Powerful New Video on Controlled Demolition Hypothesis

(I know, there are a LOT of videos out there about alternative 9/11 theories, but this one rocks you like a hurricane. I highly recommend it to the debunkers especially. -r.)



A skeptic of the official narrative of the September 11th attacks has produced a remarkable film which gathers an impressive array of source material regarding the collapses of the World Trade Center Buildings and presents the material in a cohesive and devastating manner.

I call the video compilation a film because the producer, “Dem Bruce Lee Styles”, has obviously spent a great deal of time editing, compressing and uncompressing online video material, and fusing it with some of the most up-to-date information regarding the alarming hypothesis that the World Trade Center was brought down with the aid of controlled demolition.

“What’s the Truth?: How Indeed Did the Twin Towers Collapse?” starts off by asking if the Neoconservative funhouse that we all live in right now could have gotten off the ground without 9/11.

(Good question. For a more detailed exploration of that particular question, I direct your attention to the not-for-profit film, Everybody’s Gotta Learn Sometime.)

“What’s the Truth?” presents witness after witness detailing secondary explosions going off on several different floors in the WTC buildings after the planes have struck. Almost all of the witness testimony was captured by mainstream media sources the day of 9/11. The one exception is the testimony of William Rodriguez, who recounts his experience with an explosion before the first plane hit.

Also, multiple quotations from firefighters and emergency workers who were at the scene, (backing up the testimony of explosions), are overlayed on video sequences depicting various angles of the collapsing buildings… the effect is jarring.

Following the multiple first-hand accounts of explosions are lengthy sequences of BYU Physics Professor Steven E. Jones, David Griffin, and Col. Robert Bowman as they all make their cases arguing against the official story.

Also included is abundant footage of controlled demolitions, diagrams depicting known demo approaches, all the publicly available angles of the collapse of WTC7, testimony from the family of 9/11 victims demanding more answers, all edited together and accented with a few tasteful, musical samples.

It’s impressive.

Best of all, it’s free.

You can download a high-resolution version here.

Podcast-sized version here.

I believe that the 9/11 Commission was a failure.

9/11 should be re-investigated, and the sooner the better.

people described hearing explosions? Oh my, what a total shock.

...an understandable scenario for controlled demolition.

In controlled demolitions, the explosions all happen within seconds of each other. In the WTC, all of these "explosions" happen before impact, all during the burning, up until final collapse. That's a period of over an hour and a half in the case of WTC 1. The explosions seem random, haphazard. How exactly are all of these explosions supposed to fit into a precision blast meant to collapse the towers?

"happen before impact, all during the burning, up until final collapse."

Who told you that?

Don't tell me you're defending this thing sight unseen.

n/t

I can't believe that you are kneejerking your support of this video. You have no clue as to what it says.

It seems to be enough for you that I don't like it. Why are you giving me that much power over how you think?

You would want most people here (fellow travelers and the rest) to think of you as being nothing more than an actor who in this play isn't playing a role, but rather is nothing more than an objective, sincere (very), TRUTH seeking, informed (more so than most here) gentleman(?), full of the milk of human kindness. Am I right about that? Good.

I know that you spend a great deal of time here having to do more DEFENSE (of the OCT) than in expressing your own views about the unfortunate events of September 11, 2001. It occurred to me that maybe you'd like someone to ask you for your own opinion of what happened that day. Would you be so kind as to tell us that? Take as much space as you feel you need in order to provide facts that you feel support your position. If you're of the "the Bush administration's incompetence is why 9/11 happened" mindset, don't leave us hanging. Explain specifically WHAT incompetence allowed the events to take place. Got the idea? I know, or at least I hope that you don't want to be thought of as one of those OCT'ers whose only expertise is in belittling people who don't believe the OCT and trying to undermine evidence which raises grave doubts about the OCT, so this would be an ideal opportunity for one of the most fervent supporters to present a defense of the OCT with sufficient facts and explanations so that the rest of us will at least know enough about your viewpoint and why you defend the OCT in order to not have to waste time dragging it out piece by piece.

Would you do that for us AND for you too, boloboffin?

Really.

Go watch the video. You are defending it; it behooves you to actually watch it and know what it says.

Pay close attention to the various times given for "explosions". There are lots of them reported. The video cannot keep counsel. It will tell all.

On Edit: Allow me to congratulate you for making a post that didn't include the word "shill"! Very good, Americus, I knew you could do it!

all I can think of is that, the explosions were occuring to weaken or cut steal and this process was gradual, a lot of the explosion reports were done in the basement/lower floors. So maybe the foundation & lower floors were weakened ahead of time, then the demolition happened all at once once everything had been pre-weakened. Too bad we don't have a demolition or explosives expert here. I got a book from the library on controlled demolitions by the same company that worked on the wtc, but it was pretty superficial. Lots of pictures.

"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure"

Mark Loizeaux, president,
Controlled Demolition Inc.

Would Mark have explosions go off in a seemingly random way over a period of an hour and a half?

What are you trying:

1) Are you saying that there were explosions in the WTC buildings over a period of an hour and a half? If so, what's the basis for saying that?

2) Are you saying that there were explosings in ONE of the WTC buildings that went off in a "seemingly random way" over a period of an hour and a half? If so, what's the basis for saying THAT?

Please - this isn't a stage, so there's no reason to try and be cute. You've already used the "did you see the tape" excuse for not answering. THIS time, kindly provide YOUR answer.

Preparation for demolition
Detonators and Dynamite

Photo courtesy Implosion World.com
The Frank Leux Building in Birmingham, AL, was demolished by Engineered Demolition, Inc. in the spring of 1997.

In the last section, we saw how blasters plan out a building implosion. Once they have a clear idea of how the structure should fall, it's time to PREPARE the building. The first step in PREPARATION, which often begins before the blasters have actually surveyed the site, is to clear any debris out of the building. Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily.
Next, blasters can start
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion2.htm


(emphasis, mine)

Sledgehammers, steelcutters, yes.

Bombs? Dynamite? Not hardly.

You do understand that the forces involved in the Birmingham building are orders of magnitude smaller than the WTC, right? IOW, the potential energy in the upper third of the WTC towers exceeded anything going on in that B'ham building. Non-load bearing walls, while they might be a problem for most demolition work, couldn't have held back the tops of those towers once they got started.

not want to bring out the slegehammers. That would have been rather "tell tale" don't you think? I was giving the B'ham building as an example of a process that is gone through. The point is that the more that was "taken out" ahead of time, the smoother the operation would go. I don't know if you guys have a hard time with abstract thinking (making comparisons, drawing conclusions, inferring from similar , but different situations) or if you just want to drag out little subthreads. probably the latter.

egads...

They happen a few floors down from the wave of destruction. Look at the videos. You can see the squibbs plain as day below the wave of destruction.

Go watch the video. Some guy is interviewed talking about explosions before the plane even hits the first tower. He's adamant about it.

Explosions happen all during the burning of the towers. Lots of people report them.

Finally, all kinds of explosive events happen as the towers crash down.

What's at question here is:

A) What reason do we think they were bombs? Since explosions happen all the time in fires, as flammable materials come in contact with the fire, why precisely does anyone say that the explosions were bombs? Has anyone reported seeing a bomb? Was evidence of bombs found later? The people trapped above the impact zones were calling emergency personnel, family, and friends up until the collapse happened. Is there any sightings of actual bombs from their reports? No. There is no reason to say that the explosions were bombs but previous bias.

B) How do the haphazard occurences of explosions fit into a controlled demolition scenario? The best anyone has come up with is miranda, who posited the idea that the explosions could have served to clear non-load-bearing walls for the final collapse. However, this is hampered by a few things. Were there these kind of explosions on every floor that had non-load-bearing walls? Can the explosions be isolated only to these floors, and no others? I doubt seriously that this is the case. If some floors were "cleared" and some left behind, why? At what point does the momentum of the upper floors finally overcome the resistance of these non-load-bearing floors that were left uncleared? People who have done the calculations have shown that the upper section falling the height of one single floor was enough to release an ungodly amount of momentum, far and away enough to overcome core columns and non-load-bearing walls alike. Since this is the case, why was any clearing of floors needed?

The far more likely scenario, the one advocated by the correct application of Occam's Razor, is that random explosions occured here and there as the fire raged. Finally, the fire weakened the severely damaged structures until it could no longer accomodate the additional loads, and global collapse ensued.

PS: Other difficulties with the CD scenario remain: how and when were these charges placed? How were they controlled to keep from exploding too soon or too late?

Explosions happen all during the burning of the towers. Lots of people report them.

Finally, all kinds of explosive events happen as the towers crash down.

Explosions were reported by survivors. Survivors were no where near the fires and, with
some very rare exceptions, not in the towers when they crashed down.

Was evidence of bombs found later?

Molten metal, squibs, flashes of light, explosions, pulverization of concrete, and
suflidation attacks on the steel are evidence of bombs.

The people trapped above the impact zones were calling emergency personnel

The people above the fire were breaking out the windows so they could breathe. They
were not searching the elevator shafts for bombs.

There is no reason to say that the explosions were bombs but previous bias.

Suspicion that the fires could not have caused the collapses, that the collapses could
not have caused the pulverization of concrete, that the destruction of the steel evidence
and the failure to pursue further studies of the sulfidation attacks were a coverup
are reasons to suspect the use of explosives.

random explosions occured here and there as the fire raged.

Explosions were reported on lower floors. The fires were at 78 and above.

how and when were these charges placed?

Placed in the usual way in the ceilings of vacant floors and in the elevator shafts
in the days before 9/11.

How were they controlled to keep from exploding too soon or too late?

Radio control using insensitive receivers to block out noise, and powerful transmitters.
Use of pulse counters for timing control would give added coded security.

Gravity?

thank you.

This vid is filled with captivating images and is worth seeing for that reason alone.

But I have to say that there isn't any credible evidence to support theories about controlled demolitions.

As a former structural analyst I can tell you the buildings came down exactly as one would expect from having a couple of 16 acre floors engulfed in flame. The fire would weaken the hottest elements till they softened like cooking spaghetti. This shifts the loads to the surrounding structure. As the remaining structure is overloaded it progressively fails. One should expect the snapping of large steel structures to sound just like an explosion. With nothing to support the immense weight of the upper stories they would begin to accelerate downward - like a huge hammer smashing the floors below.

No act of evil by the * admin would surprise me but Oocam's razor says there is nothing to this controlled demolition theory.

Just my 2 cents. Flame away!

do that a few more times and you'll get called a:



:toast:

Sid

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Have a look at the picture here :



This was just a warehouse type structure and didn't have to support dozens of floors above it.

BTY, I resent your insinuation that I'm paid to disrupt. What reality are you living in anyway?

you sent instead. Bent beams means what? Where is the collapse? Now be a good boy and watch the video I posted then get back to me. Also view these real "towering inferno's" here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x93050

I've been looking at through the entire site. Interesting, but doesn't support your wacky theories.

Bent beams show a phenomena known as non-linear buckling. If you use a plastic straw as a column it will support a substantial amount af weight - say a paperback book. But the instant it deflects slightly sideways it will collapse totally. The beam in the picture has buckled and if there was weight from floors above that beam it would have totally collapsed.

Understand now? If you aren't willing/capable of understanding technical issues then I won't waste any more time.

Couple final questions : Why do you believe controlled demolitions would be needed to knock those buildings down? They had just been hit by a 250,000 pound projectile moving at 400 mph with perhaps 9000 gal of fuel on board. After burning for an hour why shouldn't they fall down on their own?

Good day!

collapse. 9 MASSIVE BLASTS seconds before WT2 collapses. 5 MASSIVE BLASTS 20-30 seconds before WT1 collapses
go listen tommy-j.. do it for the dead of 911
here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603

tommy its free...

why shit on dead people tommy?

in a WTC core column.

which would all have had to buckle to produce a total straight-down collapse, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding lots of them.

Non-linear buckling requires the column to flex out of its normally straight geometry. A common "mode" is for the beam to take on an S shape. In fact this mode can be seen in the picture a couple posts up.

So how could the World Trade center's collapse? One can easily predict the most likely failure mode is that columns below the collapse would bow outward. (They are less likely to bow inward because that would require squeezing the steel reinforced concrete floor slabs.) As the columns bow outward the attachments to the floors would be severed. With nothing to support the floor structure it would immediately drop onto the floor below.

This can be seen happening in many of the vids! Look a couple of floors below the region of total failure and you'll see what looks like explosions. Its not necessary to argue that those are from explosives. Just try to imagine a the sound and fury of a concrete floor the size of a football field dropping one story and you'll understand how it could be confused with an explosion.

Hope that helps

I don't know what you think you're describing, but it sounds like one of those inane cartoons dreamed up by FEMA to convince gullible readers that the Trade Center was a flimsy stack of "cooked spaghetti" waiting for the big bad wolf to come blow it down.

Well, it wasn't, and those widely reported explosions were explosions. Welcome to reality.

I used to work as a structural analyst of aerospace structures. We used finite element analysis to investigate potential failure modes during crash loads. I've seen hundreds of structures fail in simulation. What is you expertise? Your evidence consists of quotes from lay people taken out of context. I don't want to be part of your reality. Bye.

According to your theory, every one of the 10,340 WTC core columns must have buckled like a cooked noodle.

So where are all those buckled columns?

First, my theory doesn't require that the core columns buckle - although many certainly did fail that way.

After DemInDistress said I was shitting on dead people because I can't bring myself to buy into the explosives theory I described a failure scenario that explains the sounds and appearance of explosions. I hypothesized the PERIPHERAL columns failed in buckling allowing the floor slabs to drop. Actually this is more than hypothesis - you can accept it as fact. It can be seen happening in the vids.

Second, if your upset by the fact that the columns didn't collapse into a something that looks like a pile of cooked spaghetti then please realize that steel isn't ductile enough to behave that way. Instead it will fracture into pieces as it buckles. Try this yourself - make a column with 4 pieces of un-cooked spaghetti. Press straight down until failure. Failure will inevitably occur due to buckling but what you'll wind up with is a bunch of small pieces of spaghetti. Try it.

The pieces of beam in the rubble are buckled columns.

You have not shown any evidence of buckled WTC core columns. The perimeter columns only held up themselves and parts of the floor diaphragms. The core columns held up the bulk of the structures and they were 100% demolished.

So where is the evidence of universal core column buckling?

My lunatic detector is pegged.

Why would the the architects put in the perimeter columns if their only function was to support themselves? If the function was just to support themselves then they didn't need to be there at all.

Did I ever claim there was "universal core column buckling"?

Do you understand that buckled steel columns would look just like those in the piles of rubble?

Bye

No evidence of widespread core column buckling means there was no progressive collapse, and no progressive collapse means that a) gravity didn't bring down the towers, b) explosives or something more exotic did, and c) FEMA and the NIST are lying.

p.s. this is what a buckled column looks like, thanks for posting it:



p.p.s. if the perimeter columns didn't support themselves, they'd have been hung from the frames, which they weren't.

and it hasn't completely collapsed, either, but never mind. The point is that in 125 years, only demolition and earthquakes have leveled steel highrises, apart from the three on 9/11.

Here's a rundown:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/collapses.html

I like the reaction you got on Kos.

Do you care to respond to the critics, or were you hoping for an easier time here?

how nice of you,
jeez

Hiley I see you have no respect for the rules either. Recommending the CT diaries is a bannable offense on Kos.

Rules are for other people I guess, not you.

Don't you think if I were worried about being banned from kos, I would not have recommended reprehensor's diary?

Or is that too much for you to figure out?

What about Markos? What about all the people in that community that have expressed their wish that Kos be CT free?

Do the people whose opinion you disagree with not deserve respect?

It is obvious you don't care about being banned at Kos but please don't pretend you are acting out of respect.

http://www.canofun.com/cof/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16456

Excellent link. There were many great points in there. I didn't realize Markos was a *paid* Dean staffer at one time or that he has other paying 'clients' he refuses to disclose. It's something to keep in mind before reading his posts, that's for sure. I'm uncomfortable with that and with some of his comments included in the clip. I'm definitely glad to know about it, though. Thank you for posting that.

This mp3 might be interesting to you.
redacted posted it at canofun.com
http://lakeholm.com/tmp/mike_malloy_rips_kos_on_911_and_BBV_ban.mp3

on this thread: http://www.canofun.com/cof/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16678

9/11 isn't banned from DU, it's just kept in the basement with the door wide open

My first time to poke around in this topic forum. Definitely fringe stuff here!

People deserve respect when they do not bully & ridicule others.

What's wrong? How did I bully anyone? Ridicule maybe, but the subject matter has been debunked thoroughly about a million times and the op is spamming every board he can with flagrant disregard for the rules HERE and Kos.

Nice you make your feelings about kos so public like this. Why don't you go post that link on the kos thread the op started?

learn something new listen to the podcast

And no I didn't learn anything 'new'. You really need to examine your standards for evidence.

You seem to have judged a 'style' from my posts here, please expand.

Why don't you give it a try?

I refuse to waste my time debunking anything that uses AFP (American Free Press) as a source, or anything that uses anything that references AFP.

They are a hard right hate group.

All of these videos reference loose change and others that rely on bogus quotes manufactured by the AFP.

Check them out and your opinion might alter.

:hi:

Sid

:toast:

join the other people who are intentionally trying to inhibit discussion!
:party: :toast: :grouphug:

nt

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Same old bullcrap, different soundtrack. Specious arguments, confusion over basic facts...and that's just the Griffen speech.

New low in conspiracy tapes: the use of MLK's speech against Vietnam over the credits, which flashed umpteen different conspiracy books like Meyssan's puerile Pentagate, and Painful Deceptions, and even a Wellstone-got-assassinated book, all "available from Amazon". And then the obligatory fair-use message stating a "non-profit" use of the tapes. An infomercial for 9/11 conspiracy books can't be considered a non-profit use of the various footages used.


The saddest part: the guy at the end delivering legitimate questions about the war on Iraq, and the accompanying statement that people who are against the Iraqi war should investigate 9/11 for themselves. Oh, yes, Karl Rove wants you to throw him into that briar patch.

question 9/11?

Considering what Bush actually did that day vs. what he's been given credit for doing, I really don't think Rove wants anybody considering Bush's behavior on 9/11 with a less jingoistic eye. Why do you?

that Karl Rove "benefits" from people who think they are lying about 911. I guess when all else fails.

'I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.'

That's one that Karl must pray nightly, and controlled demolition twaddle is the answer to his prayer.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the science poor masses wouldn't notice steel and concrete suddenly having the potential energy as air.

And for the most part.........he was correct!

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."
~ Adolf Hitler

Actually Karl was hoping the science poor masses wouldn't notice steel and concrete suddenly having the potential energy as air.

Do you mean "of air"?

Or "the same potential energy as air"?

Or what do you mean?

I mean that people like yourself are clueless (or shills) about such things as the laws of physics.

I'm still completely confused by your premise and your odd sentence structure.

Are you saying that part of the OCT relies on people not seeing that steel and concrete begin to act just like air?

If that's it, then could you explain why you think that?

Do you find it odd that the Towers and Building 7 fell at free fall speeds?

Are the missing jets at the Pentagon and Shanksville acceptable to you?

And it's the one I'm talking about.

Nevertheless, I'm beginning to catch your drift since you do continue to elaborate on the sentence. I really think you should look at it; it's confusing.

Do I find it odd that the Towers and Building 7 fell at free fall speeds? I find it odd that you think this to be the case. It's not.

Are the missing jets at the Pentagon and Shanksville acceptable to you? Well, they aren't missing, so their acceptablility based on that quality is hardly in question.

Have I stopped beating my wife? I'm not married.

Evidence please.

When you don't have the truth on your side, and your mission is to distract & disrupt others, it's easy to just deny the obvious, claim the outrageous, and then slither away when asked for proof.

As long as there are disruptors who pose as sincere researchers, we have an obligation to expose their trickery and blow their cover...within the rules of DU, of course. After all, there are new people here everyday and they deserve to know the truth about the OCT Brigade.

accuse people of doing "exactly what rove wants. "that's what people were saying about election fraud at first too. That democrats were wasting their time discussing election fraud when they should be figuring out what democrats need to do to win and that we were "playing into rove's hands". That turned out to be a lie, too. Believe me, the Bush admin does not want large numbers of people believing they were behind 9-11.
Which brings me to the question: Why are you here amidst people who you find "ridiculous"? Are you trying to save the democratic party or something?
What does it say about you if you spend a great deal of time posting on a forum full of people whom, you find "ridiculous"?

MP - as always, you asked some very thought-provoking questions. That people (whether part of a Daisy committee or not) would "spend a great deal of time posting on a forum full of people whom, you find "ridiculous" makes about as much sense as the nonsense they promote/defend when they aren't busy doing their truth suppression routines. Not exactly what you'd expect from a true Democrat is it?

has ever said........."That's odd?".......and then changed their mind about the official story?

It's just not normal. I don't know anyone that I've shown the 9/11 evidence to in my everyday life that doesn't see a problem in at least one part of the story.

Like greyl posting a link that says the Pentagon walls were nine feet thick. No......"my bad!" Just the continuing of the official lie.

is an idiot. I certainly don't hold to something so preposterous.

Do you find anything curious from a physical standpoint?

How the towers fell? The Pentagon crash?

No.

the towers' concrete floors turned to dust that was strewn over lower Manhattan?

You don't find it peculiar that not one of the steel samples shows heating over
250 degrees C?

You don't find it peculiar that the TV antenna dropped before WTC1 collapsed, indicating
failure of the hat truss?

You don't find it peculiar that molten steel poured out of WTC2 shortly before its collapse?

You don't find it peculiar that there are no pictures of a blazing inferno to support
the conclusion that fire softened the steel?

You are a mighty incurious person.

that the concrete was ground into dust by the collapse of the towers.

...or that no steel sample shows heating over 250 °C, since melted steel isn't a necessary part of my understanding of the WTC collapse.

The hat truss failure is a fantasy of your own mind; we've discussed that before.

You have zero evidence that the molten metal coming out of WTC2 is steel. I say it's aluminum with just as much authority as you have to say it's steel.

The temperatures for melting aluminum to that color have been demonstrated to be easily present under the conditions of the WTC 2 fire.

the concrete was ground into dust

Think about creating a machine that could model this grinding. You build a concrete
membrane, you restrain it under vinyl flooring or carpet, and you slam another concrete
membrane on it and grind the two together, and it pulverizes the concrete and shoots it
out from between the two membranes with great force. The vinyl and the carpet must
be vaporized or turned to dust too.

There is no machine that can do that. The act of grinding precludes the forcible ejection.

no steel sample shows heating over 250 °C

Please show a chart that shows the amount of weakening of ASTM E119 steel at 250 degrees.
If I understood him right, Kevin Ryan said the perimeter columns were designed for a 2000%
live load, and that the dead loads and the live loads were about equal.

The hat truss failure is a fantasy

Given the video evidence, it must be a forgery, not a fantasy. Your suggestion that
the apparent tower drop is an artifact of building tilt in the line of sight of the
video is not consistent with geometric rules, because building tilt should have shown
as a movement of the top edge of the tower.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html

How can the antenna fall without the hat truss failing?



You have zero evidence that the molten metal coming out of WTC2 is steel.

The evidence is that aluminum melts at around 660 degrees C but it doesn't get orange
until it's 1000 degrees. In what crucible was the aluminum restrained while it
was heated from 660 to 1000? The belief that it is aluminum, while in the realm of
possibility, is not reasonable. The belief that it is probably steel is reasonable.

I take breaks of over four or five months at a time.

Am I trying to save the Democratic party or something? Something like that. I have some keen interests, and to the extent those interests are threatened by inane theorizing on the level of Bermuda Triangle nonsense, I will take a bit of time here and there to a) answer any true questioner accurately as I know how, and b) make sure that any impartial reader understands that not all DUers/Smirking Chimpsters/Democrats/liberals think these kinds of rank idiocy have any merit.

We don't need to do the right thing (oppose Bush) for the wrong reason (he planned 9/11). There are plenty of real and honest reasons to oppose him. What would you say to someone who was organizing protests against Bush because of the continued coverup over the Apollo moon missions? This is someone who's completely honest and sincere, mind you. They really think Bush is sitting on documentation that proves America never went to the moon, but faked those video shots in Arizona somewhere. They are mad as Hades about it, and they're not taking it anymore.

Would you say anything to them? Would you go to their rallies? Would you stand up on the platform with them and validate their message, just because they were against Bush?

Or would you try to reason with them, in the hope that their energy might be better focused against someone truly despicable?

and, if the person continued to focus his or her energy on this endeavor, I would back off.

If I now continue to focus my energy on this endeavor (debunking outlandish conspiracy theories that serve only to enable the Bush Administration), you are going to back off?

do you notice me disagreeing with you at all anymore? I just read your posts and move on. It's not worth it as far as I am concerned You were asking a question in your last post, so, I simply answered it.

What keen interests, specifically, do feel are "threatened by inane theorizing" about 9/11?

Which keen interests do you feel are threatened by these investigations?

I tried to use the smallest words I could. Perhaps you can point out the ones you're having trouble understanding.

Which keen interest, specifically, do you feel is threatened by investigating 9/11?

Look at my signature line, which is right below this message.

Tell me which one of those words you don't understand.

That is the keen interest that I believe to be threatened by idiotic claims about 9/11, particularly when the video being discussed in this thread enjoins people who share my concern stated below to investigate more about 9/11 using the books it advertises as available on Amazon.

Read the signature line.

if you could explain HOW this keen interest, whatever it is you're talking about, is threatened by investigating 9/11?

Let's break and call it even, mmkay?

that you feel are so threatened by further 9/11 investigations that you post here day after day, hour after hour, even though you know very little about any of the technical issues involved?

That doesn't do much for your credibility.

My credibility with you isn't much of a concern for me.

authority.

Future scholars will use powerful computer algorithms to analyze
our posts here. Don't you care what they think of you and your
grandchildren?

that Haley Joel Osment will explain it all to them.

he can use as an excuse to war on Iran is widespread skepticism which can
best be engendered by promoting skepticism about 9/11.

Have you heard the one about the guy walking down the street clapping his hands, and somebody said, why're you doing that, and he said, Keeps the elephants away, and they said, there aren't any elephants around here, and the guy said...

IT WORKS!

I can't imagine what caused me to tell that joke.

I'll suppose it's the resonance with the Bushcist's assertions that that
the Republicans' strong anti-terror stance has protected us from attacks
after 9/11.

And also your apparent inability to imagine that a fabricated terrorist
event might provide a license For Bush to war on Iran.

I can actually see that fake terrorist events can provide cover for a war.

But real ones work just as well, and that's something that alternate conspiracy theorists never credit.

n/t

should be asking are the kind of questions found on that tape...

...then Karl loves you, Karl rejoices in you, Karl wants you to keep up the good work.

I think my meaning is pretty clear. I can use small words if that would help.

highlight the fact that these questions are being asked?

Perhaps they'd like to pay me for asking them?

I'm game, but they aren't answering my emails suggesting this for some reason ...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...then anyone can rightly ignore you. mhatrw. Those questions presuppose extraordinary accomplishments, and they require extraordinary evidence. That's something completely lacking in the documentary.

n/t

And you are free to continue to labor under yours.

Ahhhhh!

Using logic and reason!

Shame on you!

;o)


"Because I don't want my grandchildren pissing on my grave!" < retired Lieutenant Colonel Robert M. Bowman on why he joined the Scholars For 911 Truth>

before, and now I can't remember what it was. Does anyone remember? I don't want to watch the whole thing again

Once was more than enough for me too.

Even PCTs can't stand this documentary!

/sarcasm

The above was an primary example of how this documentary handles the evidence. miranda obviously didn't want to waste time searching for a needle in a haystack, and was not trying to imply anything about the character of the video. But an unscrupulous person could run around with that quote to other websites and say that miranda is slamming the video.

It's kinda like the video using all those quotes about "like an explosion". Lots of things in a burning and/or collapsing building will "sound like explosions". It doesn't mean there are bombs. Evidence of bombs involves eyewitness accounts of actual devices.

Did I say "video"? I meant "infomercial for more 9/11 books than you could shake a stick at."

bolobaffin says: "Evidence of bombs involves eyewitness accounts of actual devices."

More creativity from the OCT Amen corner. As in: evidence that bullets struck President Kennedy invovles eyewitness accounts of actually seeing the weapon(s) used and seeing the bullets leave said weapon(s) and then travel towards the President.

The fact that yesterday the lawn was green and this morning it's covered with white, frozen fluffy snow is not evidence of what caused the lawn to change from green to white. THAT would involve eyewitness accounts of the actual source of the snow.

Please, Americus, show some respect and use my handle correctly.

The fact remains: under the circumstances, bombs set in the WTC is an extraordinary claim, and requires more evidence than "I heard something that sounded like an explosion." Many things in a burning building can sound like an explosion. The claim of bombs requires some backup.

Is there any physical evidence of bombs being used to bring down the towers, either before or after the attack? Does anyone report seeing bombs? Are any evidence of bombs found after the fact (wiring, circuitry, etc.)?

Also, as I mentioned above, these explosive events are supposed to be happening all during the WTC fire, even before, according to that one person in the video. But in every case of a verifiable controlled demolition, the charges are detonated in a matter of seconds. How does these haphazard explosions fit into a "controlled" demolition scenario at the WTC?

Why would someone want to do that? I can think of a few reasons - and most people here would agree with them.

What's the reason, and why would most people here agree with it?

Hume's the one who came up with the maxim I'm using here: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This video has lots of extraordinary claims, but the evidence isn't very extraordinary to back it up. Your attempt to change the subject (wholly and completely, by the way - you don't even try to deal with what I'm talking about) isn't going to work here.

How do haphazard, random "explosions" fit into anyone's idea of a controlled demolition? Answer the question.

and requires more evidence than 'I heard something that sounded like an explosion.'"

News accounts of the time said that FDNY officials were reporting secondary explosions.
News reporters reported explosions. Eyewitness accounts released last August reported
explosions, flashes of light. One witness reported being blown UP the stairs.

The molten metal and the sulfidation attack on the steel are evidence of explosives.
The pulverization of the concrete, the energetic ejection of dust, and the squibs are
evidence of explosives.

How does these haphazard explosions fit into a "controlled" demolition scenario
at the WTC?

If all the explosions happened in the last five seconds, they would make too much noise
and be too obvious. Spreading them out over time hurts the credibility of the accounts.

http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_130172033.html

Multiple Explosions Reported At Fire In Modesto

(CBS 13) MODESTO Fire crews in Stanislaus County have knocked down a fire which sparked multiple explosions.

The fire was in Modesto near Legion Park Drive and South Santa Cruz Way. The Modesto fire department says the fire burned a detached garage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Hertfordshire_Oil_Storage_Terminal_fire

The first and largest explosion occurred at 06:03 UTC near container 912. From all accounts, it seems to have been an unconfined vapour cloud explosion. An inversion layer permitted people to hear it from a hundred miles (160 km) away; there are reports it was heard as far away as France and the Netherlands<1>. The British Geological Survey monitored the event, which measured 2.4 on the Richter scale<2>. People were woken in their beds even in South London. Subsequent explosions occurred at 06:27 and 06:28. Witnesses observed flames hundreds of feet high from many miles away, with the smoke cloud visible from space, and as far north as Lincolnshire.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4603118/detail.html

BOSTON -- Fire officials responded to a number of manhole explosions in Cambridge Monday.

NewsCenter 5's Rhondella Richardson reported that commuters and business owners were being asked to stay out of the Central Square area after a fire broke out in a manhole near the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Douglas Street.

Witnesses reported hearing popping noises near other manholes in the area. Police closed down several streets in the area, and traffic was at a standstill.

http://memphis.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2006/06/12/daily24.html

In Valero Energy Corp.'s third refinery fire in the last 30 days, the oil refining and marketing company said Wednesday there was an explosion in one of the units at the Jean Gaulin refinery in Quebec.

Workers reported the fire earlier Wednesday at the 215,000 barrel-per-day Ultramar Inc. refinery. Ultramar's emergency response team and the City of Levis' fire prevention department quickly contained the fire. No injuries were reported and employees since have returned to work. The refinery employs 490 individuals.

http://chicagoredstreak.com/output/news/fire16.html

Two employees of a company that builds automation systems for the automotive industry were hospitalized after a propane tank leaked and then ignited Friday morning in Crystal Lake.

A propane tank started leaking on the back of a forklift truck about 10 a.m. at the Eisenmann Corp., according to Craig Benner, a spokesman for the company.

The tank ignited, according to preliminary reports, and two workers were hurt, with non-life-threatening injuries, according to Benner.

Now all of those are just from the first page and a half of Googling explosions reported in fires. I got close to ten million hits on those words. Seeing that explosions are a common experience to a building fire in general, it is not surprising to find that there were all kinds of explosions of flammable materials in the WTC towers (including the oft-mentioned, oft-discount tanks of diesel fuel in WTC 7).

The extraordinary claim is that the explosions were the result of bombs.

Molten metal found weeks later is not evidence of bombs. It is evidence of extreme temperatures under the rubble of two one-hundred-story buildings.

Molten metal dripping from WTC 2 before its collapse is not evidence of a bomb. It is evidence of extreme temperature, and the way these temperatures were achieved has been tested and documented by the NIST study.

The pulverization of the concrete is not evidence of bombs. It is evidence of the incredible forces unleashed by the upper third of these buildings plummeting to the ground through the rest of the building.

The squibs are not evidence of bombs. Stop looking at freezeframes, which are misleading you. Watch the actual collapse of the buildings in real-time - not slow motion. You will see the "squibs" are not energetically expanding, but are simply being propelled out of the building by nothing more that the rush of air in front of the collapsing section of the building. It is not an explosion. It is simple venting.

Yes, it is.

If all the explosions happened in the last five seconds, they would make too much noise
and be too obvious. Spreading them out over time hurts the credibility of the accounts.

Petgoat, you obviously recognize how the fact of haphazard explosions weakens the case for controlled demolition. However, you accept this weakness by saying that the designers of the plot must have built this weakness in, that even this element of the 9/11 attack was meticulously planned. This is the same kind of logic creationism uses to say that the Devil put all those fossils in the ground to make the Earth look that old.

One that does not assert as ground rules that there is no evidence for the demolition
hypothesis.

Your examples of exploding propane tanks are not credible in the WTC context.

Molten metal....is evidence of extreme temperatures

Indeed. And molten metal was found immediately after the collapse.

The pulverization of the concrete is....evidence of the incredible forces unleashed by the upper third of these buildings plummeting to the ground

Excuse me, the pulverization as revealed by photographs occurred long before the buidings
reached the ground.

The squibs are not evidence of bombs.... simple venting.

Venting of air would be credible, venting of dust is not. What is the mechanism for that?

Your desperation shows, bolo.

And misdirects.

I dealt with molten metal both at collapse and later.
I cast the pulverization as happening "as" the buildings plummeted, not after.
Dust in air goes where the air goes. Have you heard of sandstorms?

You and I both need sleep.

Don't you know how ridiculous your "sandstorm" allusion is?

If I thought about it much, I'd consider it a badge of honor.

It's a valid point. Are you running for office? Is that why the play for tea and sympathy?

In the first two cases you'd said "A is not B. It is C" I reduced that to A is C.

In the last case you said "A is not B. Yadda yadda yadda. It is C." I reduced that
to "A is not B.... C"

I ignored the yadda because I was confused by your assertion that the squibs were the
product of air rushing "in front of the collapsing section of the building."

Also because your assertion that the squibs were not expanding would apply only to
exposions at the perimeter. The lateral-jet squibs may be the product of core
explosions.

Also because I wanted to focus on the more important issue, which you have ignored.
The dust. What, the top thirty floors of the WTC were the Pillsbury factory?

you can't answer my question about what was said about the FBI?

what you had not heard before about the FBI? I apologize for not being a mind reader.

Besides, I've seen Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometimes between now and then. Much better (though still with flaws) presentation.

Silly misunderstanding.

I'm sorry, there was a rather substantial point made about the FBI, and I thought "Oh I got to remember that", then I asked if anyone could remember what it was and I felt you used it as a chance to get in a cheap shot. Hence, my conclusion. But I see no one else seems to remember it either, so....I guess no one watched it ;)

Please do. IMHO, it is not a waste of your time.

Every damned frame of the idiotic thing. I thought I made that clear enough before, but I forgot I was dealing with the incredible rational power of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And you never have to wade through any more of my posts ever again.

n/t

Since it's your mission...or is it your job?

You spend an awful lot of time here yourself, dear lady. You say that I'm here a lot and then suggest none too obliquely that I'm a paid government shill. Since you seem at the least just as dogged as I around here, how is it that such a conclusion must not be applied to yourself?