Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

a reply to: wildb

It was not your average job, and the demolition community did not do it..

Firstly, why are 9/11 conspiracy theorist claiming the collapse of the WTC buildings were like typical demolition implosions when in fact, that was not the case?

Secondly, demolition explosives make a lot of noise for which is not evident in any WTC video.

Thirdly, for explosives to be effective against steel frame buildings, they must be firmly attached to the steel columns and detonated, which will generate shock signals that will travel through the steel beams and down into the ground where the signals will be detected by seismic monitors in the area, but no such signals were detected according to the operators of those seismic monitors.

Even before explosives are attached, the steel structures must first be pre-weakened, otherwise explosives will not be as effective and may not even result in a collapse at all because because of the stiffness of the structure. WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were pre-weakened by the impacts they suffered and fire took care of the rest. Case in point are the following videos.





Fourthly, there was no way that the structures of the WTC buildings could have been pre-weakened and explosives placed without disrupting the daily business in those buildings and in fact, it would have been impossible to properly prepare each building for explosive demolition and not attract a lot of attention.

a reply to: wildb

Just to let you know that David Chandler has been debunked and discredit by evidence and the laws of physics, and I might further add that your video does not depict an actual demolition explosion. Do you know why?

a reply to: skyeagle409

TextFourthly, there was no way that the structures of the WTC buildings could have been pre-weakened and explosives placed without disrupting the daily business in those buildings and in fact, it would have been impossible to properly prepare each building for explosive demolition and not attract a lot of attention.

Only for those who can't think out side of the box..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: skyeagle409

yeah because your full of dis info.., Chandler is correct, he points out the obvious.. those who are so blind they cannot see.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

It was not your average job, and the demolition community did not do it..

Firstly, why are 9/11 conspiracy theorist claiming the collapse of the WTC buildings were like typical demolition implosions when in fact, that was not the case?

Secondly, demolition explosives make a lot of noise for which is not evident in any WTC video.

Thirdly, for explosives to be effective against steel frame buildings, they must be firmly attached to the steel columns and detonated, which will generate shock signals that will travel through the steel beams and down into the ground where the signals will be detected by seismic monitors in the area, but no such signals were detected according to the operators of those seismic monitors.

Even before explosives are attached, the steel structures must first be pre-weakened, otherwise explosives will not be as effective and may not even result in a collapse at all because because of the stiffness of the structure. WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were pre-weakened by the impacts they suffered and fire took care of the rest. Case in point are the following videos.

Fourthly, there was no way that the structures of the WTC buildings could have been pre-weakened and explosives placed without disrupting the daily business in those buildings and in fact, it would have been impossible to properly prepare each building for explosive demolition and not attract a lot of attention.

more to muddy the waters, your info is old and well.. old and irrelevant

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

So why and how did the floors fly away?

You tell me..

Looking at the debris field, they didn't fly away. Those videos you provided of explosiveless demolitions must have been enlightening for you. Straight down collapse, compressed air "squibs", very similar to WTC collapses, and no explosives at all.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

So why and how did the floors fly away?

You tell me..

Looking at the debris field, they didn't fly away. Those videos you provided of explosiveless demolitions must have been enlightening for you. Straight down collapse, compressed air "squibs", very similar to WTC collapses, and no explosives at all.

Really it is what it is, how can you debunk it,, you can't ..I feel sorry for you since you cant see what is there..enlightening, just how, please tell me that..

a reply to: wildb

It is not a matter of thinking outside the box, it is what evidence and the laws of physics prove. Remember, explosives when detonated, make a lot of noise and yet, there is not a peep of an explosion as the WTC buildings collapse.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

It is not a matter of thinking outside the box, it is what evidence and the laws of physics prove.

I am so glad you see that now..

a reply to: wildb

First of all, you have failed to provide a shred of evidence for explosives. Let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of structural and civil engineers, architects, firefighters, and demolition experts reject 9/11 conspiracy theories.

a reply to: wildb

I am so glad you see that now..

Which is why after 14 years, no evidence of an inside job has surfaced.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

First of all, you have failed to provide a shred of evidence for explosives. Let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of structural and civil engineers, architects, firefighters, and demolition experts reject 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Sure I have, put up yours and I will put up mine,, see how that works..lol

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

I am so glad you see that now..

Which is why after 14 years, no evidence of an inside job has surfaced.

nor has any truth to the os, see how that works, now how much of your time can I waste ?

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

So why and how did the floors fly away?

You tell me..

Looking at the debris field, they didn't fly away. Those videos you provided of explosiveless demolitions must have been enlightening for you. Straight down collapse, compressed air "squibs", very similar to WTC collapses, and no explosives at all.

Really it is what it is, how can you debunk it,, you can't ..I feel sorry for you since you cant see what is there..enlightening, just how, please tell me that..

Enlightening in that your videos cast serious doubt on your theory and debunked the 'falling through most resistance' and 'squib evidence' of Gage and the A&E gang.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

It was not your average job, and the demolition community did not do it..

Firstly, why are 9/11 conspiracy theorist claiming the collapse of the WTC buildings were like typical demolition implosions when in fact, that was not the case?

Secondly, demolition explosives make a lot of noise for which is not evident in any WTC video.

Thirdly, for explosives to be effective against steel frame buildings, they must be firmly attached to the steel columns and detonated, which will generate shock signals that will travel through the steel beams and down into the ground where the signals will be detected by seismic monitors in the area, but no such signals were detected according to the operators of those seismic monitors.

Even before explosives are attached, the steel structures must first be pre-weakened, otherwise explosives will not be as effective and may not even result in a collapse at all because because of the stiffness of the structure. WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were pre-weakened by the impacts they suffered and fire took care of the rest. Case in point are the following videos.

Fourthly, there was no way that the structures of the WTC buildings could have been pre-weakened and explosives placed without disrupting the daily business in those buildings and in fact, it would have been impossible to properly prepare each building for explosive demolition and not attract a lot of attention.

It sounds like you are saying it wasn't explosives. Is that correct? And by your reasoning and points then it wasn't nuclear either for largely the same reasons, i.e. sound, placement etc. Is that correct?

Can you describe then how otherwise healthy steel frame buildings could collapse to near ground level, both of them, having been struck in dissimilar areas?

Do you think though that WTC 7 could've been explosives because of the nature of the offices and agencies in that building? I mean they upgraded an entire floor for the command center, nobody in there would spill a secret maybe. They could preplant in several locations enough to down it with only scant bangs which were heard and witnessed/reported?

I maybe agree, WTC 1 & 2, no explosives.

a reply to: NWOwned

It sounds like you are saying it wasn't explosives.

Not in the case of the WTC buildings simply because no explosives were used to bring down those buildings. First of all, in order to bring down a steel frame building, you have first pre-weaken the steel structure. Next, explosives must be firmly attached to the steel columns. In first stage, you place cutter charges and afterward, other explosives such as dynamite would have the job of pushing the steel columns toward a certain direction after the cutter charges have done their work.

Demolition explosives do not have the power to send huge steel columns hundreds of feet from the building, which is evident by the fact that you don't see huge steel columns being flung anywhere during typical demolition implosions and of course, the 1993 WTC 1 bombing points out that fact as well where its steel columns remained standing within that huge bomb crater.

Some folks think that you can place explosives inside a steel frame building which they think will cause the building to collapse, but what they will see will be something like this.

Photo: Building Absorbed Multiple Bomb Strikes

I already know as a fact that the WTC buildings were not taken down by explosives and three of the main reason are:

1. No sound of explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, which is not indicative of typical demolition implosions

2. Seismic monitors did not detect demolition explosions

3. No evidence of demolition hardware was ever found in the WTC rubble

In addition, WTC 2 collapse before WTC 1 even though it was struck last because it supported more overhead mass than WTC 1, which is not indicative of the way demolition implosions are carried out. You don't wait that long period of time before explosives are detonated and secondly, there were no secondary explosions, Thirdly, it would have taken almost a year just to properly prepare each of the WTC buildings for explosive demolition and the process would been very noisy and would have created a hazardous environmental condition within those buildings which would not have been tolerated by those working in those buildings and the operation would have generated tons of waste debris. The placement of thousands of feet of detonation wire that would not have gone unnoticed and that is why it would have been impossible to secretly prepare each of the WTC buildings for demolition and then again, there was never evidence that explosives were used in the first place.

If you are re Is that correct? And by your reasoning and points then it wasn't nuclear either for largely the same reasons, i.e. sound, placement etc. Is that correct?

Not only that, but the fact that no EMP was generated, no radioactive fallout, no high radiation hazard, no blinding flash of light, no mushroom cloud, no effects of temperatures of millions of degrees F. that nukes are known for, and no shockwave generated. In other words, there was absolutely no evidence that nukes were used to demolish the WTC buildings. Those who have been pushing that false nuke story knew full well that nukes were not used during 9/11.

Can you describe then how otherwise healthy steel frame buildings could collapse to near ground level, both of them, having been struck in dissimilar areas?

