| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| If it was a controlled demolition then . . . | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 19 2008, 09:16 PM (3,356 Views) | |
| JFK | Jun 29 2009, 07:36 PM Post #176 |
|
Ahhh, I see you also did not read the final NIST report on WTC 7. |
 |
 
|
| KenyonG | Jun 29 2009, 07:49 PM Post #177 |
|
No, I didn't. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 29 2009, 07:56 PM Post #178 |
|
Perhaps you should instead of spreading misinformation. 
|
|
|
|
| tuatara | Jun 29 2009, 08:05 PM Post #179 |
|
You seem to want your thousands and thousands of tons to completely obliterate a massive tower block and yet you seem quite happy for there to be remarkably little debris in the footprint of the towers and people surviving on the lower levels. I believe that a large percentage of the mass did not come straight down, it was blown outwards or turned to dust - because I can see that from watching films of the collapse. There are huge pieces of steel hurled large distances. There are many, many other aspects that prove it was not thousands of tons coming straight down. That is how things happen in the real world. |
|
|
|
| KenyonG | Jun 29 2009, 08:23 PM Post #180 |
|
You are right, it did not come down all in the footprint, that is why it was not controlled. I never said it all came down the way you are implying. I'm simply saying that there is a maximum load that each floor could support and when the top parts started coming down, that load was far exceeded. How many floors did you expect to collapse before the collapse stopped? I just can't see the floors below stopping this collapse. If the collapse stopped at the 50th floor, the 50th floor would have to be strong enough to hold what ever came down on it from the top 60. Very hard to fathom. |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jun 29 2009, 10:42 PM Post #181 |
|
Well, considering that IS a controlled demolition, yes, we do know damn well there were explosions. But, point to me ONE video where it show even HALF that many explosions going off in succession, and I might believe it. Point to me where ANYONE says that there were hundreds of very loud explosions going off in a very rapid order. Please, I would love to see it. Aand don't tell me that someone heard a few here and there. Show me where many people heard even 15 explosions going off in an rapid organized order, and I might believe it. Oh, BTW, do you hear the audio?? Yeah, I did. Why didn't the many videos that I have seen from 9/11 have even anywhere CLOSE to that many explosions. And no, I am not trying to explain away any evidence, because you haven't posted any. Showing me a building of a know CD, and trying to compare it to WTC 1, 2, 7, isn't evidence. |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jun 29 2009, 10:44 PM Post #182 |
|
Do you think that each level collapsed so that absolutely no voids were anywhere in that building?? Sure, I can guarantee that there were many voids during that collapse. This would explain why people in a stairwell survived. Oh, and stairwells are notoriously strong, they are designed that way, have ben for many years. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 29 2009, 10:47 PM Post #183 |
|
Then you also agree that the stairwell which gave out from underneigth Barry Jennings was purposefully removed ? |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jun 29 2009, 10:51 PM Post #184 |
|
Nope, I do not agree with that at all. I did not say that they were indestructable. I said they are notoriously strong. Ok, so you guys (nobody in preticular) say that because the debris were spread out all over the area, that it was a CD. But yet, WTC7 was also a controlled demolition but its debris was in a relitively contained pile. (Minus the fact that 2 other buildings were severely damaged because of the collapse) So, how can it be both?? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 29 2009, 11:04 PM Post #185 |
|
Wrong. We argue that it was a CD because of all the steel failing in the manner in which it did. If a legitimate CD team had been called to demolish the towers they would not have achieved as good of a result IMO. |
|
|
|
| T3QuillAMocKINGbird | Jun 30 2009, 02:34 AM Post #186 |
|
I think Bonez has the right conclusion the posters in this thread are in denial. Research Kevin Ryan to find why he came forward. The reason why Kevin Ryan spoke out and blew the whistle on UL and NIST was very important if you want facts. They did fire tests under load that showed the steel could not be weakend sufficiently to get anywhere near collapsing. It was done on actual steel from the world center. This video proves both sides wrong debris pile in controlled demolition and debris pile in a natural collapse. Enjoy! Demolition Gone Wrong! |
|
|
|
| ULTIMA1 | Jun 30 2009, 02:51 AM Post #187 |
|
Its just too bad so many other sources do not agree with the NIST reports. Even the 9/11 commission did not agree with or publish several of NIST's conclusions. Fact is the original NIST computer model concluded that niether the plane impacts nor fires caused the collapse. |
|
|
|
| ULTIMA1 | Jun 30 2009, 02:54 AM Post #188 |
|
Speaking of misinformation. Maybe you should do some research instead of just repeating what you have been told. Edited by ULTIMA1, Jun 30 2009, 02:55 AM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 30 2009, 05:14 AM Post #189 |
|
Ultima1, I have downloaded and read well over a gigabyte ( actually closer to 8 GB compressed if you count the software, and updates to that software, used to generate those official reports ) of official reports over the years. These clowns have not read one iota of those reports ( which is obviously evident whith their arguements ) and come here to debunk us based on what they have been told. Those official reports themselves are relatively easily debunked, however when someone comes online here and spews their garbage without even having read any of the official reports what can one do other than pointing them back at the beliefs in their own "bible" so to speak ? ( edit to add - exactly the same as the self proclaimed bible thumpers which quote the "eye for an eye" out of context. ) All they have is their beliefs and if they want the truth they must begin somewhere... Somewhere which they are comfortable with. As far as research, I have forgotten ( and lost due to DOD cracking and hacking my computer in 2005/2006 while I was researching Danny Lewin [ the final series of IP's recorded in my router logs which were stored on a computer on my network which was set up to be not visable to the internet were DOD IP's. ]. ) much more than they will ever learn as I have been researching since before the first Loose Change was even written. Are you really sure that you want to start a "pissing contest" with me ? 
