Controlled demolition of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers???

[DennisAJC]

I don't want to thrill the open Forum with anymore 911 ConspiracyTheories.

But I really want you folks to watch this I saw off Google Vids when you have time. Tell me what you guys think.


The controlled demolition theory creeps me out. It gets really scary after 20 minutes and makes you really wonder why the media never included some footage that clearly makes it look like timed explosions.

And the forced weekend blackout just days before 911 so that the security upgrades could be carried out in private by the security company that BUSH's brother owned?!?!?!?!?!


I know, I know. But there are alot of smart folks on this Forum that would find this interesting (Especially Paragon, f5fstop and Klaus) I actually got creeped out by this one. Like really creeped out. Especially with the Bush family link...Again.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...90071483512003

Not trying to cause trouble. But this one is really interesting.


We have to be open to that fact that our governments don't always tell us the truth.

[HummBob]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

I don't want to thrill the open Forum with anymore 911 ConspiracyTheories.

But I really want you folks to watch this I saw off Google Vids when you have time. Tell me what you guys think.


The controlled demolition theory creeps me out. It gets really scary after 20 minutes and makes you really wonder why the media never included some footage that clearly makes it look like timed explosions.

And the forced weekend blackout just days before 911 so that the security upgrades could be carried out in private by the security company that BUSH's brother owned?!?!?!?!?!


I know, I know. But there are alot of smart folks on this Forum that would find this interesting (Especially Paragon, f5fstop and Klaus) I actually got creeped out by this one. Like really creeped out. Especially with the Bush family link...Again.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...90071483512003

Not trying to cause trouble. But this one is really interesting.


We have to be open to that fact that our governments don't always tell us the truth.

That's FrEaKy Dennis.

It's like the "Documentary" I saw, 9/11 In PLANE Sight. Kinda makes you go HMMMMM???

[h2co-pilot]

Bah. Complete shit!

The cause of the towers falling is obvious. You can argue any point to death and make it seem how you want. That's what a building looks like when it falls down.


You Canucks are forgetting we are a country of marketers with many in pursuit of the ultimate 15 minutes of fame.


And let's not forget the first attempt at the WTC in '93 and it's link to Osama Bin Laden. That's how his name 'magically' arose in the media shortly after.

An operation such as any of those implicated in these stupid fuggin films would involve a whole sh!tload of people who couldn't be paid enough to keep quiet.

Why would a country attack the several main sources of income that were in those buildings? The 911 attacks has cost the country billions and billions of dollars and the sum continues to rise. To think that is was fabricated to go to war is ludicrous, even conquering the oil facilities in the Middle East would not even begin to compensate for it.






Hmmm....lemme think......


Means, motive, and opportunity. Canada was very nearby, and could easily infiltrate operatives across the border. Their efficient state apparatus was much better equipped to pull off an operation of this magnitude than a group of terrorists half a world away. But what's more, it has long been known that Canada suffers under a debilitating inferiority complex, one that could easily have led to a virulent hostility against the very targets that were attacked on September 11.


Take a look at the CN Tower. Why would they build such a big, long, hard, rigid monstrosity? What purpose does it serve other than to give New York State the finger from across the lake? Canadians seem to take great pride in the fact that theirs is the largest tower in the world. What, then, would they be expected to feel about other structures in other countries whose sizes are a cause of distinction? Of course, the World Trade Centre comes to mind, as does the Pentagon, which, with over 3.7 million square feet of space, is the world's largest office building.

It has been speculated that the fourth plane, which went down over Pennsylvania, had been targeted at the White House. Researchers are divided as to the plausibility of this scenario. On one hand, the White House could well have been chosen as powerful symbolic expression of Canadian superiority, seeing as the Canadians already burned it down once before during the War of 1812. However, our air-photo expert, Mr. Jim Sphere, has concluded that the true trajectory of the fourth plane shows it heading in the direction of Chicago - most likely aimed at the Sears Tower.*



Several otherwise incomprehensible aspects of this affair suddenly become clear once Canadian complicity in the attacks is understood. There was, for example, much concern expressed in Canada when George Bush, thanking numerous countries for their assistance in the aftermath of the tragedies, neglected to mention Canada. Was this merely an oversight, or a subtle hint that the CIA had already uncovered evidence of Canadian involvement? And what about that "friendly fire" incident in Afghanistan? An accident? Or did our boys, contrary to the instructions of their government (always quick to pander to the interests of "our most reliable ally to the north"), finally decide to engage the True Enemy?


