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

Al Dykes wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
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.

No eye witnesses. Man you are ignorant aren't you? There were
plenty of people that said they heard explosions from down below.
Now go ahead and make up a story to show that was not true and
they really didn't hear anything fool.


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.

Were aircraft used along with the explosion to mask and confuse the
issue? Make up all the BS you want but this does not show anyone a
single thing.




No. The sound of the impact was not like that of a large cutting
charge.

In the hour after the impact fires raged in towers 1 and 2 right up
to the instant of the collaspe. Video shows the building failing
at the location of the fire, nowhere else. No demolition
explosions were heard immediatly preceeding the collapse.


There were explosions heard whether you like it or not fool. People
that were there have stated this over and over again. Man you are a
dumb one aren't you?

There have been videos made to show this but you refuse to believe
anything but what you want. You have no credibility and none of your
YouTube BS means squat. Get back to your video games and dream on
little broomstick cowboy.



There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of any explosions of
size, placement, timing or brisance [2], that immediatly preceeds any
tower collapse.

Show me a video that specifically shows explosions that indicate
charges placed, timed sized to cause the collapse of a tower.

There is no proof of anything Al. The real truth will never be known. You
can believe any BS stories you choose to Al. If you choose to swallow the
official story then that is your problem. The truth is that the US
government failed to protect against the attacks and continues the cover up.
There was plenty of time and opportunity to plan and plant any amount of
charges that could have been used to take down buildings that were also
struck by airliners or missiles. There is no way you can prove this was
impossible and there is no need for any proof that is did occur either.
There is plenty of proof that the government fought the investigations and
plenty of proof of cover up and failures. Plenty of reason for suspicion and
that is all there is needed. Poor Al just has no clue and he never will.
You are a sad case little Al. Very sad indeed.

wrote:
On Sep 15, 5:27 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:17 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:42 am, (Al Dykes) wrote:
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...2006,0,6613706....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...656282270164--
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-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ESK is right about the fact that you can't compare a 1000lb crude
bomb placed in the parking garage in 93 to the use of shaped
charge explosives that are positioned precisely on the structural
support that you want to cut. And that is pretty much what they
do. The charges almost cut the steel, rather than blowing it
every which way. You could do far more structural damage to a
building with 1000lb of charges made for the purpose and put
exactly where they belong.

However, none of that really has squat to do with WTC. Because
there is no credible evidence that anything other than the planes
were involved. Another thing to explain for the kooks is if the
building were rigged with explosives, then how could you be sure
that when the planes crashed, they didn't cut the various
detonating cables, rip off the necessary charges, etc? Who could
know exactly where the planes would even hit?

Well fool they sure wouldn't have hit at ground level now would
they?

No the planes couldn't have hit a ground level. Thanks for that
astute observation. Now, what does that have to do with anything?
The point is that for a controlled demo collapse of a building, the
demo charges are placed througout the structure and detonated in
sequence. How are you going to ensure that planes crashing into
the building, intense fires on many floors for hours, etc are not
going to screw up either charges, detonation cord, etc so that it
still works?

BTW, if someone was going to use demo charges to bring them down.
why did they need the planes? Just to make things 1000X more
complicated?

Kook!

Anyone could have known where they were about to hit and just about
how high or low that point might have been. No one saw the any
explosives being planted so it could not have happened.
Wahahahah....

Please tell us more. Who exactly was doing the precision flying to
bring these planes into a precise floor location? By visual, ATC
and blackbox data the planes were flying farily erratic. Now if the
alleged explosives did indeed go off from the bottom, then precisely
where the planes hit would not have interfered with the alleged demo
charges. But the collapse started from the top, not far from where
the planes impacted, ie close enough that it's crazy to think
charges left there would not have been screwed up by the planes and
fires.

It's not up to others to prove a negative. Anyone can take a tiny
shred of evidence and try to use it to make wild claims. Only when
you look at the complete picture can you determine the truth. The
official explanation fits together extremely well. As we've asked
many times, what exactly is your COMPLETE EXPLANATION of how
everything occurred, start to finish?

No one said it was precise but surely was predictable now wasn't it?
If charges are going to be used and planes to mask such an even then
what else matters than the fact that one could not have been used
alone to get the job done. How complicated do you want to make it?
All that was needed was the fact that there were planes about to be
flown. Fore knowledge. People that allowed it to happen. I say that
12 men could not have done this alone and all the facts are not
evident and this should not be put to rest like some seem to think.
If you have a hard time with this then that is your problem and you
will remain one of the lame ignorant ones. Your choice and your
loss.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



You think that any possible suspicion of how some deep, dark
conspiracy, no matter how remote, COULD have taken place is all that
is needed. In reality, what is needed is a complete observation of
all the evidence and then putting together a scenario that's
consistent with it. That has been done by forensic experts. And the
conclusion was, Al_Qeada hijacked the planes, flew them into the WTC
and that is what caused the collapse.

I'm still waiting for you alternate explanation, that encompasses all
the facts that we know. In other words, ****ing and moaning that the
smoke that came out of the builiding didn't quite look right to you,
or that you don't believe the planes alond could have caused the
collapse, isn't persuasive proof of anything. We want to hear, start
to finish, what happened that day, according to you.

BTW, account for the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have taken
credit for it.

Why not take credit if they really did? Show me where you heard Bin Laden
say he was responsible. There are also reports that Iraq had WMDs and Saddam
was building nukes. Where are the WMDs? Why so many other lies? Why do you
believe just what you want and not just disbelieve anything that the Bush
team has to offer? They are the proven liars not Bin Laden. When the lies
stop then people can start to believe and not until then. Why are so many
so stupid? Saddam had nothing to do with 911 but how many people still think
he did? At first Bin Laden denied he was responsible and that is something
that I believe is true. Because they rejoice at the event does not mean they
were involved.

Show me the words that Bin Laden said that translate into any confession.
Do it now or go away a total loser.

Put up or shut up.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:

No one said it was precise but surely was predictable now wasn't it?
If charges are going to be used and planes to mask such an even then
what else matters than the fact that one could not have been used
alone to get the job done. How complicated do you want to make it?
All that was needed was the fact that there were planes about to be
flown. Fore knowledge. People that allowed it to happen. I say that
12 men could not have done this alone and all the facts are not
evident and this should not be put to rest like some seem to think.
If you have a hard time with this then that is your problem and you
will remain one of the lame ignorant ones. Your choice and your loss.

Time to adjust your tinfoil.

Wahahaha.........This is all you have? This is where you leave now I see.
Man you are one loser bigtime. Wahahahaha.......

wrote:
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.

You have no clue what it would take and no idea how mush time there was.
You have nothing. Dream on........



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

The first thing you got right!



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.

You are a true dreamer.

Rocinante wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:42:46 +0000 (UTC),
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.

Setting up explosives for controlled demolition of two tall buildings
is even more complicated than most people realize.



You know this just HOW?









Miles of cables
need to be run across office space in order to pull the beams in the
right direction.

You are a real pro I see.

Also, those support beams have to be cut nearly all
the way through in order to help the bombs do their jobs. Again, the
bombs have to be planted in the right spots and some would be in
plain sight. They just can't be lobbed in hidden crawl spaces when
everyone goes home. You would also need to hide giant spools of
wiring that would be needed to wire all the bombs. Finally, bombs are
not stable. The intense heat caused by those "distracting" planes
hitting the towers would have exploded the bombs out of sequence
and/or destroyed the connecting wires.

You have no clue what-so-ever.

Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 15, 5:27 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:17 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:42 am, (Al Dykes) wrote:
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...2006,0,6613706....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...656282270164--
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-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
ESK is right about the fact that you can't compare a 1000lb crude
bomb placed in the parking garage in 93 to the use of shaped
charge explosives that are positioned precisely on the structural
support that you want to cut. And that is pretty much what they
do. The charges almost cut the steel, rather than blowing it
every which way. You could do far more structural damage to a
building with 1000lb of charges made for the purpose and put
exactly where they belong.
However, none of that really has squat to do with WTC. Because
there is no credible evidence that anything other than the planes
were involved. Another thing to explain for the kooks is if the
building were rigged with explosives, then how could you be sure
that when the planes crashed, they didn't cut the various
detonating cables, rip off the necessary charges, etc? Who could
know exactly where the planes would even hit?
Well fool they sure wouldn't have hit at ground level now would
they?
No the planes couldn't have hit a ground level. Thanks for that
astute observation. Now, what does that have to do with anything?
The point is that for a controlled demo collapse of a building, the
demo charges are placed througout the structure and detonated in
sequence. How are you going to ensure that planes crashing into
the building, intense fires on many floors for hours, etc are not
going to screw up either charges, detonation cord, etc so that it
still works?
BTW, if someone was going to use demo charges to bring them down.
why did they need the planes? Just to make things 1000X more
complicated?
Kook!
Anyone could have known where they were about to hit and just about
how high or low that point might have been. No one saw the any
explosives being planted so it could not have happened.
Wahahahah....
Please tell us more. Who exactly was doing the precision flying to
bring these planes into a precise floor location? By visual, ATC
and blackbox data the planes were flying farily erratic. Now if the
alleged explosives did indeed go off from the bottom, then precisely
where the planes hit would not have interfered with the alleged demo
charges. But the collapse started from the top, not far from where
the planes impacted, ie close enough that it's crazy to think
charges left there would not have been screwed up by the planes and
fires.
It's not up to others to prove a negative. Anyone can take a tiny
shred of evidence and try to use it to make wild claims. Only when
you look at the complete picture can you determine the truth. The
official explanation fits together extremely well. As we've asked
many times, what exactly is your COMPLETE EXPLANATION of how
everything occurred, start to finish?
No one said it was precise but surely was predictable now wasn't it?
If charges are going to be used and planes to mask such an even then
what else matters than the fact that one could not have been used
alone to get the job done. How complicated do you want to make it?
All that was needed was the fact that there were planes about to be
flown. Fore knowledge. People that allowed it to happen. I say that
12 men could not have done this alone and all the facts are not
evident and this should not be put to rest like some seem to think.
If you have a hard time with this then that is your problem and you
will remain one of the lame ignorant ones. Your choice and your
loss.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You think that any possible suspicion of how some deep, dark
conspiracy, no matter how remote, COULD have taken place is all that
is needed. In reality, what is needed is a complete observation of
all the evidence and then putting together a scenario that's
consistent with it. That has been done by forensic experts. And the
conclusion was, Al_Qeada hijacked the planes, flew them into the WTC
and that is what caused the collapse.

I'm still waiting for you alternate explanation, that encompasses all
the facts that we know. In other words, ****ing and moaning that the
smoke that came out of the builiding didn't quite look right to you,
or that you don't believe the planes alond could have caused the
collapse, isn't persuasive proof of anything. We want to hear, start
to finish, what happened that day, according to you.

BTW, account for the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have taken
credit for it.

Why not take credit if they really did? Show me where you heard Bin Laden
say he was responsible. There are also reports that Iraq had WMDs and Saddam
was building nukes. Where are the WMDs? Why so many other lies? Why do you
believe just what you want and not just disbelieve anything that the Bush
team has to offer? They are the proven liars not Bin Laden. When the lies
stop then people can start to believe and not until then. Why are so many
so stupid? Saddam had nothing to do with 911 but how many people still think
he did? At first Bin Laden denied he was responsible and that is something
that I believe is true. Because they rejoice at the event does not mean they
were involved.

Show me the words that Bin Laden said that translate into any confession.
Do it now or go away a total loser.

Put up or shut up.

This is non-responsive to the question posed. Can you, or can you not,
provide a cohesive alternate theory that accords with the established
facts, yet still incorporates the premise of a conspiracy of some sort
beyond that hatched by ObL and AQ? There are, indeed, many unanswered
questions about that day, but very many of the supposed "facts" and
arguments advanced by most conspiracy theorists are so full of holes you
could fly an airliner or four right through them. I have yet to see a
well-reasoned, evidence-based alternate theory explaining what "really"
happened that day, from start to finish.

Jeff

On Sep 15, 2:11 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On Sep 15, 7:01 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Jonathan wrote:

snip

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.

So you want someone to make up a story about how it could happen?
Some fantasy that you guys like to engage in? Where is the security
of such a building and who checks out each maintenance worker that
enters and leaves? Do you know for sure that no one could have
possibly entered at any time to do what needed to be done? There is
always a possibility that anything could happen and just because
there is no proof positive one way or the other than this means
nothing. Who would have believed that 911 could have occurred in the
first place? Reasonable suspicion is all that it needed to create
doubt and many people have plenty of that. To think that everything
is as it is told to you is the absolute truth is pretty lame and to
try to argue that way is just a loony and someone that doubt what is
fed to them.

snip

When you can come up with some way that hundreds of workers working
for months on end, stripping walls, making one huge mess, hauling
away tones of the debris that was made getting access to the columns,
cutting notches in beams, stringing miles of det cord, without anyone
noticing then the sane people here will listen. Until then your
disbeif is flat kookery.

The hundreds of men is probably too many but the crew would have been
big. The 'months on end' is accurate. It would take that long to
prepare a building the size of the WTCs for demo.

Watch a show on controlled demolions some time, the History channel
runs them occasionally. Here is a clue, just prior to detonation, you
can look clear through the building - that is how much stuff has been
removed.

But of course you will still somehow believe that all that is possible
without being noticed.

Harry K

Harry K

You are the one that says that is what is needed to get the job done not
me. Given enough time anything can be done and no explanation need be given.
How much time was needed? Do you think this might have had to been planned
over one weekend? Was every floor occupied and was anyone expecting
something to happen and was everyone looking for something suspicious? How
was it that 12 terrorists got by all the security needed to fly all the
planes at the same time into the most crowded city in the country? How did
all this come about without anyone even finding out? How was it that even
when Bush was told about it he just sat there on his stupid ass and did
nothing? This was the unbelievable part you fool. Not the part about placing
charges in a tall building. Why are you loons so dumb to think otherwise?
This whole 911 even happened and you obsess about some simple thing that
could have easily have occurred. Man you are a stupid lot of asshats.

If before 911 someone was asked what they thought more likely to occur.
Some team of crack specialists blowing up a tower in NYC or flying huge
jumbo jets into sky scrappers what do you think would have been the answer?

Why are you so lame?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You must have missed all the people saying that "until you can make a
believable explanation for how the charges were placed in an occupied
building, you have nothing but kookery going for you.

Clue 1. Even a small house cannot be prepared for demo in one
weekend.

Clue 2. The WTC towers were occupied by thousands of workers and
maintenance staff 24/7. The maintenance staff alone would have had to
be deaf and blind not to have seen the activity or, even allowing the
impossibility of doing it in one weekend, they would have had to be in
on the conspiracy.

Clue 3. Further assuming that the charges were somehow placed without
notice (LMFAO), you have the problem of miles of det cord strung
throughout the building just prior to the demo in the middle of a work
day with noone noticing.

Harry K

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:09:27 -0400, "Jonathan"
wrote:

Why not take credit if they really did? Show me where you heard Bin Laden
say he was responsible. There are also reports that Iraq had WMDs and Saddam
was building nukes. Where are the WMDs? Why so many other lies? Why do you
believe just what you want and not just disbelieve anything that the Bush
team has to offer? They are the proven liars not Bin Laden. When the lies
stop then people can start to believe and not until then. Why are so many
so stupid? Saddam had nothing to do with 911 but how many people still think
he did? At first Bin Laden denied he was responsible and that is something
that I believe is true. Because they rejoice at the event does not mean they
were involved.

Show me the words that Bin Laden said that translate into any confession.
Do it now or go away a total loser.

Put up or shut up.



Gee, you'd think a group clever enough to pull off the greatest
conspiracy in history could have planted a few WMDs if they needed to.

Jeff McCann wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 15, 5:27 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:17 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:42 am, (Al Dykes) wrote:
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...2006,0,6613706....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...656282270164--
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-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
ESK is right about the fact that you can't compare a 1000lb
crude bomb placed in the parking garage in 93 to the use of
shaped charge explosives that are positioned precisely on the
structural support that you want to cut. And that is pretty
much what they do. The charges almost cut the steel, rather
than blowing it every which way. You could do far more
structural damage to a building with 1000lb of charges made for
the purpose and put exactly where they belong.
However, none of that really has squat to do with WTC. Because
there is no credible evidence that anything other than the
planes were involved. Another thing to explain for the kooks
is if the building were rigged with explosives, then how could
you be sure that when the planes crashed, they didn't cut the
various detonating cables, rip off the necessary charges, etc? Who
could know exactly where the planes would even hit?
Well fool they sure wouldn't have hit at ground level now would
they?
No the planes couldn't have hit a ground level. Thanks for that
astute observation. Now, what does that have to do with
anything? The point is that for a controlled demo collapse of a
building, the demo charges are placed througout the structure and
detonated in sequence. How are you going to ensure that planes
crashing into the building, intense fires on many floors for
hours, etc are not going to screw up either charges, detonation
cord, etc so that it still works?
BTW, if someone was going to use demo charges to bring them down.
why did they need the planes? Just to make things 1000X more
complicated?
Kook!
Anyone could have known where they were about to hit and just
about how high or low that point might have been. No one saw the
any explosives being planted so it could not have happened.
Wahahahah....
Please tell us more. Who exactly was doing the precision flying
to bring these planes into a precise floor location? By visual,
ATC and blackbox data the planes were flying farily erratic. Now
if the alleged explosives did indeed go off from the bottom, then
precisely where the planes hit would not have interfered with the
alleged demo charges. But the collapse started from the top,
not far from where the planes impacted, ie close enough that it's
crazy to think charges left there would not have been screwed up
by the planes and fires.
It's not up to others to prove a negative. Anyone can take a
tiny shred of evidence and try to use it to make wild claims. Only
when you look at the complete picture can you determine the
truth. The official explanation fits together extremely well. As
we've asked many times, what exactly is your COMPLETE
EXPLANATION of how everything occurred, start to finish?
No one said it was precise but surely was predictable now wasn't
it? If charges are going to be used and planes to mask such an
even then what else matters than the fact that one could not have
been used alone to get the job done. How complicated do you want
to make it? All that was needed was the fact that there were
planes about to be flown. Fore knowledge. People that allowed it
to happen. I say that 12 men could not have done this alone and
all the facts are not evident and this should not be put to rest
like some seem to think. If you have a hard time with this then
that is your problem and you will remain one of the lame ignorant
ones. Your choice and your loss.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You think that any possible suspicion of how some deep, dark
conspiracy, no matter how remote, COULD have taken place is all that
is needed. In reality, what is needed is a complete observation of
all the evidence and then putting together a scenario that's
consistent with it. That has been done by forensic experts. And
the conclusion was, Al_Qeada hijacked the planes, flew them into
the WTC and that is what caused the collapse.

I'm still waiting for you alternate explanation, that encompasses
all the facts that we know. In other words, ****ing and moaning
that the smoke that came out of the builiding didn't quite look
right to you, or that you don't believe the planes alond could have
caused the collapse, isn't persuasive proof of anything. We want
to hear, start to finish, what happened that day, according to you.

BTW, account for the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have taken
credit for it.

Why not take credit if they really did? Show me where you heard Bin
Laden say he was responsible. There are also reports that Iraq had
WMDs and Saddam was building nukes. Where are the WMDs? Why so many
other lies? Why do you believe just what you want and not just
disbelieve anything that the Bush team has to offer? They are the
proven liars not Bin Laden. When the lies stop then people can start
to believe and not until then. Why are so many so stupid? Saddam
had nothing to do with 911 but how many people still think he did? At
first Bin Laden denied he was responsible and that is something
that I believe is true. Because they rejoice at the event does not
mean they were involved. Show me the words that Bin Laden said that
translate into any
confession. Do it now or go away a total loser.

Put up or shut up.

This is non-responsive to the question posed. Can you, or can you not,
provide a cohesive alternate theory that accords with the established
facts, yet still incorporates the premise of a conspiracy of some sort
beyond that hatched by ObL and AQ? There are, indeed, many unanswered
questions about that day, but very many of the supposed "facts" and
arguments advanced by most conspiracy theorists are so full of holes
you could fly an airliner or four right through them. I have yet to
see a well-reasoned, evidence-based alternate theory explaining what
"really" happened that day, from start to finish.

Jeff

Wahaha........What established "facts"? BS that some decide to swallow do
not make them facts. Bush knew. That is a fact. There are many "facts" that
lend to enough suspicions about some internal involvement. I want someone to
show me where Bin Laden "confessed" to being involved. There are plenty of
people that had posted the same "end of story" BS that Mohammed Ata was the
head conspirator until it was proven he was not. There are very little
"proven facts" and none that prove beyond doubt that explosives were not
involved in the bringing down of building 7. There WAS molten steel and
witness that have stated this no matter how much it hurts little Al and his
troll boyfriends BDK and Vandar. This administration has more than enough
shame to not be trusted and that can not be denied. I would put nothing
beyond these mass murders that don't give one iota about the lives of
innocent people be they Iraqis or Americans or US troops send off to die for
a pack of lies.

You expecting a story from "start to finish" has to be one of the lamest
things I have ever read on usenet. Are you really this much of a fool?

How can you even post such a request when you have just admitted there is
no such story anywhere to he told? This is the main tactic of the government
to confuse everyone then make a "documentary" and show it on TeeVee. Then
there are the Hollywood movies that have been used to twist history so no
one ever knows what happened all throughout the past. One thing that will be
remembered it that these republicans have helped destroy a way of life that
will never exist ever again. All for lies and power. Hail Bush the mass
murder and war criminal. He has murdered more than Saddam and OBL combined.

Jonathan wrote:
Jeff McCann wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 15, 5:27 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:17 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:42 am, (Al Dykes) wrote:
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...2006,0,6613706....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...656282270164--
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-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
ESK is right about the fact that you can't compare a 1000lb
crude bomb placed in the parking garage in 93 to the use of
shaped charge explosives that are positioned precisely on the
structural support that you want to cut. And that is pretty
much what they do. The charges almost cut the steel, rather
than blowing it every which way. You could do far more
structural damage to a building with 1000lb of charges made for
the purpose and put exactly where they belong.
However, none of that really has squat to do with WTC. Because
there is no credible evidence that anything other than the
planes were involved. Another thing to explain for the kooks
is if the building were rigged with explosives, then how could
you be sure that when the planes crashed, they didn't cut the
various detonating cables, rip off the necessary charges, etc? Who
could know exactly where the planes would even hit?
Well fool they sure wouldn't have hit at ground level now would
they?
No the planes couldn't have hit a ground level. Thanks for that
astute observation. Now, what does that have to do with
anything? The point is that for a controlled demo collapse of a
building, the demo charges are placed througout the structure and
detonated in sequence. How are you going to ensure that planes
crashing into the building, intense fires on many floors for
hours, etc are not going to screw up either charges, detonation
cord, etc so that it still works?
BTW, if someone was going to use demo charges to bring them down.
why did they need the planes? Just to make things 1000X more
complicated?
Kook!
Anyone could have known where they were about to hit and just
about how high or low that point might have been. No one saw the
any explosives being planted so it could not have happened.
Wahahahah....
Please tell us more. Who exactly was doing the precision flying
to bring these planes into a precise floor location? By visual,
ATC and blackbox data the planes were flying farily erratic. Now
if the alleged explosives did indeed go off from the bottom, then
precisely where the planes hit would not have interfered with the
alleged demo charges. But the collapse started from the top,
not far from where the planes impacted, ie close enough that it's
crazy to think charges left there would not have been screwed up
by the planes and fires.
It's not up to others to prove a negative. Anyone can take a
tiny shred of evidence and try to use it to make wild claims. Only
when you look at the complete picture can you determine the
truth. The official explanation fits together extremely well. As
we've asked many times, what exactly is your COMPLETE
EXPLANATION of how everything occurred, start to finish?
No one said it was precise but surely was predictable now wasn't
it? If charges are going to be used and planes to mask such an
even then what else matters than the fact that one could not have
been used alone to get the job done. How complicated do you want
to make it? All that was needed was the fact that there were
planes about to be flown. Fore knowledge. People that allowed it
to happen. I say that 12 men could not have done this alone and
all the facts are not evident and this should not be put to rest
like some seem to think. If you have a hard time with this then
that is your problem and you will remain one of the lame ignorant
ones. Your choice and your loss.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You think that any possible suspicion of how some deep, dark
conspiracy, no matter how remote, COULD have taken place is all that
is needed. In reality, what is needed is a complete observation of
all the evidence and then putting together a scenario that's
consistent with it. That has been done by forensic experts. And
the conclusion was, Al_Qeada hijacked the planes, flew them into
the WTC and that is what caused the collapse.

I'm still waiting for you alternate explanation, that encompasses
all the facts that we know. In other words, ****ing and moaning
that the smoke that came out of the builiding didn't quite look
right to you, or that you don't believe the planes alond could have
caused the collapse, isn't persuasive proof of anything. We want
to hear, start to finish, what happened that day, according to you.

BTW, account for the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have taken
credit for it.
Why not take credit if they really did? Show me where you heard Bin
Laden say he was responsible. There are also reports that Iraq had
WMDs and Saddam was building nukes. Where are the WMDs? Why so many
other lies? Why do you believe just what you want and not just
disbelieve anything that the Bush team has to offer? They are the
proven liars not Bin Laden. When the lies stop then people can start
to believe and not until then. Why are so many so stupid? Saddam
had nothing to do with 911 but how many people still think he did? At
first Bin Laden denied he was responsible and that is something
that I believe is true. Because they rejoice at the event does not
mean they were involved. Show me the words that Bin Laden said that
translate into any
confession. Do it now or go away a total loser.

Put up or shut up.
This is non-responsive to the question posed. Can you, or can you not,
provide a cohesive alternate theory that accords with the established
facts, yet still incorporates the premise of a conspiracy of some sort
beyond that hatched by ObL and AQ? There are, indeed, many unanswered
questions about that day, but very many of the supposed "facts" and
arguments advanced by most conspiracy theorists are so full of holes
you could fly an airliner or four right through them. I have yet to
see a well-reasoned, evidence-based alternate theory explaining what
"really" happened that day, from start to finish.

Jeff

Wahaha........What established "facts"? BS that some decide to swallow do
not make them facts. Bush knew. That is a fact.

No, it is an allegation and there is no supporting hard evidence for it.
I despise what the Bush cabal has done to the nation and the world,
but that is based on things we have proof that he is responsible for. I
am disinclined to conflate my personal opinions of the man with the
credibility of specious allegations against him."

There are many "facts" that
lend to enough suspicions about some internal involvement.

The real conspiracy, in my opinion, is the blunders, general
cluelessness, incompetence, neglect of duty, and intentional blindness
to the threat and the warnings by senior government officials that
allowed the attack to succeed.

I want someone to
show me where Bin Laden "confessed" to being involved. There are plenty of
people that had posted the same "end of story" BS that Mohammed Ata was the
head conspirator until it was proven he was not. There are very little
"proven facts" and none that prove beyond doubt that explosives were not
involved in the bringing down of building 7. There WAS molten steel and
witness that have stated this no matter how much it hurts little Al and his
troll boyfriends BDK and Vandar. This administration has more than enough
shame to not be trusted and that can not be denied. I would put nothing
beyond these mass murders that don't give one iota about the lives of
innocent people be they Iraqis or Americans or US troops send off to die for
a pack of lies.

You expecting a story from "start to finish" has to be one of the lamest
things I have ever read on usenet. Are you really this much of a fool?

Here, you amply demonstrate the main problem with conspiracy nutters,
the jumping to extreme conclusions based on scant to no evidence.

How can you even post such a request when you have just admitted there is
no such story anywhere to he told?

I "admitted" no such thing. You are seeing what you want to see, not
what is really there, just as you seem to be doing with the events of
9/11/01.

This is the main tactic of the government
to confuse everyone then make a "documentary" and show it on TeeVee.

I don't recall any government-made documentaries on 9/11 shown on TV.
What title are you referring to?

Then
there are the Hollywood movies that have been used to twist history so no
one ever knows what happened all throughout the past. One thing that will be
remembered it that these republicans have helped destroy a way of life that
will never exist ever again. All for lies and power. Hail Bush the mass
murder and war criminal. He has murdered more than Saddam and OBL combined.

So, is this about what "really" happened on 9/111 or about how much you
hate Bush?

You sure waste a lot of words to answer a simple question when "I can't"
would have been sufficient.

Jeff