Screw the facts?

[The_Worlds_finest]

http://www.uruknet.info/uruknet-images/9-11picture7squib1.jpg

Please instead of believing your own eyes link me to some "expert" explaning away the obvious explosions...

[ChumpDumper]

Why would tiny squibs be needed when 20 or 30 floors of building were already crashing down onto the lower floors?

[The_Worlds_finest]

they are explosive denoted to blow out some load bearing structure. Ofcourse these werent the ONLY ones caught on camera these "squids" were caught uniformlly detonating the entire length of both buildings demise...plus yes they are tiny but only when compared to the enormouse structure they came from

[ChumpDumper]

The windows are load bearing structures?

[The_Worlds_finest]

(So your going to duck this piece of evidence)
No the windows are not load bearing but the outside shell, if you will, is.

[ChumpDumper]

(I'm not ducking anything) But the shell isn't exploding out. The windows are.

The shell is being crushed from above like everything else.

[The_Worlds_finest]

If the burst were in the natural sequence of a building collapsing on itself would they have been perfectly uniform as they are this collapse? Also in other shots of the same style of burst the location is roughly 5 times lower from the "collapse" zone then these.

Now if you want to see the obvious charges that displaced the outside check these out.

The flashes ofcourse can be seen throughout the entire collapse sequence, in the clip I took this freeze shot from one can clearly see the collapse of the first tower trigger one of these flash charges in the opposite building.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y272/lucabrasi1971/185.jpg

If you like, look to a source you find creditable for the video and you will notice them too...

[ChumpDumper]

If the burst were in the natural sequence of a building collapsing on itself would they have been perfectly uniform as they are this collapse? Also in other shots of the same style of burst the location is roughly 5 times lower from the "collapse" zone then theseThere's nothing uniform about them. Shit falls down to lower floors and displaces air and other material. Result: shit shooting out of windows.
The flashes ofcourse can be seen throughout the entire collapse sequence, in the clip I took this freeze shot from one can clearly see the collapse of the first tower trigger one of these flash charges in the opposite building.Maybe if you showed a flash in the opposite building, that might have made sense.

But really, once the tower got to that state where the top thirty floors are coming off at that angle, there's hardly a need for any additional tiny flash charges.

[The_Worlds_finest]

The bursts occur almost like clockwork in the collapse footage, infact I would not be surprised if there is not a near perfect delay between each burst from the buildings as the top comes crashing down.



As for the charge in the other building, I will get that to you, I will even send you video via email. But I cannot right now I have dialup at home but ill gladly send it to you from school tommorow.

[ChumpDumper]

The bursts occur almost like clockwork in the collapse footage, infact I would not be surprised if there is not a near perfect delay between each burst from the buildings as the top comes crashing down.That's the whole point. 30 acres of office building is already crashing down. What else needs to be done?

[The_Worlds_finest]

as sick as it sounds yes the charges would need to go of to complete the demolishment...as a clip of the second collapse backs up. I doubt youve see the footage I speak of but the second tower to fall did not fall completely. Roughly 40 stories of the inner core still stood, but seconds later it falls perfectly on itself in a straight down movement.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would the demolishment need to be "completed"? Why would it be such a bad thing to leave a few floors of the inner core standing if the rest of the building was already gone?

[The_Worlds_finest]

Easier cleanup...

[ChumpDumper]

Who would give a crap about cleanup?

[The_Worlds_finest]

If your gonna to the job do it right...

[sabar]

If your gonna to the job do it right...Leaving behind video "evidence" of your conspiracy is doing it right?
If you are going to conspire you aren't going to have explosions that can be seen. Why would Bush give a crap about the clean-up?

It doesn't. Make. Sense.
It actually makes LESS sense than the official 9/11 report.

Also, all your "facts" are actually assumptions -- you have no idea if they are explosions or lights flashing or debris flying from pressure.

[The_Worlds_finest]

so am i to believe the "fact" that since Satam al Suqami passport was found at ground zero he was on the plane.

[Nbadan]

:lol

Mouse.

[ChumpDumper]

Nice correction. Where did you get the idea it was Atta's?

[sabar]

so am i to believe the "fact" that since Satam al Suqami passport was found at ground zero he was on the plane.And the purpose of this being planted is...?
If you are going to conspire away, it should at least explain the motive.

[ChumpDumper]

They recovered two from flight 93 also.

[sabar]

Frankly, I don't think this admin is skilled enough to cover-up 9/11, they can't even cover wiretaps, gitmo, yellowcake, that "secret" memo, or anything.

I mean, how hard is it to keep a memo secret.

[Nbadan]

Frankly, I don't think this admin is skilled enough to cover-up 9/11, they can't even cover wiretaps, gitmo, yellowcake, that "secret" memo, or anything.

I mean, how hard is it to keep a memo secret.

Why does everyone assume it was 'this administration'?

[ChumpDumper]

Who is it then?

[Nbadan]

Go back and read up on TWA800. That was before the Neocons...

[ChumpDumper]

Who is it then?

[ChumpDumper]

Go back and read up on TWA800. That was before the Neocons...It all makes sense now.

Nbadan is Pierre Salinger.

[ChumpDumper]

Back to this though.
as sick as it sounds yes the charges would need to go of to complete the demolishment...as a clip of the second collapse backs up. I doubt youve see the footage I speak of but the second tower to fall did not fall completely. Roughly 40 stories of the inner core still stood, but seconds later it falls perfectly on itself in a straight down movement.This is the funniest thing I've ever read from someone who is trying to argue that the WTC buildings were brought down in controlled demolitions.

The whole point of a controlled demolition is to destroy critical structural members in the lower floors of a building so the rest of it will collapse. Why would anyone plan to ram planes into buildings, let them burn for awhile, ignite some thermite that just happened to be planted in the exact place where the planes hit, wait for the thermite to work and begin the collapse of the upper floors, then -- at the exact moment the upper floor collapse begins -- begin to detonate a series of small explosions at irregular intervals, explosions that aren't strong enough to take out 40 floors of central core, which are taken out later by some yet-to-be-named forces that no one has bothered to describe.

AND the controlled demo of the north tower was done in such a precise way that it threw big chunks of it over WTC6 and Vescey Street to hit WTC7 as a cover for arson which was a cover for ANOTHER controlled demolition, one that happened insantaneously but was planned well enough to make the building buldge and lean measurably and caused the firemen to evacuate the area because they thought a building that was actually in no danger of collapsing was going to collapse, which it actually did, but not because it looked and sounded like it was going to fall after sustaining major structural damage and burning uncontrolled for hours, but because of more thermite and squibs set on the top SW corner of the building that had already been ripped away by north tower debris.

Did I leave anything out?

[smeagol]

The consipiracy idiots remind me of those other idiots who still believe crop circles are done by ETs.

Even after the two Englishmen who started the crop circle frenzy in the 80s and 90s have come out and admited it was them all along, even after many of their followers have also admited to doing the circles themselves, and even after many of the videos which showed a beam of light flying over a field while a circle was being "magically" formed, was called out to be a hoax by experts and by the guys who actually made the video, these crop circle imbeciles continue to believe they are coming from "out of this world".

Fucking pathetic.

[xrayzebra]

I have only one question for dan and the worlds finest. When
were these charges placed and how did the people who blew
up the buildings know where the aircraft as going to strike the
buildings. In every "planned" demolition I have ever seen or
heard of, it takes some days/weeks to drill, position, wire and
weaken the structure so that it will fall in the planned manner.
So, I assume they must have had all this figured out some
time before the WTC was hit by the planes.

Or is it you contention that a crew was gathered, gotten into
the buildings, along with all the necessary explosives, ever-
thing was placed and detonated in a matter of hours.

I am just curious.

[Extra Stout]

Please instead of believing your own eyes link me to some "expert" explaning away the obvious explosions...

If I were serious, rather than just mouse trying to get a rise out of people, it would mean I must have flunked chemistry.


Ha ha Extra Stout you dumbass you're adding to the reply count too

[Spurminator]

:lol

[Nbadan]

The following message was sent by Scott Forbes to John Kaminski on 2004-04-19, and was forwarded to about forty 9/11 researchers. It has since be sent out on various mailing lists.

The 'power down' condition on the weekend of September 8th-9th, 2001, as described below, should be known to many who worked at the World Trade Center at that time (if they were not among the 3000 or so who were killed), and it should be fairly easy to confirm that it took place. This event would have affected several companies. For financial institutions in a large office building to be asked to shut down all their banking systems at the same time is a rare thing. This information, if it can be confirmed, is highly relevant to any investigation of the causes of the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2.


From: "Scott Forbes" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Official Verison of 9/11 - new info
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:35:12 +0000

To John Kaminski,

I was pleased to read your article "The Official Version of 9/11 is a Hoax"
... Please note some other facts. My name is Scott Forbes and I still work
for Fiduciary Trust. In 2001 we occupied floors 90 and 94-97 of the South
Tower and lost 87 employees plus many contractors.

On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2,
the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical
supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since
I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that
all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brough back up
afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling
in the tower was being upgraded ... Of course without power there were no
security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers'
coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the
shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold
I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the
weekend work ...

I have mailed this information to many people and bodies, including the 9/11
Commission but no-one seems to be taking and registering these facts. Whats
to hide? Can you help publicise them?

Please feel free to mail me.

Scott Forbes

So on the weekend preceding the collapse of the Twin Towers security doors were not secured in the South Tower, security cameras were not operating, there was no lighting, air conditioning, no power at all. And there were many 'engineers' in the building who were not employees of WTC companies.

Serendipity (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm)

[ChumpDumper]

So were they in the north tower?

7WTC?

[Yonivore]

Why was Scott Forbes at home on the morning of 9/11? Is he involved?

[Nbadan]

Fireman: "bomb in the building start clearing out" (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2006/220506bomb.htm)

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Now this is the time you start throwing multiple turds at the wall hoping something will stick.

So did the fireman plant the bomb or did he become part of the cover up afterwards because he never said anything about a bomb again?

[Nbadan]

Maybe his story just got 'lost' because it didn't fit the 'offical story', wouldn't be the only one...


"It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

Linky (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html)


"Floor by floor it started popping out."

"It was if they had detonators and they planned to take down a building."

Linky (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/discussion_in_firehouse.wmv)


Approximately fourteen explosive sounds (i.e. "pops") can be heard as WTC 2 comes down. A "progressive collapse" (i.e. floor falling onto floor) would produce an ever increasing roar as the building came down, it would not generate explosive "pops".

Link (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc2_collapse_pops.wmv)


"It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop" That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down."

Linky (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html)

Just like 125 of the 124 eyewitnesses on the ground that saw a missile hit TWA800, the only eyewitness that mattered in the official story was the one that didn't see the missile, and so it is for 911...

[sabar]

I've never seen so much question dodging.

Dan, ever considered taking up politics? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smismokin.gif

[ChumpDumper]

And where are all those hundreds of witnesses now?

Assassinated?

Sorry man, the last thing people do in this country is shut up -- so please show me links to the firemen who were on the scene talking about bombs now. You and Dylan Avery still are, so why not them?

[Nbadan]

You forget that the M$M has allowed itself to be musseled on 911, they aren't gonna go digging in any closets for skeletons now...

But let's review some of the facts I have presented so far and some I have yet to present that haven't been contradicted nor factually answered by anyone...


* The engineers who designed the building designed it to withstand impact by planes and fire.

* Building 7, which was not structurally damaged by aircraft, came down in a manner that matches the signature demolition model, complete with triggering squibs (outward explosions of support structures preceding the falling mass), and falling into its footprint. Slow motion video footage highlights these features.

* Towers 1 and 2 also fell in a manner consistent with demolition, and had numerous visible squibs preceding the falling mass. Bear in mind that a "tidy" and "safe" fall would not necessarily be the objective of individuals pulling off such a thing.

* Rate of speed of the fall is near that of free-fall, which contradicts the pancake model in which a delay must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics.

* The fine powder into which the building was converted during the collapse is consistent with the demolition model and its associated explosives. There would have been some pulverization in the pancake model, but not to the extent seen in this case.

* Molten iron in the wreckage, weeks after the collapse, is consistent with military-grade demolition charges, which chemicals continue to react with the metal long after the initial implosion event.

* Numerous eyewitnesses described hearing explosions not associated with the planes hitting the buildings.

* The wreckage from the towers was quickly shipped off for scrap, contrary to laws governing removal of items from a crime scene.

* WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 had undergone unannounced security evacuations in the days prior to Sept. 11. A concurrent power outage disabled security cameras. Explosives-sniffing dogs were called off as part of that evacuation procedure. Martin Bush, brother to the President, was involved with the security company involved in this process.

* It would take 10 men ten trips to place the necessary explosives to bring the towers down by demolition.

* The 911 Commission report says that there were no central support columns, which is a lie. The WTC had the most robust central support columns in the world at the time it was built, and was designed to be centrally supported.


Questions?

[ChumpDumper]

You forget that the M$M has allowed itself to be musseled on 911, they aren't gonna go digging in any closets for skeletons now...With all the bloggers for truth out there -- i don't see why the MSM needs to be involved at all. Please give me a link to a truth blogger that has followed up on the fireman quotes.

[Nbadan]

People won't buy anything unless it's from CBS/FAUX/ABC/NBC, there have been follow-ups by bloggers and web sleuths, but they don't have the credibility it would takes to make anyone take notice.

[ChumpDumper]

* The engineers who designed the building designed it to withstand impact by planes and fire.It was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 that wasn't trying to crash into the building at near maximum speed.


* Building 7, which was not structurally damaged by aircraft, came down in a manner that matches the signature demolition model, complete with triggering squibs (outward explosions of support structures preceding the falling mass), and falling into its footprint. Slow motion video footage highlights these features.It started falling to the south. This is clear in the videos that aren't taken perpendicular to the building. As it collapsed the lower parts bowed out and hit the buildings to the west and north. How can anyone say 7WTC fell perfectly into it's own footprint when the building to the north required $16 million worth of repairs and the building to the west required 93 tons of structural steel to repair it?


* Towers 1 and 2 also fell in a manner consistent with demolition, and had numerous visible squibs preceding the falling mass. Bear in mind that a "tidy" and "safe" fall would not necessarily be the objective of individuals pulling off such a thing.The "squibs" don't resemble explosions in any form. Explosions release the greatest amount of energy right off the bat. The expulsions of air and matter from the WTC tower windows start off small and increase as the collapsing section gets closer to them. This is consistent not with bombs, but rather with equipment and structural components falling inside the building and displacing air and other material as it fell.


* Rate of speed of the fall is near that of free-fall, which contradicts the pancake model in which a delay must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics.As soon as you produce some math which tells me how much 20 and 30 acres of falling office building is supposed to be slowed by a structures that were not built to catch 20 and 30 acres of office building, we can discuss that.


* The fine powder into which the building was converted during the collapse is consistent with the demolition model and its associated explosives. There would have been some pulverization in the pancake model, but not to the extent seen in this case.Says who?


* Molten iron in the wreckage, weeks after the collapse, is consistent with military-grade demolition charges, which chemicals continue to react with the metal long after the initial implosion event.Do you have proof it's molten iron?


* Numerous eyewitnesses described hearing explosions not associated with the planes hitting the buildings.I have no doubt in my mind there were several explosions within all three buildings, but they were all associated with the planes hitting the building since they were the initial source of the fire.


* The wreckage from the towers was quickly shipped off for scrap, contrary to laws governing removal of items from a crime scene.False.

The NIST examined much of the wreckage.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_PcI9awojNLQ/RhU7p9ctBHI/AAAAAAAAAE8/mq1Uz5vZst8/s400/col_tag_01.jpg

http://bp1.blogger.com/_PcI9awojNLQ/RhU71dctBII/AAAAAAAAAFE/BZkLIZ9V5lU/s400/col_tag_02.jpg

Note the manner in which the beams were cut. All thermite, right?


* WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 had undergone unannounced security evacuations in the days prior to Sept. 11.Since the WTC had been bombed before, wouldn't security drills be prudent?


A concurrent power outage disabled security cameras.In only one half of one building, according to your own quote.


Explosives-sniffing dogs were called off as part of that evacuation procedure.Actually, extra explosive-sniffing dogs were called in as part of the drill. Of course they were called off when the drill was over. The exlposive sniffing dog that worked full-time in the WTC garage was not called off and in fact died in the WTC on 9/11.


Martin Bush, brother to the President, was involved with the security company involved in this process.His involvement ended in June 2000. The company actually had a contract in 1996 but was released from it in 1998 because they couldn't meet its terms. WTC security was handled by Kroll Inc., which had nothing at all to do with the Bushes. In fact, they had just hired former FBI agent John O'Neill as head of security, and you'll never find anyone who took the threat of Al Qaeda and terrorist attacks on the WTC more seriously than he did (O'Neill died helping people out of the towers on 9/11).


* It would take 10 men ten trips to place the necessary explosives to bring the towers down by demolition.You'll have to provide a link from a demolition expert saying this. All the WTC buildings were several times taller than any building ever brought down with explosives -- and that took scores of men well over a month to do.


* The 911 Commission report says that there were no central support columns, which is a lie. The WTC had the most robust central support columns in the world at the time it was built, and was designed to be centrally supported.I'm sure that's easy enough to find in the 9/11 commission report, so I'd like that link as well.



Questions?Yeah:

What is your working theory about what really happened on 9/11, incorporating everything you just brought up above and in the last few 9/11 threads you've posted in?

[ChumpDumper]

People won't buy anything unless it's from CBS/FAUX/ABC/NBC, there have been follow-ups by bloggers and web sleuths, but they don't have the credibility it would takes to make anyone take notice.But they have done it right -- so where are the links to the follow ups they have done?

[Extra Stout]

You forget that the M$M has allowed itself to be musseled on 911, they aren't gonna go digging in any closets for skeletons now...

But let's review some of the facts I have presented so far and some I have yet to present that haven't been contradicted nor factually answered by anyone...


[quote=Nbadan]* The engineers who designed the building designed it to withstand impact by planes and fire.
The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 at lower speeds, and to handle fires on a limited number of floors. It was not designed to handle the much larger and heavier 747, flying at full throttle.

Kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity * velocity

Figure how much heavier the 747 is, and how much faster it was flying, than the design case.


* Building 7, which was not structurally damaged by aircraft, came down in a manner that matches the signature demolition model, complete with triggering squibs (outward explosions of support structures preceding the falling mass), and falling into its footprint. Slow motion video footage highlights these features.
Building 7, while not damaged by aircraft, did have have a significant portion of one of the world's tallest buildings fall on it, incurring major damage.

Emergency response personnel at the scene quickly recognized, due to a bulge and a lean manifesting itself in the building, that it had been critically damaged, and therefore "pulled" the building, i.e. withdrew rather than attempting to fight fires and save it.

As the volume of air in an enclosed space decreases, due to say, a floor starting to collapse, at constant temperature, there is a corresponding pressure increase. Windows cannot withstand a great deal of overpressure, so they explode outward.

The mode of collapse of the building, i.e. straight down, while consistent with the way a controlled demolition would look, is also consistent with the way a global support failure would look.


* Towers 1 and 2 also fell in a manner consistent with demolition, and had numerous visible squibs preceding the falling mass. Bear in mind that a "tidy" and "safe" fall would not necessarily be the objective of individuals pulling off such a thing.
1) The squib issue has been covered above
2) The top of the south tower toppled before general collapse began, inconsistent with demolition.
3) The mode of collapse has been well-explained in several threads lately


* Rate of speed of the fall is near that of free-fall, which contradicts the pancake model in which a delay must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics.
1) The pancake model has been discredited by NIST
2) Free-fall speed would have been about 9 seconds. The buildings collapsed each in about 12 seconds. This is over 30% less than free-fall speed.

The mass of each individual floor as it collided inelastically with the mass above it would have been a small fraction thereof, and each succeeding floor would have been an even smaller fraction.


* The fine powder into which the building was converted during the collapse is consistent with the demolition model and its associated explosives. There would have been some pulverization in the pancake model, but not to the extent seen in this case.
As mentioned above, the pancake theory for WTC 1 and 2 has been discredited by NIST. But even if it hadn't been, I am curious what expert is opining that even the "pancake" theory, much less the official explanation, would not involve the amount of pulverization seen in the WTC collapse. Even as wide an area as the dust cloud covered, it was but a tiny portion of the mass of the WTC. In a complex, real-world system, there are going to be countless forces on myriad pieces in every which direction, eddy currents, what have you.


* Molten iron in the wreckage, weeks after the collapse, is consistent with military-grade demolition charges, which chemicals continue to react with the metal long after the initial implosion event.
There was no molten iron in the wreckage. There was molten aluminum.


* Numerous eyewitnesses described hearing explosions not associated with the planes hitting the buildings.
Any number of events in a skyscraper on fire after being hit by a 747 can and will make loud noises that sound like explosions.


* The wreckage from the towers was quickly shipped off for scrap, contrary to laws governing removal of items from a crime scene.
It would not be reasonable to expect NYC to leave the wreckage of the WTC in place for the duration of the investigation. As it was, the cleanup was not completed until May 2002. The contract for the scrap steel was not complete until January 2002. By that time, investigators already had concluded that the WTC collapsed because Islamic terrorists hijacked aircraft and flew them into the buildings.

That's all for now -- I need to eat dinner.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh ES -- the planes that hit the towers were 767s, not 747s.

[ChumpDumper]

Questions? What is your working theory about what really happened on 9/11, incorporating everything you just brought up above and in the last few 9/11 threads you've posted in?

[xrayzebra]

You forget that the M$M has allowed itself to be musseled on 911, they aren't gonna go digging in any closets for skeletons now...

But let's review some of the facts I have presented so far and some I have yet to present that haven't been contradicted nor factually answered by anyone...


* The engineers who designed the building designed it to withstand impact by planes and fire.

* Building 7, which was not structurally damaged by aircraft, came down in a manner that matches the signature demolition model, complete with triggering squibs (outward explosions of support structures preceding the falling mass), and falling into its footprint. Slow motion video footage highlights these features.

* Towers 1 and 2 also fell in a manner consistent with demolition, and had numerous visible squibs preceding the falling mass. Bear in mind that a "tidy" and "safe" fall would not necessarily be the objective of individuals pulling off such a thing.

* Rate of speed of the fall is near that of free-fall, which contradicts the pancake model in which a delay must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics.

* The fine powder into which the building was converted during the collapse is consistent with the demolition model and its associated explosives. There would have been some pulverization in the pancake model, but not to the extent seen in this case.

* Molten iron in the wreckage, weeks after the collapse, is consistent with military-grade demolition charges, which chemicals continue to react with the metal long after the initial implosion event.

* Numerous eyewitnesses described hearing explosions not associated with the planes hitting the buildings.

* The wreckage from the towers was quickly shipped off for scrap, contrary to laws governing removal of items from a crime scene.

* WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 had undergone unannounced security evacuations in the days prior to Sept. 11. A concurrent power outage disabled security cameras. Explosives-sniffing dogs were called off as part of that evacuation procedure. Martin Bush, brother to the President, was involved with the security company involved in this process.

* It would take 10 men ten trips to place the necessary explosives to bring the towers down by demolition.

* The 911 Commission report says that there were no central support columns, which is a lie. The WTC had the most robust central support columns in the world at the time it was built, and was designed to be centrally supported.


Questions?

I am still waiting on your answer to the question
below. How was all these charges placed and when and
by whom?

I have only one question for dan and the worlds finest. When
were these charges placed and how did the people who blew
up the buildings know where the aircraft as going to strike the
buildings. In every "planned" demolition I have ever seen or
heard of, it takes some days/weeks to drill, position, wire and
weaken the structure so that it will fall in the planned manner.
So, I assume they must have had all this figured out some
time before the WTC was hit by the planes.

Or is it you contention that a crew was gathered, gotten into
the buildings, along with all the necessary explosives, ever-
thing was placed and detonated in a matter of hours.

I am just curious.

[Extra Stout]

one could argue that the bombs did not have to placed as precisely as in a controlled demolition because the bomb planters were counting on the giant fuel-filled planes to weaken the structure
Occam's Razor

[smeagol]

What is your working theory about what really happened on 9/11, incorporating everything you just brought up above and in the last few 9/11 threads you've posted in?

Dan:

Answer.the.fucking.question

mookie, elpimpo, mouse, chime in whenever you feel the urge

[Nbadan]

It was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 that wasn't trying to crash into the building at near maximum speed.

Ok, but I've already shown that this wasn't a hollowed-out building as the FEMA report alleges, it was a wirey mesh of steel beams with a solid middle core of trusses. If the building did collapse because of the weight of the plane or fire, it would have collapsed over at its weakest point, which following your reasoning, would have been at the point of impact, and it would have collapsed over like a tree, not like a pancake. Try it yourself. Building trusses with some wire about the thickness of a paper-clip and throw or shoot something heavy into it, but make sure it sticks, and watch what happens.

[Extra Stout]

The preliminary FEMA report has been discredited. If your conspiracy theory is based upon the flaws in the FEMA report, well NIST already debunked it for you. The pancake theory was proven wrong, so you can stop explaining to us how the pancake theory was wrong.

And we all remember seeing with our own eyes on video how the section of the south tower above the impact point toppled over like a tree as the building began to collapse, so you can drop that point as well.

[ChumpDumper]

would have been at the point of impact, and it would have collapsed over like a tree, not like a pancake.Sure started out that way.

http://www.debunking911.com/pivot.jpg

Note the angle. Tree-like initially, but once the top section was free of the rest of the building, it fell straight down, crushing each floor below and continuously adding the mass of an acre of office building to that of the already falling section of twenty or thirty acres of office building.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh yeah, almost forgot....


What is your working theory about what really happened on 9/11, incorporating everything you just brought up above and in the last few 9/11 threads you've posted in?

[mookie2001]

I just think elpimpo wants a legit investigation

smeagol youre the dumbass for gun control
what. parts. of. the. constitution. do. you. think. should. be changed.??

Ive already said several times that i think there were explosives and thermite in the buildings


and several times that chump asking that question over and over again, proves NOTHING, and have asked him what that question is supposed to get me to feel or think?

[ChumpDumper]

It's supposed to get you to say your working theory about what really happened on 9/11, incorporating everything you just brought up above and in the last few 9/11 threads you've posted in.

I don't see what can't be understood in that question.

[mookie2001]

I just dont see it as the showstopping, groundbreaking, oh shit, jawdropping argument you seem to think it is based on the amount of times your smugass says it, thinking you just won some kind of argument

[Nbadan]

Sure started out that way.

http://www.debunking911.com/pivot.jpg

Note the angle. Tree-like initially, but once the top section was free of the rest of the building, it fell straight down, crushing each floor below and continuously adding the mass of an acre of office building to that of the already falling section of twenty or thirty acres of office building.


Now suppose that the inner trusses were weakened on key floors with 'explosions' before the collapse of each tower, and the trusses near the kinkings were blown with a big explosion before the collapse, how would the building collapse then?

[johnsmith]

Now suppose that the inner trusses were weakened on key floors with 'explosions' before the collapse of each tower, and the trusses near the kinkings were blown with a big explosion before the collapse, how would the building collapse then?



That's fucking retarded.

You're just adding guesses, crap, and useless ideas to what actually happened.

I can do that too, I don't think their were really people flying those planes. Suppose the planes were unmanned and were controlled from the ground.


See, the same exact shit would have happened but I got to throw out a retarded fucking theory.

You should tell some of the families that lost loved ones on 9/11 about your theory.

[Nbadan]

You're just adding guesses, crap, and useless ideas to what actually happened.

What kind of 'evidence' would be suitable for you Johnny? and why don't people who adhere to the official theory ever post the audio before and after the collapse?

[ChumpDumper]

Now suppose that the inner trusses were weakened on key floors with 'explosions' before the collapse of each tower, and the trusses near the kinkings were blown with a big explosion before the collapse, how would the building collapse then?You're saying explosives were placed on the exact floors where the planes hit.

And that the explosives and the riggin and the wiring and the remote transceivers survived the impact of a 757 and the resulting fire.

Yeah, that's easy to believe.

[johnsmith]

What kind of 'evidence' would be suitable for you Johnny



Ummmmmmm.........any kind whatsoever!!!!!

[ChumpDumper]

Evidence -- feh.

I'd settle for a coherent alternate theory.

[Nbadan]

You're saying explosives were placed on the exact floors where the planes hit

Are you saying that a guy who supposedly couldn't land a plane managed to hit a two or three story building on the first run?

[ChumpDumper]

Since real airline pilots said it was possible, yes.

I provided a link to that.

Could I have the link where a demolition expert explains the possibility of your scenario?

[ChumpDumper]

And why would you claim the Pentagon is a two-story building anyway?

There is a clear pattern of distortion running through your posts. That shouldn't be necessary when the truth is on your side.

[ChumpDumper]

Furthermore, why would anyone assume it would be some fantastic feat of aviation acrobatics to simply not miss a building that covers 29 acres of land.

Let's review the terms we learned today.


http://www.win.net/dorsea/nehager/september_11/images/pentagon3_150.jpg
"two story building"

and

http://www.metadish.com/dc/images/pentagon.gif
"impossible target"

[Nbadan]

Kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity * velocity

Ok, but...

Conservation of Energy Law states PE = KE
Potential Energy Stored = Kinetic Energy of Motion

According to the FEMA report, WTC1 registered a 2.3 on the ricter scale, or equivalent to the explosive power of 2.7 tons of TNT. WTC2 registered a 2.1, or the equilavent explosive power of 1.4 tons of TNT.

[Nbadan]

And why would you claim the Pentagon is a two-story building anyway?

There is a clear pattern of distortion running through your posts. That shouldn't be necessary when the truth is on your side.

Have you been in the Pentagon? It was just a guestimation...look all I'm saying is the Pentagon was a much narrower target than the WTC towers from the air, and if a maniac can fly a plane into the pentagon then he can certainly try and hit between certain floors on the WTC towers.

[ChumpDumper]

Have you been in the Pentagon?I've seen enough pictures to know it's not a two-story building.
look all I'm saying is the Pentagon was a much narrower target than the WTC towers from the airEach side of the Pentagon is 921 feet wide. Each side of each trade tower is 208 feet wide. I learned a new definition for "narrower" today too.
and if a maniac can fly a plane into the pentagon then he can certainly try and hit between certain floors on the WTC towers.No, you're saying that each terrorist hit an exact floor in such a way that the explosives, rigging, detonation and receiving apparatus planted directly in the impact zone was undisturbed by the impact and explosion of 300,000 pound planes filled with jet fuel.

I'm saying they just wanted to hit the buildings.

[Nbadan]

the M$M works hard to distort the Le Monde report...

France Warned CIA of Hijack Plot in 2001
By ANGELA DOLAND
Associated Press Writer
April 16, 2007, 5:11 PM EDT


PARIS -- Nine months before al-Qaida slammed airliners into the World Trade Center, French intelligence suspected the terror network was plotting a hijacking -- possibly involving a U.S. airline -- and warned the CIA, former French intelligence officials said Monday.

But the French warning hinted at a plot in Europe, not the United States, and there was no suggestion of suicide attacks or multiple planes. One former official said al-Qaida may have leaked misinformation to divert intelligence agencies from the bigger, deadlier plot to come on Sept. 11, 2001.

The warning was another example of how intelligence agents sensed al-Qaida was hard at work in the months leading up to Sept. 11 but were unable to piece together fragmented warnings into a coherent plot.

Le Monde first reported the story Monday as it published excerpts of 328 pages of classified documents from France's main foreign intelligence agency, the DGSE. One note, dated Jan. 5, 2001, reported that al-Qaida was plotting a hijacking.

Details were vague.

"It wasn't about a specific airline or a specific day, it was not a precise plot," Pierre-Antoine Lorenzi, the former chief of staff for the agency's director, told The Associated Press. "It was a note that said, 'They are preparing a plot to hijack an airplane, and they have cited several companies.'"

Le Monde printed a copy of part of the note. In early 2000 in Kabul, Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden met with Taliban leaders and armed groups from Chechnya and discussed the possibility of hijacking a plane after takeoff in Frankfurt, Germany, the note said, citing Uzbek intelligence.

The note listed potential targets: American, Delta, Continental, and United airlines, Air France and Lufthansa. The list also mentioned a "US Aero," but it was unclear exactly what that referred to.

Two of the carriers, United and American, were targeted on Sept. 11.

CIA spokesman George Little said Le Monde's article "merely repeats what the U.S. government knew and reported before Sept. 11 -- that al-Qaida was interested in airliner plots, especially hijackings."

"The article does not suggest that U.S. or foreign officials had advance knowledge of the details surrounding the Sept. 11 plot," he said. "Had the details been known, the U.S. government would have acted on them."

The Sept. 11 Commission and a joint congressional inquiry into the attacks have described vague warnings of potential threats in the months before Sept. 11, 2001.

The 9/11 commission said that, as the year began, the CIA started receiving "frequent but fragmentary" threat reports. Among other warnings, the intelligence community sent out a March 2001 terror threat advisory about a heightened threat of Sunni extremist attacks against U.S. facilities, personnel and other interests.

During that investigation George Tenet, CIA director at the time, told the commission that "the system was blinking red."

"Everyone knew that something was cooking, that these people were preparing something big and spectacular," Alain Chouet, former chief of the security intelligence service at the DGSE, told AP. "Our American colleagues knew, our European colleagues knew, everyone did. But nobody had a hint it would happen inside the United States -- on the contrary."

The DGSE drew up nine reports about al-Qaida threats to U.S. interests in the year leading up to Sept. 11, 2001, Le Monde said. The agency gained experience fighting Islamist terrorism when Algerian insurgents set off deadly bombs in Paris in the mid-1990s.

The Sept. 11 Commission report mentions a 1994 Algerian plot with chilling similarities to Sept. 11 -- the hijacking of an Air France flight by Algerian militants who threatened to blow it up over the Eiffel Tower. The hijackers were killed when French commandos stormed the plane.

Before drafting the January 2001 notice, the DGSE was tipped off by Uzbek intelligence. Chouet said Abdul Rashid Dostum, an Afghan warlord from the Uzbek community who was fighting the Taliban, had sent his men to infiltrate al-Qaida camps. Their information was passed to Western intelligence officials. Today, Dostum is chief of staff of the Afghan army.

The French certainly passed the note along to the CIA, Chouet said.

"We transmitted everything to our American counterparts, everything that could have posed a threat, and they did the same with us," Chouet said.

He suggested details of the plot -- such as the European setting -- may have been leaked by al-Qaida to confuse intelligence services. It would not be the first time, he said.

An alleged bin Laden associate named Djamel Beghal was arrested in the United Arab Emirates in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks. Investigators suspected he was the ringleader of a plot to send a suicide bomber into the U.S. Embassy in Paris.

Chouet says he has concluded that plot was a fake -- "part of a misinformation operation by al-Qaida."

Newsday (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-france-911,0,5163839.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines)

Here is what the La Monde article actually said:


(in french)

Dès janvier 2001, la direction d'Al-Qaida se montre néanmoins transparente aux yeux – et aux oreilles – des espions français. Les rédacteurs détaillent même les désaccords entre terroristes sur les modalités pratiques du détournement envisagé. Jamais ils ne doutent de leur intention. Provisoirement, les djihadistes privilégient la capture d'un avion entre Francfort et les Etats-Unis. Ils établissent une liste de sept compagnies possibles. Deux seront finalement choisies par les pirates du 11-Septembre : American Airlines et United Airlines (voir fac-similé). Dans son introduction, l'auteur de la note annonce : "Selon les services ouzbeks de renseignement, le projet d'un détournement d'avion semble avoir été discuté en début d'année 2000 lors d'une réunion à Kaboul entre des représentants de l'organisation d'Oussama Ben Laden…"

(translated into English)

By January 2001, Al-Qaida’s direction, however, has become transparent to the eyes - and the ears - of French spies. The writers <of the French intelligence reports> even detail the operational disagreements between terrorists about how they envision the hijackings. They <the French intelligence report writers> never doubt the <terrorists’> intentions. For a while, the jihadists focus on hijacking a plane <en route> between Frankfurt and the United States. They draw up a list of seven possible airline companies. The pirates of 9/11 <ie hijackers> finally chose two: American Airlines and United Airlines (see facsimiled). In his introduction, the author of the note announces: “According to the Uzbek <intelligence> service’s information, the hijacking project seems to have been be discussed at the beginning of 2000 at a meeting in Kabul between representatives of Usama Bin Laden’s organization…”

more...


Alain Chouet a gardé en mémoire cet épisode. Il a dirigé jusqu'en octobre 2002 le Service de renseignement de sécurité, la subdivision de la DGSE chargée de suivre les mouvements terroristes. Selon lui, la crédibilité du canal ouzbek trouve son origine dans les alliances passées par le général Rachid Dostom, l'un des principaux chefs de guerre afghans, d'ethnie ouzbek lui aussi, et qui combat alors les talibans. Pour plaire à ses protecteurs des services de sécurité de l'Ouzbékistan voisin, Dostom a infiltré certains de ses hommes au sein du MIO, jusque dans les structures de commandement des camps d'Al-Qaida. C'est ainsi qu'il renseigne ses amis de Tachkent, en sachant que ses informations cheminent ensuite vers Washington, Londres ou Paris.

Alain Chouet recalls this episode. Until October 2002, he was the director the Security Information Service, the subdivision of the DGSE charged with tracking terrorists' movements. According to him <ie Chouet, head of French counter-terrorism>, the credibility of the Uzbek channel originated in the past alliances of General Rachid Dostom, one of the principal Afghan warlords, who is also an ethnic Uzbek, and who was then fighting the Taliban. In order to please his protectors in the Uzbek security <ie intelligence?> service, he infiltrated some of his men in the heart of the MIO <ie the Uzbek jihadist organization being trained at Al Qaeda camps> up to the very command structure of the al Qaeda camps. Thus, he informed his friends in Tachkent <ie, the capital or government of Uzbekistan> with the knowledge that his information would proceed onwards to Washington, London or Paris.

The revelation here is the level of penetration into al Qaeda. The French have Uzbeks posing as jihadists in the command structure of al Qaeda; they have European born or based Muslims posing as jihadists in the al Qaeda camps; they are listening to their satellite conversations.

They have such sweeping and deep penetration of al Qaeda, that al Qaeda had become “transparent” to French intelligence. They even listen in to the jihadists debates about which airlines to strike and which airline routes to hijack. Their eyes and ears are there when it is decided months before 9/11 to hit American Airlines and United Airlines.

This is almost the complete opposite of the English language description of the article, which claims that the French had some information, but couldn’t put the pieces together.

All of this information was passed to the CIA Station Chief in Paris, Bill Murray, one of the highest ranking overseas CIA officers, one who is embedded in the heart of NATO’s intelligence structure – and incidentally who apppears to be a stand up guy who later would try to quash the Niger yellow cake hokum, a guy who thereafter retired (or was retired) from the agency, but is reluctant to talk to the press because his CIA “contracts” could be withdrawn in revenge.

[ChumpDumper]

They even listen in to the jihadists debates about which airlines to strike and which airline routes to hijack.If I read the uncredited translation correctly, that was a route that didn't originate in the US, just like the Newsday article said.

Again, it just looks like more of the same. Everyone figured Al Qaeda was going to do something, likely with planes, but not much else.

[xrayzebra]

...saying that each terrorist hit an exact floor in such a way that the explosives, rigging, detonation and receiving apparatus planted

I'm saying they just wanted to hit the buildings.

I still want dan to answer my question. When were all these
explosives planted, by whom and how. How was the
skeleton of building weakened. People work in the building
and I would say someone would get awful suspicious if
they saw people carrying boxes of explosives up after the
planes hit.

dan answer the question. When were all these planted
and how.

[Mr. Peabody]

Also, I would think that some of these Muslim countries would have something to say if they felt the US had staged the entire event to go to war with Muslim nations. Or are they in on the conspiracy as well?

[Extra Stout]

Ok, but...

Conservation of Energy Law states PE = KE
Potential Energy Stored = Kinetic Energy of Motion

According to the FEMA report, WTC1 registered a 2.3 on the ricter scale, or equivalent to the explosive power of 2.7 tons of TNT. WTC2 registered a 2.1, or the equilavent explosive power of 1.4 tons of TNT.
Your point is completely invalid. The potential energy of the WTC towers far exceeds the "equivalent explosive power" of the impacts which you have quoted.

E = mgh
m = 500,000 tons = 1,000,000,000 lbs (each tower)
mg = 1,000,000,000 lbs-force (by definition)
h = 784 ft / 781 ft (half the height of each tower)

E = 784,000,000,000 ft*lb / 781,000,000,000 ft*lb
E = 254 ton TNT / 253 ton TNT

[Nbadan]

The Richter magnitude of an earthquake is determined from the logarithm of the amplitude of waves recorded by seismographs (adjustments are included to compensate for the variation in the distance between the various seismographs and the epicenter of the earthquake). Because of the logarithmic basis of the scale, each whole number increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in measured amplitude; in terms of energy, each whole number increase corresponds to an increase of about 31 times the amount of energy released.

...2.0 equals about 1 metric ton of TNT or seismic energy equal to a late WWII conventional bomb.

...2.5 equals about 5.6 metric tons of TNT or seismic energy equvilant to a WWII blockbuster bomb.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_scale)

[Nbadan]

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.

A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of Univ. of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

The two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These "short-period surface waves," reflect "the interaction between the ground and the building foundation," according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute.

"The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on January 7, 1983," the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.

One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away. These blasts are caused by 80,000 lbs. of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was "not coupled" to the ground.

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers hit the ground. Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated."

"Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion," Lerner-Lam said. "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."

Last November, Lerner-Lam said, "During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage -- but not causing significant ground shaking,"

Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the huge towers.

911 Review (http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html)

[ChumpDumper]

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

[Extra Stout]

"Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion," Lerner-Lam said. "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."
1.4/253 and 2.7/254 qualify as "small fractions."


Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the huge towers.
Here, we see where the conspiracy theorist simply ignores the calculations that shatter his argument, instead taking refuge in the unsubstantiated assertions of a fellow conspiracy theorist.

This is exactly like arguing with a creation scientist.

[smeagol]

smeagol youre the dumbass for gun control


And you are a dumbass for a number of reasons, all of which are unrelated to this thread. You want to discuss guns, there is a thread about it, idiot.

By the way, there is already gun control.



what. parts. of. the. constitution. do. you. think. should. be changed.??


Not my call.



Ive already said several times that i think there were explosives and thermite in the buildings

Who planted them?



and several times that chump asking that question over and over again, proves NOTHING, and have asked him what that question is supposed to get me to feel or think?

You are a master at dodging it, though. You, dan, mouse. You claim 9/11 was staged, but you don't tell us by whom.