Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
Even if the damage was extensive on that side, even if all that smoke was coming from the WTC7, the building would have toppled over on that side instead of collapsing neatly onto itself like a perfect controlled demolition job.

Pepe.. it did actually....

files.abovetopsecret.com...

This is from:
www.debunking911.com...

At the bottom there are still from a video that show the leaning of the building.

Where is the building leaning??

As it is falling... "cause the best thing to do was PULL IT?

Originally posted by quicknthedead

Originally posted by CameronFox
Quick....

I think you should read some of my posts.... I told you ..and others...SEVERAL TIMES.. I am still looking for the data. I was searching for Transponder information...my GUESS was...that the several seconds difference between the Seismic activity and the FAA loss from Radar was the time it took for the transponder to become completely destroyed. I was also told flight 11 didnt have theirs on....So... as I get the info.. i wll pass it along to you... in the mean time..like i said in the LAST post to you...I AGREE ... there is some discrepancies with the time...That does not by ANYWAY PROVE explosives.

Thanks

Established time discrepancy between seismic and radar per the government...
Eyewitnesses to explosions...
And you're intellectually dishonest.

So don't bother posting further to me cause I won't waste anymore time with you, Mr. Shill.

Adios!


“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: www.studyof911.com...
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross, Scholars for 9/11 Truth: www.st911.org...

The US Government, incriminated by its own facts, the perfect evidence—how ironic.
Summary:
News Tip: A real 9/11 smoking gun…that no one can debunk (these are facts, not theory).
Airplane “Impact” Times: Incriminating Evidence of 9/11 Coverup & Complicity

The official times for plane "impact" [precise to the second] as declared by the US Government, from both the 9/11 Commission and from NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), are different and yet both are true and accurate times. What can this factual contradiction mean? Looking exclusively at WTC1, there is found an indisputable causal link:

One World Trade, September 11, 2001
American Airlines Flight 11 “impact” time:
8:46:30 UTC, per LDEO seismic data (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005)
8:46:40 UTC, per FAA last primary radar contact (9/11 Commission Final Report, 2004)

Q- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event that occurred 10 seconds before the actual air crash?
A- The only possibility is huge explosions, as corroborated by many eyewitnesses at the time.
Q- Who caused these explosions before the plane hit?

Notes:
In 2004, the 9/11 Commission avoided addressing the earlier seismic time (which had been attributed in error by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, originally in 2001 as plane “impact”).
In 2005, NIST avoided addressing the 9/11 Commission’s later time for the aircraft’s actual impact.
Both the 9/11 Commission and NIST avoided addressing the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the sub-basements before the plane crashed.

One World Trade, September 11, 2001
American Airlines Flight 11 “impact” time:
8:46:30 UTC, per LDEO seismic data (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005)
8:46:40 UTC, per FAA last primary radar contact (9/11 Commission Final Report, 2004)

SO per this report, FAA lost radar contact 10 seconds AFTER the seismic data.... Let me say this again.... and AGAIN... My GUESS is that POSSIBLY it took the ten seconds for the transponder to get to the point that it was destroyed. I looked into seismic data for Flight 93 and there was a 5 second lapse from the time of seismic activity and the time the FAA reported. Why only 5 seconds? Heck i dont know...I can Guess that if the transponder is in the front of the plane, it was reported that the plane took a vertical dive, maybe, MAYBE it was destroyed faster?

EYEWITNESSES.... SAW an explosion??? NO! The janitor "heard an explosion" Show me please where an eyewitness SAW an explosion in the sub basement.

Love,
Mr. Shill

I read the first 6 pages, thens got tired of reading the same arguments berated back and fourth for what is probably a combined total of 10,000 posts, across the board.

cameron

Im a "TROLL?" a "DENIER" ... of what? YOUR hypothisis!

Your a troll because you started a 'Summary Thread'. You can find about 10 summary threads around here debunking CT theory. You can also find 100's of threads discussing or rather berating the CT theory as well. You could have added YOUR summary to any one of those.

This is why you are a troll.

Like Val has said earlier, most of these threads are mental masterbation. Unless everyone who is participating holds a degree in a field that is related to this subject, AND has substantial experience in that field, we are just stroking oursleves.

And I wish SOMEONE could offer an somewhat educated guess on ANOK's question about the leaning tower of trade.

Three buildings came down that day in a manner that has never been seen before. That in itself warrants an unbiased investigation into the collapses. If nothing more than to prevent future total failures of skyscrapers.
Couple of my personal observations: Most of the fuel from the plane that hit tower 2 exploded, burned or was ejected outside of the building. So IMO, tower 2 came down for reasons other than burning jet fuel. The plane also hit the building at majorly different angle. I think i remember seeing some diagrams showing that only 1 central column was damaged from that impact.

My point being, I don't think one answer satisfies the reason for all 3 buildings coming down. There may be some fatal flaw in the design, that does not require the impact of a plane to cause total collapse.

Second observation: Tower 7 started moving from the bottom, well, there was the typical demo looking 'crunch' just off center, before the building came down from the bottom.

Bottom line is I want know why those 3 buldings came down. Planes, fuel, bombs or act of god.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Quick....
EYEWITNESSES.... SAW an explosion??? NO! The janitor "heard an explosion" Show me please where an eyewitness SAW an explosion in the sub basement.

Love,
Mr. Shill

Maybe you can explain the people in the sub basement and first floor being burned and on fire as the firemen arrived when most of the jet fuel was burned up in the intial explosion and what was left would have burned off quickly.



[edit on 26-11-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 26-11-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Bottom line is I want know why those 3 buldings came down. Planes, fuel, bombs or act of god.

I can bet it isn't 3 out of 4 of those.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Like Val has said earlier, most of these threads are mental masterbation. Unless everyone who is participating holds a degree in a field that is related to this subject, AND has substantial experience in that field, we are just stroking oursleves.

And I have to disagree here, there is another profession called Common Sense, ya see when something dont look right, it deems to be asked about. If it dont look right then you need to find out why...

Like you said, there is 1 way those towers came down and we all know it.. It isnt god, planes, or fuel....

So common sense tells us what???????

See.

[edit on 11/26/2006 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by CameronFox
Quick....
EYEWITNESSES.... SAW an explosion??? NO! The janitor "heard an explosion" Show me please where an eyewitness SAW an explosion in the sub basement.

Love,
Mr. Shill

Ultima,

Don't respond to people like that.. it's best to just let them sit by themselves in thier computer room without attention.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1




Maybe you can explain the people in the sub basement and first floor being burned and on fire as the firemen arrived when most of the jet fuel was burned up in the intial explosion and what was left would have burned off quickly.

Sure thing.

All of that happened in the initial explosion. Remember the huge fireballs outside the buildings?

Now imagine what happened when those same fireballs were forced down the many elevator shafts.

It was the initial explosion that did those things.

That many elevator shafts??

What the hell are you talking about??

FireBall Myth

Why do you keep saying that, only 1 of the elevators I think went to whole length of the whole towers, not 5 ot 6 ot 10 of them.

[edit on 11/26/2006 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Sure thing.

All of that happened in the initial explosion. Remember the huge fireballs outside the buildings?

Now imagine what happened when those same fireballs were forced down the many elevator shafts.

It was the initial explosion that did those things.

Well if you are up on the NIST and FEMA reports you would know that the intial explosions were only on the outside, nothing inside.


I would suggest you study up more on the NIST, FEMA and other 911 reports.



[edit on 26-11-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Sure thing.

All of that happened in the initial explosion. Remember the huge fireballs outside the buildings?

Now imagine what happened when those same fireballs were forced down the many elevator shafts.

It was the initial explosion that did those things.

Well if you are up on the NIST and FEMA reports you would know that the intial explosions were only on the outside, nothing inside.


