Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is controlled demolition a lead?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
moodforaday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 02:29 PM
Original message
Is controlled demolition a lead?
Here's a question to those who believe controlled demolition brought down WTC 1, 2 and 7. Whenever the topic is mentioned, it is also usually remarked that there are only a handful of companies in the US and the world that have the required expertise. One is of course www.controlled-demolition.com ; there is also www.controlled-demolition.co.uk . What other companies do we know that specialize in controlled demolition?

If we can draw up a definitive list, than we're going to have the perpetrator among them. One could then look at their corporate connections to see which one is the most likely suspect. Are they connected to the Bushes? (Personally, though I believe MIHOP, I don't think it was a Bush MIHOP.) Are they connected to the Saudis or Pakistanis? Are they connected to other interesting countries or institutions?

Has anyone tried this route?

(My personal opinion: I am a "weak" proponent of CD and "explosions in the basement", meaning that I don't see how else the buildings could have fallen so neatly into their footprints, instead of tumbling over, but I do not believe we have sufficient data to prove it, and furthermore, other avenues o fresearch are perhaps more fruitful. However, if we could know, with precision, who has the know-how to have performed controlled demolition on 9-11, we may be getting close to the answers we're seeking.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. I wouldn't necessarily characterize the collapses as "controlled
demolitions" as much as planned demolitions.

The towers came fairly straight down but they weren't classic "controlled demolitions." WTC #7 appeared to be much closer to a "controlled demolition."

The military and it's ancillaries probably also have a number of people capable in demolition.

So your idea, while interesting, might be a little bit more complex to implement than simply exploring ties to commercial demolition companies.

I pretty much agree with your last paragraph, by the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hpot Donating Member (359 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. Don't rule out foreign companies/groups
History has proven that it is easier to hire foreigners than locals when it comes to committing horrendous acts against people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. And Russia had a similar incident in 1999
Edited on Sat Oct-28-06 03:53 PM by DrDebug
And we know that Alpha Firm, the former top KGB team, merged with Kroll (the CIA front in charge of WTC security) just prior to 9/11. I'm just saying that those Russians who did Moscow in 1999 had prior experience and would have been useful as well especially since it wouldn't be that obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. And don't rule out black ops
I'm pretty sure knowledge about CD is not limited to official CD companies.
Also it seems to me that if this was CD (which i think it was, but like the OP i am a 'weak proponent' of it) - that it might very well have been an unconventional CD. In other words, not the kind of CD that an official CD company would have experience with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. AMEC (Kingstar) and Tully (Controlled Demolition)
Edited on Sat Oct-28-06 03:44 PM by DrDebug
Those are the two most experienced companies in controlled demolition and ironically both companies (even though it was another subsidiary) were present during the cleanup in New York and a Kingstar van was photographed during the explosion of a bus in London on 7/7. AMEC was also the company who did the renovations at the Pentagon and Tully's Controlled Demolition also did the clean up at Oklahoma City. This is of course all purely coincidental
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Lets try thinking for a moment
You are the man tasked with cleaning up ground zero. You have two, (not just one) of the tallest office buildings in the world in a gigantic heap. You also have a third fifty story office building in a heap right next store.

Who are you going to call? The local demo guys, some buddies, will you contact some lawyers to draw up contracts and negoitate for a few weeks working out the details: or do you call the world largest organizations that routinely deals with cleaning up gigantic messes crested when building fall down and tell them to get moving asap.

Me? I'm calling the two most experienced companies in controlled demolition in the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Let's try to think for a minute. You are going to blow up a building?
Who are you going to call? The experts in blowing up the building and give them a NO BID contract for the cleanup as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #8
53. What type of contract would you suggest? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
5. Whoever brought the buildings down
Edited on Sat Oct-28-06 04:08 PM by DoYouEverWonder
Knew exactly what they were doing and took steps to minimize the lose of life.

Both towers fell mostly into the large plaza between the two towers. You can see from the parts of the walls that remained standing, which way most of the heavy debris fell.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


The amazing part is that the streets around the outer edges of the site were relatively clear and undamaged after the collapses. Made it so much easier for rescue operators to work and move traffic around.

Whoever did this had to know a lot about how these three buildings were built. WTC 2 failed on the 81st floor. The 81st floor was a specially built floor because this is where they housed the elevator hoists for the building. This floor didn't have trusses it had stronger cross beams and the columns were thicker then the floors below. In order to take down the building, you had to take out the 81st floor.

Same thing with WTC 7. The 5th floor failed first. The 5th floor was were the bottoms of the trusses were that held up the building. You had to take out these trusses, in order to bring down the building.

It's too convenient that both buildings failed in just the right spots.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
9. No self respecting demolition company would ..
blow up the WTC using the methods and materials postulated by most CTs, i.e.

1. a mix of high explosives and thermite.
2. using massive quantities of explosives far in excess of what was required to bring down the towers.
3. not stripping the building before hand or having to hide all the charges.

I am constantly amazed by all those that say it "was obviously demolition" when not a single CT argues for standard demolition practices and materials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Your theory of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. Admit it hacker. U R a CTer.

I am constantly amazed by all those CT'ers that pretend like they aren't. This isn't here, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I see that, as usual, you don't want to talk about the facts ..
perhaps you can explain why it was necessary to:

1. mix thermite and high explosives.
2. use massive amounts of explosives far in excess of what was needed.

what logical reason can you give for using such methods? Why wouldn't high explosives on the core columns be enough?

I would like to see you do more than name calling - do you have anything of substance to add to the debate or do you see yourself as more of a sideline cheerleader?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. why it was necessary
Edited on Sun Oct-29-06 03:24 PM by petgoat
1. mix thermite and high explosives.

To engender confusion, thus covering tracks? "Oh it couldn't have been
thermate, 'cause that doesn't explain the energetic explosion of dust."
"Oh it couldn't have been explosives because that would have required
impractical amounts of explosives."

Because thermate could escape the attention of the bomb-sniffing dogs?

To employ redundant strategies to ensure success? Many baskets. Duds
that left the towers standing and were so discovered would have been
disastrous. Would you really trust just one crew to do the job?

2. use massive amounts of explosives far in excess of what was needed.

To create shock and awe. To magnify the impression of the great potential
energy liberated by the collapse. Perhaps a miscalculation of the amount of
explosives needed? Or perhaps a deliberate attempt to sabotage the operation by
an explosives expert who knew he would not survive the attack and wanted to
alert the world to the presence of explosives.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. But when you are talking about over 20,000 tons per tower
then logic dictates that perhaps there is a problem with that particular theory.

And no one is yet to show that thermite cutting charges even exist - perhaps there is a reason thermite is not used in the real world for demolition.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. no one is yet to show that thermite cutting charges even exist
A pilot study to determine practicality of thermate in
cutting box columns could probably be conducted for a few
thousand dollars.

I don't know where you get the 20,000 tons per tower figure for
the explosives. Dr. Van Romero said a few charges in key places,
involving a relatively small amount of explosives could have
done the job.

If it would take 20,000 tons of explosives to pulverize the
concrete, what's the point? That the concrete was not
pulverized?

This is another reason for using multiple techniques--to frustrate
and confuse discussion of what happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. Remember Hoffman's calculations?
the explosives equal ten times the potential energy of the towers? We have discussed it here many times so don't play dumb.

You can't have it both ways. If Van Romero is right, then the pulverization of the concrete could have only been done by the potential energy of the buildings - you would then support a major part of the NIST theory.

If not, then you have to explain how tens of thousands of tons of explosives were installed throughout two towers without anyone seeing anything. You can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Jim Hoffman's paper is under revision
Edited on Sun Oct-29-06 08:02 PM by petgoat
He says 110,000 kwh was the potential energy of each tower,
135,000 was required for crushing the concrete, and 2.5 million
was required to make the dust cloud.

Where do you get 20,000 tons of explosives to make 2 million kwh?
That's a hundred tons per kwh.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. Do the math
you know how much energy per pound HE has, don't you? We have discussed this many times before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #33
50. Er, a hundred kwh per ton. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Hack, you have a theory apparently of how it was done. (the sequential
Edited on Sun Oct-29-06 04:04 PM by John Q. Citizen
complete collapses)

I have a theory of how it wasn't done.

My theory is: It wasn't done by flying a plane into each tower and not driving a plane into building #7.

Dr. Steven Jones makes the argument that a combination of high explosives and thermite type regent {i}makes more sense than planes in the towers and no plane in #7 having caused the collapses, the persistent hot spots, the molten metal, the rapid sequential complete collapses of the three buildings.

His argument is stronger than yours as far as I can tell. However, I don't expect you or Dr. Jones to conclusively prove either of your arguments for a number of practical reasons. (such as neither of you had access to the crime scene, which is now gone)

So, according to my theory, our government is lying about what happened, because they were in control of the crime scene and yet they are trying to shove this bogus pancake/weakened steel on the fire floors, or whatever the next flavor is theory down our throats.

This makes me wonder why my government is shucking and jiving me. I notice we had no air defense for almost 2 hours on 9/11 so I start looking why? Well a shitload of military exercises conveniently planned for the day the planes flew into the buildings (and the pentagon) insured the planes could reach their targets. This didn't happen because of the melting point of steel or because bush did nothing about the threat assessments, or because some basket case Arabs were allowed into the country, this lack of air defense was planned by someone in our government. Then I see that many key positions in the air defense network were filled by "stand in" officials instead of experienced personnel. This again was planned by someone in our government. It didn't just occur by itself, did it?

Then we also have a big cover up. The Pentagon, the FAA, NORAD and many other officials have been shown to be lying, withholding information, changing their stories and basically impeding the investigation into what occurred.

So no matter how many pounds of explosives/thermite regent you don't think it made sense that they didn't use, it's really irrelevant to my theory. And to Dr, Jones' theory, and to Webster Tarpley's theory.

It is glaringly obvious to me that 9/11 was in inside job. I don't need to prove it to you, you can reach your own conclusion. No big deal.

By the way, as I write this I'm listening to the archived pod cast from KPFA that Dr. Debug posted about on another thread. Tarpley is very good. If you listen to it we can discuss it.

Peace

Pod cast available here. Painless and free. http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=16697

Let me know what you think.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. While all the details are not final
I support the idea that the plane and the fires could cause the collapse. When you look at the ARUP Group in addition to NIST, all the leading fire
safety engineering organizations seem to have no problem with the concept.

All of Jone's arguments have been debunked in this forum. There is no evidence of thermite. No one has ever shown how thermite is linked to the hot spots. The molten metal was aluminum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedom fighter jh Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #25
49. There is evidence of thermite in the FEMA report
Section 8.2.8.1 of the FEMA report ( www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch8.pdf ; search on Observations and Findings) puzzles over finding corrosion in a couple of steel samples. The corrosion seems to be due to sulfur. The report says this corrosion and erosion constitute an unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

This unexplained corrosion and erosion, and the presence of sulfur, could be signs of thermate.

Can you point out where Jones's arguments have been debunked in this forum?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #49
73. That is hardly evidence of thermite
or "thermate" for that matter. We have gone over and over the sulfer and corrosion before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #49
83. Here is a scientific paper written to specifically debunk that claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #83
96. More careless reading on your part, Hack. Yet again?
He doesn't debunk thermate, he just throws up a lot of dust to suggest it may not be thermate.

The FEMA appendix C states their sample comes from WTC #7. The author of the "maybe it something else" article goes from building to building looking to find other possible sources of sulphur, yet he never proposes a mechanism that would lead to concentrations on the sample that FEMA suggests reached 1000c.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #17
44. Well said, JQC, well said..eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. What goes around comes around. YOU were the name caller. All I did

was remind you that if the Truthseekers here are "CTs", then so are YOU. Face it, hacker, you ARE a CT'er. Admit it. Confession is good for the soul. EVEN for the soul of a CT'er like yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. You have a hard time with hard questions, don't you?
is that why you always ignore them? Just wondering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. You have a hard time admitting the truth, don't you?

Is that why you always change the subject? Just wondering.

There's no shame in acknowledging what you are, hack. Why just say "you're right. I AM a CT'er"? Why won't you do that, hack?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. My questions go directly to the heart of the subject
care to answer them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #40
46. My charge (so far unanswered) is that your position is that of a CT'er.

Your position is that of someone that believes there was a CONSPIRACY to carry out the 9/11 attacks. Your THEORY is that those same attacks were planned and carried out by Osama bin Laden & Company.
Therefore,
Your position is that of a CONSPIRACY THEORIST. A CT'er.

