Former employee of Controlled Demolition, Inc. talks about the WTC collapses

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Are your genuinely saying that not every floor needed to have controlled demolitions planted on it for the structure to collapse? If so then you just lost the argument.

That's exactly what I'm saying and I know I haven't lost that argument. See, I've been researching controlled demolitions for many years, how about you? If you had, you wouldn't have said such a thing.

There may be some buildings that need explosives on every single floor, but most do not. If you think explosives are needed on every single floor and don't believe me, then you can contact CDI and ask them yourself:

Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI)
P.O. Box 306
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland 21131
USA
Tel: +1.410.667.6610
Fax: +1.410.667.6624
E-Mail: [email protected]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The latter was emitting white smoke, the exact same color as all the dust created by the crushed concrete, drywall, etc in every direction around it.

The color of smoke will depend on the type of explosive used. The dust, however is gray and the smoke coming off the ends of the columns is white. If it were dust from drywall, crushed concrete, etc., the "dust" would be coming from the entire length of the columns, not from the very ends that would be smoking from being severed from explosives.

Originally posted by thedman
You say "smoke" - I say dust or most likely fireproofing being dislodged

Just like I pointed out to Dave, if it were dust, it would have been coming from the entire length of the columns, not from the very ends that would have been severed by explosives.

Originally posted by thedman
Also the piece you show was not a structural column - it was a truss
from the floor supports.

Those are steel core columns falling over from the core that is on the very right. You might want to go look at the recently released NYPD chopper images for more context as that's where the image was from.

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by jprophet420
I love debunker logic. Experts detected cordite @ the pentagon. They ignore that.

There was one person that said they smelled cordite. Who are the others and what were their expertise?

Read the testimonies and watch the news archive like I did. I cant do your research for you.

*Edit* Let me expand on that. I read every pentagon testimony on record and many of them mentioned explosions/cordite smell/anomalies that were inconsistent with the OS. I also watched the news that day where there were "off the record" testimonies or observations that were ignored post 911.

Cordite is now obsolete and it is no longer produced. It has been replaced by other propellants, such as the Improved Military Rifle (IMR) line of extruded powder or the WC844 ball propellant currently in use in the 5.56x45mm NATO.[2] Production ceased in the United Kingdom, around the end of the 20th century, with the closure of the last of the World War II cordite factories, ROF Bishopton. However, cordite propellant may still be encountered in the form of legacy ammunition dating from World War II onwards. The smell of cordite is frequently referenced (erroneously) in fiction to indicate the recent firing of weapons.

en.wikipedia.org...

That was easy.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Are your genuinely saying that not every floor needed to have controlled demolitions planted on it for the structure to collapse? If so then you just lost the argument.

That's exactly what I'm saying and I know I haven't lost that argument. See, I've been researching controlled demolitions for many years, how about you? If you had, you wouldn't have said such a thing.

The problem is that your research has been shown to be no research at all but repetitions of standard 9/11 Truth claims.

Yesterday, you could not even support your claims about "explosive squibs". It was easy to show that you really had not done any research at all:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That's exactly what I'm saying and I know I haven't lost that argument. See, I've been researching controlled demolitions for many years, how about you? If you had, you wouldn't have said such a thing.

There may be some buildings that need explosives on every single floor, but most do not. If you think explosives are needed on every single floor and don't believe me, then you can contact CDI and ask them yourself:

This is an admirable attempt to evade the issue, but I must tell you I am immune to such games. The point still stands- if not every floor needed to have controlled demolitions, then it necessarily means that NONE of the floors needed controlled demolitions becuase there was sufficient force from the cascading structural faulure to defeat each subsequent floor in turn. All that was needed was the initial collapse at the point of impact of the planes to initiate the chain reaction of cascading structural failure, which is EXACTLY what all the FEMA, NIST, etc reports all say.

At best, all you can show is that controlled demolitions were located exclusively at the point of impact of the planes and it was responsible for the initial collapse, and not the damage from the impact from the planes and the sunsequent fires. The overhead necessary to steer a plane in the exact spot where controlled demolitions were secreted and preserve them sufficiently againt the force of impact and the fires, WITHOUT anyone noticing them there to begin with, makes the probability of this to be far beyond the capabilities of the conspirators to achieve outside of science fiction.

You are an intelligent person, Bonez. I shouldn't have to point this out to you.

