Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

wheres my effin posts?

I found a website with comments from survivors of the attacks,firefighters police and office workers,all who were in the wtcs that morning.I urge everyone to read these quotes and then decide for yourselves if indeed there was a Cd involvedQuotes. edit:i found the emergency workers quotes the most compelling,(the blue section)

[edit on 8-7-2007 by crowpruitt]

Google Video Link

Interesting video to watch here.Engineer Gordon Ross explains the wtc collapses.

If there had been a controlled demo, what need would there have been to fly planes into the buildings?

Doesn't mean the US government wasn't involved.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by SamuraiDrifter]

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
If there had been a controlled demo, what need would there have been to fly planes into the buildings?

Doesn't mean the US government wasn't involved.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by SamuraiDrifter]

decoy or diversion

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
If there had been a controlled demo, what need would there have been to fly planes into the buildings?

Doesn't mean the US government wasn't involved.

the planes are the excuse for 'collapse' of the white elephants that were more expensive to repair or dismantle than they would ever reasonably bring in.

sort of like when the foundation of your house rots, and the roof has leaked so much that the wood is termite fodder. you don't fix it, you tear it down.

however, in the case of the ASBESTOS LADEN towers, demolition(with bombs) was out of the question. there was no way they could take the towers down cost effectively, yet they HAD to come down because of cell phones and the internet.
they were originally built as a CENTER for world trade, because, back in the day, you had to actually GO somewhere to do something. with the advent of wireless communication, location became irrelevant, which left the towers irrelephant thermite fodder.

Originally posted by billybob
however, in the case of the ASBESTOS LADEN towers, demolition(with bombs) was out of the question. there was no way they could take the towers down cost effectively, yet they HAD to come down because of cell phones and the internet.
they were originally built as a CENTER for world trade, because, back in the day, you had to actually GO somewhere to do something. with the advent of wireless communication, location became irrelevant, which left the towers irrelephant thermite fodder.

That entire statement is FALSE. The fact is that asbestos in the towers was limited to floors only up to the 38th floor of WTC 1,and it was encapsulated. (b)There was no asbestos in WTC2 .(/b) This has been common knowledge since the towers were built.

In Part:

On April 13, 1970, New York City issued restrictions on the application of sprayed thermal insulation containing asbestos. The use of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D was discontinued in 1970 at the 38th floor of WTC 1. The asbestos-containing material was subsequently encapsulated with a sprayed material that provided a hard coating. A green dye was added to the encapsulating material so that the asbestos containing SFRM could be identified.

wtc.nist.gov...

It appears that you are implying that the World Trade Center became somewhat obsolete due to the advancement of technology. Again, you are way off. If you recall, our economy was not all that great prior to 911 and obviously you know what happened post 911. Well, the sluggish economy had no effect on the success of the WTC complex. Actually it was quite the opposite:

February 12, 2001

As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center's mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled.

Today, only about 250,000 of the 10.4 million square feet of office space in the trade center remains vacant. And the legal center has an occupancy rate of over 99 percent.

www.panynj.gov...

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Thermate Squibs? If there were "squibs" as evidence of a controlled demolition, but the towers were brought down with "unconventional" top secret thermate canisters......Then logic would follow that thermate causes squibs.

I cannot believe that. It makes no sense, and I feel what we witnessed on 9/11/2001 was the result of two huge jetliners filled with fuel severing the World Trade Towers to the point they couldn't sustain the damage of both the impact and subsequent fires.

Damocles pointed out during our back-and-forth on squibs/demo that the initiation of collapse had no explosive sounds, though the sounds of explosives can be heard during collapse and the squibs are further proof of that.

The squibs/explosions and thermate are 2 different elements of the CD.

I argued that thermate was used to initiate collapse, because it makes no sound. Once they got the ball rolling, well, bang away! Who's gonna notice when 2 of the world's tallest buildings are cascading down at a speed at or faster than gravity? (BTW, that last fact alone should make you fundamentally rethink your simplistic reading of what happened at the WTC on 9/11.)

I argue that the squibs are evidence they were softening up the structure below the cascade wave to facilitate collapse, though Damocles prefers to paint them as I'm-not-really-sure what, but at best evidence of sloppy demolition and therefore unbelievable as evidence of demo, if I follow his logic correctly.

CaptainObvious now argues that placing containment devices for the thermate in the impact areas would have been too intrusive and would have been noticed by various maintenance workers, though I'd argue just how many people would have access to the structural areas of the buildings--the cores--and just how often such inaccessible areas were even accessed by any WTC staff, and if that staff would even know what the heck they were looking at even if they did actually go spelunking deep in the towers' guts.

We're talking deep in the core, this is not like it's next to the water cooler, after all. I have no problem with that. If your intent is to remake the world with the destruction of the WTC, you've got all the means and the motivation you need.

You know I would really like for some of these armchair debunkers like capt. and fowl to debate this with some of the eye witness's that were actually around WTC on 9/11. That one site I think it's 9/11 patriots, has so many people saying the way it was told to us just isn't the way it is.

Witness's, survivors, family of the dead, military people, people that died that said there piece before they died on 9/11, and finally people with more degree's behind there names, than some of these posters ever dreamed of.

Sorry guys, I am going to believe them, over you guys. The evidence is so massive, anything you post that conflicts with their testimony is just wasting our time and your time really. Then again who knows if your not being paid for "wasting your time".

[edit on 8-7-2007 by Blue_Jay33]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
That entire statement is FALSE. The fact is that asbestos in the towers was limited to floors only up to the 38th floor of WTC 1,and it was encapsulated. (b)There was no asbestos in WTC2 .(/b) This has been common knowledge since the towers were built.

that is still a white asbestos elephant. anyway, why should i believe NIST when they HIDE all the evidence and data, prefering instead to make bold statements based on virtual reality, poor science(ignoring cases a. and c. vs. MOST SEVERE cases b. and d., even though their own data 'debunks' the MOST SEVERE cases) and pure rhetoric?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
It appears that you are implying that the World Trade Center became somewhat obsolete due to the advancement of technology. Again, you are way off. If you recall, our economy was not all that great prior to 911 and obviously you know what happened post 911. Well, the sluggish economy had no effect on the success of the WTC complex. Actually it was quite the opposite:

all office buildings are being obsoleted by information and communication technologies.
the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center's mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled.

about 5% of which was actually involved in world trade, and a large percentage of government offices.
the towers were subsidized from the word go by the taxpayers.

WTC asbestos, "HUNDREDS OF TONS"

...a 1999 book said the port authority allocated 800,000 dollars for asbestos abatement.

i disagree i'm wrong. they gave whole floors of vacant space to artists, for free.

more at killtown

LIES, LIES, LIES from the 'government for the people, by the people'

i won't say you're 'wrong', but i know i'm right.

Originally posted by billybob
that is still a white asbestos elephant. anyway, why should i believe NIST ............?

So i prove there was not asbestos they way you claim...you move the goal posts by implying that NIST is lying. You dont HAVE to believe them. This was known back in 1970. Oh...sorry that requires you looking somewhere other than INFOWARS.com.

Originally posted by billybob
about 5% of which was actually involved in world trade, and a large percentage of government offices.
the towers were subsidized from the word go by the taxpayers.
..a 1999 book said the port authority allocated 800,000 dollars for asbestos abatement.

i disagree i'm wrong. they gave whole floors of vacant space to artists, for free.
i won't say you're 'wrong', but i know i'm right.

LMFAO..how are you right? You claimed that the TOWERS WERE LADEN with asbestos. The VAST majority of the two towers did NOT have asbestos. $800,000 for an abatement? Thats chump change. You think you would demoilish a building over 800K?

You implied that the Towers were not generating revenue anymore.

Both points you made were flat out incorrect.


I'd like to add...ANYONE I mean ANYONE that uses KILLTOWN as an information source is not seeking the truth!! This dude DOCTORS VIDEOS! and has been BANNED by ATS!

killtown is banned. that does not mean that all information on killtown's site is a lie.
i personally have nothing against him, although i don't know about any doctored videos.

any good lie is a truth burrito, ...90% truth wrapped in 10% incorrect info.

i dont want to turn this into a Killtown debate. His theories are pathetic at best.

Originally posted by billybob
killtown is banned. that does not mean that all information on killtown's site is a lie.
i personally have nothing against him, although i don't know about any doctored videos.

any good lie is a truth burrito, ...90% truth wrapped in 10% incorrect info.

there was a whole administrative note about it...right after i joined a couple weeks ago...he was also going to other sites...and telling them that he was being repressed and linking back to here....


and your signature is still wrong....

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret


and your signature is still wrong....

i disagree.

in a totalitarian infomatrix, telling the truth is an act of rebellion.

and i am ROCKING OUT, DOOOD!!!!



my signature is not accurate, but it makes a very good point.
the EXACT same scenario, the EXACT same stations, where the only surveillance cameras in all of england weren't working coincidentally were situated. it was no ordinary 'coincidence'.
the FACT that one subway car, at least, had the metal floor ripped upwards, PROVES there was a bomb planted UNDER the subway car, too.

ditto 9/11 and all the fake hijacked planes.

maybe i should double the odds in my sig by adding 9/11's probabilty of terror drills exactly(ish) mimicking the actual terrorist attacks.

some people swear the sky is blue. i know it can be many colours.
some people believe authority. i believe i am my own authority, unless and until a greater force stifles me or kills me.

i can tell you that if a threat is given....it will be practiced.....over...and over...and over...untill you think of it as annoying humdrum....and you want to rip out your hair and say i quit...but you cant...because you signed it all away.....i doubt the odds are even 1% that...

Originally posted by Damocles
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?

I haven't done any calculations but I believe they would since the outside columns and core columns were attached at the top hat truss. Plus, once the core is not servicable anymore, all the load is on the outside. IMO, it would be enough to overcome the factor of safety of the outside columns causing them to fail at the impact points (weakest point). Or in other words. Excluding a CD on the ouside columns, the only place for a gravity driven collapse to occur would be the weakest part of the facade (the impact points).

Hope that helps. And like I always say, I could be wrong as I haven't been able to do any structural calcs.

While I agree that the severed core would cause the load to transfer via the hat truss and possibly cause collapse, I think you need more than the basement.

If you blow out, say, 10' feet of 47 core columns in the basement, I believe you would have seen an impulse as the remaining 100 floors of core columns hit the ground.

Maybe if you took out all seven basements or maybe if you varied the height of the column "cuts"? Not sure, but I think the core would still need to be severed in > 1 location to ensure that nice smooth collapse sans an "impulse stall".

I do agree pootie. My own theory is they severed the core in 3 places (at least). The 2 mechanical levels and the basement.

That could account for why WTC 2 started to rotate. The impact zone was near the mechanical floors. If the core was severed there and started to collapse on the outside near that area, it is easy to see that it would have rotated. At least just my opinion.

But, I also believe that cutting the core would indeed initiate collapse in the plane impact zones. I say initiate because I believe, like you, that it would take a little more for the smooth 'collapse".

[edit on 7/9/2007 by Griff]

Griff...

Was their any evidence of structural damage in the basements? Or was there any evidence of bombs on the skylobby's? (if thats the areas you are reffering to)

If the core was taken out, how come it was standing briefly after the collaspe?

As I have posted in the past from geologists, the seismic data did not support explosives.