Furthermore, it is important to note that not a single Canadian was killed in the September 11 attacks. This is no lie. Indeed, this highly suspicious fact - obscured by the controlled media - is undeniable, as someone has posted it on the web and called it undeniable (see above), but it can also be verified by a simple look at the lists of the victims of the World Trade Centre and Pentagon disasters. Not a single one of the names on any of those lists is identifiably Canadian.
Obviously, then, Canadians working at the World Trade Centre were warned in advance to call in sick that morning. Naturally, they never bothered to tell any of their non-Canadian co-workers, indicating the contempt that Canadians have for non-Canadian life.
What can we conclude from all of this? Well, I do know one thing. If I were the President of Malaysia (and I hope to be some day), I would be very concerned about the possibility of Canadian designs on the Petronas Towers.


.............................
___________________
_______________-
Seriously- 9/11 : we will never forget.

[f5fstop]

I agree with h2co-pilot, there is too much evidence, scientific and visual) that the towers were hit by two planes that caused their destruction. I also agree, that in a town that is known to not keep secrets, having hundreds of people blow up the WTC towers would have hit the presses by now.
Not to mention that if there was one iota of proof, the liberals would be screaming this from every corner in DC. (Liberals meaning Hilary, Kerry, Kennedy, etc.).

The way the towers fell is predictable due to the weight of the upper floors collapsing due to the metal structures becoming brittle on the floors hit by the planes and burning at high temps (approx. 800 degrees). Like a domino effect but downward versus to the sides. There were flaws in the way the towers were built. A demolition expert on TV one day stated that to place charges that would control the destruction of towers this large, would be so obvious to those in the buildings it would be ludicrous to think this was done. The charges would have to be placed on the beams, and this would require the removal of wall board, and in most of the beams, the wallboard was right next to the beams. Someone would have started asking questions about the strapped charges on all the floors. He also stated this would take weeks of constant work, not a few weekends. He stated there was no way you could have hid the charges, except in the shafts, and that would not have caused such a perfect collapse.


I work with a guy who swears, Dick Chaney is personally responsible for the destruction of the WTC towers, the Pentagon, and there was no crash in PA. He believes Chaney is the Devil incarnate, and Bush is one of his followers. He also believes Kennedy is the most honest person in DC, and Hilary will go down in history as the best president we will ever have. He also believes that the Bush administration is having him followed for his beliefs, and they are tapping his phone. He is also nuttier than any fruitcake I have ever seen. I would consider him dangerous, except he also believes all guns should be confiscated, and anyone who owns a gun is a future criminal, and that all the talk of radical Muslims is part of the conspiracy and that they are all peaceful people, and the press is lying.

I think I'll start a website with the theory that the US attacked Pearl Harbor to get us into the war. Strange that there were no aircraft carriers in the harbor that day, and they had the planes. All they had to do was change the markings on the planes to the Rising Sun, and Launch from a hundred miles from Hawaii.

If Al Goes had been around in WWII and had already invented the Internet, I'm sure someone would have already set up this WWII conspiracy theory.

[PARAGON]

There was no WWII.

[NewHummerGuy]

"I think I'll start a website with the theory that the US attacked Pearl Harbor to get us into the war. Strange that there were no aircraft carriers in the harbor that day, and they had the planes. All they had to do was change the markings on the planes to the Rising Sun, and Launch from a hundred miles from Hawaii.

If Al Goes had been around in WWII and had already invented the Internet, I'm sure someone would have already set up this WWII conspiracy theory."

Damnit.....I knew the Germans didnt bomb Pearl Harbor ...hehehe

[PARAGON]

Well, I made it about 18 minutes into and couldn't get past the fact that someone spent all of that time making that stupid crap and that there was going to be over an hour left of it.

Melting steel, spotty fires, big steel buildings don't fall.

Sorry, but that crap is not even a good attempt at conspiracy. There's so many holes, not only will it not hold water, it won't hold...... "steel"

[f5fstop]

I should also mention, the expert I saw a TV answered the question on temps of burning jet fuel, max of around 800 degrees, versus temp to melt steel, around 1600 degrees.
The towers had numerous tunnels underneath. The fires drew in colder air from the bottom tunnels, thus causing a bellows affect, creating temps higher than 800 degrees.

In addition, he made mention that it does not take long for metal to become brittle at temps above 400 degrees, and at around 800 the process is faster. So when the floors that were hit burned for a while, the metal became brittle, collapsing the floors above and that massive weight, started the domino affect.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by f5fstop

I should also mention, the expert I saw a TV answered the question on temps of burning jet fuel, max of around 800 degrees, versus temp to melt steel, around 1600 degrees.
The towers had numerous tunnels underneath. The fires drew in colder air from the bottom tunnels, thus causing a bellows affect, creating temps higher than 800 degrees.

In addition, he made mention that it does not take long for metal to become brittle at temps above 400 degrees, and at around 800 the process is faster. So when the floors that were hit burned for a while, the metal became brittle, collapsing the floors above and that massive weight, started the domino affect.

The metal doesn't have to melt. And metal becomes brittle by cooling and heating cycles. BUT, heat structural metal to 800 degrees and it begins to deform under load. It doesn't have to flow to create a problem, just deform.

The whole sticking a pot on a kitchen burner was the icing on the cake. Some neophyte trying to explain that all metals are somehow the same. Let's put it this way. All structural steel in buildings is coated with some type of fire retardant. Asbestos was likely used on the Towers. This is because should there be a normal building fire the structural metal needs to remain below certain critical temps so that they keep their form while under load. Much of the load bearing steel structure was eliminated in sections on the Towers and then you added an intense fire that weakend what was left. It's all really simple.

I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on, on just the first 18 minutes of that production. I don't even think Michael Moore would claim anything like that.

[h2co-pilot]

Not to mention not only was it really freaking metal melting hot but the planes took out some very imortant supporting beams and ruined the whole fire preventative plan of the building allowing flames to reach substances that were originally meant to be protected from flames.

We were only so lucky that the building fell that way because the structure was built so well, it could have been a lot worse.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

... But I really want you folks to watch this I saw off Google Vids when you have time. Tell me what you guys think.


The controlled demolition theory creeps me out. It gets really scary after 20 minutes and makes you really wonder why the media never included some footage that clearly makes it look like timed explosions.

... this one is really interesting.

I won't waste my time watching it. I represent a foreign bank in the 9-11 litigation and have read tens of thousands of pages on the attacks.

I assume that it's just a coincidence that 19 Muslims hijacked four large airplanes and flew three of them at high velocity into the two Towers and Pentagon with hundreds of thousands of pounds of Jet A-1 fuel on board only minutes before the Towers collapsed?

Or did the conspiracy theory somehow have Halliburton suicide employees doing that and bin Laden just took credit for what they did?

The ability to think analytically about a multitude of circumstances and reject an outlandish, implausible hypothesis (even where it is consistent with isolated facts) is one of worst intellectual deficits of the modern mind.

[PARAGON]

I think it's always been a deficit. There has always been some need to seek the implausible as an explanation in deference to the probable/likely.

[KenP]

Relax everyone. Dennis gets this way when he feels left out.

Hey Dennis, come back and bring the family!!!!

[DennisAJC]

It was definitely hit by planes flown by Saudi Arabians. A country were the Bush family had the most ties financially.

