yup ... indeed ..

reply to post by hellobruce


The bomb sniffer dog argument is sort of absurd.

First of all, with most explosives, apparently they add a compound to it that gives it odor so security sniffers can detect it.

So therefore, the explosives (whatever type it may be), must have been constructed without the additional odor compound added in order to fool the sniffers.

That is just speculation but reveals how there are more twists to this than a mere forum discussion can reveal.

reply to post by hellobruce


The people in charge of security at WTC =
Kroll Inc(wiki)

Kroll were responsible for revamping security at the World Trade Center after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.[14][15] They also took on responsibility for security at Chicago's Sears Tower following the September 11, 2001 attacks.[16] Just prior to the September 11 attacks, Kroll Inc., with the guidance of Jerome Hauer, at the time the Managing director of their Crisis and Consulting Management Group,[17] hired former FBI special investigator John P. O'Neill,[18] who specialized in the Al-Qaeda network held responsible for the 1993 bombing, to head the security at the WTC complex. O'Neill died in the attacks.

What happened under their security watch to this company, Marsh and McLennan ??

At the time of the September 11 attacks in the United States in 2001, the corporation held offices on eight floors of the North Tower of the World Trade Center, from 93 to 100.[7] When American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the building, their offices spanned the entire impact zone, from floors 93 to 99.[8] No one present in the offices at the time survived the attack, and the firm lost 295 employees and 63 contractors.[1]

Every single employee from this company died (that was present on that day), coincidentally. Crazy odds!
But now get this....

On July 8, 2004, Marsh completed the acquisition of Kroll Inc.[9] Jeffrey W. Greenberg called it an important strategic step.

So Kroll did such a bang up job with security at WTC, that Marsh McLennan, who lost 295 employees and 63 contractors in the attack, decided to buy them up?

Why would they do this acquisition just 3 years after that event? This seems ambiguous and ignored and I would like to know why. If anyone wants to find a conspiracy there probably is one going on between Kroll and Marsh McL in relation to 911.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by hellobruce

 

The bomb sniffer dog argument is sort of absurd.

First of all, with most explosives, apparently they add a compound to it that gives it odor so security sniffers can detect it.

So therefore, the explosives (whatever type it may be), must have been constructed without the additional odor compound added in order to fool the sniffers.

That is just speculation but reveals how there are more twists to this than a mere forum discussion can reveal.

[[Citation needed|date=April 2013]] [/wiki]

Fitz

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by FlySolo
10 men x 10 trips x 100lbs x 10 days = 100,000 lbs. Just another day in the construction industry.

And the bomb sniffing dogs didnt notice? No office worker noticed 100,000 lbs of explosives, no one noticed them knocking all the holes in the wall to plant that 100,000 lb of explosives....

bomb detecting dogs smell explosives, not thermite. Besides, what bomb sniffing dogs? The place was shut down for a whole week running "alarm" tests.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by hellobruce

 

The bomb sniffer dog argument is sort of absurd.

First of all, with most explosives, apparently they add a compound to it that gives it odor so security sniffers can detect it.

So therefore, the explosives (whatever type it may be), must have been constructed without the additional odor compound added in order to fool the sniffers.

That is just speculation but reveals how there are more twists to this than a mere forum discussion can reveal.

[[Citation needed|date=April 2013]] [/wiki]

Fitz

Go look it up. It is ambiguous and vague yes, but actually this type of information is generally classified secret by the US Govt for obvious reasons.

Just snoop around and you will find out what I am referring to (mostly in relation to plastic explosives I assume?).
I don't even know the name of the odor compound....

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by hellobruce

 

The bomb sniffer dog argument is sort of absurd.

First of all, with most explosives, apparently they add a compound to it that gives it odor so security sniffers can detect it.

So therefore, the explosives (whatever type it may be), must have been constructed without the additional odor compound added in order to fool the sniffers.

That is just speculation but reveals how there are more twists to this than a mere forum discussion can reveal.

[[Citation needed|date=April 2013]] [/wiki]

Fitz

Go look it up. It is ambiguous and vague yes, but actually this type of information is generally classified secret by the US Govt for obvious reasons.

Just snoop around and you will find out what I am referring to (mostly in relation to plastic explosives I assume?).
I don't even know the name of the odor compound....

Your assertion; Google it yourself! Burden of proof's on you to be able to back it up, not on others to disprove anything that you may well have made up.

Fitz
"Denying ignorance since 2006"

reply to post by SpearMint

I read the NIST report on WTC7. to summarize, it said the following. between the 5th to 7th floor heat from fire weakened two columns, which then buckeled. the sideways motion then pulled the other columns, causing them also to buckle sideways and the building collapse.
the floors are 4 inchs of cement poured on 20 guage corrogated steel pans with cross members supporting the floor.
So the entire floor was pulled sideways causing the remaining columns to collapse.

If you disagree with this summary, please cite the NIST document. I have it. You must show why the collapse is straight down and symmetrical, while the explanation is asymmetrical and time dependent. e.g., columns do not bend at the speed of light...

The problem with this theory begins with not enough heat from an open flame to weaken steel to the symmetrical fall of the building, at gravitatioal acceleration. One would see the building fall toward the collapsed columns,if the NIST report were correct. then the rest follow. Does not happen.

reply to post by muzzleflash


How about getting back to fires and building construction so did you know the type of construction used for the buildings in the op picture and do you think that would have an effect on the outcome!

Or are buildings just buildings to you as well

reply to post by wmd_2008


huh?...I'm confused, what differences did you see that should make me believe physics and the OS dictates this?

I saw none, other than more fuel to add to the fire so to speak, your video evidence does not do you or the OS any favors ....It only makes one ask more questions

Same as the first video above now go to 2:35 in the video lets see if you can spot the difference

"now go to 2.35"....What and miss a real expert give his opinion on what he saw happening, I am of course referring to Danny Jowenko R.I.P

Danny knew what he was talking about....unlike some posters around these forums,

There is no video or photographic image that can prove that the OS is correct so please don't waste your time or mine, the only images and video's available support foul play occurred and not nature

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by hellobruce

 

The bomb sniffer dog argument is sort of absurd.

First of all, with most explosives, apparently they add a compound to it that gives it odor so security sniffers can detect it.

So therefore, the explosives (whatever type it may be), must have been constructed without the additional odor compound added in order to fool the sniffers.

That is just speculation but reveals how there are more twists to this than a mere forum discussion can reveal.

[[Citation needed|date=April 2013]] [/wiki]

Fitz

Found it all woohoo!

DMDNB, or also DMNB, chemically 2,3-dimethyl-2,3-dinitrobutane, is a volatile organic compound used as a detection taggant for explosives, mostly in the United States where it is virtually the only such taggant in use. Dogs are very sensitive to it and can detect as little as 0.5 parts per billion in the air, as can specialised ion mobility spectrometers. Its presence allows more reliable explosive detection.

Taggent Agents

Wiki Link

More agents listed in this article used for tagging explosives.

The explosive composition according to claim 5, wherein the taggent agent is selected from the group consisting of ethylene glycol dinitrate (EGDN), 2,3-Dimethyl-2,3-dinitrobutane (DMDNB), para-Mononitrotoluene (p-MNT), and ortho-Mononitrotoluene (o-MNT).

Sure Chem Link

Pardon me for stepping into a forum that I don't know a lot about......but I gotta say this even though y'all probably know all about it. I remember being glued to the TV as it all happened, was watching Fox and after the two towers collapsed Shepard Smith started broadcasting live from the roof of their building. I distinctly recall him getting info into his ear piece with him telling the viewers what he was hearing from different sources.

One incoming stream of info confused him. They were telling him that the fire department was calling in experts to take down building 7 with explosives, that it was unstable and had to come down immediately to keep it from falling incorrectly into other buildings. He had a fit about that saying there was no way they could do that quickly and safely and that he just didn't get it at all. He talked about it for quite awhile. Do any of y'all recall this? Did I just imagine all this in the blur of the horror?

Originally posted by FlySolo
Besides, what bomb sniffing dogs? The place was shut down for a whole week running "alarm" tests.

What makes you claim that? Anything to back that silly claim up? You do not even know one of the bomb sniffing dogs was killed due to the collapse on 9/11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by hellobruce

 

The bomb sniffer dog argument is sort of absurd.

First of all, with most explosives, apparently they add a compound to it that gives it odor so security sniffers can detect it.

So therefore, the explosives (whatever type it may be), must have been constructed without the additional odor compound added in order to fool the sniffers.

That is just speculation but reveals how there are more twists to this than a mere forum discussion can reveal.

[[Citation needed|date=April 2013]] [/wiki]

Fitz

Go look it up. It is ambiguous and vague yes, but actually this type of information is generally classified secret by the US Govt for obvious reasons.

Just snoop around and you will find out what I am referring to (mostly in relation to plastic explosives I assume?).
I don't even know the name of the odor compound....

Your assertion; Google it yourself! Burden of proof's on you to be able to back it up, not on others to disprove anything that you may well have made up.

Fitz
"Denying ignorance since 2006"

I googled it for you! Look at the post above.

Now congratulate yourself on how lazy you actually are.
And imagine the million things you don't actually know and currently scoff at simply because you expect others to hold your hand.

I usually google people's claims before even bothering to ask for them to prove it.
Why cannot you?

Originally posted by seentoomuch
Did I just imagine all this in the blur of the horror?

Lock in "B", Eddie.

reply to post by zerozero00


Look at the roof of the building at 1:01 then look at it at 2:35 NOW can you see whats different and how that effects both the collapse and the time it started

Here I will make it easy for you at 1:01 on architects for the truth video they use this as the start of the collapse



At 2:35 we see this



Now Gage himself on the video claims a collapse of 7 seconds it's NOT the collapse started a few seconds before the so called penthouse drops on the roof the structure below there had to have collapsed!!

The interior structure had collapsed before you see the exterior start to collapse, structural members when they fail can make lots of sounds very loud sounds , you also had around a dozen transformers on the LOWER floors of the building filled with oil which could explode due to heat.

There are also statements from fire fighters re the condition of the walls of the building.

There are lots of reasons why the building could have fallen like it did.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by zerozero00

 

Look at the roof of the building at 1:01 then look at it at 2:35 NOW can you see whats different and how that effects both the collapse and the time it started

And localized fires and falling debris caused this to happen

I still don't get the point you are trying to make, What I see in both videos is not explained with the OS

Foul play of some sort is the only answer as nature and physics hold their own under test and scrutiny

My logic can not see localized fires and falling debris as to the cause of a total collapse of this magnificent building....Regardless of "Freefall" or "Near Freefall" speeds........Just not possible!

Originally posted by seentoomuch

One incoming stream of info confused him. They were telling him that the fire department was calling in experts to take down building 7 with explosives, that it was unstable and had to come down immediately to keep it from falling incorrectly into other buildings. He had a fit about that saying there was no way they could do that quickly and safely and that he just didn't get it at all. He talked about it for quite awhile. Do any of y'all recall this? Did I just imagine all this in the blur of the horror?

Must have imagined it because the fire department does not call in experts to take a skyscraper down. The fire department was up to it's eyeballs in trying to put out fires and keep people safe.

Also I would wager there isn't a sane expert around that would go into a building that was on fire, and plant explosives to take it down quickly.

Demolition experts take months planning the implosion of a skyscraper, so an immediate response take down team is definitely not from the reality we live.

Wow, I recall my husband and I talking about it too. Is there a way to view the original full length Fox broadcast?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

How about getting back to fires and building construction so did you know the type of construction used for the buildings in the op picture and do you think that would have an effect on the outcome!

Or are buildings just buildings to you as well

The thread topic is "Yup...indeed ...", under the 911 Conspiracy Forum.
The OP is lacking in substance, and merely posts a quick meme photo attempting to make a point.

Although I personally detest meme photos now after I have seen a bazillion of them (they were funny at first, sorta).

The point is that this thread is in itself ambiguous and indeterminate, but clearly it pertains at least loosely to the 911 events and conspiracy allegations surrounding them.

So really it's going to be hard for you to limit my discourse while it will be simple for me to create links between seemingly unrelated posts and the main topic which is generalized in the first place.

But if you want to tell us how much we don't know about fires and construction, be my guest.

You have been going on and on about how you know special construction info that no one else knows, argued with fallacies primarily, claimed we are all wrong, and yet at the same time, you haven't told us anything significant to educate us differently...

Maybe that's because being a construction worker the topics of physics, metallurgy, thermodynamics, etc, are university level topics and a bit above that 'pay grade', as they call it? (Although since there is no real authority on anything, than anyone has equal footing to debate anything from any point of view, but I digress...)

Also when you ask a question, the exclamation point(!) is inappropriate, and the question mark (?) is more fitting.
Not that punctuation matters that much, but it starts mattering a whole hell of a lot when you claim to be an 'authority' on some matter in such a fallacious and narcissistic manner.

Whenever you do decide to break the 911 Conspiracy Allegations into dust by posting actual valid science with clear concise explanations, debunking the entire gamut of the more common claims, than I will star and flag you for teaching me something new and interesting. However what you are participating in right now is a sham and a fraud as far as I am concerned. If you really could debunk 911 allegations, you would have in a big way.

Not in a small little tiny way derailing a thread. At least that's my interpretation of the issue.

Originally posted by Realtruth

Originally posted by seentoomuch

One incoming stream of info confused him. They were telling him that the fire department was calling in experts to take down building 7 with explosives, that it was unstable and had to come down immediately to keep it from falling incorrectly into other buildings. He had a fit about that saying there was no way they could do that quickly and safely and that he just didn't get it at all. He talked about it for quite awhile. Do any of y'all recall this? Did I just imagine all this in the blur of the horror?

Must have imagined it because the fire department does not call in experts to take a skyscraper down. The fire department was up to it's eyeballs in trying to put out fires and keep people safe.

Also I would wager there isn't a sane expert around that would go into a building that was on fire, and plant explosives to take it down quickly.

Demolition experts take months planning the implosion of a skyscraper, so an immediate response take down team is definitely not from the reality we live.

Thefore either 1) They planned and planted explosives way ahead of time.

Or 2) That building randomly fell in the most amazing and shocking and mysterious manner!
And 911 was the ultimate day of coincidences.