WTC Was Demolished By Explosives!

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:23 pm

if they were aware of a planned attack and decided to just let it happen, the same results are achieved

Post by **R00k** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:26 pm

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:if they were aware of a planned attack and decided to just let it happen, the same results are achieved

Except for billions and billions of dollars of profit.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:30 pm

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:if they were aware of a planned attack and decided to just let it happen, the same results are achieved

oh they knew...thats already been proven...the fbi and cia knew the targets and the date...and 11 countries warned the us planes were gonna be used to fly into targets in washington and new york...

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:31 pm

it's consistent with the administration's m.o. I agree but there isn't any visual evidence and there is far too much visual evidence pointing to the collapse being due to the planes and fires etc. again imho

@ rook

Post by **R00k** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:49 pm

Nightshade wrote:I didn't say that there was no reason to bring down the buildings, exactly. I said that there was no reason to go to all the effort and potential exposure of wiring the buildings with charges.
To my knowledge, there have been analyses done on the structural steel. So apparently not all the evidence was removed and melted.
Hey, I'd like to know why a FEMA command center was set up the day before the attacks, too. Weren't there "exercises" planned involving a terrorist strike or something?

And to wire charges where they'd be assured of having the desired effect, well, I can't see that happening without a large, noticeable effort.

Well I'm sure neither one of us can decide whether it's worth it in the minds of certain people to rig the buildings for that much money, but it's still a motive.

You say that there have been analyses done on the structural steel, but the company contracted by the government to do analyses weren't provided with any -- they had to rely on recreating the materials for the test.

For your last point -- that such a large effort would be noticeable -- is a difference of our opinions, but there were certain opportunities that would make it more feasible.

When a murder occurs, there is always an investigation, and having a motive and means will get people indicted for sure.

Hey, I'd like to know why a FEMA command center was set up the day before the attacks, too. Weren't there "exercises" planned involving a terrorist strike or something?

So you're saying you actually would support an investigation into what I've been describing?

And yes, there were three different training exercises planned and executed on Sept. 11. These exercises, along with FEMA, are under the control of Dick Cheney, thanks to an executive order signed by Bush 6 months before the attacks.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:50 pm

r u gay rook? seriously...

Post by **R00k** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:55 pm

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:it's consistent with the administration's m.o. I agree but there isn't any visual evidence and there is far too much visual evidence pointing to the collapse being due to the planes and fires etc. again imho

@ rook

Well, I personally believe that the visual evidence is completely inconclusive - hence the Terri Schiavo analogy.

Thus making both theories equally dubious, due to the unexplainable events and circumstances required for either to happen.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:57 pm

Freakaloin wrote:r u gay rook? seriously...

Sorry, I like chicks.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:01 pm

hmmm...i'm not so sure...

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:01 pm

Freakaloin wrote:hmmm...i'm not so sure...

if you're not sure, i suggest you experiment

Post by **Nightshade** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:49 pm

R00k wrote:

So you're saying you actually would support an investigation into what I've been describing?

And yes, there were three different training exercises planned and executed on Sept. 11. These exercises, along with FEMA, are under the control of Dick Cheney, thanks to an executive order signed by Bush 6 months before the attacks.

Hell yes I want to see a REAL investigation. It will never happen, and that in and of itself is a crime, but I'm all for it.
The only points I've ever argued are that the WTC towers were not brought down by explosives and that it WAS a plane that hit the Pentagon. That's it.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:54 pm

Well, I believe the demolition theory has just as much credibility as the official one, and due to the strange phenomena required for either to occur, not investigating that part of the events would be a crime as well.

Edit: To be honest, and in the interest of full-disclosure, I personally believe it requires a willing suspension of disbelief to accept the official theory at all. But I do also understand that the same is true for the demolition theory.

Post by **Shmee** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:24 pm

rep wrote:Holy shit, I've never seen this detailed video of the second collision! Click for video.

Jellus?

I lolled.

Post by **Whiskey 7** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 6:55 am

R00k wrote:
Whiskey 7 wrote:Thanks R00k for the thread

Very interesting
You're welcome. Why the " "?

I am still trying to get my head around the possibility, this just adds to my confusion..

R00k wrote:

And yes, there were three different training exercises planned and executed on Sept. 11. These exercises, along with FEMA, are under the control of Dick Cheney, thanks to an executive order signed by Bush 6 months before the attacks.

Post by **R00k** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:10 am

Well, the NIST has concluded its political investigation, and is demanding that stricter fire codes be made for buildings, to restore people's faith in skyscrapers... Even though the WTC was owned by the Port Authority and did not have to adhere to building codes to begin with (which I still don't understand).

The official report will be released tomorrow:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/nyreg ... nted=print

The report does refute one of my points though:

The investigation also raised hard questions about the usefulness of a century-old furnace test that measures the fire resistance of structural components. Last summer, the National Institute of Standards and Technology arranged a furnace test of a 17-foot piece of steel and concrete floor, the standard requirement at the time that the towers were erected. The floor passed the test. However, the tower floors were built not with 17-foot lengths of floor, but with 35- and 60-foot lengths. When a 35-foot length was tested in the furnace, the floor failed the fire-rating requirement.

I assume this is talking about the tests that UL performed. I am interested to see if anyone at UL has a response to this report or not.

Also note, though, that the investigation is based on computer models and recreation -- not a bit of the actual steel from the building has been examined.