My own view, and that of most OBJECTIVE people who have studied the facts is 9/11 was a False Flag operation that was blamed on Osama bin Laden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #46
60. You know as well as I do ..
that CT has a certain connotation on this board. You can fume and stomp you feet all you want but I do not intend to change how I use the term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #60
67. The conotation you refer to hack is neocon termanology to discredit
anyone who suggests that some of the facsist may be doing crimes.

If you like calling others by that neocon term you will love it when others call you by the same loaded term, eh?

You believe in a theory of a conspiracy, Yes?

Get over it, CTer.

You, Hack, are one of the many CTers on the 9/11 board.

You are in good company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #67
75. Ahhh Nope
CTs have nothing to do with "neocons" or "facsists"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

In fact the conotation is more correctly definced as "conspiracism".

When conspiracy theories combine logical fallacies with lack of evidence, the result is a world view known as conspiracism. Conspiracism is a world view that sees major historic events and trends as the result of secret conspiracies.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #75
79. You CTers make me laugh, vince. ha ha. Wikipedia. Snicker, snort
"When conspiracy theories combine logical fallacies with lack of evidence, the result is a world view known as conspiracism. Co"nspiracism is a world view that sees major historic events and trends as the result of secret conspiracies.

Like, uh, the theory that 19 basket case Arab patsies pulled off 9/11?

Ok have it your way. Would you prefer rational thinkers to call your minority conspiracismist?

That would still be abbreviated CT, by the way. So referring to your crowd as CTers still fits the bill...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. I thought Wiki was appropriate for the subject
Wipe your nose, you're dripping on the keyboard.

"Basket Case Arabs"? Don't you mean "cavemen" or whatnot? :eyes:

You can call me "Eddie Baby"** for all I care.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'm sure the "special forces" in the US military
know how to bring a building down. I've looked at some of the military sites and they write about building demolition. I don't think it was someone who has a demolition company, their techniques are known and a lot of what they do is to make sure other things don't get damaged and people don't get injured or killed. Those were obviously not goals here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. You are kidding, right?
the biggest demolitions ever attempted were done by army? Despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that they have ever done anything remotely resembling the WTC before?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Neither has anyone else
for that matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. If Dr. Eagar is to be believed, the towers had nowhere to fall
Edited on Sun Oct-29-06 02:58 PM by petgoat
but straight down. Also, if his zipper theory is to be believed, a suicidal
disk grinder operator could have cut a few truss "clips" in ten minutes, which


would then cause the entire floor to unzip and bring the tower down boom boom boom
boom.

Demolishing a building is no more difficult than demolishing a car. The difficult
part with the WTC towers was bringing it down with minimal damage to adjacent
structures.

Those arguing for a heat-induced collapse tell us that symmetrical collapse was
inevitable despite the asymmetrical fires. If this is even remotely plausible,
then achieving the collapse through placing explosives was not at all difficult.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Hack, miranda didn't say it was done by the army. She said she thinks it
may have been done by the military, and mentioned that special forces would probably have the expertise to do this.

'The military had never invaded Iraq before so it was impossible to imagine before the invasion that they could do it?' would follow your line of reasoning.

Lastly, I don't believe miranda is kidding you and I don't think you thought she was kidding you. I think you write stuff like that because you have difficulty making a superior argument, and so resort to that kind of insulting BS.

Perhaps i'm wrong about your use of rhetorical insult. If so please clue me in. And I'm not kidding, just so you know in advance.

Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I thought she was kidding
because anyone with any sense would know that the Army does not do that type of demolition. They just don't - there is no need for it on the battle field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. People who don't read are often ignorant of many facts, do you agree?
Miranda did not use the word "ARMY" in her post, a word you have now attributed to her post twice, in your reply to her, and in your reply to my post where I pointed out she didn't use the word "army."

Either you are a careless reader, or you are intentionally disrupting the flow of our exchange. I'm hoping it's the former instead of the latter.

If it is unfortunately the latter, it would be clear to me your interest in this topic is to obstruct the discussion, not to argue your points intelligently, or to learn or civilly exchange information.

I'm positive the military would have a use for personnel capable of building demolition. For instance they might have a building they wanted demolished that was situated close to other buildings they wanted intact. Or is that beyond the realm of possibility to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Controlled Demolition is a skill very useful in certain military
contexts: for instance, to destroy a building
that must be abandoned in a hurry and might contain
sensitive information, or to topple a building across
a road as a barrier to armored vehicles. Instant
tank trap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. My bad ...
those of us with a military background associate special forces with the army. Special forces = Army special forces = Green Berets. However, if not the Army then there is only the Navy SEALS - I don't think they have a mission that involves blowing up highrise buildings.

