Barium.
I also found high levels Barium and Strontium in war debris in Gaza, Fallujah Iraq and the Lebanon.

You do not get high levels of Bariums and Strontium from nuclear fission. They are both fission products in the form Ba-140 and Sr-89 and Sr-90 but the quantities in grams are ridiculously low. You must not confuse activity (becquerels) with mass (grams). The whole of the Sr-90 releases from Fukushima or from Chernobyl amount to a few grams. A fission yield of a 2 Megaton Test (which would have destroyed New York entirely) would make only which 1014Bq of Sr-90 and represents 18grams. For Barium it is less than a gram. So this argument about too much Sr and Ba does not work. The argument is even more absurd when applied to Thorium (see below).
C-14 is not formed by fission but by neutron activation.
Although Thorium-234 is formed by fission or Uranium, the quantities are even smaller than Ba and Sr because the half-life of Th-234 is less than a month. So the amount of Th-234 made from 1 gram of U-239 is less than 1 x 10-11g.

The ratio of U to Th on this basis would be 1011.


OK let’s move on to what could have happened based on my deconstruction of the data from the war zones:


The concentration of Uranium is a key. This is slightly too high in the dust and much too high in the girder coatings. The activities for 2.7, 3.2, 4.7 and 7.57 are 33, 40, 58 and 93Bq/kg. The graph shows that there is too much U on the girder coatings. Normal levels of U are about 12, at most 40Bq/kg
My belief is that there is a cold fusion weapon or device of some sort. This employs Uranium and Deuterium. The output is neutrons, lots of heat, lots of energy, gamma radiation. The devise is the size of an apple or grapefruit but heavy (20-40kg). No radioactivity after the explosion except from Tritium H-3 which together with He-4 is the product and some short lived gamma radiation from neutron activations products (e.g. Ca-45 from the Ca in the concrete, Fe-55 from the steel). These would be radioactive for a few days only. [emphasis mine]
You would thus expect to find too much Uranium and also Tritium. You find both. There is a paper showing high levels of Tritium in the water at WTC. We also see U levels are too high.
Maybe the Barium is part of this mixture, and the Strontium. I have certainly found high levels of both in the war samples.


Regards, Chris Busby


My conclusions and assertions are as follows:

Nano thermite is an incendiary. Explosives are classified as having velocities exceeding 3000mps. The incendiary nanothermite allegedly found by Dr. Stephen Jones is incapable of turning any component of the steel structured Twin Towers or the cement to micron sized particles or what is commonly referred to in scientific circles as ‘very fine particles’, as we all saw on 911 and as Dr. Thomas Cahill outlines.
Nanothermite is incapable of maintaining underground, oxygen starved fires at the temperatures required to ‘boil soil and glass’ as Dr. Thomas Cahill stated.
The chain of possession of the dust samples allegedly found at Ground Zero and controlled by Dr. Jones is highly suspect, unverifiable and unscientific. The chain of possession of the dust samples procured by the USGS on September 16th and 17th, 2001 at Ground Zero, NYC, is known and secure. The chain of possession followed standard scientific procedure as outlined in USGS Report #01-0429.[6] Nano thermite and energetic compound residue was not found in the USGS dust samples.
The perpetrators of 911 spent far more time developing strategies to deal with public opinion after the event than they did on the event itself. Public opinion after the fact needed to be carefully managed and that management process was a critical component of the event.
Dr. Stephen Jones spent a significant portion of his career at the Department Of Energy which is the government agency that is responsible for all nuclear research in the United States. He worked specifically with Muon Catalyzed Fusion, Cold Fusion, Deuterium, Lithium Deuteride and other elements of the cold fusion process. Dr. Jones is a knowledgeable and respected physicist.
Dr. Stephen Jones refuses to discuss the issues raised in this essay and maintains adamantly that 911 had no nuclear component whatsoever.
Dr. Christopher Busby states that the dust samples from 911 indicate a cold fusion process using deuterium which is precisely the science and elements Dr. Jones studied at the Department of Energy.
I just as adamantly disagree with Dr. Stephen Jones. That 911 was a nuclear event is certain and anyone attempting to maintain that it was not is part of the cover-up being foisted upon the American people.
Exposure to nuclear radiation is the most odious and repulsive event a human being can experience. That secret is being kept by those in the media spotlight in the 911 movement, to include Dr. Stephen Jones.


