1999 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 06 May 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Well Sky, that is debatable as to how difficult it might have been to rig the buildings.  In the first place, the occupancy rate for the towers was a bit low by many accounts.  Further, quite a few people have noted that there was almost always some sort of maintenance program going on.  And if the bad guys were the gate keepers as to who and what came and went, it would be easy.

Yes, they did have many months.

You seem to thing that someone can place a set of explosives inside a steel-structured building in a few hours and it will collapse. That is not how it is done in the real world. I was watched the Discovery Channel on demolitions and one of the demolitions that was presented was the two bridge towers in Corpus Christi, TX, which is where I was living for the past few years. It took months of prepare the two towers for demolition and the program made it very clear as to why pre-weakening of a steel structure was required. The demolition experts would have faced a $100,000.00 a day fine if the towers fell into the channel and that fine would have been in effect each day the channel was blocked.

The demolition experts experimented with steel beam test subjects and it was made very clear why pre-weakening was required and one reason is, a steel structure will not collapse as planned manner if the structure is not pre-weakened.  Just to plan, pre-weaken, and place the explosives on the two steel bridge towers took many weeks of preparation.

Recently, I posted a video where 1000 pounds of thermite was unable to cut a vehicle in two. In the Discovery Channel segment, a test was conducted using demolition explosives and a vehicle, but in this case, the vehicle was pre-weakened and as a result, a few pounds of demolition explosives cut the vehicle in sections cleanly in two sections.



And, it is clear why thermite was not used to bring down the bridge towers and in fact, the workers had to use tortures to pre-weaken the steel beams. In regards to the 9/11 attacks;

* No evidence of explosions in the videos

* No sound of bomb explosions heard.

* No bomb explosions detected on sensors

* No evidence of explosives found in the rubbles of the WTC buildings

= no explosives used.

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 May 2012 - 04:31 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 06 May 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Yes, they did have many months.

Bomb explosives planted in the area where the aircraft impacted would have been detonated and yet, there are no secondaries. Furthermore, the collapse of the WTC towers began only at the impact points and if you are going to demolish multiple buildings, you conduct the demolitions at the same time. Additionally, demolition companies do not use thermite and anyone knowledgeable on the demolition process would not have used thermite to bring down the WTC.

How likely would it have been to plant explosives in the exact locations of the impacts?

[acidhead]

skyeagle409, on 06 May 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

Bomb explosives planted in the area where the aircraft impacted would have been detonated and yet, there are no secondaries. Furthermore, the collapse of the WTC towers began only at the impact points and if you are going to demolish multiple buildings, you conduct the demolitions at the same time. Additionally, demolition companies do not use thermite and anyone knowledgeable on the demolition process would not have used thermite to bring down the WTC.

How likely would it have been to plant explosives in the exact locations of the impacts?

I suppose that's assuming the alleged hi-jackers were actually controlling the jets.

[booNyzarC]

acidhead, on 06 May 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

I suppose that's assuming the alleged hi-jackers were actually controlling the jets.

Let me guess, you entertain the idea that they may have been remotely piloted?

[skyeagle409]

acidhead, on 06 May 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

I suppose that's assuming the alleged hi-jackers were actually controlling the jets.

They were definitely hijacked and governments around the world had warned the United States in the months leading up to the 9/11 attacks that terrorist were in the final stages of carrying out attacks using aircraft, which were similar to this incident where terrorist had planned to fly an Air France airliner into the Eiffel Tower.

Quote

BLUEPRINT FOR 9/11: THE HIJACKING OF AIR FRANCE FLIGHT 8969

It was a hijacking with a difference.
The hijackers had a far more sinister plan for Air France Flight 8969 - one that was to provide a blueprint for the al Qaeda attacks of 11 September, 2001.



Hijackers' goal

http://surviving-his...ing-of-air.html

[Dis Pater]

Babe Ruth, on 06 May 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Well Sky, that is debatable as to how difficult it might have been to rig the buildings.  In the first place, the occupancy rate for the towers was a bit low by many accounts.  Further, quite a few people have noted that there was almost always some sort of maintenance program going on.  And if the bad guys were the gate keepers as to who and what came and went, it would be easy.

Yes, they did have many months.

Most major structures have some maintenance work going on at all times so it is not uncommon to have work constantly happening.The question is did this give someone the time and shield to plant explosives?-possibly.Is it likely to have happened?-i dont think so but you can never be too sure unfortunately.

Edited by Dis Pater, 07 May 2012 - 03:47 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Pater

I read an account of somebody who worked there to having seen many large black rectangular objects, almost like batteries.

And the Brit who tells the story of the electrical system being shutdown on the preceding weekend.?

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 07 May 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

I read an account of somebody who worked there to having seen many large black rectangular objects, almost like batteries.

They were probably batteries.

There was a data centre for Fuji Bank at WTC 2. There was a large UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) system for their computers located on the 81st floor. UPS systems utilaze large batteries that are typically large, often black, rectangular battery-like objects similar to these:











These batteries are essentially the same as the lead / acid batteries in your car, and there could be upwards of a thousand batteries in a given system, depending on the unique raquirements for the individual installation.








Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 07 May 2012 - 10:16 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 07 May 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Pater

I read an account of somebody who worked there to having seen many large black rectangular objects, almost like batteries.

And the Brit who tells the story of the electrical system being shutdown on the preceding weekend.?

I don't thiink that you understand the demolition process. It takes many weeks, sometimes months just to prepare an average building for demolition, and it took months of planning and preparation just the demolish two steel towers in Corpus Christi and there was no way possible to prepare the WTC buildings for demolition over a weekend. When I was in Corpus Christi, there were occasions where our buiilding was shut down for maintenance, which allowed us some time off.

You can't just plant explosives in a steel-framed building and expect it to collapse straight down. Here are some examples of bombed out buildings in Iraq.








To bring down the WTC Towers would have taken many months of planning and preparation.

[W Tell]

booNyzarC, on 04 May 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

There you go again claiming that my disagreeing with you means that I am misunderstanding something.  

Tell you what.  If you can get Bazant to specifically state what you claim he means, we can have a discussion about it.  Until then all you're doing is misinterpreting a portion of his explanation of a limitation of an equation in his paper and attempting to twist that into some kind of support for your beliefs.

It's been obviouse what Q4 has been talking about for a while. Maybe this video will make it a clear.

booNyzarC, on 04 May 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

Maybe you missed this part the first time around?  Here, I'll add a little emphasis so that it is a little bit harder to miss...

The ensuing discussion on this front has been nothing more than you attempting to avoid acknowledgement that you were wrong and trying to divert attention away from that fact. It's not going to work, and I'm not going to take on the responsibility of defining the path of the antenna section just because you've decided to foist that imaginary responsibility onto me.



Cheers.

Edit typo.

He has shown his work. I would be interested in seeing yours. I once asked you to do a simple experament. Instead of trying it, you scoffed at it. Same as you're doing here.

Edited by W Tell, 08 May 2012 - 03:50 AM.

[W Tell]

skyeagle409, on 07 May 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

I don't thiink that you understand the demolition process. It takes many weeks, sometimes months just to prepare an average building for demolition, and it took months of planning and preparation just the demolish two steel towers in Corpus Christi and there was no way possible to prepare the WTC buildings for demolition over a weekend. When I was in Corpus Christi, there were occasions where our buiilding was shut down for maintenance, which allowed us some time off.

You can't just plant explosives in a steel-framed building and expect it to collapse straight down. Here are some examples of bombed out buildings in Iraq.








To bring down the WTC Towers would have taken many months of planning and preparation.

Near as I can tell, you are the only one arguing that intentional demolishions can't happen quickly. It looks like everyone is agreeing with you. That they do take time.  I'm in your corner when you say it takes time to set up a demolition like that.

Edited by W Tell, 08 May 2012 - 04:08 AM.

[booNyzarC]

W Tell, on 08 May 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

It's been obviouse what Q4 has been talking about for a while. Maybe this video will make it a clear.
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NiHeCjZlkr8"]junk science[/urn]

This video doesn't clarify anything except for the fact that the truth movement has nothing truly scientific to offer the world.  I feel genuine concern for the students of David Chandler.

W Tell, on 08 May 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

He has shown his work. I would be interested in seeing yours. I once asked you to do a simple experament. Instead of trying it, you scoffed at it. Same as you're doing here.

His work?  Were you paying attention when he claimed that the antenna was still supposedly attached to the roof when it poked out of the debris cloud in the first crappy video he showed us?  Probably not huh?  Maybe you should go back and review the line of discussion.

My work was showing that he was incorrect in that statement.  Did you miss that part too?  Probably huh?

It wasn't the whole antenna, just a broken piece of it, and it wasn't attached to anything.

So tell me slick, what exactly do you think I need to do in addition to that, and why?

[Dis Pater]

Babe Ruth, on 07 May 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Pater

I read an account of somebody who worked there to having seen many large black rectangular objects, almost like batteries.

And the Brit who tells the story of the electrical system being shutdown on the preceding weekend.?

There is always going to be a possibility that someone did plant explosives but things like the electricity being off over a weekend could have occurred 20 times in a year before the attacks but nobody took any notice.After the attacks it gets noticed and becomes suspicious.I guess we'll never know definitively now as all the evidence has long gone,unfortunately.

[Chrlzs]

Babe Ruth, on 07 May 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

I read an account of somebody who worked there to having seen many large black rectangular objects, almost like batteries.

And that account would be, where?

Back in my days doing IT, I installed and looked after many, many UPSes in offices.  That would be an Uninterruptable Power Supply.  It's a moderately large black box, generally parked away under the desk ('hidden', a conspiracist might even suggest..) and it ensures important computer systems don't lose power and therefore lose data.  They are very commonly used on computers in large buildings to prevent data loss in the case of an outage due to a black-/brown-out or a simple circuit breaker trip.

Maybe it wasn't those - but who would know from such a brief, unspecific and unsupported comment.

Oh, right, it was Babe... Adding to the huge pile of convincing anecdotes!!    (emphasis on 'pile'...)

Back to lurking.

[Babe Ruth]

Batteries or no batteries, one thing is certain--the government is a source of truth and never deceives.