Edited by JFK, Jun 30 2009, 08:59 AM.
|
|
|
|
| ULTIMA1 | Jun 30 2009, 03:23 PM Post #190 |
|
Well i have done more research then most of the people on here combined. I have also filed FOIA request and sent lots of e-mails to agencies and companies involved. Peopl on here that state they know what happened that day because of reading or hearing the official story on TV are being very dishonest since most of the evidence has still not been released and the joint FBI and NTSB crime scene reports have not been released. How many FOIA request have you filed? How many e-mails have you sent? Edited by ULTIMA1, Jun 30 2009, 03:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 30 2009, 03:59 PM Post #191 |
|
I know this.
I only wish I knew all the details of what went down on 9/11.
About a dozen... All "Non responsive".
Enough so I now know my E-Mails automatically go to the recipients spam folder. Any word on your NSA critic FOIA ? ( NSA sucks big time FOIA wise ) |
|
|
|
| ULTIMA1 | Jun 30 2009, 04:14 PM Post #192 |
|
Where did you send the FOIA requests to?
The NSA document is still being reviewed for declassification. Edited by ULTIMA1, Jun 30 2009, 04:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 30 2009, 04:33 PM Post #193 |
|
Several agencies a few years back... The current contacts for ones I remember are Defense Intelligence Agency Alesia Y. Williams Chief, FOIA Staff, DAN-1A Washington, D.C. 20340-5100 telephone number: (301) 394-5188 fax number: (301) 394-5356 e-mail address: foia@dia.mil Federal Emergency Management Agency Alisa Turner Disclosure Officer Records Management Division, Room 301 Office of Management 500 C Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20472 telephone number: (202) 646-3323 Federal Aviation Administration Douglas C. Taylor, Manager National FOIA Staff, ARC-40 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 telephone number: (202) 267-9165 fax number: (202) 493-5032 e-mail address: 7-AWA-ARC-FOIA@faa.gov Environmental Protection Agency Larry F. Gottesman National FOIA Officer Mail Code 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 telephone number: (202) 566-1667 fax number: (202) 566-2147 e-mail address: hq.foia@epamail.epa.gov National Transportation Safety Board Melba D. Moye FOIA Officer 490 L'Enfant Plaza East, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20594 telephone number: (202) 314-6551 fax number: (202) 314-6132 Securities and Exchange Commission Celia Winter FOIA/Privacy Act Branch Chief Mail Stop 5100 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20549 telephone number: (202) 551-7900 fax number: (202) 772-9337 e-mail address: foia/pa@sec.gov And the National Security Agency Pamela N. Phillips Chief, FOIA/PA Office, DJP4 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248 Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6248 telephone number: (301) 688-6527 fax number: (301) 688-4762 Frankly my patience wore out and I gave up. < shrugs > Edit to add - Also they were not worded as eloquently as Ferric Oxide's, which probably did not help matters any. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52299/1/ Edited by JFK, Jun 30 2009, 04:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Jun 30 2009, 07:26 PM Post #194 |
|
Yes, now take this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153 And then read this: "Somewhere around the middle of the (north tower), there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." To read the above, you would think they were describing the CD video I posted above. But they're not. They're describing the north tower almost identically as we can see in the CD video above. Flashes going up and down and all around the building in the north tower just as is seen in the above CD video. The buildings collapsed like CD, they had plumes of dust/debris like CD, they had flashes going up, down and around the building like CD. Plus hundreds of witnesses to the detonation sequences like CD. What more could you possibly need? Your denial disorder keeps you from putting the whole picture together. No, you won't believe any evidence put forth to you because you don't want to believe the conspiracy. That's your main problem. Suffice it to say that there is one video where you can hear hundreds of detonations while the buildings are collapsing. I'm pretty sure I told you that "9/11 Eyewitness" was the movie to watch where you can hear the detonation sequence for WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 and from 2 miles away so as not to be confused with steel columns breaking or crashing into each other. I'm done debating with you. The evidence is there and it's clear as day. You can either accept it and help us, or continue to deny it and move on. We're done here. |
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jul 1 2009, 04:53 PM Post #195 |
|
So post a video, show me where I can find even fifty people who say they saw this series of detonations going off. Can you please provide a link to that quote that you posted?? I would love to see where you got it from. And, why is it that you seem to think that huge columns, or pieces of metal crashing into each other WOULDN'T creaate a loud bang?? Heck, hitting a hammer on a piece of steel is loud enough to be heard from 3 doors down my block. Ok, I just watched the first 1:30, and they have already claimed that a helicopter caused the collapse of the S. Tower. Come one, this is your evidence?? Hopefully it gets better. Edited by beantownfan247, Jul 5 2009, 02:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Jul 1 2009, 05:03 PM Post #196 |
|
I've already posted a link to the video, and I've posted the link to the oral histories. |
|
|
|
| ULTIMA1 | Jul 2 2009, 02:45 AM Post #197 |
|
Well i have filed with the NTSB and received the information in a few days. The information i am waiting on right now is from the FAA and you know the one from NSA. As far as e-mails i have had hit and miss. I sent an e-mail to Tully Construction, who was 1 of the biggest companies to work ground zero and asked them some questions. They wrote back and stated they could not answer my questions due to the 9/11 lawsuits. Edited by ULTIMA1, Jul 2 2009, 02:46 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jul 10 2009, 01:33 PM Post #198 |
|
 It was not a controlled demolition and there was no thermite either. Just lots of pretty sparks! 
|
|
|
|
| noeffects | Jul 10 2009, 07:04 PM Post #199 |
|
hmm...have not seen that... !!! 
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Jul 10 2009, 07:42 PM Post #200 |
|
Stundie, Is that from the cameraplanet archive ? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
9:51 PM Nov 8
