Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu

Then when it's all said and done, ask yourself why bomb sniffing dogs were removed from WTC complex just days before 9/11

This question was already asked by you on page 14, and it was answered by Dr. Fungi who pointed out that some of the bomb sniffing dogs were killed in the builing.

The truth is that the extra bomb sniffing dogs were removed, but the dogs were still on site.

Why are you bringing this up again? Did you not read the answer the first time?

I'd like to respond to some of the other errors in your post, such as small fires at WTC 7, but if you're just going to ignore it and repost the same misinformation, then there is really no point.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If this indeed is the source for "99% of the concrete was pulverized into 100 microns or less" then the phrase is nothing but an outright misrepresentation of the facts.

And again, there is nothing suspicious or surprising about finding concrete dust in dust at ground zero.

[edit on 28-11-2006 by LeftBehind]

Well whatever the real percentage is all you have to do is look at the pictures. The samples were taken from many different areas. One of the firemen at ground zero states something like 'you look and there is very little concrete, just aluminum and steel, it was like you were on a foriegn planet, not just this site but river to river there was dust powder 2/3 inches thick, the concrete was just pulverised'




It wasn't just concrete either, it contained gypsum board, steel particles, glass, and er.. victims.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Insolubrious]




(Mod edit: Please Trim Those Quotes! -- Majic)

[edit on 12/1/2006 by Majic]

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu

Then when it's all said and done, ask yourself why bomb sniffing dogs were removed from WTC complex just days before 9/11

This question was already asked by you on page 14, and it was answered by Dr. Fungi who pointed out that some of the bomb sniffing dogs were killed in the builing.

The truth is that the extra bomb sniffing dogs were removed, but the dogs were still on site.

Why are you bringing this up again? Did you not read the answer the first time?

I'd like to respond to some of the other errors in your post, such as small fires at WTC 7, but if you're just going to ignore it and repost the same misinformation, then there is really no point.

The whole article is somewhat odd and misleading.

They state 'the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats', so they knew something was going to happen already!

The article also goes on to say "officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center."

But they also say "were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

So why protect from "aerial attacks" if they "didn't figure they would do it with planes"? Did they think it would be a rocket instead perhaps?

Also they say "upgraded the towers", suggesting WTC1 and 2, but it was 22nd floor on WTC7 command center that was upgraded with bulletproof windows.


[edit on 29-11-2006 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by LeftBehindThis question was already asked by you on page 14, and it was answered by Dr. Fungi who pointed out that some of the bomb sniffing dogs were killed in the builing.

WRONG!
What we DO KNOW is that bomb sniffing dogs have been abruptly removed 5 days earlier. and security was loosened.
Now, there were dogs that were killed in the attack (I know of one) but there are no indications whatsoever that those dogs were bomb sniffers.

The truth is that the extra bomb sniffing dogs were removed, but the dogs were still on site.

FALSE, what we do know is that BOMB SNIFFING DOGS were removed abruptly while there might have been injured/killed dogs on the premises but that does not mean they were bomb sniffers.
Some dogs are guard dogs, some are attack/defence dogs but there are no reports of any BOMB SNIFFING dogs still present on the site.

Don't you think it's a lot of different coincidences?
I mean we have the towers falling down extremely fast when never in History has a steel structure collapsed in this way. We have witnesses reporting explosions in the sub levels before the aircraft strike, we have Silverstein buying the WHOLE WTC complex just 6 weeks before the attack and insuring it specificly for terro attacks. And when you consider that the WTC towers were in need of some 2$ billion in mandatory upgrades it's rather weird that Silverstein would buy the complex while ignoring this detail.
Than you have Silverstein saying "pull it" in regards to a building that falls down vertically inside 7 seconds.
Than you have bomb sniffing dogs being removed from the premises just 5 days before the attack .... don't you find all this a bit weird?

Why are you bringing this up again? Did you not read the answer the first time?

Could be that either I was not satisfied with the answer of that the answer was provided by someone I blocked.

