Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

bezerk im digging the sig man haha

Originally posted by Project_Silo
bezerk im digging the sig man haha

Thanks, its the truth.

BeZerK

well when someone can find me an explosive compound with an RE factor of around 50 ill buy into a controlled demo using conventional explosives....otherwise i stand by what ive posted here

i mean if some of you would actually put as much research into HE as you do into "why it had to be HE" you may realize why i just dont buy the theories.

have fun

Originally posted by Damocles
well when someone can find me an explosive compound with an RE factor of around 50 ill buy into a controlled demo using conventional explosives....otherwise i stand by what ive posted here

i mean if some of you would actually put as much research into HE as you do into "why it had to be HE" you may realize why i just dont buy the theories.

have fun

ehh i have no clue what u mean..when i hear a video where u hear explosions and everyone around from pedestrians to news reporers,(about every reporter) to firemen,cops ,fbi,i tend to believe them

ah i see...ok. well first id say follow the link in my last post becuase whether you believe my opinions or not hardly matters, but there is a lot of actual facts about explosives there you can read and research on your own to see if im right or not.

but ok, ill assume you wont read it so ill just leave you with these questions.

does everything that explodes during a fire mean that there is a preplaced bomb?
do all loud noises mean explosions?
do humans tend to draw analogies in retelling an experience so as to convey their thoughts? (in other words, have you personally EVER heard anyone describe a loud noise and say "man, it sounded like a bomb going off!")
is it unreasonable to conclude that since many of the guys on the ground knew this was an attack, when they heard something loud their mind during the stress and panic might not think that they DID hear a bomb?

hey i have respect for FDNY and NYPD as ive cross trained with some of their members (none of whom by the way expressed any indication there were bombs there) but the ONLY "evidence" for there being bombs there was people heard loud noises.

so, compared to every single video ive seen, including live as it happened, and having a very very educated theory as to how much demo it would take to drop the towers, im willing to say that its VERY improbable that there were any conventional bombs placed in those buildings.

so you can ask me to clear a few things up if you have real questions(so long as its not "well they heard bombs" cuz thats just garbage), do your own research on how much demo it would take and compare that to what you hear on the tapes, or just call me a govt shill and ignore me.

hardly matters to me, if you want real information i can provide it or not as you prefer.

but think about the 4th of july and watching the fireworks. the big ones are pretty loud huh? those are less than few kg of gunpowder and some metals for color and you can hear them and feel them a ways away. imagine 172lbs (calc based off core column dimensions at the 66th floor per the leaked schematics others use as a reference so i feel its fair that i do as well) of C4 type explosives then tell me if the short list of people who heard explosions trumps the longer list who didnt.


[edit on 6-7-2007 by Damocles]

Originally posted by Damocles
ah i see...ok. well first id say follow the link in my last post becuase whether you believe my opinions or not hardly matters, but there is a lot of actual facts about explosives there you can read and research on your own to see if im right or not.

but ok, ill assume you wont read it so ill just leave you with these questions.

does everything that explodes during a fire mean that there is a preplaced bomb?
do all loud noises mean explosions?
do humans tend to draw analogies in retelling an experience so as to convey their thoughts? (in other words, have you personally EVER heard anyone describe a loud noise and say "man, it sounded like a bomb going off!")
is it unreasonable to conclude that since many of the guys on the ground knew this was an attack, when they heard something loud their mind during the stress and panic might not think that they DID hear a bomb?

hey i have respect for FDNY and NYPD as ive cross trained with some of their members (none of whom by the way expressed any indication there were bombs there) but the ONLY "evidence" for there being bombs there was people heard loud noises.

so, compared to every single video ive seen, including live as it happened, and having a very very educated theory as to how much demo it would take to drop the towers, im willing to say that its VERY improbable that there were any conventional bombs placed in those buildings.

so you can ask me to clear a few things up if you have real questions(so long as its not "well they heard bombs" cuz thats just garbage), do your own research on how much demo it would take and compare that to what you hear on the tapes, or just call me a govt shill and ignore me.

hardly matters to me, if you want real information i can provide it or you can keep chasing your tail hoping if you bark loud enough someone will pay attention.

but think about the 4th of july and watching the fireworks. the big ones are pretty loud huh? those are less than few kg of gunpowder and some metals for color and you can hear them and feel them a ways away. imagine 172lbs (calc based off core column dimensions at the 66th floor per the leaked schematics others use as a reference so i feel its fair that i do as well) of C4 type explosives then tell me if the short list of people who heard explosions trumps the longer list who didnt.

the most important facter is placement of the explosives.
and once again The police and fbi said there was a minivan in the basement of one of the wtc towers,reporters say this,cops say this,firemen say this,they were told to evacuate because of the minivan.so yes i tend to believe the goverment on this fact.how did so many credibal poeple belive there were bombs,and hear bombs,and get hurt by bombs....

there were explosives,thanks for the confirmation goverment and goverment controlled media,you made to many mistakes on 911 and the truthe will eventually come..

ok so they didnt rig the towers.lets say i believe u no questions asked..

wheres the wreckage from PA flight 93? every plane crash ive ever seen in my life has had wreckage.find me once videa that has no wreckage other than flight 93,

Wheres the plane that crached into the pentagon?man no parts there either!!?? hrmm weird..

So how then did they get dna from the passengers so the families could collect insurance,man thats odd......

so conclusion,you win we didnt touch the WTS building(especially not building 7) but we somehow have two planes that dont even have a charred shell left,and absolutely no footage of those two either,theres just to much bs surrounding 911 man..one day you will see it for what it is,and it will have a profound effect on you.

I recently "saw the light" 3 months ago.I have discovered the nwo,pnac,911 inconsistencies,and have gone from watching fox news all day and spewing out liberal losers everytime someone so much as protest in a time of war.

[edit on 6-7-2007 by Project_Silo]

Originally posted by Project_Silo

lol no one said the charges have to be massive to get the job done.its actually a minor factor,the most important facter is placement of the explosives.

but that single statement shows that you really dont have much knowledge of demo and so you just blindly follow what others have provided for you. yer right, taking out one column could be done with 3.6lbs of HE, but take taht times the number of columns you need to take out to drop the building adn it adds up real fast.

IF one had to take out all the core columns, 172lbs is the MOST efficient means, meaning the smallest charges possible (with "conventional" explosives, id ahve to see the data on these mythical "unconventional" ones)

and once again The police and fbi said there was a minivan in the basement of one of the wtc towers,reporters say this,cops say this,firemen say this,they were told to evacuate because of the minivan.so yes i tend to believe the goverment on this fact.

well, two things bother me there. first off, there was a minivan that was suspicious....omg no way....IF FDNY suspected there was a bomb anywhere in that building there would not have been ANY fire crews in there. check out ems protocols and you'll see that yourself. they'd pull back and wait for EOD.

next, why you discount the govt on some things but not others? just curious

ok so they didnt rig the towers.lets say i believe u no questions asked..

wheres the wreckage from PA flight 93? every plane crash ive ever seen in my life has had wreckage.find me once videa that has no wreckage other than flight 93,

Wheres the plane that crached into the pentagon?man no parts there either!!?? hrmm weird..

So how then did they get dna from the passengers so the families could collect insurance,man thats odd......

so conclusion,you win we didnt touch the WTS building(especially not building 7) but we somehow have two planes that dont even have a charred shell left,and absolutely no footage of those two either,theres just to much bs surrounding 911 man..one day you will see it for what it is,and it will have a profound effect on you.

I recently "saw the light" 3 months ago.I have discovered the nwo,pnac,911 inconsistencies,and have gone from watching fox news all day and spewing out liberal losers everytime someone so much as protest in a time of war.

as to most of those questions. dont know. never said i did. i tend to keep my posts and opinions to areas i have some knowledge of thus ALL ive ever said was that, even if it WAS an inside job (which i may not believe but have never ruled it out) they didnt use conventional explosives in the wtc complex. thats it. why'd the towers fall? no bleedin idea, i just have a really good and educated opinion as to why they DIDNT fall.

edit: i edited my last post because the "chase your tail" comment was rude and out of line. i apologize for it.
also, never said take my word, read that debate thread, look at my numbers and check them out on your own, may be suprised waht u find.

[edit on 6-7-2007 by Damocles]

i have done much research but u can never really stop researching and say u know it all.
i admit im not well informed about the amount ,but i do know u can use all the explosives u want but they have to be in the right places or u will not be successful.and yes the police did say there was a van with explosives,ihave to find thevideo with him saying it to a reporter,hessays the info camefrom the fbi.....i would not willingly lie,i may get facts wrong but this i know beacuse i heard it with my own ears

i believe i have seen the light..maybe were both right?there was a minivan with explosives but thats it..the building wasnt rigged up? but there was a van..that makes sence to me,this would account for the explosions you can hear on tape,also the reports from everyone.but also completely backs up your theory that the building werent rigged...

I'm just lookin for the truthe man and i like a healthy debate.so if we conclude on this idea then we msut now determine if the planes really could have brought them down on there own...and ill admit im still niave about how hot fuel burns,how long it would have burned,any opinion?

[edit on 6-7-2007 by Project_Silo]

ignore my awsomely bad spelling and typing skills please heh

[edit on 6-7-2007 by Project_Silo]

i too enjoy discussing the topic with open minded people that dont just assume im a govt shill becuase i am willing to be labled a heretic for questioning the controlled demo theories. so between the two of us, for me, alls well.

ive said to a few people that IF i was to buy into ANY controlled demo theories it would be truck bomb in the basement.

however, the size of the blast needed to bust up all of teh core columns would be MASSIVE (think oklahoma city) which isnt to say it couldnt be done, and if it was done then that could lead one to believe inside job or at least complicity with terrorists (someone had to let a van in un-inspected) and i just have to disagree that any of the sounds were of the magnitude needed for it to be a large truck bomb.

also, griff may be able to answer this better, but would busting the core out in teh basement cause the buildings to fail at the impact sites?

as to figuring out what DID cause the collapse's, not my area and i wont even pretend it is. ill kick whacky theories around with bsb on yahoo from time to time but im simply not qualified enough to analyze the falls on a structural level. my expertise is in blowing things up (as well as a few areas that dont directly apply here) and at the risk of sounding the braggart, ill say i was good at it lol.

my only goal is to provide people with REAL information on explosives so that they can either take real info and see if the evidence fits it, or give people the option to rule out explosives so they dont waste hours of research on something thats just unlikely.

i mean if you or anyone else can take the data ive posted for the debate i was in and make it fit a CD theory, id love to discuss it, because while ill claim i was very good at demo, and expert even, i wasnt a god and can freely admit i may have missed something.


but, at the moment, theres just not enough real evidence that when analyzed using real data on high explosives, to indicate to me or any of the other demo guys i know that it was a CD using conventional explosives.

so if you have questions that the debate thread didnt answer feel free to ask here or u2u and ill be happy to answer. i may not think it was a CD but im not going to let my own opinions taint the information id provide.

i visit these forums often...and granted after the first four pages i skipped to the end...but i have rarely seen February of 1993 mentioned...listen to my story and you'll see the connection....


the year is 1993, it's february just near the end of the month...BLAM..an explosion in a basement.....6 people are killed and just over a thousand are injured...when a car bomb in the WTC parking garage goes off...

a couple years later a man accidentally sets his house on fire...turns out...he was making bombs...and had left his computer in there which was found and confiscated...these bombs were going to be used to blow up "Eleven U.S. commercial aircraft in one spectacular day of terrorist rage."


a 1995 article on Ramzi yousef
www.fas.org...


now the basement bomb being eight years prior to 9-11 and the commercial aircraft threat being circa 6 years prior....dont you think that terrorists had a little bit of time to incorporate these plans?...dont you see that there is a possibilty that al 'whatevera put a bomb in the world trade center parking garage?..going along with reports that a "bomb" had gone off below them....then the tower was struck by aircraft?

i know, i know...."but then we cant blame premier bush!"...but hey...just saying these people are not idiots..and pre 9-11 getting small bombs on an aircraft was prolly much easier...so that puts a bomb or two in the basements....a couple on the planes....the planes hitting the WTC...and bombs going off.....i think that'd do some major damage...no?

p.s. exerpt from the 1995 article....on two things...1. iraq...and 2. why we may have had hard time reporting on what was about to may or may not happen....

"First, it will argue that, as things stand now, coordination between the Justice Department and the relevant national security agencies is such that the latter--and thus national security itself gets very short shrift when it comes to dealing with terror incidents perpetrated on U.S. soil. Second, it will look afresh at the evidence from the World Trade Center bombing case and suggest that the most logical explanation of the evidence points to Iraqi state sponsorship. Third, it will assay briefly what dangers the Iraqi regime may still pose to the United States should this analysis prove correct. "

i'll be on in the afternoon...night all

[edit on 6-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]

Damocles,

I think when it comes down to it,there will always be a dispute because its almost to shocking to believe this could happen,no matter who did it.

All i know is that day changed my life forever even though i did'nt lose any family or loved ones it was a shocking day for every American.

I just think the poeple absolutely deserve more openess about that fatefull day.I don't understand why the goverment needs to be so secret about everything that day.I feel as though we have been taken advantage of and i cannot shake that feeling.

I just hope if we had any part in it,that the truthe will someday come and everyone that suffered the loss of a loved(including in Iraq) gets a damm well deserved appology served on a golden platter..

God Bless America.

Damocles,

You always dismiss the collapse of the towers with the caveat that it couldn't be done to your knowledge "using conventional explosives."

I don't really want to go into the unconventional alternatives, as you also characterize them as mythical, but I'd just like to get your opinion as to the nature of the collapses themselves, to put your comments in context.

Do you believe the towers fell without the help of any external energy sources other than those provided by the plane impacts and fires?

Maybe I'm totally off, but the video evidence of the collapses and a slew of anomalous evidence is to my mind powerful evidence that this was not a gravity-driven collapse.

gottago,
i always qualify my statements "with conventional explosives" because ive done the calculations for what it would take to cut the core columns using rdx based linear shaped charges and doing the math, it just doesnt work.

yeah, ive seen the same anomolies as everyone else and in cases like the "squibs" (god i want to gouge out my won eyes everytime someone goes back to that one) and while i cant totally explain them they dont fit the profile for being explosives. (though isnt it odd that once they propigate that they continue to stream out which is pretty much exactly opposite what youd expect from a demo charge?)

so given the choice between planes/fires and high explosives, its a matter of process of elimination for me. in my mind and on paper i can ALMOST totally rule out high explosives. i say almost because im human and therefore fallible and its possible i missed something crucial but i havnt found what that would be yet.

as to why they did fall...said it before and ill repeat it now, i dont know. that is outside my area of expertise. i may have some thoughts on it but theyre nothing but speculation and how good is speculation in the seach for the truth?

the reason i say things that indicate i think that the "unconventional explosives" is a joke is becuase like i posted above, for it to work you'd need an explosive that had an RE factor of nearly 50. sorry but i dotn care how good our govt is, that compound doesnt exist. if it did you can be SURE we'd be using it in combat. imagine being able to have mortar or artillery rounds that were 40x more powerful or airial bombs that weighed less than half of what they do so the bombers could carry more. imagine less than 5lbs of explosives doing the job of 200lbs of explosives.

bottom line is with the years i spent blowing things up, i see no real evidence of HE being used...and there is NO physical evidence to indicate there was. granted, nist didnt bother to test for it, but were there any nitrates in the air samples the epa did? or were they just that edited? if they were edited why was the teeny tiny particles part left in?

im really serious guys, if any of you are REALLY open minded and care to have information from all sources and really would like some indications of why i really really dont think there were explosives in the towers go click the link i embedded a few posts up that goes to the debate i had on this subject with whatukno. even if it doesnt convince you it wasnt explosives you can at least learn some things about them and how they work to see for yourself if they stll work in your theories. if they DO work in your theories please let me know....i am open minded, im just waiting for evidence that actually fits the profile of explosives being used.

Damocles,

thanks for your reply. I very much understand your POV and I've just read you debate with WUK and it was excellent work.

You have an excellent knowledge of HE, obviously, but this is but one part of a very complex puzzle.

To me, a confirmed generalist, I see documented evidence of some sort of explosive energy sources all over the the towers' collapse.

To wit:

the seismographic evidence from Columbia U 10 seconds before each collapse began.

the explosive disintegration of the upper building masses almost immediately upon the initiation of collapse. by what force did these intact but severed structures blossom into destruction instead of toppling as they started to do, and falling to earth?

the fact that the lower floors disintegrated at all, twice, right down to the sub-basements, and at a speed that far outstrips the mechanics of gravitational collapse

the blossoming chrysanthemum cloud of smoking ejecta as the collapse unfolds.

numerous videos and photos showing orange fireballs spouting in the zones of destruction

the cascade of pillowing destruction that moves down the buildings faster than the falling debris; i.e., gravity.

the lingering thermal hotspots and molten steel found in the basements of WTC 1, 2, and 7 documented in NASA/GPS satellite images.

all that micronized dust, containing a witch's brew of the building's contents

a heated blast wave described by nearby survivors as akin to a volcano that literally swept them off their feet and carried them for yards on end.

missing building mass, concrete, and floorpans

1000+ simply vanished victims. miniscule shards of bone found on the rooftops of off-site bldgs years later, as no one even thought that this could have been possible

Any one of these points is enough to convince me that massive energy sources were necessary to bring them about. Taken together, it is unavoidable.

Damolces

What backround do you have?How do you know so much about explosives? I still say you cannot completely rule anything out untill you know for sure what happend..I just can't buy that just the plane brought down the building...But with so many miss leading facts and other info will we ever know?

first let me say that whe the planes hit the world trade center, there was an explosion!!...yeah real new right?..in front of this fireball that was sent hurtling thru the other side were people...now correct me if i'm wrong...but people in front of an explosion are going to have body parts blown off....seared and what not....now following that...if the body part was blown off....it'd prolly continue with the blast....now there we have body parts being blown outta the building...and onto other buildings....


as far as people you cant find....when the WTC collapsed(sp), it fell on top of people....when they started cleaning up they were searching for bodies...however comma they were also just digging up parts of the WTC and putting them in the back of a dump truck......

there are hundreds of "missing" soldiers around the world...because they cant find the body...

gottago: i see you raise a lot of valid points and questions. most of them i have no answers to and wont try to BS anyone into thinking i do. if i was to guess at any of them i could come up with some more mundane answers but they would be speculation and we know how much that is worth.

the one point i would like to address specifically is the seizmic data. if they recorded a shockwave 10 seconds before the collapse, that means that the event that propogated that wave happened MORE than 10 seconds before the collapse because the wave had to travel to their monitors. but, even if it was instant...then you'd have to belive that there was a major blast AND the building stood for another 10 seconds. ever see any videos of a cd where the charges went off and the building stood for 10 seconds? just something to ponder i guess.

thign is this, i may not believe totally that it was an inside job, but i wont say it couldnt be. all ive said was that IF it was a controlled demo then i dont think they used high explosives to do it. its just too inconsistant with it. the problem i have is that for it to be anything but HE requires a lot of speculation. guessing isnt fact. so when someone can show me a device that will reproduce the effects we saw that day AND can prove it exists, then ill probably pay more attention to it.

project: ive stated my backround quite a bit but rather than make you go through all the old threads to find it ill just throw it out one more time. i was in teh military for 12 years. 5 years as a combat engineer training in and using explosives. i spent another 5 years doing nuke/chem/bio defense for an infantry battalion and then 2 more years as part of a WMD terrorism response team where i was our teams backup eod guy (in the cases where we couldnt get local bomb squads, they had more toys than we did, we focused on chem/bio/rad stuff) but as our eod guy i was responsible for training the team on all things relating to IED's etc.

but the real question is this: if my data stands to scrutiny, does it matter who i am? hehe i dont think so but others disagree so i have no problem posting what i used to do.

i can agree with what you said about us not being able to KNOW for sure, and thats why i always qualify my statements with "its improbable" or "its unlikely"

however, if you go read that debate thread, you yourself can check out my numbers and my math and come to your own conclusions in a few minutes. i didnt use any "super secret" sources of information, in fact i did post things that can be referenced easily just so that no one could accuse me of making up any "facts". the reason i keep sending people to that thread is simply becuase i dont want to have to retype or even cut and paste the data ive already posted. so the bottom line there is simply that im lazy.

EVERY demo i've watched has two stages.
the first set of blasts brings the building to the brink, basically near equilibrium. the building is given some time(a few seconds) to transfer load paths, and THEN the final set of blasts knocks down the (now a house of cards) building.

Originally posted by billybob
EVERY demo i've watched has two stages.
the first set of blasts brings the building to the brink, basically near equilibrium. the building is given some time(a few seconds) to transfer load paths, and THEN the final set of blasts knocks down the (now a house of cards) building.

That being said Billybob... the seismic data does not support a conventional demo.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
That being said Billybob... the seismic data does not support a conventional demo.

So what does the Seismic data suggest?

BeZerK