WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

reply to post by -PLB-



except for the fact that it only takes a couple of high ranking insurance executives to accept a large bribe and they can facilitate the company paying off the twin claims

reply to post by slugger9787


So it is elites stealing from elites by bribing the middle man and blowing up buildings? Just does not make sense to me.

reply to post by -PLB-


Well first of all the fraud would have to be proven and obviously that is no easy task as no one can even agree on the real cause of the structures to fail on either side of the agruement.

people say on both side that it is proven but it is not proven one way or the other.

and insurance fraud happens on massive scales all the time throughout the world of bussiness.

and as i said....read the postings i put up on page nine and think while your reading...and that is not the only source.

I will not go into the families that run the world as that would take away from the thread at hand.

but I can say i have at least put out fairly reasonable information for people to look into if they were really interested at looking at other sides of the story.

there is coming an age of enlightenment i believe and the Elite are making global shifts to gain control of the human race and 9/11 is another power play.

i wish i could just post out the smoking gun that proves one way once and for all....that would make life so much easier.

but,I truley cannot believe three buildings came down in such syncronous fashion without having internal influence on their very structures...and the OS is not sufficient in proving it.

[edit on 053030p://f17Monday by plube]

[edit on 053030p://f18Monday by plube]

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by -PLB-

 

I truley cannot believe three buildings came down in such syncronous fashion without having internal influence on their very structures...and the OS is not sufficient in proving it.

I agree.

And now I also want to comment on a few recent topics:

This battle between at free fall speed and near free fall speed or 'met some resistance' falling speed is all BS. For I don't think building demolition is generally measured by the absolute presence of free fall speed, on the contrary, I'm thinking building demolition is more likely assessed as successful as to whether the building comes down or not!

Now, on 9/11 let's say you got some PERPS are they gonna wire a building like many public CDs? Like remove all the tenants and furniture, take out all the glass, methodically plan, wire and detonate charges in plain sight sequences with plain flashes seen and bangs heard and hell, even put yellow tape around the scene and purposely keep people back?! NO. They're PERPS!!! THEY DON'T WANT TO BE SEEN! Think man think! Their work must be concealed, so therefore, argue the point all you want, the PERPS had no such comprehensive detonation plan as per usual public demolitions - HOW COULD THEY? Think about this. I know some of you won't lol

What does that mean though? I don't know if you want to call this speculation or not I don't really, and by that I mean, the thought experiment taken on that it might be PERPS and a Controlled Demolition (of some sort). You see, I think it's healthy to think and put yourself in the shoes of what you think *might* have happened as a way to actually find out. You know, if something seems 'fishy'. Arguing over free fall or not doesn't even entertain that level of thought and analysis.

If PERPS did it they would have to conceal the doing of it and that *might* just add a few seconds on here or take them off there etc. SEE? Right? But what is the end result? All the INSURED Towers came down that day just the same... now think about that. 'FISHY'.

About the Steel Construction. Look, those towers had SPINES! Ok? Spines. Right? Those other French Method building demo vids, those buildings were concrete reinforcd and had no central steel SPINES.

Now if I drop a 100 pound rock on my neighbour's head from the third floor it might mess him up but he's still gonna have a spine... Those towers were bolted together and even if you say the floors gave way then where is the remaining Spine?

So I say quit using the "pancaking" term, blowing every floor (*somehow*) as the towers fell "appears" to be pancaking but the LACK of a standing spine in either tower 1 or 2 says more than gravity and weight brought them down. IMO of course, but not even, because tell me, where is the spine?

I said it before and I'll say it again "Steel! Where did it go?!!"

Let's settle this "Spire" thing too. I don't know about the sounds of the explosions but it looked to me like the Spire disintegrated in mid air. NOW, did it or did it just fall out of the sky? It was steel, vertical steel, part of the Spine. Self supporting even. That is either until it dissolved or explosions (of some sort) down on lower floors took out the steel spinework under it. Which is it?

If it disintegrated and dissolved then BOY we got problems.

If it ws standing and then fell completely straight down THEN WE ALSO GOT PROBLEMS, for why would a self supporting part of the tower's spine ever be under cut by completely vertical freefall "pancake" collapsing? Answer me that? Why are there not self supporting remnant "spines" standing in either tower?

Cheers

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by JKersteJr

 

I gave my comments on that clip already. I am not trying to make you believe anything, I am just sharing my opinion on the matter. In fact, I would not even be that surprised if explosives were used, at least not in the trust in the government sense, but it does not seem the most obvious explanation to me.

I apologize, I saw your "No explosives" comment at the bottom of your post and assumed you meant the WTC, I stand corrected.

reply to post by -PLB-


An insurance executive gets his salary and benefits no matter how many claims are paid.

The little guys contribute the most money in insurance premiums, the big guys at the executive level can declare a claim valid and they get paid by the company in their salary and by the bribe from the company who got the claim paid off on the destroyed insured item.

The Iran-Contra fiasco is full of these frauds on land, oil wells, insurance companies, banks and savings and loan companies.

Just read some of the frauds spoken about in a book by Al Martin called secrets of an iran contra insider and you will be infirmed.



[edit on 6-9-2010 by slugger9787]

When George Bush, Bill Casey and Oliver North initiated their plan of State-sanctioned fraud and drug smuggling, they envisioned using 500 men to raise $35 billion.

When Iran Contra finally fell apart, they had ended up using 5,000 operatives and making $350 billion.

And who is Al Martin? After Al Martin retired as a Lt. Commander from the US Naval Reserves, his life went into the fast lane as a black ops specialist in the Office of Naval Intelligence. His first assignment was in Peru, where he was tapped for a CIA-sanctioned operation, smuggling American Express cards into Argentina in 1979.

After that he met US Government-sponsored con man Lawrence Richard Hamil, a Department of Defense shadow player, who taught him the ropes of profitable covert operations.

In 1984, Martin began marketing Hamil's "deals" through his Florida based Southeast Resources, Inc.

At a meeting with General Richard V. Secord and Hamil, Martin was briefed about Iran Contra operations and allowed to view voluminous CIA white papers concerning "Operation Black Eagle," the code-name for the Bush-Casey-North program involving US Government-sanctioned narcotics trafficking, illicit weapons deals and wholesale fraud.

Now Al Martin tells the facts that the Mainstream Media Cartel has virtually ignored for almost 20 years.

"The Conspirators" by Al Martin is unprecendented in publishing history. It names names, dates and events, which no one has dared write or publish before.

www.almartinraw.com...

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by -PLB-

 

An insurance executive gets his salary and benefits no matter how many claims are paid.

The little guys contribute the most money in insurance premiums, the big guys at the executive level can declare a claim valid and they get paid by the company in their salary and by the bribe from the company who got the claim paid off on the destroyed insured item.

The Iran-Contra fiasco is full of these frauds on land, oil wells, insurance companies, banks and savings and loan companies.

Just read some of the frauds spoken about in a book by Al Martin called secrets of an iran contra insider and you will be infirmed.



[edit on 6-9-2010 by slugger9787]

Insurance executives don't decide on the validity of claims.

And what about the reinsurance? There would be dozens of companies involved. It doesn't add up that they would all just pay out without complaining. Or that all their administration can be bought.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


you're right
you are right

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


did you read about how it is done in the Al Martin book?
Then please me, and shutup and don't argue with me
till you do, okay?

reply to post by slugger9787


I've got to read a book about Iran Contra now? In your post you don't even mention that it has anything to do with insurance.

I was just pointing out that your theory doesn't make sense. I don't have to read a book about something totally unrelated to know that.

yyur
yyub
icur
yy4me.

okay so don't read the book or even look it up on google,
it makes no difference to me.
in other words suit yourself.

Originally posted by plube
now if it was a straight forward collapse the buildings would have twisted and buckled in different ways they would not come straight down...especially in all three instances as the forces would not have all been the same.

Why?

Other than gravity and dead weight, what other forces were acting on the structures to force then to fall in any other direction than straight down?

The foundations didn't fail - so why would they tip/twist?

reply to post by neformore


Perhaps you haven't seen the pictures of twisted steel, lol... but on another note, why WOULDN'T it tip or twist.

Instead we note an incredible BURST of energy that somehow annihilates the lower structure despite literally no mass from the top continuing to impact the crushing zones, i really do shake my head that you do not see the tops of the buildings annihilating themselves, that which DO NOT have any reason to do so, since nothing is on top of THEM.

Since one of the towers does start tipping above the crash zone, but somehow is turning itself into nothing , you can see the steel evaporating, changing... NOT falling and collapsing i would think you would have more relevant questions...i can drop any amount of steel from anywhere , its not gonna fry itself, and lose its structure BEFORE hitting anything else.

Those cannot be the sounds of floors hitting during the initial descent.

Gravity would not allow the floors to collapse that quickly onto each other.

Sounds like demo explosives to me.

Also consider the sound delay from 1000 feet to reach the ground. Those
sounds are happening BEFORE the building starts to move.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by turbofan]

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by neformore

 

Perhaps you haven't seen the pictures of twisted steel, lol... but on another note, why WOULDN'T it tip or twist.

Instead we note an incredible BURST of energy that somehow annihilates the lower structure despite literally no mass from the top continuing to impact the crushing zones, i really do shake my head that you do not see the tops of the buildings annihilating themselves, that which DO NOT have any reason to do so, since nothing is on top of THEM.

Since one of the towers does start tipping above the crash zone, but somehow is turning itself into nothing , you can see the steel evaporating, changing... NOT falling and collapsing i would think you would have more relevant questions...i can drop any amount of steel from anywhere , its not gonna fry itself, and lose its structure BEFORE hitting anything else.

Actually you do see buildings destroying themselves from the top down. Unfortunately a building like the trade centers has never had what happened to it ever happen before or again, so there's no way to test anyone's theories on the matter. The main debunking used on my evidence that a building can destroy itself on the top-down is that the buildings have concrete structure. This is true. What is also true is that there are certain things known as the laws of physics. One of the biggest things I've heard people say is, "There's no way the smaller part on the top could possible crush down the bottom. It just doesn't happen! They would cancel out themselves." Obviously this is not true. I've shown situations that happen consistently where the top always takes down the entire building because of crush down crush up effect. Once the top begins falling it doesn't have a lot of crush up happening. It is collapsing the structure beneath it with momentum. Then, under the veil of a massive amount of debris and smoke, the top hits the rubble on the bottom and experiences crush up, getting destroyed by what it caused the destruction of.

It doesn't take a burst of energy, but a simple push with the power of gravity and failed floor or two. The reason the top tilts at first is because only part of the floor had failed after an hour of smoldering in a jetliner fire after being impacted by said jetliner. It begins to fall, ripping out the structure of the rest of the floors attached there and making the building much more unstable. As the floors begin to impact, the physics take over and the building begins to collapse from the top down. The top does not continue to fall over likely because there was still enough of the steel intact on the side of the floors where the tower wasn't hit that when the building began to come down, it kind of re-righted the top section, inevitably causing it to also continue to force the rest of the building down.


edit: to fix some typos
[edit on 7-9-2010 by Varemia]

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Varemia]

Originally posted by turbofan
Those cannot be the sounds of floors hitting during the initial descent.

Gravity would not allow the floors to collapse that quickly onto each other.

Sounds like demo explosives to me.

Also consider the sound delay from 1000 feet to reach the ground. Those
sounds are happening BEFORE the building starts to move.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by turbofan]

I must be the only person who imagines that a building might fail on the inside before becoming perceptible on the outside. You would hear the steel twisting and snapping just before the energy is released and the building lets itself begin to fall.

Maybe I'm just crazy, but the O/S of at least how the collapse happened sounds stable to me. I don't trust that the US government had nothing to do with it, mind you. I wouldn't be surprised if they helped train the terrorists, but the collapse just does not say "explosives" to me.

The detonations within the World Trade Center were definitely caused by thermite charges placed weeks, maybe months in advance of the planned 9/11 inside job attacks.

How do you think Bush and Co. wanted to invade Afghanistan and later, Iraq, with the people's support?

How do you think Bush and Co. wanted to establish and bolster a burgeoning fascist police state in the United States?

If only military personnel serving overseas, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, with remaining semblance of patriotism could come to grips with the downspiraling state of affairs back stateside, because if they do return home, things would have changed around them.

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
Perhaps you haven't seen the pictures of twisted steel, lol... but on another note, why WOULDN'T it tip or twist.

I've seen pictures of the steel. The weight of the collapse would cause it to buckle.

As for why wouldn't it tip - it has no other forces acting on it other than gravity, so its going to be coming straight down.

Instead we note an incredible BURST of energy that somehow annihilates the lower structure despite literally no mass from the top continuing to impact the crushing zones, i really do shake my head that you do not see the tops of the buildings annihilating themselves, that which DO NOT have any reason to do so, since nothing is on top of THEM.

If a large number of the inner structural elements have failed, then the building will collapse.

If a floor suddenly loses its support, its going to fail. Thats not rocket science, thats simple physics.

Since one of the towers does start tipping above the crash zone, but somehow is turning itself into nothing , you can see the steel evaporating, changing... NOT falling and collapsing i would think you would have more relevant questions...i can drop any amount of steel from anywhere , its not gonna fry itself, and lose its structure BEFORE hitting anything else.

It starts tipping initially because one side of the building has more structural integrity as the other. As soon as that integrity is lost, it will drop straight
down, as it has no other forces acting on it other than gravity.

Towers don't collapse that way - or do they?

Yes, its a model, but watch how its demolished, and watch how it falls. Now isn't that interesting?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by plube

 

The fact that those buildings did not collapse does not mean no building will collapse as result of fire. Implying otherwise is faulty logic. Anyone should face the fact that it is pretty much impossible for us to know what is possible and what is not, we can merely speculate on it. Thats what this all is, speculation.

What kind of logic is that?

We are dealing with probabilities here.

For instance, I can say with absolute certainty that I will not be handed a purple violin by a green midget who has broken in to steal cheesecake.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? Absolutely Not!

The fact remains that three steel construction buildings all collapsed on one day, in one square mile, due to fire. When NO OTHER evidence of this having happened before exists, even to one building, with more extensive fire damage, over a considerably longer period, with lower resistance and less battling.

Is it impossible? No. Nothing is "impossible"
Is it HIGHLY IMPROBABLE? YES!

There's your logic.

It baffles me that such simple concepts as probability need to be explained, but it shows just how insanely ridiculous the public when it comes to this event.

No wonder so many people blindly accept the official story, they have no clue about basic physics, the laws of probability, or the very simple concept of "is that even remotely plausible?"

Get a grip America.