The color of smoke will depend on the type of explosive used. The dust, however is gray and the smoke coming off the ends of the columns is white. If it were dust from drywall, crushed concrete, etc., the "dust" would be coming from the entire length of the columns, not from the very ends that would be smoking from being severed from explosives.

It would depend entirely on whether or not the component was in contact with any of the concrete, drywall, ect when it was originally installed. Since that particular component is easily recognized as being a part of a horizontal brace that held up the concerete floors, the answer is self evident.

BUT, since you want to pretend that you're now an explosives expert, fine- what demolitions grade explosive would create a white smoke vs a black smoke.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
what demolitions grade explosive would create a white smoke vs a black smoke.

That is exactly one of the questions that will be answered in my documentary. I'll be contacting a few demotion companies to ask some questions and the question about what type of explosive/incendiary that would cause white smoke is one of them.

Originally posted by jthomas

Yesterday, you could not even support your claims about "explosive squibs". It was easy to show that you really had not done any research at all:

Excellent observation. For someone who claims to have "analyzed controlled demolitions for years" it's odd that Bonez forgets that skyscrapers are full of air, and when the buildings collapse the air has to go somewhere.

It's becoming patently obvious that Bonez isn't looking at the available evidence and concluding there were controlled demolitions. He's insisting there were controlled demolitions and he's adding and subtracting his facts to embellish what he wants to be true. There's entirely too much "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" ploys in his arguments.

This is hardly the behavior of someone who is "honestly trying to find the truth behind the 9/11 attack", now, is it?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That is exactly one of the questions that will be answered in my documentary. I'll be contacting a few demotion companies to ask some questions and the question about what type of explosive/incendiary that would cause white smoke is one of them.

What do you mean, "you'll be contacting them"? You made the claim that some explosives create black smoke while others create white smoke. You're telling me you made the claim without investigating to see whether it was even true yet?

...and you STILL evade the point- if not all floors required controlled demolitions, then it necessarily means than none of the floors required controlled demolitions. All that was necessary was the initial collapse where the aircraft struck to create the chain reaction we all saw, which is exactly what the FEMA, NIST, MIT, etc reports say. You know, the reports you say are all rubbish?

I'm not askign for your mother's bra size. I'm merely inquiring how you reconcile these contradictions that you're introducing.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Then you're saying it with your fingers in your ears and ignoring the evidence that was directly presented to you.

It's obvious that you are purposely denying the evidence and misrepresenting the facts. For that, you have zero credibility and will now be ignored.

There you have it folks. Another truther that will ignore someone that shows them facts.

You have failed Bonez to tell anyone WHY in EVERY other video available that is CLOSER than the Hoboken video... NONE have the same sounds the Hoboken video has. (wind)

You claim to have done research in controlled demolition, yet you IGNORE that NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOLITION EXPERT has stated WTC 1 & 2 were controlled demolitions.

Your controlled demolition research has yet to uncover an indestructible detonator that would have been planted.

You also failed to acknowledge that planting these explosives in occupied buildings is IMPOSSIBLE.

But hey, Bonez, you keep ignoring those that have facts. Keep giving your paycheck to Mr. Box Boy Gage.


[edit on 9-5-2010 by Six Sigma]

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by jprophet420
I love debunker logic. Experts detected cordite @ the pentagon. They ignore that.

There was one person that said they smelled cordite. Who are the others and what were their expertise?

Read the testimonies and watch the news archive like I did. I cant do your research for you.

*Edit* Let me expand on that. I read every pentagon testimony on record and many of them mentioned explosions/cordite smell/anomalies that were inconsistent with the OS. I also watched the news that day where there were "off the record" testimonies or observations that were ignored post 911.

Cordite is now obsolete and it is no longer produced. It has been replaced by other propellants, such as the Improved Military Rifle (IMR) line of extruded powder or the WC844 ball propellant currently in use in the 5.56x45mm NATO.[2] Production ceased in the United Kingdom, around the end of the 20th century, with the closure of the last of the World War II cordite factories, ROF Bishopton. However, cordite propellant may still be encountered in the form of legacy ammunition dating from World War II onwards. The smell of cordite is frequently referenced (erroneously) in fiction to indicate the recent firing of weapons.

en.wikipedia.org...

That was easy.

It was easy, and you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't really care about what happened that day. There is zero percent chance of smelling cordite from a plane wreck.

You also get the "I did not read my own source before I posted". 911 happened around the turn of the century.

