BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?

Subject: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 11:27 PM

On September 11th I watched events unfold and felt shocked and angered like most people did. I was glad that Bush and America were now going after the bad guys. When people started talking about Bush just going after the oil, and far fetched conspiracy theories, I felt that was just fashionable anti American sentiment.
Only now, 5 years on have I been able to even consider that factions of the US government could be complicit in mass murder.

I have always had some misgivings about the neat way in which both towers collapsed from the top down and fell perfectly vertically into their own footprint. Hard to achieve in a controlled demolition. Even less likely if caused by two non identical aircraft impacts.

This site presents a case that I find unimaginable but plausible

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

From photographs taken during construction it is clear that the central core of the building was a massive steel and concrete structure which could not be significantly damaged by the impact of a relatively fragile light alloy airframe.
By some amazing process this mass of steel and concrete (which was still standing a few seconds after the collapse of one tower) was almost vaporised into a cloud of fine dust.
A google search for 911 controlled demolition or similar will throw up a number of sites of varying credibility. The general scenario is that dark forces conspired to allow the aircraft hijackings to proceed and that the towers had been pre-rigged with explosives to produce a spectacular demolition and bring about a new "Pearl Harbor".
Please set my mind at ease, tell me it's all bullshit.
If not then I might have to start building a bunker cos things don't look good!

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 11:42 PM

This is not news. I think the Towers were blown. Others think not.

Good site HERE.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: LadyJean
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 12:29 AM

I've seen it. I'm fairly certain it can't be true. The World Trade Center must have been a fairly busy place, and I expect it remained busy 24/7. So people would have seen the charges being set. They might not have known it at the time, but they would have seen someone workmen in odd spaces at odd times, and that's the sort of thing you remember.

Now if 9/11 WAS the work of the Bush administration, why was George W. reading "My Pet Goat" with a bunch of kids?
Why wasn't he at a military base, where he could make a good show as he did when he declared, rather prematurely that the war in Iraq was over?
Or in the oval office at the White House. If the bombers are working for him he's going to be safe. He can make a noble speech about refusing to leave his post when the nation is under attack?
Why, when he finally addressed the American people did George W. make a stupid speech saying nothing in as short a time as possible. Why didn't he have an eloquent address prepared for the American people?
On 9/11, Rudi Giuliani was the man of the hour. If he'd decided to challenge George W. for the Republican nomination in 2008, I think he'd have gotten it. I can't think George W. or Karl Rove or Dick Cheney was happy about that.
So, I'm betting that 9/11 happened pretty much the way they said it did.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 12:36 AM

This conspiracy theory proposes that GWB, while being too stupid and incompetent to tie his shoes and eat a pretzel, is somehow cunning enough to pull this off in complete secrecy.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 12:38 AM

Maybe what did get pulled of was not quite what George expected. That might explain the seven minutes of funk while he was in that Florida classroom.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 12:43 AM

"So people would have seen the charges being set."

So explain the other tower that collapsed. The third tower.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 12:44 AM

George Bush may not have been in on it at all, LadyJean. He may have been used as an unwitting dupe by other key players in the administration. I don't think the whole administration was behind this...but I think a significant secret group within the government was...and they were acting at cross purposes to the conscious purposes of other people in the administration and military. There is a great deal to suggest that this was an "inside" job and that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition...after the airplanes hit them...the airplanes being the visible excuse and provocation to launch a series of foreign wars against countries which did not, in fact, attack the USA. A "Pearl Harbour" type event was needed to get the American public onside, and it was grandly provided on live television. What more could you ask for to start a foreign war?

I think Bush made a poor show at the time, because he wasn't personally in on the planning. Who was? Oh, some very familiar names...and some not...but I am not gong to suggest who. Not my job to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: DougR
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 12:46 AM

The world is populated with a fair number of idiots. Those who believe the towers were destroyed and the Pentagon damaged by anything other than hijacked airplanes are at the top of this group.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 12:47 AM

To pull something like this off and have it work efficently would require much more work and coordination then that website would lead us to believe. Too many people would have been involved.

Anything is possible, but this is highly improbable. People love to perpetuate Hollywood scenarios, and all it does is deflect us from seeing the real answers.

This is bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 12:51 AM

Betcha it was the same group that blew up the Murrah building.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 12:52 AM

So how was Building 7 so damaged and Bulding 6 just got away unscathed?

Oh, but Ron calls it bullshit, and therefore it is. Right.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 01:03 AM

No, Doug, the people who are at the top of that "fair number of idiots" in the world are people who do totally ordinary, mundane stuff like...watch "Survivor", get F-in drunk on the weekend and assault someone, deal drugs, take drugs, gamble their savings away, eat nothing but junk food, rob convenience stores, rape people, run red lights because they're impatient, think the WWF Wrestling is real, go to the monster truck rallies....stuff like that. ;-) And most of them would never think to question what they see on the 6 O'Clock News. Such people are easily manipulated. When they're young and strong, they become jarheads and go off to foreign wars and kill funny-looking foreigners for America and even torture them sometimes. Remember Lyndie England and her pals at Abu Grahib? What a bunch of idiots, eh? Such idiots will believe and do anything they are told, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 01:46 AM

Bush didn't know about the upcoming events of 9-11. I've followed this for 5 years, closely, and the man was in the dark. But he was in charge, and he helped cover up the events. He's as guilty of the murders as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Eberhart and Myers.

The WTC complex was old and at something like half occupancy. Anyone could have rented space in the towers and done anything they wanted, unnoticed.

The murderers are now desperate because the truth is breaking like a tidal wave over the American people. Their main mouthpiece right now is Popular Mechanics, which claims to have "debunked" the "911 conspiracy theorists." The truth is that 19 men with boxcutters making NORAD stand down is the conspiracy. Popular Mechanics' main argument is that we were all (including reporters) traumatized those first two day after the attacks, so no reportage from that time is reliable. But that's the time when all the news anchors used the term "controlled demolition" when speaking of the falling towers, and when reporters on the scenes reported the truth from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. But now we're being told (in true brainwashing fashion) that we were too "traumatized" to know what we were doing. Bushit. The truth was told the first two days, and since then the govt has covered up and lied.

Your first instinct was correct. They were demolition jobs.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 01:48 AM

Halliburton did it to start a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 01:51 AM

Did the Mafia have anything to do with JFK's assination & it's affiliation with secret government agencies? I don't know & you never will either.
Did Bin Laden have any thing to do with the Twin Towers & his past affilitation with secret government agencies?
I don't know & you never will either.

I do think that GWB is to much the idiot & his 7 minutes of "funk" could've on been a "I'm Micky the Dunce" (which he is) routine & now I have to play along because he was still tied to "some kinda of plan dat was goona go down, DUH".

And if anyone thinks that this couldn't have been done so sweetly, it wasn't. The pent didn't turn into a tent & the other plane never made it to it's destination. A minor screw up with the passangers? The 'Brink's Job' was done better than this & idiots pulled off that one.

I'm not saying the government was involved & I don't know that they weren't. I'm not putting it past them & they weren't at all helpful in handing over documents to the families & investagators. Though I do think it's up to the idiots to prove themselves to be beyond a reasonable doubt. They need to disprove all the plausable theories that are going round. For the soul purpose of healing a nation & answering to the families of the victims & above all to bring the trust back to the people. It would be far better to clear up any of the conspiracy theories now rather than let them fester for decades like JFK. It will lead to another 60's generation (which is where it is headed) where the government can't be trusted even under a close watch. A government that can't be trusted is not a government for the people nor is it a government of the people & it sure isn't a government by the people. For me it never will be but for my kids I would love it to be that way,,,,once more.

Barry,
who wasn't old enough to know a good caring government & came of age during the early 60's & I hate that what could've been & should've been wasn't, though it still could be & I hate that even worst because it's a place that I love more than those who are in charge of it's well being do .

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:53 AM

"This conspiracy theory proposes that GWB, while being too stupid and incompetent to tie his shoes and eat a pretzel, is somehow cunning enough to pull this off in complete secrecy." Old Guy

Hmmmmm. Old Guy, I knew about the pretzel- but what's this about being unable to tie his shoes? Nobody tells me nothin'.

*G*

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 04:42 AM

Some of you seriously need therapy.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:57 AM

It may all be nonsense, but the US has a long history of knowingly taking hits in order to set up profitable revenge wars (and the British did it with the Falklands). And we don't believe the President is really in charge, do we?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: John O'L
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:10 AM

When I consider the kinds of guys who really are in charge, nothing would surprise me.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:22 AM

GULF OF TONKIN RESOLUTION--for the younger folks here . . . .

"The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was an alleged pair of attacks -- the second of which did not occur -- by North Vietnamese gunboats on two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS C. Turner Joy, in August of 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin. Later research, including a report released in 2005 by the National Security Agency, indicates that the second attack did not occur, but also attempts to dispel the long-standing rumor that U.S. President Lyndon Johnson had knowingly lied about the existence of the incident.

The outcome of the incident was the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted the President authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose governments were jeopardized and was Johnson's legal justification for introducing American troops into the Vietnam War."

That ring any bells?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:28 AM

"I've followed this for 5 years, closely"

So have I. I agree that Bush was not in on the whole thing. Hence the 'blue funk' while he was in the Florida school.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:32 AM

"Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done. The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences. This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you have not left out. In short a performance of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of psychology." (John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1944.)

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:35 AM

Neat thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:48 AM

Fantastic stuff. But I dont quite follow the argument that the secret conspiracy people wanted to hide the fact that a controlled demolition had taken place, so they deliberately carried out a controlled demolition that looked like a controlled demolition. Now, the naive would think this might lead people to suspect that a controlled demolition had taken place. But maybe this was a double bluff...? And where exactly do the green lizards fit in?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:49 AM

They are in the White House, Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:54 AM

Look at the Pentagon crash. Please, show me wreckage of a Boeing 757.

Today's tale is brought to you by the Letter N or Letter N______.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:59 AM

"Bush didn't know about the upcoming events of 9-11."

George Bush is inept. He couldn't organize a blowjob at a cocksuckers' convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 07:04 AM

It astonishes me that while there are open conspiracies being perpetrated on the American people right now by their government, people should be wasting their time on idiocies like this. These kinds of masturbatory paranoia only indicate how incapable people seem to be of getting organized to do something -- instead they sit around and talk about this nonsense.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 07:13 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 07:15 AM

" open conspiracies being perpetrated on the American people right now by their government"

Clue us paranoids in on this, Peter T. Oh, please do. And what the fu#k are YOU doing about anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 08:40 AM

What a load of Idiots! On one side, we have some professional reporters, watching a building fall down, they call it a controlled demolition, as they don't have any good words to describe what they're seeing, and some people belive them.
On the other side, we have legions of professional engineers, who have a perfectly sensible explanation of why they fell as they did, that requires no conspiricy theory. Even if you don't believe either side, Occams Razor argues against the existance of any conspircy, other than that of the hijackers.



Guest Dave, that's a new theory on me. We set up an invasion of the Falklands, to make money out of it? Bollocks. The Millitary ruler of Argintina thought it would make him more popular, and Britian wouldn't feel it worthwhile doing anything about it. Not complicated....

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 08:51 AM

Notice how this "guest" takes pleasure in knocking individuals like Peter and myself yet can't defend his positions? We express our opinion, that this is bullshit, this troll's only defense is to try to attack those who offer a different point of view. Why? Because this troll realizes that his or her does not have any "evidence" other than a few websites created by people with very little knowledge of the facts. Anyone who WANTS to find a reason will see what they want to see.

The FACT that many people have alerady addressed these accusations and offered data that contradicts is summarily dismissed by trolls like this because it ruins their scenario. So they attack the people.

As I said in the beginning, it is highly improbable (but not impossible) that a conspiracy like this occured. It is bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 08:58 AM

It's just conspiracy theories on the Left--to balance those on the Right--like the UN black helicopter business. But at least it makes it real easy for sensible people to position themselves as moderates.

Bush--and his regime--are consummate propagandists. And Bush is the ultimate opportunist.

It was a godsend to him--since aside from propaganda, his only other skill is in destroying. The ironic thing is that if he stopped at just toppling the Taliban--and pursued Osama, while concentrating on rebuilding Afghanistan, his reputation at least in foreign policy, would be on a par with other US leaders during the "good wars".

I'm sure his domestic policies would have been just as abysmal as we've seen.



But the controlled demolition idea--what a classic waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 10:26 AM

"But the controlled demolition idea--what a classic waste of time"

It wouldn't be a waste of time if there was hard evidence. Everything I saw on the website was circumstantial, open to interpretation, or just wrong. It is right, and important, to question. We would not have known about Watergate, Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, and other attrocities if it weren't for people digging for the truth.

In this case, people are buying into a theory that has been disproven by multiple sources.

It worries me that this whole scenario might simply be a ploy to shift the blame and attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 10:37 AM

You can spend your time investigating theories like this--but you have to go at it objectively, realizing that some of your ideas are blind alleys. Conspiracy theorists are not famous for this--there's too much of a temptation to disregard anything that doesn't fit your predetermined conclusion--just as Mr. Bush himself did to justify the Iraq invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 10:41 AM

One of the real dangers of the world wide web, IMO, is the dissemination of this unproven, specious information as truth. It is ludicrous to all but those who want to see conspiracy in everything. This information is published out of context. The "cruise missile" comment at the Pentagon is a classic example.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 10:45 AM

The biggest problem I have with this idea, besides the fact that most conpiracy theorists are a few IQ points short of a Labrador Retreiver's bowling score, is that, at the same time they're saying that Bush & co can't organize the escape of air from a paper bag, they somehow coordinated the use of explosives and planes and pilots from other countries flying from different destinations with precision timing, no 'Murphy' moments, and without one single person out of the many who had to be involved spilling the beans or figuring out what was going on. Takes an enormous amount of intentional stupidity to believe that.

My opinion. As to whether Bush had ANYTHING to do with it, it's a possibility, but I'm not going to believe it happened just because of someone's fictional bizarrest-case scenario.

And GUEST, cookie tosser and chat-room-style-poster, I respect Peter T. Not you.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 11:46 AM

And sometimes, in the middle of a perfectly good rant, you type something like 'from different destinations'. I think people who believe these theories (as opposed to just thinking 'what if') are nuts, but I think I just took the piss out of myself. Damned subconscious!

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 12:33 PM

I have watched 4-5 different TV programs, some more than once...(one just last night)...explaining in DETAIL just how the burning fuel from airplanes further weakened the structure already damaged by impact. I saw scale model demonstrations.....I saw images of the $15 million tests done by structural engineers using mock-ups of the girder system to test loads.....

....and now, some idiots come along, observe some puffs of smoke, remember some images they saw of 'controlled demolitions', and make wild leaps of speculation in which they IGNORE all the evidence that doesn't support the conspiracy theories they have about every nasty event for 40 years!!

They DID find airliner debris at the Pentagon...small pieces, but they were there...and other pieces deep inside the building.

This is another classic case of "believing what you want to believe" and 'interpreting' evidence to support ONLY what you already believe.

We have 4 missing airplanes, we have witnesses who SAW those airplanes hit where they did...we have video of 3 of them..(yes, there IS video of the Pentagon crash...or rather, a set of brief stills played as video) The images corroborate what witnesses saw.

There ought to be a law against spreading stupid rumors and inserting unfounded speculation into what is already a sad & painful experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 01:05 PM

Ohfergoonessakes! It was fire, not the airplane impact or concussion of fuel explosion that brought the buildings down.

The upper floors, not surprisingly, were built of MUCH lighter girders than the lower floors. I've heard that, for weight reasons, the usual asbestos (or whatever) coating on the girders was skimped or dispensed with. The heat of the fire twisted or buckled the girders, which destroyed the planned play of support from the metal structure, which started the cascade effect of collapse.

Why do some people have such a HUNGER for marvels and dirty secrets and conspiracies?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 01:10 PM

"Why do some people have such a HUNGER for marvels and dirty secrets and conspiracies?"

Part of it is because of past history. There have been many dirty deeds undertaken by governments in the past. The problem is, some people automatically assume that there is a conspiracy in EVERYTHING and interpret facts in alternate realities.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: freightdawg
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 01:13 PM

Jeri,

"most conspiracy theorists are a few IQ points short of a Labrador Retreiver's bowling score"

I must object.

Item one: it is not "most," it is ALL conspiracy theorists in this particular case. (some conspiracies, such as what caused the destruction of the Hindenburg, are entertaining to discuss).

Item two: why must you denigrate the athletic achievement of a most noble and beautiful creature to illustrate the shear stupidity of those who claim to "know" something that is absurd? As a fellow dawg I must send a muted growl in your general direction.

Your ability to verbally paint a picture with such stunning accuracy and detail is hereby noted, however. I heartily wag my tail in approval.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 01:14 PM

There is one video in, I think it was, the first link, to some NYC firemen talking right after...they said it was like a controlled demolition. I have to give some credence to their professional take on things. I don't consider them to be idiots.

Jeri, I think the problem with some conspiracy theorists is their intelligence is high as opposed to their deductive reasoning and/or any mental health issues the former may cause, i.e. paranoia, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 01:21 PM

Freightdawg, I stand by my comments, and I believe you're being overly sensitive. Bloodhounds may be able to bowl, herding breeds of dogs are fairly good at it, but retrievers, as a rule, aren't. They just keep bringing the ball back. Some of my best friends have Labs, and I have nothing against them. Or the dogs.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 01:47 PM

The real truth is...none of us know exactly what happened. None of us know the whole truth. We're in no position to. We are all theorizing, based on partial and quite fragmentary information...based on media spin...and based on the opinions and statements of many other people, who in most cases ALSO don't know exactly what happened on 911. Our theorizing, furthermore, is heavily driven by our prior emotional prejudices which color the way we interpret EVERYTHING we encounter.

As a result, you will see many vehement disagreements on this matter, and they will not be resolved. ;-)

And yet, most of those vehement people talk as if they knew.

My, my. What pretentiousness.

I am freely willing to admit that I don't KNOW for sure what happened on 911, who was behind it, who is lying about it, and who is telling the truth about it.

And neither do the rest of you.

It seems reasonably likely to me that certain people in the government (but most likely not George Bush himself) were involved in helping to set up 911...or in just helping to not stop it from happening. It seems likely to me that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. But I don't KNOW that, okay? It just seems likely to me, based on a great deal of stuff I've read about it, and based on the PNAC planning that was in place long before 911, and based on a prior attempt to bring down the WTC, and etc..etc. I don't KNOW. I just think it's rather likely. I await further information.

Now why don't all you other folks admit you don't KNOW too, and show a little humility for a change in the face of your personal limitations? You too, DougR...because you don't know. Admit it. You don't. You've just chosen to believe what you emotionally want to believe...same as pretty well everyone else here has chosen to do.

Nobody knows for sure what really happened except for some of those...a few of those sitting in the highest positions of power in the government, FBI, CIA, and such...and they are not posting about it on this forum, are they? I mean, hey, why the hell would they? ;-)

I figure they're probably busy doing other stuff that they consider more vital, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: C. Ham
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 01:57 PM

I am freely willing to admit that I don't KNOW for sure what happened on 911, who was behind it, who is lying about it, and who is telling the truth about it.

Both George Bush and Osama Bin Laden agree on WHO was behind the events of 9/11. Their only disagreements are on motivation and justification.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 02:23 PM

Yup, that's what our media tells us... ;-)

Do you think our media tells us the whole truth all the time? I very seriously don't.

Do you think anyone who had the whole truth would dare to tell it publicly? Or would live long if they tried to?

I don't.

But I'm just theorizing, same as everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 02:24 PM

LH--"more vital"---bingo. Got it in one.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 02:25 PM

...and that is exactly why the U.S. will never 'find' Osama.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: C. Ham
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 02:29 PM

Yup, that's what our media tells us

No, it's what Bin Laden and Bush tell us via our western media AND the Al-Jazeera and other Arabic media.

I've never taken either Bin Laden or Bush, or the media at face value. But really, the whole premise of this thread id comepletely idiotic.

I'm gone from this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 02:31 PM

"There is one video in, I think it was, the first link, to some NYC firemen talking right after...they said it was like a controlled demolition. I have to give some credence to their professional take on things. I don't consider them to be idiots."

The key words are "it was like". If you watch the video, the "professional" used the words "as if" they used controlled detonators. The tone that I heard was an individual trying to describe a scene to someone who was not there to see it. We all try to draw pictures when we describe situations and often offer examples to help illustrate it. If you really watch the video, I think that take becomes more evident. If this individual truly believed what he witnessed, I sincerely doubt he would have used those words and that tone.

Of course none of us can be sure. Still, I think reason and common sense needs to enter into our thinking. IF this "evidence" was stronger, I think more people would be buying into it. There is too much contrary evidence as well as the common sense factor that shouts out that there was no "controlled demolition" at work here.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 02:50 PM

I had to sit through an evening of this crap, and worse -- from my left liberal friends. There is also a good dose of anti-Semitism here -- another related piece of crap I heard that evening -- all the Jews were supposedly warned beforehand not to be there that morning. And so on.

It makes you just despair.   

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:03 PM

I am totally convinced that the Saudis, the U.S. government plotted this to gain control of the entire Middle East.

They have orchestrated and controlled this entire fiasco that we now call the war on terrorism.

Unfortunately for the U.S. economy and the world, retalliation will destroy the value of the American dollar when the Middle East converts to Euros.

The people of the Middle East hate Arab politics as much as they hate U.S. politics. Thats why they turn to religion. Who else can they trust but Allah?

Osama is just another U.S. govt. puppet. Thats why they can't find him and that's why they aren't even trying to find him. Instead, they kill thousands of innocents and pit Muslim against Muslim, Jews against Jews and Christians against Christians. All of this for the crimes of the wily 'Osama'.

Its amazing to me how people would rather indulge in hatred than logical thinking. Governments and religion are conspiring to control the masses and we are rapidly losing all of the rights and freedoms that have been hard won over time.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:03 PM

Right--that canard about the Jews being warned has been around for quite a while---and evidently many in the Mideast believe this garbage.

And now there are Western Europeans and Americans available to put their stamp of approval on this stuff. Just great.

Again, as I said on another thread, this all plays into the hands of extremists--and of course we have Bush to thank, in large part, for the strength of Hezbollah in the Lebanese government.   Not only Hezbollah's efficient delivery of social services, but also their propaganda--thanks to Mr. Bush--played a role.

The argument was: the US and Israel have a plan for the Mideast--first Iraq, then Syria, then Hezbollah. "And we must resist".   Shiites could see the first part of the plan being put into action--courtesy of Mr. Bush. Which made the rest plausible. And makes them more likely to also believe stories like the Jews being warned, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:06 PM

Dianavan--you've got to stop insisting on massive conspiracy theories. The opposition to the Bush regime has to use our heads--not just our imaginations.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:12 PM

It was evil Dick Cheney and the evil Halliburton. George Bush is just a puppet of the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:18 PM

Whatever you say, Old. I'm sure you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:23 PM

Why was the bin Laden family allowed to leave the US without being questioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:26 PM

"Why do some people have such a HUNGER for marvels and dirty secrets and conspiracies?"

Easy, I said it before, I'll say it again - they need therapy. F*****g nutters, the lot of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:31 PM

The rest of the family do not endorse Osama's ideas. Also, can you spell L Y N C H M O B?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:37 PM

Johnny-

I suppose it's because some people like to believe every word of the Bible literally (finessing the contradictions). And some like all-encompassing conspiracies.

A lot of people like simple answers--and don't like messy, or inconclusive ones.

Of course it does relieve them of the responsibility to think--maybe they like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:38 PM

If you continue to put your head in the sand, you will be unable to change anything.

The world economy is in big trouble as a result of the increasing U.S. defecit which is a result of the failure of the 'War on Terrorism'. Read this and make up your own mind.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20422171-1702,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:43 PM

I totally agree about the US deficit being a serious problem. But that does not mean that the US has a plan to take over the Mideast. I'm afraid we'll need some actual evidence of that one.

In fact a strong argument can be made that Bush would like nothing more than to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow---but he wants to be able to declare victory (again).

Slightly awkward at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:46 PM

Get ready for a really disturbing thought...




















We'll all probably never know for sure who did exactly what on 911 and who planned it and how they did it and why. ;-)

I certainly don't expect to. I accept the fact that I'm going to die one day without having known the answer to everything before I went.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:51 PM

Well, LH, you must be the only one. The rest of us are going to insist on knowing EVERYTHING before we die. I suppose we'll have to see what downsides there are to immortality. We'll also somehow have to stop the aging process-- that might take a little work.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST,GC
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:51 PM

Hey Little Hawk!

If you accept that you're going to die without ever knowing the answer to everything, why is it that, for years, you've always acted like you do?

GC

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:52 PM

...if GWB masterminded this tragedy for whatever reason, then he is dumber than I usually give him credit for.

For many reasons. The worst terrorist tragedy happened on his "watch" (a Reaganism we are forever saddled with). It made him look like a bumbling idiot.

It sent the US economy into a recessive downspin, from which we have never fully recovered. (Despite Clinton's flaws, one thing he did seem to be rather adept at was managing the economy. Check his record on this, using whatever benchmark you choose.) People remember well when something hits their collective pocketbooks hard (which is why I think Bush's re-election was rigged. Surely all those Wall Street types couldn't have voted for him again when their portfolios are the equivalent of toilet paper).

So he did it as an excuse to invade Afghanistan in search of the ever-elusive bin Laden (an exceptionally tall Arab lugging around a dialysis machine, and our state-of-the-art sophisticated spyware can't find him? ... but "they" can read the license plate on your car from asynchronous orbits miles and miles above the earth)? Christ, could we not have consulted our (now) Russian friends on their experiences battling the "rebels" in moutainous terrain? Seems like they might've learned a thing or two in the interminable years they spent in that quagmire.

Or if he'd wished to query domestic resources, he could've asked any Kentucky, Tennessee, or North Carolina "hillbilly" just how effective the "revenooer's" war has been against the availabilty of buying a quart of high-octane "shine" or an ounce of primo dope. Mountain folk, by design and evolution, have to be tough to survive.
   
...Or did he do it so he could invade Iraq? Saddam, that bastard... had everything to do with 9/11 (as we were told) and besides he was hoarding piles of WMDs to use against us as soon as he'd sold all his oil to Exxon (even though it doesn't make sense to blow up your best customers).

Hell, since when has Bush ever needed a reason to do anything? He answers to a "higher Father" after all, and he doesn't need to explain anything to a country full of hayseeds and mind-numb couch potatoes as long as his vacuous speeches to the 'Merkun people don't pre-empt a rerun of "Friends" on TV.

Maybe God doesn't like Bush. Maybe God told Bush to blow up the Twin Towers because God wanted Bush to look stupid. There's a conspiracy theory for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:56 PM

If Israel didn't exist, there would have been no need for the Jews to have brought down the towers, pin it on the Arabs, and cause the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 04:07 PM

I'm not suggesting that Ron has his 'head in the sand' but some of the posters on this thread, do. I do not believe the collapse of the twin towers is as simple as 'Osama and his band of terrorists' are to blame. If he were, he would have been captured or killed by now.

Conspiracies can and do happen. It should be obvious to everyone by now that the U.S. government has conspired to disrupt the governments of other countries for a very long time. It is at the expense of others that the U.S. has grown so rich.

I thought 'the shit was going to hit the fan' when Nixon was in power. I thought that wide-ranging poverty would lead to civil war. I was wrong. It just led to the thirty years of constipation.

I now think that when Cuba, Venezuela and Iran state their allegiance to each other in an effort to protect themselves from the U.S.; North Korea and China will not be far behind. How long do you think that U.S. can withstand that kind of pressure? Economically, this does not bode well for the world.

The so-called 'war on terrorism' is a conspiracy in itself. The collapse of the twin towers was just a catalyst. It has backfired in a very big way.

Once again, I am looking for a retreat. A place where I will not be affected by the world economy. A place where I can feed my family without being dependent on retail outlets. A place where I don't need a car. A place where I can breathe fresh air and drink clean water.

In other words, its time to go back to the land. Those of you who are dependent on electricity, city water systems, other people to provide food and clothing, gas and oil should be making alternative plans. I don't think an election will make a difference. They've gone too far this time and complacency and apathy has allowed it to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 04:07 PM

Sorry, I disagree with you--it was, as I said earlier, a godsend to him. First you had the rally round the flag syndrome. In fact most of the world sympathized with the US directly after 9-11. Look at that capitalist bastion Le Monde:   "We Are All Americans"   Etc.

Then he had the vast majority of the US behind him in attacking toppling the Taliban--and hunting Osama.

If he'd left it at that, he would have been considered a successful wartime president.

But he squandered the whole thing by invading Iraq--though that seemed successful for a time.

And even so he managed to win the 2004 election--by a successful propaganda campaign, and help from the UN, of all unlikely sources of aid to Bush. As I've said before, the UN's willingness to act as honest broker--and help put an Iraqi face on the opposition to the insurgency--put the lie to the Vietnam quagmire theory--at least until after November 2004. And that's all Bush needed. Unfortunately.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 04:10 PM

Because I'm human, GC. ;-) But I am happy to admit any time to my own foolishness and fallibillity, because I'm very philosophical by nature. Most humans, I think, would rather die first than do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 04:34 PM

"Once again, I am looking for a retreat. A place where I will not be affected by the world economy. A place where I can feed my family without being dependent on retail outlets. A place where I don't need a car. A place where I can breathe fresh air and drink clean water."


Let us pray that Dianavan finds her retreat quickly and that it does not have Internet access so that we can be spared her blithering.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 04:37 PM

Stop complaining. Cheap entertainment. And she can't be the only one to have those attitudes--so it's instructive also.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 04:42 PM

This place is filled with people who can't bear the fact that there are other people who think differently from themselves. I wish I got paid a penny for every keystroke they type while unloading their bile and aggravation. I could soon buy Manhattan and turn it into a penguin hatchery.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:10 PM

No Little Hawk, this place is filled with people who can't bear the fact that other people think for themselves. When some of us see flawed data and call it, we are suddenly accused of not having open minds or trying to tell others how to think. Being philosophic is not an excuse for turning fantasy into reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Willie-O
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:19 PM

To get back to the topic, I too have seen enough analysis to convince me that what visibly happened to WTC 1 & 2--aircraft collisions & intense fires resulting in structural damage causing collapse--was plenty catastrophic enough to take the buildings down. After all, we didn't have a lot of precedents to inform us what would happen when fully fuelled jetliners hit 110-story buildings (whatever their design parameters might have been) at the 90th level. Now, unfortunately, we have two.

The event that really puzzles me though is the subsequent collapse late in the day of WTC 7. That building wasn't hit by planes, although it was certainly damaged by debris from the two main towers, and subsequent fire.

Have you seen the video footage showing WTC7 going down? Take a look at http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html . It fell so straight down, it appears to be suddenly sinking into a hole.

It looks like an absolutely controlled demolition going off perfectly. I just haven't heard any more likely explanation.

The "inside job" theorists claim that WTC7 housed the control centre for the blasts that took down the main towers, then was destroyed to hide the evidence. I don't know about that, but the sudden perfectly balanced collapse of a building that had taken secondary damage...has not been satisfactorily explained.

W-O

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Grab
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:23 PM

I do not believe the collapse of the twin towers is as simple as 'Osama and his band of terrorists' are to blame. If he were, he would have been captured or killed by now.

I'm a Brit. I was too young to remember the IRA's campaign in the 70s, but I vividly remember what they did in the 80s and 90s.

Let's compare countries. Afghanistan: area 652k km2, population 30m. UK: area 244k km2, population 60m. Northern Ireland: area 14k km2, population 1.7m. So look how much more populous the UK is, and therefore how much harder it'd be to hide. And look at the overwhelming military dominance of the UK Army in NI compared to the situation in Afghanistan. And then think how many IRA bombers got caught (not that many, and the wrongful convictions that resulted weren't exactly the nation's finest hour).

And then repeat what I quoted, with a straight face...

I don't mean to be rude, but when you say something like that, a reality check is seriously in order.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:30 PM

The other thing, Guest 4:34 is that when she talks about other topics, Walmart for instance, she makes a lot of sense.

And she has the guts to stick by a handle--which you, dear Guest, have somehow not found the fortitude to do. Wonder why.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:35 PM

Grab - I don't think the IRA ever pulled of anything as big as the 'twin towers' and I don't think Britain ever bombed Ireland as a result.

To compare the two situations is comparing apples and oranges.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:38 PM

"Have you seen the video footage showing WTC7 going down? Take a look at http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html . It fell so straight down, it appears to be suddenly sinking into a hole."

Check out this site.
911myths.com

There are more plausible explanations as well as the various conspiracy theories listed here. When you can read all the theories and see the evidence for each, the idea of a conspirarcy seems more remote.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:48 PM

What is difficult for me to understand is, in the face of so much evidence of U.S. conspiracy in the affairs of other nations, how people can swallow, 'hook line and sinker' the U.S. version of what really happened. Conspiracy theorists may not have the 'right' answer but at least they have the guts to question the official version of the story.

Seems to me that we are, once again, protecting the bully.

Why should we believe that 'Osama did it' when he cannot be found?

We can't prove he is guilty unless we do.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:00 PM

Dianavan--

I think what he is questioning is that there should be any surprise that Osama has not been "bagged"--given the nature of Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:04 PM

"in the face of so much evidence of U.S. conspiracy in the affairs of other nations, how people can swallow, 'hook line and sinker' the U.S. version of what really happened."

What "evidence"?   There is a lot of theories that do not make sense when you examine them.

Think for yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:10 PM

If Osama is in Afghanistan and the U.S. wants to bag him, why are there so many U.S. troops in Iraq?

Seems to me if you really want to find the guy, you would look in the country where you think he is hiding, not leave it up to other countries to do your police work.

I'm a Canadian, and I resent sending our troops to Afghanistan to do what the U.S. should be doing. After all, its the U.S. who claims they were targetted by Osama. I see a pattern here. The U.S. invades a country and then leaves it up to their 'friends' to clean up after them. This is not MY war. If the U.S. wants Osama, they should at least try to find him not ask others to do their dirty work.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:10 PM

No Little Hawk, this place is filled with people who can't bear the fact that other people think for themselves. When some of us see flawed data and call it, we are suddenly accused of not having open minds or trying to tell others how to think. Being philosophic is not an excuse for turning fantasy into reality. Amen to that, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:23 PM

**READ** the site Ron Olesko posted....read it in detail....look at the images...study the diagrams.

It all makes sense when you SEE the actual evidence of what heat can do and how small the pieces can be when a plane hits a solid structure like the Pentagon....but the piece are there. People are carrying some of them.

WTC7 was hit by fire & debris from an enormous catastrophe, and it was ON FIRE in several places and levels....and there was no time or way to fight those fires. IT FELL DOWN!

Jeeeeze!

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:26 PM

Bill, there is no point. Certain folks here have an agenda with regard to the US, and will attempt to make the evidence support that. This is some crazy stuff. They don't see that they lose all credibility when they insist that "something doesn't smell right" in the face of all evidence.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:28 PM

An after thought. I find it interesting that the same folks here that refuse to accept what the evidence and investigation so clearly point out, are the same ones in the kosher chicken thread telling people of faith that they prefer science and its provable conclusions, and implying that the faith folks are just following myths.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:28 PM

Dianavan - I agree with you on at least one point - it is very odd that Bin Laden cannot be found. There is more to this then they are letting on.   This ugly stupid war that we are involved in is wrong and Bush should be impeached for his actions.

Still, getting back to the topic of this thread, my above thoughts on Bush would not make me think that 9/11 was planned in the way the conspiricy folks are trying to make us believe. The evidence is too strong to the contrary.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 07:26 PM

Ron - I don't have any reason to think it was a controlled demolition but at the same time I have no reason to believe that terrorists could fly into the World Trade Center without being detected. Like you say, Ron, there is more to this than they are letting on.

Whenever there are big holes in the 'official' explanation, that leaves alot of room for speculation. 'Conspiracy' is a catch phrase someone thought up to discredit those who engage in speculation.

At least those who are questioning are showing that they can think for themselves. Others prefer to 'tow the line' and believe everything they are told. The same people are very likely obedient to their church 'fathers'.

I think its more of a mind-set than anything else. You either like other people to do your thinking for you or you prefer to think for yourself. There are many shades in between.

I think I'll join a church so I don't have to think anymore. Maybe I'll become a fundamentalist and I'll have both God and the U.S. government on my side. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

The twin towers toppled because of God's wrath, dontcha think?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 07:48 PM

No Diana, you have it backwards. It is you who is not thinking. You let your need to trash everything US get in the way of your judgement. Bin Laden says he did it. Bush says Bin laden did it. The video evidence says he did it. The engineering studies show how it happened, and back up the obvious conclusion. Read Jeri's comments. I concur completely.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 08:09 PM

"Bin Laden says he did it. Bush says Bin laden did it. The video evidence says he did it. The engineering studies show how it happened, and back up the obvious conclusion."

I am prone to believe the engineering studies (but they can also be bribed) more than I am to believe either Bush or Bin Laden. Why would you believe either? A false premise does not lead to the truthful conclusion.

...and Mick -

Your comment above shows your need to 'trash', not mine.

btw - I've made no judgement about what happened to the twin towers but I am smart enough not to draw conclusions based on 'blind faith'.

How do you know that Bush and Bin laden have not colluded?

How do you explain the fact that the U.S. military is more interested in Iraqi politics than finding Bin Laden?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 08:18 PM

I believe that Bush should be impeached for his actions, or lack thereof, in the hunt for bin laden.

Your question on explaining the interest in Iraqi politics indicates that you don't understand what one of the roles of Special Forces troops is.

To suggest that Bush and Bin Laden have colluded speaks for itself to anyone reading this thread.

It seems to me that you are really reaching on this one. Just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 08:25 PM

"All lies and jest.
Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Simon and Garfunkel said that.

"I have always had some misgivings about the neat way in which both towers collapsed from the top down and fell perfectly vertically into their own footprint."

I said that.

I'm not an anti semite, I'm not an idiot.

Show me the engineers reports explaining the collapse.
(not including Popular Mechanics or Readers Digest!)

Can we start by deciding which structure we are talking about.
i.e. the reinforced concrete model as shown in the construction photographs, or the "house of cards" FEMA model.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 09:04 PM

Why was the bin Laden family allowed to leave the USA without being questioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 09:16 PM

"It's just conspiracy theories on the Left--to balance those on the Right"

This level of "theory" doesn't have much of anything to do with any coherent political wing, left or right. It's just about people who
will insist that Marilyn Monroe and Lee Harvey Oswald were really both assassinated by Captain Kangaroo, if someone once comes up with
forty pages of convoluted "proof" to that effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 09:21 PM

By the nature of the damage, assuming you believe, as I do, that the damage was caused by aircraft full of fuel flown into the structures, it is reasonable that the towers collapsed into their own footprints. The towers were damaged not at, but near their tops, creating severe structural damage that would have supported the remainder of the buildings had not the heat of burning fuel, paperwork, furniture, plastics critically weakened the structural steel that remained. This left the intact part of the structure overhead like a big hunk of mass ready to start dropping down on the 'layercake' structure of suspended concrete floors. The lower part of the structure and its foundations were intact until the very end, forming a kind of supported tube within which the failure occurred. Once the big mass at the top tore loose, I suppose it might have veered a bit to one side or the other, but the floors below had basically one way to go - straight down.

Remember that the second tower was hit lower down, leaving a bigger mass up top to hold up with the diminishing strength of the steel supports. The failure occurred ahead of the tower which had been hit first, only higher up.

The 1993 big bomb in the parking garage, had it been bigger, as Ramzy Yusef said afterwards, might have resulted in a very different collapse footprint.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 09:35 PM

Big Mick - "Your question on explaining the interest in Iraqi politics indicates that you don't understand what one of the roles of Special Forces troops is."

Maybe you can explain to me the role of the Special Forces as it relates to Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

I didn't suggest that Bush and Bin Laden colluded. I asked you to prove that they did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 10:17 PM

If this is all a conspiracy on the grandest scale possible, then it is impossible to do anything. We are helpless pawns in a global scheme, and no matter what we do it will be subverted and ruined.

That is what all this nonsense amounts to. It is a form of giving up. It is to throw your hands up and say that the people in power are infinitely more cunning and ruthless than we ever dreamed.

The truth is that they are not. They can be beaten. Their conspiracies are open and obvious, and based on mistakes and stupidity.   They are mere mortals and unable to organize even a simple war.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: freightdawg
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 10:20 PM

Dianavan,

Explain your "undetected" comment. The planes were watched from the time their erratic flight paths began until they were so low that radar could not follow them. The transponders were turned off, so the air traffic controllers did not know their altitude, but they could estimate their groundspeed and knew their flight direction. Once they determined that a hijack situation was unfolding most controllers thought the planes were headed for Cuba - their intial turns were to the south.

An F-15 was scrambled from an air base to intercept the second of the two jets that hit the towers, but it arrived mere minutes after the jet hit the building. What is still unclear is what they would have done if they had arrived before the jet hit the tower. The "shoot" order had not been issued at that time. The jets scrambled to intercept the jet that ultimately went down in PA probably would have been given "shoot" orders, but there is even some doubt that they would have made it to DC before the jet hit the White House.

All four jets were watched until seconds before they were destroyed. What exactly do you mean by "undetected?"

Freightdawg

(by the way, I was one of the many thousands of other pilots that were flying that day. I will never get the chill out of my bones that occured when I heard the order that all planes were to land asap regardless of origin or destination. It was clear. Land now. Shut up and ask your questions on the ground. The controllers managed to do the most incredible, professional and almost impossible job imaginable without one mishap. Their accomplishment on that day is the stuff of true heroism. Their story needs to be told as much as any of the "first responders" on that horrible and bleak day.)

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 10:24 PM

" Show me the engineers reports explaining the collapse."

I already pointed you in the direction for information - www.911myths.com

Actually, I could probably ask you to show me an engineering report that explains your theory. The website that you showed us did not have any.

"You either like other people to do your thinking for you or you prefer to think for yourself. - Dianavan"

Good words and very true.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 10:33 PM

I'm sorry, Freightdawg, I didn't mean to suggest that the pilots or the air traffic controllers were at fault. 'Detect' was probably the wrong word. I should have said intercepted. I find it very difficult to imagine that the Air Force could not defend New York or Washington, D.C. I do believe there is plenty of controversy surrounding Cheney's orders and Bushs' lack of immediate response to warrant the comments I have made.

Peter T. - I do believe that "that the people in power are infinitely more cunning and ruthless than we ever dreamed." I would hope that this would result in actions against them but I don't see that happening. Instead I see Canada's PM joining forces with Bush.

Yes, it is demoralizing and it remains to be seen if it can be stopped. I hope so but I still think there are more people ready to believe the party line than those who are willing to do anything about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 10:57 PM

"I didn't suggest that Bush and Bin Laden colluded. I asked you to prove that they did not."

Sorry, but that is not how it works....no one is REQUIRED to prove a negative. *IF* you make an assertion or claim, then YOU must prove it IS true. If you are not making any assertion, then no one has to prove anything. I could 'suggest' the possibility that 'maybe' Kofe Annan hired the Pope to mastermind the plot, but how much trouble woud you go to to prove otherwise?

I saw just the other day detailed explanations on a minute by minute basis of how the hijackers got away with the plot! Several of them set off alarms at gates, but were allowed to board after a cursory search! They had JUST enough pilot training to steer the thing and to SHUT OFF THE TRANSPONDER which allows traffic controllers to 'see' where the planes are! THAT'S how they were able to, with the element of surprise, fly 3 or 4 planes to a target! It was a combination of luck and carelessness and good guesswork....At that point, we hadn't fully comprehended the notion that a group of men would COMMIT SUICIDE in order to harm us!

Isn't that a more reasonable explanation than cockeyed conspiracy plots?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 11:02 PM

I don't understand the apparent surprise that they would commit suicide in order to attack us...it's not like that hasn't happened before.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: freightdawg
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 11:11 PM

Keef,

It appears from your questions that you are really unwilling to consider any evidence other than your own opinion. You described the planes that hit the towers as "relatively fragile alloy airframe." The 767 weighs approximately 300,000 pounds fully loaded. That is 150 TONS. Accelerate that mass to 500 mph (give or take of few) and the resulting energy is immense. Yet, the buildings stood after each impact because of their design. The strenth of the buildings was their EXTERIOR not their interior. You seem to think that the strength of the building was interior vertical steel supports. That is absolutely wrong. The usual design of massive vertical supports was replaced by having the exterior walls provide the main vertical support. This saved valuable interior floor space and made the buildings more profitable. The fatal weakness of their design, and ultimately the construction, was that once the exterior had been breached there was no primary interior vertical support system. The horizontal steel girders that gave the buildings their stability and supported the floors became pliable in the inferno that came from tons of burning jet fuel. As the girders buckled and the floors collapsed they had no where to go but straight down. The exterior walls maintained their design strength and contained the collapse in a verticle "tube". Thus, the buildings fell in their own footprint.

Even the core of the building was not built with your "reinforced concrete." The elevator and stairwells were not protected by such concrete, as it was deemed to be too heavy. Therefore the stairwells were simply "protected" by drywall and in the blast of the "relatively fragile alloy airframe" as you put it the walls were shattered, making escape impossible for those above the points of impact. If the core of the building was as strong as you suggest, with the "reinforced concrete" and steel girders then the stairwells would have remained open for those above to escape. You can't have it both ways - either the interior was a mass of steel and reinforced concrete providing protection from a light and fragile airframe, or it was not. The evidence is that the interior was not protected, and the mass that struck the towers could not be described as "fragile."

You reject explanations given in "Popular Mechanics." I have seen documentaries on three separate tv productions (one cable, two on PBS) and the explanation was virtually identical. My guess is you would reject those explanations as well because you are mesmerized by your "construction photographs". Just exactly what evidence do you demand? Your "construction photographs" are really meaningless if you dismiss the physical force of 150 tons of aircraft striking the buildings creating unbelievable internal damage and also creating the ultimate destructive power of the inferno.


Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: John O'L
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 11:18 PM

I can't understand why anyone would go to such elaborate lengths to simulate a hijack when a real hijack would be much easier, far more reliable and it doesn't matter if someone spills the beans afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: freightdawg
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 11:21 PM

Dianavan,

I see your point, and I accept your clarification. The problem was that, right up until 9/11, all pilots, and indeed the entire aviation system, was trained to acquiesce to the highjackers demands. The thought was go along with what was demanded, get the plane on the ground, and let the law enforcement at that point deal with the highjackers. It was simply unthinkable that a US military aircraft would have to fire on a passenger jet to keep it from being used as a weapon. I am not sure, even if the fighters had been able to intercept the jets, that they would have fired into them. They might have ultimately done so, but only if the passenger jets were within sight of the White House, Capitol building, etc. Can you imagine a US military pilot shooting down an American or United jet?

I know you were not accusing the ATC or pilots of any wrong doing. I just got off on a rant - I am sorry if you thought I was responding to you. ATC was just amazing on that day, and their story really has not been told.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 12:10 AM

Bill D. - That's a very good explanation. The best I've heard yet. Of course, by now, I've heard so many explanations that I really don't believe any of them to be 100% true. I'd like to believe that it was just a series of blunders but what does that say about military defense? Are we really going to blame the the lowest man on the totem pole for allowing the hijackers to board the plane? That seems absurd but that's where finger-pointing usually ends up when nobody wants to claim responsibility.

As far as Bush colluding with Bin Laden goes, we already know that he was tied to the bin Ladens through business. I have also heard that members of his family have disowned him but that others visit him and that the families continue to intermarry. Doesn't sound as if he is disowned to me.

I'm still waiting to hear from Big Mick on the role of Special Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not sure how that explains why there is more military in Iraq than Afghanistan. When it gets right down to it, my biggest concern is that Canada has to go in after the States to mop up the mess.

My next concern is that the U.S. defecit is so big that other countries will not continue to back the U.S. financially. When the dollar loses its power in the world economy, we'll be looking at a major changes in our lives.

Do I believe the explosions were willfully demolished? I really don't know. I doubt if I ever will but I will continue to ask questions and wonder why Canada would dirty its reputation by backing the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 12:46 AM

It was Dick Cheney, Walmart and Halliburton.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 02:12 AM

I don't know about WalMart contributing to the collapse of the twin towers but I do know that Halliburton and Dick Cheney have both profited from the 'war on terrorism'. Of course, being an opportunist does not mean you're the perp but it says something about cold-blooded calculations.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 06:37 AM

Ron, your website does not offer any credentials. I would be more impressed by a report by say the American Institute of Engineers or a similar professional institution.
It seems I will have to say it once more, I don't have a position one side or the other on this.
I spent the first few years after 9/11 defending the actions of the USA in going after the Taliban and Saddam Hussien.Good riddance to both of them.
Looking at the photographic and video evidence the collapse looks wrong to me. And
My Links Better than Your Link
150 Tons of aircraft would definately cause a bit of damage.
Can jet fuel burn hot enough to melt steel, I don't THINK so.
Did the collapse start close to the fire zone, and the floors above collapse in a block, I don't THINK so.
The heart of the matter is what was the design of the building, my link gives two alternatives, the heavy duty concrete or the spaghetti tubes. Surely this is a matter of public record, can we can determine which it was?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 07:39 AM

Why in God's name are you all wasting your time and energy raking through a pile of garbage that's HAPPENED? It can't be unhappened! Get real, accept it and move on - put your seemingly boundless energy towards the other, far greater, threats to humankind. You're all such deep and clear thinkers(you seem to believe), so why aren't you urging the addressing of, for example, the 200,000 innocents who have died and the 2 million displaced in Darfur (makes the WTC look like a tea-party), that's an ongoing genocide which the rest of the world seems determined to ignore. Or try global warming and climate change, to which the US is one of the major contributors - you're all under far greater threat from that little number than you have ever been from Osama and his gang.

Instead of beating your leaders up over something that can never be undone, try kicking their arses to do something about the issues that are going to affect us all in the future. Or is the prospect of giving up your ridiculous gas-guzzling monster-cars too much to contemplate?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: greg stephens
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 08:56 AM

Now I'm no expert, but that's never stopped me giving my considered opinion on almost anything. I've been to a few Fred Dibnah chimney-drops, and they were controlled demolitions if I ever I saw one(well all except one that maybe went a bit off-line. Some people had to run like hell but that's another story). Anyway, I think I can say without any possible fear of contradiction that none of them looked anything like this towers business.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 12:14 PM

Good grief, Keef! That link gives THIS as the final explanation:

"The only way to reconcile an analysis inclusive of the 4 Glaring Inconsistencies is that the thick coatings of the rebar of the cast concrete support core and foundation were actually made of plastic explosive C4."

Right! When buildings were built, 'someone' coated parts of the internal structure with C4 explosive! Which allows conspiracy nuts almost unlimited speculation and YEARS of more convoluted yarns about how that was accomplished!

Sorry, I'll go with the analysis that says that the impact damaged the fireproofing on the support beams so that burning jet fuel could soften them until they could no longer support the weight above! This is consistent with ALL the other facts about the collapse.

That link is NOT better than the other link, as it BEGINS with unproven hypotheses, and then twists the interpretation of every other picture and fact to support its own flawed beginning.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 12:23 PM

and BTW, the Holocast didn't really happen; we didn't really land on the moon..it was filmed and faked in Arizona; John Dillinger's penis is in a jar of formaldehyde somewhere in the Smithsonian; the Bilderbergers secretly run the world..(which is really flat), and the auto companies have that 100MPG carburetor safely hidden away to keep your gas prices high.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 12:53 PM

"...try kicking their arses to do something about the issues that are going to affect us all in the future."

Good advice, Johnny.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 01:04 PM

Sometimes I despair, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 01:17 PM

"I'm still waiting to hear from Big Mick on the role of Special Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not sure how that explains why there is more military in Iraq than Afghanistan."

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 01:48 PM

How do you explain the fact that the U.S. military is more interested in Iraqi politics than finding Bin Laden? Dianavan

The reason you don't understand, is because you only pay one attention to the roles played by the military, and specifically Special Forces. One of the critical roles played by Special Forces is to assist local governments in establishing and maintaining a stable political system. This has always been the case, but since Vietnam it has had a more pronounced role. All Special Forces aren't the combat teams. In fact, their duties comprise a small part of the total role. The reason so much more time is spent on Iraqui politics is simply because that has much more to do with a stable country than finding Osama does.

In citing these things, I am in no way endorsing this war, as my record is clear on this matter. But it is a response to your contention that implies somehow the amount of resources put into the Iraqui political scene is proof of conspiracy about the 9/11 tragedy.

Non-combat roles Source:BBC

While the Hollywood image of special forces is often of gung-ho Rambos dropping into a foreign country for snatch-and-grab or assassination exercises, real-life special operations also include the training of local forces or moving non-combatant populations out of harm's way.

In addition to combat units, psychological operations and civil operations teams fall under special operations command.

Those units' operatives might be trained in languages, negotiation tactics and cross-cultural communication.

Special forces were active in 152 countries and territories around the world in 1999 - "a figure that does not include classified missions or special access programmes", the command says.


Another source of the non combat roles is this THESIS by Armando Ramirez for the US Naval Post Graduate School in Monterrey, CA

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 04:09 PM

Katlaughing said, in part:

There is one video in, I think it was, the first link, to some NYC firemen talking right after...they said it was like a controlled demolition

Sure. But the operative word here is like. You don't quote them as saying (or even speculating) that it was a controlled demolition. And just watching the video of the collapse verifies that the pattern was indeed like that of a C-D. That is, once it started, the impact of the upper floors falling carried the lower floors progressively downward.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 05:16 PM

"Ron, your website does not offer any credentials."

Yes it does. There are links to the various reports and sites that give their credentials and sources. The website really is a collection of links.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 05:19 PM

It was also "like" the pancaking effect on a multi-layered California highway bridge not so long ago, which was destroyed by an earthquake with cars trapped (and flattened) in between layers. So we could say with equal logic and degree of passionate certainty that the WTC collapse was caused by a massive earthquake or by an act of God, and that the planes we see slicing into the WTC are just a little extra eyegoop (it was at a time when many folks are just waking up after all).

We could also go back through history revisionistically to conclude (this is just one example) that people actually carried Noah's Ark up Mt. Ararat in a propaganda effort to pre-condition people to accept Christianity years later.

Me, I prefer to focus on the disgusting probability that we have all eaten WAY more Soylent Green, to date, than we think we have. Why else irradiate food and run superfarms? We know about the giant pig-farm-factories.... do you really think that's ALL they're farming? This is a multi-benefit conspiracy, BTW, as we can easily convince a good number of folks that we now have a working source not only for Soylent Green but body parts and stem cells-- and from the very same conspiracy! (This being the USA, of course we'll outsource that one soon, too, so look out!)


My new doc told me a great one the other day:

Doc, eyes dancing: "I have the COOLEST coffee mug coming, any day now. Guess what it says!?!"

Me, intrigued: "What?"

Doc: "I see stupid people!"

Or, I see conspiracies.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 05:29 PM

God, the ultimate conspiracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 06:29 PM

nope, the ultimate conspiracy is posting anonymous insults and criticisms. I take the heat for MY outrageous blather....why can't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 07:28 PM

It was no more insulting than the post it responed to. Nail them both or don't nail either.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 07:30 PM

Howzat?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 08:50 PM

???...I guess I missed the reference...

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 09:20 PM

He briefly logged back in, Bill, then abandoned the cookie again. GUEST/Bruce. No real surprise, is it?

Susan, I liked your post, but I'm going to have to stop saying 'Bite me' to people...or at least make sure they're not packing salt & pepper shakers!

I don't mind speculating, but those who are instant True Believers when a theory feeds their paranoia are scary. I generally try to avoid the foil hat brigade, so the rest of you can keep on without me. Maybe the next step is figuring out just where they had to put those underwater charges to cause the 2004 tsunami, or what sort of freakish technology it was that brought us hurricane Katrina.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: jaze
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 09:30 PM

What I find puzzling is the owner of the World Trade Center Complex-Silverstein or something like that, stated on national TV a couple weeks after 911 regarding WTC7- that the building was on fire and they didn't think they could control it, so the decision was made to "Pull" it. "Pull" means "take down" in demoliton lingo. How could they have wired a 47 story building for demoliton in a few hours? Demoliton experts have said it would takes weeks to do that?? No planes hit that building, neither of the Twin Towers fell on it. Puzzling.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 09:54 PM

I see anonymous people....

:~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 09:57 PM

Nothing puzzling about it. That building was severely damaged and whatever else Silverstein is, he is not a demolitions expert and the term 'pull it' is not a demolitions turn. You are mindlessly quoting a misleading quote.

Meanwhile I've unearthed and re-watched a NOVA episode "Why the towers fell". It is utterly convincing, and has nothing to do with any government reports. It was put together over the year after the disaster by structural engineers and included some touching interviews with one of the creative designers of the project.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 10:40 PM

I'm still sitting on the fence on this one.
Could such a monstrous conspiracy take place? unlikely but not impossible.
Could burning kerosine create the temperatures neccessary to soften or melt steel? Unlikely unless fed by a huge airflow to assist combustion.
No report of huge updrafts through the stairwells and the huge clouds of black smoke suggest incomplete combustion rather than an oxygen rich inferno.
Could the huge quantities of steel reinforcing and box sections (in continuous lengths) be reduced to only short sections in the rubble?
Steel is quite malleable, would there not have been long lengths remaining standing?

I realise that some of the sites do have an anti Israeli bias, I certainly don't support that. I am more often accused of anti Islamic tendencies!
I am still waiting for a link to a qualified engineering report. Television documentaries and Popular Mechanics do not fully convince me.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 11:17 PM

By the way, I am by nature a sceptic and I find some of the claims on the pro demolition sites to be wildly implausible. There is a claim that high rise buildings routinely have high explosives built in during construction so as to facilitate demolition at the end of their life.
There is a claim that this was the case with the twin towers.
Now that does smell like Bullshit!

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 11:18 PM

Bobby Kennedy left word with Marilyn Monroe's housekeeper that should someone fly a plane into an as yet unbuilt structure in New York, she was to give up her telemarketing job and call the ghost of Lee Harvey Oswald so he could ship an unused, leftover, Walmart, torpedo from the sinking of the Indianapolis to Sammy the Bull Gravano so he could plant it 25 years earlier during the construction of the WTC and then be exploded on 9/11 by gay Boy Scouts driving giant American Fuckyoumobiles and working for Orthodox Jews driven crazy from eating non kosher hassenpfeffer on an oil tanker. And behind it all was the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

HEY....According to this joint it's a possibility! Geeziz.......

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 11:26 PM

You got it, catspaw; I told ya Marilyn Monroe and Lee Harvey Oswald were tied into it somehow!

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 11:53 PM

Bib Mick - Thanks for the explanation regarding Special Forces. It still does not change my mind about U.S. priorities. Like I said, if the U.S. really wanted to find Osama, they would have concentrated their troops in Afghanistan. Instead, they invade Iraq, create instability and remain there while other countries have to mop up the mess they started in Afghanistan.

Seems to me if they really wanted bin Laden, they would be searching Afghanistan instead of creating more terrorists by invading Iraq.

Its not that I think the Taliban or Saddam are great guys but really, if you pick a fight, don't expect your friends to finish it for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 11:55 PM

Nice try, Spaw, but we're on to you....

Most Dangerous Man in the Western Hemisphere, masquerading as kindly ol' possum-blowing Spaw!

And I know the real truth..... the possum is IN on it!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 12:47 AM

Sorry Mick - The bib was a typo.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:46 AM

"This conspiracy theory proposes that GWB, while being too stupid and incompetent to tie his shoes and eat a pretzel, is somehow cunning enough to pull this off in complete secrecy"

... sorta like when after all the bullying at work I went thru, and they sent me for an IQ test, they then tried to claim that I had 'faked' the test to pretend that I was much smarter than I really was... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: John O'L
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:53 AM

...and did you get away with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 03:14 AM

My Paranoid Schizophrenic boss was convinced so - but everybody else had a good laugh at his expense - and I did get into Mensa, but he couldn't... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 03:18 AM

" So explain the other tower that collapsed. The third tower"

You mean the one that had several thousand gallons of petrol stored on floor 10 or whatever, to run the 'Crisis Center"... :-)


If you burn enough flammable fuel for long enough, things get so hot that 'steel' loses its temper, thus loses its designed load bearing capability...

Fall down - go boom!

Trust me, I'm a trained blacksmith... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 03:27 AM

"Good advice, Johnny."

Thanks d, I was feeling kinda lonely there for a while! :-)
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 05:07 AM

I would like to declare a truce!
No more war by links (but I still like my links better than your links)
I will only fight with logic and reason (my armoury is limited)
So from an engineering perspective.
Two concentric tubes of known mechanical strengths (specifications should be available.
Large impacts at different levels in the two towers.
Fire in both buildings causing weakening of steel structure.
Collapse seeming to occur in sequence from the top down.
Was the heat of the fire really sufficient to cause the neccessary heat damage.
What was the likely fuel load for the fire (include combustible materials and the kerosine remaining after the initial fireball (too brief and low intensity to heat steel sections?)
Was the central core of the building severed by the impacts?
If so would it be likely to fall vertically or to the side?
Did any portion of that central core remain standing after the floors fell away?
Was there evidence of sufficient airflow to cause a firestorm
Could airframe alloy shredded across the building have combine with building steel to create "accidental thermite" producing effects consistent with the destruction by thermite scenario?
BTW
If I was to be an arsonist, kerosine would not be my fuel of choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 07:49 AM

I sure hope the company that did the demo has DEEEEEEEP pockets, for all the suits they will have to pay off on the collateral damage. For a "controlled demo," it sure missed the grade where the specs mention refraining from damaging the surrounding environs! :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:01 PM

It damaged the American psyche. Big time.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:22 PM

I have a DVD from C-Span I am willing to share with interested people that features scientists and engineers who have evidence of the controlled demolition.

I have offered 2 other DVDs in the past and honored every request.

An inside job does not have to have neo con inspired conspiracy agents.
An inside job of planting 1000 lbs of super thermite explosives over 2 days in which the elevators were shut down for maintainence in August can also be done by terrorists alone.

Terrorists commonly have a plan A and a plan B back up plan so even if the planes had missed they would still succeed in delivering death and destruction.

The coincidence that all miltary aircraft were ordered to stand down while the Pentagon was conducting a terrorist response drill on 9-11 is phenomenal yet possible.


No one should overlook that the time it would take a bowling ball to free fall from the top of the WTC to the ground and the speed in which the towers fell are only .2 seconds apart.
To have each floor fall buckle and collapse the next floor and so on, at actual free fall speeds is (once again) phenomenal.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:33 PM

"No one should overlook that the time it would take a bowling ball to free fall from the top of the WTC to the ground and the speed in which the towers fell are only .2 seconds apart. "

What is the source of that statement?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:34 PM

I have gone to your links on this, Donuel. I have explored the various conspiracy theories. In every case, there is a rational response and reason. In order to just accept the premise that there was a conspiracy, one would have to suspend belief in far too much to be logical. Let alone to accept the premises laid out. And if there is so much evidence, then why would these sources rely on half truths and out of context quotes, such as the cruise missile quote.

I would love to catch these guys in a conspiracy. It just isn't here, IMO.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:34 PM

It is a quote by a scientist from said DVD.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:39 PM

And who is the scientist and what are his credentials? And where is the documentation to prove the case?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:56 PM

You have been invited to research this further yourself at no cost.
All the details that are most salient to you are available on your own timetable.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 03:03 PM

I guess it depends on which scientist you choose to believe, and what the actually time really was.

explanation for fall

If you really watch the video you will see that the top portion of the towers were in free fall, traveling much faster than the rest of the towers. They did not JUST collapse on top of each other, and saying that the it took roughly the same time as a bowling ball just isn't correct.

I'm sorry, the "evidence" being brought forward is just too weak. In order for the suggested type of conspiracy to be pulled off would require way too many coincidences to occur, and based on what we've seen - the evidence just doesn't appear to be there to spell out a conspiracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 03:06 PM

No, Donuel. That's not how it works. You have made the asserion. You have implied there is a conspiracy. And you have quoted "scientists" to lend credibility to your assertions of a coverup. When you are then asked to provide sources and credentials to this information, in order to provide a reason why someone should then check out your DVDs, you try and act like it is our obligation seek this out. Not so. I have seen the data you use in this one, and it is much more than just flawed.

I share your desire to shed light on the dirty dealings of this administration. I enjoy much of what you do. This, IMO, is just way out there, and unsubstantiated.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 03:10 PM

Thanks Mick but I just don't have the time to review the DVD for you at this time.
pm for a copy.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 03:18 PM

Donuel, I can prove to your satisfaction that the towers did not fall as fast as you think, without any links etc.

Look at the footage of the falling towers, on YOUR DVDs, the ones you belive show the truth. Watch a bit of debris falling from the top, and how it overtakes the bulk of the falling materiel, contained by the tower.

If you say it's the explosives accelerating it, then watch the footage of real controlled demolitions, and note how the explosives blow debris sideways, not down. They'll tend not eject debris at any great speed at all, as that would cause too much damage to surrounding buildings, so the engineers surround the charges in sandbags etc to reduce flying debris.

I know this is, in essence an expanded version of Rons post. It's still true.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 03:24 PM

Donuel, that seems to be why most of us have a hard time with consipiracy. You brought up several theories as if there was evidence to back it up, but when we ask you become very vague.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 06:50 PM

Whats vague about offering you a 2 hour DVD which covers this topic in detail for your own scrutiny? Within there is even a million dollar award offered for anyone who gets the demolition story covered by any major newspaper.

And while you seem to be attempting to pull a Tucker Carlson (saying something wild and claiming thats what the other person just said)
put your little straw man back in your pants.

requoting myself:

"An inside job does not have to have (involve) neo con inspired conspiracy agents.
An inside job of planting 1000 lbs of super thermite explosives over 2 days in which the elevators were shut down for maintainence in August can also be done by (foreign) terrorists alone.

Terrorists commonly have a plan A and a plan B back up plan so even if the planes had missed they would still succeed in delivering death and destruction."

.............


note I am not accusing the US military industrial complex. Essentially I said that terrorists often have a plan B bomb that goes off after responders arrive. I find it entirely plausible that explosives could be installed inside the buildings by agents yet unknown or undisclosed.

Two things are obvious regarding this WTC conspiracy.
1. People conspired to make it happen.
2. It succeeded.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 07:15 PM

Hakman (Donuel) I don't know anyone else in Mudcat who can dovetail fantasy with real life the way you do. You've started threads with contentions you've downloaded from other websites, such as the antisemitic rense.com, making various assertions but not really backing them up. Furthermore, your math stinks.

I don't care if the DVD is gold plated. It might be a rendtion of utter crap which will rob the viewer of two hours of their life. There is no valid counter theory to the way the towers fell. By your retreat into wimpy wording "and inside job does not have to have..." you are back pedaling.

One thing you did say made sense. Terrorists often have a plan B. In the 911 case the terrorists had Plan A, B, C, D. One went into the North tower of the WTC. One went into the South, and one made it into the Pentagon. The fourth was defeated at the hands of the passengers who gave their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 07:25 PM

"a claim that high rise buildings routinely have high explosives built in during construction so as to facilitate demolition at the end of their life."

Well, let me see - average projected life of a high rise before demolition - 30-40 years - nope - the upfront cost of doing that would get knocked on the head - and good high explosives are really stable for that length of time, aren't they? :-)

Oh, and plastic explosives generally do not explode when massive heat is applied (they need a compressive shock to detonate them, hence detonators and primers...), but they DO melt and burn easily at the temps FAR below that actually occurred - thus no explosion is possible. The steel fatigued, and just fell apart. When enough of that occurrs - "fa' down"...

"Old style" skyscrapers had a massive weight bearing structure - damage part of it and the rest of it nearby just takes the forces spread over a larger area - remember the WWII plane that flew into the Empire State Building?

The Twin Towers had a "monocoque" style structure - if ONE link fails, then the whole damn structure just chain reacts to self destruction as each neighbouring link succesively overloads - which may HAVE been ok if the steel had not lost its critical temper due to heat. It was designed with asbestos sprayon to insulate it from heat from a potential fire, but it was documented years before that large chunks of that had fallen off.

What with up to 10 floors in each tower damaged (even only partially and on fire) - it was inevetible. I predicted while watching live that the towers would fall in the order they did - it only takes a little physics and engineering to understand why that was also inevetible.


"Look at the footage of the falling towers, on YOUR DVDs, the ones you believe show the truth. Watch a bit of debris falling from the top, and how it overtakes the bulk of the falling materiel, contained by the tower."

A bowling ball only falls faster than a feather because it has less air resistance. You can only make anything fall faster than that speed by having an external source of energy like a 'rocket motor' push it down faster...

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 08:27 PM

The government needs to put this issue to bed. They need to have a complete unbais investgation, wacthed by unrelated & unassociated inestagators. It's in the gov best interest to show the country & the world that they can conduct a clean survey by pro's not politcians that all the theories are beyond reason. Why should they?
Because they've behaved & acted in such a way that they can't be trusted to do anything honestly & they need to start here. Other wise this will haunt the country the wat it was haunted by Viet Nam era in the 60's. That haunting will have lasting effects until my generation is dead & this will one will last just as long if it's not cleared up to the satisfaction of this generation coming of age now.

