I have had discussions with people on this topic. To bring it up, you open yourself up to alot of criticism, and you are labeled a conspiracy nut etc etc....but there are alot of weird things going on. I think , to approach the subject, you would have to ask yourself what would this regime have to gain by pulling off something of this magnitude. (alot)
I myself think it is possible, the Cheney comments about a "new pearl harbor" for the new american century , and the cast of characters in that document or group is disturbing to me. I think the discussion on here is great though and enjoyed reading through it .
You choose to believe that these alternative theories are more credible, though. You obviously use a different burden of proof than I do. Maybe that is the source of my frustration with this topic. People are starting from wildly different premises and thus little common ground exists.
Why do you view the official theory as credible? Given the source, it's already is going to bring questionability but thats's not the reason I have a hard time believing it. Building 7, even when I watched it live in tv, had me scratching my head. Then as I looked into it more, even more things started to seem very fishy....like the reportings of explosions near the base of the towers, the quickness of the collapse, etc. I don't think that just because our govt didn't tell us this is what happened that these alternate theories are crazy or uncredible. These people have done lots of research, as well. Why does their stuff seem to 'out there' to you?
As for the first part .... Not sure I agree 100%, but hey ... I've seen (and been on the receiving end of) many instances of people dismissing posts and topics. I think I probably do it less than some others do, but I get taken to task for it almost every time. That being said, you DO have a point. It would have been more constructive for me to just post my opinion about the content of the thread, rather than making a generalization. I was being honest ... The topic is at the point for me where nothing new can be said.
Maybe it's because we expect better from you.
And every topic on the board has been argued to the ground and back again for the most part. If people want to discuss things I'm tired of then I'll just ignore it (like that hockey thread that would never go away) ...obviously they still an have interest in it for whatever reason.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Why do you view the official theory as credible? Given the source, it's already is going to bring questionability but thats's not the reason I have a hard time believing it. Building 7, even when I watched it live in tv, had me scratching my head. Then as I looked into it more, even more things started to seem very fishy....like the reportings of explosions near the base of the towers, the quickness of the collapse, etc. I don't think that just because our govt didn't tell us this is what happened that these alternate theories are crazy or uncredible. These people have done lots of research, as well. Why does their stuff seem to 'out there' to you?
Maybe it's because we expect better from you.
And every topic on the board has been argued to the ground and back again for the most part. If people want to discuss things I'm tired of then I'll just ignore it (like that hockey thread that would never go away) ...obviously they still an have interest in it for whatever reason.
Hey, I like the hockey thread ...
Anyhow, to answer your question .... Most of the theories I've encountered rely on either a) made up shit for which there is no evidence (e.g., the hijackers being still alive), or b) circumstantial evidence, or filling in the gaps ... An example of this would be the theory that someone used thermite to etch the building supports before they fell. This latter theory could be true ... But current evidence does not favour it over the government's account. Furthermore, is it not possible that yes, someone DID plant explosives, but that this person was not a government agent? Explosives does not automatically equal Bush's government being the mastermind. Its all speculative at this point. I don't give these theories more creedance because they rely on as much supposition and speculation as the government's account does, if not more.
Anyhow, to answer your question .... Most of the theories I've encountered rely on either a) made up shit for which there is no evidence (e.g., the hijackers being still alive), or b) circumstantial evidence, or filling in the gaps ... An example of this would be the theory that someone used thermite to etch the building supports before they fell. This latter theory could be true ... But current evidence does not favour it over the government's account. Furthermore, is it not possible that yes, someone DID plant explosives, but that this person was not a government agent? Explosives does not automatically equal Bush's government being the mastermind. Its all speculative at this point. I don't give these theories more creedance because they rely on as much supposition and speculation as the government's account does, if not more.
How did the govt account not fill in the holes just as much?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Anyhow, to answer your question .... Most of the theories I've encountered rely on either a) made up shit for which there is no evidence (e.g., the hijackers being still alive), or b) circumstantial evidence, or filling in the gaps ... An example of this would be the theory that someone used thermite to etch the building supports before they fell. This latter theory could be true ... But current evidence does not favour it over the government's account. Furthermore, is it not possible that yes, someone DID plant explosives, but that this person was not a government agent? Explosives does not automatically equal Bush's government being the mastermind. Its all speculative at this point. I don't give these theories more creedance because they rely on as much supposition and speculation as the government's account does, if not more.
interesting, even the nist report says:
"None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600degrees C for as long as 15 minutes."
"Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250degrees C during the fires or the collapse."
so....how did the steel melt or weaken, enough to cause a uniform, pancake collapse at almost freefall speed in wtc 1,2 and 7???
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
WTC 7 was demolished using controlled explosions, there's video's all over YouTube of the owner of the WTC admitting they did this.
"I am a doughnut." (live - Berlin, Germany - 11/03/96)
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
"I am a doughnut." (live - Berlin, Germany - 11/03/96)
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
"None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600degrees C for as long as 15 minutes."
"Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250degrees C during the fires or the collapse."
so....how did the steel melt or weaken, enough to cause a uniform, pancake collapse at almost freefall speed in wtc 1,2 and 7???
How about you address my point .... even if explosives WERE involved, how do you know the U.S. government planted them?
As for the steel ... There seems to be several different opinions on that issue. For every report that tries to make a scientific argument, there's another, by a different set of "structural engineers" or what have you, that claims that the government's account is possible.
Exactly How and When Could the WTC Be Wired With Explosives? Answer...
Repost from Progressive Review 23 Apr 2004 17:00 GMT
Many researchers have concluded the World Trade Center was wired with explosives, causing the unprecedented collapse following the impacts of two jumbo jets. In fact, NYC firefighters remarked that day that it seemed like bombs were going off in the buildings, just prior to the tower's collapse. One glaring question remains unanswered: exactly how and when could such a monumental undertaking be accomplished. Read on for the answer...
Feedback from the Progressive Review's Undernews for April 22, 2004.
||| SEP 11
WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING from someone who worked for Fiduciary Trust on the 90th, 94-97th floors of the South Tower:
"On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up.
riiiight....so if Tower 2 was rigged with explosives, then explain to me how Tower 1 fell since there is absolutely no mention in the original post of the same work being done in there.
And sometimes is seen a strange spot in the sky...A human being that was giveeeeeeeeeeeeen to flllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
And this "power down" stuff is a perfect example of circumstantial evidence ... Sure, "power down" could reflect some nefarious behavior on the part of an American agent ... Or it could have happened for any number of reasons, including routine maintenance.
You guys don't see how more evidence is required to place blame here?
"Well that's the real question, isn't it? Why? The how and the who is just scenery for the public. Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, the Mafia. Keeps 'em guessing like some kind of parlor game, prevents 'em from asking the most important question, why? Why was Kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up? Who?" – "Mr. X" in JFK
How about you address my point .... even if explosives WERE involved, how do you know the U.S. government planted them?
As for the steel ... There seems to be several different opinions on that issue. For every report that tries to make a scientific argument, there's another, by a different set of "structural engineers" or what have you, that claims that the government's account is possible.
i don't KNOW. but, bush's brother did own the company <or he was high up> that did security for the wtc as well as the 2 airports the hijacked planes orignated from.
you're missing hte point that it was the GOVERNMENT'S report that stated those quotes about the temperatures.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
riiiight....so if Tower 2 was rigged with explosives, then explain to me how Tower 1 fell since there is absolutely no mention in the original post of the same work being done in there.
so since it wasn't mentioned in the article it means it can't be true...whatever.
and how did tower 7 fall straight down at near free fall speed, again, when it wasn't hit by any planes, any jet fuel, was the furthest away from wtc1 and 2 than all the other buildings....?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
And this "power down" stuff is a perfect example of circumstantial evidence ... Sure, "power down" could reflect some nefarious behavior on the part of an American agent ... Or it could have happened for any number of reasons, including routine maintenance.
You guys don't see how more evidence is required to place blame here?
exactly. security systems usually run on power backup generaters. the building I work in is a 25 story office tower. while working on a weekend once my building's power went out for "routine maintaince". they didnt expect any employees to be there and asked any employees to leave. stairwells were completely lit. it was also during daytime hours. when I got to the lobby, the front desk still had all cameras running and security cards needed to be used. when power goes down, its not a total blackout. espically in a building the size of WTC
exactly. security systems usually run on power backup generaters. the building I work in is a 25 story office tower. while working on a weekend once my building's power went out for "routine maintaince". they didnt expect any employees to be there and asked any employees to leave. stairwells were completely lit. it was also during daytime hours. when I got to the lobby, the front desk still had all cameras running and security cards needed to be used. when power goes down, its not a total blackout. espically in a building the size of WTC
did you even bother to read it?
