Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
OK. let's drop the stupid muts and the lying zionist Jew right now, okay? .... OKAY?

Pepe, since I enjoy the conversations with everyone, I dont ignore many people. Your last post is starting to show your true colors. I will be surprosed if you DONT get banned for the anti semetic statement you just made.

That was not anti-semitic at all. I have a great many Jewish fiends and they too, together with me, share a deep hate of zionists. Zionism is not a skin color or a genetic characteristic. It is a political agenda. In fact, you don't even have to be Jewish to be a Zionist. Bush is a freakin' zionist and you don't have to be a gentile to hate zionists either:

Originally posted by CameronFox
You have just proved to most people in here what type of a person you are.

Sorry

What did I show myself to really be?
An anti-zionist?
Darn straight I am!
The zionists would just love to make us all believe that hating zionists equals hating Jews .... are you really that gullible?



(Mod note: Warning issued. Please Stay On Topic. -- Majic)


[edit on 12/1/2006 by Majic]

You saw the pictures....Im not reposting them on here. As far as ME explaining what happened, I can only post what I have learned from all the information I have gathered. Basically:
WTC7 sustained damage from debris falling into the building, the structural stability of the building was in question.
WTC7 had large fires burning on at LEAST six floors. Any one of these six fires were considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations. There was no water available at the beginning. There was also no hoses, standpipekits, and ZERO walki talkies to communicate an operation to other fire fighters. There was basically no fire fighting operation in place.

So, for hours upon hours there were several fires burning out of control. This alone with the massive damage to support columns done by debris of the collapsing towers casued the building to fail. By the time the building did collpase almost the entire south side was reported to be on fireI understand that the NIST at one time haulted their investigation to further investigate the WTC 1 &2 collapses. NIST will have, from my understanding a more complete report in December of this year. Maybe more questions will be answered.


PS ... I was refereing to the "LYING JEW" comment. Seemed a little harsh to me. OH.. and can you PROVE he lied? or present some evidence that he did?

[edit on 29-11-2006 by CameronFox]

www.jewsagainstzionism.com...
www.iamthewitness.com...

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
Listen to it again, it is between the 28th minute and the 32nd minute of the link is in my sig. He heard explosions BEFORE the first strike.

So the person that was presenting Rodriguez lied or Rodriguez lied, because in the presentation the man clearly says Rodriguez heard explosions before the collapse of the towers after the plane had hit.....

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
How do you explain diesel containers exploding 30-40 floors below the stricken area and in the sub-basements?

I guess burning fuel couldn't have gotten to the basement....that is out of the question huh?....

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
Care to give us the link to that video?

I gave the link in my last post.....

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
But the idea that the building came straight down is not what "I would have you believe", it's what the videos reveal.
Look for yourself:

I have....dozens of times and more so before you came to these forums.

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

I can't see anything there, that is a jpeg picture file.

All you had to do is look at the url, and you would find exactly where the video is.

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
However, I have learned at lot about controlled demolition since 9/11. It turns out that before the charges are detonated, many structural members are cut/weakened/torn down. In a steel building, welders cut off a great many beams and columns to insure that, later on, when the collapse occur, it all goes smooth. Of course, they could not walk around the buildings and start trimming off beams while people are working so they did it a little before the real collapse with pre-explosives. This would explain the basement detonations and the numerous detonations all throughout the different floors which haven't been affected by the crash.

It does not...you just want to believe what you want to believe....everything that I mentioned and more could cause explosions, such as the wiring in the building. Burnign fuel still flows downstairs, unless some of you want to claim that by some miracle the burning fuel defied gravity.

Demolitions don't do that thank you very much....

I beg to differ, look at the movie in my sig. Look at around 19:40 into the movie where they show typical controlled demolition. The first clip shows the top parts collapsing in before the rest of the building fall down.
The top of the building gets demolished first because in a controlled implosion, the core of the building is detonated first, then comes the outside walls which go down and fold inwards onto the pile of rubbles as seen in this picture with the walls laying on top of the pile:

Well as i said it was a "partial collapse"....which is what happens when buildings are on fire....the whole top did not collapse first, parts of it did, then it collapsed.