I'd like to respond to some of the other errors in your post, such as small fires at WTC 7

Well, not too long ago, a fire burned in a Madrid building, it burned extremely intensely for well over 20 hours and the building didn't crumble. Have a look at that building here:


Were the WTC7 fires comparable to these above?
And bare to mind that this Madrid building stuud up, it didn't crumble in any way shape or form. I can show you a few more examples of fires inside buildings, all of them stronger than WTC7's fires, all of them lasting longer and causing more damage and not ONE yet crumbled to the ground vertically.
I mean come on dude, look at the following clip:
www.911research.com...
Does that really look like fire brought that building down to you?
Of course not, and they only burned for less than 7 hours too. But I don't care how much you think the fires were ragging, you just can't demolish a steel building with fire. And you certainly won't get it to collapse VERTICALLY inside 7 SECONDS into it's own footprint by using fire.

but if you're just going to ignore it and repost the same misinformation, then there is really no point.

Talk away! And if you don't think I reply to your post, U2U me with a link to your reply.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Pepe Lapiu]

Originally posted by doctorfungi

Police K9 Sirius... ...was an Explosive Detection Dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department. Sirius, along with his partner, Police Officer David Lim, were assigned to the World Trade Center in New York, where their primary duty was to check vehicles entering the Complex, clear unattended bags and sweep areas for VIP safety...
On the morning of September 11, 2001, Sirius and Officer Lim were at their Station located in the basement of Tower Two...
www.novareinna.com...

Bomb Sniffing Dog Sirius. Located in WTC2 and was there leading up to 9/11 and died in the attacks. Poor thing.

How about you show me a RELIABLE source that states Sirius was a BOMB SNIFFER?
I don't know that site but it isn't a recognized source for sure.
Surely you can do better than this, I can show you sites that claim Bush and Kerry are aliens (half lizards, half humans) but that doesn't make it true. Find me a reliable source please. To the best of my knowledge, no reliable source has stated that Sirius was a bomb sniffer.
But no matter what, don't you think it is rather strange, with all the speculations of controlled demolition, that bomb sniffing dogs were removed from WTC just five days before?

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Pepe Lapiu]

Originally posted by Pepe LapiuWRONG!
What we DO KNOW is that bomb sniffing dogs have been abruptly removed 5 days earlier. and security was loosened.
Now, there were dogs that were killed in the attack (I know of one) but there are no indications whatsoever that those dogs were bomb sniffers.

The truth is that the extra bomb sniffing dogs were removed, but the dogs were still on site.

FALSE, what we do know is that BOMB SNIFFING DOGS were removed abruptly while there might have been injured/killed dogs on the premises but that does not mean they were bomb sniffers.
Some dogs are guard dogs, some are attack/defence dogs but there are no reports of any BOMB SNIFFING dogs still present on the site..

Pepe ~
With all due respect, and please, I am not trying to attack your personally. Your posts are somewhat redundant. Your posts have been answered on SEVERAL occasions. Your posts are pretty false as well.

www.portauthoritypolicememorial.org...

Why don't you take the time reading this.

Sirius, whose primary duty was checking trucks and unattended bags for bombs at the World Trade Center, died along with 37 members of the Port Authority Police Department when the towers collapsed on the morning of Sept. 11.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Pepe ~
With all due respect, and please, I am not trying to attack your personally. Your posts are somewhat redundant. Your posts have been answered on SEVERAL occasions. Your posts are pretty false as well.
www.portauthoritypolicememorial.org...

No matter what, you can take EVERY single evidence and break them apart, but the fact remains that bomb sniffing dogs were abruptly removed, now your article suggests that there were still some bomb sniffers left in there but still, dogs have been removes, and security had been weakened just before 9/11.
Now I don't know about Sirius, maybe he was contained in an area where there was no bombs, maybe only the areas where there were bombs were stripped of bomb sniffers.

I mean, c'mon dude, look at this picture, what does that look like to you? Does it look like a collapse due to fire to you?



Look at how the penthouse collapses in first, that is a classic controlled demolition implosion where the core of the building is destroyed first, then the outside wall are made to collapse inwards.
Then look at how vertical the decent is, how rapid too, this again is a classic controlled implosion .... the bomb sniffing dogs abruptly removed only go to refute this controlled demolition.



[edit on 29-11-2006 by Pepe Lapiu]

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu

Originally posted by CameronFox
Pepe ~
With all due respect, and please, I am not trying to attack your personally. Your posts are somewhat redundant. Your posts have been answered on SEVERAL occasions. Your posts are pretty false as well.
www.portauthoritypolicememorial.org...

No matter what, you can take EVERY single evidence and break them apart, but the fact remains that bomb sniffing dogs were abruptly removed, now your article suggests that there were still some bomb sniffers left in there but still, dogs have been removes, and security had been weakened just before 9/11.
Now I don't know about Sirius, maybe he was contained in an area where there was no bombs, maybe only the areas where there were bombs were stripped of bomb sniffers.

I mean, c'mon dude, look at this picture, what does that look like to you? Does it look like a collapse due to fire to you?

Pepe ~
I just like to get the FACTS one by one and take it from there. You say they were "ABRUBTLY REMOVED"... where are your facts? What does ABRUBTLY mean? These were the EXTRA dogs and security that were there..... and please tell me.. what do think could have been accomplished in the 5 days prior to 911?

The article by the Port Authority Police says that there was a kennel in the Basement of the WTC. There were bomb sniffing dogs there FULL time. Do a little research.

You are missing the point Pepe, and please don't try to change the subject yet again.

You brought up the rumor that all of the bomb sniffing dogs were removed.

Sirius, a bomb sniffing dog was killed.

www.novareinna.com...

Police K9 Sirius, Badge Number 17...a four-and-a-half-year old, ninety pound, easygoing, yellow Labrador Retriever...was an Explosive Detection Dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department.

So therefore not all of the Explosive Detection Dogs were removed.

Please stop repeating this obviously false statement.

Here is the source for this claim as far as I can tell

www.newsday.com...

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.


"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

Extra securtity was stopped a few days before. Some bomb-sniffing dogs were removed.

However you notice that they still say "We had the ground covered. " because they expected an attack similar to the 1993 attack. As the story of Sirius tells us, there were still dogs present the day of the attack.

Secondly, let's pretend for a second that they did remove all the dogs a few days before.

There is no way that they could possibly wire both towers with explosives in just a few days, so really, not only is your claim false, but even if it were true it has no bearing on anything.


Edit to add:

Is CBS a good enough source for you?

www.cbsnews.com...

But the towers collapsed, and Lim, a Port Authority of New York and New Jersey officer, was trapped in the debris for several hours. No one was able to save the 5-year-old yellow Labrador retriever, a bomb-sniffing dog for the trade center.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Well whatever the real percentage is all you have to do is look at the pictures.

Ok, I agree there was quite a bit of concrete turned to dust. To me it only makes sense with the huge forces involved in any large structure falling down.

The Kingdome was destroyed with bombs set up to cause a proggresive collapse and there was plenty of concrete dust.

I find nothing suspicious about concrete dust.

What we both should find suspicious is that all those sites of so-called truth seekers who are claiming that 99% of the concrete was reduced to dust.

Especially if that's their number one reason to believe in a nuke or CD.

If the first chain in their logic is a deliberate distortion, maybe you should think twice about the rest of what they are saying.

Good Post Left Behind....

I also read on the morning of September 11th, Officer Lim and Sirius were at the Port Authority police station located in the basement of the World Trade Center's north tower. Officer Lim heard the sound of an explosion and thought that a bomb had gone off inside the building. Lim commented to Sirius, "...one must have gotten by us." Of course, that was not the case because the explosion Lim heard was caused not by a surreptitiously placed bomb, but by one of the hijacked planes crashing into the building.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Good Post Left Behind....

I also read on the morning of September 11th, Officer Lim and Sirius were at the Port Authority police station located in the basement of the World Trade Center's north tower. Officer Lim heard the sound of an explosion and thought that a bomb had gone off inside the building. Lim commented to Sirius, "...one must have gotten by us." Of course, that was not the case because the explosion Lim heard was caused not by a surreptitiously placed bomb, but by one of the hijacked planes crashing into the building.

This is interesting. I have heard some here claim that Rodriguez couldn't have heard the explosion of the plane from the basement. Here is proof that a person in the basement levels actually COULD hear the planes crashing. Although, Rodriguez's testimony should have been enough.

On a side note: I agree with Left Behind and others about the bomb sniffing dogs. It doesn't make a difference either way IMO.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
What we both should find suspicious is that all those sites of so-called truth seekers who are claiming that 99% of the concrete was reduced to dust.

Especially if that's their number one reason to believe in a nuke or CD.

If the first chain in their logic is a deliberate distortion, maybe you should think twice about the rest of what they are saying.

I suggest you watch the documentary in my sig, they talk about a lot more evidence than just the "concrete dust", the dust, the explosions heard BEFORE the collapses, the "pull it" comment, the WTC7 falling into itself, and the list goes on and on my friend.
Even Dan Rather (bless his soul) commented that they looked a lot like controlled demolition.

Then you have the terrorists: none of the terrorist remains were identified, not at the WTC and not at the Pentagon either while all but one passenger of flight 77 were identified, not a single terrorist was. It should not come as a surprise since 9 of those terrorists turned up alive after the fact. Some have even identified their own pictures and claimed they had nothing to do with it. Even the FBI has been forced to admit the exact identity of the terrorists were questionable .... but the 9/11 'omission' report didn't even budge, they kept the same names as the official names of the alleged terrorists. Doesn't that sound ridiculous to you?

Ok, I have watched most of 9-11 mysteries, . My comments about it are already available on the thread about it, Here.

The terrorists subject has been covered numerous times and isn't really appropriate for a thread talking about the whether or not bombs were used.

However, quite a few pages ago, the issue of explosions before the collapse was brought up.

That is certainly relevant to this thread. What is the evidence for explosions before the collapse?

So far we have Rodgriguez, who was told by some mystery person, what the timeline was for the explosions.

If thats all there is for evidence, then the idea that bombs went off before the impact is not very solid.

OK, let's drop the freakin' bomb sniffer dogs thing. It's not that important anyway. And it isn't a strong evidence either. It just goes to reinforce the mountain of evidence that points to controlled demolition.
Fur cryin' out loud guys, look at this picture:

Just how on hearth cam you explain fires did this?

Pepe ~ and others....Im not sure if you have read the entire Interview with Mr. Silverstein, and the circumstances around that day.

First of all. He was NOT at ground zero. He was with his wife. Here is the portion of the conversation that has rasied so many eyebrows:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, uh, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

Ok. the call was from Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro. He was in charge of the WTC after Chief of Department Peter Ganci was killed in the collpase of the north tower. He was HOME WITH HIS WIFE when the Chief called him as a courtesy.

He told Silverstein that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire.

Silversteins response was 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'

What was Silverstein saying there??... um " we had a terrible loss of life, we are better off just blowing up the building"
OR... was Silverstien saying....Since so many people died here today, it would probably be best if we get the firefighters safe to prevent any more deaths.

One more thing... Silverstein said " And THEY made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

WE watched... was HIM AND HIS WIFE.

THEY made the decision. NOWHERE in that interview did Silverstein make ANY orders to the FDNY. He did NOT have the FDNY at his back and call. He has NO say in that what so ever.

So we need to ask....does the fire department carry explosives or order the demolition of a building? Not that I know of.

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Well whatever the real percentage is all you have to do is look at the pictures.

Ok, I agree there was quite a bit of concrete turned to dust. To me it only makes sense with the huge forces involved in any large structure falling down.

The Kingdome was destroyed with bombs set up to cause a proggresive collapse and there was plenty of concrete dust.

I find nothing suspicious about concrete dust.

What we both should find suspicious is that all those sites of so-called truth seekers who are claiming that 99% of the concrete was reduced to dust.

Especially if that's their number one reason to believe in a nuke or CD.

If the first chain in their logic is a deliberate distortion, maybe you should think twice about the rest of what they are saying.

yes I hear where your coming from and I will try to remain skeptical but I do find it shocking. I don't think the Kindome dust samples would of been the same microscopic scale or in the same (relative) quantity. It would be interesting to make a some type of comparison. There were many large sections of concrete that remained after its demolition. At the WTC its extremely scarce. The pulverisation surprised many experts.


Picture of Kingdome Implosion

The building wasn't pulverized. It was merely cut into nice size pieces to load onto trucks. Look at how tiny the people are relative to the rubble pile.

WTC rubble was scooped up

Also remember the WTC dust wasn't all just concrete dust, there were 'an alphabet soup' as one expert put it, of metals and other materials too. This included metals from computer chips. Just imagine trying to decimate a computer chip (inside its case) into micron particles, let alone a few thousand of them through typical demo charges.

Experts report other contents in this dust including "microscopic traces of nearly every element - chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, barium, titanium, and lead."

Where did all the filing cabinets go?


[edit on 29-11-2006 by Insolubrious]

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Insolubrious]

Dude, you know how when a criminal gets arrested, his lawer advises him to shut up no matter what?
There is a reason for that. You see, in a criminal investigation the hard evidence is important but an other important aspect is the interrogation of the victims/witnesses/suspects. You see, criminals almost always end up saying something that doesn't make any sense. They try to lie to cover up their crimes but they end up confused between what they think they should say, what they think they should hide, what they think they shouldn't talk about and all that.
So cops get them to repeat their answers over and over in details and eventually, someone says something that just doesn't jive with the facts, with the rest of the crime scene. This is what happened with Silverstein, that comment about the building being "pulled' was a mistake on his behalf.

But you see, it doesn't matter how you look at it. If you want to say that the firefighters decided to 'pull out' because they didn't want to get more firefighters killed, that just doesn't make any sense because NEVER before in History has a steel building collapsed due to fire. When a steel building is burning, firefighters don't just give up by fear of getting crushed. Now, after seeing the first tower collapse, they might have been scared of the second one collapsing since they both got struck by a Boeing but not the WTC7. So how on hearth would they think that building would collapse? Just show me a picture that reveals fires so intense, that they would be lead to think the building would collapse.
Truth is, you just can't point me to a single picture that shows any significant fires inside WTC7. Those fires were a joke dude. But even if you could provide me with a picture of HUGE fires ragging at WTC7, that would not matter because fires don't eat up whole steel buildings.

Just look at this picture dude:

What does that look like to you?
From this side, you can't even see any fires going on in there. So if there was any fires, they would be lower or on the other side along with the falling debris damage.
So if there is only one side that gets damaged, the building should topple over, not downwards onto itself at free fall speeds.
And look at how the whole building bows inwards as it falls down.
Fur cryin' out loud dude, that building looks as if it was sinking into the ground!
And again, look at the penthouse and how that collapses first, just like a perfectly well executed controlled implosion!:


Dick, have you seen the documentary in my sig

Originally posted by aob982

Originally posted by crowpruitt

Originally posted by Muaddib
I see, so there were explosive devices used that were strong enough to destroy the steel columns of the WTC, but they were not powerful enough to be heard by more than a handful people that were really close to the building?.... interesting...

[edit on 28-11-2006 by Muaddib]

firemen,police,and reporters all said they heard and felt explosions AFTER the planes hit and BEFORE the towers fell.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by crowpruitt]

I'll second that.

Yeah well, let me ask you again... What do you think happened to the gas pipes in the building and the gas tanks such as the one in WTC7 which would run an emergency generator in case of a powerout?... And that's not considering all the other sources of flammable materials that could very easily explode, such as janitor closets which are full of chemicals, ect, ect.

I guess you all think those just dissapeared without a trace and without making any explosions.....

Explosions does not equal explosives... but few people in here seem to understand that...

The Twin towers as well as wtc7 all had emergency power generators and they were run by fuel which were stored inside the buildings.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib


Yeah well, let me ask you again... What do you think happened to the gas pipes in the building and the gas tanks such as the one in WTC7 which would run an emergency generator in case of a powerout... And that's not considering all the other sources of flammable materials that could very easily explode, such as janitor closets which are full of chemicals and such.

I guess you all think those just dissapeared without a trace and without making any explosions.....

Explosions does not equal explosives...

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Muaddib]

Dude, that's ridiculous! WTC buildings were class 3 buildings so that would not allow any gas tanks in there and I have yet to see gas lines running up inside buildings, that would violate numerous building codes and safety codes. The generators in WTC7 used diesel fuel, not gas.

But all this isn't that important because those explosions where often heard places far away fom the crash, places like 33rd floor, lobby and sub-basements. Some where heard BEFORE the plane struck!

Anyway NONE of this matters. The smoking gun, the one thing you guys can't explain, the one thing that NIST can't explain, the one thing that FEMA can't explain is how this building collapsed due to fire:

There is a very specific reason why the media doesn't show us the WTC7 collapse, why the NIST and FEMA don't explain it either. Ask yourself what that reason is!