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

Originally posted by Vushta
Sometime you guys don't even read or try to comprehend what is being said...if it sounds "against us"...just attack!

Sometimes we try to comprehend what you say, but it would be easier for us if you would try a little harder with the grammar.

For example:

A period is followed by two spaces. This rule of grammar makes it easier for us to not see your posts as one long string of words or a single sentence.

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
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...

That is till you do the most SIMPLISTIC of research,Ooops here comes their semantics tyrade.Here these guy's will even help ya start!I know it ain't no video,for the most part.Try the reading thing !Better resourcees!

www.geocities.com...
911myths.com...
www.ccdominoes.com...

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


Sometimes we try to comprehend what you say, but it would be easier for us if you would try a little harder with the grammar.

For example:

A period is followed by two spaces. This rule of grammar makes it easier for us to not see your posts as one long string of words or a single sentence.

Well actually thats punctuation and not grammer. Sorry if a couple of dots throws off your ability to focus.

Try concentrating on whats being said...that may help. In case that threw you off, what I meant to say is. Try concentrating on whats being said. That may help....remember..humor.

Two spaces?

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Vushta]

Originally posted by Duhh
Try the reading thing !Better resourcees!

I would invite you to take your own advice about reading and read back through this thread and if you find any glaring inaccuracies in anything I have posted let me know. Better resources? What do you mean by better? Easier to swallow?

Originally posted by Vushta
Well actually thats punctuation and not grammer.

You are so freaking stubborn! That's like saying a horse is a mammal and not an animal. Grammar is also spelled a little differently than that, but I suppose that falls under the category of spelling and not grammar, too.

Try concentrating on whats being said...that may help.

No. It doesn't help at all. Here's something quick to help you along your way:


When you're trying to counter the arguments supporting an inside job, suggesting alternate explanations to observed events does not constitute a "debunking" or anything of that nature. It simply offers another explanation. This second explanation may or may not be any better than the original assertion, and may not even make any sense.

For example, for the squibs, when you assert that they were caused by air pressure or etc., you're simply offering another explanation for what was seen. If you want to "debunk" the claim that explosives caused those ejections, then you'd have to do something more along the lines of definitively proving that explosives can't cause those things. I think any rational person would have to have quite a bit of thorough convincing on that one, though. Note the problems that have also been presented with the compressed air theory, namely that there was no mechanism by which the air could have been compressed given that solid material was having no problem at all escaping the building at the collapse waves. These are the kinds of problems you want to avoid if you want to logically counter some asserton.

Seriously -- take this into consideration: Simply offering another way of looking at something does not "debunk" it. It merely provides us with the way you see things, and unfortunately no one's really going to care unless you put some objective meat on it. It certainly won't hurt your arguments, and considering how you love to argue and never be wrong, I'd imagine you'd like that. You don't even have to mention it to anybody if you take it up. I think we're just tired of trying to intelligently respond to things that really don't make any sense in the first place. (I am, at least.)

[edit on 23-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
For example, for the squibs, when you assert that they were caused by air pressure or etc., you're simply offering another explanation for what was seen. If you want to "debunk" the claim that explosives caused those ejections, then you'd have to do something more along the lines of definitively proving that explosives can't cause those things.

No! You are the one taking leaps of" Faith".These are the statements given by experts in their fields.Also known as fact.What you are clinging to is great fiction.Nothing else there.No real science to back up anything.You are the one with the burden of proof.Sleep tight!


Mod Note: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY... ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ

Please discuss the topic " Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact ", and not other member's posting skills or tutorials on grammar.


On-Topic and contributing posts are all that are required to further the discussion.


Thank you.

The first link is broken

The second goes to an article that has nothing to do with the messages.

The third goes to a conspiracy site which just makes some vague unsubstantiated claims that don't have enough detail to be taken very seriously. I mean they don't even say what the message was. that's some pretty shady reporting. Forget about the fact that the circumstance seem preposterous. The noition that an IM company cannot even identify one of its own users.

