JeffT, they needed the planes to cover up the explosions! They weren't counting on people to fall for that did they?
Are you sick of conspiracy nuts?.....9/11
by Witness 007 220 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
ProdigalSon
Well that's where it gets dicey Jeff. Merely flying the planes into the buildings would not have produced the lasting shock effect needed to support ongoing wars against "terror". They would have repaired the buildings and people would have forgotten about it. There would be no lasting images needed for long-range mind control. Just hitting the WTC would have done nothing, they were only the icons needed for visual and emotional effects.
The desired outcome of the Bush regime was a military dictatorship. He had all he needed in place to declare himself dictator if only flight 93 hadn't been shot down and it had hit the Capitol Building as it was most likely intended to do. They needed for the Pentagon and Capitol to be involved. The neocons stated on their "Project For A New American Century" website in 1998 that they had to manufacture something along the lines of a "New Pearl Harbor" in order to accomplish their goals in the middle east and worldwide.
-
NomadSoul
The dark cabal is going down, and they know it. As soon as the dollar collapses, it's the end of their empire. I've been saying it for six years, and we're that much closer to it happening. When 80 countries (and growing) decide to no longer accept greenbacks, you will soon see the fiat structure collapse like a house of cards. It's imminent- within a year, possibly this fall. Soon afterward we'll finally have disclosure, and then we won't have to debate anymore. We can move on and realize our full human potential. Glory be.
You promise?
-
JeffT
They would have repaired the buildings and people would have forgotten about it.
HORSESHIT!
First of all you obviously know nothing about about high rise buildings. I've worked in commercial real estate since 1984. If a building looses five floors to a fire it is going to get red tagged and torn down. I knew the buildings were gone as soon as I turned on the TV. I didn't expect them to fall down, but I knew they were never going to be used again.
Secondly, even if the buildings didn't go down the causalty figure would still have been in the thousands (tens of thousands with even slightly better planning). Do you seriously think that the American people would just "forget it?"
-
ProdigalSon
JeffT:If a building looses five floors to a fire it is going to get red tagged and torn down.
You mean like the First Interstate Tower in LA? Five floors burned to a crisp. It was repaired and life goes on....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Interstate_Tower_fire
Seems there's been quite a few others that survived.... even with serious structural damage. The ESB got hit by a B-17.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper_fire
Do you seriously think that the American people would just "forget it?"
Yes. Eventually. Just like all the other false flags throughout history.
By the way, did you know about the WTC's billion dollar asbestos problem, and that the Port Authority was trying to get permission to implode them for years but they were refused because they were just too damn big? For what it would have cost to dismantle them piece by piece they could have purchased a medium-sized country.
What's the answer? Sell them to Larry Silverstein..... a man with a plan!
I suppose you'll want proof of that so I'll pull it up when I get time.... I've posted it on a previous thread.
-
ProdigalSon
Ooops... correction.
The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25.
Didn't want to give any of you snapping turtles something else to snap about....
-
Leolaia
Yeah I think this exchange is a good example of what I meant in my first post in this thread re the pointlessness of this kind of exchange. I spent probably an hour trying to explain things clearly and in my own words and the response shows that the person in question didn't take the time to read and understand my points, for his response falls back on the same arguments I criticized without addressing the specific flaws in his reasoning I highlighted.
Leolaia: The "911 Boom Boom Boom" video does not furnish any evidence of explosive detonation of demolition charges. The firemen are describing the progression of the collapse floor by floor
That is one amazing case of selective hearing you have. If you go back and listen to the "boom boom boom" video again, you will hear the firemen saying "detonations, like when they take down a building".Actually the selective hearing is yours. You supplied this video as evidence that there were detonations of explosives of the sort seen in building demolitions. I pointed out that what the firemen were doing was comparing something they just witnessed to the only kind of progressive collapse of high rises that most people were familiar with — implosions with explosives. You cite this clip as if the firemen were actually claiming they witnessed detonations of high explosives. That's not what they said. They didn't say "Wow, we just saw detonations of explosives!" They said this:
Fireman #1: Fuck what do we do? We made it outside, we made it about a block. Fireman #2: We made it at least two blocks and we started running. (Fireman #1: illustrates floor-by-floor collapse downward with a hand gesture) Floor by floor it started popping out. Fireman #1: It was like, it was as if, if — if they had detonated (Fireman #2: Yeah, detonated) as if they were planned (Fireman #2: Yeah) to take down a building. (Fireman #1 repeats the same hand gesture) boomboomboomboomboom.
