Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"

In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:

I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled
demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office workers
knowing that it was being done, but that can wait for another day.

To believe this crap, you'd have to
believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy imaginable.

I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored
busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is done by
specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two
giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have
been carried out in secret.

Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their coats. Man
you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place charges anywhere they
wanted. You sure are one simple minded soul aren't you? Do you think people
would carry their tools in broad daylight while all the workers are on the
job? When maintenance workers enter does do they ever do it while everyone
is at work? No they don't fool. Does anyone even see the plumber or
electrician while they are doing their job? No they don't. They do it and
don't bother anyone or even disrupt the work flow. You really should try to
get out more often and get away from the internet once in a while.



Nobody unknown walks into a Manhattan office bulding at any time of
day without being planned for and with people controlling the space
notified and told why. Office buldings are 24x7 operations with
several unrelated layers of security, especially after Feb 26, 1993 at
the WTC.

Just getting access to the elevators to carry tools and material
requires paperwork.


There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of size,
placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any of the
towers on 9/11.

In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough
to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and
powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet
it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any
bomb would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.


For 9/11, each and every beam was examined by at least one civil
engineer before it was shipped to China. A couple thousands were kept
for analysis. 1,300 are in storage here. More links to stories about
that process on request.

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/ne...allery?index=1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...63656282270164
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Jonathan wrote:

I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored
busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is done by
specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two
giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have
been carried out in secret.

Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their coats. Man
you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place charges anywhere they
wanted.

Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.



There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of size,
placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any of the
towers on 9/11.

In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough
to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and
powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet
it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any
bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Paul Heslop wrote:
wrote:

Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press,
witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11:

"That was no American Airlines jet"

"It was a military plane"

"It was definitely no airliner"

sod off you nutter

Wahahaha........You sure are one stupid one. This is all you have? 12 Arabs
that never flew a jumbo jet learned from a video game and this is what you
think is the "truth". Wahhahaha.....What a loon...........




To say that the above is an incorrect description of the skills of the
hijacker pilots and the skills necessary to crash a plane into a
building is an understatement, to say the least.


There was a survey taken by an aviation trade magazine of pilots and
the response was that given the type and hours of expeience each of
the 4 had, it was easily "good enough". That's all it takes.

They didn't have to hit a specific spot on the building, they just had
to hit the bulding.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

"It was definitely no commercial airliner"

In today's local newspaper there is a short story about foresenic
investigators using a new DNA technique to identify some more remains
from 911 WTC. The remains were from a woman who boarded the American
Airlines flight in Boston.

Amazing how you have planes that took off never to be seen again,
passengers missing, crews missing, families grieving, body and 757
aircraft parts identified at the site, yet these kooks say it wasn't
commercial airliners that crashed into the buildings.

On Sep 13, 12:14 pm, wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:
Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press,
witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11:
"That was no American Airlines jet"

If what you suspect is true, then where did the AA planes end up? Are the
passengers being kept in prisons? Were the planes dismantled in secret
hangars? What happened to the guys in airport towers who were monitoring
all the flights? How were they silenced when the AA planes were diverted
to secret landing sites?

Without these answers, I have trouble believing that the planes were not
the AA planes.

I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled
demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office workers knowing
that it was being done, but that can wait for another day.

First I'd like to know what happened to the commercial jetliners and their
passengers, and how the air traffic controllers were silenced.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

Weeks before the cleared the towers for many hours as they did
'security checks'. Plus, how did the third building crumble to the
ground when no other steel frame building in the history of
construction has 'emploded' from fire, a plane hitting it, etc? Nobody
mentions the third building.

On Sep 13, 4:19 pm, "SGT. Major" wrote:
wrote

Oh, and then what about this fellow Bin Laden and his cohorts
releasing videos where they take credit for 911? Is he part of the
conspiracy too? LOL

Yeah, like the US government would ever have Bin Laden in bed with them.

HAHAHA. Ahh... to be naive.

On 9/14/07 10:33 AM, in article , "Paul
Heslop" wrote:

George Kerby wrote:

Do you use your right hand or your left hand for that Jonathan?

DAMN! I snorted coffee on that one!

:O) Nice to know it happens to other people too
BFG!

In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough
to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and
powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet
it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any
bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.

Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that would
require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do undetected.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

In misc.survivalism Terryc wrote:
wrote:

I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've worked in
a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.

In established buildings maybe. In a new building just occupied a few
weeks, a thief did wallets and purses on four floors before I asked him
WTF are you doing. "Testing power points" was the reply that satisfied
my co-workers. I ignored my boss and rang security before anything was done.

Bingo. Is your example intended to show that strangers almost always get
caught?

And besides, the WTC complex WAS and "established" complex, with folks
working in the same office for years, eager to break the monotomy by
talking with workmen. Just like you did.

Controlled demolition would require much more than one experienced thief.
Indeed, it would require a lot of men with wires and explosives, or a
fewer number of men for a longer time. Either way, I can't imagine that
it could be pulled off.


but that doesn't alter your point.

Yeah - I suspected that we agreed.


And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of
bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me.

Weekend work?
Pillar safety check?

It may be possible, but ISTM that the scenario is very unlikely.



That work is done by specialty firms. Lots
and lots of manhours would be needed for two giant buildigs. It seems
unlikely to me that the work could have been carried out in secret.

Agreed,

I'd like to see some kind of scenario posed by supporters of the theory.
I can't think of any credible theory of how it is possible. I'd liketo
know, from demolition experts, what kind of prep would be involved, the
number of man-hours involved, and whether power tools would be necessary
to set things up.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

In misc.survivalism wrote:

Weeks before the cleared the towers for many hours as they did
'security checks'.

Interesting. And were "many hours" enough to wire the buildings for
implosion? Do you have an analysis?


Plus, how did the third building crumble to the
ground when no other steel frame building in the history of
construction has 'emploded' from fire, a plane hitting it, etc?

I've seen photos of a corner of the building blown off by one of the
towers collapsing. Do you have any structural analysis which shows that
this could not have caused the collapse?


Nobody
mentions the third building.

I've seen it mentioned many, many times. If you re forming conclusions
based upon the premise that nobody mentions it, I think you need to
rethink your position.


--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel