Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

BSBRAY-

Original seismic and Commission times.
Table 1
AA Flt 11
2001 LDEO 8:46:26 Original seismic
2004 Commission 8:46:40 (14 seconds difference)
UA Flt 175
2001 LDEO 9:02:54 Original seismic
2004 Commission 9:03:11 (17 seconds difference)

This was from the site you gave me. the 14 second difference is from the 911 commisssion to the LDEO seismic data. The point i was suggesting was that since the FAA time of impact is LATER than that of the Seismic registration...could it be POSSIBLE that the transponder took a while to be destroyed.

Just a thought...and i will continue to look into this as it is an interesting point.

I don't believe there was a controlled demolition. I don't personally have anything positive I can say toward the theory, therefore I try to avoid it. Everyone has a right to have an opinion, but those of us who feel there isn't much evidence to support that opinion also have a right to speak such. I really don't see what they're talking about. Serious. I've watched every video. I've watched every "mockumentary" (or whatever the heck you want to call them) and I just don't see what they're talking about.

Now, I do suspect that explosives (not shaped charges) may have been planted in lower levels of the towers by the terrorist cell because of eye-witness accounts that point to yet to be explained explosions in those areas. So I'm open to the idea more than just planes may have been involved in the collapses, but I can't find anything that makes me think demolition charges were used.

I'm personally just continuing to read and collect information.

Originally posted by CameronFox
BSBRAY -

I looked at the link you attached. Thank you. Yes, if his data is correct (and i have no reason to think otherwise) Then there in deed was a 14 second difference in the time the FAA lost the flights on radar and the Seismic data. I believe this may have been the time it took for the destruction of the transponder. I dont claim to be a scientist..or work for Boeing..etc...

the person on this "paper" claimed that a plane traveling at 500 MPH slamming into a sky scraper would not offer any seismic activity. So the only seismic activity was from an alleged "BOMB" in the basement of the twin towers. The impact of the planes did NOT register any seismic activity?

If you can explain this, you will be the first one in the world to do so. You need to refute the government's data. It's as simple as that.

Otherwise, the data confirms this causal link of (A) and (B):

(A) The time discrepancy corroborates the eyewitnesses to the explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 before the plane struck the building, and...

(B) The eyewitnesses corroborate the time discrepancy between the seismic event and the later aircraft crash.

-------
-------
-------

“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: www.scholarsfor911truth.org...
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 at 8:46:40?
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.

Summary:
This precision data has yet to be refuted. It is from the two highest governmental entities charged with looking into what happened on 9/11. Both declared these times as accurate, and in doing so corroborate William Rodriguez and the many eyewitnesses the morning of 9/11 who testified of explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 before American Airlines Flight 11 struck the building. This is indicting evidence of governmental coverup, and thus implication of complicity.

Before it is too late, demand a new, truly independent, criminal investigation of 9/11, this time a real one.
Justice waits...[and there is no statute of time limitation on murder]

Cameron any molten steel picked up by an excavator would NOT have thermal dynamic transfer of heat anywhere close to the hydraulic lines. Not to mention the molten steel would be cooling rapidly when exposed to open air .... thus the reason steam is formed in many pics showing the glowing steel.


Are you going to explain who told Guiliani the WTC was going to collapse BEFORE it collapsed ??? Stop avoiding the question, since it IS vital to the debate.

Also when anyone states that the fires were at 1200 F ... you must consider that does NOT indicate the steel was at that temp since the steel conducts the heat and the structure acts as a heat sink and disipates the heat and spreads it out through its' beams and members. So to claim the buildings steel lost 50% of its' strength is agin false and misleading.

Deal with the facts that Guiliani & Silverstein both had foreknowledge of the collapses that day. Couple that with the put options, the Odigo warning instant messages and the dancing Mossad agents filming 'the event' .......... CD theory becomes even more compelling and probable.

Originally posted by CameronFox
BSBRAY-

Original seismic and Commission times.
Table 1
AA Flt 11
2001 LDEO 8:46:26 Original seismic
2004 Commission 8:46:40 (14 seconds difference)
UA Flt 175
2001 LDEO 9:02:54 Original seismic
2004 Commission 9:03:11 (17 seconds difference)

This was from the site you gave me. the 14 second difference is from the 911 commisssion to the LDEO seismic data. The point i was suggesting was that since the FAA time of impact is LATER than that of the Seismic registration...could it be POSSIBLE that the transponder took a while to be destroyed.

Just a thought...and i will continue to look into this as it is an interesting point.

AA Flt 11's transponder was turned off.

The time of impact is from the last primary radar turn.

Originally posted by Valhall
I don't believe there was a controlled demolition. I don't personally have anything positive I can say toward the theory, therefore I try to avoid it. Everyone has a right to have an opinion, but those of us who feel there isn't much evidence to support that opinion also have a right to speak such. I really don't see what they're talking about. Serious. I've watched every video. I've watched every "mockumentary" (or whatever the heck you want to call them) and I just don't see what they're talking about.

Now, I do suspect that explosives (not shaped charges) may have been planted in lower levels of the towers by the terrorist cell because of eye-witness accounts that point to yet to be explained explosions in those areas. So I'm open to the idea more than just planes may have been involved in the collapses, but I can't find anything that makes me think demolition charges were used.

I'm personally just continuing to read and collect information.

If you don't believe this was a controlled demolition, how do you explain the explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 before the plane struck the building?

Originally posted by ANOK
How about explaining this to me...



That's the South Tower. How did the top loose it's momentum and suddenly cause the lower undamaged structure to fall vertically onto itself ejecting outer core columns 600 ft while turning concrete, office furniture, people etc... into a fine dust that covered lower Manhattan?

I've asked you all this question many times. None of you have even tried to answer it.

What that tower did was physically impossible without help from some other force causing the columns in the lower undamaged part of the building to fail equally.

What should have happened is the top should have continued to topple off taking part of the lower structure on the pivot side with it. A chaotic, non-symmetrical collapse, just like every building in history that has been damaged or bombed (non-demo).

Sry for quoting myself but once again this very important question is being ignored.
Until you can satisfactorily answer this then all other points are not even worth discussing imo. Nobody gonna tackle this one?

Originally posted by quicknthedead


If you don't believe this was a controlled demolition, how do you explain the explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 before the plane struck the building?

See, this is the type of errant logic-jumping that bothers me about those that push the controlled demolition.

Please follow the logic ball...

Evidence of explosions in the basement point to => possible explosions in the basement.

That's it...nothing more. There COULD have been explosions in the basement, but that's about 14 more logic connections away from "it was a controlled demolition".

It's just like this...

WHEN IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND HAS A STEEL BUILDING COLLAPSED???

That little factoid has about 42 logic connections it needs to complete to be a pointer to a controlled demolition. Yeah, it points to "something more than fire may of happened", but that does not make a controlled demolition.

[edit on 11-24-2006 by Valhall]

"Controlled demolition" is a term that consists of two words. Nothing else.


I use the term "controlled demolition" even though the collapses in no way resemble any other demolitions I've ever seen, just because I also think additional devices were used to bring them fully to the ground. "Implosion" is wrong because the buildings were exploded outwards by and large, but that's just a word too. So what?


If there were explosives in the building, then there were explosives, and I can't believe that it's simply stupidity or incompetence that people aren't figuring this out and telling us about it, especially when so much information and evidence is either already destroyed or else is still under lock-and-key by the very agencies that fed us garbage to begin with. And the problems don't exactly end with the WTC as far as 9/11 is concerned, either.

BSBRAY....


Ok, whats the logic? Was it thermite? nanothermite? TNT? Your claiming explosions. Where is the evidence? How How How do so many people get access to so many areas to plant these charges????

Cameron,

There is evidence of possible explosions in the lower levels. That's one point, so if you'll extract it from your other argument of "controlled demolition" and try to address it as a separate data point in the affair, maybe you'll fair better in speaking with people you view "on the other side" of this topic.

"Where's the logic" is exactly right. I don't have to tell you exactly what explosives were used and where they were all located for those towers to have been blown. I wasn't there. I wasn't "in on it". But you don't need to know information that specific to get a clue that they wouldn't have fallen as they did without some additional energy.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.

Example: "Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?"

25 Tactics for Truth Suppression


The main reasons I think they were blown have always revolved around their refusals to slow down despite so much energy being expended for every inch of destroyed structure, and so much mass being lost over the sides simultaneously, and the total lack of any sign that the fires could have caused it. Pretty much a negation of anything else.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by quicknthedead


If you don't believe this was a controlled demolition, how do you explain the explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 before the plane struck the building?

See, this is the type of errant logic-jumping that bothers me about those that push the controlled demolition.

Please follow the logic ball...

Evidence of explosions in the basement point to => possible explosions in the basement.

That's it...nothing more. There COULD have been explosions in the basement, but that's about 14 more logic connections away from "it was a controlled demolition".

It's just like this...

WHEN IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND HAS A STEEL BUILDING COLLAPSED???

That little factoid has about 42 logic connections it needs to complete to be a pointer to a controlled demolition. Yeah, it points to "something more than fire may of happened", but that does not make a controlled demolition.

[edit on 11-24-2006 by Valhall]

Errant logic? Hardly.

How do you account for explosions going off 10 seconds before the beginning of the biggest crime in American history?

Well?



(Per Occam's Razor, the answer of explosions denotes conspiracy, and yes, this would mean controlled demolition).

If you want to consider errant logic, you might try looking at your own.
Either that or explain the question above.

Cameron are you going to comment on the Guiliani & Silverstein clips ?????????

Or are you just going to be a good shill today ?

Originally posted by CameronFox
BSBRAY....


Ok, whats the logic? Was it thermite? nanothermite? TNT? Your claiming explosions. Where is the evidence? How How How do so many people get access to so many areas to plant these charges????

Your questions point out the absolute fact that WE MUST HAVE a new, truly independent, criminal investigation of 9/11, this time a real one.

Asking questions, when it seems they are only a "dodge" to determing what really happened, is to discount the the truth that is now coming to light. Justice has yet to be served regarding 9/11.

No matter what any of us think (our opinions), all ideas must stand before a real investigation, and now is the time for it.

Anyone disagree?

Boniman -


the Silverstein video? Are you refering to the PBS interview where he said "PULL IT?" Dude, this is SO OLD. You need to read MORE than just that one sentance. The term PULL IT does not refer to a controlled demolition. HE was refering to pulling the firefighters out of the building (WTC7) The term PULL IT is a term that is used when using cables to remove supports . As far as the gullianai video... i will have to watch that one.

This shill has to put his 3 year old to bed..so give me some time.

Originally posted by quicknthedead


(Per Occam's Razor, the answer of explosions denotes conspiracy, and yes, this would mean controlled demolition).

No it wouldn't. Seriously, get a grip. Evidence of explosions going off before the collapse is evidence of explosions going off before the collapse. Not of controlled demolition. This is what makes a laughing stock of all who try to delve into this issue - wanton mental copulation.

Your ilk will be mentally masturbating over this a decade from now. Some of us others may actually get some where....don't worry - facts don't seem to detour you guys so you're well on your way to your hairy-palmed nirvana.

^ BS. 'pull it' is a know demolition term. Maybe you need to read more.

Put his comment into context, it has nothing to do with evacuating firefighters.
And why would he have anything to do with 'cables to remove supports'? That makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by ANOK
^ BS. 'pull it' is a know demolition term. Maybe you need to read more.

Put his comment into context, it has nothing to do with evacuating firefighters.
And why would he have anything to do with 'cables to remove supports'? That makes no sense at all.

Actually, if you take it context, it completely means something other than blowing the building. He said - there had all ready been such an enormous loss of life that day that he decided to tell them to pull it. That sounds like getting people out of harm's way, not blowing a building.

Hey Val...

Don't know if you've seen this or not, but if you go here, and scroll down to post 73 this guy has a rough draft blue print of the Towers...

www.wirednewyork.com...

Don't know if it will help in your quest...

Sorry about jumping in...carry on...