"there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs" can you run generators and cameras w/o electricity? was there someone in the back using a hand crank?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
you're missing hte point that it was the GOVERNMENT'S report that stated those quotes about the temperatures.
Right, but I was referring to their argument that the steel was weakened enough that the collapse could occur. I realize that there are contradictions across government sources ... But that does not constitute great evidence of malfeasance. In fact, could one not argue that the government would have made damn sure that those temperatures quoted in its report were consistent with their account? They were good enough to cover up most of the details, but missed these temperatures?
Right, but I was referring to their argument that the steel was weakened enough that the collapse could occur. I realize that there are contradictions across government sources ... But that does not constitute great evidence of malfeasance. In fact, could one not argue that the government would have made damn sure that those temperatures quoted in its report were consistent with their account? They were good enough to cover up most of the details, but missed these temperatures?
no b/c i think the term 'government involvement' is oversimplafying things. it wasn't the 'government', it was a group of ppl, some of who happened to be in government. they obvioulsy can't cover everything up, like when the nist performed tests to try and prove that's how the towers collapsed...the tests didn't prove that, so they turned to computer models instead.
the nist report also says their test on the flooring shows it would've held up for longer than the towers actually did, which, again, takes away from their theory that the floors buckled.
then there's the oral reports of all the ppl involved that the government tried to prevent from being public...loooots of firefighters, fire chiefs, commisisonares and other ppl saying they heard explsoives, they say projectiles being blown horizontally all BEFORE the collapse. the official explanation says the projectiles came from the weight of the collapse, and yet these ppl who were there say it happened before.
i know you say you don't like these debates so i don't expect you'll want to watch it but i posted a very good video that deals w/ the steel and lots of ohter things called 'the improbable collapse'
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
so since it wasn't mentioned in the article it means it can't be true...whatever.
and how did tower 7 fall straight down at near free fall speed, again, when it wasn't hit by any planes, any jet fuel, was the furthest away from wtc1 and 2 than all the other buildings....?
Nope I never said it didn't happen, I just find the theory hard to believe since in your article the writer seems to make a point out of the fact that only Tower 2 was shut down for this maintenance. I just want an explanation for Tower 1 using this theory.
As for Tower 7, wasn't it already said here that it was an admitted controlled demolition?
And sometimes is seen a strange spot in the sky...A human being that was giveeeeeeeeeeeeen to flllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Nope I never said it didn't happen, I just find the theory hard to believe since in your article the writer seems to make a point out of the fact that only Tower 2 was shut down for this maintenance. I just want an explanation for Tower 1 using this theory.
As for Tower 7, wasn't it already said here that it was an admitted controlled demolition?
that depends...there are some, like 69charger, who will argue to the end that he didn't mean controlled demolition by 'pull it', he meant pulling the rescue effort...what he said was something like 'there was already a terrible loss of life so we decided to pull it and we watched the building come down'...
also the nist report says nothing about a controlled demolition, it has some fantasy about fire causing the collapse.
also, if it were a controlled demolition when did they plant the explosives? it wasn't after the towers were hit so when could they have planted them? hmmmmmm
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
that depends...there are some, like 69charger, who will argue to the end that he didn't mean controlled demolition by 'pull it', he meant pulling the rescue effort...what he said was something like 'there was already a terrible loss of life so we decided to pull it and we watched the building come down'...
"2. We have never once heard the term "pull it" used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and manuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure onto it's side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyways."
"2. We have never once heard the term "pull it" used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and manuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure onto it's side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyways."
yawn is right as i've posted links where ppl involved in demolition used the phrase pull it and pre-9/11...
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
yawn is right as i've posted links where ppl involved in demolition used the phrase pull it and pre-9/11...
Yeah, we know.
"The term is used in conventional demolition circles to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and manuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure onto it's side for further dismantlement."
"The term is used in conventional demolition circles to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and manuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure onto it's side for further dismantlement."
Like I said before...
Yawn...
no, i was refering to the ones stating it meant to bring down w/ explosives
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
no, i was refering to the ones stating it meant to bring down w/ explosives
Oh, yeah those ones...
Which ones were those again?
BTW did you read that document I posted? The people responsible for that report work with every major implosion crew in the US. I'd think this makes thier credibility fairly bullet-proof.
I really don't want to get into this shit with you again. It's like playing handball against curtains.
that depends...there are some, like 69charger, who will argue to the end that he didn't mean controlled demolition by 'pull it', he meant pulling the rescue effort...what he said was something like 'there was already a terrible loss of life so we decided to pull it and we watched the building come down'...
also the nist report says nothing about a controlled demolition, it has some fantasy about fire causing the collapse.
also, if it were a controlled demolition when did they plant the explosives? it wasn't after the towers were hit so when could they have planted them? hmmmmmm
That's all wonderful, but I'm still waiting on an answer for how Tower 1 supposedly came down from explosives, since it seems clear to me from the article that only Tower 2 had this "maintenance" done to it.
And sometimes is seen a strange spot in the sky...A human being that was giveeeeeeeeeeeeen to flllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
That's all wonderful, but I'm still waiting on an answer for how Tower 1 supposedly came down from explosives, since it seems clear to me from the article that only Tower 2 had this "maintenance" done to it.
you might want to rephrase that as 'that's all wonderful' didn't really answer any of my questions to you...
the article didn't mention building 7, either, and yet when i asked you about how that fell you replied controlled demolition.
i don't know, perhaps the charges were set at a different time or under a different cover in the other tower
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
that depends...there are some, like 69charger, who will argue to the end that he didn't mean controlled demolition by 'pull it', he meant pulling the rescue effort...what he said was something like 'there was already a terrible loss of life so we decided to pull it and we watched the building come down'...
also the nist report says nothing about a controlled demolition, it has some fantasy about fire causing the collapse.
also, if it were a controlled demolition when did they plant the explosives? it wasn't after the towers were hit so when could they have planted them? hmmmmmm
Cool Kat looking for a Kitty, back of my neck gettin' dirt and gritty!
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
I myself think it is possible, the Cheney comments about a "new pearl harbor" for the new american century , and the cast of characters in that document or group is disturbing to me. I think the discussion on here is great though and enjoyed reading through it .
Why do you view the official theory as credible? Given the source, it's already is going to bring questionability but thats's not the reason I have a hard time believing it. Building 7, even when I watched it live in tv, had me scratching my head. Then as I looked into it more, even more things started to seem very fishy....like the reportings of explosions near the base of the towers, the quickness of the collapse, etc. I don't think that just because our govt didn't tell us this is what happened that these alternate theories are crazy or uncredible. These people have done lots of research, as well. Why does their stuff seem to 'out there' to you?
Maybe it's because we expect better from you.
And every topic on the board has been argued to the ground and back again for the most part.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hey, I like the hockey thread ...
Anyhow, to answer your question .... Most of the theories I've encountered rely on either a) made up shit for which there is no evidence (e.g., the hijackers being still alive), or b) circumstantial evidence, or filling in the gaps ... An example of this would be the theory that someone used thermite to etch the building supports before they fell. This latter theory could be true ... But current evidence does not favour it over the government's account. Furthermore, is it not possible that yes, someone DID plant explosives, but that this person was not a government agent? Explosives does not automatically equal Bush's government being the mastermind. Its all speculative at this point. I don't give these theories more creedance because they rely on as much supposition and speculation as the government's account does, if not more.
How did the govt account not fill in the holes just as much?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
interesting, even the nist report says:
"None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600degrees C for as long as 15 minutes."
"Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250degrees C during the fires or the collapse."
so....how did the steel melt or weaken, enough to cause a uniform, pancake collapse at almost freefall speed in wtc 1,2 and 7???
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed
post one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_Xs0Lb-Wqc
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed
How about you address my point .... even if explosives WERE involved, how do you know the U.S. government planted them?
As for the steel ... There seems to be several different opinions on that issue. For every report that tries to make a scientific argument, there's another, by a different set of "structural engineers" or what have you, that claims that the government's account is possible.
riiiight....so if Tower 2 was rigged with explosives, then explain to me how Tower 1 fell since there is absolutely no mention in the original post of the same work being done in there.
You guys don't see how more evidence is required to place blame here?
That can apply to this situation
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
i don't KNOW. but, bush's brother did own the company <or he was high up> that did security for the wtc as well as the 2 airports the hijacked planes orignated from.
you're missing hte point that it was the GOVERNMENT'S report that stated those quotes about the temperatures.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
so since it wasn't mentioned in the article it means it can't be true...whatever.
and how did tower 7 fall straight down at near free fall speed, again, when it wasn't hit by any planes, any jet fuel, was the furthest away from wtc1 and 2 than all the other buildings....?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
exactly. security systems usually run on power backup generaters. the building I work in is a 25 story office tower. while working on a weekend once my building's power went out for "routine maintaince". they didnt expect any employees to be there and asked any employees to leave. stairwells were completely lit. it was also during daytime hours. when I got to the lobby, the front desk still had all cameras running and security cards needed to be used. when power goes down, its not a total blackout. espically in a building the size of WTC
did you even bother to read it?
"there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs" can you run generators and cameras w/o electricity? was there someone in the back using a hand crank?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Right, but I was referring to their argument that the steel was weakened enough that the collapse could occur. I realize that there are contradictions across government sources ... But that does not constitute great evidence of malfeasance. In fact, could one not argue that the government would have made damn sure that those temperatures quoted in its report were consistent with their account? They were good enough to cover up most of the details, but missed these temperatures?
no b/c i think the term 'government involvement' is oversimplafying things. it wasn't the 'government', it was a group of ppl, some of who happened to be in government. they obvioulsy can't cover everything up, like when the nist performed tests to try and prove that's how the towers collapsed...the tests didn't prove that, so they turned to computer models instead.
the nist report also says their test on the flooring shows it would've held up for longer than the towers actually did, which, again, takes away from their theory that the floors buckled.
then there's the oral reports of all the ppl involved that the government tried to prevent from being public...loooots of firefighters, fire chiefs, commisisonares and other ppl saying they heard explsoives, they say projectiles being blown horizontally all BEFORE the collapse. the official explanation says the projectiles came from the weight of the collapse, and yet these ppl who were there say it happened before.
i know you say you don't like these debates so i don't expect you'll want to watch it but i posted a very good video that deals w/ the steel and lots of ohter things called 'the improbable collapse'
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Nope I never said it didn't happen, I just find the theory hard to believe since in your article the writer seems to make a point out of the fact that only Tower 2 was shut down for this maintenance. I just want an explanation for Tower 1 using this theory.
As for Tower 7, wasn't it already said here that it was an admitted controlled demolition?
that depends...there are some, like 69charger, who will argue to the end that he didn't mean controlled demolition by 'pull it', he meant pulling the rescue effort...what he said was something like 'there was already a terrible loss of life so we decided to pull it and we watched the building come down'...
also the nist report says nothing about a controlled demolition, it has some fantasy about fire causing the collapse.
also, if it were a controlled demolition when did they plant the explosives? it wasn't after the towers were hit so when could they have planted them? hmmmmmm
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Yawn...
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
Article from http://www.implosionworld.com
"2. We have never once heard the term "pull it" used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and manuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure onto it's side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyways."
yawn is right as i've posted links where ppl involved in demolition used the phrase pull it and pre-9/11...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Yeah, we know.
"The term is used in conventional demolition circles to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and manuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure onto it's side for further dismantlement."
Like I said before...
Yawn...
no, i was refering to the ones stating it meant to bring down w/ explosives
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Oh, yeah those ones...
Which ones were those again?
BTW did you read that document I posted? The people responsible for that report work with every major implosion crew in the US. I'd think this makes thier credibility fairly bullet-proof.
I really don't want to get into this shit with you again. It's like playing handball against curtains.
That's all wonderful, but I'm still waiting on an answer for how Tower 1 supposedly came down from explosives, since it seems clear to me from the article that only Tower 2 had this "maintenance" done to it.
you might want to rephrase that as 'that's all wonderful' didn't really answer any of my questions to you...
the article didn't mention building 7, either, and yet when i asked you about how that fell you replied controlled demolition.
i don't know, perhaps the charges were set at a different time or under a different cover in the other tower
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
WHY THE FUCK WERE MY REPLIES TO THIS DELETED?!?!
Not cool, Kat.
Cool Kat looking for a Kitty, back of my neck gettin' dirt and gritty!