I would suggest you study up more on the NIST, FEMA and other 911 reports.



[edit on 26-11-2006 by ULTIMA1]

The NIST report didnt cover this? I thought i read about it....I could be wrong.

Not all the elevators went to all floors...were all shaft hermetically sealed? Anyone?

My final opinon:


CameronFox is trying to promote disinfo. He is trying to say that a series of raging fires and a gouge in the facade of the building brought it down perfectly within its own footprint, yet buildings like the one in Oklahoma City had the whole front of the building blown off and even more ravaged by fire, yet the remainder stood.
This is my FINAL reply on this matter, unless something jars me back into the topic.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
And I wish SOMEONE could offer an somewhat educated guess on ANOK's question about the leaning tower of trade.

Yes interesting that that question keeps being ignored. I've asked it numerous times with no answer, not even a comment.

Just proves unless it's in the NIST report the official story pedlars are clueless.
If they really know about physics, and what they are claiming, then they would be able to supply at least, like you said, an educated guess.

But nothing, not even a comment.

To me the tilting of the top of the South Tower and it's sudden change of momentum is enough to convince me of some other force acting on the lower structure for it to collapse the way it did. Arguing points that can't be answered is really pointless and irrelevant, but of course that's the tactic of the shill, ignore the facts and keep us bogged down with irrelevant arguments.

CF is most likely a known member from this board using an alias. Probably a notorious shill who lost all credibilty due to extreme shilliness. Either way he is quite good at avoiding questions.

Simultaneous & symetrical failure of a 47 story building structural supports is ONLY possible via CD ... the proof is in the video of WTC 7 falling. Near freefall and symetrical and that is why no major network will ever play the video of its' collapse ............ most U.S. citizens don't even know that WTC 7 collapsed on 9/11.

Any expert towing the official version is in it for gov money or partisan reasons. Just look at Romero the expert who voiced his professional opinion that WTC 1,2&7 were ALL brought down by CD ... then days later he retracts and supports the official version. And suddenly his University gets $ millions in extra grants and Romero personally gets appointed to national committees that netted his a tonne of extra $$.

Here is a link to multiple accounts of underground explosions from people who were actually there.

st12.startlogic.com... ns.htm

And yet another link to first hand accounts of explosions in the basement.

www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com...

CF are you reading all these ???

CF have you mustered up enough courage to investigate why Giuliani received a warning about the future collapses and nobody else did ?

Originally posted by ThichHeaded


Why do you keep saying that, only 1 of the elevators I think went to whole length of the whole towers, not 5 ot 6 ot 10 of them.

Correction.

One went to every floor. Two went from the impact zone to the basement. IIRC 6-8 went from the impact zones to the lobby.

All of them were located in the central core, and some of the shafts could have went from impact zones to the basement areas, regardless of which floors the local elevators went to.

The impacts damaged almost every elevator in the buildings. At least one survivor was burnt by just standing next to the elevator.

So far we have two explanations.

1. The fireball from the explosions went through the shafts.

2. The government, in addition to wiring the whole building for demolition, also planted fire bombs in the basement, and most of the elevator shafts, and timed them to the exact time of impact. They went to all that exra work simply to burn people in elevators and cause panic.

I know which one makes more sense to me. And it's not the one with bombs.

Thich: Did you even read read that article you posted? Most of the information I presented is in there.

[edit on 26-11-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by Boniman
CF is most likely a known member from this board using an alias. Probably a notorious shill who lost all credibilty due to extreme shilliness. Either way he is quite good at avoiding questions.

Simultaneous & symetrical failure of a 47 story building structural supports is ONLY possible via CD ... the proof is in the video of WTC 7 falling. Near freefall and symetrical and that is why no major network will ever play the video of its' collapse ............ most U.S. citizens don't even know that WTC 7 collapsed on 9/11.