Notice the "it was like", "it was if", "if --if they had", "as if they were"??? They are saying that what they saw was similar to what happens when a building is detonated for demolition. That's not the same as claiming that this is in fact what happened. And what they were comparing to controlled demolition was the general character of a progressive collapse. Fireman #1 twice performed a hand gesture that illustrated a floor-by-floor progression and Fireman #2 specifically said "floor by floor it started popping out". Those were the things they compared to demolition. The video then shows a clip of the WTC2 collapse that shows exactly this: the floor-by-floor pulverization and expulsion of concrete debris. The firemen were talking about exactly what you see in that video of the collapse; you can literally see each floor on down popping out as pulverized debris.
There are scores of examples of firemen, policemen, and others who were ON THE SCENE giving similar testimony. I'd rather not post them all again, as you'll just write it all off as board spamming and ignore it all, as if it wasnt evidence because of the sheer volume of it. Plus, you probably think they were just either hallucinating from all the excitement or just making shit up. After all, no one knows better than the armchair observer on their laptop.
Look, this is very simple. We have a very large video and audio record of the three collapses. This is hard, empirical evidence. If there were massive detonations of high explosives, they would have been recorded. They would have been visible and they would have been heard. They were not. All you see and hear is the building coming down. You can't counter this by pointing to a fireman or policeman who compares the collapse to a controlled demolition. Such a person would have easily compared what they witnessed to the only thing in their experience that even comes close -- building implosions. And of course people used the term "explosion" to refer to the collapse. The WTC2 collapse when it happened was referred to as a "third explosion" (with the two plane crashes being the first two explosions) by some news anchors watching it live — referring to the collapse itself as an "explosion" is not evidence that explosives were used. Its a word that conveys what the collapse looked like. That's what's generally the case with eyewitness testimony — people interpret what they experience. A videocamcorder does not interpret. It just records. So a witness who says, "Wow, the building just exploded all the way down" does not supply anything better than what you can observe directly with a video recording of the collapse. And I have seen those "lists" of references to explosions; you do not need to repost them. Many or most of these refer to sounds heard not at the time of collapse but during the duration of the fire, or even at the time of the plane crashes themselves. Of course there would be many things that would explode or go bang in a multi-story office fire (hydraulic pistons, elevator lift motors, emergency power generators, CRT monitors and TVs, HVAC equipment, propane tanks, fire extinguishers, steam explosions, bodies hitting the ground, elevators crashing, etc.); explosions and things that sound like explosions ≠ detonation of explosives. None of this establishes that the collapse of the WTC towers had the kind of high-decibel report that one expects to hear in the detonation of explosives. The video and audio of the collapses show that no such sounds and explosive flashes were produced.
And no, this observation is not to be dismissed by saying that I am an "armchair observer". This same observation is made by the experts. And it is really a very obvious observation.
And then, "inevitably", hundreds of core and wall columns failed in a perfectly timed downward sequence, pulverizing 110 floors of steel in less than 10 seconds, while creating a pyroclastic cloud and heating the steel to THOUSANDS of degrees that was still molten six weeks later, all from the force of a few floors pile-driving the whole building into oblivion.... A few floors of steel and concrete, combined with gravity, turned this....into this....
Yes, gravity is what pulverizes concrete into dust when a building collapses — whether by structural failure or by demolition — not explosives. As I already told you, explosives merely initiate the collapse; the explosives are not used to blow the floors into smithereens. "A few floors". LOL Nice misrepresentation there. I already said twice that the 77th floor had to withstand the equivalent of a 33-story building slamming into it and picking up momentum. Since when is a 33-story building "a few floors"? I'm sure you understand the concept of acceleration. The 76th floor, or the 75th floor, or the 74th floor, or the 20th floor for that matter, didn't have any greater load-carrying capacity than the 77th. They were all of identical construction. Nothing was going to arrest this falling mass until it hit the ground itself. "In less than 10 seconds". LOL! Fail. In the case of WTC2 it took about 10 seconds for the first perimeter columns (falling at about free fall) to hit the ground but there were still columns standing intact as high as the 77th floor; the top of the upper block did not reach the ground until about 15-18 seconds into the collapse, and then the remnant of the core did not fall until about 25 seconds into the collapse (all observable in the videos). "Pyroclastic cloud". Ah, a trutherism. A term misappropriated from vulcanology, referring to a cloud of superheated gasses and ash. Whereas the dust clouds of the WTC collapses were akin to the what is produced in any building collapse and implosion. But I guess you really do believe that these dust clouds were superheated, since you next refer to the collapse heating steel to thousands of degrees. Riiiight. Those dust clouds were so hot they had unburned paper falling out of them and people caught up in them were — burned to a crisp? Not really. I fail to see how hot metal in an underground fire is indicative of controlled demolition; I know of no building implosion that has that effect. And there is nothing that indicates that the glowing, possibly molten metal in hot spots (how hot temperatures were deep in the pile is debatable) attained that state during the collapse itself (that claim seems to be made out of thin air). Rather the metal was recovered after underground fires had been burning for months (and the fires are not inexplicable considering the friction of 300,000 tons of smoldering debris hitting the ground, containing enough building contents to fuel the fires, and a subway beneath the rubble and voids within the shifting rubble as sources of oxygen).