The 1st tower came down with amazing accuracy which I found unusual. And then the second tower came down perfectly. What were the chances that would happen? Talk about luck.

Then Tower 7 came down perfectly also!?!?!?!? That building wasn't even struck. A few unexplained fires brought down a steel structure perfectly into it's footprint???? Mind you Tower 7 took alot of secrets with it because it housed CIA and goverment secrets and skeletons. 90% of the Enron investigation disappeared forever.

This one I really found interesting. A forced blackout the weekend before 9/11 so that the security company can retrofit the building in the dark using flashlights only? All video surveillence was down that weekend. The security company was owned by the Bush family ran by one of the brothers.

Never in the history of the modern world have steel buildings collapsed in that manner unless it was a controlled demolishion.

OK maybe there was a chance it could happen and that science could be wrong. But the chances of 3 at the same time? To revenue losing buildings because they were technologically obslete?

The heavy drilling and jackhammering prior to 9/11 on the deserted floors of both towers which were coincidentally the floors startegically needed to bring them down controlled?

Multiple explosions reported by the firemen in the basement floors??????????

The footage also shows explosions ahead of the collapse almost identical to watching a controlled demolishion.

These were just a few observations I made when I watched it.

It's just freekin creepy!!!!!!! That's all I'm trying to say. Not trying to stir the pot here.


......You know I love you guys.

[h2co-pilot]

Justifying the murder of thousands of Americans to help ExxonMobil would require U.S. officials to engage in a different kind of detachment and an even more profound break with decency and moral norms.

Nevermind the fact that American interests, embassies, ships etc. have been under attack by these people for years before this tragic event and it took a real hero to come in and finally fight it.. (All my heroes have been cowboys.)

Would George W. Bush take the chance of being branded the most evil president of all time by countenancing such wrongdoing? Oil may be in his blood, but would he place the oil industry's interests ahead of his own? (He sure said sayonara to Kenneth Lay and Enron pretty darn fast.) And Bush and everyone else in government know that plans leak. Disinformation specialists at the Pentagon could not keep their office off the front page of The New York Times. In the aftermath of September 11, there has been much handwringing over the supposed fact that U.S. intelligence has been too risk-averse. But, thankfully, some inhibitions - P.R. concerns, career concerns - do provide brakes on the spy-crowd.

You know, fuk it. When terrorism reaches your piddly azz country- I'll bring up the same disrespectful conversation and sit back and make you spout the truth over and over okay?

[GeorgeSSSS]

Let's ask Alec Baldwin.
He can be trusted.



George SSSS

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by GeorgeSSSS

Let's ask Alec Baldwin.
He can be trusted.



George SSSS

Yeeesh,

Let's ask Arec Bawrin.....

[CO Hummer]

I watched the first 23 hours of that video, but couldn't finish.

If I would have done the welding on those towers, they wouldn't have collapsed.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

I could maybe go as far as believing in a cover up of what the administration knew about bin laden before the 9/11 attacks. But as much as I dislike President Bush, I would never believe he authorized, approved or orchestrated the actual hijacking or attacks. Nor anyone in our government. No way.

As Paragon said, you don't have to actually melt structural steel for the building to come down. It just has to deform.

And it's no great coincidence that the buildings collapsed vertically instead of falling sideways. During an intentional demolition, you place charges on all the major structural points and set them off simultaneously. If all the supports go at the same time, the building will fall vertically (or collapse inward).

With the twin towers, the planes struck each building, physically stripping away fireproofing and saturating several floors with jetfuel simultaneously. As they burned, all of the supports were heated evenly over the same time span. It's no wonder they failed at the same time and that therefore each building collapsed vertically.

In addition, all the buildings at the WTC (not just the twin towers) were designed to collapse vertically if they ever fell instead of into nearby buildings. They had to withstand lateral, torsional and compression forces (from wind or earthquake) by redirecting them to the center and downward. The buildings did what they were supposed to, not because of conspiracy or demolition, but because of architecture and engineering.

[westhillsat]

I watched the whole thing part last night, part tonight.