Wait a second?... How is it that I'm the one that's crazy, insane, delusional, and brainwashed?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Raytracer

 

Key words in your quote... "would probably sustain". Yes the designers designed a building that they THOUGHT would withstand an impact from a slow moving airliner. They were wrong. Do we need to start a discussion on all the times in history where designers/engineers (sorry Griff) THOUGHT they had designed something that could handle anything....and were wrong?

Yes, they can be wrong, but were they?
The official report clearly states the fire weakened the structure, and as I said in a previous post that makes me think that without the fire the structure would still stand, even in the presence of the damage caused by the impact.

In fact the foundations and the stories below the impact looked pretty much undamaged and able to sustain the weight of the building, as they always did.
That's why the official story tells the fire is the main cause of the collapse.

Almost forgot.....Mr DeMartini actually went up in one of the towers that day to inspect the damage, supposedly some of his last words were a concern the building was going to collapse. He died when it did.

I didn't know that, can you give me your source? thanks.

And again, my point is you don't need miles of wires to rig a building with explosives.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Raytracer

 

Name one demolition company that does its work like that. Name ONE that uses your wireless system.

Why should I?
Why should you assume it was a demo company?
Why should you assume they would use controlled demolition's standard operating procedure?

Or do you believe that it would be a bunch of amatuers setting up the demolition?

I never said that... quite the opposite in fact.

Cause the pros will all tell you that something like that would leave too much to chance.

Maybe the pros you are referring to are not pro enough!

Besides, you are STILL talking about thousands of individual charges that would have to have a receiver with them in order to pull it off.Or do we dig up how long it would take to place the thousands of charges need to drop three buildings? Because a 10 story building would take a month or so and we are talking a cumulative 267 story job.......and NO ONE noticed???

I'm still unsure about the number of charges, but hey, you are the demo expert here!
They had plenty of time to plant whatever they wanted... i remember the towers being closed down prior to 911, and I guess at night there must be less people around the offices, right?
I also suppose it was possible to inspect the inner core without tearing the walls apart... how convenient if one has to plant explosives.


[edit on 2-1-2009 by Raytracer]

reply to post by Raytracer


And thats another oft-told lie. The Towers were NEVER shut down, ever. That story originates with Scott Forbes and it changes every time he tells it.

Now, why would I assume it was a demolition company...well who the hell else would know enough about it to be able to do it? BTW, I am not a demolitions expert, however, I do know enough to talk to the people that DO implode buildings for a living. Thats where the "thousands" of charges comes from, the people that do that as a profession.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Raytracer

 

And thats another oft-told lie. The Towers were NEVER shut down, ever. That story originates with Scott Forbes and it changes every time he tells it.

Now, why would I assume it was a demolition company...well who the hell else would know enough about it to be able to do it? BTW, I am not a demolitions expert, however, I do know enough to talk to the people that DO implode buildings for a living. Thats where the "thousands" of charges comes from, the people that do that as a profession.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Start watching at 54:45

"a number of unannounced and unusual drills"

"bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed from the buildings"

"Marvin Bush"

Google Video Link

reply to post by Jezus


Well I would, but since Google tells me that link doesnt work....

Okay, based on what you typed...

"bomb dogs abruptly removed"

From one of the stories that normally gets quoted about the bomb dogs..

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that.

www.newsday.com...

But then there is this...

Police K9 Sirius... ...was an Explosive Detection Dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department. Sirius, along with his partner, Police Officer David Lim, were assigned to the World Trade Center in New York, where their primary duty was to check vehicles entering the Complex, clear unattended bags and sweep areas for VIP safety...

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Sirius and Officer Lim were at their Station located in the basement of Tower Two...

www.novareinna.com...

So it wasnt that the bomb dogs were removed, it was that the EXTRA dogs were removed, leaving behind the dogs that were normally at the WTC complex. No matter, because all the bomb dogs in the world were not going to stop airliners. Unless of course you are one of those people that believe that in the space of 96 hours, three buildings totalling 267 stories were wired for demolition...without the bomb dogs that were there noticing. Where do you find this crew of supermen that can wire a building that fast? I mean it takes weeks for professional demolition companies to wire much smaller buildings.

In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 "primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.

24 days for a NINE story building, and yet your Supermen wired 267 stories in 96 hours.....not likely.

Then there the Marvin Bush...

I am going to guess you mean this Marvin Bush...

The Commission also did not mention that the CEO of the company that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center was Wirt Walker III, the president's cousin, or that Marvin Bush, the president's brother, had been one of this company's (securacom) directors

Three problems with Mr Griffen's statement...

1. Securacom was in no way in charge of security at the WTC.

John O'Neill was in charge of the WTC security department, assisted by the PAPD.

2. Wirt Walker is not a relative of President Bush

Unless of course you go back to Noah and his Post Flood family I guess.....

3. Marvin Bush was not on the board of directors of Securacom on Sept. 11, 2001

Marvin Bush was reelected annually to Securacom's board of directors from 1993 through 1999. His final reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000. Throughout, he also served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee, and his stock holdings grew during the period. Directors had options to purchase 25,000 shares of stock annually. In 1996, Bush acquired 53,000 shares at 52 cents per share. Shares in the 1997 IPO sold at $8.50. Records since 2000 no longer list Bush as a shareholder

www.physics911.ca...:_Security,_Secrecy,_and_a_Bush_Brother

So he left Securacom in June of 2000....before his brother was even the GOP nominee to be President.......



[edit on 3-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


1. So who was phoning in threats to the WTC, swamp?

2. So what if he left Securacom? The fact that he was there, and some other things about the company, show that it's linked to the Bush family!

3. They didn't need to place explosives on every floor. Only a few floors. The nuke in the basement would do most of the job.

4. Security at the WTC was run by Kroll Inc., which is a very 'spooky' firm.


Mod edit: Added Reply to after removing large quote.

[edit on 1/5/2009 by Hal9000]

reply to post by LordCarpainter


The nuke in the basement...riiiiiiight. Really nothing else to say about the post. Because we all know we have the special nukes that dont emit an EMP, or radiation.

In reference to HunkaHunka's false claim that he witnessed the alleged aircraft crash into the Pentagon on 9-11-2001 while driving north on Washington Blvd (Hwy 27)

posted by enigmania
I just took his own words and used the officiall account of events to verify his story, and it turns out it doesn't add up.

posted by SPreston
An anonymous person with absolutely no evidence to prove his/her relation to reality. HunkaHunka is totally worthless as a reliable eyewitness; about as valuable as the Mainstream News Media

posted by enigmania
No sh.

I don't know if you read any of my other posts, but if you do, you'd understand my approach.

posted by SPreston
Yes I read them. I did not disagree with your posts. I do have about three years of research into this area.

I just took his own words and used the official account of events and simple common sense to verify his story, and it turns out it doesn't add up.

posted by fleabit

Of course you find it hard to believe enigmania.. because like all the others who are just positive there is a conspiracy, discount anything that doesn't agree with their opinions.

For example, above isn't the only example of someone who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, there were many witnesses who said they saw this happen.

posted by SPreston
So now that little tale by HunkaHunka has been proven a lie; do you have anything else to add? It is perfectly hunky dory for alleged eywitnesses to lie when supporting the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY as long as they get away with the lie? Is that your position or do you have a comment?

So HunkaHunka why haven't you explained why you falsified your Pentagon crash scene eyewitnesses script? I know you have been lurking around. Do you believe falsifying eyewitness testimony at a crime scene is perfectly legal and justifiable if you get away with it unchallenged?

The alleged flight path across the road

posted by HunkaHunka on 12/30/08 @ 11:13

Ok... here you are way off base. I don't know about your other research... but I was there on that day in DC at the Pentagon and SAW WITH MY OWN EYES WHAT HAPPENED THERE.

And fleabit how is it you were so easily conned by HunkaHunka? Were you just as easily conned by all the other alleged official south path eyewitnesses reading prepared scripts and going unchallenged? HunkaHunka was unprepared and did not even know that the pretend aircraft he was supposed to see hitting the wall, should have been past his passenger side mirror; not in the mirror behind him.

posted by HunkaHunka on 12/30/08 @ 11:21

I need no convincing. I watched the plane fly into the Pentagon. I wasn't in NY so I can't speak to that. I wasn't in PA, so I can't speak to that.

I was however in DC and watched the plane fly into the Pentagon.

You see, the reporters showed up AFTER, they weren't there during.

HunkaHunka if the reporters showed up AFTER, then why are so many of the USA Today etc reporters listed among the official eyewitnesses? Are you claiming they all lied and were not there until later?

According to HunkaHunka's made up story, his car would have been about where the word 'traffic' appears in 'north- bound traffic'. So how would HunkaHunka see the crash in his mirror?

posted by HunkaHunka on 12/30/08 @ 11:23

I was the President of my HOA at the time, and about 30% of my home owners were working at the Pentagon. I lost some. It was tragic. So yes, I know plenty of people who survived it, as well as some who tragically did not.

I was driving on Washington BLVD at the time and saw it fly over me. I remember thinking "OMG, here we go again with another Potomac crash... thank God it's not during the winter." Then as I sped up out of fear of the sound of the engines, I looked in my rear view and saw it hit.

I'm sure there are plenty of others like me out there who were on the road that morning, as traffic is always horrible in DC as it was that day. But we don't have any hard evidence other than our own experience.

As I mentioned before, I saw an American Airlines plane hit the Pentagon, plain and simple. I will never forget what I saw... it was simply horrific.

Of course HunkaHunka's story is hard to believe because it is an outright lie. Assuming Hunk's car is American with the driver's seat on the left side, the alleged aircraft would have been approaching from his left back quarter at an official 535 mph with the sound just slightly ahead of it. (speed of sound at sea level about 761 mph) At 784.6 feet per second, Hunk had about one second and a half to jerk his head around and see the alleged 757 impact the wall, after it passed over his car. Enough of our star anonymous eyewitness and his BS.

HunkaHunka why did you try to convince us with a lie? Do you believe the Bush Regime Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is so weak and filled with contradictions that it needs lies to help prop it up? Or do you just crave attention?

posted by HunkaHunka on 12/30/08 @ 11:56

I was heading North on Washington Blvd. And it flew over me as I mentioned. I didn't notice it until it was right on top of me, as the sound of the engines was the first clue to me, so I can't say where it was coming from other than it was left of me, so it could have been anywhere from south west to west to north west heading any of the east directions.

So HunkaHunka wasn't aware of the aircraft traveling at 784 feet per second until it was over him and hidden by the roof of his car. If HunkaHunka was driving less than 40 mph, then his car was moving north at less than 59 fps. Meanwhile the aircraft was allegedly knocking down light poles all around HunkaHunka, and the aircraft would have to be less than 35 feet above his roof. How would you see the type of aircraft HunkaHunka if it was moving directly away from you and you were looking at the back of the tail? All this in one and a half seconds? (784 fps)



[edit on 1/3/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by Doomsday 2029


...total nonsense. doing all of your "research" is pointless and naive. the 911 conspiracy does not pass the smell test. so of all of your "research" just smells, that's about it on that.

It makes sense that there are eye-witnesses who have something to hide and can be easily manipulated to follow a script. who doesn't have something to hide? it must be something he doesn't think anyone would understand, but what else is there left to do but try? If he is involved in this cover-up, he must have a pretty darn good reason...fear for his life, maybe? Gotta wonder what drives these people when so much has already come to light.

reply to post by Raytracer


You are both quoting someone who had nothing to do with the design. I am referring to person who was the architect. You are quoting a properly manager. Please get it right. He stated that he 'believed' it could withstand multiple hits but he is recorded stating it was designed to withstand 1. It is all in how you are wording it and being misleading.


Yamaski was the architect and had many designers....
link to article

He had many designers who assisted him and at that time it was stated how it was created to withstand a low speed strike and that it should stand or at least be capable of allowing the people inside to escape. The elevators of the WTC were a very difficult thing to account for plus the fact that it was hollowed out some much inside toallow maximum retail/commercial space.

I'll e ven trhow you a bone. It is a fact that in 1964 there was a statement(paper released) that said the WTC could withstand a 600 mph strike from a plane. Of course the, the desginers would say that, would they say anything else.

From what I have read they did over engineer the towers but you have to realize that the structure lost columns that were supporting the rest of the structure. I feel that if the planes would have clipped the WTC it would not have collapsed. Both planes hit with great accuracy that did maximum damage.

To Cashlink

Whitewash? Propoganda? You are doing nothing but stating 'opinion'. That is all. You state you feel Mr Kean was silenced by Bush. You know that? How? Give me a link? Fact is that there was a book release by Mr Kean after the report. If the administration did not want it released, I would think that based on the writings you have provided it would have been put in a safe somewhere in the desert and never released. However, it was.

To all

Do we all understand investigation and how people in one department do not like those in another?? Local cops shy from FBI as much as State Troopers sometimes are not welcome in a local matter. It is life, that's all. It happens in every set of corporate job that there is. You want to be the one that gets the idea or the promotion. Have you never worked with someone who withheld something that had dire consequence down the line based on selfish views? This is common in the corporate workplace at least at a management level. Everyone wants to be the CEO or top dog. That happened with many of the intel failures leading to 9/11 that are outlined not inly in the commission report but many other books. go to Amazon and read a book instead of hitting websites.

The FBI had separate investigations that we not including local or state police or government. The CIA had been tracking Atta for years prior to 9/11. He was not a nice guy....

The United States was caught with its pants down on 9/11. Am I proud of that moment, no, but all I can do is hope and trust there will not be another based on the DHS and the global effort to stop terrorism.

reply to post by cashlink


This is a perfect example of changing something to fit your view. If you read this post, at the end of the reply to, it states that I typed

You can keep your head in the sand if you believe that. PS - To Cashlink ,the guy with the Poodle and Deniro picture in his avatar, please do not call me delusional since I have a view different from you.

But it is ok for “you” to ridicule, and insult, and spin, and lie, and belittle people who do not like your strange views.

Go back and look at my link, and nowhere does is state that I typed "You can keep your head in the sand if you believe that" because I did not type that. So in effect, Cash, you are taking something I did not sayl, printing it and then chastising me for it.

This is very unsettling and actually, I think, slander since it is printed. Wow, you are the man Cash, creating something that is not to promote your view and make me look like the attacker. Sounds like the same thing you are accusing our government of doing. Makes me think disinfo......


Mod edit: Removed large quote.

[edit on 1/5/2009 by Hal9000]

Start watching at 54:45

"a number of unannounced and unusual drills"

"bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed from the buildings"

"Marvin Bush"

video.google.com...

reply to post by Jezus


You repeat a post which has already been addressed?? Your video is full of falsehoods, just like the other versions of Loose Change.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by SPreston


Nice big post. All to continue to trash an anonymous person as an alleged liar. Bravo for you.....unfortunately, I don't see from the description, or your thoughtfully provided photos (one of which is labeled "alleged" aircraft position), that it would be impossible for hunkahunka to have seen the aircraft impact in his rear view mirror. In fact, it appears to be reasonably possible, that a person who has just experienced a very close encounter with a jetliner, would not simply sit as normal in the driver's seat, but would very likely make some kind of attempt to see as much as possible to the rear of themselves; possibly by physically changing the position of the mirror, or their head.

posted by MrPenny

Nice big post. All to continue to trash an anonymous person as an alleged liar. Bravo for you.....unfortunately, I don't see from the description, or your thoughtfully provided photos (one of which is labeled "alleged" aircraft position), that it would be impossible for hunkahunka to have seen the aircraft impact in his rear view mirror. In fact, it appears to be reasonably possible, that a person who has just experienced a very close encounter with a jetliner, would not simply sit as normal in the driver's seat, but would very likely make some kind of attempt to see as much as possible to the rear of themselves; possibly by physically changing the position of the mirror, or their head.

I just went by what HunkaHunka claimed and compared it to the known evidence and official evidence. Hunk's tale did not hold up very well did it? Hunk should have taken more time and prepared his falsehood much better. Hunk's easily disproven tale did more damage than good, and Hunk did a great dis-service to the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY faithful believers. To be fair, some of the original official eyewitnesses did a lot of damage to the official fairy tale also.

1. The alleged official aircraft was flying at 535 mph (784 fps) and flying from the left up I-395 behind HunkaHunka. Other eyewitnesses claimed the traffic on northbound Hwy 27 was slow or stopped at the time of the explosion. Supposedly Hunk would have been stuck in that same traffic if he had really been there.



2. HunkaHunka claimed he was northbound on Washington Blvd (Hwy 27) and that the alleged aircraft flew over the top of his car. As you can see from the flight path above, Hunk would have been about at the tail of the middle airplane which would have taken a second and a half to travel from Hunk's car to the Pentagon wall.

3. At 784 fps, Hunk would have had about a second and a half before impact with the wall to move around and adjust his mirrors. A person cannot do much in a second and a half can he? Also, Hunk was supposedly strapped into his seat which is the law in Virginia, and the roof over the passenger seat and the right side windshield frame would have obstructed his view.

4. Regardless, the alleged impact or explosion would not have been behind Hunk to see in a mirror. The explosion would have been off to the right side and slightly ahead of him. If a person is going to make up an eyewitness account, he should be careful and make sure it fits the facts and makes sense. Correct?

5. How Hunk could see what airline it was is a big question mark, because the alleged aircraft would have been flying directly away from him with just the back of the tail and wings visible. Even if airlines wrote their names back there, the print would be awfully small. So HunkaHunka could not possibly have seen the name of the airline could he?

6. According to the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, Hunk should have witnessed the light poles getting knocked down; but Hunk said nothing about light poles did he? To his left two light poles allegedly got clobbered by the 90 ton 535 mph aircraft; one of which got cut in two, with the longer piece smashing through a taxi windshield. Another light pole right next to his car on the right side was supposed to be cut in two, with two more light poles cut in two closer to the Pentagon. How did HunkaHunka miss all this? With 337 pound light poles flying around, I would have crawled under the seat.

7. These same listed items can be and have been used to shred the original statements of the official south path eyewitnesses. Two of them, Mike Walter and Jamie McIntyre got caught in their lies, and had to come up with different lies. Others turned out to be miles away and some had no last names for verification. Even Hunka hinted that no reporters were there until later, and oddly most of the alleged official south path eyewitnesses were USA Today people.

8. Good liars have to prepare themselves properly by knowing the actual evidence and the official evidence and fitting it smoothly into their tales. HunkaHunka neglected to do that didn't he?

9. Just the fact that over 20 real eyewitnesses place the actual aircraft above the Naval Annex totally negates the lying or fooled south path eyewitnesses doesn't it? The Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY does not allow the official flight path to travel north of Columbia Pike, let alone further north Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. Correct?

*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin

The Flight 77 official flight path is a gigantic lie. No aircraft knocked down the five light poles and no aircraft impacted the Pentagon. We understand how desperation can cause some fanatics to make up stories. But we are seeking justice for 3000 innocent victims of the 9-11 perpetrators, and we are sick of the lies.

reply to post by SPreston


You said: “The Flight 77 official flight path is a gigantic lie. No aircraft knocked down the five light poles and no aircraft impacted the Pentagon. We understand how desperation can cause some fanatics to make up stories.”
What happened to the aircraft? It flew toward the Pentagon. There was a bang and a big fuel fire. No aircraft was seen leaving the Pentagon. There is a missing aircraft and passengers.
What conclusions do you draw from this? What stories would you have us believe?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Raytracer

 

Now, why would I assume it was a demolition company...well who the hell else would know enough about it to be able to do it?

You assume too much.
If I tell you any other possibility it's just speculation, but I can think at least one other possibility.

I don't know WHO did it, I don't know HOW they did it. Neither do you.

As I said before my point still is you can demolish a building almost wirelessly and that it certainly does not require miles of wires.

BTW, I am not a demolitions expert, however, I do know enough to talk to the people that DO implode buildings for a living. Thats where the "thousands" of charges comes from, the people that do that as a profession.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

You keep referring to those people, but you never give us credentials. Who are they? Who they work for? What is the tallest building they imploded? Did they implode a building comparable in height to one of the towers? Which one?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Raytracer

 

From what I have read they did over engineer the towers but you have to realize that the structure lost columns that were supporting the rest of the structure. I feel that if the planes would have clipped the WTC it would not have collapsed. Both planes hit with great accuracy that did maximum damage.

I don't understand.
I thought the columns below the impact all the way to the ground were pretty much undamaged.
I thought without the fires the towers would still stand, or at least the part from the impact down... I was even prepared to see the top (from the impact up) go down on the side of the impact point...
I thought the fire weakened the inner core steel columns and floor supports to the point of total collapse.