Any expert towing the official version is in it for gov money or partisan reasons. Just look at Romero the expert who voiced his professional opinion that WTC 1,2&7 were ALL brought down by CD ... then days later he retracts and supports the official version. And suddenly his University gets $ millions in extra grants and Romero personally gets appointed to national committees that netted his a tonne of extra $$.

Here is a link to multiple accounts of underground explosions from people who were actually there.

st12.startlogic.com... ns.htm

Romero's quotes were on September 11th 2001... the same day of the attack. You are not being honest... there was NOT an "official story" days after the attack. I suggest you re-read then re-write your accusations.

You can think what you want about me being an undercover shill I found this site in my persuit of the TRUTH.

.... I will answer questions to the BEST of my ability...

Your question regarding Guliani and his warning. I listened to it...but i need to know what time this happened. What was the time line.

Where is your source on the "most people don't know WTC7 collapsed".

"Any expert towing the official version is in it for gov money or partisan reasons." That is a VERY strong accusation. I assume you have proof on this? I posted a list of about 20 or so engineers that did reports on the collpase... IF your accusation is correct, please show me some proof that all these engineers somehow got a payoff.

I believe you are spreading some disinformation.

Who is the Troll? Who is the Denier?

Your ENTIRE last post in 100% specualtion, opinion, and quite frankly, Lies.

Originally posted by TheRanchMan
My final opinon:


CameronFox is trying to promote disinfo. He is trying to say that a series of raging fires and a gouge in the facade of the building brought it down perfectly within its own footprint, yet buildings like the one in Oklahoma City had the whole front of the building blown off and even more ravaged by fire, yet the remainder stood.
This is my FINAL reply on this matter, unless something jars me back into the topic.

RanchMan,

I challange you PROVE that any of my quotes are LIES...or that I'm spreading Disinfo.
All of my information is based on NIST, FEMA,media outlets,conspiracy and consiracy debunker websites, or my own opinions. If I do in fact post an opinion, I will tell you "I think". I am not a qualified engineer to tell you 100% what happened. I gather information from SEVERAL sources and give my opinion.

How you can compare the Oklahoma building to ANY of the 3 building that collapsed on 911 is rediculous. Do yourself a favor...look into HOW the oklahomo building was destroyed, how the building was constructed, and WHAT materials were used in the construction of it. THEN compare it to WTC 1 2 and 7

To be honest, I've sickened myself of it. Mainly because I can't really come down on one side or the other - looking at it scientifically that is. However, I choose to look at it from a distance, forgetting all the explanations involving physics, maths, engineering, etc. The fact is.....I think it stinks. For one of the towers to collapse like it did - sure. For both towers to collapse in pretty much the same way (let's not split hairs, they did...) is very suspicious. For WTC7 to then collapse as well....we're into realms where words like "unprecedented" and "ludicrous" spring to mind. The problem is that every piece of evidence can be debunked. So I'm left with my gut feeling. It stinks.

Does that mean I definitely think it was a controlled demolition? Nope. I just think that for those buildings to come down as they did is every bit as far-fetched as the controlled demolition theory. For me, both side of the argument cancel each other out and I'm left with just that gut feeling to go on...

This topic will never get settled.

As others have said, the odds of both towers falling in the exact same manner are damn near mathmatically impossible.

Both had different forms of damage. One tower hit basically in the center of the buildings wall of impact. The other on a outside corner.

One would have received a much larger amount of jet fuel into the building, the other much less, as it was witnessed with the large fireball that was seen outside the building..

Building 7 had no reason to collapse, unless there was some other plane that caused similar damage to the twin towers.(Which were not identical in their impact points), that no one knows about.


Over and Over the same argument arises from the Offical Story Believers, that the C.D. people and any that even have doubts to the Offical Story, are just ignorent or not capable of reading the Offical Story and understanding the science.

There are not coincidences, what happened with the towers and Building 7 had something other than planes to cause them. We can argue about what caused this and who did it, but the Offical Story is definately not the answer.