My Gut Keeps Telling Me There Was a Controlled Demolition.

NOTE: Please do not respond to this thread and bite my head off until you read the disclaimers to this thread at the bottom of this OP. lol

First I want to look at a verified demolition for comparison:



Blasts, flashes, and free fall.

Now I want to look at a steel-framed skyscraper that succumbed to fire and it's results:

dsc.discovery.com...

Did not fully collapse, the parts that did fell in chunks (not free fall), you see it completely engulfed in flames, etc.



So there are some examples of controlled demo vs. fire. Now a look at the 9/11 footage.

One collapse (I swear I still can't watch this without tearing up):



Freefall. No chunks falling. Just free fall.

Another collapse (WT7, this video also compares it to actual controlled demolitions of other buildings):



As we all know, no plane hit WT7 but it still fell in free-fall collapse.

One main argument against a controlled demo that left me scratching my head was the alleged lack of explosions and flashes (which would imply a detonation). So I figured the OSers were right. But what about all of this?

WTC Explosions Prior to Collapse.

Eye Witnesses of Explosions Prio to Collapse

Initial Media Reports of Explosions Prior to Collapse

I also came across a piece of footage a couple months ago that I am desperately trying to find now. In the more famous collapse footage, it is very difficult to hear any detail due to the panic of the crowd at ground zero.

However, I came across a footage that looked like it was taken from the view of another skyscraper. Things were very quiet and the noise of the crowds were not heard. However, right before the collapse, you can hear a 'BOOM.' If anyone knows what I am talking about, please post it. It was a good piece due to the fact it has no background noise to muffle the audio.



Am I wrong in this? I am open to all honest and polite arguments against the above info. I just want the truth- not someone's agenda (from either side).



DISCLAIMERS:

1). I KNOW many consider the controlled demolition theory to be on par with the theory about holograms, remote controlled planes, no plane theories, and other absurd theories that hijacked the 9/11 movement to make it look silly. I don't believe in any of those.

I also am aware of the official story about jet fuel and how the buildings were already poorly constructed, etc.. However, as the title says, my instincts keep telling me the buildings did not just collapse because of a fire alone.

2). I am NOT a 'truther' or 'debunker.' I'm just looking for the facts here. There is no personal investment in this for me ego-wise. I just want to get to the bottom of it.

3). I do NOT believe that if a controlled demolition did indeed occur that it MUST point to one particular meaning. As in, it must be 'the government did it.' Or 'therefore the owners were in on it and planted the bombs in the WTC's.' I would prefer to put that speculation aside for now and just focus on whether or not there was or there was not a controlled demolition- not necessarily who did it or why.

4). I understand this has been discussed ad nauseum on ATS. Apologies for starting this topic again. But I wanted to get in on the discussion so I could ask my own questions and introduce some info I haven't seen posted before (but I'm sure it's floating around in the 50+ page threads somewhere. lol).

5). I've seen the dozens of 'thermite' threads and, to be honest, am not sure what to think of that. So for the time being, I'm just trying to concentrate on the actual collapse of the buildings.

6). Please do not flame me. lol I know there are a lot of really knowledgeable members here who I respect who are aces when it comes to 9/11 research. Many will roll their eyes at the discussion of a controlled demo. And I respect that. Please understand the reason I am putting this discussion here is because I do value and trust your opinions.

It's just that sometimes there is a difference in what you feel in your heart vs. what someone else claims you should believe. So this is one of those times for me I just can't get over how it seems to me vs. what everyone keeps telling me I should believe (that there was no CD).

7). I apologize in advance if this thread sounds very elementary or '9/11 Conspiracy Theory 101.' I am a newbie at this.

8). I'm somewhat of a tech moron so I would appreciate any technical rebuttal of the above to be worded in layman's terms. lol

To which I will respond...

a) Your own examples actually show that the WTC collapses were *not* controlled demolitions. The examples of legitimate CD you provide show that the collapse begins at the base of the building, while every video of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 show the collapse began at the upper areas, at the precise location where the planes impacted the structures. Logically, we need to conclude the plane impacts caused a chain reaction that started the collapse in some way. If there are those who want to debate the precise reason they caused the collapse, fine, but at the end of the day it was still the impacts that caused the collapse in some way. Claiming that controlled demolitions were secretly planted in a heavily occupied building at such a weird place without anyone noticing and faked hijacked planes were crashed into the precise location where the controlled demolitions were planted is just Rube Goldberg logic of adding layers of unnecessary convolusion for convolusion's sake

b) It isn't your gut that's telling you there was a controlled demolitions. It's those damned fool conspiracy web sites deliberately instigating abject paranoia that telling you it was a controlled demolitions. Case in point- Take a look at your video again showing the collapse of WTC 7, and then look at the raw video of the collapse as it looked before they got their hands on it:

NIST video of the collapse of WTC 7

Notice any difference? The Penthouse collapsed into the interior of WTC 7 six seconds before the rest of the building collapsed, and you can see from the broken windows how far down it fell. Those damned fool conspiracy web sites can't explain how controlled demolitions would blow up a building from the inside out with a six second delay so they simply snip that part of the video off to artificially get you to believe the sexy sounding explanations they want you to believe. Changing the evidence around to suit their purpose is LYING, regardless of whatever pretty word they want to use to describe this behavior.

I don't know about you, but to me, when someone needs to resort to lying to convince people of something, it's a de facto admission they know what they're saying is false.

reply to post by AshleyD


Oh, I would never! (Bite Your head off, that is.) [grin]

One thing I seem to have a talent for is a grasp of expectations with various placement of energy. (I can tell You a story about that, but it's miles off topic. Heh.)

I considered the images I had seen, and the eye-witness one in Las Vegas - those demolitions of tall buildings - and analyzed their energy flow. Then I considered the energy flow of material giving way to heat and stress from above. That model slowly works its way down. Even when considering that perhaps the fuel from the planes managed to get the floors surrounding them hot enough to cause that first top piece to look like it was going to fall over to the street (and perhaps cause enough damage to the side to really wreak havok on any near those windows that piece was gouging out as it went down - which *I* expected) suddenly the whole slid down, in a rapid cascade.

I thought: WTF? Who rigged those buildings and why?

Already a wee bit concerned (and how do I understate!) about the War on (some People who use some) Drugs, I was able to see past the "OMG THEY ATTACKED US!" response to consider the next astonishing news: It wasn't explosives!

*I* thought, oh, come now! NO BODY would buy THAT, would they?

So naive I, eh?

And then I pondered how this whole affair came about. I watched the web rather diligently at the time and remember something I can no longer find, of a news story of a bunch of People at a gas station/convenience store who were standing around watching a tape one of the cameras caught of the Pentagon.

It was just a loud boom and no one knew what had happened, but theyknew where, and they immediately thought, "Hey, let's watch the tape!" As they were watching, the FBI came in and took the tape away.

They were saying missiles. And of course. Now there is nothing.

A larger hand than 19 Arabs crazed with religion was moving THAT day.

Some of the things You mention, Ashley, that You dismiss, I cannot, for I see them more in terms of probability, and considering what some with money gushing out Their nether regions could think of to do with all that, there is much I cannot dismiss wholly. With that in mind, the probabilities and data point in interesting directions.

Anyway, S&F coming from ME!

Thanks.

Oh, it is not my GUT that speaks in My head. It is analysis.

How many people worked in the WTC?

Nobody noticed anything unusual?

Highly unlikely.

For those who believe -- no explaination is necessary.

For those who do not believe -- no explaination will surfice.

reply to post by Carseller4


I think you might want to take a look at this before you say it wasn't possible to per rig all the the buildings with some type of explosive long before 911.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Carseller4
How many people worked in the WTC?

Nobody noticed anything unusual?

Highly unlikely.

Aside form the fact that early on there were reports of people who DID notice a lot of techs and workmen... And a lot of dust coming from a supposedly empty floor above them. Don't know what happened to those reports either.

Originally posted by hdutton



For those who believe -- no explaination is necessary.

For those who do not believe -- no explaination will surfice.

That sounds like religion, not history.

AshleyD, I heard advice from an old timer a while back.

Go with your gut

Usually instincts tell you whats right or wrong.
Normally for me, if I'm sure about something on the inside, I stick to my gut feeling.
I personally believe everyone has a moral compass.
Gut feelings are the needle on that compass.
I use mine alot.
It has saved me on more than one occassion.


I clearly think that the event took place as planned (for years IMO):
Hire people to fly into the towers.
Use remote devices to implode after short time.
Plan out wars, policies and agendas that suit their fancy afterwards.
Out of chaos comes order.

Guess what?
Seems like its exactly what they did.


Stick to your gut feelings with anything, not just this topic.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts. I'm taking it all into consideration. Everyone's patience is also really appreciated and I fully understand I am a n00b at this. lol

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Your own examples actually show that the WTC collapses were *not* controlled demolitions. The examples of legitimate CD you provide show that the collapse begins at the base of the building, while every video of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 show the collapse began at the upper areas, at the precise location where the planes impacted the structures.

That is a good observation. Thanks for bringing that up. Does any of the following testimony about explosions at the base of the building refute that?

GENERAL GOOGLE RESULTS FOR VIDEOS AND ARTICLES.

Example:

"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?"
--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

"[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

FURTHER READING

Just want to be sure. I've seen other info about seismic graphs that allegedly depict explosions before the collapse but those appear to be misinterpreted (from what I understand).

But there does seem to be others who vouch for explosions at the base. Is that possible? I know there is a lot of convolution when it comes to 9/11 'fact' so I just want the truth.

It isn't your gut that's telling you there was a controlled demolitions. It's those damned fool conspiracy web sites deliberately instigating abject paranoia that telling you it was a controlled demolitions. Case in point- Take a look at your video again showing the collapse of WTC 7, and then look at the raw video of the collapse as it looked before they got their hands on it:

Thanks for the comparison video. However, I have to be honest. That still looks like an unnatural collapse to me.

This is something that has gnawed at me for years- I've just been too intimidated by the whole heated nature of the 9/11 debates to ever ask.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Thanks. lol

I hope I didn't insult anyone by saying I believe all the theories about the holograms, missiles, no planes, etc. were silly. It's just how I honestly feel. But I respect one's opinion if that is what they truly believe.

I know the notion of a CD sounds ludicrous to many and I cannot help so I feel so there is no room for me to judge anyone else's beliefs. lol

Ashley, be rest assured
we WILL find out the truth
whether it be in this life time
or the next And they will
be judged at some time
in the future by the almighty.

S&F

I think it was CD as well

Originally posted by AshleyD
That is a good observation. Thanks for bringing that up. Does any of the following testimony about explosions at the base of the building refute that?

This doesn't confirm or deny controlled demolitions either way. Nowhere in these quotes does it say at what time these flashes were seen, or even where in the buildings they were seen, which tells me these quotes were cherry picked out of their original context. Noone is refuting explosions were heard, but what these conspiracy web sites don't tell you is that in the south tower, the plane hit literally one floor above a two story mechanical floor...

List of tenants of the south tower by floor

...that contained electrical transformers, generators, pressurized pipes, fuel tanks, fire extinguishers, greasy rags, and generally every flammable object that could possibly be in a building. Please tell me, how could there NOT be something exploding there after ten thousand gallons of burning aviation fuel was dumped into it?

The very nature of the random explosions is proof right there that these were flammable objects irrefutably known to have been in the building that were exploding randomly as the fires reached them in turn. Otherwise, your own controlled demolitions videos show the buildings would have collapsed right at that moment, not a half hour later.

But there does seem to be others who vouch for explosions at the base. Is that possible? I know there is a lot of convolution when it comes to 9/11 'fact' so I just want the truth.

You are almost certainly referring to Willaim Rodriguez, who claimed he felt explosions on the basement floors below him. Rodriguez himself testified that fireballs from the impact came down the elevator shaft with enough force to push the elevator down four floors and severely burn the occupants (who he subsequently rescued) so the basement explosion was almost certainly another chain reaction stemming from the impact...which these damned fool conspiracy web sites are deliberately misrepresenting to get people to believe what they want people to believe. They'll artfully tell people about the witnesses hearing explosions in the basement but they always neglect to tell people about the fireballs coming down the elevator shaft to the basement, even though both accounts come from the exact same witness.

This is something that has gnawed at me for years- I've just been too intimidated by the whole heated nature of the 9/11 debates to ever ask.

I know exactly what you mean. The whole reason these 9/11 conspiracy theorists even got onto my radar was because one 9/11 conspiracy zealot had the gall to call me a murderer because "Bush staged the 9/11 attack and murdered 3000 people, and since I was letting him get away with it, I was a murderer too". Some people believe in these conspiracy claims so strongly and with such emotional ferver that they start hoping they are true, and any attack on their claims is perceived as a personal attack against themselves. I don't think accusing someone's mother of being a whore would instigate as strong an emotional response as someone calling Alex Jones a crackpot. By the same token, you can insult Bush and Rumsfeld until the cows come home, and I wouldn't care less.

The fact remains that both sides needs to be held up to the exact same stringent level of critical analysis, for us to know the truth behind what happened that day. No amount of indignant bluster or quasi-religious fervor will change the fact that the policy of "burden of proof" applies to them just as much as it applies to everyone else subscribing to controversial claims.

reply to post by AshleyD


Everyone do me a favor....Take an empty toilet paper roll or paper towell roll and stand it up. Start a fire on the top and witness with your own eyes how fire works.....For a fire to burn 40 stories up in the air and cause a building to fall directly down is not only improbable but impossible.....There is nothing that can fall directly to the ground like that without first attacking the base of the structure....Look at the buildings around it also, they had fires and debris falling all over them and the other buildings didn't "crumble" to the ground.....I try to use logic and not listen to what anyone says.....

Forget absolutely everything you have ever heard about 9/11 and watch a video of the building collapsing, then make your judgement ON YOUR OWN!!!! Forget what people say and MSM and government and everyone else and make your own conclusions.....I feel you will believe the same thing I do....A FIRE WOULD NEVER AND COULD NEVER COLLAPSE A BUILDING STRAIGHT TO THE GROUND!!!

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by AshleyD

 

Everyone do me a favor....Take an empty toilet paper roll or paper towell roll and stand it up. Start a fire on the top and witness with your own eyes how fire works.....For a fire to burn 40 stories up in the air and cause a building to fall directly down is not only improbable but impossible.....There is nothing that can fall directly to the ground like that without first attacking the base of the structure....Look at the buildings around it also, they had fires and debris falling all over them and the other buildings didn't "crumble" to the ground.....I try to use logic and not listen to what anyone says.....

Forget absolutely everything you have ever heard about 9/11 and watch a video of the building collapsing, then make your judgement ON YOUR OWN!!!! Forget what people say and MSM and government and everyone else and make your own conclusions.....I feel you will believe the same thing I do....A FIRE WOULD NEVER AND COULD NEVER COLLAPSE A BUILDING STRAIGHT TO THE GROUND!!!

No, actually, this is exactly the dangerous mentality that serious researchers need to avoid. Everyone should adopt a "all right, convince me" attitude when it comes to such controversial claims, but when someone consciously takes the position of "I don't listen to what anyone says", "forget everything you have ever heard about 9/11" and "don't listen to what people say", alarm bells are going off right there that an agenda is at work. It's just a veiled way of saying "I'm going to believe what I want to believe regardless of what you or anyone else tells me". If this is the mentality that people want to adopt, fine, but I would appreciate it if they didn't pretend they're serious researchers when they're really a bunch of religious zealots. Swap "faith in a supreme being" with "faith that there's a conspiracy behind 9/11" and the rest of the syntax is exactly the same.

Using completely irrelevent examples that compare toilet paper tube apples to gargantuan skyscraper oranges doesn't exactly help one's credibility either.

It could be considered by some rather fishy that the only three steel framed buildings in the history of construction to collapse due to fire are WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7. The Windsor hotel in Madrid burned intensely for 48 hours and it did'nt fall.

Originally posted by andy1972
It could be considered by some rather fishy that the only three steel framed buildings in the history of construction to collapse due to fire are WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7. The Windsor hotel in Madrid burned intensely for 48 hours and it did'nt fall.

The Windsor hotel was a concrete core with a steel frame exterior. The core did not collapse. The exterior did.

This information should trigger a rational thought process in a normal human. What does it trigger in your brain Truther.

reply to post by AshleyD


What does your heart and gut tell you when you ask why? Why demolish the buildings? Hundreds died as a result of the crashes and fires, it was on every news channel in the world. Even without their collapse the buildings would have been rendered useless as no professional engineer would have ever put their name to anything that said the buildings were safe for occupation after sustaining such damage. There has to be a "why". Why demolish building #7 and no other buildings (besides the towers). What poltical mathematics determined that the buildings must be destroyed?

And I'm not buying the real estate white elephant argument or the asbestos argument.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
Ashley, be rest assured
we WILL find out the truth
whether it be in this life time
or the next

And they will
be judged at some time
in the future by the almighty.

Two truthers on their way to a Gage presentation are killed in an auto accident. Finding themselves at the Holy Gates, they ask St. Peter if God can confirm that 9/11 was an inside job. Peter calls God down, who explains to the truthers that it was simply 19 Al Quaida terrorists using hijacked planes.

One truther looks at the other and says " Can you believe it? This is even bigger than we thought! "

12 year old me knew it was a controlled demolition. by who or what didn't matter but it was painfully obvious.
the planes would have done damage, but nothing of that scale. something triggered an internal reaction within the structure, not just jet fuel. and for it to happen 3 times within the same day, highly unlikely.

reply to post by AshleyD


Ashley, I'd like to address the issue of the purported explosions at the base. The eyewitnesses, or earwitnesses, as the case may be, are not necessary for us to decide this one way or the other.

We can see from all video evidence that the collapse occurred from top to bottom, whether any explosives were used or not. any explosions or otherwise heard well beforehand in the basement or first floors were not decisive factors and did not cause the collapse. If they were then we should expect them to have initiated collapse, or failing that, cause significant deformation of the structure above.