Additionally, in one of the videos I posted, a slither of core section can be seen still standing after the rest of the building collapses, and instead of falling down, it vaporizes into dust just like magic!
HAHAHAHA!! A Judy Woodism, dustification of steel! Yeah, that happens in controlled demolitions too. Not. In fact, please refer to ANY real-world chemical reaction that turns steel into dust. I'd really love to know. If it wasn't too obvious -- a remnant of the core of WTC1 can be seen standing for some seconds after the collapse of the floors and perimeter columns (just as was the case with WTC2), then can be seen leaning, and then itself collapses, leaving a trail of dust from the core (containing gympsum planks and concrete stairwells) behind.
-
AGuest
"Fireman #1: It was like, it was as if, if — if they had detonated (Fireman #2: Yeah, detonated) as if they were planned (Fireman #2: Yeah) to take down a building."
Forgive what is sure to prompt a lot of eye-rolling, dear Leolaia (not from you, of course... and peace to you!), but wouldn't a fireman saying "It was as if... they had detonated... as if they were planned to take down a building..." sort make one go, "Hmmmmm..."? I can see how you might get "They are saying that what they saw was similar to what happens when a building is detonated for demolition," but that's not what I would get. I would take it as Fireman #1 saying: "It was if they (whatever "they" were) were PLANNED [so as] to take down a building."
In other words, "That's the only thing I can think of that could have happened like this!"
Now, I get it that you don't agree. And I'm not saying that that IS what happened. I'm just saying that the fireman's words COULD be taken as dear PS (and, now, yours truly) is taking them.
I mean, if I wanted to make SURE such buildings came down... wouldn't it make sense for me to attack it at the top AND the bottom? What if the planes had just gone straight through, or maybe only burning the floors in the immediate vicinity? I get it that folks don't want to even imagine that someone was able to get explosives in the basement yet another time. I get that. And I do get that the weight of the floors above might be sufficient to crush those below in succession. I do get that.
But the planners wouldn't KNOW that, for sure. They wouldn't KNOW what the outcome of the planes hitting the top would be... unless they had conducted the same kind of demolition elsewhere. To my knowledge, no such... ummmm... test run was performed anywhere else in the world. So, how could they be SURE? By making sure the collapse was the result of sufficient impact at the top AND at the bottom. THAT... would ensure that sucker coming down... without a doubt.
Just my $0.02. Not saying anyone's right... or wrong. Just weighing in, is all... and offering some food for thought.
Again, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA, who believes that IF there was a conspiracy it was a LOT smaller... and involved a LOT fewer people... than some believe...
-
Leolaia
Hi AGuest....Yeah I see what you are referring to. And one would be advised not to overanalyze what two very excited people said quickly, and somewhat ungrammatically. But I showed first of all that rather than the firemen reporting that they saw or heard "detonations, like when they take down a building" (a discrete reference to actual detonations) as PS had it, the fireman actually said "it was like, it was as if, if — if they had detonated" (a much weaker statement). And the part you put in bold sounds much more like a general reference to controlled demolition: (to paraphrase) What we saw was just like what you see when they (indefinite) plan to take down a building (in general). (I kind of wonder in reflection if "planned" is actually "planning", as it would overlap with the other person saying "yeah", in which case it would make more sense: "as if they were planning to take down a building"). My point is that it is clear that they are comparing what they described (the collapse of the building itself) to controlled demolitions. It is not clear if in making that comparison they thought in fact that it was a controlled demolition. PS was claiming that the latter is necessarily what they were saying, but that's unwarranted. And what they were describing was the "floor by floor" progression down, as the video shows quite well. Now is it possible that the firemen thought there had been explosives? On a day like that, one could easily have thought that the terrorists put bombs in the buildings as well. Why not? But that goes to the point I was making -- that such statements made by people interpret what they had witnessed. It tells more about how they were interpreting what they saw than what they actually saw. The best record of the latter is to be found in the photographic and video documentation of the collapses.
-
journey-on
LOL! Man, Shelby, I was thinking the same thing after reading PS's posts and Leolaia reply, but I didn't have the courage to say it to Leolaia. She does have a reputation, you know. She's always so darn thorough that it takes guts to say....uh, Leolaia, you might have something wrong. LOL!
