Proof Positive: WTC-Controlled Demolition

Some of you who believe this 911 planned demolition conspiracy are just plain silly. If it was a planned demolition why have the planes fly into the buildings? All the government would have to do is blow the charges and claim it was a terrorist act. You don't even need the planes. Secondly, why wait to blow the explosives until way after the plane already crashed into the building when everyone is watching. If it was a planned demolition, they would have blew the charges at the same time the plane hit the buildings.

Sure the exterior of the building is mostly metal, but each floor has a huge concrete slab and other steel enforced concrete columns. The buildings are practically air tight. Thats why you cannot open a window without breaking it.

None of the videos show any proof of demolition and the entire premise is ludicrous.

Originally posted by Nola213
I undertsnad all the demo charges are supposed to go off first, then the big shape(cutting charges). But you have to undrstand to planes ripped into these buildings with alot of fuel which could have easily messed up wiring(aka fuses) for everything to go as a perfectly planned Controlled Demolition.

Which They were COUNTING ON. They wanted it to be unconventional, and not look like a CD, but get the job done, and it did.

I don't think I have heard that before. Maybe you should use this in the other CD-theory threads and tell everyone that it does NOT look like a perfectly planned controlled demolition? As many people always argue "It looks just like a typical CD!!" when, as you say, it doesn't look that way at all

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Some of you who believe this 911 planned demolition conspiracy are just plain silly... Thats why you cannot open a window without breaking it.

Well you've certainly convinced me.
I'd rather be silly than demonstrably ignorant though and it begs the question, do you have anything other than a poorly informed opinion to show the rest of the class here? Something a little more convincing that just calling us silly? More importantly, can you proove it isn't a controlled demolition, because the visual and circumstantial evidence, if you bother to actually find some, points towards controlled demolition.
Why use planes at all you ask?
They tried it before without planes in 1993, it didn't work. Because if they just brought the buildings down with no planes involved, or 'raging infernos' to explain the apparent lack of structural integrety, then folks are going to ask hard questions about who was in the buildings prior to the collapse, who was in charge of security there, why didn't the bomb sniffing dogs catch the explosives, how did 3 buildings fall down for no reason. They used planes so that simple folks, who can't see forests for trees, would associate terrorists with 9-11, they used planes because by an amazing cooincidence, there was an exercise that very day involving terrorists flying planes into buildings confusing the people who could have stopped them to the point where they had to literally ask if the hijackings were "real world or exercise". (then they had the gall to turn around and say they had no way of knowing that terrorists would use aircraft as weapons in an attack)
I'm still not convinced they were planes to begin with, interestingly, it is said that amung the vicitms of 9-11 were a team of MIT engineers who were working on Missiles that would resemble civilian planes. Poorly trained pilots who can barely land a cessna, don't jump into a jet airliner, hijack it with box cutters no less, and fly it with military precision without being intercepted over the most secure airspace in the world. Where's the nearly indestrucible Flight Data recorders? They couldn't find them, but they magaed to find an intact passport from one of the same flights (of man who turned out to be alive and well in Saudi Arabia)? There aren't any flight data recorders, or they lied about finding them, either way that's pretty damned odd don't you think?

Originally posted by Soloist
Please go back and read the post if you are having problems following along. You cannot tell from that video what the plume is coming out of, to assume it's "solid concrete or any intact structure" is just that, an assumption.

I take it this is the only video you've seen on the subject, that being the case I will excuse your ignorance, but having researched this subject at great length over the last six years, I can tell you that you're absolutely mistaken. I hate to see anybody make a complete fool of themselves, so maybe a picture will help you understand the term intact structure...

These squibs are seen blowing out from parts of the building which are still intact, in other words, parts of the building which aren't pulverized and falling. Intact Structure.

Originally posted by Soloist
My point is how can anyone tell that they are intact sections of structure?

Because I know what the word intact means, I've seen alot of other footage from Sept. 11 aside from this video, and I'm not blind.

Originally posted by Soloist
Did you even read what I posted? If you watch the video you will see the same flashes they say are demo appear in the air ABOVE the already fallen tower. Not only that but they can be seen in the sky BESIDE the tower. So, if these flashes are demo charges, someone really missed the mark, heck, they missed the whole building!

Actually as far as controlled demolitions go, given the size of the structures involved, the proximity of other buildings, and nature of the cover up needed to pull it off, this would have been considered a successful demolition, near perfect footprint collapses. It might be glass sparkling in the sun, but as far as you are able to proove, it could just as easily be out of sequence charges going off. You've actually let yourself be convinced it couldn't have been a controlled demolition because of some flashes that weren't where you think they should be? I've got some really nice Beach Front property in Kansas you may be interested in.

Originally posted by twitchy
More importantly, can you proove it isn't a controlled demolition

Sorry, but it does not work that way. If you are making an accusation, you have to prove it. You have to prove your theory since its not the norm and nothing presented here has proven your case.

These explosives would have had to have been planted way in advance. Sounds like this plan would have had to have been concocted during the Clinton Presidency at the earliest. Probably even earlier considering the clues on the $20 bill. To bad that president Bush is getting the rap for this. I think I now Know why Clinton did not take the Sudan up on their offer to give us Osama, It would ruin the plan. Don't vote for Hillary who knows what she will conspire to blow up.

Maybe those flashes are electrical arcs as the sound system wires for the hologram jet noises are being severed. I hear they got rid of the $1,000 dollar bill before anyone could fold it and see the Japanese dive bombing our ships at pearl harbour.

yea, unfortunately you will need to watch the video a few times, especially the collaspes of the Towers to pick out the flashes charges.

Your eyes may not be looking in the right spot and you may see 2, and say oh that could be anything. But when you finally see the areas where the clusters of flashes are happenning (no it looks nothing like paper or electrical arcs, also lets leave holograms out of this), it because pretty clear what they are.

But I cannot force anyone to examine something they don't wanna know, for whatever reasons.

In response to why use planes at all? Thats the whole conspiracy.

They cant have 2 of the biggest builds on earth sans the Petronas Towers and maybe the Sears Towers go down in a perfect CD and blame it on terrorists. That type of stuff takes a couple weeks of preperation. Usually longers.

However, they were able to do it with the limited time they had during the never before seen "power downs" leading up to 9-11 to do just a halways decent enough job to make it work along with the planes help.

Yes the planes did help brings down the towers. But if not for the Controlled Demolition a shoddy as it was, they needed it for a TOTAL collapse, and thats what they needed.

If half the buildings were left standing, as they should if the planes were the only damage done, well they would have been rebuilding them a few months later, and they would have been rebuilt completely probably back in 05'.

As far as how I can help you SEE these charges I can't. I suppose if your a truther your more apt to see them, and if your a No conspiracy here type, you won't see them.

I'd love to get someone with no predisposition on whether or not this was an inside job ect. Take someone who's been under a rock for the lasy 7 years and have them view that 9 min 40 seconds of footage and see what they think.

Unfortunately, as much as people might say they have an open mind, I like to think I do as well, but I don't. I go into most videos looking for stuff to support MY beliefs, just as I believe people in this this thread are, some more than others.

It's just the totallity of the evidence, from the firefighters,policemen,EMT,WTC workers in the basements with thier skin hanging off. How does a plane crashing into the 60-80th floors cause a guy in the sub basements skin to melt off? Remember what they said in that video. You have to attack the foundation, and bottom of the building.

I also have numerous videos of smoke , alot of it, not from debris. Rising from the bottom of the trade towers, along with camera shake, a good 30 seconds before anything collapsed.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Sorry, but it does not work that way. If you are making an accusation, you have to prove it. You have to prove your theory since its not the norm and nothing presented here has proven your case.

Actually it does work that way, the proposition, in this case, is
"Proof Positive: WTC-Controlled Demolition", if your arguing against that, then yes I'm sorry but you need to do a little work. Just a little.
Ever been in a formal debate? I'll sum it up for you, you can't just walk in and say you guys are full of it and expect to win anything but a butt kicking. The proposition is put forward, if you argue for it, you need only to convincingly support that proposition, if you argue against it, the burden of proof is on you my misguided contemporary.
Now if the title of the thread was WTC- Not a Controlled Demolition, and we were the ones arguing against it, the burden of proof then falls on us. If your not comfortable arguing against it, start your own thread and we'll come there so you can feel justified demanding proof then.
If you're trying to argue with little more than your opinions, you're not going to get very far with this crowd.

Originally posted by wsamplet
These explosives would have had to have been planted way in advance.

As early as the 1960's actually, IMO...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As I said it's the totallity of evidence, almost like a fully circumstancial prosecution case.

It may not be just ONE thing but when you look at all of it, it leads to conspiracy. Loose Change does a great job on this.

Off the top of my head I can come up with a bunch of stuff.

-Media played a major role, scripted reports, drilling buzz words like Terror, Al queda Terror attacks, Osama Bin Laden, War on Terror, and interviewing obvious paid actors. C'mon The two seperate guys on the street had already solved the case within 30 minutes of the buildings collapse (actors reading from a script) they nearly said the same thing. Anyone here ever heard of NLP?

-Extra equipment "Pod" on the underbelly of Flight 175, on the starboard side. How does that get on a commercial passenger airliner? Maybe it was filled with Thermite, or Something simpler like what was used in the Oklahoma Murra(sp?) build. bombing. *shrugs* either way it should not be there.

-Thermite pouring out of the building exactly where it begins to collapse (I believe it was WTC2, i might be wrong).

-Shape charges. pictures takens before Gulliani and crew could clear the "crime scene" of huge support colums cute at a 45 degree angle close to ground level.

-Small Demo charges (only recently were these videos leaked, good job who ever got out the real copies before they were doctored, like most of the "official" tapes we see now) you know the small flash bangs that sound like fire crackers and gunfire, and look like brife sparks all of the building as its coming down.

-Squibs (I won't even get into it, cause people who can't handle it ill go with the PM theory of AIR, lol Air escaping 20 floors below collapse), during the "pancaking". I love that "pancake collapse, AT FREE FALL SPEED. Yea, go on and believe it.

-Explosions in the basement, caught on film, smoke rising from the ground of the WTC complex 30 seconds before the towers fell. (This was backed up by multiple witnesses who were in the basement.)

-Buildings damage on on side mostly my a plane, should fall over to that side. TIMBEEER! anyone? Nope, straight down collapse, free fall speed in its own footprint.

-Smaller buildings closer to WTC1 and 2, still stand, while 7, a 40+ floor skyscraper comes down due to two small fires. A worlds first!!!!!

-The BBC(basically the Illuminati media) BBC,CNN,ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX,WB11 ALL IN on it. But back to my point the BBC reorts the collapse of 7 , 20 somewhat minutes before it actually collapses.

-Lies about 93. Lets Roll?, Sorry never happened. Plane was shot down. But Lets Roll is a better story, and gets more people angry and ready to shoot some brown people. Rumsfeild "Shot down 93", Yep he said it. Debunk that one.

-Pentagon , supposedly one of the most secure, if not THE MOST secure building in the Free World, and there is not any clear secerity video of a Boeing hitting the Building. I mean c'mon, how dumb do they think we ARE? I'm glad I ain't that dumb because I cannot look past this mountain of lies and evidence. But it seems some of you Mahyer Fanbois can? I just, can't grasp it.

-Wargames going on at this exact time, putting all of our air defense on the other side of the Country, in a sililiar circumstance to confuse things even further.

-Unprecedented power downs leading up to 9-11 where workers with no badges of company affiliation were working, "drilling", carrying spools of wire into sensetive areas of the infrastructer of WTC 1 and 2.

-Bomb sniffing Dogs pulled before their arrival to do this clandestine work, and never put back on guard till after 911. Who had the power to have this done, the head of Security of the WTC complex you ask? yep G.W.'s very own younger Brother. Are alarm bells going off yet?

I could go on for an hour with points just as strong as these actually stronger, because they due with money and put options, and relations between Bush and the Bin-Laden family, something I'm not thaat well versed on, but money is always the big motivator as is keeping America in a War(we've been at war continuasly now in one for or another for 30-40 somewhat years?).

Anyways, as far as Money is concerned-

-Larry Silverstein. MADE a HUGE amount of money off the death of Americans, as did MANY people who had prior knowledge, with their put options, and god knows how many other ways there were to make money if you knew this was gonna happen on 9/04.
Those infamous two words, you can spin em all you want, he said "PULL IT". Now it does not and never has refered to people. If he meant get the firemen out. Why didn't he say Pull "them" out.? I'm sorry but IT refers to an object/thing, like a Building for instance. Do not try to tell me with a straight face that you honestly belive when he said "Pull it", he meant anything OTHER than Pulling down Building 7.

Again it's not just one thing it's the totallity of ALL of these things that makes 911 a conspiracy, OR the biggest coincidence EVER in the history of mankind.

Again all I ask is for you to watch this video with an open mind, and remeber, this is But -ONE- piece of a Larger puzzle that was part of dozens of crimes and coverups on the uppermost levels of the government.

letsroll911.org...






[edit on 27-10-2007 by Nola213]

Originally posted by twitchy
These squibs are seen blowing out from parts of the building which are still intact, in other words, parts of the building which aren't pulverized and falling. Intact Structure.

Sigh.

From none of the photos you have posted nor from this video (the subject of this thread remember) or any other video can anyone possibly tell that the "ejections" are coming from ANY solid or intact structure. Sorry, but the camera shots are too far away to tell, it could be coming out a broken window or broken structure, you cannot make that assumption based on what you posted alone.

Because I know what the word intact means, I've seen alot of other footage from Sept. 11 aside from this video, and I'm not blind.

I know what it means also, and I wouldn't classify a broken window or exterior crack, or hole, or anything else like it as intact. Since there is no way to tell from this video, as they show it from the side view only, than there is no evidence that this is anything more than dust and debris shooting out an opening when the air starts to compress as the tower falls.

So, in absence of detail I must go with the most logical answer.

It might be glass sparkling in the sun, but as far as you are able to proove, it could just as easily be out of sequence charges going off. You've actually let yourself be convinced it couldn't have been a controlled demolition because of some flashes that weren't where you think they should be?

Are you kidding me? To answer your question, yes I am convinced it couldn't have been demolition because some flashes weren't where I think they should be. Which is actually on the building ! Seems like a very important detail to me.

Out of sequence my foot, they are all over the sky and above the fallen tower! I don't have to prove anything, it's all on the video.

I've got some really nice Beach Front property in Kansas you may be interested in.

Sweet! I've been meaning to work on my tan!

Originally posted by Soloist
From none of the photos you have posted nor from this video (the subject of this thread remember) or any other video can anyone possibly tell that the "ejections" are coming from ANY solid or intact structure.

You're serious?
It's going to be a long and pointless debate if you can't see the difference between the destroyed part, and intact part of the building where the ejections are. Sorry but I don't have time to draw little arrows for you and define the word intact.
I think I'm beginning to understand the Conspiracy Theory of Dumbing Us Down.

ill try not to stay on a soapbox too long here but i have a challenge for all of you.

do some research on explosives from sources other than CT sites. seriously. learn what the term "ring main" means. once you have some cursory knowledge come back and explain to us how the "squibs" can be "premature detonations".

while youre at it, explain why in any other video of a real cd the "squibs" puff out real fast then drop off in speed yet the ones on the wtc puff out and then continue to puff out in continuous jets as if there was force still pushing them.

last id like someone to explain to me how if the building was "falling at freefall speed" how debris thats coming off the building falls past the the part of the building thats collapsing? seriously, ive seen videos (911 mysteries) claiming that the building feel at the same speed that something dropped from the top of the building would...yet thats obviously BS because debris falling off the biulding falls past the destruction wave.

so, ima get off my soap box now and go back to recovering from surgery. play nice ya'll.

peace

The first plane hit WTC 1.
The second plane hit WTC 2.
It where planes, but where they really hijacked Boeing 757s?



This plane hit WTC 2, can anybody explain to me what that strange cylinder is???

Then many people, civilians, firemen, policemen speak of explosions, and they all hearing them in a special pattern, like boom boom boom boom boom.

www.youtube.com...

Watch the WMV’s and listen to the enormous explosions.
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Watch closely to the short WMV footage of “Smoke from floor 74?”
On a certain moment you see also a flash just between those two men.

So, now you have planes with strange devises attach to them, you have the booms, and now thanks to Nola213 you have the flashes to.

What more proof do men need to accept that the towers where broad down by Controlled Demolitions and more.


[edit on 27/10/07 by spacevisitor]

Originally posted by Damocles
last id like someone to explain to me how if the building was "falling at freefall speed" how debris thats coming off the building falls past the the part of the building thats collapsing? seriously, ive seen videos (911 mysteries) claiming that the building feel at the same speed that something dropped from the top of the building would...yet thats obviously BS because debris falling off the biulding falls past the destruction wave.

peace

I actually took this seriously and reviewed a few videos and couldn't possibly see how you came to that conclusion. The only thing that would make you right, is that there were parts of the building that remained standing, steel beams, and they might of offered some resistance to some of the falling building slightly slowing it down, but I couldn't even see that.

Originally posted by Soloist
The "ejections" are merely that, ejected dust and debris from the compression of air causing it to expel outwards.

It's easily concivable that the plumes of smoke(dust) coming out of the building several floors below the collapsing portion of the building are made of some sort of visable particles. If pressure blew out the sides of the building, I think it's obvious that air would of been the result and we would not of been able to see something as clearly as a dust cloud. Now mabey some glass would of blown out the sides with the air, but still it wouldn't have been as visable a dust cloud as it was. Also if it was air, how would it have produced the concrete dust cloud. Air pressure doesn't pulvarize concrete. My guess is the dust particles were made up of exploded concrete. The dust cloud left after the building fell and the plumes of dust blowing out the side of the building closley resembe each other. That's why I believe it to be pre-planted explosions blowing out a cloud of concrete particles.

This plane hit WTC 2, can anybody explain to me what that strange cylinder is???

Its the bay housing the forward landing gear - you do understand that
an aircraft weighing up to 360,000 lbs and hitting runway at close to
200mph requires heavy duty equipment. You did notice the same
structure on the other side of the fuselage?

Lets see 110 floor building starts to collapse - figure it would make
some noise as it falls? All those floors collapsing down, the beams
supporting it tearing apart. Image would make some noise which
would sound very much like explosions. BOOM! Attended seminar
and heard Capt Jonas (one of the survivors in the stairwell) speak
He told of hearing noises, BOOM BOOM BOOM as floors above him
crumbled and impacted into each other. Didn't say it sounded like
explosions

As for flashes - there were thousands of windows in the buildings, as
building starts to collapse windows would break or be poped out of
frames - which were polished aluminium. The windows and their
frames were highly reflective - live only few miles west of NY in
New Jersey and could see the WTC from my neighborhood. Remember
buildings shining from reflected light.

Originally posted by twitchy
You're serious?

Yep.

It's going to be a long and pointless debate if you can't see the difference between the destroyed part, and intact part of the building where the ejections are. Sorry but I don't have time to draw little arrows for you and define the word intact.

Thanks, but I don't need your definition of the word intact, I think I got a handle on it. What you don't seem to be getting is that I'm saying there is no way you can tell from that video or any pictures at that distance and resolution that the point where the "ejections" are coming from is INTACT structure. It could be a blown or broken out window, cracks in the wall, etc.

You seem to be defining it as the portion of the building that hasn't fallen or been destroyed yet. You're talking on the whole, while I'm talking at the point of emission, which is what actually matters if you're going to have a plume of anything.

So, I hope you get it now.

I think I'm beginning to understand the Conspiracy Theory of Dumbing Us Down.

That's exactly what this video does, or at least attempts to, and sadly I think it's working on at least some.

Originally posted by exitestablishment
Now mabey some glass would of blown out the sides with the air, but still it wouldn't have been as visable a dust cloud as it was. Also if it was air, how would it have produced the concrete dust cloud.

You're making the assumption that it in fact was a concrete dust cloud. It could have easily been ash or smoke, or it could have been dust particles and debris from even an upper floor compressed and finding an escape in a broken window,etc. Or any combination of the above.

Air pressure doesn't pulvarize concrete.

It doesn't have to in order to blow it out a window or hole or crack in a wall.That's still assuming it's concrete, of course there is no proof of what it is, and since it's too hard to tell what it's coming out of, I think it's safe to say we don't know it's makeup.

My guess is the dust particles were made up of exploded concrete. The dust cloud left after the building fell and the plumes of dust blowing out the side of the building closley resembe each other. That's why I believe it to be pre-planted explosions blowing out a cloud of concrete particles.

Just because one dust cloud resembles another doesn't make them the same. Remember it wasn't just concrete in the towers, ash, smoke, drywall, etc ,etc ,etc. which could have very well been similar in type to the "ejections" or any combination thereof.

reply to post by exitestablishment



seriously? no, i dont mean that to be confrontational or facitious, but seriously?



do the red circles help at all? if the building was REALLY collapsing at "free fall speed" then the circled items wouldnt be in front of the collapse wave by even a little.

see where i was going with that? am i still the only one that sees this?