I'll take a moment to pause while you get out a calendar and verify this fact.

Originally posted by jprophet420

It was easy, and you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't really care about what happened that day.

You might want to read this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

It was easy, and you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't really care about what happened that day.

You might want to read this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am sorry that you feel that my response is an attack against YOU, it is an attack against what you posted. There is no question that your post refutes nothing, and I gave you the respect of reading the entire article that you linked to. When I read the article it became absolutely crystal clear that there is an overabundance of cordite on this earth, making it a plausible, possible, likely explanation.

The irony of course is that I wanted to use the word "know" instead of "care", which would likely be more accurate, however more likely to be construed as a personal attack.

In either case, not reading your own source is very poor posting and leaves us with nothing positive to say whatsoever. I refuse to be "debunked" by ignorance however. Please elaborate, or even begin to explain what "that was easy" meant. Other than of course its easy to cut and paste non sequitur responses.

Originally posted by jprophet420

In either case, not reading your own source is very poor posting and leaves us with nothing positive to say whatsoever. I refuse to be "debunked" by ignorance however. Please elaborate, or even begin to explain what "that was easy" meant. Other than of course its easy to cut and paste non sequitur responses.

I actually showed why "cordite" has no significance whatsoever to what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

And, BTW, "...you don't really care about what happened that day" is a personal attack, n'est pas?






[edit on 9-5-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
One of the guest speakers was a gentleman by the name of Tom Sullivan who had previously worked for Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI), owned and operated by the Loizeaux family.
...
In his talking points, Sullivan talks about some of the myths surrounding 9/11 on how certain things would have been discovered in the debris pile of the collapses if explosives were used at the WTC:

1.) One of the myths is that if explosives were used, there would be pieces of the casings or other physical evidence left behind from the use of explosives. Sullivan has stated that there is nothing left of the casings.

2.) Another myth is that miles of detcord would be found in the debris pile. On this point, Sullivan mentioned the remote-controlled detonators that have been in use for many years.

I have been challenging people to prove there would have to be explosives casings or wiring for years; these ideas have always been myths that "debunkers" have perpetuated based on nothing. Sounds like the "truthers" aren't the ones who need "debunking" in the first place huh? But then we already know that too.


Btw electronics engineering is my major and the capabilities of technology today go far and beyond simple remote control. Which is why it boggles my mind how stupid people can be when it comes to these issues, that they assume remote control would not have been available. Seriously very, very ignorant people saying these things when they use the same technology to turn the channel on their TVs every day.


Then again, flipping channels all day is why so many Americans are so stupid in the first place imo.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by bsbray11]

It always amazes me how many Truthers resort to the "Sheeple Defense", describing the very people they are trying to convince as "stupid" while simultaneously presenting no evidence for their claims whatsoever.

The irony bites.



[edit on 9-5-2010 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas


Exactly. Like I have asked you 100's of times to show what evidence you base your own opinions on, and every single time you back down. That speaks much louder than the rhetoric in your posts.

Same with TraditionalDrummer and every other "debunker" here who only knows how to criticize some other theory from their computer chair. None of you have ever shown the evidence to prove NIST, FEMA, or the Kean Commission correct. Because none of these investigations even claimed they had the final answers, only best guesses with what they had to work with.


But claiming that miles of detcord would be required in an age where remote control technology is everywhere and even commercial controlled demolition makes use of it. Now that truly is just stupid.

It's quite remarkable that a photographer hired to take pictures of demolitions and do brochures can become a "demolition expert" that people will pay money to hear repeat debunked 9/11 Truther claims while we skeptics are considered "sheeple" by the ones who settle on a photographer as a "demolition expert."

I guess real demolition experts who would ever buy into "controlled demolition of the WTC towers" are in really short supply.

Or maybe the sponsors are looking for really good Photoshop experts.

reply to post by jthomas


I love how debunkers continue to call people liars. Everyone is a liar so that the official story can be true.

Photographers don't need licenses to handle explosives.

It does not matter what side of the debate one find one's self, the bottom line is that a fair, open and complete investigation was not done for 9-11.
End of argument.
We all can agree that a detailed investigation needs to be done. Let the truth be seen by all.

In my personal view . The the government said what happen . There are ALWAYS right . they love us with . so it must be true .

case closed.

Ok people . there is nothing more to add here .


want something to eat I am hungry lets go watch tv