My Gut Keeps Telling Me There Was a Controlled Demolition.

I still continu to question it
but was it a controlled demolition ? .. YES


the structure of the WTC is the key to really know the truth
is it possible that 2 planes hitting 2 similar building at 2 different places ...that resulted in 2 similar vertical falling

Take a look at this thread
Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?
one thousand comments of heavy debating .. if you want to study the case and make up ur mind

there is people that still beleive the official version
it is so obvious it was a controlled demolition ..
ask any controlled destruction compagnie .. they will tell you what a CD looks like
how come people still beleive that a plane would have a similar result TWICE
the chance of that happening is NONE
the WTC were building in a way that they would resist to any earthquakes or planes hit
the 2 richest skyscraper of NYC .. they were not build with cheap material
you could build 20 Eiffel towers with the metal they had in them .. think about it
the fire would had to burn for hundred of hrs to even melt a inch of the thick metal the wtc had

the more i think about 9/11 the more i know it was REALLY REALLY a controlled demolition without any doubts

REAL PATRIOT ARE THE ONES WHO SEEK ONLY THE TRUTH

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.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

You may feel free to believe any hypothesis about 911 you wish. There are no scientific theories pertaining to the OS as there has not been repeated testing.

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

Because you cherry pick information consistently. Your feigned ignorance of relevance is a nice touch.

reply to post by Ben81

the structure of the WTC is the key to really know the truth
is it possible that 2 planes hitting 2 similar building at 2 different places ...that resulted in 2 similar vertical falling

Lets see

Have 2 almost identical buildings struck by 2 almost identical aircraft (Boeing 767-200) with same fuel loads
hitting the towers

Only major difference is South tower struck 10 floors lower than North

This eliminates many variables in the situation - would expect buildings to behave in a similar fashion given the
similarities in construction and damage

Originally posted by jprophet420

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

Because you cherry pick information consistently. Your feigned ignorance of relevance is a nice touch.

I presume you have a concrete example of this and aren't simply behaving like a ten year old and calling me names just to make you feel better about yourself. The post you were responding to said (and I quote)...

"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"

The fact of the matter is, the initial point of structural failure in both buildings were at the precise areas where the planes impacted the towers, which is an irrefutable fact and cannot be debated, so therefore logically we need to accept the fact that the plane impacts were much more relevent to the cause of the collapse than you conspiracy theorists want to acknowledge. Where is the cherry picking in the statement? Please, point it out to me.

...oh, and it isn't feigned innocence. Your post was genuinely so bizarre that I genuinely didn't know what the heck you were saying. Don't try to be clever in your posts, dude. Simply say what you mean to say.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

What name did I call you?
Do 10 year olds often point out your fallacies?
You re-posted a quote of yourself not comparing all points.
Thank you. I should star you for furthering my case.

Now now children. Play nice.

Now Dave I need to chastise you for confusing them with the facts. You know all too well that the 911 bru ha is a religion.

Pointing out that the initial point of collapse was exactly at the point of impact was an insensitive use of the facts.

Originally posted by samkent
Now now children. Play nice.

Now Dave I need to chastise you for confusing them with the facts. You know all too well that the 911 bru ha is a religion.

Pointing out that the initial point of collapse was exactly at the point of impact was an insensitive use of the facts.

And not pointing out that below the point of impact was also the path of least resistance is cherry picking facts. While I cant account for the sensitivity of it, the fallacy of it is obvious.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

What name did I call you?
Do 10 year olds often point out your fallacies?
You re-posted a quote of yourself not comparing all points.
Thank you. I should star you for furthering my case.

I must tell you that I am immune to bait and switch. You accused me of cherrypicking, so now the onus is now on you to provide an example of my cherrypicking. To be precise, I posted that both towers collapsed at the precise area where the planes impacted the structures and you came along and said I was cherry picking, so what was I cherry picking?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
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?

how did he know when the plane struck? he was in the building i think he can differentiate between an explosion below him and one way way above him

there a many reports of many explosions iv seen alot of eye witnesses report explosions in the pre basement level

Originally posted by jprophet420

And not pointing out that below the point of impact was also the path of least resistance is cherry picking facts. While I cant account for the sensitivity of it, the fallacy of it is obvious.

That is an uncorroborated assumption you're making up off the top of your head. There's no way anyone can know where the path of least resistance was as noone knows precisely how much physical damage the impact inflicted on the structure, and noone knows precisely how much damage the fires caused. That is why the myriad studies and reports are contradicting each other. The only detail irrefutably known is that the wreckage from the plane impacts reached the inner core of both structures as they each severed the emergency stairwells and trapped the occupants in the upper levels, so there was certainly greater critical damage to the interior of the building than what you're taking into account, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge the fact or not.

In case it hasn't dawned on you, if you have to resort to bickering over such esoteric details at such a absurd microscopic level of detail like where the precise path of least resistance was, this isn't research- it's grasping at straws in desperation from not having even a microbe of proof to back your claims up. You might as well be arguing over how many toilet seats were left up when it collapsed.

All I have to say is, if this following statement is true.. well then.. planting explosives seems easy

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You might as well be arguing over how many toilet seats were left up when it collapsed.

OH OH I know that one GoodOlDave!

The correct answer is zero! They were dustified or Silverstein had the toilet seats removed before the CD and sold them to defraud the insurance companies! And That's why you don't see toilet seats in the wreakage!

I think what you are getting at gave rise to the entire conspiracy theory here. when we saw the towers fall, many people thought to themselves, "that reminds me of one of those controlled demolition things"

then about 8,947 youtube videos came out simply desperate to fit the pieces together to make them fit that idea

I'll sit up and take notice when the blasting caps are found

If it were me, I would question my "gut's" motives. My "gut" apparently is not very good at logical and critical thinking.

Whew, I sure am glad my "gut" doesn't mislead me like that. I hadn't thought of thanking my "gut", but will do so, shortly after this post.

I was thinking, Mexican and a red bull, whatcha think?

Originally posted by jonnywhite

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.

edit on 15-6-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

What is superior about saying this makes no sense?? Explain it to me please!!

Also explain to me how a building falls at freefall speeds from a freaking fire 40 stories up!!! I want to hear the "superior" explaination!! Tell me also how building 7 get's no damage and just falls out of the blue at freefall speeds also.....The crickets are coming to town beside that rolling tumbleweed.....

I agree and have stated from the start that 9/11 was a controlled, planned demolition.

I strongly suggest anyone wanting a really good view of why 9/11 was allowed to happen to read, "9/11: The Ultimate Truth" by Laura Knight-jadczyk and joe Quinn.

With strong efforts in conducting a detailed research on the events of 9/11 and the motivations behind the attacks, Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Joe Quinn wrote the most ground-breaking work entitled "9/11: The Ultimate Truth," which was published in 2006. This 430-page book drives the reader to experience the shocking truth about what happened on September 11, 2001 and to understand the virulent motivations behind the "terrorist" attacks. To understand in depth on why the horrific events of 9/11 happened, the answer lies in "9/11: The Ultimate Truth."

There are two parts in this book. Part One focused primary on the 9/11 events by analyzing the great deal of evidences surrounding the three events: Flight 93, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Centers. And, how the Israel became involved and the role of the United States government on that day is evident. It also laid out the evidence-based scenario of how the events been played out. It is important to point out that in first part of this book addressed a new look at the situation of Ted and Barbara Olson and how they are connected to the 9/11 events.

The second part of "9/11: The Ultimate Truth" focused on the history of Zionism, genetics, the hidden motivations behind the attacks, and the nature of psychopaths. With an understanding of how and why Israel was involved and their on-going insidious actions, one will begin to comprehend why 9/11 was so important and how it led the United States of America to become a Fascist State. This part of the book also included some sections from Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes) by Andrew Lobaczewski who had done a paramount work on psychopathy and the nature of evil within the governments.

Since Knight-Jadczyk and Quinn focused on the current phenomenon of psychopaths, the Zionist control, and the history in the second part of this book, it is strongly recommended for the readers to obtain and study other works that discussed with certain aspects of this phenomenon, including Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes) (by Andrew Lobaczewski), Controversy of Zion (by Douglas Reed), The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (by David Ray Griffin), The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Clarify Some Issues About the So Called Psychopathic Personality (by Hervey Checkley), Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us (by Robert Hare), The Sociopath Next Door (by Martha Stout), and Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders: Who They Are, How They Operate, and How We Can Protect Ourselves and Our Children (by Anna Salter). With these works, one will have a better understanding of how psychopath's mind works and an alarming and dangerous agenda of the Zionists.

In Knight-Jadczyk and Quinn's "9/11: The Ultimate Truth," one can apprehend the nature of evil within the United States government and their motivations in bring about the terrorist attacks on the American people by looking at the real evidences in each events of 9/11, the Israel involvement, the political ponerology, the issue of psychopathy, and the history of Zionist control. Instead of being greatly confused about what happened on the day of 9/11, the authors bring the reader to this understanding of 'why' the horrific day has occurred. This book is easy to read with a historical perspective and it contains a powerful understanding of the nature of the pathocratic rule in United States. The back of the book where it is stated: "This book will shatter your world view," it is no joke.



And yes three days before 9/11 I saw a documentary on how big buildings are brought down in controlled demolitions without harming buildings standing right by and by chance as I was watching 9/11 that fateful morning, I thought to myself, geeeeeeeeeee that sure looks like a controlled demolition.

Nobody will be able to convince me that this was not a planned false flag operation carried out to manipulate the American People, give our government an excuse to invade Iraq.

Now, start doing some research as to who has profitted $$$$$$$$$$$$$ from this war......simply follow the money.

I won't even get into how this single "event" triggered Americans to give up almost all their rights as a free people in the name of "National Security"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/66bfc579cd79.jpg[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4fdcc90fa73d.jpg[/atsimg]



The two videos below are short but most significant. The language of the universe is math.

Now 9 + 1 + 1 = 11

Keep the above in mind as you watch these two videos.





We have now truly been reduced to the status of cattle and yes, I know what I'm saying, I worked a dairy farm so I mean this statement literally.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by jprophet420

And not pointing out that below the point of impact was also the path of least resistance is cherry picking facts. While I cant account for the sensitivity of it, the fallacy of it is obvious.

That is an uncorroborated assumption you're making up off the top of your head. There's no way anyone can know where the path of least resistance was as noone knows precisely how much physical damage the impact inflicted on the structure, and noone knows precisely how much damage the fires caused. That is why the myriad studies and reports are contradicting each other. The only detail irrefutably known is that the wreckage from the plane impacts reached the inner core of both structures as they each severed the emergency stairwells and trapped the occupants in the upper levels, so there was certainly greater critical damage to the interior of the building than what you're taking into account, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge the fact or not.

In case it hasn't dawned on you, if you have to resort to bickering over such esoteric details at such a absurd microscopic level of detail like where the precise path of least resistance was, this isn't research- it's grasping at straws in desperation from not having even a microbe of proof to back your claims up. You might as well be arguing over how many toilet seats were left up when it collapsed.

edit on 15-6-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)

You can know simply by reading a physics primer and watching the collapse. If you cant your IQ is < 100. No offense at all.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

What name did I call you?
Do 10 year olds often point out your fallacies?
You re-posted a quote of yourself not comparing all points.
Thank you. I should star you for furthering my case.

I must tell you that I am immune to bait and switch. You accused me of cherrypicking, so now the onus is now on you to provide an example of my cherrypicking. To be precise, I posted that both towers collapsed at the precise area where the planes impacted the structures and you came along and said I was cherry picking, so what was I cherry picking?

You directly accused me of calling you names which I did not and you accuse me of bait and switch, and you still didn't answer my questions. I answered yours. I explained it in detail.

Originally posted by andy1972

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.

At the very end of this video you will see a shot of the street. You will notice a layer of dust on the ground. this is after the planes hit but before the towers collapse. That dust on the ground is fireproofing that has been knocked off of the columns. That is why it suddenly gives after less than an hour.





Does this look practically extinguished ?

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

Nobody noticed anything unusual?

Highly unlikely.

If the security company was compromised, it would be game over for anyone wanting to prevent the buildings from being covertly rigged.

The normal people going in and out of those buildings every day simply would not get up into the business of maintenance workers, especially up in elevator shafts and other areas off-limits to everyone else.

Next time you go into a building and see maintenance going on, get up in the workers' faces and demand to see exactly what they're doing and examine it all in detail yourself. That's right, you wouldn't do it either.