My Gut Keeps Telling Me There Was a Controlled Demolition.

reply to post by Carseller4


I know several people who worked at WTC 7 (usually called Salomon Brother Building)

They said were packed tighter than bunch of sardines in that building - so explain under those conditions
anyone is going to be able to covertly install explosives?

They witnessed aircraft impacts into the Towers after second impact everyone was evacuated and building
emptied by 9:30

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
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.

It is really incredible that so many people don't know what the word CONTROLLED means.

Controlled means it does what the designers want it to do. In a NORMAL controlled demolition the designers want to minimize collateral damage.

So why doesn't EVERYBODY want accurate distribution of mass data on WTC 1 & 2 so the supposed gravitational collapse can be analyzed?

psik

Originally posted by waypastvne

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 Truter.

The Windsor apart then, explain how steel treated to withstand a temprature in excess of 2000 degrees for hours before damage suddenly gives after less than an hour in fires that were practically extinguished.

If nothing else I have drawn one very good conclusion from the events of 9/11 which I think we should all adopt.

We should no long and never again work, live, go into, or otherwise occupy any steel structured building taller than twelve stories.

This will make for many more, but much lower, targets for those who would highjack planes and use them to fly into buildings. It will also mean many more jobs for those who do such work and more materials needed for their construction. Making for more jobs associated with mining and manufacturing.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I think credibility is thrown out the window when someone "claims" that a plane started a fire that burnt 40 stories up in a building and that fire brought the building into a freefall straight down!! There is no credibility in that statement to me....Say what you will, this makes NO sense at all....

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
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.

edit on 14-6-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)

Thanks. Another thing they often skip over is how badly damaged WTC7 was on the other side. It was gutted with huge chunks missing and they felt hours before that it would fall. Instead, with these videos we see a perfectly shiny building falling. They're dishonest because they have an agenda that's anti-american. I'm not making this up, either. Nothing will change them.

Another thing I find interesting is how the first 2 buildings were bent with heat before they fell. That's not something that happens in controlled demolition. That happens with a LOT of heat.

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I think credibility is thrown out the window when someone "claims" that a plane started a fire that burnt 40 stories up in a building and that fire brought the building into a freefall straight down!! There is no credibility in that statement to me....Say what you will, this makes NO sense at all....

Things wouldn't make sense to me either if I didn't listen to other people and was convinced that my own feelings were superior to everyone elses. Good luck with your superior thinking.

Wish I was superior. I hate being reliant on others. Being reliant is soooo yesterday.

Being so reliant, a slave to everyone else, just like this:
www.youtube.com...

But sadly (or not), we're not superman. We're people. We need each other.

Once again, great comments from both sides. Thank you so much to everyone for taking the time to educate me on this. lol

Andy1972's post points out one of the main things still nagging at me: All three buildings collapsed in one day. 2 hit by planes, 1 not. Free fall collapse. Has any other steel framed building completely collapsed like this?

Waypastvne's post raised a good point about the comparison I used to the Windsor tower concerning the surviving concrete core vs. the collapsed steel outer structure. That definitely gives me something to think about.

DrEugeneFixer: That leads me to a question I have. Is there any footage that shows the bottom of the buildings at the time of collapse? All I really see is footage that shows the top of the buildings while the bottom is concealed by other buildings. Can you point me to any footage that even shows the bottom? I would appreciate seeing it. Thanks for your time.

Jonnywhite: You also brought up something I was curious about. In one report, they mention what you say: That much of the building was damaged due to the other building's collapse. But then it was said that was not the reason for the WTC7's collapse- it was the fire. But then it was stated it was not the fire.

What exactly is the official explanation of 7's collapse?

Thank you to everyone who took the time to reply. I'm learning a lot.

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I think credibility is thrown out the window when someone "claims" that a plane started a fire that burnt 40 stories up in a building and that fire brought the building into a freefall straight down!! There is no credibility in that statement to me....Say what you will, this makes NO sense at all....

I can accept that. If you instead prefer to believe the possibility that the planes did far more damage to the structure than the NIST or FEMA reports accounted for...and in fact the Perdue study suggests the incompressable liquids aboard the planes acted like a gigantic cannonball against the structures...that is certainly a reasonable cause to be doubtful. I can also accept the possibility that there was a fatal flaw hidden in the design of the structures that noone fully knew was there, meaning the towers were a death trap waiting to happen from day one. I can even accept the possibility that the hijackers may have smuggled an undocumented bomb aboard which detonated from the fires. There are a number of possible alternative explanations which refute the NIST and FEMA reports that still make sense.

My question is, why do these conspiracy theorists instinctively dismiss all the plausible alternative scenarios and go directly to the scary sounding implausible ones? Seriously, now, staged hijackings used to cover up secretly planted controlled demolitions as a false flag to frame some worthless country in Asia that not even the Sovet Union thought was worth fighting over? This is abject paranoia talking, rather than any serious review of the facts.

Dave please present me with a link where rodriquez retracts his testimony and says the planes caused sub basement damage?

I seen him in person i heard his eye witness account an he states that there we explosions in sub basement levels prior to impact coiencerdance? I think not but thats just my opinion

As regards to the op you dont need to refer to any conspiracy theory regarding cd the ecidence speaks for its self and after 10 years there is over welming evidence imo buildings have never in history and will never in the future collapse in the way the wtc did from asymetrical damage an minimal fires (wtc7)

Keep searching for the truth and dont let anyone tell you what ur thinking and why

If I may be so bold as to direct your attention to two videos which are at another post here at ATS.

I would hope you will be attentive enough to understand the implications of what is being shown.

www.youtube.com...=11

www.youtube.com...

Personally, I am not trying to state any opinion other than my own.

My own opinion is based upon my view that the "Official Story" does nothing to explain any of the obvious observable anomalies or questions which have appeared since the events.

Originally posted by AshleyD
What exactly is the official explanation of 7's collapse?

Please be careful with the conspiracy theorist lingo as there is no such thing as "an official explanation for WTC 7's collapse". NIST wrote a report that outlines a possible scenario but they specifically state on page on that it's only an estimate and it should in no way be taken as an official position. That said, the collapse of WTC 7 according to NIST went like this-

1)The north tower collapsed, damaging WTC 7 and destroying the water supplies to the fire suppression systems.

2) Fires broke out in the building fed by the office contents and broken fuel lines from the emergency fuel tanks in the basement, but because of the destruction of the water supplies from the street the fire suppression systems did a mismatched job of keeping the fires at bay. The lower levels burned out of control while the upper levels were held in check while the buildings' internal water supply stored higher up within the structure held out. This meant the fires were concentrated in a single area of the building.

3) Firefighters reported seeing abnormal bulging in the side of the structure where the fires were concentrating, meanign that the fires were heating the steel to a point where they were losing their structural integrity. The stress load was transferred to the remaining intact structural supports, and thereafter firefighters began hearing a lot of creaking noises.

4) Somewhere later, a critical support gave out and the penthouse collapsed into the interior of the building, causing even further damage to the interior of the structure. Six seconds later, the rest of the building fell.

These conspiracy web sites constantly make claim of the fact that this is the first time a steel building collapsed from fire to artifically promote suspicion, but they notoriously gloss over the fact this is the first time a skyscraper collapsed onto another building, and the first time the fire suppression systems in an entire NYC block was destroyed and allowed fires to burn out of control. As mentioned before, they also notoriously censor the video of the collapse to exclude the penthouse collapse into the interior of the building six seconds before the rest of the structure. You need to ask yourself- is it really your gut that's telling you there was a controlled demolition, or is it really a bunch of internet con artists falsely trying to get you to think there was a controlled demoliiton?

Going with your gut has made Las Vegas what it is today. Millions of people go there every year and ‘go with their gut’ when they lay their money down. How many of them are right?

Until you have previous experience with large planes flying into tall buildings, you have no basis to use as a ‘gut’.

reply to post by AshleyD


Ashley, I'm sorry to say I'm not aware of any good video that shows the bottom of the towers as they collapse. This is for a couple of reasons: 1. the collapse initiated at the top, and people immediately focused their cameras in that direction. 2. people who were really close to the towers during the collapse, and not down the street some distance, are most likely dead from falling debris, and their cameras were crushed along with them. 3. Most people were running in terror. 4 to get a good shot of the base of the towers, helicopters would have to be close to the towers, and probably have to go in and out of the smoke as they circled.

You can search youtube for terms like "wtc collapse street level" "wtc collapse close-up". Personally I can't stomach very much of it at a time. There is probably something out there though.

However, as I should have made clear before, if structure is being destroyed at the bottom, we should be able to see evidence of this in the structure above-- after all, it is all connected. What we should expect from this would depend on what structure was destroyed. To my knowledge nobody has defined precisely what structural elements were allegedly bombed in the sub basement, or wherever. Nor to my knowledge has anybody pointed to anything going on above that indicated specific destruction below.

Happy Hunting

reply to post by kaya82


Tell us, Kaya82, when he was in the sub basement, how did Rodriguez know when the airplane struck? Is there any other evidence besides earwitness testimony that such an explosion took place? Surely an explosion in the subbasement that destroyed significant structure would have been felt by others in the levels above, correct?

Originally posted by kaya82
Dave please present me with a link where rodriquez retracts his testimony and says the planes caused sub basement damage?

I am going by his own testimony to the NIST committee in NYC in Feb 2004, where he specifically testified fireballs from the impact came down the elevator shaft with such force that it broke the elevator cables, pushed the elevator down seven levels into the basement, and severely burned the occupants and the people standing in front of the elevator doors. This was the only elevator with a shaft that led directly from the floor where the planes impacted to the very lowest sub basement, so it's immediately obvous it was the force behind the sub basement explosion he felt. Here is the transcript, and his testimony begins on page 70:

NIST committee testimony transcript February 2004

I will leave it to you to determine where any of the supposed contradictions in his later testimonies are, as I'm simply going by his own words.

I seen him in person i heard his eye witness account an he states that there we explosions in sub basement levels prior to impact coiencerdance? I think not but thats just my opinion

He was there and I was not, so all I can do is make an educated guess that since it was such an immense building, the shockwave from the impact travelling down through the hard structure would have progressed slower than the shockwave from the fireballs travelling down the elevator shaft through open air. There'd be no possible way he could know what shockwave was associated with which event as he was inside the building and wouldn't be able to see when the impact happened from outside.

The only thing that is irrefutable is that the collapse didn't begin down at the sub basement levels. It began at the very point of impact of the planes, so that is irerefutably where the coup de gras was delivered. Regardless of what Rodriguez did or did not feel down in the basement, it was irrefutably a separate event that played no part in the collase of the building.

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

If you only compare ONE point, an apple is obviously an orange, because they are both round. If you compare TWO points an apple is obviously an orange because it is a fruit. If you compare THREE points an apple is obviously an orange because it has a skin. If you compare FOUR points and apple is obviously an orange because it has seeds. If you compare FIVE points an apple is obviously an orange because it comes from a tree.

I'm not wasting any more of my time comparing an apple to an orange because I have in front of me 5 points of similarity.

See what happens when you cherry pick facts?

reply to post by jprophet420


Enjoyed your line of logic.

Now, discribe a banana to a blind man.

No touching allowed.

Originally posted by jprophet420

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

If you only compare ONE point, an apple is obviously an orange, because they are both round. If you compare TWO points an apple is obviously an orange because it is a fruit. If you compare THREE points an apple is obviously an orange because it has a skin. If you compare FOUR points and apple is obviously an orange because it has seeds. If you compare FIVE points an apple is obviously an orange because it comes from a tree.

I'm not wasting any more of my time comparing an apple to an orange because I have in front of me 5 points of similarity.

See what happens when you cherry pick facts?

How many points are required and does it matter whether the points are reliable?

Unlike you i've seen the points that have demolished every single conspiracy claim I've seen with relevance to 9/11. But the theorists ignore each point, so expertly, and just like a blind man I might add. They cherry pick everything and then claim that the official story is cherry picking but that's not the case at all. The official story is actually based on evidence, not on WHAT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE BUT IS NOT KNOWN FOR SURE. You see, conspiracies are based on thigns hat can never be proven. Just like religion. Official story might not always have enoguh points to convince you, but the pints themselves can be confirmed and this is what makes them trustworthy.

Furthermore, I find the official story more plausible than the government blowing up its own people so that it can fight a war for oil that it never seems to get in return and make laws that never seem to get them the dictatorship they were looking for. You see, if I could see some real actual pile of gold locked away that could justify this madness and wave of death then I might understand but I haven't see it. What I see are a bunch of losers that would rather breed paranoia and distrust and hatred then walk the path of truth and sacrifice.

You see all the while we're arguing with each other terrorists are out there ready to bomb another building. We're doing exactly what's required if they're to succeed in their plans. So really arguing with you guys like explaining what a banana looks like to a blind man. It only helps terrorists so I"m done. i have buddies in the armed forces. I'd be asahmed if they knew I waste my time in this forum replying to you misfits that plague this place iwth your garabge. Goodbye.

Originally posted by jprophet420
If you only compare ONE point, an apple is obviously an orange, because they are both round. If you compare TWO points an apple is obviously an orange because it is a fruit. If you compare THREE points an apple is obviously an orange because it has a skin. If you compare FOUR points and apple is obviously an orange because it has seeds. If you compare FIVE points an apple is obviously an orange because it comes from a tree.

I'm not wasting any more of my time comparing an apple to an orange because I have in front of me 5 points of similarity.

See what happens when you cherry pick facts?

Not in the least, actually. How is this even remotely relevent to anything?