But more importantly the source used by the conspiracy site is a broken link. Maybe someone can provide updated information.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Yes, many key words pop up in this little piece: Israel, Mossad, and Zionism. When thinking of September 11, Israel comes forefront to the mind. Enraging america against the entire muslim world has limitless benefits. They now have the most powerful nation in the world drooling and foaming like a rabid dog sicking all ther enemies in the middle east. Iraq was a threat to israel. Syria and iran are both major thorns in israels side. And notice the Israelis goading and pushing us to take them both out........

Yes, many motives for 9/11, not all of them bush related. The semi fascist zionists have much to gain as well.

uhhhh...........your * another member of this Community *



Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/24/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Twitchy, fantastic job as usual..


I have a new theory of my own which I expound on in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


What if the enegy that created the initial "spike" that showed up on seismographs were the cores of the towers simply being "disconnected" quickly and the ground bouncing back? (Ask Howard Roarke about the 'trampoline effect') That's a lot of gravitational energy being unloaded off the ground rather quickly. A professor friend of mine at a local university backs this theorystating that there was a TREMENDOUS amount of gravitational energy stored up in the towers and after some rough calculations, looks like it would be enough to create such a spike if it were 'unloaded' off the ground in an instant. Also, I'm not saying that no explosions happened at the towers prior to their collapses.. I'm just saying that the energy that created the inital 'spikes' on the seismographs came from something else. Take a look at the other thread and let me know what you think Twitch.

BTW Howard, trying to compare the 1993 WTC bombing to 911 'seismographically' is foolish. The truck bomb in 1993 was NOT coupled to the ground in any way, the rest is obvious. (Have we not discussed that before?)






[edit on 25-7-2006 by TxSecret]

Originally posted by Duhh
No! You are the one taking leaps of" Faith".These are the statements given by experts in their fields.Also known as fact.

First, the "statements" are not quantified, but vaguely suggested in a single sentence (in the NIST Report). It would not have been hard for them to quantify their opinions, as Griff quantified the theory quite well on these forums by a law describing the combining of gases, giving many advantages (no losses from successions of squibs, and ALL air being forced downwards -- neither are realistic) to the air compression theory and still showing an insufficient amount of pressure. Again, NIST gave NO figures.

Secondly, a fact is not defined as "a statement given by an expert."A fact is fact regardless of any "expert" opinion, which...

(Third) ...is deceptive anyway because none of the NIST staff would be experts on this phenomena in the least, especially the structural engineers. I would love to see a single engineering textbook (other than on demolitions) explaining the squib phenomena as NIST explain it, or any compression-related explosions from building collapses. You won't find any, because it has NEVER, EVER HAPPENED, outside of demolitions (where it is not caused by gas compression, but by explosive charges). It DOESN'T happen outside of demolitions.

What you are clinging to is great fiction.Nothing else there.No real science to back up anything.You are the one with the burden of proof.Sleep tight!

I could throw the same statement back at you, and actually be correct. NIST did not quantify, NIST did not offer precedent, and NIST did not even give more than a sentence of explanation.

Griff, a civil engineer, did provide figures, generous figures, for NIST's assertion. Ask him what he thinks they indicate.

[edit on 9-8-2006 by bsbray11]

let me first start by saying this is a direct response to twitchy, who invited me to come to this particular thread to "have a look-see at anything there I have posted which you might find to be innaccurate" after i called him on several pieces of misinformation and a downright lack of knowledge about air traffic and the faa:

Originally posted by twitchy
Tell you what lad, You can believe anything you like, looking to me for proof is your bad though. I've done most of my 'half-assed' research on 9-11 for ATS and added it to this thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Feel free to have a look-see at anything there I have posted which you might find to be innaccurate.

now at first, i had absolutely no desire to take his challenge considering that he didnt even know that the faa is the governing body of the air traffic control system. but being a truelly addicted ATSer, i just couldnt resist. so i went to the thread in question and read 44 flipping pages of mostly grown adults telling each other how stupid they are.

now, i am no structural engineer, and i have no desire to get into the whole "what caused the collapse" argument, but i do want to point out that twitchy directed me to this particular page to back up his "research", so i read it all.

guess what? he mentions some of what i called him on, but no sources for any of it! big surprise! i personally believe that he figured i wouldnt take the time to read all 44 pages and was safe in just flat out lying.

anyway, lets go through what i did find in my are of expertise that was innaccurate (since he invited me to do just that):

page 2:

Originally posted by twitchy
The thing that really got to me was one of the employees of the ATC from the airport took the tapes of the communication between the pilots and tower and "pulled the tape out and cut it into shreds and put them in seperate trashcans" this by his own admission.. WHat the hell??

while partly true, twitchy does not give you the full story. the destroyed tape was actually a copy of the original digital recordings that the controller in question made for his own personal use (presumably as a memento of the day). management found out about the tape and destroyed it on the spot.....the originals were never touched and are this day sitting at fbi headquarters. you see, by law air traffic tapes are recorded on a 24 hour basis and held for 15 days. if there is an incident, they are held indefinitely.....i think 9/11 counts as an incident, wouldnt you say?

The jets that hit the WTC flew over some of the most prolific stretches of military complexes in our nation and not a single air craft was scrambled even after the the planes were known to be hijacked.

while i cant completely fault him for this one because the norad tapes have only recently been partially released, we all know from this thread that this statement is incorrect.

Another thing, cell phones don't work very well at 30,000 ft where some of the calls were made.

complete horse hockey and thouroughly debunked in this thread.

did you happen to notice that absolutely nothing that he asserts from this page has a source of any kind, even though he made it clear that all his resources were on this particular thread?

page 6:

Originally posted by twitchy
If we don't get the answers now, we never will. Our children will learn of these matters in schools a hundred years from now the way our children are fed the story about the american indians giving us the land we inhabit. Kids know who Squanto and Miles Standish were, but they never heard of Wounded Knee or the Trail Of Tears.

umm, i learned about the trail of tears in the 7th grade....a whole quarter was devoted to it. learned about wounded knee in US history my junior year in high school....where did you go to school twitchy?

page 8:

Originally posted by twitchy
You say that the guy that ran around cutting up tapes from ATC adn depositing them into seperate trash cans was bad judgement?

already shown above to be a falsification of the facts to fit your thesis.

pages 16 and 17:

Originally posted by twitchy
Air traffic control notified NORAD that the planes had been hijacked and Norad sat on their arses ALL MORNING while planes slammed into landmarks, then oddly enough refused later to comment on disrecpancies in their own timelines, Passing the respnosibility of scrambling fighters from Rumsfeld to General This or Commander That.

while they did refuse to comment on discrepancies in the timeline, aircraft were scrambled, they were just sent the wrong way, as shown in the norad tapes thread that i sourced above.

The average passenger on board isn't likely to know if a pilot or a fly by wire system is operating the aircraft. In the 1980's, in the wake of several hijackings, they instituted a system in commercial airliners that would would allow control of these aircraft from an external source. The system is pretty much impossible to override once it has been initiated.

The fly by wire systems can be initiated from the FAA and were implemented for just such an event

i actually laughed out loud when i read that. first of all, fly by wire is a phrase that denotes aircraft which are computer controlled, instead of being regular stick and rudder type aircraft. in other words, instead of cables running directly to the controls, the pilot controls the aircraft through the on board computer which uses mechanical means of moving the control surfaces.....a method that is in use on most modern commercial aircraft and all modern military fighters. there is no buck rogers we can control the aircraft from the ground sytem installed on any commercial airliner in the world. it has been discussed as a possible safety feature to be added to future aircraft, but at this time there is no such thing.

it is possible the system was 'hacked', but more likely a scenario is that they were overridden from an external source IMO. American AWACK aircraft have this capability, and really, anyone could for that matter given the right equipment or access. The implication is either the system was compromised as you suggest by the terrorists, which is highly unlikely if you know much about the systems, or that the system was overridden which would be indicitive of an inside operation.

see above.....and twitchy, how about a source for this? i would love to know what idiot is trying to sell this as reality.

page 27:

Originally posted by twitchy
Odd, but I have yet to see any mention from any of this to suggest what happened to the Fly by Wire systems which have been in place on airliners since the 80's. Only Airports and American Awacks have that capability that I know of.

and there you go with that fly by wire crap again.....with no sources as usual.

as i said, i know nothing about structural engineering so i didnt bother to check any of your "facts" on that. however, i think i have done a fair to midlin job of showing that the "research" you have done in my area of expertise, which is air traffic control (i have a pilots license as well), is pretty much a complete figment of your own imagination. as i mentioned in the previous thread, i see no reason to listen to anything else you might have to add on 9/11 or any other subject as you have repeatedly shown that your "research" is nothing more than pulling whatever crap out of your butt you can to fit your theories.

First off, welcome to my ignore list. I've little patience for your affrontive posts and a good deal less tolerance for deliberate misrepresentations of what I said, and outright hypocrisy as you ask where my references are while posting none of your own to support what I will now show to be little more than skeptical tripe at best. I got a U2U which asked me to stop bickering with you, so consquently, this repsonse will be your last from me, so try to pay attention.

Originally posted by snafu7700
i called him on several pieces of misinformation and a downright lack of knowledge about air traffic and the faa... he didnt even know that the faa is the governing body of the air traffic control system.

I didn't know the FAA is the governing body of the air traffic control system? How the hell did you construe that? I pointed out and illustrated the difference between Air Traffic Control and the FAA which by your initial post in the other thread seemed confused. The FAA doesn't record those communications, ATC does. A subtle difference there, but like hell I don't know what the FAA is so before you make to me out to be ignorant, why don't you try to get at least get a decent enough grasp on what I actually said.

Originally posted by snafu7700
guess what? he mentions some of what i called him on, but no sources for any of it! big surprise! i personally believe that he figured i wouldnt take the time to read all 44 pages and was safe in just flat out lying.

I was personally hoping you would read the posts, or I wouldn't have invited you to do so. Flat out Lying? I'm a liar? Yeah, hey sure thing. You don't know me from methuseluh, so let's not pretend you have an inkling of a clue as to what kind of person I am. Saavy?
No Sources?
Does this link look familiar to you? Did you miss it or ignore it in the original post?

Source
Tape of Air Traffic Controllers Made on 9/11 Was Destroyed
*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information.
May 7, 2004, Friday
By MATTHEW L. WALD (NYT); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 29, Column 2, 624 words
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 624 WORDS -At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording a few hours later describing the events, but the tape was destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it,

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by twitchy
The thing that really got to me was one of the employees of the ATC from the airport took the tapes of the communication between the pilots and tower and "pulled the tape out and cut it into shreds and put them in seperate trashcans" this by his own admission.. WHat the hell??

while partly true, twitchy does not give you the full story. the destroyed tape was actually a copy of the original digital recordings that the controller in question made for his own personal use (presumably as a memento of the day). management found out about the tape and destroyed it on the spot.....the originals were never touched and are this day sitting at fbi headquarters. you see, by law air traffic tapes are recorded on a 24 hour basis and held for 15 days. if there is an incident, they are held indefinitely.....i think 9/11 counts as an incident, wouldnt you say?

"management found out about the tape and destroyed it on the spot"
Precisely. Partly true? No, that's what I said adn that's what happened. Actually it was Several air traffic controllers, and the management rep. said he had had them make the tape, because he thought it would be of use to law enforcement. His reasoning for destroying it AS REPORTED, was that he didn't think anyone would want to listen to it, and destroyed it MONTHS later. Not immediately as you claimed without referencing. Something he later reflected on as an 'error in judgement'. What was it you were saying about the Union, and the tapes being remade? Where's YOUR source, and where can I get a copy of the Remade Tape you claim they re-recorded? In fact the only Union involvement I could find was John Carr, president of the air traffic controllers' union's statement that he did not know whether the manager did the right thing by destroying the tape. Ask him yourself, we did.
Here's one source that says you're full of it...

www.newsmax.com...
Tape of Controllers' Talk After 9/11 Crashes Destroyed
NewsMax Wires
Friday, May. 07, 2004
WASHINGTON - Air traffic controllers who handled two of the hijacked flights on Sept. 11, 2001, recorded their experiences shortly after the planes crashed into the World Trade Center but a supervisor destroyed the tape, government investigators said Thursday.
A report by Transportation Department Inspector General Kenneth Mead said the manager for the New York-area air traffic control center asked the controllers to make the recordings a few hours after the crashes in belief they would be important for law enforcement.

Investigators never heard it. Sometime between December 2001 and February 2002, an unidentified Federal Aviation Administration quality assurance manager crushed the cassette case in his hand, cut the tape into small pieces and threw them away in multiple trash cans, the report said.

"We were told that nobody ever listened to, transcribed or duplicated the tape," Mead said in the report sent to Sen. John McCain. The Arizona Republican asked the inspector general to look into how well the agency was cooperating with the independent panel investigating the attacks.

Neither manager told anyone outside the center - including their superiors and law enforcement officials - about the tape's existence, the report said. The Sept. 11 commission learned of the tape during interviews with New York air traffic control center personnel between September and October.

The destruction occurred even though the FAA sent a directive three days after the hijackings: "Retain and secure until further notice ALL Administrative/Operational data and records. ... If a question arises whether or not you should retain the data, RETAIN IT."

The quality assurance manager said he destroyed the tape because he felt it violated FAA policy calling for written statements from controllers who have handled a plane involved in an accident or other serious incident. He also said he felt the controllers were not in the right frame of mind to have consented to the taping, the report said.

The manager said he waited several months to destroy the tape because he promised the local controllers' union vice president that he would get rid of it once the control center's formal accident package was complete, the report said. That package was sent to FAA headquarters in November 2001.

Not Said Cover-up

The report did not characterize the tape's destruction as an attempted cover-up. But it said the recording could have helped provide a fuller explanation of what happened on Sept. 11.

"What those six controllers recounted in a group setting on Sept. 11, in their own voices, about what transpired that morning, are no longer available to assist any investigation or inform the public," the report said.

Mead said his office referred the case to federal prosecutors in New York, but they declined to prosecute because of lack of criminal intent.

FAA spokesman Greg Martin said the quality control manager was disciplined for violating the directive to keep everything relating to the hijackings and to turn them over to investigators. He said privacy considerations prevented him from disclosing how the manager was disciplined.

Martin said the FAA believes the tape is consistent with written statements and other materials provided to investigators. It "would not have added in any significant way to the information already provided to investigators and members of the 9-11 commission," Martin said.

The report said the controllers who made the tape had either talked to the hijacked planes that crashed into the World Trade Center or were working radar positions that intersected with the jetliners' flight paths.

The report concluded that there was "some measure of consistency" between witness statements later taken from the controllers and what was recorded on the tape. That conclusion was based on interviews with the six controllers and all 10 witnesses to the taping, and on sketchy notes taken during the tape recording. Also retained were radar data and recordings of radio transmissions from the cockpit.

John Carr, president of the air traffic controllers' union, said he did not know whether the manager did the right thing by destroying the tape.

"It was a traumatic time for him," he said. "He was the custodian for the darkest moment in our nation's history."

I don't expect an apology for you calling me a liar on this, but eat that crow and lets get on to your next 'point', shall we?

Continued...

Originally posted by snafu7700

The jets that hit the WTC flew over some of the most prolific stretches of military complexes in our nation and not a single air craft was scrambled even after the the planes were known to be hijacked.

while i cant completely fault him for this one because the norad tapes have only recently been partially released, we all know from this thread that this statement is incorrect.

What part of 'after the planes were known to have been hijacked' didn't you bother to grasp? No intercept was scrambled until well after the first tower was hit. Again, you provide no source other than a thread here on ATS, do you? My source? I PAY ATTENTION to the news, and I have a vast collection of information which includes NORAD's various timelines for that day.

Originally posted by snafu7700

Another thing, cell phones don't work very well at 30,000 ft where some of the calls were made.

complete horse hockey and thouroughly debunked in this thread.

did you happen to notice that absolutely nothing that he asserts from this page has a source of any kind, even though he made it clear that all his resources were on this particular thread?

Once again I don't see you posting any sources for your astounding knowlege of cellular communication, other than the work others have compiled here on ATS. Before "Pico", cell phones wouldn't connect above 8,000 ft. or over 230 mph. They don't have that kind of power first off, and secondly cell towers point downward because that's where the cell phones are. I suppose you will want a source for this information as well, so Get It Yourself. The only horse hockey is the fact you claim to be a pilot and don't understand this.

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by twitchy
If we don't get the answers now, we never will. Our children will learn of these matters in schools a hundred years from now the way our children are fed the story about the american indians giving us the land we inhabit. Kids know who Squanto and Miles Standish were, but they never heard of Wounded Knee or the Trail Of Tears.

umm, i learned about the trail of tears in the 7th grade....a whole quarter was devoted to it. learned about wounded knee in US history my junior year in high school....where did you go to school twitchy?

How petty, and yet it might arrive as some surprise for you to learn that I am pretty damned educated. I have a well above genius IQ, and I Majored in 19th Century British and American Literature. I don't know where you went to school, but if it was anywhere in the US in a publicly funded education institution, than you were fed the same crap as everybody else was. Can you say Squanto?

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by twitchy
You say that the guy that ran around cutting up tapes from ATC adn depositing them into seperate trash cans was bad judgement?

already shown above to be a falsification of the facts to fit your thesis.

Like I said, I don't expect an apology, and I won't see it if you were to offer it as I am adding you to my otherwise empty ignore list.

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by twitchy
Air traffic control notified NORAD that the planes had been hijacked and Norad sat on their arses ALL MORNING while planes slammed into landmarks, then oddly enough refused later to comment on disrecpancies in their own timelines, Passing the respnosibility of scrambling fighters from Rumsfeld to General This or Commander That.

while they did refuse to comment on discrepancies in the timeline, aircraft were scrambled, they were just sent the wrong way, as shown in the norad tapes thread that i sourced above.

No you sourced a thread on ATS, which is kind of lazy. And while it's odd enough that NORAD released an erroneous timeline to begin with, I find it even odder that the 9/11 Commission considered reccomending Criminal Charges for several NORAD people for what they felt to be confounding and conflicting testimonies given. And yeah they scrambled fighters, HOURS later, but I guess it depends on which version of their version you want to buy into.

Originally posted by snafu7700

The average passenger on board isn't likely to know if a pilot or a fly by wire system is operating the aircraft. In the 1980's, in the wake of several hijackings, they instituted a system in commercial airliners that would would allow control of these aircraft from an external source. The system is pretty much impossible to override once it has been initiated.

The fly by wire systems can be initiated from the FAA and were implemented for just such an event

i actually laughed out loud when i read that. first of all, fly by wire is a phrase that denotes aircraft which are computer controlled, instead of being regular stick and rudder type aircraft. in other words, instead of cables running directly to the controls, the pilot controls the aircraft through the on board computer which uses mechanical means of moving the control surfaces.....a method that is in use on most modern commercial aircraft and all modern military fighters. there is no buck rogers we can control the aircraft from the ground sytem installed on any commercial airliner in the world. it has been discussed as a possible safety feature to be added to future aircraft, but at this time there is no such thing.

First off since you are so quick to point a lack of references, I trust you have some source for your knowlege on this particular point? Perhaps your pilot's liscense is for Commercial Aircraft? No such thing? Have you ever heard of a Fully Integrated Flight Management Computer System? Soft Walls? Fully Programmable GPS-Based Navigation Systems? Ground Based Control Inputs? Fully Autonomous Flight Capability? Computerised Pilot Assistance/Override? Flight Control Rotor Actuation System? As to your smart arse buck rogers comment about flying planes from the gorund, that technology has been developed for commercial aircraft since 1984. Want a source, how about a .gov source...
www.dfrc.nasa.gov...
Have you ever heard of an AWAK, do you know what it does? It coordinates, and communicates.
As to anything you said, Faux Pas dude. Let's see you post some references to what amounts to little more than beleaugred and angry speculations. You ahven't done anything but called me a liar and post some links to threads here on ATS. At least do your own homework. I may be wrong, but you definately aren't convincing me of anything but a lack of resepct.
I apologise for the tone of this post to the rest of the community, it will be my last reply to Snafu as I don't take being called a liar lightly, and further communication with him will only breed further discord. Goodbye Snafu.

i actually just spent an hour replying to your lies point by point, and then my comp hiccuped and i lost it all. but then i realized, twitchy already took the easy way out by putting me on ignore.....so why in the hell should i bother to respond? answer:

no reason too. enjoy your life cowaring behind the ignore button twitchy.

it's not cowering. it is avoiding useless discourse. you're being very rude, and inflammatory, and misleading.
i think i'll put you on ignore, now, too, accuser guy.

before i leave this distasteful 'conflict', mods?...... isn't calling someone a cowering liar against board conditions?

Is this any similarity to the world trade center?

Fort Worth, Texas Landmark Tower Demo

Originally posted by BigMoser
Is this any similarity to the world trade center?

Structurally, not really. Here it is under construction:



Some similarities in the collapse, though. You're looking at the work of a commercial demolition company, doing commercial work, compared to what very well could have been the best in the world, with the absolute best technology in the world, doing psy-ops work. Instead of explosions up and down the building rather chaotically (or at least appearing that way), the WTC demolitions would have been very ordered, floor-by-floor. But you see a similar cloud afterwards, a similar straight-down collapse (very rapid fall!), with a center of gravity in the footprint, and squibs and all of that. Complete destruction into a neat pile, similar to WTC7.

[edit on 10-8-2006 by bsbray11]

Molten Metal too can't forget the molten metal!

Bringing down the WTCs down doesn't exactly require an exact science.

Commercial demolitions are made to be almost perfect with minimal property damage.

Obviously WTC 1 and 2 collapses weren't perfect, exterior columns littered the street as they fell etc. The basis of an idea for demolition for WTC 1 and 2 was the weaken the core supports within the basement, and allow weakening throughout the core of the building and inner columns. With enough force through weakening of the steel on the floors near the impact zone, it started a chain reaction which brought down the building relatively fast, because with weakened support, there's little to no resistivity, so it falls as it did, very fast, with little to no resistance from stable mechanisms and support.

It doesn't have to be perfect.

To say that a controlled demolition of the WTC would have to be perfect to bring it down the way it did and that it's impossible or near unlikely impropable to set up is to be naive. It wasn't perfect, but it did fall like a controlled demo.

Still leaves you to ask questions, doesn't it.

Or do the "Sigificant amount of sagging trusses and buckling columns" really have a large enough impact to blast through a reinforced concrete maintaince floor located below the impact zones, and pummel the rest of a structurally sound and standing structure with little resistance.

Does it?

The whole truth is yet to be released!


This compilation of previously released material shows that the World Trade Center buildings (Twin Towers and Building 7) were brought down by controlled demolition. What will you do about it?


BBC:News- 9/11 Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Amon_Ra]