Top Secret video of WTC explosive controlled demolition on 9/11

POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Monday, March 14, 2011 03:46
VIEWED: 11704
PAGE 5 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, March 11, 2011 2:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
But DreamTrove and CTS believe it too? Give me a straight answer here people. You guys actually believe this whole thing?

I can't speak for DT.

I just know the official story that the buildings came down because of structural steel buckling due to fires is bullshit. I am 99% certain it was a demolition job. This is esp true for WTC 7.

Now, as to WHO did the demolition job, HOW they did it, WHY they did it, I have no clue.

It could very well have been the same or other terrorists who did it. It could be another nation. It could be our own govt or members of our own govt. I don't know. So in this respect, I don't *believe* in any specific "conspiracy theory."

What I believe is there is a coverup by our own govt after the fact of the demolition job. And I would like them to investigate the arson properly.

ETA: Here are some links (again) to professionals who feel the same way.

Pilots
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

Architects and Engineers
http://www.AE911Truth.org

Firefighters
http://www.firefightersfor911truth.org/

Scientists
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

Scientists and Engineers
http://www.physics911.net/

Scholars
http://www.911scholars.org/

Now you can write all of us off as PN-kooky. Whatever, you know? I've been called worse here on RWED for my views.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, March 11, 2011 2:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
...why the buildings pancaked.

Again, please, you guys. If you are going to argue for the official story, get the official story straight. There was no "pancaking." Officially, the NIST says pancaking didn't happen. OK?

So you can stuff it about our being scientifically challenged. The pancake theory doesn't hold water. Even official govt report says so.

Since you apparently didn't read my earlier posts, here is the link again.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, March 11, 2011 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
This is a photo from the book AFTERMATH, look at the column directly behind the firefighter.

Thank you. Picture's worth a thousand words.

KRELLEK

Friday, March 11, 2011 4:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, but there seldom is a good conspiracy theory.

It has yet to be explained to me (with a rational explanation) why having real terrorists crash planes into the WTC and Pentagon wouldn't have accomplished the exact same thing as the more exotic explanations:

Smuggled, secretly planted Plastique, Robot Planes, Drone Missiles.

Why do people always insist on fabricating the most convoluted conspiracies possible? If you want to implicate the U.S. government in these things, it makes much more sense to imagine the CIA helping real terrorists (who want to do the job anyway) to get the job done with legitimate means (actual real-life planes) rather than imagining the most complicated scheme possible.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

well not sure of cause, but I seems to once reading that Osama had been trained by the CIA, what if they use him and perhaps some others as "handlers" to go out and gather followers, and use them in probably the same manner as I suppose Weyland Yutani corp in the Aliens movies wanted to use the Xeno´s(the aliens)

I saw quite a few of those Conspiracy Theories programmes on youtube, and well in a way I would say some of them could be linked together, like the 2 9/11´s epis(obviously)but i meant to one of the others, the one about the Manchurian Candidates(they described the MC´s as somekind of once used, then throw away(in prison or perhaps in this particular case go out in a blaze))

the FEMA-camps could in a way also be linked to it in a more aftermatch way, i guess(scarry thought)

the others about the secret societies, and pop-control, or the 2012-one yikes, was wondering if that HAARP-thingy could help in some way if it is something the sun is supposed to do in that 2012-thingy

HKCAVALIER

Friday, March 11, 2011 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
...why the buildings pancaked.
Again, please, you guys. If you are going to argue for the official story, get the official story straight. There was no "pancaking." Officially, the NIST says pancaking didn't happen. OK?

So you can stuff it about our being scientifically challenged. The pancake theory doesn't hold water. Even official govt report says so.

Since you apparently didn't read my earlier posts, here is the link again.

CTS, you have a terrible habit of acting like you're the only reasonable person in the room. It degrades your arguments, because who would ever bring their A-game to talk to bunch of half-wits? Ach.

Anyway, you don't have a monopoly on skepticism. No one here is arguing "for the official story." That's a most convenient strawman in your kit bag. What I see is people arguing against your explanations. Two different things, CTS. I think if you asked if anyone here trusts the official story you'd hear crickets. It doesn't mean that there was the vast army of conspirators that any one of your scenarios would require.

Why in hell would they go to all that apparent trouble to make sure the buildings fell straight down? Why? I know you get to say, "I'm not concerned with why, blah blah blah," but I'm asking you, please, to use your imagination to come up with ANY explanation that would justify the extraordinary risk and cost and danger of exposure that planting all these explosives represent just so the towers would make a tidy mess. It strikes me as utterly absurd. And nobody gets any points for saying, "But that's it! It's absurd...LIKE A FOX!"

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, March 11, 2011 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
CTS, you have a terrible habit of acting like you're the only reasonable person in the room.

I only throw back at them what they threw at me first, HK. Why do you always call me on my insults, but you ignore theirs (which again, they threw at me first)? That's curious, isn't it? It might appear like you like to pick on me, HK. Why is your standard for my behavior so much higher than that for others, HK?

Quote:
No one here is arguing "for the official story."

Ask them. From everything they said, they ARE arguing for the official story. Let's just establish that for the record. Go ahead, ask them.

Raise of hands of everyone who thinks NIST is right on the money in explaining how the towers fell.

Let's see your hands, Pizmo, Hardware, Kirkules, etc. If you think NIST was wrong, please explain where you disagree. Thank you.

As for the other point, the complicated scenario of the who, how, and why of a demolition job, I have already stated I have no explanation. I am not trying to explain it. I only want to start at step 1, establish that there was a demolition job. From there, we can start forming conjectures of who, how, and why.

But we can't ignore the physical evidence of what happened, simply because we can't imagine who, how, and why.

Imagine coming onto a death scene, and ruling it suicide, not based on the physical evidence, but simply because you can't imagine who would want to kill the victim, how they could have done it without anyone seeing, and why they would have done it. All truthers are saying is, please just analyze the crime scene objectively based on physical evidence. Worry about the suspect, specific method, and motive later. See?

Surely y'all have seen enough detective shows to understand this?

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, March 11, 2011 5:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
...please, to use your imagination to come up with ANY explanation that would justify the extraordinary risk and cost and danger of exposure that planting all these explosives represent just so the towers would make a tidy mess.

OK, I'll play. ANY explanation, right?

Here's a possibility. Some leaders in our govt wanted a major catastrophe with significant loss of life to move the country in a direction that they believe, with all their hearts, that will end up saving more lives. Let's say they believe the War on Terror and the Patriot Act would prevent a nuclear war.

So they are like, "The sacrifice of a few innocents is worth it. But let's make that sacrifice as small as we can." So yes, they are willing to kill, but they wanted to kill as few as possible. Considering the spectacle, 3000 was a much smaller number than originally expected. One might say they achieved their goal.

Note: This is just some random explanation I pulled out of my ass, only cause you asked so nicely. It doesn't mean I believe this is what happened.

HARDWARE

Friday, March 11, 2011 5:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Also, worth a note although I don't necessarily consider it any kind of proof, something that stood out to me.

This is a photo from the book AFTERMATH, look at the column directly behind the firefighter.

That is a box beam. Do you see the beam standing diagonally at about 4 o'clock from the beam you indicated? Those two lines on the end of the beam that run perpendicular to the length of the beam? Those are weld lines for a gusset plate. The gusset plate spans the joint between two beams where they are butt welded and the gusset plate, one on each face of the beam is welded along the length of the plate. It adds shearing strength to the joint. The welds didn't break, the plate broke at the weld.

Quote:

THIS is a demo crew laying a cutter charge.

Explain that to me, if you would.

-Frem

The demo crew is laying TDX, two dimensional explosives on a I beam. In order to make the cut, they first weaken the beam by removing the web of the beam, leaving only the head and the foot of the I. There are actually 4 sections of TDX. If you look closely you can see 3, one is blocked by the left worker's leg. The two dimensional explosives are stacked, face to face on either side of the foot and head of the I.

In order to cut a box beam with TDX you have to remove two faces of the box and arrange your TDX face to face along the two remaining sides. If you cut the face with a gusset plate the gusset plates would remain. I see a small sign of a gusset plate on the beam you indicate, what might be a weld line on the left side. Although the beam doesn't really offer a clear view. It is blackened, but that's inconclusive by itself. It was in a fire. If it had been cut by TDX the faces would have been blackened, but the cut ends would be bright and shiny.

Also note the workers are laying the TDX at an angle. That's to induce movement in the structure to get it to topple in a desire direction. If the shadow conspiracy was callous enough to sacrifice 3000 people, why not topple the building like a tree and get some real casualty count?

The OK city documents you present are interesting, but also inconclusive. Yes, there are at least 3 sources that state there were 2 additional devices found at the scene. But without the devices, we can equally assume that McVeigh and his accomplice left them there for the rescuers. Do the court documents from the trials mention the 2nd and 3rd devices?

I don't have time to listen to the radio logs now. I've bookmarked them for future review.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, March 11, 2011 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
If the shadow conspiracy was callous enough to sacrifice 3000 people, why not topple the building like a tree and get some real casualty count?

Because they are not THAT callous perhaps? Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why do the perps have to be all hysterically evil or absolutely incapable of mass murder? Is it possible for some selfish or misguided people to have lines they won't cross?

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, March 11, 2011 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
But without the devices, we can equally assume that McVeigh and his accomplice left them there for the rescuers.

RE OK City, if you really want to look into it, you should look at the larger picture of evidence.

For example, have you seen Brig. Gen. Partin's report? It was submitted to Congress and is part of the congressional record.

whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/okm.htm
(The link is acting funky. FFF changes all caps into small letters, and the link won't work without all caps. So I have taken out the http:// in hopes the all caps will be maintained.)

Quote:
Bomb Damage Analysis Of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
July 30, 1995
by Benton K. Partin
Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.)
8908 Captains Row, Alexandria, Virginia 22308
703-780-7652

On April 19, 1995, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma was bombed, causing extensive damage to the structure, the loss of 168 innocent lives, the victimization of the families of those who lost loved ones, hundreds of non-fatal injuries, and substantial property damage in the vicinity.

The media and the Executive branch reported that the sole source of the devastation was a single truck bomb consisting of 4,800 pounds of ammonium nitrate, transported to the location in a Ryder Truck and parked in front of the building. It is impossible that the destruction to the building could have resulted from such a bomb alone.

To cause the damage pattern that occurred to the Murrah building, there would have to have been demolition charges at several supporting column bases, at locations not accessible from the street, to supplement the truck bomb damage. Indeed, a careful examination of photographs showing the collapsed column bases reveals a failure mode produced by demolition charges and not by a blast from the truck bomb.

Read more at link....

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE