BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?

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.