Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

Originally posted by Masisoar
.............
I know professor Jones and others tried explaining the physics behind it - do we just dismiss that as mumbo jumbo? And on what grounds?

Professor Jones is a nuclear physicist not an structural engineer with experience on skyscrappers.

Just because a person has a degree in one field of science, does not make him/her an expert in all fields of science.

Originally posted by Masisoar
It would of helped the commission and the other organizations a great deal if they actually had a chance to look through all the excess debris as well.. but too bad it had to catch the first flight over seas for scrap.

People also use the excuse that the work involved on cleaning up ground zero points to their deranged notion that it must mean the government was trying to hide something.

The fact is that ground zero was an open grave, and open graves if left open with bodies and pieces of bodies lying everywhere would have allowed diseases to propagate throughout the city.

And where would you have recommended them to put all the scraps from the wtc?

There are hundreds of places they could have "put" the debris. If they had enough caro ships to ship it to china for destruction, it could have been shipped to a storage location anywhere in the world for analasys. I'm sure there are plenty of places that would have volunteered.


-


Posted Via ATSmobile (BETA v0.3)


-

it could have been shipped to a storage location anywhere in the world for analasys.

Analysis for what exactly? Bomb damage probably would have been fairly evident just by looking at the material as they were being removed from the site.

Chemical analysis would have probably been too contaminated to get accurate dependable results. Even if they came back negative, most of the CD camp wouldn't accept them anyways, probably due to the reason I just listed.

Someone mentioned reassembling the building using the materials, thats not exactly an easy task, first you would have to build a structure that could support itself as well as the mangled remains of what was left of the towers, and even after they did that I doubt it would get them anywhere.


Honestly, they could have analyzed the towers for the next 200 years and it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the majority of the people calling for it.

They would say, the results are coming from the government they aren't reliable or if sent to an outside lab it would be they were threatened in some fashion so they had to come up with those results.

SO the only reasonable thing to do is ship any all evidence from the scene of the crime and have it melted down to scrap

As for the bit about it not making a difference, I tink you know that's a load. Evidence is evidence. If the facts point to a conclusion, then there you have it. If evidence of a crime is destroyed before it can be examined, it could be assumed that someone is either trying to cover something up, or someone is completely incompetant at their job. Whichever one it is, I don't want them controlling our government. But of course one could argue that the stupid and incompetant have always been running our government then we'll all have a big laugh.

But we know the truth. Our government blatently lies to us all of the time, and patriotic Americans bend over and take it. At this point, The likelyhood of planes being the only factor in the destruction of the 3 wtc buildings is minimal. In order for things to have occured just as they said, it would have been a one in a million shot.

Not to mention it's illegal as hell to remove evidence from a crime scene, and destroy that evidence before it can be processed. The only steel that was really looked at were a few select sections that they admitted they had no idea which part of the building the steel had come from. The scrap was hauled away under the tightest security ever given to scrap metal, complete with fired drivers, GPS locators, and escorts. I guess I would want tight security too if I were stealing incriminating evidence from the largest crime scene in US history.

If evidence of a crime is destroyed before it can be examined, it could be assumed that someone is either trying to cover something up, or someone is completely incompetant at their job.

What evidence was destroyed before it was examined, As far as I know all the debris was shipped across the river and examined there for evidence.

Its unrealistic to sift through the mound of debris where it was.

You guys make it sound as if it was loaded onto the first boat to China.

It was examined. Evidence was kept.

On the night of September 12, 2001 the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island was designated a crime scene and trucks began arriving from Ground Zero with steel and crushed debris that was once the World Trade Center. Over the next ten months, an operation to recover human remains, personal effects and the objects of everyday life from 1.8 million tons of material was undertaken by the New York Police Department, an FBI evidence recovery team, twenty-five state and federal agencies, and fourteen private contractors. The story of this operation unfolds in many rare images and compelling objects that are now preserved for history. Thousands of detectives, agents, and forensic evidence specialists worked around the clock to recover remnants of the lives lost at the World Trade Center. Over 1.7 million hours were spent working at the landfill.

www.nysm.nysed.gov...