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
...........
Were the WTC7 fires comparable to these above?
................

HELLOOOOOOOO, the twin towers were hit by passenger aircraft, the fire weakened even more the structures they collapsed, large amounts of debris fell and opened holes in WTC 7 together with sending burning fuel, which already had fires inside from the initial crashes of the planes......

Two different situations buddy.....

This is the same as some people showing the crash of just one plane and claiming that the one which hit the Pentagon should have done the same... No plane crashes are the same....the same happens with buildings on fire, and the situation of the WTC was completly different than what happened to the Madrid building....

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Muaddib]

Insolubrious....are you are out your mind trying to claim, again...., that the WTC was hit by a nuke by showing pictures of what happened to Chernobyl?....

Are people still claiming there was a nuke?.... If there were any temperatures close to what happened in the nuclear plant in Chernobyl, there wouldn't have been any survivors found alive among the debris........ Not to mention the radiation a nuke and even an H-bomb would have left....

this is getting more and more ridiculous...

BTW....fires are not selective, but try to pour some gasoline on the hood of your car and set it on fire and see what happens....

i do't know whether to laugh, cry, or try to beat in teh head some people in here with an encyclopedia and see if some sense gets in the head of some people here.....


[edit on 29-11-2006 by Muaddib]

Here is the link to the collapse of WTC, which is rarely shown by the proponents of the CD theory, the video presented by one of the proponents of the CD theory in here gave a video that is way too black to see...

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by CameronFox
You saw the pictures....Im not reposting them on here.

But of course you can't repost them here because there are no pictures that show a 'lean', those pictures don't exist because, as you can see from my many submited video files, the building came down perfectly vertically .... just like a controlled demolition.
And it came down with astounding free fall speeds inside 7 seconds .... just like a controlled demolition.

As far as ME explaining what happened, I can only post what I have learned from all the information I have gathered. Basically:
WTC7 sustained damage from debris falling into the building, the structural stability of the building was in question.

On which side of the building did that damage occur?
Was any damage done to the North side?

WTC7 had large fires burning on at LEAST six floors. Any one of these six fires were considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations. There was no water available at the beginning. There was also no hoses, standpipekits, and ZERO walki talkies to communicate an operation to other fire fighters. There was basically no fire fighting operation in place.

And on which side of the building did those fires occur?
Was there any fires on the North side that would cause the North side to crumble?

So, for hours upon hours there were several fires burning out of control. This alone with the massive damage to support columns done by debris of the collapsing towers casued the building to fail. By the time the building did collpase almost the entire south side was reported to be on fire

Of course, I am not going to dispute that there were large fires ON THE SOUTH SIDE and that there were some damage caused by the debris ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
But how does damage all concentrated to the South side, no matter how severe, can cause the ENTIRE building, including the North side to collapse completely flat down. I mean I have 3 movies here, 3 documentaries on controlled demolition and on NOT ONE FOOTAGE can I find a building that came down so vertically, so perfectly straight as the WTC7

I understand that the NIST at one time haulted their investigation to further investigate the WTC 1 &2 collapses. NIST will have, from my understanding a more complete report in December of this year. Maybe more questions will be answered.

Well, considering the obvious distortions and lies they created to explain the towers collapse, I just can't wait to see how they are going to explain WTC7.
Fact is, that steel and that debris was hauled away and sold to foreign countries in a rush. So I don't know on what they are going to base their 'investigations' other than wishful thinking.
I also can't wait to see how they are going to explain the way those fires melted the steel which was found as late as 6 weeks later, still molten and red hot.
Diesel fuel doesn't do that and neither does kerosene either.
Don't believe me?
Buy yourself a wheel barrel, pour in 10 gallons of fuel and light it up, then drop in a steel door hinge and a piece of aluminum pop can to find out if any of it is ever going to melt. Better yet and easier yet: put a door hinge on your gas stove. As you know, the blue flame of your gas stove is a lot hotter than the red flame of ambient un-controlled red flamed fires. See if you can melt that door hinge on your stove, leave it over night if you must.

PS ... I was refereing to the "LYING JEW" comment. Seemed a little harsh to me.

He is a Jew, he is a liar and he is a filthy zionist, nothing harsh there, just the truth.

OH.. and can you PROVE he lied? or present some evidence that he did?

That will come later, when your precious NIST comes out with it's much anticipated WTC7 report.

But if I were you, i would start trusting your own senses and your own eyes instead of relying so much on the establishment's point of view.

Here is the top of the WTC7 as it collapsed:

Nobody here is ignoring the collapse of the left penthouse.
You can see the right penthouse virtually disappear into the building, just like the left penthouse did moments earlier. This again is a standard controlled IMPLOSION where the core is detonated first and the building is dropped straight down at virtual free fall speeds.
Shape charges were used as well as other explosives strong enough to melt steel which will be found 6 weeks later still molten and red hot.

Originally posted by MuaddibSo the person that was presenting Rodriguez lied or Rodriguez lied, because in the presentation the man clearly says Rodriguez heard explosions before the collapse of the towers after the plane had hit.....

You obviously aren't paying attention because the video narrator in my sig is a woman, it is very clear that she is a woman too. I personally know her. Furthermore, she and Rodriguez both clearly state that explosions in the sub-basements were heard before any upstairs explosions were heard.
Just because you refuse to believe them does not make them liars.

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
How do you explain diesel containers exploding 30-40 floors below the stricken area and in the sub-basements?

I guess burning fuel couldn't have gotten to the basement....that is out of the question huh?....

Here's a little experiment you can try at home: start a bond fire and throw in a canister full of fuel (airplane fuel or any other fuel of your choice) and wait and see. That fuel might eventually burn into a giant fireball but it will not 'explode'. If fuel could be used as explosive, they would use it in CD jobs because it's a whole lot cheaper than C4 and TNT. But unfortunately, when fuel burns, it needs oxygen from it's surroundings, unlike TNT and C4 as well as other explosives which use up their own oxygen and that is how an explosion is created. Fuel might burn abruptly but it won't explode with a force sufficient to destroy walls and ceilings.

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu
Care to give us the link to that video?

I gave the link in my last post.....

Here is your last post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There are no video files in that post, only one link to a single JPEG file.

Fuel might burn abruptly but it won't explode with a force sufficient to destroy walls and ceilings.

Never seen a fuel-air explosive device in use before have we?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Fuel might burn abruptly but it won't explode with a force sufficient to destroy walls and ceilings.

Never seen a fuel-air explosive device in use before have we?

Nope! How about you show me?
Will it made concrete floors move? Will it slam people's faces into walls?
Show me dude, I am interested!

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

The photos posted by Pepe on page 19 speak louder than words.The absolute destruction in those photos could have NOT been caused from a "collapse due to fire".Even the photos of the fire truck melted,I mean come on,how would weakened steel trusses cause that?

Originally posted by Muaddib
Insolubrious....are you are out your mind trying to claim, again...., that the WTC was hit by a nuke by showing pictures of what happened to Chernobyl?....

Are people still claiming there was a nuke?.... If there were any temperatures close to what happened in the nuclear plant in Chernobyl, there wouldn't have been any survivors found alive among the debris........ Not to mention the radiation a nuke and even an H-bomb would have left....

this is getting more and more ridiculous...

BTW....fires are not selective, but try to pour some gasoline on the hood of your car and set it on fire and see what happens....

i do't know whether to laugh, cry, or try to beat in teh head some people in here with an encyclopedia and see if some sense gets in the head of some people here.....


[edit on 29-11-2006 by Muaddib]

Many of you folks can only seem to bring the same short points over and over and it does not even appear that you have taken a serious and open minded look into this. It also seems like your assumptions (not research) yourself and others make about the capabilities of these nuclear devices are based on 40 year old technologies and information! Perhaps try doing some research into 3rd and 4th generation nuclear devices and their directable capabilities first. Still its pretty hard since its likely to be top secret, hence me bringing it to this forum.

I suppose this attitude is to be expected really and I don't hold anything against you for it, I would just like some more people giving this some serious thought. The main comparison I was making with Chernobyl was the characteristics of the hole in the building and the graphite fires at the core of the reactor which were over 5000 degrees and creating molten steel. I was not trying to comparing radiation levels!

I just want the truth like anyone else and I fail to see how the fires and damage produced the anomalous results we see at ground zero.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by Insolubrious]

I just want the truth like anyone else and I fail to see how the fires and damage produced the anomalous results we see at ground zero.

I agree. For example, if WTC was weakend by falling debris/fire, I would expect it to be demolished in the same way as one did in those days with a wrecking ball. I would expect the building to fall apart in bits and pieces - same as with WTC 1&2, break off and fall over. Buildings do not collapse by themselves, in their own footprints - period!

And if you try to force the pan-cake theory, then where are the core columns??


I fail to understand why some people cannot recognize a controlled demolition - even when the professionals (even though they are not very vocal on this matter) they still acknowledge it. Example.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by aob982]

Originally posted by Muaddib
No plane crashes are the same....the same happens with buildings on fire, and the situation of the WTC was completly different than what happened to the Madrid building....

So maddib. If no 2 buildings can act the same, how do 2 buildings with different damage and different fires fall in the exact same manner? Or do your rules get bent a little when talking about the towers?

I thought kerosene could not melt Steel beams; yet, I thought I saw molten steel coming from one of the Buildings.

I thought I saw the architect of the twin towers affirm to the camera that the buildings were designed to survive impact of flying commercial airliners.

I thought I saw the Gentleman Silverstein tell PBS that he gave the order to pull building 7.

I thought I have seen dozens of Retired military officers , CIA Analysts , Physics Analysts and (ex)911 commission panel members all affirm reasonable doubt regarding the "official" Hypothesis.

No. I Know I did.

I think 911 was an inside job.

Nope! How about you show me?

FAE devices are pretty much one step short of a nuclear weapon when it comes to explosive power. Yes, it will destroy walls.

I thought I saw the architect of the twin towers affirm to the camera that the buildings were designed to survive impact of flying commercial airliners.

And this means what? Absolutely nothing. White Star Lines boasted the Titanic was unsinkable.

I thought kerosene could not melt Steel beams; yet, I thought I saw molten steel coming from one of the Buildings.

Molten aluminum maybe, melted plastics maybe.....

I thought I saw the Gentleman Silverstein tell PBS that he gave the order to pull building 7.

You should watch the show again. He wasnt giving an order, he was agreeing to the plan to pull firefighting teams away from WTC 7.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
FAE devices are pretty much one step short of a nuclear weapon when it comes to explosive power. Yes, it will destroy walls.

Yet the impact fireballs left the vast majority of the structures intact, and didn't even remove the aluminum panels from the outer columns. Interesting.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
FAE devices are pretty much one step short of a nuclear weapon when it comes to explosive power. Yes, it will destroy walls.

So you want me to just take your word on it?
Fuel mixed with ambient air can burn up rapidly into a fireball but it can't "explode" violently enough to shake concrete floors and slam walls into people's faces.
I can't prove a negative but if you can give me one single example of explosive fuel, I'll retract but I know you can't do that .... onless you give me some Hollywood footage of some car diving off a cliff and exploding on impact. In LA-LA land every darn car chase ends with a violent explosion but real like isn't like that with fuel.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yet the impact fireballs left the vast majority of the structures intact, and didn't even remove the aluminum panels from the outer columns. Interesting.

Good point there dude, if fuel can explode with forces almost close to nuclear power , how come it didn't even peel off the aluminum facia on the two towers .... nuclear resistant aluminum panels?

[edit on 1-12-2006 by Pepe Lapiu]