I suppose the quoted texts are from Busby, and the excerpted texts are from Prager.

It's advisable to read Jeff's References also on the bottom of that same page.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I've spent all day reading through this and the information contained. Seems to me that the very presence of Uranium kind of puts the lid on it being a theory and more a concrete fact (excuse the pun).

I reminded me of when it all happened, I was watching clips here in the Uk with my stepfather and remember him saying "well that's bloody fishy" when I asked him what was he replied " why they've demolished the 2 towers so quickly. If there was folk in there, they'd no chance of getting out in that time". He said he'd seen flashes at various points up each building but said it wasn't the normal explosive used in demolition. He was a demolitiion guy in the army Hong Kong and Singapore so I guess he knew what he was talking about. I said well looks like the towers just fell down due to the planes crashing into them he just laughed and said if 2 small jets could bring down those buildings they were a bloody poor design!

Thanks for all the information. You see or hear very little about 911 here in the UK and it soon disappeared from the media after the event too. Its certainly made me very curious as to just what my own government is capable of as clearly they must have had knowledge of this fiasco as did the BBC. Disturbing to say the least and the resulting cancers of the rescue workers is truly disgusting but again I suppose sheds more light on the type of devices used.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave, what about all the eye and ear witnesses in the 11,000 NIST Report pages, where I posted numerous ones from in the past years here, who all talked about huge explosions, sometimes from below them.
One firefighter even said it blew him UP the stairs and his helmet UP from his head.


...and I will respond with the same answer I've been saying every time someone posts this- now that ten years have passed and more information is available, not a single fire fighter who was actually there still believes these were bombs. We know that because if there were, those damned fool conspiracy web sites would be trumpeting their statements all over creation the same way they do with Alex Jones "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" internet meme. You know that and so do I. You're all but acknowleging this is true when all the "proof" you have for demolitions is ten second video snippets of descriptions when firefighters were still running around dazed and confused at the very moment of the attack and had no idea what was going on yet. Most of them didn't even know what floor they were on at that point of time.


You should concentrate your quest for the real truth, on the three double high Maintenance floors. Full of heavy equipment, which had to have been hauled up there once.... What better places to blow the spine out of the main columns packet.


Excuse me, but speculation on what might have happened on the maintenance floors is hardly "concentrating on the real truth". For one thing, every video in existance of the collapse clearly shows the initial structural failure begain at the respective poins of impacts, not on the maintenance floors, and for another, the collapse was sequential from that point downward, one floor after the other, and nothing distictive happened at the levels of the maintenance floors from any other floor. The quest for the real truth needs to be at what happened at the point of impact, not the maintenance floors, and as I already mentioned, noone knows exactly how much damage the impact caused nor how much damage the fires caused.

I notice you didn't answer the question. How can this Canadian symposium irrefutally dismiss the non-conspiracy theories when they don't even know what was happening inside the building to be makign any such findings?



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by phyllida
. I said well looks like the towers just fell down due to the planes crashing into them he just laughed and said if 2 small jets could bring down those buildings they were a bloody poor design!


In that note, you will notice they aren't reusing the original design for the construction of the replacement towers and are using a completely different design.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited.
Opening post by Damocles who is a conventional military explosives expert and a very civic man I respect highly, I really, really hope he's still waiting for god, and thus alive.

He was a breath of fresh air between all the vitriol passed to me in the past years :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then, when your curiosity is sparked by this exchange of thoughts, find all the other, just as interesting thought exchanges by using ATS Search with either these words :
seismic "LaBTop"
or these :
thermobaric "LaBTop"

And pay attention to the work of Jeff Prager, it deserves it. One of the best thesis I saw after 9/11, and very well crafted. And the texts from Donald Fox, who's a clearly convinced follower of Jeff.
edit on 6/12/12 by LaBTop because: Last 2 lines added


This was a HeadToHead debate about this subject :
Head-2-Head: Were Explosives Used in 9/11?
between Damocles and Whatukno from 10 to 20 April 2007.
edit on 6/12/12 by LaBTop because: Added H2H debate link.





new topics
top topics
 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join