Again what evidence was destroyed without being examined?



[edit on 30/4/06 by Skibum]

Not to mention it's illegal as hell to remove evidence from a crime scene, and destroy that evidence before it can be processed.

It was processed and evidence was kept.

The scrap was hauled away under the tightest security ever given to scrap metal, complete with fired drivers, GPS locators, and escorts. I guess I would want tight security too if I were stealing incriminating evidence from the largest crime scene in US history.

It was shipped to the processing center, to look for evidence.

Fired drivers? What are you getting at.

GPS locators are pretty common on trucks.

Escorts? It was evidence, it contained bodies, I can see a need for security.

Stealing evidence, more like moving it somewhere where it could be processed easier.





[edit on 30/4/06 by Skibum]

Originally posted by Skibum
Again what evidence was destroyed without being examined?

Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center ... same obstacles the BPAT team encountered: an inability to examine the steel, ...
www.house.gov/science/wtc/charter.htm - 79k - Cached - Similar pages

source, THE GOVERNMENT

the STEEL, dude, the STEEL.

did i say steel?

Why is this not as big a deal as you are trying to make it out to be?

BPAT was not conducting a criminal investigation.

The debris had already been checked and cleared for criminal evidence.

Evidence of bombs, since there were reports of bombs being used during the hijackings it is logical to conclude that they were looking for bomb evidence, would have been looked for during the criminal investigation.


What your link describes is a bureaucratic foul up, not a criminal investigation cover up.

Originally posted by Skibum
Why is this not as big a deal as you are trying to make it out to be?

BPAT was not conducting a criminal investigation.

The debris had already been checked and cleared for criminal evidence.

Evidence of bombs, since there were reports of bombs being used during the hijackings it is logical to conclude that they were looking for bomb evidence, would have been looked for during the criminal investigation.


What your link describes is a bureaucratic foul up, not a criminal investigation cover up.

man, it's like arguing with one guy.
webemarketing. get a new script, central scrutinizer.

less people are buying. a sharp drop off in sales.

but, of course, it is as you say, my pope.
blessings to your infallibleness.

recordered from hoboken, two miles away........
boom. (nothing, the radio is on, live, the towers are smoking like big cigars) did you watch 911eyewitness? booom. (somewhere else, close to the towers, a video camera on a tripod shakes) it was interesting, to say the least, that many interesting visual events were NOT shown or heard from the mainstream 2-15 seconds loops.
BOOOMmObOOmBOOOOMBOOMOBOMB, as the tower falls in about twelve seconds, leaving a siesmic signature(that starts at the initiation of the collapse in time) of about eight seconds.

if you could inertially balance a stack of 'pancakes' and posts, ala jenga(ie. no SUPERCORE), as large as the world trade centre(try it), at one erg above the degree of energy needed to initiate a collapse at the impact floors, and knock out those floors, the mere decceleration by transfer of momentum would cause the collapse time to be somewhere arguably between 55 seconds, and 90+ seconds.

and the only DECENT fine element analysis model, done in CHINA, calculated fall times of 1:30 seconds.


later, WTC7 falls the first 100 meters in 4.6 seconds, according to digital analysis by author rick. real time sychronization of digital sources only actually WORKS one way. from three digital sources matched, and even analog recorders can be accurately synchronized in one of two ways, ie. yes or no. the 4.6 seconds for the first 100 meters is documented.
freedom fries, naudet? seigel?


art bell is talking about mars with richard hoagland, and lighted cities on the other side of the moon.

911eyewtiness. download it, google watch it, buy it for high quality(worth it if you're not PARANOID like me, lol), and share it. rick allows total sharing of it, by contract law(magna carta? remember that guy?).

dance, puppets, dance.

i WILL buy it, .......later. i'll by rick a beer, too. later.

The videos created in support of the 9/11 Inconsistencies didn't have overlooked key facts for just no reason..

.. try watching them.

Originally posted by Masisoar
The videos created in support of the 9/11 Inconsistencies didn't have overlooked key facts for just no reason..

.. try watching them.

"Key facts" such as what?

Originallyed post by Muaddib
Professor Jones is a nuclear physicist not an structural engineer with experience on skyscrappers.

Just because a person has a degree in one field of science, does not make him/her an expert in all fields of science.

Yeah, and if you read his paper, the problems he raises are within his field of expertise, ie, based on physics.

Jones is a physicist, of course. An emeritus professor of it. And guess what structural engineering is based on? Physics. This guy is totally relevant, even moreso than SE's since SE's don't study the physics problems of building collapses. SE's work to make buildings stand; they don't painstakingly examine collapse physics, or necessarily even study them at all. That's more in the line of work of a physicist (like Jones! *gasp*) or a demolition engineer.

Originally posted by Masisoar
The videos created in support of the 9/11 Inconsistencies didn't have overlooked key facts for just no reason..

.. try watching them.

and are you always instantly able to figure out how a magician does his majic tricks, merely from watching the illusion?
or do you need inductive reasoning and imagination?

the reason there may be inconsistencies from one video to the next, is because the makers must SPECULATE on what ACTUALLY happened, while showing what DIDN'T happen.
movie watching is a passive thing.
however, ALL these 911 documentaries have ONE thing in common, at least. they point to a CONSPIRACY of MASS PROPORTIONS.

try on the fact that the official story has more holes in it than empty space.

and try just watching 911eyewitness. i haven't seen loose change, but 911eyewitness is a standing pillar of truth in it's unabashed RAWness. as in RAW FOOTAGE.

do i think rick made any poor judgements in his logic and presentation. well, yeah.

does that mean i will 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'?

no.

and like bsbray asked, what the heck are you talking about, specifically.

Guys, I think you'll find that Masisoar is debating against the official story if you look back through his posts. I think he may have messed up with the grammar somewhere in that last post giving the wrong impression.

Masisoar wrote:
The videos created in support of the 9/11 Inconsistencies didn't have overlooked key facts for just no reason..

.. try watching them.

I think he meant to say something like, "The videos created highlighting the 9/11 inconsistencies didn't summarize/emphasize key facts for simply no reason.... try watching them."



[edit on 2006-4-30 by wecomeinpeace]

After a whole day of reading through 911 related links, I thought this collection of

200+ 9/11 Smoking Guns did a great job of putting things into perspective.

killtown.911review.org...

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Guys, I think you'll find that Masisoar is debating against the official story if you look back through his posts. I think he may have messed up with the grammar somewhere in that last post giving the wrong impression.

OOPS! 'freindly fire' casualty.

sorry.

lol.

Originally posted by Skibum
The debris had already been checked and cleared for criminal evidence.

Not trying to be facetious, which evidence was examined By Whom and when?

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by Skibum
The debris had already been checked and cleared for criminal evidence.

Not trying to be facetious, which evidence was examined By Whom and when?

My thoughts exactly as I was just rereading over this. FEMA? ACE? No doubt some government agency, and if it was orchestrated this far I'm sure they'd see it through.

Regardless of what one thinks of the government's intentions, the results affect the chances of any real independent investigation on the WTC Towers. All we really have to go on anymore are the videos and photos, and what little good info has trickled down through government agencies.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Guys, I think you'll find that Masisoar is debating against the official story if you look back through his posts. I think he may have messed up with the grammar somewhere in that last post giving the wrong impression.

Masisoar wrote:
The videos created in support of the 9/11 Inconsistencies didn't have overlooked key facts for just no reason..

.. try watching them.

I think he meant to say something like, "The videos created highlighting the 9/11 inconsistencies didn't summarize/emphasize key facts for simply no reason.... try watching them."



[edit on 2006-4-30 by wecomeinpeace]

I agree..Just got a real chuckle out of the attack on masisoar.lol. Sometime you guys don't even read or try to comprehend what is being said...if it sounds "against us"...just attack!

I'm hit, mayday mayday.. going down.