You know what debate me 9/11 was not an inside job.

Originally posted by jfj123
What would need to be planted and where in the building?
Also, do you know how long a professional demolition crew would take to properly set a building and the number of personnel required?

I'm not an expert but thinking that the government wouldn't have the manpower or knowledge to do this is insulting them. Maybe a few days is short yes, but a few weeks would be more than enough to put some detonation strips along the core columns on every floor and explosives where needed.

Originally posted by jfj123

Nobody will pay any attention cause this happens everywhere.

Specifically WHAT happens everywhere?
What would they pretend to do and what would they really be doing? Please be specific.

In bigger buildings you'll always see 'crews' fixing the airconditioning, elevators etc. Heck even in places where I have worked, people walk in to steal plasmascreens, because people working there just assume it's ok. And as someone else pointed out, at night they can do whatever they want.

Originally posted by jfj123

It would only take a few days to put some detonation strips along every column with a small crew.

What is your source for this information? Explain how this would be done in detail along with what materials would be used.

I'm not a working in the field to detonate buildings. It's funny to me you demand this information. It would be done like in any other building. Since it doesn't look like a 'special' detonation they probably used the same materials. Though I'd like to add they probably used some extra stuff, those molten pools of metal must be there for a reason. Concrete and metal just 'falling' won't suddenly turn into a few thousand degrees.

Originally posted by jfj123

They needed a reason to go to war so they blew it up to shift the American opinion, just like Hitler did with the Reichstag.

But Bush and Cheney have proven they don't care about public opinion.

However they do need the public to accept their decisions. If they decide to bomb France with no reason whatsoever you can expect the public to rise up against them. Now they softened the idea of going to war, which made their plans easier to execute.

Originally posted by jfj123

History repeats itself and since the average attention span of 80% of the people is 10 seconds it's easy to manipulate them.

If it's that easy, why do most Americans think Bush is considered the worst president in the US' history? Since you've made it sound so simple, why couldn't the administration simply manipulate us into loving them?

Do most Americans hate Bush? When 9/11 happened and he wanted to 'act', not many people hated him, I think. They wanted revenge on the so-called 'terrorists', and Bush was all about that. The hate only came afterward when their plans already were executed and didn't care about the public. They did their job... So to answer your question, they didn't need the public to love Bush for his 8 years, they just needed a little window of 'love' to set things in motion. The fear campaign to trigger hate and demand revenge.

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by apacheman

 

Big planes hit buildings.
Buildings took physical damage from planes.
Big buildings took damage from fires.
Buildings fell.

Can you show me a similar instance where this occurred in which a building didn't fall?

Let's start with something simple like that and we'll go from there.

Also how familiar are you with building construction?
Who built the buildings in question?
How construction is done
How loads are determined ie dead/live
How loads transfer
etc...
Because these items may have had a lot to do with how/why they ultimately collapsed.

Actually, fairly familiar: I was a construction electrician for a few years, and a fire alarm installer for a few after that. I've worked in some fairly sensitive places with no more authorization than a few phone calls and some forms, all easily fakeable or obtainable legitimately through repair bids: lowest bidder usually gets the job, piece of cake when profit's not your motive, at least not the penny-ante profit a maintenance or repair contract provides.

If you search through my posts you'll find I've done my homework and studied this case, providing lots of links to support my conclusions. After long and patient research, the only conclusion I could reach that jibed with all known facts is that the Twin Towers were deliberately brought down by explosives, not from the aircraft impacts. I'm also more familiar than most with aircraft impacts on buildings: I witnessed a fully loaded KC-135 auger in on takeoff. A KC-135, for those unfamiliar with it, is an aerial refueling aircraft that carries a cargo of 200,000 lbs of transferable jet fuel, one hell of a lot more than both airliners had put together. The joints in the buildings burnt seemed to be intact when I looked at them, and were still holding up the floors they were supposed to. Those fires burned for a lot longer than anything at the WTC.

So what are your qualifications and experiences that lead you to conclude that the official story is accurate?

reply to post by apacheman


Aside from researching the subject for some years now,
I'm a licensed builder.
I've done post fire and impact cleanups.
I have 2 applicable degrees depending on what we're talking about Electronics, computer programming. I have a 3rd degree but has nothing to do with this area.
I also have a background in lasers, optics and holograms.

reply to post by jfj123


Okay, I'll grant you're educated enough to make me wonder how you can believe the official line when all neutral evidence is against it.

I'd still be interested in you presenting a chain of logic that includes all the known facts and uses accepted physics to prove that explosives weren't used, citing examples to counter those I've provided before, especially those about skyscraper fires.

The simple fact remains that there was insufficient thermal and kinetic energy to bring those towers down within the time frames they fell without help.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by jfj123

 

Okay, I'll grant you're educated enough to make me wonder how you can believe the official line when all neutral evidence is against it.

I'd still be interested in you presenting a chain of logic that includes all the known facts and uses accepted physics to prove that explosives weren't used, citing examples to counter those I've provided before, especially those about skyscraper fires.

Let's keep in mind that it wasn't just a sky scraper fire or fires that brought down the towers, there was a massive impact that caused structural damage.

The simple fact remains that there was insufficient thermal and kinetic energy to bring those towers down within the time frames they fell without help.

As a construction engineer, you know that there are supposed to be building codes and those who enforce them. You also must know that many times those codes are violated yet passed.
One of my major sources of income is repairs to buildings that should never have been passed by anyone and we both know this happens all the time.
Now keep in mind I understand I am speculating but my thought is that these buildings were not as structurally sound as the builders and engineers claimed they should be. We both can cite example after example of this.
As example, as a matter of practice, one of the US' largest building companies violate many codes. I got this info from people who work for the company and I've seen it myself when doing repairs on said buildings so it corroborates what they say.

Now on to the idea that you'd like to see something more substantial from me, I'll do what I can, please be patient.

Originally posted by ShiftTrio


Why would they do it like this? Why wouldn't they say poison the water supply blame it on Terrorists, no one would ever know, no buildings to blow up terrorists to make up, bin Laden videos to fake and then silence the real Bin laden, so he says I didn't do it..

Because poisoned water on tv will not make much of a statement. Slowly rolling in reports of poisoning would never have the emotional impact of seeing Americans on a plane slam into American iconic buildings.

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by apacheman

 

Aside from researching the subject for some years now,
I'm a licensed builder.
I've done post fire and impact cleanups.

So you are educated in the specific areas dealing with plain impacts and buidling collapse? How about physics?

I have 2 applicable degrees depending on what we're talking about Electronics, computer programming. I have a 3rd degree but has nothing to do with this area.

How do any of the first two apply here? Electronics and computer program give you just exactly what insight into 9/11 and how the buildings came down. I realy do not understand how you can so that those two things give you any kind of credibility on this subject. To say the third is off subject is almost insane. I am sure you are just getting around to listing the relevant part of your education right...?

I also have a background in lasers, optics and holograms.

Guess not. Why are you telling us what you have studied exactly because none of it makes you any more authoritative on the subject of planes and buildings coming down.

Originally posted by Intothepitwego

Originally posted by ShiftTrio


Why would they do it like this? Why wouldn't they say poison the water supply blame it on Terrorists, no one would ever know, no buildings to blow up terrorists to make up, bin Laden videos to fake and then silence the real Bin laden, so he says I didn't do it..

Because poisoned water on tv will not make much of a statement. Slowly rolling in reports of poisoning would never have the emotional impact of seeing Americans on a plane slam into American iconic buildings.

I respectfully disagree, if Fear is the main goal, 10,000s poisoned in a few major cities water supply. Not knowing if yours is, having people not drinking until tests are complete etc. Would do much more damage to the average psyche then a couple planes. IMHO. It could also be done with less chance of getting caught. Also was the first WTC bombing done by Clinton? if not, is it not reasonable this is a real terrorist target.

Bottom line there is a lot of bad, bunk info floating around the truth movement and it really hurts your cause. For every 1 real questionable act, you have 10 debunked things, where people who do not take the time to research re hash over and over. IMHO . message boards are the worst thing ever for the truth movement, because your can't the compelling evidence through the nonsense and horrible treatment of people who do not see your side it (not you personally of course, but you know how these threads get)

[edit on 19-1-2009 by ShiftTrio]

Originally posted by ShiftTrio

I respectfully disagree, if Fear is the main goal, 10,000s poisoned in a few major cities water supply. Not knowing if yours is, having people not drinking until tests are complete etc. Would do much more damage to the average psyche then a couple planes. IMHO. It could also be done with less chance of getting caught. Also was the first WTC bombing done by Clinton? if not, is it not reasonable this is a real terrorist target.

Bottom line there is a lot of bad, bunk info floating around the truth movement and it really hurts your cause. For every 1 real questionable act, you have 10 debunked things, where people who do not take the time to research re hash over and over. IMHO . message boards are the worst thing ever for the truth movement, because your can't the compelling evidence through the nonsense.

My case? How can anything be hurting my case when you have no idea what my case is? All I am pointing out is that your idea is wrong. It would not work. We had people afraid the each plane would be hijacked and flown into something and look how many people could not wait to get back on a plane as soon as they were all ungrounded and ever since. This government knows how propoganda works, even if you do not. Do you really think Hitler was telling people that the jews would slowly poison their water or did he use something more like a grand attack on a special building? You should do some study on media, mind control, suggestion, advertising, propoganda, etc.... Your idea is a great idea if you want to be a terrorist who kills lots of people but it just would never have the news impact of watching thoe planes full of innocent Americans slam into those buildings. We watched a lot of people die on live tv that morning. Do you really think they will film all these poisoned people dying over time just to make sure you see the death? Do you really think that watching people slowly get sick and die over a few days with no footage of the gruesome ends would have nearly the same impact as what happened? I like your optimism and clear planning of how to kill off more Americans but the point was not to cause mass death and fear that builds slowly and lingers. The point was that very bad things will happen and we can watch it over and over and over and know that we should be afraid right now, not maybe in a week, depending on whether or not you had any public water.

Originally posted by Intothepitwego

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by apacheman

 

Aside from researching the subject for some years now,
I'm a licensed builder.
I've done post fire and impact cleanups.

So you are educated in the specific areas dealing with plain impacts and buidling collapse? How about physics?

Well I didn't think I needed to mention so many specifics but yes I've had 2 years of physics classes. It's kind of a hobby

I have 2 applicable degrees depending on what we're talking about Electronics, computer programming. I have a 3rd degree but has nothing to do with this area.

How do any of the first two apply here? Electronics and computer program give you just exactly what insight into 9/11 and how the buildings came down. I realy do not understand how you can so that those two things give you any kind of credibility on this subject. To say the third is off subject is almost insane. I am sure you are just getting around to listing the relevant part of your education right...?

No not at all. Actually you'll notice where I wrote, "depending on what we're talking about". You see, technical questions have come up in other 9/11 threads where those 2 degrees have come in handy. For example, the no planer "idea" that I believe John Lear first proposed here. He stated that planes didn't really hit the towers or pentagon but that what people saw that day were holograms.
Based on my background, I knew this was rubbish and explained in detail why it was. As a matter of fact, another person who has a background in lasers, even performed laser experiments and posted them on ATS to help disprove the silly idea of hologram planes
And this idea keeps popping back up on ATS so my technical background has actually come in handy.

I also have a background in lasers, optics and holograms.

Guess not. Why are you telling us what you have studied exactly because none of it makes you any more authoritative on the subject of planes and buildings coming down.
See above

I might as well give you more info about my background before you start asking more questions. I didn't realize I had to be so specific since nobody else has but, what ever.
Drafting, Architecture, structural engineering, yes physics, business, art, the third degree was in Exercise Physiology by the way (anatomy/physiology, Kinesiology, nutrition, ECG, and some others). I'm not sure my blood type but if you need to know that too, let me know and I'll check with my doctor.

By the way, do you now understand why I said my 3rd degree is not applicable? Get it now?

reply to post by Intothepitwego


Nothing like proving my point, I respectfully disagree and you rant like it some how its my fault, its MY opinion just like yours is yours. I DISAGREE, its my right as an American as I still DISAGREE. Perhaps water may not have as much shock value, but there are several things that only needed a few people involved that would. Which is what my point was. IF you could bring your nose down so you could see in front of your face you would get it. So lets switch it to Dirty Bomb.. use the same 12 supposed Hi jackers they let of a few dirty bombs in major cities. Now tell me the shock value wouldn't be enough. And it would need a hell of a lot less people to be in on it. Again the point is there are many ways this could have been done that would not lend itself to suspicion on the government. The way the truth movement suggests just doesnt make sense that, this would be their evil genius plan.

You should also read your history, Hitler vilified the Jews because of the state of GErmany after WW1, People where starving , had no jobs or money. They were an easy target and easy to blame the germans problems on. It wasnt one act that turned the Germans it was years of distrust. Was it mind control? Sure was. But it wasnt as you say it.

I use the term your cause not speaking specifically of you but of this topic, I assumed you would understand.

Originally posted by jfj123
Well you seemed to KNOW that they could do it based on your last post so I assumed you KNEW how they could have done it specifically.

I assumed it could be done, because of the evidence I see that points towards it having happened, yes. Do I know specifically how, what, where it was, etc.? No. Do I feel like I have to know that? No.

It's like me saying I know that my car is going to break down eventually but I can't tell you when or where, but I still know from other information, for a fact, that my car will eventually break down. Not exactly the same, but similar. WTC7 came down at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum, and when it wasn't accelerating like that, the KE loss was still nothing more than what you would expect from drag or air resistance. That, and actually watching it come down, is determining information to me. I'm more horrified by the reasoning people use to try to suppress the implications of this fact and cling to false ideals, than I am worried about how exactly it was accomplished. I know there are technologies and methodologies out there for which you'd have to learn entirely new fields of physics to even get a handle on, and our own military is on the leading edge of all of this stuff. They are the premiere experts on demolition, explosives, etc. If they were involved, I can't expect myself to look at it and figure it out what exactly they did. From what would I draw?

Based on your response, I asked you to back up your claim of knowledge. For you to KNOW that could "do that", you would have to have the required knowledge.

I do, and that knowledge is that falling bodies that impact things (let alone exert enough energy to destroy them) lose energy (kinetic energy), and that this necessitates the acceleration be less than that of free-fall in a vacuum. This is related by various laws of mechanics, physics 101 stuff. In fact, impacting air molecules causes drag that causes acceleration to drop measurably below free-fall.

Knowing all of the above, when I see a massive, 100,000+'s-ton 47-story skyscraper drop to the ground in something like 7 seconds, and come to find out accelerating at free-fall or just barely below it the whole time, I simply have to notice that the building's KE was not affected by the "collapse." That is "the required knowledge."

What would they plant that would be strong enough to drop the buildings?

Don't you think no explosives did the same thing? Are you being a hypocrite only for the sake of arguing or do you do this more often?

How would they plant those things?

I just told you that the core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts. And I keep telling you people can do this in broad daylight if they have the proper clearance, and no one is going to be up in their business. How much more clearer can I be? Let's see, you put your guys in with Otis, the WTC's elevator company, so that they all go in together for something regular and instantly have access to the building's core. Or, you have another front company that you have specifically contracted by someone in the buildings that has that kind of authority, for some kind of maintenance or whatever fits the bill. Again, access to the elevators, access to the core. Or access to the lighting, any electrical, is access to the trusses, connections, slabs, whatever you need for whatever you are doing.

I could pull stuff like this out of my ass all day, and any of it could have happened, but how am I supposed to know? Just because you aren't sharp enough to see how some influential people could have so many different strings pulled here, and you don't know how it could be done, therefore it couldn't happen? What makes you think you're on par with, say, "black ops"? Or maybe you think those units don't exist, or someone more amateur would have to be involved so that you could understand everything perfectly. Who cares.

The reason I ask is that if you don't know what they could/would have used or how they would have used it/them, you really can't make a statement saying that they could have done anything.

You keep trying to resort to subjects that require speculation.

I am talking about a = 9.8m/s^2. PE = KE.

I know those buildings were demolitions for that reason. I have explained this very clearly.

Originally posted by jfj123
Now keep in mind I understand I am speculating but my thought is that these buildings were not as structurally sound as the builders and engineers claimed they should be.

A few questions for you then:

1. How does this coincide with the OS when the NIST report says the opposite? Did the NIST lie when they stated this?

2. Why was the 9/11 Commission's goal NOT to throw any blaim around when it came to the design/construction of the buildings? Rockefellers maybe?

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
Because poisoned water on tv will not make much of a statement. Slowly rolling in reports of poisoning would never have the emotional impact of seeing Americans on a plane slam into American iconic buildings.

Don't forget the people jumping to their death.

The MSM had no problem replaying those video clips, but ask for the video of a plane at the pentagon and its: "But think of the victim's family". Rubbish.

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's like me saying I know that my car is going to break down eventually but I can't tell you when or where, but I still know from other information, for a fact, that my car will eventually break down.

BsBray, isn't it more like you get in your car in the morning and it cranks but it doesn't turn over? So you get it towed to a garage and the professional mechanic says the problem is the radiator; that the engine is overheating causing the pistons to bend inwards causing the cylinders to collapse. You know it's not the case because the engine is still cranking. So you bring it to another professional mechanic and he says the same thing. And then you bring it to a backyard former professional mechanic and he says yes, you have a hole in the radiator but that's not why it's not starting, it's because your battery is low. He replaces the battery, patches the radiator and voila, off you go in your car. I know I've gone down this route many times. Automotive repair nightmares as an analogy of the 911 investigation... you've got to love it.

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Also was the first WTC bombing done by Clinton? if not, is it not reasonable this is a real terrorist target.

I guess you've never heard that the FBI was indeed involved with that bombing?

Look it up sometime. Here, I'll help:

FBI involvement

In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of hundreds of possible suspects.

Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. He secretly recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with his FBI handlers.[24]

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by jfj123
Drafting, Architecture, structural engineering, yes physics,

I'm curious how you learned these going for electronics and computers?

I went to college for structural engineering. Not even I had drafting or architecture in school.

We had enough room for 2 electives. Do electronic people and/or computer people have more electives or something?

BTW, I must say, that with your background, why aren't you writing a book or something yet? I mean, you claim to have drafting, architectural, structural engineering, physics, fire and impact damage assessment experience. You should be on the NIST team. Your qualifications far outweigh those who are.

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Again the point is there are many ways this could have been done that would not lend itself to suspicion on the government.

How many of those ways have the added benefit of demolishing white elephants with no laws to hold you back?

Remember that the WTC towers were commissioned to be demolished by now? Piece by very expensive piece.

You should also read your history, Hitler vilified the Jews because of the state of GErmany after WW1, People where starving , had no jobs or money. They were an easy target and easy to blame the germans problems on. It wasnt one act that turned the Germans it was years of distrust. Was it mind control? Sure was. But it wasnt as you say it.

You might want to read that history again as it wasn't particularly the "jews" who Hitler targeted. It was the Slovacs. It just happened that most of them were also "jews". Hence why the gypsies got slaughtered too.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I am talking about a = 9.8m/s^2. PE = KE.

I know those buildings were demolitions for that reason. I have explained this very clearly.

This should actually be the end-all/be-all last statement ever made in these threads.

But, I'm positive that some will argue. jthomas? Seymour?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
Drafting, Architecture, structural engineering, yes physics,

I'm curious how you learned these going for electronics and computers?

I went to college for structural engineering. Not even I had drafting or architecture in school.

We had enough room for 2 electives. Do electronic people and/or computer people have more electives or something?

Thanks for asking.
Where I went to college, I could take as many classes outside my major as I wanted as long as I met the minimum required major credits per semester. I always took 14-18 credit hours per semester. I took some art classes too.

BTW, I must say, that with your background, why aren't you writing a book or something yet? I mean, you claim to have drafting, architectural, structural engineering, physics, fire and impact damage assessment experience. You should be on the NIST team. Your qualifications far outweigh those who are.

I have a background, not a PHD big difference.

I have a lot of other interests too. I like learning. The more things the better that's why one of my degrees is in exercise physiology I've also taken astronomy classes, world religions classes, anthropology. When I was in college, I used to take side classes just for the fun of it

[edit on 21-1-2009 by jfj123]