It doesn't matter what the theories are saying at this point.
My own opinion is I couldn't trust my government to not have had a hand in it. Weither they did or didn't they need to re-earn my trust, I didn't do a thing to cause my mistrust in them, they brought it on themselves a long time ago & never in my opinion have they even bothered to right any of the wrongs they've commited. That goes for yesteryear, yesterday, today. I do hope that tomorrow will be a brand new day but I doubt it.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 08:45 PM

I am very impressed with the quality of the writing in the link that Ron Olesko provided. Even I could follow their explanations for cause and effect and sequential events.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 09:08 PM

"And while you seem to be attempting to pull a Tucker Carlson (saying something wild and claiming thats what the other person just said)
put your little straw man back in your pants."

Now who is pulling a "Tucker"? Sounds like you are throwing your own little straw man here to distract us from your bull.

I don't think I said anything "wild" here, but merely challenged you to produce some facts or links to the same. Obviously you realize that sending a DVD would take time and the conversation would die down before anyone can examine your claims.

Again, if you can substantiate what you are trying to claim, please do so. If we aren't supposed to trust the goverment, experts, television or witnesses we certainly have no reason to trust you.

And keep out of my pants.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 09:40 PM

And don't forget, Jeb Bush put Florida under martial law 4 days before 9-11 (for no reason at all). And Marvin Bush was providing security for the World Trade Center complex, Dulles international airport & United Airlines on 9-11. They are sooo busted.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 09:56 PM

And Rover Bush was giving out the bean recipe. Dumbest ass thread this week. But then again, we're getting a monstrous amount of classically stupid threads.........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 10:05 PM

Man. Am I glad that some of these Guests are not in my home!

Calm Down

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 10:07 PM

*sigh*..well, the internet/WWW has provided an unprecedented amount of information to settle these things....unfortunately, that comes with a cost, as total kooks can now yammer about their pet theories and paranoid suspicions in amazing, illustrated detail...which leaves the average curious seekers after knowlege inundated with more conflicting ideas than most of them can easily digest.

There ARE a few sites like Snopes that specialize in sorting out the wheat from the chaff, but making sure that the most reputable info is easily found is not easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 10:45 PM

"Bobby Kennedy left word with Marilyn Monroe's housekeeper that should someone fly a plane into an as yet unbuilt structure in New York, she was to give up her telemarketing job and call the ghost of Lee Harvey Oswald so he could ship an unused, leftover, Walmart, torpedo from the sinking of the Indianapolis to Sammy the Bull Gravano so he could plant it 25 years earlier during the construction of the WTC and then be exploded on 9/11 by gay Boy Scouts driving giant American Fuckyoumobiles and working for Orthodox Jews driven crazy from eating non kosher hassenpfeffer on an oil tanker. And behind it all was the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team."

catspaw might be close but I hate to break it to you, Sammy the Bull didn't do explosives, he preferred piano wire or his nickel plated 45.

That leaves Bob Novak.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 11:08 PM

Yeah, but Sammy was big in concrete and construction.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 11:23 PM

Well now... since I've been more or less holed up with the flu... or was it the spinach?... I've had a week to feel so lousy that I was reduced to a surfing automaton... out of sheer bordom. This is, in part, an apology for such an odd array of posting in the last week... and an explanation for this seemingly ridiculous post...

I did the unthinkable. I looked up "conspiracy theory" websites... and actually read some of them. Whooo-weee! What a mess! I gotta tell you... It seems sometimes like there must be a community of people out there in cyber-space-land making regular paychecks... for drawing the 'wrong' conclusions, stretching the truth too far, and creating new facts to substantiate known results... You know... like 'testers' in a software mill, or pornstars if you will. And, as with looking at porn... after about 10 seconds of confusion and irritation, you just end up feeling sorry for the poor sots... like... do they even realize how messed up they are? Blehk!!!

O.K... that being said...

There are a few 'Conspiracy theory points' that seem suprizingly lucid to someone doubled over in vertigo and pain. Here's ten to address... but please DO NOT focus or direct your answers to me... as they are not my doing, and I jus' call's 'em as I see's 'em... K? I repeat... I DID NOT MAKE THESE UP, AND I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM BEING ALL OVER THE NET. However, since I'd never heard of them before this week... I can't be sure of anything about them, now, can I?

So... put the "Beach Boys" into your 'super drive' and scan the fruits of my "End of Summer" Surf Extravaganza through the sights of your favorite 'skeet shooter', 'cause I'm loading 'em up! O.K... Here we go!!!

    PULL!
1.) One month after the towers fell, there was STILL molten steel in the basements of extowers 1, 2, & 7. Can anyone explain this to me... using only steel, jet fuel, concrete, and an hour?

    PULL!
2.)The amount of jet fuel left to burn after the initial explosions was insufficient to melt or detemper steel in an hour or so. Black jet fuel smoke indicates a burning temp of approx 500F... About the same as broiling bacon?
a.)Many of the fuel fires were under control or out before the buildings fell.
b.)Buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from a "fully loaded" 707.

    PULL!
3.)The steel webwork around the outside of the buildings retained much of it's strength after the crashes... due to it's interlaced design. Like a pencil through mosquito netting?

    PULL!
4.)Does anyone anywhere have even a single report of a steel structure falling down for any reason? Three fell on that one day.

    PULL!
5.)Explosions are documented, and are reported to have caused injury and death... in the basement of the towers... after the impact of planes, and before the towers fell. Hmmm.

    PULL!
6.)Dust... that is uncharacteristic of a building that just 'fell down'... Dust with EXTREMELY small particle size... complete with 'Pyroclastic flows' that are associated with 'large extremely hot explosions' like volcanic eruptions... and some others...

    PULL!
7.)Norad 'Stand down'-Cheney in the Bunker-Rumsfeld in comand-Bush in stupor-airtraffic-war games-pentagon plane crash drills-plane wings missing-Many warnings from around the world for months totally ignored-ad seemingly infinitum ... I'm sorry... this stuff was just too thick for my flu-addled mind to follow... But 'common sense' tells me that... um... well, let's just move on to number 8... O.K?

    PULL!
8.)Reputed reports of 'military type explosives' residue left on some steel after 9/11... steel was recycled out of this country with little analysis... there are many photographed and video'd instances... flashes if you will, and power was supposedly gone for blocks around the buildings... That look like welding... like some say... thermite reactions... Massive explosions (2.1 & 2.3 on the rictor scale for buildings 2 and 1 respectively measured seismicly about 20 miles away) seconds before towers one and two started to fall. Yikes!

    PULL!
9.)Many confirmed reports of people hearing explosions ... throughout the buildings... before and as they fell. Hmmmm... Were there any powerburns that day?

Warning!!! Unscientific and Problematic Reasoning Alert!!!

                              But there is no other way to say this...
    PULL!
10.)Many of the men most in charge of this country, declared several years before 9/11... that what their 'New World Plan' (or whatever it was called) needed most in order to be executable in a timely fashion (ie. in their lifetimes), was a catalysing moment... a "Pearl Harbor" type incident. (no anectdote needed)

Well, there you have it... a bunch of ridiculous overreactions, based on circumstantial speculation... Gleaned from fourth hand simplifications. Give it a go, and shoot them all down! ...like I'm trying to do.

...and remember now... I'm just the messenger... so... I'm    s l o w l y   b a c k i n g    u p
a n d   g e t t i n g   m y   c o a t   c a r e f u l l y. . .
Happy Hunting!
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 11:52 PM

My favorite news of the day was this quote from a GWBush news conference. On the White House website, "...For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html

So, Bush, who has a 91 I.Q. and probably never reads the speeches before they're handed to him, just started blabbing about bombs going off in a general way to the news media. He's being set up to take the fall for the WTC explosions on Sept 11. And he doesn't even know it. What an idjit. Out of nowhere, HE brings discussion of controlled demolitions into the discussion. What a dunce. But the gambit might work. You liberals hate him so much you might be satisfied with wiping the smirk off his face...let it go at that. But who wrote those lines for Bush? And who ordered them to write them? The people who issued THOSE orders are the ones behind 9-11.

----

OLD NEWS:

George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

WHEREAS, the Florida National Guard has the statutory responsibility to provide support to law-enforcement personnel and emergency-management personnel in the event of civil disturbances or natural disasters... (read it for yourself. Jeb Bush's EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 01-261, Sept. 7, 2001. Florida had never been under martial law in modern history, yet 4 days before 9-11, when GW was scheduled to fly to Florida for the day, Jeb put his state under martial law. To protect his brother when the mess hit the fan).

http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/orders/2001/september/eo2001-261-09-07-01.html

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 12:33 AM

Don't any of you have jobs to go to, kids to feed, chicken shit to sweep out of the back yard, anything? Occupy your minds with real stuff like that, then you won't have time for all this horse-shit.

Or see a shrink.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 12:59 AM

"The government needs to put this issue to bed"

Ha! Slim chance! 30 years after man walked on the moon, 15% of Americans surveyed believe that the moon landings were faked in a movie studio...

"Don't any of you have jobs to go to, kids to feed, chicken shit to sweep out of the back yard, anything? Occupy your minds with real stuff like that, then you won't have time for all this horse-shit."

Hehehehe!


"One month after the towers fell, there was STILL molten steel in the basements"

Lots of asbestos too - a good heat insulator... and the basements did not allow much heat venting - make a good 'furnace'... I seem to remember planes being built out of aluminium... when it catches and burns, it eats steel and melts it...


"Many of the fuel fires were under control or out before the buildings fell."

So what were all those red glows that I saw snuffed out by the collapse? Put out by WHO? The fire fighters were still walking up the stairs... and being hampered by the fires in the stairwells...


"Buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from a "fully loaded" 707."

That's a MUCH smaller plane with a much smaller fuel load than the actual planes... and I seem to remember the architect saying in a documentary that they only calculated (in the days of teeny tiny computers) for the physical impact, not the fuel burn.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:21 AM

Well done, Robin... nice shooting!

Lotsa smoke too...

Aluminum's melting point is 660F... well within initial combustion potential...

707 fuel capacity 23000 gallons... 767 fuel capacity 24000 gallons... not significant, and they did have some Big Slide Rules and something called paper and #2 pencils back then... 'nother try on that one?
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:48 AM

"Black jet fuel smoke indicates a burning temp of approx 500F..."

Ah! well, if thatwere ALL that were burning, but have you ever seen plastics burn? 10 floors of synthetic materials, computer cases, furniture, etc - thus 'black smoke' is not a realistic indicator of the actual temperature of the fire.


"About the same as broiling bacon?"

Ah, I used to be into the "spontaneous human combustion" thing years ago, before it was debunked... but I won't say any more... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:49 AM

Most of the above questions are covered by the NOVA show: "Why The Towers Fell"

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:51 AM

"they did have some Big Slide Rules and something called paper and #2 pencils back then"

"I seem to remember the architect saying in a documentary that they only calculated ... for the physical impact, not the fuel burn."

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:20 AM

Yes, I too enjoyed the Nova explanation... I think I've seen it twice. Very explicitly denotes the pancaking and falling of one floor onto the next...

I seem to recall that some more recent tests have been critical... claims are being made that the buildings could not possibly have fallen as quickly as they did... very close to freefall speed... and not a little ruckus is being made about the 'nice and neat' conclusion... apparently a building that falls onto itself without much 'help' would have created a taller less tidy heap...

I guess I just want everyone to get resonable answers to what seem like resonable questions... so people dont feel like some kind of 'close encounters' ufo nut... or worse... tearing the basis for our democracy to shreads by eroding the much needed faiths in both God and Humanity... or at least making them appear to be a odds with one another...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:31 AM

I'm just sittin' on a fence
You can say I got no sense
Trying to make up my mind
Really is too horrifying
So I'm sittin on a fence

Keef
(no, not that Keef)

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:38 AM

Whoops..forgot to mention Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:53 AM

Ok, I know I promised no more links
I changed my mind.
I do that some times!

hot enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 07:01 AM

Another horsecrap link.

"However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7."

How many other steel hi rises have been hit by fuel laden jets? And all of the links that refer to the "central core" are bogus from the gitgo as the WTC had no central core, it was one of the construction features.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 07:05 AM

No central core eh!
Yeah Right!

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 07:05 AM

And Keef.....That fence you're sitting on there? It seems a pole has gone up your ass and pierced your brain. There is hope...Just opt for reality.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 07:08 AM

Yeah I was waiting for that one.
Why don't you fault my logic rather than being rude?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 07:13 AM

Because there is no logic presented. Just faulty studies that have been disproved. When you use them, and post in such a sanctimonious fashion, you just look like the village idiot sitting on a fence. You must be smarter than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 07:22 AM

Please set my mind at ease, tell me it's all bullshit.
If not then I might have to start building a bunker cos things don't look good!

Okay Keef....No rudeness and I apologize, but for the love of crap, YOU started this thread with the above quote. Lots of straightforward and factual info and how to see it/read it has been given but you want to go for the "dark side."   Wake up.

The WTC towers were built on the exo-skeleton idea and nothing like the elevators or anything in the center had squat to do with their support. You could have a completely wide open floor if you wanted with only the individual elevator shafts blocking the view....and several floors did!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 07:33 AM

Mick
Here is some logic for you.
Temperature required to produce significant strength reduction in steel is about 600C (check it out)
That equates to cherry red.
Can you raise a large mass of steel and concrete to that temperature using the fuel sources available.
An opinion from a fire investigation expert would be most helpful.
He who provides the most links doesn't win the war.
You will probably reject any information that does not confirm your entrenched viewpoint. That is human nature.
Perhaps I'm not human.
I like to modify my viewpoint as information comes to hand.
Most of the websites have a one eyed view pro or anti.
It is your right to accept or reject the information.
I do not question your ancestry or intelligence because you see things from a different perspective to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 07:52 AM

Keef,
He who provides the most links doesn't win the war.

I haven't provided any links. This is a perfect example of how you look here.

An opinion from a fire investigation expert would be most helpful.


There have been numerous experts testify to this. Yours is a poorly executed debaters tactic, in which you make an assertion that simply isn't true and state it as if it were an irrefutable fact.

You will probably reject any information that does not confirm your entrenched viewpoint. That is human nature.
Perhaps I'm not human.
I like to modify my viewpoint as information comes to hand.


Pretty arrogant statement on your part. You make assumptions about me without any proof to that effect. This might come as a surprise to you given that you seem to know more than the rest of us mere mortals, but I gave a lot of my time investigating the sources given by folks here, particularly Donuel's, because I have always enjoyed his view on things. What I came to was that there was no credible evidence that 9/11 was anything but what it was reported to be.

I do not question your ancestry or intelligence because you see things from a different perspective to me.

Read it again. Tell me where I questioned your ancestry. What I did do was point out the image you are presenting. And in your response, you once again with these statements, give the same appearance.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 08:08 AM

1.) One month after the towers fell, there was STILL molten steel in the basements of extowers 1, 2, & 7. Can anyone explain this to me... using only steel, jet fuel, concrete, and an hour?

>>>>>Molten was used by far too many witnesses, reporters to describe merely hot enough to be glowing, ie "Molten steel beams were pulled out" Molten is a liquid, a steel beam is a solid.

2.)The amount of jet fuel left to burn after the initial explosions was insufficient to melt or detemper steel in an hour or so. Black jet fuel smoke indicates a burning temp of approx 500F... About the same as broiling bacon?

>>>>>Not all of the fire has to be at the same temperature. Maybe the floors at the edges of the fire were not as hot as the centre of it

a.)Many of the fuel fires were under control or out before the buildings fell.
b.)Buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from a "fully loaded" 707.
>>>> Already answered

3.)The steel webwork around the outside of the buildings retained much of it's strength after the crashes... due to it's interlaced design. Like a pencil through mosquito netting?
>>>> Until the fires softened it, so it lost most of its strength.

4.)Does anyone anywhere have even a single report of a steel structure falling down for any reason? Three fell on that one day.
>>>>> Google "Tacoma narrows bridge collapse"

5.)Explosions are documented, and are reported to have caused injury and death... in the basement of the towers... after the impact of planes, and before the towers fell. Hmmm.
>>>>>> At the base of the lift/elavator shafts. Like what might happen if a large, heavy object falls dozens of stories.

6.)Dust... that is uncharacteristic of a building that just 'fell down'... Dust with EXTREMELY small particle size... complete with 'Pyroclastic flows' that are associated with 'large extremely hot explosions' like volcanic eruptions... and some others...

>>>> All sorts of holes in this. Burn concrete in a hot fire, and it will crumble like a biscuit if you put it under stress. Dust will naturally sort itself. The coarse stuff travels the least distance, and falls out fastest, leaving the finer part to tarvel further, and settle on top of the coarse.
'Pyroclastic flows' is simply a term which has been abused by someone who them on the Discovery channel. You might as well say anyone with an accoustic guitar is a Folk musician, just beacuse they happen to look like one


7.)Norad 'Stand down'-Cheney in the Bunker-Rumsfeld in comand-Bush in stupor-airtraffic-war games-pentagon plane crash drills-plane wings missing-Many warnings from around the world for months totally ignored-ad seemingly infinitum ... I'm sorry... this stuff was just too thick for my flu-addled mind to follow... But 'common sense' tells me that... um... well, let's just move on to number 8... O.K?
>>>> Don't know about this.
   

8.)Reputed reports of 'military type explosives' residue left on some steel after 9/11... steel was recycled out of this country with little analysis... there are many photographed and video'd instances... flashes if you will, and power was supposedly gone for blocks around the buildings... That look like welding... like some say... thermite reactions... Massive explosions (2.1 & 2.3 on the rictor scale for buildings 2 and 1 respectively measured seismicly about 20 miles away) seconds before towers one and two started to fall. Yikes!

>>>>Heat alone will not cook off conventional explosives. The fires would have triggered any thermite present in a matter of minutes, not nearly an hour.
Selective interpretaition of the sesmic records will show you anything, if you choose where you crop and scale them carefully enough.

9.)Many confirmed reports of people hearing explosions ... throughout the buildings... before and as they fell. Hmmmm... Were there any powerburns that day?

>>>>>What did they actually hear? Actual explosions, or loud bangs they described as explosions. Loud bangs that could be large slabs of concrete and steel hitting eact other hard.

                              But there is no other way to say this...
    PULL!
10.)Many of the men most in charge of this country, declared several years before 9/11... that what their 'New World Plan' (or whatever it was called) needed most in order to be executable in a timely fashion (ie. in their lifetimes), was a catalysing moment... a "Pearl Harbor" type incident. (no anectdote needed)

>>>>> Editorial statment, not a real query. There's now how here, only why

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 08:28 AM

Sorry Mick
That should have read

Most folks.. will probably reject any information that does not confirm their entrenched viewpoint. That is human nature.
Obviously I have no idea how you process information.
Many websites to choose from
Which ones are bullshit?
I'm no philosopher I'm unfamiliar with Gillette's razor much less Occam's.
I'm not even trying to win the debate
Remember
Mass Debating can be fun

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 09:58 AM

Indeed not a single self appointed critic here has elected to have a free copy of a dvd that features scientists and engineers discussing the issue along with their documented evidence.

Perhaps they are afraid of a mailing which is quite telling in itself.

The critics of demolition evidence also claim to have examined the facts but (evidently) prefer to complain about other people who have looked.

I would hope they are paid to complain and are not just trapped in a life where they are personally subject to constant complaints and seek relief by complaining here for a large segment of their day.

I feel for ya buddy, I hope your paradigm shifts soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 10:08 AM

"The critics of demolition evidence also claim to have examined the facts but (evidently) prefer to complain about other people who have looked."

Now you are playing spin doctor. You disregarded or ignored what many of us have pointed out to you and simply seek relief by shifting the conversation.

Please send me a copy. I am curious.

Ron Olesko
c/o WFDU-FM
1000 River Road
Teaneck, NJ 07666

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 10:13 AM

Donuel, what a crock! It was you, or someone who thinks like you, in an earlier thread, that provided a link to this info you want to send on a DVD. I have already viewed it, and then checked on the "facts" and "evidence" presented. What I found were half truths and misrepresentations, designed to support a pre selected conclusion. Your allegations that we are sheep and not as wise as you for accepting the premise of these reports smacks of intellectual ineptitude. I did not expect that of you.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 10:28 AM

"Indeed not a single self appointed critic here has elected to have a free copy of a dvd that features scientists and engineers discussing the issue along with their documented evidence.

Perhaps they are afraid of a mailing which is quite telling in itself."


Fine, Donuel. I'll take a copy, and let you know what real scientists and engineers think of it. And I'll start getting together some information on why you should vote for Bush in 2008, too.... ( after they change the term limit)


Bruce Gewirz
c/o Orbital Sciences Corp.
21839 Atlantic Blvd.
Dulles, VA 20166

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 11:48 AM

My guess at which scientist Donuel means is Steven E. Jones who has published a paper in a respectavble journal about the speed of fall of the buildings. That guy has supported cold fusion some years ago. So he must be right this time too.

The worst thing about these theories is, as Peter say, that they are taking strength, effort, determination away from the real problems.

And I note again the implicit racism in these theories: Arabs are just too stupid (to fly) and not skilled enough to be able to do this amount of damage.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 12:07 PM

Please give us a considered report, gents. (I got nothin' but faith in how that turns out).

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: TIA
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:17 PM

Not interested in the DVD, but I sure do want to hear why we should vote for Bush in 2008. Please do get that information together ASAP.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:21 PM

No, TIA, the point is that YOU have to prove why you should NOT believe.... er, vote for Bush. I'll just make a bunch of unsupported claims, and tell you what conclusions you are supposed to draw from them. Same as the conspiracy folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:25 PM

It's not that Arabs are too stupid to fly, but THESE NINETEEN were too stupid to fly. Just ask their flight instructors. Or better yet, watch the video of their flight instructors TELLING you they were too stupid to fly. The video's all over the internet.

http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

http://www.911truthbristol.com/videos/films.html

Two links where you can download low-res videos for free. Stephen Jones, Griffin, others.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:34 PM

"Temperature required to produce significant strength reduction in steel is about 600C (check it out)
That equates to cherry red.
Can you raise a large mass of steel and concrete to that temperature using the fuel sources available"

My father was a farmer, not a blacksmith. But we had a small portable forge, god only knows just how old. It held just a few handfuls of coal, and had a small, crude, hand cranked fan attached to provide forced draft. It took just a few minutes to heat steel well past cherry red to a white hot very malleable state.

Also, I have never been a "firefighter", but I have helped contain a small woodland fire and have seen the kind of draft generated by a few burning tree; just wood and leaves burning.

Start a fire with thousands of gallons of spilled fuel, let the drafts develop as every imaginable sort of secondary fuel ignites, and I can hardly imagine why anyone would question whether you would
weaken steel substantially.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:47 PM

Are these the flight instructors from the 2000 school where the hijackers dropped out or are these the instructors who gave them 4 months of additional training to help them get their licenses?   By all accounts they weren't good pilots, but the information available seems to point out that they had the ability to fly.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST,road hazard
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:59 PM

for ****s sake..

i've never passed a driving test..

never even had enough lessons to get anywhere near a test..


but i can start a car up and keep it pointed in the direction
i'm aiming at..

..and thats all the skill that would have been required..

and they didnt even need to switch on the ignition
and get the planes up in the air..!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:08 PM

(Guest/Road Hazard- you got that right!)

If my life depended on it I'd give piloting a darn good try. Keeping it going on a pre-set course might not be hard but turning a huge plane in midair and aiming it at a specific destination at 500 miles an hour might be just a tad more than I can handle.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:15 PM

If they knew their position and the bearing of the WTC they'd only need to turn the knobs on the autopilot to the correct heading and altitude. George would do the rest until they had visual contact.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:16 PM

Should have added "I'm led to believe".

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST,road hazard
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:18 PM

..and its not like they needed to learn anything difficult
like how to reverse...

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:26 PM

"Keeping it going on a pre-set course might not be hard but turning a huge plane in midair and aiming it at a specific destination at 500 miles an hour might be just a tad more than I can handle."

It was probably more than the pilot could handle. From reports that are readily available online, it appears that the pilot was much too high to hit the target, so he made a 330 degree turn. However, it was not as if the turn was being made around the Pentagon. The turn was made in a rather wide circle and he came in to reach his target. It adds up to describe an inexperienced pilot who nearly broke the plane up with the stress that he put it under.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:38 PM

beardedbruce, say it ain't s:o I never took you for a bush apologist.
oh well btw
I was recently told the reason to vote for another Bush (any Bush)
It was O'Reilly. He said that Bush is not confused. He said the world is confused and so are the American people. The President must spend most of his valuable time explaining what the stakes are :!



yeah yeah, they are always long on stakes and short on procedure.



_____________________________________________________________________

Gentlemen, start your engines.
The first one to conclude with incontravertible, irrefuttable absolute certainty about the totality of the 9-11 scenario...WINS.

What do you win? A prize of course.

The prize would probably be disappearence or a puzzling suicide.
You are not meant to know. Otherwise Operation Bravo would have been included in the 9-11 Commission report.

I have no problem with anyone who can believe in a magic bullet theory. It is fine for anyone to believe that Mohammed Atta's pristine wallet was found atop all the World trade center debris. Its even fine that photos of 19 terrorists were neatly laid out in giant graphics for all the media to see on the afternoon of 9-11. (even if some of those photos belong to guys alive and well overseas)

Its all OK. Why?

Because we need all minds to see our universe, we need minds that are strictly rational and can only describe events in rational terms. We even need the people who are the opposite (I call them religionists) And we need people who are a little bit of both, because that is the true nature of the universe.
It ain't all rational and it ain't all irrational.
It just is, once all the other possiblities collapse.

!!We all know how the 9-11 events were used and abused by this administration after the event!!

To me that is virtually as bad as if they used and abused this country by allowing or even causing the events in the first place, which is why this debate is so heated.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:49 PM

And bravo gentlemen. The dvd of the convention of demolition theorists that was held last June in Los Vegas will keep the questions alive, which is nearly as important as the truth (whatever it may be)
It really is a hoot.

warning: do not use this WTC dvd for drinking games.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:00 PM

"It is fine for anyone to believe that Mohammed Atta's pristine wallet was found atop all the World trade center debris."

Pristine might not be the right word to use. It was found, as were others. Don't forget that pieces of the plane, body parts, etc. were found on the streets before the buildings collapsed.

"Because we need all minds to see our universe, we need minds that are strictly rational and can only describe events in rational terms. "

Very true. We need to continue to question and attempt to find the answers. It seems like many of are doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:09 PM

good GRIEF! Hasn't anyone paid attention to the fact that THIS WAS NOT A STANDARD OLD-STYLE STEEL STRUCTURE, likesay, The Empire State Building..
There were NOT huge, thick steel beams in the towers, there were grids of smaller pieces, carefully interlocked, and coated with fireproofing material, **BECAUSE** they were not as fire resistant as old style girder! This was partially to SAVE WEIGHT in a tall building. This fireproofing was to deal with possible fires generated INSIDE the building.

When the impact shattered much of the structure, it also dislodged the fireproofing! Then, heat softened the remaining pieces...

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:11 PM

And London Bridge fell down.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:15 PM

and, as I said before....the hijackers only had to know enought to STEER the planes for an hour and to turn OFF the transponders so air traffic controllers couldn't find them!

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST,Harry at Home Laboratories
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:27 PM

I've just tried a controlled experiment replicating the disaster
with a scale tower block made of lego
and and airfix plane filled with parafin..

and the result was a sticky molten mess on the carpet
and black noxious choking smoke..

I'm not really sure what to conclude..

But I couldn't find any remains of bodies, terrorist or otherwise..

[I employed civilan figures from my Dads train set
and airfix Bedouin warriors for the hijackers]

now I need to open all the windows before mum comes home from the shops.

don't know what to do about the carpet though..