In much the same way that this steel frame building collapsed.

Photo: Steel Frame Building Collapsed Due to Earthquake

Let's take a look who WTC 6 was taken down with cables. Jump to time line 1:40.



WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 suffered massive impact damage and fire was observed in those buildings burning at temperatures at levels known to weaken steel. I have annealed steel (soft condition) at only 1000 degrees F., which is well below the melting point of aluminum, and I had done so in order to form the steel into complex shapes. You can lay a railroad track over a wooden fire for an hour and you can bend that railroad track by hand with the help of 5 other people, three on each end to lift the heavy track. A typical office fire can turn structural steel into a soft, hot plastic-like state that is unable to carry structural loads.

That fact that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were observed buckling just prior to their collapse was a firm indication that fire was slowly weakening their steel structures.

Do you think though that WTC 7 could've been explosives because of the nature of the offices and agencies in that building?

Absolutely not. WTC 7 suffered massive impact damage on its south wall, which explains why WTC 7 tilted toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse. In other words, much of its structural support was taken out by debris as WTC 1 collapsed.

I never believed the agencies within WTC 7 would have been targeted at all. If any building would have been tageted, it would hae been either the Capitol Building in Washingrton D.C. or CIA Headquarters. In fact, CIA Headquarters was selected for an attack by terrorist under the Bojinka Plot, which was revealed in the Philippines in 1995, where a terrorist would fly an airliner into the building. One of the terrorist in that plot was the nephew of the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the same terrorist who bombed WTC 1 in 1993.

The Bojinka Plot

I mean they upgraded an entire floor for the command center, nobody in there would spill a secret maybe. They could preplant in several locations enough to down it with only scant bangs which were heard and witnessed/reported?

]

It takes much more than to plant explosives in a steel frame building to bring it down. I could plant explosives on every floor in WTC 7 and if the structure is not properly prepared, chances are WTC 7 would have remained standing. It would have taken many months to properly prepare WTC 7 for demolition. Many buildings in Iraq received multiple strike from JDAM bombs and cruise missiles yet the buildings remained standing because the blast waves simply had passed around the support structures and blew out walls and windows, but left the support structures mainly intact.

In Corpus Christi, Texas, it took many months just to prepare a bridge for demolition and much of the preparation was done at and near ground level and that was nothing compared to what it would have taken to prepare each of the WTC buildings for demolition.

On another note, had United 93 made it to Washington D.C. and slammed into the Capitol building and causing it to collapse, no doubt there would be claims flowing on the Internet that the Capitol Building was taken out by demolition explosives.

a reply to: skyeagle409

And again... shilly amounts of picturesque evidence or youtuberia on SkyTV! Awesome.

no evidence of an inside job has surfaced.

Lies, lies and more shilly lies. Wake up, Colonel Spamsuit!
Forgot the blacked out Saudi Papers?

Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup

There never surfaced any evidence for 'your' OTBS either. Another piece of irony iron is awarded:



Obey a Brave New Year, my old f(r)iend!

originally posted by: BobbyFontaine
I never knew one of Bush's own staff was so outspoken on 911 being an inside job, and I still don't understand why so many Americans balk at the idea that there's more to the story than we've been told.

Why when people bring up their doubts about the official version of the attack does everyone turn away from them like they have a mental disorder, yet here is one of Bush's own people telling an insiders view of what he thinks happened.
Why if some Americans have doubts don't we put those doubts to rest by debating and investigating all the facts until it's settled, why leave the other shoe sitting out there just waiting to drop, why if so many Americans are so confident that it happened the way we've been told do they fear looking into it further, why are the facts that support the governments version of the events protected by political correctness if there is nothing more to the story, or do many Americans fear what the truth might be, is that what's really behind it, they don't want to know, they don't want the world to know that we blew up our own buildings to start a world war in order to fulfill the political ambitions of a sick twisted president and his diabolically deviant vice president.

And I get that, but it doesn't appear to be getting any better by pretending there's nothing more to know, I mean if there is nothing to hide and it can be firmly established that bin Laden did it with no help from us, think about the new level of confidence it would mean for this country.

www.youtube.com...

www.veteranstoday.com...

www.presstv.com...

www.journalof911studies.com... Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

Who had the most
compelling motives for the event?
Who alone had the means?
Who removed all the evidence from the crime scenes?
Who put out continuous false reports? Who blocked all impartial inquiry?
Who has solely benefitted since in private money-sequencing to limitlessly more?
These questions remains effectively taboo