Real 9-11 Research

[Galileo]

So how did they get the several tons of explosives in each of the three buildings with full time explosive sniffing dogs in the garage and even more throughout the buildings less than a week before 9/11?

The bomb-sniffing dogs were removed on September 6th, as reported in People magazine, and dogs don't sniff in elevator shafts. You can also enclose bombs in air tight containers. The dog that died that you are referring to was brought into the building after the planes hit, as in the '93 bombing there had been bombs. The military also has bombs not detectable by standard bomb-sniffing dogs.

There was also a power down in the towers the weekend before 9/11, reported by WTC employee Scott Forbes.

Scott Forbes
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

Securam, in charge of WTC security, was a well-connected security firm, with Marvin Bush as a former CEO, and Wirt Walker (Bush's cousin) as a current CEO.

Securam was also in charge of security at Dulles airport in Washington DC, where FL77 took off from.

Also, in WTC 7, the alarm system was turned off at 6:47 AM, giving time for explosives to be planted at that time.

[ChumpDumper]

The bomb-sniffing dogs were removed on September 6th, as reported in People magazine, and dogs don't sniff in elevator shafts. You can also enclose bombs in air tight containers. The dog that died that you are referring to was brought into the building after the planes hit, as in the '93 bombing there had been bombs.

Just make up more as you go along.

The military also has bombs not detectable by standard bomb-sniffing dogs.

That you somehow know about.

There was also a power down in the towers the weekend before 9/11, reported by WTC employee Scott Forbes.

only a few floors in one tower.

Securam, in charge of WTC security, was a well-connected security firm, with Marvin Bush as a former CEO, and Wirt Walker (Bush's cousin) as a current CEO.

Except they weren't in charge at hat time.

Securam was also in charge of security at Dulles airport in Washington DC, where FL77 took off from.

The hijackers didn't take anything illegal on the planes.

Also, in WTC 7, the alarm system was turned off at 6:47 AM, giving time for explosives to be planted at that time.

There is an explosive-planting alarm? Give me a link to that company.

[Galileo]

I knew that looked familiar. Funny you showed a video with absolutely no information about the building.

I found one that did have the information:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/se...ded/2019281281

Incredible footage of the second tallest building ever imploded! LANDMARK TOW...ER (formerly Continental National Bank & The Texas Building) - 200 W. 7th St. - 1952; 1956/57 - Imploded March 18, 2006. At the time of demolition, it was the Second Tallest Building in the World to be Imploded by Controlled Demolition, Tallest Building in the State of Texas to Be Imploded, and the Tallest Building in the State of Texas to be Demolished. It was also the first time in Fort Worth's History that a former tallest building in the city was torn down. The Landmark Tower was 30 stories and 380 feet tall. At one time, it had the World Largest Digital Clock, Revolving Clock, and 4 Sided Sign. It also had one of the longest straight run fire escapes at 31 floors from the main roof to the ground. Thanks Simon.



So, another lie from you. How many does that make in this past week alone?

I counted 64 floors. I don't think 33 floors is correct. You can' believe everything you read on the Internet.

This one is also taller than 33 floors, so you lied again:

Massive Building Implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1

This is all irrelevant. The WTC was 110 and was imploded. WTC 7 was 47 stories tall, and was imploded.

[Galileo]

Just make up more as you go along.

That you somehow know about.

only a few floors in one tower.

Except they weren't in charge at hat time.

The hijackers didn't take anything illegal on the planes.

There is an explosive-planting alarm? Give me a link to that company.

Securacom's for the WTC contract ended on the day of 9/11. They were in charge of the bomb sniffing dogs. We are talking about an inside job here. If bin Laden tried to sneak the bombs in, he'd have been caught.

Not just a few floors as Scott Forbes testifies.

The hijackers ahd guns, not legal.

The alarms detect unauthorized or su ious people walking arounf inside a building at odd hours, like 6:47 AM in the morning.

The idea that bombs can't be brought into a building when its an inside job is lame.

We have videos of the implosions, you know.

[ChumpDumper]

I counted 64 floors. I don't think 33 floors is correct. You can' believe everything you read on the Internet.

This one is also taller than 33 floors, so you lied again:

Massive Building Implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1

The store was built in 12 separate stages, the first in 1911 and the last in 1946. The complex had two retail basements and 23 above grade retail floors, including mezzanines. Two additional basements and six upper stories in a tower, provided storage and mechanical support for the 2.2 million square foot building. In all there were 33 levels in the structure.

This is all irrelevant. The WTC was 110 and was imploded. WTC 7 was 47 stories tall, and was imploded.

It's completely relevant. You haven't explained anything and you have done nothing but lie.

[Galileo]

The store was built in 12 separate stages, the first in 1911 and the last in 1946. The complex had two retail basements and 23 above grade retail floors, including mezzanines. Two additional basements and six upper stories in a tower, provided storage and mechanical support for the 2.2 million square foot building. In all there were 33 levels in the structure.
It's completely relevant. You haven't explained anything and you have done nothing but lie.

Wow! it had 33 floors. What's your point?

[ChumpDumper]

The idea that bombs can't be brought into a building when its an inside job is lame.

The idea that it was an inside job is lame.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow! it had 33 floors. What's your point?

That it had 33 floors.

[Yonivore]

I counted 64 floors. I don't think 33 floors is correct. You can' believe everything you read on the Internet.

This one is also taller than 33 floors, so you lied again:

Massive Building Implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1

This is all irrelevant. The WTC was 110 and was imploded. WTC 7 was 47 stories tall, and was imploded.

Landmark Tower
200 W. 7th - 1952; 1956-57; Demolished March 18, 2006
This 30 story building was designed by Preston M. Geren & Associates in Fort Worth and built at two different times. The tower was the home of the Continental National Bank. Construction was halted when the economy down turned in the early 1950's. It was originally designed as a 28 story brick tower with a red granite base. When it opened in 1952, it was only four stories tall and had one floor of the brick facade above the granite base. Shortly after it opened, the economy picked back up and the owner desired to finish the remaining floors. However, two floors were added to the design and a digital clock was added on top. When the tower was finally completed in 1956, it was the tallest building in Fort Worth and it was the first building to use an aluminum curtain wall. Its great height was crowned by a four-sided, 32 foot tall revolving digital clock, which was installed in late 1957. The building had to be redesigned to support the timepiece, which included cladding the building with an aluminum curtain wall instead of brick. This lightened the load from the original design, but because the extra two floors and the clock were added, the existing structure within the building also had to be strengthened. The clock had the letters "CNB" (Continental National Bank) in green neon on two sides and the time in white flood lights on the other two sides. The sign at one time was the world's largest revolving clock (even though it quit revolving in 1978), the world's largest digital clock (it quit keeping time in 1991), and the world's largest four-sided sign as once listed in the Guinness Book of World Records. The distance from the finish floor at the entrance to the top of the clock was 420 feet. The building was hit by the March 28, 2000 tornado and suffered significant damage. The clock was removed from April 15 through 21 of 2000 by orders of the City of Fort Worth. The building structure itself was 380 feet tall. The building has gone through several owners through the years, and plans at one time were to convert the skyscraper to 140 luxury apartments, and 35 condominiums. This project fell into bankruptcy and the building was purchased in January 2004 by XTO Energy. The company explored all options to restore, reclad, and build around the building, but finally determined the best course of action was to tear it down. In October 2005, demolition permits were quietly acquired, and work began to demolish the building. The structure was imploded on March 18, 2006.

So, are you this good at discerning what is and what isn't a controlled demolition? 30 ain't 60.

God, you're a ing idiot.

By the way, your "taller" building the J. L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit was 33 stories -- 4 of which were underground.

So, if a 30 story building looked like 60-something to you (after you counted, no less) can we assert your visual-based judgements on say, everything -- including what controlled demolitions might look like -- could be all ed up?

I say, YES! WE! CAN!

[ChumpDumper]

A math major counted 64 floors....

http://www.arcane-astronomers.com/ri...dmarkTower.jpg

[Galileo]

So, are you this good at discerning what is and what isn't a controlled demolition? 30 ain't 60.

God, you're a ing idiot.

By the way, your "taller" building the J. L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit was 33 stories -- 4 of which were underground.

So, if a 30 story building looked like 60-something to you (after you counted, no less) can we assert your visual-based judgements on say, everything -- including what controlled demolitions might look like -- could be all ed up?

I say, YES! WE! CAN!

That proves it. No building taller than 33 floors can be demolished.

Therefore, the WTC was not a controlled demolition.

You've solved the case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please get this info to the NIST scientists PRONTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Yonivore]

That proves it. No building taller than 33 floors can be demolished.

Therefore, the WTC was not a controlled demolition.

You've solved the case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please get this info to the NIST scientists PRONTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[smeagol]

Galileo getting badly owned.

Mouse and Dan . . . to the rescue!

(unless Galileo is indeed mouse).

[Galileo]

Galileo getting badly owned.

Mouse and Dan . . . to the rescue!

(unless Galileo is indeed mouse).

Galileo is INVINCIBLE!!!

[Galileo]

Chumper;

Why are there no qualified experts who claim WTC 7 was brought down by fire?

[Yonivore]

Galileo is CLUELESS!!!

There, fixed.

[Galileo]

Chumper;

Why are there no qualified experts who claim WTC 7 was brought down by fire?

AE 9/11 Truth Has Reached 300 Architects and Engineers
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14425

www.ae911truth.org

[DarrinS]

Anyone who really believes the WTC was a controlled demolition is incredibly naive.


Read Brent Blanchard's analysis

http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf

[DarrinS]

AE 9/11 Truth Has Reached 300 Architects and Engineers
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14425

www.ae911truth.org

Here's a video for you, "Galileo".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

[smeagol]

Anyone who really believes the WTC was a controlled demolition is incredibly naive.


Read Brent Blanchard's analysis

That guy knows .

Only the experts sited by Galileo are credible in the matter of The Truthers vs Bush and Co, WTC: The Inside Job

[DarrinS]

That guy knows .

Only the experts sited by Galileo are credible in the matter of The Truthers vs Bush and Co, WTC: The Inside Job

A short film by Galileo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rukhn...watch_response

[Galileo]

Anyone who really believes the WTC was a controlled demolition is incredibly naive.


Read Brent Blanchard's analysis

http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf

I already read that. It has been debunked here:

Reply to Protec's
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/...ard/index.html

Blanchard's handling of the demolition of WTC 7 is totally lame, where he says; "This scenerio is extremely unlikely".

That's his opinion, the facts say otherwise.

Notice that he doesn't say it wasn't a demolition. Since we have a video of WTC 7 coming down in a controlled demolition, not only is a demolition of WTC 7 likely. It happened.

Here is the text of Hoffman's commentary on Blanchard regarding WTC 7:

[Blanchard]

ASSERTION #7
“WTC 7 was intentionally ‘pulled down’ with explosives. No airplane hit it, and the building owner himself was quoted as saying he made a decision to ‘pull it’.”
PROTEC COMMENT: This scenario is extremely unlikely for many reasons.

[Hoffman]

Blanchard uses a red-herring claim to bracket his only discussion of claims of the controlled demolition of WTC 7. Silverstein's supposed admission that the building was demolished functions here as elsewhere to distract from the physical features of the building's collapse that indicate controlled demolition:
Sudden onset
Near free-fall speed of descent
Streamers of dust emerging from the facade
Totality, leaving no large assemblies intact
Symmetry, falling in a precisely vertical fashion
Since none of these features has ever been observed in the natural collapse of a steel-framed building, and each is a signature characteristic of controlled demolition, each individually indicates controlled demolition. Taken together, they cons ute an overwhelming inductive argument for controlled demolition.

[Blanchard]

The above assertion has taken several forms over the past few years and has developed into a major point of discussion amongst conspiracy theorists. Most recently, it was used as a cornerstone allegation on C-SPAN’S national broadcast of a 9/11 symposium hosted by Mr. Alex Jones, an author and radio personality who is highly critical of the government’s handling of 9/11.

However, from a demolition standpoint, several aspects of this claim are problematic.

A building owner would never be in a position to dictate to fire personnel or emergency workers whether his building should be “pulled” or demolished. We know of no case where command and control of a disaster scene has ever been transferred to a private third party, much less a disaster of such scope. This action would violate a number of ethical canons regarding the safety of emergency responders and the general public, not to mention exposing those who transferred and assumed such authority to substantial liability risks. Therefore, even if such a statement was made on 9/11, it is highly doubtful that the comment would have affected decisions at the scene.

We have never once heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area (see Assertion #4). No such telltale “ e” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument.

Saying, “No airplane hit it” implies the structure suffered minimal effects from the planes crashing into the adjacent towers. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Video and photographs of the north tower collapse clearly depict substantial upper sections of the building falling outward and impacting WTC buildings 6 and 7. This was not a glancing blow from extraneous material, rather thousands of tons of steel girders falling directly into the building from hundreds of feet above. WTC 7 sustained significant impact damage to its southwest corner up to the 18-20th floor, or a little less than halfway up the building. There was also significant damage to the building’s south face, although dense smoke present in most photos hinders an exact assessment. Other photos depict several lower floors fully involved in a large fire that either began upon impact or shortly thereafter, and most experts point to the large stockpile of diesel fuel stored in the basement as the likely catalyst. Regardless of the fire’s origin, these flames are clearly visible from all four sides of the structure. With most local firefighting equipment destroyed and the search for survivors being of primary concern, these intense fires were left to burn uncontrolled for more than six hours, further compromising the already badly damaged structure. Given these facts, any implication that WTC 7 was not substantially affected by the original plane crashes is not accurate.

Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse. As one eyewitness told us, “We were all standing around helpless…we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn’t know if another plane was coming…but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to that building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went.”

Finally, we have not discovered or been presented with any physical evidence indicating explosives were used to fell the structure.

[Hoffman]

Here as elsewhere, Blanchard implies that only physical artifacts qualify as physical evidence. To the contrary, photographs and videos of the event are physical evidence, and they indicate demolition.

[Blanchard]

We do not know exactly how or why WTC 7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here. All we can offer is that, from a demolition and structural failure standpoint, available data does not rule out the possibility of the building collapsing as a direct result of the structural conditions detailed above.

[Galileo]

That guy knows .

Only the experts sited by Galileo are credible in the matter of The Truthers vs Bush and Co, WTC: The Inside Job

What happened on 9/11 can be determined from examining the evidence. Experts can be consulted as guides or for clues, but the informed individual must look for himself at the evidence.

[DarrinS]

I already read that. It has been debunked here:

Reply to Protec's
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/...ard/index.html

Debunked by the guy who runs a conspiracy site?

[Galileo]

Here's a video for you, "Galileo".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

One more comment on Blanchard.

Blanchard does not even address the main evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, namely the physical evidence, which includes videos showing the scientific characteristics of controlled demolition.

Blanchard indeed has strong credentials. So I look to him to refute the scientific characteristics of controlled demolition shown in WTC 7.

When he does not do this, my knowledge that I am correct, becomes stronger.