Hope this helps support or disprove any theories.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:30 PM

Thank you Harry, you have been a great tool.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:33 PM

Well Bill, I DID! Or was it you who missed my posts????......you're over the hill you old coot.
.......simple shit never reads my stuff....***grumble***grumble***.....Rita's probably going nuts with him around.....

The WTC was unlike anything else. On one of the shows I finally heard a great explanation as to the strength of the design. If two people stand facing each other locking arms and lean back, they can stay that way with ease and for a very long time. If you break the arm lock, they fall and anything they're holding falls as well.

The beams and structural members that made up the floor/ceiling sections were simply strong enogh to hold the exo-skeleton in place. Adding weight to the floor actually made the building more rigid. No one argues that the firecoating material on these support structures was less than perfect and too thin to begin with. The concussive force also dislodged much of it as well. As soon as one floor gave way the pancaking began and there is some unbelievably excellent film of that happening now available. Again, I don't recall if that was the NOVA or Discovery/History/A&E programs but the footage was the best I had seen and the angle made it obvious how the fall happened.

As to the heat of the fire and the drafts created....ask the helicopter crews. Talk about guys still living it........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:57 PM

Yeah that was PBS Nova.
I didn't buy into their graphics of how the towers fell.

What was very poignant to me about that show was the section featuring the architect/designer of the WTC.

That was a man who had a window to his heart and gag upon his mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: freightdawg
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 04:29 PM

A few points about the flying of airplanes: I was a flight instructor for about 4 years combined and while I never even got close to one of the "big guys" I do understand a little bit about flying.

One - the bigger the plane the more stable it is. Therefore, it really did not have to be "flown" but rather "aimed." I was unaware that the first plane had to make such a large circle to get down, but any pilot can manage a large, looping, descending turn. Now, it might be true that in doing so he/she might rip a wing off due to unreasonable stresses, but (unfortunately in this case) those aircraft are certified to stay put together beyond all but the most unthinkable stresses. It's comforting to know when you are at 30,000 feet, but if a wing had fallen off earlier then the tower would have been safe, anyway.

Two - flying a plane is not really all that difficult. Even taking off in a plane is not that difficult. LANDING a plane is extremely difficult. Remember, all these terrorists had to do was make simple course and altitude changes. As long as he kept his airspeed up and stayed within certain parameters of bank, pitch, etc, a plane of that size would have been a pussycat to fly. The greatest threat in any flying is the loss of airspeed (airflow over the wings). As long as they were in a descending profile all they had to do was make sure they did not gain too much speed. A very inexpensive GPS unit would have told them how far out to begin descending to be down to their desired altitude in time. I used one all the time. If they had any training at all in the FMS or onboard computer systems of the airplanes it would have been just that much easier.

Three - disabling the transponder only kept the ATC specialists from knowing the altitude of the airplane. The controllers have ways of identifying "primary" targets, and since the controllers knew where the planes were when they disappeared, all they had to do was highlight the "blip" and follow it. They could determine the speed the plane was traveling over the ground, but would have no idea where it was in relation to altitude. I had many, many up close and personal experiences with aircraft that had no transponders but were identified to me by controllers who had a "primary target only, altitude unknown" in my general area. As I pointed out earlier, each of the planes was followed up until almost the points of impact. It is true that they could not be followed below a certain altitude, but they were almost down by the time that happened.

Thank you Spaw for the "numbnuts" description of how the design of the buildings worked. That visual image is better than all the engineering descriptions combined.

When the designers made provision for a fully loaded 707 to hit the building they were calculating weight X mass. They did not, for whatever reason, take into consideration the resulting fire from the fully loaded fuel tanks. So whether it was a fully loaded 707 or a 767 the weight issue was moot. The buildings withstood the shock with just the expected swaying motion. They would still be up if it were not for the resulting fires. And just a small amount of fuel would have been needed for the huge fireballs that were initially visible. Remember that the planes had tons of Jet-A fuel on board. One gallon of jet fuel weighs approx. 6 pounds (depending on temperature). The heat above those damaged floors must have been like hell itself - remember many people jumped to their deaths rather than face the inevitable death by burning.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:10 PM

oh, 'spaw! I did see your earlier remarks, but think, man...the IMPACT of mine, with the red letters and all! Why, I'll bet twice as many have ignored my post as ignored yours!

(Yeah, I'm over the hill, but I'm having a hell of a good times slidin' down the other side!)

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:23 PM

Dang.....I think you're right. I gotta' start using more color...

and SIZE

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:30 PM

how do you do that?

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:48 PM

saywhat
Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:52 PM

I dunno how he does it, I do it with cheater programs the do 87.521% of the work for me.

The experts do it by specifying color and size in the HTML when they post. Basically, you enclose code the browser will recognize in various patterns of angle brackets.....

I use this program and one other that is harder to find.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:53 PM

(show off!)

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 07:00 PM

HEY Bill Hahn....and only because you too love Kate Hepburn.....A lot of it is on this thread though it may be out of sequence. The post I linked and those below it are a pretty good tutorial into basic html. Everything I know (and that's next to nothing) I learned here at the 'Cat.

Don't let Bill D. foolya'.....He's master with all his programs, even back in the days when his 'puter was hamster powered.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 09:46 PM

You may be right
I may be crazy
But it just may be a lunatic you're looking for
Turn out the light
Dont try to save me
You may be wrong for all I know
But you may be right

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 09:55 PM

Harry are you still in the laboratory?
Could you scale up the experiment a bit, use a lot of kerosine, chuck in a few computer monitors, give it a bit of a blow with a hair dryer
and then tell me if you can MELT steel. That's if the reports of molten steel in the rubble are correct.
When we are all done with this, can we please have David Hicks back from Guantanamo Bay. He may be an asshole.
But he's OUR asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST,Harry's Dad
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 10:05 PM

Harry is in Bed.
The little sod is, as you Americans say, grounded for a month;
and his chemistry set is in the dustbin.
That carpet was a wedding present from the wife's mother..
and apparently its all my fault now for getting him interested in science and popular conspiracy theories..

aaaaagghh..!!!! bollocks !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 10:28 PM

http://www.debunking911.com/

including a section on "molten steel"....but those who WANT to believe in conspiracies will keep on with their, "yes, buts"

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 01:18 AM

I've known a lot of 'mass-debators' in my lifetime...

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 03:55 AM

Hi Mick, Ron, Bill
I was thinking about coming over to your side of the fence,
Haven't heard from Charley, perhaps he's hanging round the schoolyard again?
Keef

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 08:31 AM

-troope
mass debators is all they have on cable news

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 08:46 AM

Donuel, could I have a copy of this DVD as well please. I'm curious to know what kind of Engineers and scientists are on it.
Structual enginners should know what they're talking about. But an electrical engineer as authority of building collapse? Similarly , do we have materiel scientists or ecologists? Both are perfectly good scientific disciplines, but only one is relevent.

James Flack.

21/4 Parkside Terrace
Edinburgh
EH16 5XW
United Kingdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 08:19 PM

Sure that makes 3 so far.
While they do not present with total depth they direct further inquiry/complete data on various personal websites.



Harry's grand experiment is the making of a wonderful story in the style of Jean Shepard.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 08:30 PM

Then where DO you find the "total depth" ? Suggestions?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 02:31 AM

C:\Political\VIDEOS\videoplay.htm

"9-11 Mysteries". I haven't watched it yet, but they say this offers conclusive proof of demolitions. Anyone seen it?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 05:19 AM

"C:\" etc

Since that link is only to YOUR PC GUEST, nobody else can...

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 05:35 AM

Donuel
I could give you my address so that you could post me a CD but then you'd know who I am, and then I might have to kill you.
Any way I've been having a bad day.
There's been a strange truck driving past all day and I think they've got some kind of dish inside it that is bombarding me with radiation and I got some greasy alfoil off the barbecue and put it round my head but my brain still hurts and then my phone started making funny crackling noises and I coudn't find anything on the Discovery Channel so I got up on the roof and found that both of my terestial and cosmic parabolic dish antennae had been destroyed by an axe.










I think my satellites have been hacked!

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 05:46 AM

"alfoil off the barbecue and put it round my head but my brain still hurts"

Research on the net at M.I.T. proved that only CONCENTRATES the beams inside the head of the wearer...

On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets: An Empirical Study

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 01:13 PM

lol. I'm obviously not TOO damned worried about NSA spying, or I wouldn't invite people into my computer. It was kind of late. Here's a link that should work. To a new video called "9/11 Mysteries":

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&hl=en

I heard the woman who made the video interviewed, and she said she's been involved in filmmaking for years. Her boyfriend is a conservative Republican who also happens to be an explosives hobbyist (attends local demolitions and so on). They wanted to do a stage presentation about Sept 11 and were given lots of video footage from 9-11, and the boyfriend noticed some inconsistencies with the govt's story. She said he had a real hard time coming to grips with the fact that he was watching textbook demolitions. Apparently he has completely deconstructed the myth of jet fuel and boxcutters, and she's presented their findings in this film. (And this is just the beginning, folks. Get onboard before Cheney nukes Iran and Joe 6-Pack endorses the draft of your kids. The U.S. govt did 9/11.)

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 09:53 PM

No shit! Of bloody course they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST,a bit pessimistic
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 10:10 PM

whats the point caring one way or another..

America is going to be wiped out by a super volcano anyway..

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 10:13 PM

no, just part of it will get the volcano....the eastern part will get the tsunami from the Canary Islands.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 12:09 AM

I think the medication has kicked in now, I feel much better.
I tried the bowling alley but they wouldn't let my dog in so I don't have an answer on that question either.
However, back on the fence again, I think the missing ingredient is Aloominum as the Americans call it.
Aloominum and alloys will indeed burn ( as some of the Falkland sailors found out).
It would easily be ignited by the burning jet fuel and might have combined with other materials to burn even better.
The streams of molten metal in some of the videos would support that.
Since the towers are now gone for ever, and there are probably no more buildings of similar design anywhere, there seems no reason why the detailed building and construction plans could not be made public.
Hard to accept the computer modelling of the collapse when there is confusion about the true construction.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:39 AM

There'll be Cats on The Keyboards
Cats on the mice
Some of them are cranky
And some of them are nice
But each and every one ought to follow my advice
And just revel in the joys of mass debating

Now there's some as likes the bottle
And some that likes the bong
And some they don't like neither
And they think that it is wrong
But it doesn't really matter
Lets all join this lovely song
As we revel in the joys of mass debating

Well If you are from Eye Rark
Or even from Eye Ran
You're all welcome now to join us
And tell us wot is wrong
And then we'll all have to argue
Till we agree to get along
We can revel in the joys of mass debating.

Now the pope he says it's bad for you
And that you might go blind
Well we'll let him do it his way
Cos he probbly won't like mine
Well he probbly won't be watching
Cos I doubt that he's online
So lets revel in the joys of mass debating.

I wrote this because,
I have nothing else to DOOOH!    ( Climactic Crescendo)
Except revel in the joys of mass debating





Keef Wivaneff
2006

Thank you, we'll let you know. don't call us, we'll call you

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: bobad
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 06:02 PM

Did chemical reactions cause Twin Towers collapse?

PARIS — A mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, a materials expert has told a technology conference.

"The aluminium industry had reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980," he said.

In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust.

"The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres (100 feet) in diameter," Simensen said.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/21/did-chemical-reactions-cause-twin-towers-collapse/

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 06:35 PM

I suppose the heat generated from such a reaction could aid in the degradatition of the capacity of the steel superstructure. Food for thought indeed.

On the other hand, where was the aluminium? I have taken design courses in structural aluminium but I have never even seen any "tower" designs. Would the use of al be prevalent in a tower? Fenestration?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 06:37 PM

gnu, did you read the article?

The skin of the airplane is aluminum.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 06:57 PM

No, I didn't read the article and it didn't occur to me. It SHOULD have but, as many people here know, I am losing it big time. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 07:34 PM

"Simensen **speculates** that the two commercial jets were immediately trapped inside an insulating layer of building debris .."

I 'speculate' that those planes were in little pieces..

"The debris -- especially plaster, which blocks the transfer of heat -- would have formed a shield protecting the rest of the building...."

Now, there is some wild 'speculation'....bits & pieces of plane & building went everywhere, they didn't form any shields!

"This molten aluminium could then have flowed downward through staircases and gaps in the floor, ..."

No one saw any molten stuff in stairs, and any metal - molten OR in chunks could just as easily fall thru or break off sideways...he is speculating on what would help his ideas

"
... consistent with the timing of the explosions and subsequent collapse of both buildings ."

Explosions? There were no "explosions"! It has been shown over & over that 'puffs of smoke" were that plaster & such mentioned as 'insulation'.

He may have an honest theory, but it is barely more than wild guessing.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 08:04 PM

Numbers for the amount of aluminum in the airplane appear to be SWAGs, and the report alludes to "folklorish" understandings of Al/water reactions, but it would be necessary to see the calculations to know whether the original author might have some idea of what his theory actually is, and whether the author may have known more than the reporter passed on.

A possible problem is that although the airplanes carried significant amounts of fuel, and in an engine when burned with compressed air it can produce the temperatures cited for rendering the aluminum "reactive" ordinary unconfined burning of the aircraft fuels do not reach the temperatures he claims. He also fails (according to the news report) to account for cooling of the Al as it "drips down into the water" and doesn't show how sufficient water would be pooled to provide for the reaction claimed. (Airframe parts almost never undergo really significant melting in crashes, even when fire is extensive. although conditions in the towers were somewhat unusual and might have given different results.)

No such exotic causes are needed to explain the collapse, and whether some effect that might be similar to what the "paper" attempts to describe might have been a contributing factor in the rate and sequence of structural failures cannot be given a lot of credibility based on the report on the report.

The cited report hasn't appeared in AIT posted papers as yet, so it's not available (yet) for more detailed review.

I'll probably wait for the movie.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 11:46 PM

From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 12:51 AM

Betcha it was the same group that blew up the Murrah building.

Are you just being 'smart'...or intelligent?
Whatcha' know?

GfS