She said military - is it such a big deal if I thought army instead of Navy?

You are delusional if you think they had the skill required to bring down the WTC - there is a huge difference between quick and dirty military demo and a massive demo project requiring months to plan and execute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #28
52. M303 Special Operations Forces Demolition Kit
The Army's Special Operations Forces have performed demolition operations dating back
to pre-World War II using bulk explosives and non-standard, improvised methods

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munition...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. You are missing the point.
it is a given that the army routinely does battle field demolition - it is quick and dirty using man portable equipment. The WTC were a massive undertaking using tons of explosives and a great deal of time and manpower to set up - it also required unique engineering skills and demolition experience that the army does not have. You cannot show me a single example in history of the army carrying out a demolition of this magnitude - you simply can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. What's the source for all those unsubstantiated claims? How do YOU know

it (WTC demolition) required "tons of explosives and a great deal of time and manpower to set up"? Do you have some insider knowledge you'd like to share, or are you simply speculating, in which case you should say so?

For all you know, for all anyone else knows, the perps may have used something that is still classified, in order to accomplish such an amazing (unheard of) feat.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. They are based on the assumption that ...
the following common demolition theories are actually true:

1. Hoffman's calculations that the energy released during the WTC collapse was 10 times the potential energy of the towers.

2. The potential energy of the towers was insufficient to pulverize the concrete floors.

If you use Hoffman's figure of 4 x 10^11 joules as the PE of the WTC and the energy seen in the collapse as 4 x 10^12 joules (10 times) with the energy of high explosives being 4 x 10^6 joules per kg - simple calculations show that thousands of tons of explosives per tower were needed.

As for the pulverized concrete, if the only way that it could be uniformly pulverized is by explosives, doesn't that indicate that the explosives were also uniformly spread over the floors? With each floor being 40,000 square feet, that's a lot of explosives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. You failed to respond to the question.

There's no basis for assuming that the WTC collapses were caused by standard explosives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. Except there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary?
give me one shred of evidence for some exotic explosive? You can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. There's no evidence to support the Conspiracy Theory you defend.

Yet, that doesn't stop you or the others from pretending that OBL & Co. really DID have the technical and other assets necessary to defeat the entire U.S. National Defense, and in fact did just that.

No one here in their right mind believes that. If I'm wrong, produce your evidence. You can't. You can't even prove there was ONE Arab on ANY of the alleged 9/11 flights. Who the H--- do you think you're fooling with all that BS you and yours post 24/7?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. One shred of evidence:
Edited on Tue Oct-31-06 08:05 PM by petgoat
The creation of dust clouds that would putatively have required
20,000 tons of conventional explosives to create.

If that's so, one can then indulge the illogical assumption that
they were created without explosives, or hypothesize that
unconventional explosives were used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #65
82. Or thirdly, one can hypothesize that Hoffman is wrong.
after all, he is not an structural engineer, no one else has replicated his results and after several years he has still not had his paper peer reviewed.

I am somewhat confused - are you now advocating that high explosives and thermite were not used and only weapon X was used? Or are you saying that high explosives, thermite and weapon X were all used at the same time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #82
86. I don't claim to know what happened. What we're looking at
is like a corpse that has strangle marks on its neck,
stab wounds on its legs, gunshot wounds in its chest,
poison in its gut, it's been decapitated--and the
coroner is claiming it died of natural causes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. And the body has been cremated. Was this the same coroner who "lost"
Kennedy's brain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #82
90. One *could* hypothesize that Osama was right.

After all, as a longtime CIA asset, he probably knows a thing or two about False Flag operations, DISINFORMATION Agents, and now he knows how tricky it is to work for "The Company", but avoid being framed for their biggest False Flag operation.

You really think 9/11 Truth Seekers can't see through the CT you support, or does it matter ($)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. No need for it in NYC, either. But someone WANTED it done & it was.

Your CT is that a caveman did it.

The truth is that it was an inside job, blamed on that caveman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. No - it was a university educated engineer that did it
why do you forget that minor point?

