Reply With Quote
It all makes sense now.
Nbadan is Pierre Salinger.
It all makes sense now.
Nbadan is Pierre Salinger.
Back to this though.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?
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 04-16-2007 at 03:43 AM.
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".
ing pathetic.
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.
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 ins utions 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.
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.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
Serendipity
So were they in the north tower?
7WTC?
Why was Scott Forbes at home on the morning of 9/11? Is he involved?
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?
Maybe his story just got 'lost' because it didn't fit the 'offical story', wouldn't be the only one...
Linky"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"Floor by floor it started popping out."
"It was if they had detonators and they planned to take down a building."
LinkApproximately 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".
Linky"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."
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...
I've never seen so much question dodging.
Dan, ever considered taking up politics?
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?
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?
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.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...
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.
It was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 that wasn't trying to crash into the building at near maximum speed.
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?* 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.
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.* 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.
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.* 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.
Says who?* 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.
Do you have proof it's molten iron?* 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.
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.* Numerous eyewitnesses described hearing explosions not associated with the planes hitting the buildings.
False.* The wreckage from the towers was quickly shipped off for scrap, contrary to laws governing removal of items from a crime scene.
The NIST examined much of the wreckage.
Note the manner in which the beams were cut. All thermite, right?
Since the WTC had been bombed before, wouldn't security drills be prudent?* WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 had undergone unannounced security evacuations in the days prior to Sept. 11.
In only one half of one building, according to your own quote.A concurrent power outage disabled security cameras.
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.Explosives-sniffing dogs were called off as part of that evacuation procedure.
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).Martin Bush, brother to the President, was involved with the security company involved in this process.
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.* It would take 10 men ten trips to place the necessary explosives to bring the towers down by demolition.
I'm sure that's easy enough to find in the 9/11 commission report, so I'd like that link as well.* 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.
Yeah: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?
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 04-16-2007 at 07:48 PM.
But they have done it right -- so where are the links to the follow ups they have done?
[QUOTE=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 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, 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.
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
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.
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.
There was no molten iron in the wreckage. There was molten aluminum.
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.
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.
Oh ES -- the planes that hit the towers were 767s, not 747s.
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?
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.
Occam's Razor
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
