On the contrary it would be very easy to do, as i've explained many times already, and I'm sure so have many others, so why are you ignoring them?

It could easily have been done over the previous two months, after office hours, on weekends, and with the right security passes & authority some guys in overalls could've gone around just about anywhere with impunity under the excuse of "doing maintenance", "fixing stuff", or "installing some more cables for the internet", etc.. They would no tbe wearing big signs on their backs saying "Secret Demolition Crew" and neither anyone else in th e building know what these guys were really doing.

They could pack more explosive in the maintenance levels too; every 10th floor was a big empty space with no offices and just for maintenance. Hardly ever going to meet anyone there because there are no offices in those maintenance levels. There would be no need for cables out in the open either, let alone that crazy claim about using old style detcord everywhere. The USA is one of the world's largest producers of remote detonators.




Get real yourself, Your excuse was weak and insulting.

If you're so sure it can be done, obtain a statement to that effect from a demolition contractor. Put up or shut up.

Are you going to shut up then? I'll wait and see if you can.

Demolition Expert - "This is controlled demolition"

I already posted this before;

Danny Jowenko - Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.

From a Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly .

link here and here here

.....


I'll wait and see if Mr "Put up or shut up" flyingswan can give a reasonable, and LOGICAL excuse for his silly request, or will he instead shut-up like he tried to tell me to do.

Since this has turned into a 9/11 thread, may i just ask (or will I just be shouted at again), how do the planes fit into this plan, then? Even if it might only take a few dozen workmen to plant explosives, what's the theory regarding the planes? Are we talking about the full scale switching-planes-and-flying-them-by-remote-control, and clandestinely disposing of the passengers of the actual ones, or might it not be possible that they were actually flown into the buildings, albeit not necessarily, perhaps, by those who the official version says did it?

That's the same Danny Jowenko that says there were no explosives in WTC 1 and 2? That it was impossible to take them down in the way that the "truthers" want? He says the buildings would each take a year to rig, and that's without limiting it to your 6 men doing all three buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

You've just shot yourself in the foot on this one.

Lets keep this civil please, a quick reminder of the rules for this section:

Even if just one building was rigged, as Jowenko maintians his belief twc7 was, then doesn't that still point to an inside job?

That video is out of date, and was taken long before the phone interview that I posted. If you're willing to accept Danny Jowenko's opinion, then you are also admitting that it's quite reasonable for WTC 7 to have been set-up for controlled demolition as part of an Inside Job, while the building had people working there in offices, etc... Don't forget that there are many witnesses to WTC 7 being pulled in a controlled demolition, and all the other evidence fits that My post about this on WTC 7

Also why would explosives in WTC 7 somehow rule out WTC 1 & 2? Since WTC 7 also was occupied, there's no difference, and my explanation on how the demolition charges could be installed equally applies.

I also doubt that you'd need anywhere near as many as "few dozen" workmen. That sounds like overkill to me, and I'll throw that in the same category of silliness as the "conspiracy of thousands" excuse that neocons keep coming up with. Probably 4 guys would be enough, since the mass of demolition charges required would be about as much as would fit in a single truck and they have two months to install them. That's plenty of time.

89% believe 9/11 was a cover-up.

See this CNN Poll:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041111195501242

89% DO NOT BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT'S "OFFICIAL" STORY!

I don't believe it either.

YES!

I can cite at least a dozen polls that support the same conclusion; the MAJORITY of people internationally who have heard about the 9/11 attacks don't believe the Bush Administration's wacky lying version of events.

Oh-kay, which part of "now they (Western governments) are spending huge efforts making their people scared of the ay-rabs" did I misunderstand?

Allow me to break it down for ya.

now they (western governments)". I take this to mean western governments (US included).

"are spending huge efforts" As in making every possible attempt.

"making their people scared of the ay-rabs". I take this to mean... making (against their will and/or feeding them hyped up or false information) people scared of the ay-rabs or more simply put... making people scared of the ay-rabs.

Sounds like thats exactly what you are saying.

Allow me to repeat the misleading comment that you made before;


So, you are saying people in the USA are not afraid of arabs, which is all very well, but not what I was referring to,

This is what I said;


As is obvious, I was referring to Western governments (not just the USA's government) attempting to scapegoat Arabs and make people scared of them. (examples; staged terror attacks, constant hyping of Muslims as a threat, derogatory statements about Islam, massive and frequent repetition of images of Arabs as "terrorists" even when using pretenders such as Adam Pearlman and the faked Osama bin Laden videos and faked audio tapes, and Hollywood branding of Arabs as being bad guys (Planet of the Arabs video shows typical examples), the colour-coded alerts used in the USA, fake terror plots for which there is no actual evidence such as the "Ricin Plot" and the "Ten Passenger jets" plot).

I said nothing about whether this actually worked or not.

Your attempt to mislead by taking my words and attempting to imply that I was saying anything other than what I said is wrong.




No, sounds like you didn't like it when I pointed out that you were being misleadiing about what I actually did say, so you've attempted to mislead again by pretending that I lied about my previous statement - which is obvious that I did not.

You tried to imply that I said that people were scared of arabs, which is NOT what I said. The reality is that I said that western governments were trying to make people scared of arabs. THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT THING ALTOGETHER.

Your attempt at an Ad Hominem failed.

Some of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories I hear about revolve around Jews. Often these involve Jews being behind something, or in reverse, involve Jews themselves claiming non-existent persecution. Both sides are guilty of that.

There are also a lot of people who claim that competing corporations are working together. Of course the opposite is true 99% of the time.

I agree. There's also a lot of this due to political ideologues such as Zionists, who try to pretend that Zionism is solely Jewish, and then try to hide behind this alleged "Jewishness" by calling anyone who criticizes Zionism as being anti-semitic. Totally ridiculous because Zionism is not solely Jewish; there are Christian Zionists, even Islamic Zionists. It's a political ideology.

Of course, Jews of various groups can be just as guilty of conspiratorial associations to favour their group, as any other religious or ethnic group that achieves powerful influence in a particular sector of society, business, or in a region.

In many western nations, there's criticism of Masonic orders for the same reason. It also often is true in some places. But so are conspiracies among other organisations such as local community chambers of commerce members, some community clubs and associations. Members of a single religion might have inordinate influence in running in a town, city, region, or country.

What is really silly are those who seem to think that this or that group is to blame for EVERYTHING, or dominates so much as to be able to run everything, etc... which ignores the reality of competing organisations, religions, groups of all kinds. Some one goes on about the "Illumanati" as if there was only one monolithic "Illumanati" instead of factions and competing societies that still have to deal with everything else that is going on, and all the plans and plots of others that they'd have not even an inkling of.




Yet, quite often allegedly competing corporations DO WORK TOGETHER, such as secret cartels to rig oil prices, pharmaceutical corporations that try to rig the prices for medicines to keep them high, even food industry companies do this.

Your true "99% of the time" maybe right, but that 1% is still is a very big number that would include billions of dollars, possibly trillions of dollars tied up in cartels and price rigging.

... such as the US government, say?

I don't believe the Post Office was involved. Hmmm. are you trying to imply that all members of the government of the USA would be "in on it"? That's as ridiculous as claiming that all members of the government of the USA were in on the conspiracy to spread lies about WMDs in Iraq, promote those forged Niger Documents as "evidence", and even trying to push one of those really silly "Conspiracy of Thousands" claims as if the tea lady was involved.

That some powerful faction with connections and influence in the government of the USA was likely involved, would certainly be plausible...even necessary for the "official" nonsense to work, because if "Arabs Did It" then they'd still need INSIDE HELP, and that would still mean it was an INSIDE JOB.

...so why not cut-out the middleman, get the job done, and blame Arabs anyway. No need for real Arabs to be involved at all. There's ZERO real evidence for Arab hijackers anyway. Anyone looking at those alleged security videos can see that they have NO TIME OR DATE STAMP, which makes them invalid as evidence since they could've been taken anytime even months and years before, and the images don't match-up with the faces of the alleged perpetrators on the FBI photos; maybe they had head transplants? Then there's the fact that 9 of the ALLEGED hijackers are still alive; which of course totally ruins any claim that it was arabs since the passports could be just stolen identities, then suddenly there's no evidence for Arab hijackers being on any of those planes on 9/11. The Bush Administration's 9/11 fairytale falls apart completely by then as far as scapegoating Arabs is concerned, because they have no real evidence of there ever being any involved.

The ‘hijackers’ were provably using false identities, therefore we do not truly know who perpetrated the attacks. In September 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." Also in a speech the same FBI Director stated, “The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper”. Then the FBI themselves have stated “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”



I've yet to see any real evidence that there were Arab hijackers on those planes

my only question with this is, is there, equally, any real evidence that agents of the Bush government did it? That's merely what I'm wondeiring, that's all.
couldn't there be a third possibility: that it wasn't a terrorist group called Al Qaeda working entirely on its own, but that it wasn't a plot competely engineered and carried out by the Bush government either? It's merely a suggestion that i'm putting forward.

Quite possibly, but it has been the Bush Administration that is lying most about the 9/11 attacks, obstructing proper investigation of 9/11, and has benefited most politically in carrying out an agenda that was clearly planned out long before - and just happened to fit with the requirements of PNAC.

As they say, to find the perpetrators, look for WHO BENEFITS. It wasnt't the Arabs. It wasn't Islam. The scapegoating of Islam is too obvious, and too clearly based on fakery (faked videos, faked audio tapes, even fake "Al Queda") - - - it stinks of "Operation Gladio" style, and the echoes with Northwood are too blatant to be ignored (remote controlled planes, staged terror attacks and bombings, no care about lives of common (not rich) USA citizens).

Whoever did it, has to have INSIDE CONNECTIONS, with INSIDE INFLUENCE, and that still shouts out INSIDE JOB.

I think you just follow the money on this one...

Good leads there, not my own specialty but others have done such great work in following the money.

I've seen the list of companies that sold short american airlines and united on 9/10...big names

Has it, however, worked? If it was engineered to give them (i.e. the Bush administration) an excuse to take control of the middle east, and authoritarian powers at home, they don't seem to have succeeded very much so far, do they? Unless the plan all along was to destablise the whole region and get tangled up in an endless series of wars, in case it's working admirably.

bingo...the war machine fuels the elites pocketbooks....just keep fighting...perpetual war for perpetual profit..did you see recently; the ceo of carlisle paid 21 million for the magna carta...these guys light their cigars with 50 dollar bills.

Has he disowned his WTC1 and 2 opinions then? In my view Danny Jowenko was set up in the original WTC7 interview - ie shown just the last few seconds of the collapse without any mention of the earlier fire or penthouse collapse which considerably reduce the resemblance to a CD - and was subsequently too proud to admit it. His opinions on the feasibility of a CD in WTC1 or 2 - time to set up, problem of fire - apply equally to WTC7, so he is contradicting himself. His opinion of WTC7 is certainly not shared by other CD professionals:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%...209-8-06%20.pdf

I disagree. The fires were small, and only on two floors. The penthouse collapse fits perfectly with a controlled implosive demolition; It did not happen ages before as you imply but was part and parcel of the obviousness of the controlled demolition. Watch any controlled demolition in which the building is intended to implode, and the centre of the roof always drops first as the central supports are taken out.

The phone interview shows that Danny Jowenko has had plenty of time to consider and study further about WTC 7's collapse, and he has stuck with his conclusion that it was a controlled demolition.


Which it obviously is.

Since that would require for WTC 7 to have been set-up for the controlled demolition well before, then that shouts INSIDE JOB



That's a totally unsupported claim. Why don't you pretend to be a mind reader next




I'm not going to bother doing another download of Blanchard's rubbish. I've seen it too often, and it still doesn't work.

1) Blanchard's claims were debunked long ago

2) Blanchard's claims are out of date, and ignore the wtnesses and information which has come out since then (that I have posted already about, yet you have ignored). previous posted link and also here

3) It's spectacularly easy to debunk Blanchard's nonsense as he ignores so many things, and tells some outright lies.

Blanchard tries to claim that those aren't demolition squibs shooting from the towers 10, 20, 30 floors below the demolition wave, those are pockets of air -- yeah, right, pockets of air that are symmetrical, emerging from the center of the floor, and sometimes 30 floors away from the collapse... come on.

Here's a photo that proves him to be a sad little LIAR

Red = debris, fragments flying upward against the force of gravity at high velocity

Green = line of explosive demolition charges visibly blowing out before the collapsing debris from above has had time to reach those floors.

The same shows up on slow motion videos of the Twin Towers, with the explosions clearly taking out the floors BEFORE the falling debris from the already destroyed floors above could reach those floors http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/ne...hp?storyid=1795



Blanchard tries to claim that those weren't explosions witnesses heard; those were just loud noises - 911 Eyewitness captures the pre-collapse explosions, and the way they get closer together just prior to the collapse - and some eyewitnesses were tossed around by these explosions - Blanchard was being totally ridiculous again - I can cite literally HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES, including firemen and police who certainly have the experience to the know the difference...and the first big explosions started BELOW the plane impact point according to the witnesses who were there.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=32...q=911&hl=en

FEMA, stated in 2002 that some of the specimens of steel were “rapidly corroded by sulfidation” (FEMA 2002, Appendix C). This report is significant, because sulfidation is an effect of explosives. FEMA appropriately called for further investigation of this finding, which the New York Times called “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation” (Killough-Miller, 2002). A closely related problem, expressed shortly after 9/11 by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, is that “fire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated” (Glanz, 2001). But the NIST report, in its section headed “Learning from the Recovered Steel,” fails even to mention either evaporation or sulfidation.


Blanchard claims that there is no evidence of thermite being used - you mean, when Dr. Jones found the chemical signature of thermite, that doesn't count as evidence?
I already dealt with this lie of Blanchard's ; Professor Steven Jones and his X-ray spectrometry evidence from samples taken at the WTC site. Which show a PERFECT MATCH for the highly specialized compound "thermate" (used for cutting through steel) found in the WTC debris. (And no, thermate was NOT used during the clean up operation...this stuff was in the building, and ignited, prior to collapse.) If you're new to this information, you might want to check out "Molten Metal" and "Fire Initiated Collapse - Primary Arguments Against"
http://stopthelie.com/the_evidence_is_in.html

Steven Jones Lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDiL_q1m67k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45p19_-CS5I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0XSPPuxglI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGudMVKswVM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggc0jT19Pj4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ9jjZ8Fep4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsp3DPTmiN0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNGOqSVLgJw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfh5S_FhR4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkoTE3S5xKI


Blanchard's claim that "pull it" isn't used to refer to controlled demolitions is proven to be a lie rather easily, and I already dealt with this and shown that claim to be utterly B U L L S H I T. previous posted link


The most suspect criticism by Blanchard is the claim that nobody who removed steel saw any molten metal...of course he ignores all the witnesses and the photos proving him wrong.


There's also this comment on the Implosion World site which makes Blanchard's lies look even sillier;
"When the excitement of the blast is over, a large, billowing cloud of dust is one of the most identifiable characteristics of a successful project."
http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk5.html

This is what dutch demolition expert Jowenko said when he was asked to study the WTC 7 collapse;
"This is controlled demolition"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqrn5x2_f6Q


Blanchard tried claiming that seismographs didn't detect any ground vibrations BEFORE the collapses began, but his lie is blown here too because the tremors from explosives BEFORE the collapses began are visible on video.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html


Another of Blanchard's LIES when he claims “2b) Ample opportunity for hundreds of people to view the steel at the Fresh Kills site, yet nothing that suspicious noticed.”

NOT TRUE! - Blanchard gets caught out again!!!

From Men of Steel by Karl Koch III (whose family constructed the WTC towers) we read (pp374 - pp375)


So people who work with steel and concrete all their lives had trouble believing that the decking would be missing (i.e., completely disintegrated), but the Blanchard Report claims that nothing "that suspicious" was noticed. So, Blanchard LIED.

Blanchard goes through 9 dubiously concocted strawman assertions in favour of demolition, and attempts to refute them. He doesn't address any of the hard issues, such as the complete pulverization of the concrete, or the near freefall collapse times.

The most stupid claims written by Blanchard;

Quote "We do not know why exactly how or why WT7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here."

That didn't stop Mr Blanchard from "hypothesizing" about the miles of wires and explosives required to rig WT1 and WT2 while ignoring that there were weeks to prepare and the suspicious powerdowns (that many have mentioned already), and that would be no need for wires in this modern age of remote controlled bombs and detonators.

They had at least TWO MONTHS, including WEEKENDS and AFTER OFFICE HOURS.

There were POWER-DOWNS, times when ALL THE SECURITY SYSTEMS were SHUT DOWN. This happened in both of the Twin Towers.

The bomb sniffer dogs were taken away as well.

Witnesses to this also reported the unusual number of mysterious workmen, use of heavy machinery on empty floors, under the excuse of putting in more cabling.

There was PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY.

There have been witnesses. This has been reported by me before, there's an interview with one witness (Scott Forbes) in the documentary "9-11 Mysteries" who reports exactly those sorts of things. Some building employees note that there were powerdowns and construction crews “upgrading cable” during the previous weekend.

Despite heightened security in the weeks before 9/11 (because of all of the warnings they were receiving), shifts were stepped down and bomb-sniffer dogs were removed from the WTC on September 6th. Engineers were brought in and drilled and wired for hours and hours the weeks before 9-11.

On September 8 and 9, the towers experienced power shutdowns and evacuations, when “maintenance workers” were working throughout the buildings while all the cameras were off. The Thursday before 9/11, all the bomb-sniffing dogs were pulled out of the WTC buildings, two days before the power outages and evacuations. The buildings were rewired for internet access with security cams off. All security records and such were kept in WTC7.

Here's a witness to these suspicious workmen and the powerdowns

The facts support Danny Jowenko's opinion about WTC 7 being a controlled demolition far more than Blanchard's lies, misrepresentations, and avoidance of any evidence which contradicts him.

The bomb-sniffing dogs were not removed from the towers. They were reduced back to normal levels after having been at higher levels for two weeks due to numerous phone threats. One of the dogs died in the collapse.

how do you know?..do you have a link?..

Have you even bothered to look yourself? Of course I do.

Heightened security alert had just been lifted.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/na...0,1255660.story


Police bomb-sniffing dog that died in the collapse
http://www.novareinna.com/bridge/sirius.html

A little hard for a bomd-sniffing dog to die in the collapse if he'd been removed.

I didn't say they were removed "permanently", they were removed temporarily one day.

PAY ATTENTION.

Small details are VERY IMPORTANT.

A bit hard for a bomb sniffing dog to stay there the entire time too when they'd been removed for one day. - the witnesses did not say that they were removed "permanently".

How about answering my question: "Has Jowenko disowned his WTC1 and 2 opinions?"

As for the rest of your post, it's all been done to death on other threads. If "Blanchard lied", then consider your claim about the dogs. You only added "the witnesses did not say that they were removed permanently" after you'd been called on your original claim.

Reference? Everything I see says the dogs were not removed at all but just reduced back to normal levels meaning they had been at higher levels prior to 911 when many postulate the bombs were brought in. The extra security was removed. Even if they were removed for one day are you seriously suggesting that the towers were rigged in one day?

Wasn't a cousin or family member of the Bush family in charge of security or the port authorities for the WTC's?

That depends on what you mean by in charge. Marvin Bush was on the board of Securacom until June 2000. Securacom was contracted to provide some security for the towers but not all as the Port Authority provided some security too. Also, some report indicate that Securacom's contract ended in 1998.
Lots of info here
http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html
Look through it and draw your own conclusions. I frankly don't care much.

The article you quoted does seem to imply all bomb sniffing dogs were removed: -


I would accept the additional security was removed, leaving the normal levels, though that isn't exactly what the article says when taken literally. In any case I think it still coincidental the attacks should occur so shortly after security levels had dropped. It is a small detail amongst many things that would lean one to believe a controlled demolition likely.



Marvin Bush, younger brother of GW Bush, was on the board of directors from 1993 to June 2000 for Securacom/Stratesec, the company who ran electronic security for the World Trade Center for a period. Interestingly, the company also listed Dulles International Airport (from where Flight 77 departed) and United Airlines (to whom two of the 9/11 airliners belonged) amongst its clients.

Just yet another coincidence though I'm sure they will say.

Curious, do you work in the controlled demolition industry?

I just visited Controlled Demolition, Inc's website, and clicked on a link to one of the buildings they've recently demolished.

Here's the link

Some interesting findings from the article (keep in mind the building they demolished was 21 stories tall, and the towers each were 100+):



They placed explosives on 6 floors, in a 21 floor building. All things being equal, this would equate to roughly 28 floors being rigged up in each tower.

In order to place explosives in 6 floors of this building:



2,500 holes were drilled for a 21 story building. That's 417 holes per floor with explosives on it for a building with ~46,000 square feet per floor. Since the footprint of the towers was much larger than this building, ~77,000 square feet per floor, we'd have to approximate roughly 660 holes were drilled per 28 floors with explosives on them. That's 18,480 holes per tower. It took months for this crew to drill 2,500 holes. How long would it take to drill 18,480 holes, in secrecy? Still think it would only take 4 guys a couple months?

And that's just drilling the holes.

Then:



A 10 person crew to set the explosives and run the wire for a 21 story building, which took a week in a building that was cleared. Since the towers had to be wired up secretly, one would have to assume the crew had to be exponentially larger. I'd say 50 workers would be a very conservative estimate, just to do the work. There would invariably need to be other workers to act as lookouts so that anyone from the public wouldn't come sniffing around. I'd safely say 100 workers per building would be needed to pull it off, conveniently ignoring how the explosives would actually get to the floors to be wired up (remember, there was heightened security, involving bomb-sniffing dogs, going on at the same time, which is a curious thing for the clandestine operation to do).

Also, note how much det chord was used - 18,000 feet. That's 3.4 miles of det chord. For a 21 floor building. That equates to 17.8 miles of det chord for each tower, yet not one inch of det chord was found at the site. A mystery.

I am sure Lovelynice or anyone with a bit of thought could take that apart point by point, TK0001. For now, just to say that no one is claiming a conventional demolition of the WTC buildings took place. As the saying goes - there are more ways than one to skin a cat: -

Linear Thermite Cutting Charge

Look - no drilling or detcord required!

What do you mean, "no det chord"? What's the chord coming out the back of the charge? Also, any evidence that this is thermite? Also, assuming this actually is thermite, how much more would be needed to cut through beams that are significantly larger than the small piece of steel shown in this clip?

Has a building ever been demolished using thermite?

If anyone's going to use thermite, it's Bush/the New World Order. They're evil enough (etc.)

Perhaps that could be detcord, perhaps it is not, what I do know is I would use self-sufficent units for the WTC demolitions.



I cannot directly verify myself this is thermite as the company from which it is taken has restricted access to their website. The quote I have for the video, and have no reason to disbelieve, states: -

"Spectre has begun to design a new class of devices that are an updated version of the earliest use of thermite technology dating back more than 100 years.

These first examples of thermite technology were so-called "gravity flow" devices that generated extremely high temperature metal flows that were used for welding or penetrating metal objects. This approach is not nearly as efficient as our focused jet torches for penetrating or cutting but provides a simple and easy-to-use solution for situations where something other than a highly focused cut is required. Our unique approach has the added advantage of being user-scalable. While our advanced thermite torch designs are carefully engineered for relatively specific requirements, this approach allows users to simply add additional units to a pile of units that will ultimately create a larger mass of super-heated metal."

Yes, three times - you need the examples? Here is a link to a side by side demonstration of the visible molten metal flow from WTC2 compared to thermite. Below is a comparison of the WTC molten metal next to molten aluminium which the official story claims it is: -



The above picture is from an article attempting to debunk Jones' work on thermite. The 'unreferenced' and particularly 'if real' comments really made me laugh. The debunkers are so afraid of this, they are hoping it is not real.

No more needs to be said on my part. The official line needs to come up with an example that actually matches the molten metal coming from the South Tower. As currently thermite is the only match within the conditions we are looking for, then thermite it must be.

There all made up by ppl with too much time on their hands lol

Evidence these "self-sufficient" units exist? Has det-chordless thermate/ite ever been used to bring a building down?



Yeah, I noticed that.



Of course you don't, because it backs up your case. I'd like to verify that it is actually thermite/ate, and what the material is that it is burning through, among other things. I need more than a 9 second clip in which someone is telling me what I'm seeing.



Yes, please.



That link gives me a 403 error when I click it.



I think you're pointing out the difference in color of the two molten liquids. How do we know what the liquid on the left is? Please tell me exactly what metal it is. Is it pure aluminum, or an alloy? If it's an alloy, what makes up the alloy? Do we know it the liquid on the left, if indeed is aluminum, is the same aluminum alloy, if it's an alloy, that is used in airplanes? Has the molten metal on the left been tempered? Was the metal that was melted down painted?



Don't be silly. What's Jones' initial reason for believing thermate was used on 9/11? I'll answer that for you: the presence of sulfur at the scene. As you probably know, barium nitrate is a far more prevalent ingredient in thermate than sulfur (29% as opposed to 2%). Tell me, was barium nitrate also found at the scene?

no his reason was the reports by cdi of molten steel in the basements of wtc1,2 and 7-- IRON MICRO SPHERES found at the scene-- cooberated by the nine seconds of video showing a vibrant orange hue in the molten flow cascading in a free fall retaining its hue-- also cooberated by the videos of the collapses which show concrete and steel structures collapsing at free fall speed in the manner of a controled demolition and indeed the only logical explanation for the evidence presented

DEBUNKER has a point.

Think about this all you 911 conspiracy believers.

I know, i've tried to argue that. But the conspiratorialists just reply that either (a) all the public incompetence is all a front, and Bush is actually one of history's greatest evil geniuses; or ( b ) that Bush is just a puppet of the Secret World Government, who are the real power. And since the Secret World Government is so secret that no one's ever been able to come up with any proof of their existence (YouTube apart), no one can prove that they haven't been behind it all.

ridiculous denial jibberish!! your logic revolves around ignoring the laws of physics based on symantics-- whether you fear the truth or have a motive to shill against it you cannot deny our govt was involved in the operation and that explosives brought down the trade center and it is being covered up-- theres no secret world govt there is a covert world govt that is hidden in plain sight and the obvious corporate link to wars and fiat currency is self explanitory-- you can go ahead and ignore the turd in the punch bowl but when you hand out cups dont be surprised when someone smacks the cup out of your hand and punches you in the face-- 9/11 was an inside job!!! face up and stop making yourself look like such a fool

It would be easy to cover-up the truth of a lie as big as 9/11 thru compartmentalization...only a few people know the whole story..the rest are just duped..

another one for the t-shirt slogan collection, along with "you're all a bunch of doodie heads".

Really? Tell me how.

Tell me how the 100 or so workers who planted explosives in the towers and WTC7 did so without knowing the buildings were due to be destroyed. Tell me how the world wide media was in on the secret, yet they didn't really know what was going on at the same time. Tell me how all the cops and firefighters knew there were bombs in the buildings, yet still had no idea they were going to go off.

Tell me how this is "easy", as you say.