Secondly, that "caveman" was skilled in the use of sophisticated technology (satellite phones, internet, etc).

I have no problem believing that an educated brown skinned man could out smart the Bush administration - why does it bother you so much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. A university educated engineer?
Who happened to know exactly how these building were built and what floors were the crucial ones that would take the buildings down?

Even the engineer who did the NIST structural analysis, missed crucial information that whoever took the buildings down apparently knew about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. We don't know if he knew if the towers would collapse
for all we know, just hitting them would have been enough. All he wanted was to kill Americans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #41
93. All he wanted was to kill Americans.
Then why did he do such a piss-poor job of it?

Why didn't the planes hit lower down, where they'd trap more
people above the fire zone?

Why didn't they strike after 9:00 a.m. when the buildings would
have had 50,000 people inside?

Why did they hit the side of the Pentagon that was under renovation,
so they killed primarily civilian construction workers? Why didn't
they cause a traffic jam on a bridge, and then blow up the bridge?
Why didn't they hit the nuke plants at Indian Point or at Three Mile
Island?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #19
37. No you didn't.
You know it makes no sense for a ragtag group of "terrorists" with their next to nothing skill to bring the towers down in an identical matter by a method that would have been full of uncertainty and a multitude of different possible outcomes and yet you think that makes sense but a division of the US military with billions of dollars at their disposal and the ability to operate in secret is ridiculous? They have an arsenal of weapons devoted the purpose of bringing down buildings. Do you really think they don't have access to the kind of information that a frigging demolition company does?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. All you need to do
is explain how they did it. But you can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. Neither can you, and you have government agencies and the
corporate media on your side.
The only things that I think are unexplainable are certainly not explained by planes crashing into buildings. Things like exploding cars, red hot metal two weeks later, losing the massive core , and the symmetrical, complete obvious demolition of wtc7, unmistakable and numerous reports of explosions by credible people, the report of the lobby of the wtc7 being "gone" around the time of the 2nd hit, undefended air space for about 2 hours, refusal of the administration to a full investigation, stuff like that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #18
69. Special Forces is specifically part of the Army
As is Delta Force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #69
74. I f you care to argue semantics, yes. If you care to understand, no.
OK, Special Ops. Happy now?

All four services have them.

And there is the Army Corp of engineers. Or do they just drive trains?

At any rate, 9/11 was an inside job. Whether they utilized any or all or none of the Special Ops.


By the way, did you know that one of the most succesful European Explosive Demolition Companies was founded by a British military demolition expert as soon as he left the military? Gosh, that's impossible, right? How would he be able to do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #74
77. Not arguing just stating facts
They tend to get tossed around here without much backing them up.

"At any rate, 9/11 was an inside job." Like this one...fact eh?

BTW quit your blithering, I agree it could be done by Military demolitions experts if you read my posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. You are pretending to be kidding, right?

Are you seriously trying to fool people into thinking that the U.S. military lacks the technology to blow up buildings?

Typical (Official) CT'er BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. It is a matter of training and experience,
not technology. It is hard to imagine a military mission that would involve taking months to plan and execute a complex demolition like the WTC- the enemy would not let them hang around that long. And how would you get all that explosives behind enemy lines? The military does not waste time and money on capabilities they would not use on the battle field.

If they wanted to knock down an high rise in enemy territory they would drop a big bomb on it and call it a day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #31
70. Blind Alley
Hack, I agree with you the accusation that the US Military would actually take part in such a act is abhorrent.

However I disagree that SOF demolitions experts could not have pulled it off. They would just need blue prints from the building and some advisement from a structural engineer familiar with the building.

Not to mention be absolutely amoral sociopaths with no conscience (which most here think that of military personnel anyway). Apart from that, they could have done it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #70
85. Operation North Woods wasn't a sociopathic plan? Hey, I've never argued
that "military personel" are sociopaths, only that the odds and facts point to the obvious conclusion that some would have to be.

Funding the Contras to blow up schools and civilians was sane?

Whether black opt were used to pull off 9/11 is unknown. But it is a possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #85
91. With all due respect, it's not merely a "possibility". 9/11 WAS a FFLAG op.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #31
87. Wow, how did this guy do it?
BARRY LOWE PASSES

October 4, 2003

Barry Lowe, former Managing Director of Nottingham Explosives Ltd., died yesterday after battling a prolonged illness. He was 71 years old.

As detailed in a previous report on this website, Mr. Lowe realized a level of success experienced by few others in the explosive demolition industry. He began his career in 1954 by blasting concrete bridges and bunkers as a member of the Explosives Special Forces division of England's renowned SAS. Lowe's transition into the commercial sector followed shortly thereafter when he was contracted to perform numerous explosive demolition projects for both private and government clients. He eventually consolidated his team's efforts in 1972 by establishing Nottingham Explosives Ltd., and went on to become one of the founding members of the Institute of Explosives Engineers in 1974.

In Nottingham's first year of operation it secured a contract to explosively raze the 53-span Awsworth Viaduct, a record that reportedly still stands. The firm went on to enjoy unprecedented success over five decades, credited in large part to the experience passed down from Barry to his son, Phillip. Phillip Lowe recently approved the merger of Nottingham Explosives with another demolition firm, and he remains active in the structural blasting industry today.

Barry Lowe's track record and integrity were put to the test in 2000 when Implosionworld.com was researching the history of explosive demolition. At the time, Nottingham Explosives was one of three blasting companies actively promoting themselves as having felled more than three thousand structures apiece (with one American firm claiming upwards of seven thousand). Implosionworld.com openly questioned the accuracy of these assertions by challenging each contractor to substantiate their claim in any way. Of the three, only Lowe possessed the ability to authenticate his work history. The other claims remain dubious to this day.

Funeral services for Lowe have been scheduled for October 14th

(from implosion world)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. By gaining years of commercial experience after leaving the military? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #89
94. More careless reading by you Hack. That explains a lot, though.
"He began his career in 1954 by blasting concrete bridges and bunkers as a member of the Explosives Special Forces division of England's renowned SAS. Lowe's transition into the commercial sector followed shortly thereafter when he was contracted to perform numerous explosive demolition projects for both private and government clients."

The article/obit suggests he went directly from the military into private explosive demolition.

It is difficult to discuss articles or anything with someone who is unable or unwilling to read, Hack. Perhaps your local adult -ed has a program that could be of benefit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-02-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #94
95. "They" aren't careless, JQC. There's something else going on, but we

can't talk about it here. THEY have the advantage of being able to do their "thing" unfettered, because it's in line with booshco-think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
36. What makes no sense is that both towers would come down in a near identical
manner from two separate planes flying into the side of them and the alleged resulting fires. Military technology could not do it, but a band of berserkers from the ME could? Or do you think they just got lucky?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. No - severe structural damage and fires did it.
I am sure there was an element of luck - we don't know what they would have considered a success.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #38
43.  You can't possibly believe that
such an event that could have so many different outcomes such as crashing a plane into a steel skyscraper would produce identical results consisting of several seconds over freefall, symmetrical all the way to the ground collapse (and another one with no plane to boot). You would have to be easily swayed by "authority" to believe such as thing as I'm sure the Bush appointed NIST director was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #43
78. They werent "Identical"
1. One building took 102 minutes to collapse, the other after 56 minutes.

2. Symmetrical? One tower tipped at the point of impact, resulting in a much greater debris footprint, the other did not.

3. The third building (WTC7) collapsed for different reasons and in a completely different way.

Both towers collpsed at the same rate because they were FAIP constructed the same way.

"Bush appointed NIST director"??? Holy crap that is pathetic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #38
47. Yes. Explosions DID cause catastrophic structural damage. The "luck"

element relates to the fact that the MSM (corporate media) has done everything in its power to make sure that the public remains ignorant of the facts which would expose the truth that 9/11 was an inside job. If the public knew what WE (and I'm including CT'ers like you) know, there wouldn't be anyone still pretending that Booshco's 9/11 version is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #38
48. "I am sure there was an element of luck"
Let's face it: LUCK RULED ON 9/11

Hani Hanjour was LUCKY when he pulled off a high-speed spiraling descent without stalling an aircraft in which he was not type-rated;

All of the pilots were LUCKY to be able to take the controls at altitude and without INSTRUMENT RATINGS navigating highly complex aircraft to their targets;

The passengers were LUCKY that their cellphones worked at altitude every single time;

The hijackers were LUCKY that NORAD didn't have the time/aircraft to respond.

And I'm sure that someone else could fill out this list with all the LUCKY occurrences that happened on that one special day.

I guess we're just LUCKY that Bush and Cheney didn't have to individually testify under oath and on the record.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlwaysQuestion Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. You are one smart cookie
Lady Luck was indeed working overtime that fateful day. You are just sooooo intuitive. But I also think there was some clairvoyance operating too. I mean there was Bushie continuing to read to that dear class of children while all hell was breaking loose, but he was (rightly) able to predict that no harm would befall him or his charges whilst frozen to their collective chairs. But hey, maybe that too was just sheer luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #51
66. able to predict that no harm would befall him
This map shows that the school was right in line with the Sarasota
runways just 30 flight seconds away, and easy to find from the air.
Do you think the Secret Service didn't know that? Was Sarasota
blocked to air traffic while W was there?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #48
76. There was plenty of luck involved
But the things you mention in that post involved very little luck at all, and based on conjecture rather than fact.

The people in the first WTC below the 93 floor, were LUCKY the plane hit between the 93 and 99 floors and not lower.

Everyone that would have been in the WTC towers later in the day was LUCKY the planes hit at the time they did.

The People in WTC1 were LUCKY the tower collapsed after WTC2 so they had more time to evacuate.

The People in the Pentagon were LUCKY the side hit was being renovated and partly empty.

Everyone who died that day was UNLUCKY.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #38
55. Then why did you just post above
"The WTC were a massive undertaking using tons of explosives and a great deal of time and manpower to set up - it also required unique engineering skills and demolition experience that the army does not have"?


Here you say it was airplanes, fire and luck. In the above you say just the opposite. Which one is it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Had a hard time keeping up, huh?
No big deal. I don't really believe that there were tons of explosives - I was simply taking the CT position momentarily to make the point that the military does not do demolition of the magnitude of the WTC.

The physics of the collapse are very straight forward - enough damage with enough weight above the impact zone would lead to collapse. The luck was that the planes hit low enough on the each tower to ensure there was enough weight above the impact zone. If the planes had hit high on the towers I am certain that the towers would have not collapsed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. The CT position you support is that Osama & co. did it. That's a conspiracy

theory that knowledgeble, OBJECTIVE people have long rejected as being absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #61
72. I think the point is
that theory is supported by numerous facts and evidence that make up a clear but incomplete picture.

MIHOP/LIHOP is only supported by the unknown parts that make up the incomplete part of the "OCT".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #72
81. The point is that YOU need to own that U R a CT'er.

How's it feel to be a CT'er?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedom fighter jh Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. So which is it?
The argument that it could not have been the military because they don't have the capability undermines the implied message in your second paragraph.

Yes, it's true that enough damage with enough weight above the impact zone would lead to collapse. But there are still two problems: What's enough damage with enough weight? More importantly, what kind of collapse would that lead to? If the military doesn't have the capability to pull off a controlled demolition, then how is chance going to pull off what looks just like a controlled demolition?

Yes, the physics is indeed straightforward: No amount of damage could both destroy the towers' infrastructure and cause them to collapse at free-fall speed. The energy used in destroying the infrastructure (steel columns and floor trusses, concrete floors) would have slowed the fall.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #36
71. Got Lucky
After the 1993 attack I doubt they thought the buildings would actually collapse.

Hoping yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #11
68. So it was the bad guys from Die Hard 2?
Where's Mel and Danny when you need 'em? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
84. A word on your privacy...
With the consolidation of YouTube and Google... when you watch videos of 9-11 (especially "conspiracy" vids), you might want to monitor through your Windows Task Manager the amount of traffic that ensues within the Networking tab window. I have watched many vids on many different topics, this monitoring/traffic is much higher when exploring "non-conforming" topics (ie. disagreement with official propaganda) on these videos. So give a :hi: to Big Brother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
92. actually, having been on the inside of setting up a demolition and
talking with the experts, in my opinion, its not that hard to figure out how to set it up, the hobgoblin is to do it neatly and safely, that's where the expertise comes in. Basically anyone could learn to bring a building down if they weren't concerned with who got hurt.

If you have wetworks operatives trained in demolition....oh...say some black ops, it's completely within the realm of possibility that they could do as good a job as collapsing the towers. Remember, it was NOT done safely.

that's IF the towers were controlled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 05:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC