BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:05 AM

No central core eh!
Yeah Right!

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 - 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: 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 - 06:31 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:48 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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