Need help with evidence of Official Claim

[uk_dave]

Dan, can you point me to any footage or descriptions of a controlled demolition of a structure which did not have:

1. Visual evidence of the flash from explosive charges being detonated
2. The audible sound of same

Much appreciated.

 

[Alt+F4]

a handfull (10-20) of people could have rigged those buildings to come down with the correct types of remotely ignited charges in strategic places in less than a work day

How?

Can you provide evidence that a building as large as WTC 1 & 2 could be demolished in the manner you describe?

 

[Arus808]

even a crack team of demolitionists need at least 40-100 people to help with wiring a building for CD (and that takes months of prepwork). Any ct'er who claism only 20 or 30 could do it in the span of 3 or 4 hours is smoking something.

 

[uk_dave]

It's interesting that, with the exception of the woowoos who believe in missiles being fired at the wtc complex or isrealis parachuting from the 4 hijacked planes, the 9/11 ct woo is crystalising to be based on:

1. CD of wtc7 based solely on the lack of detailed evidence (i.e video and pictures) regarding the extent of structural damage and fire.

2. The so called NORAD stand down, despite a complete lack of evidence that this occured.

3. The ISI connection to the hijackers, based solely on ONE Indian newspaper report.

Not alot to pin a whole movement on, is it?

 

[pgwenthold]

I find it curious how CTists focus on the collapse of WTC7 as proof that it was a CD, yet they tend to ignore that the collapses of WTC1 and 2 look NOTHING like any CD that has ever been done. Why isn't that evidence against CD? I think it is because they know there is no way in hell they could support any claim that WTC1 and 2 came down as a CD

(of course, they initially WERE claiming that WTC1 and 2 looked like CD (based on initial eyewitness statements), until people started calling them on it)

 

[WildCat]

...the argument that a controled demo would require miles of detonate cord and obvious exposed beams is weak...a handfull (10-20) of people could have rigged those buildings to come down with the correct types of remotely ignited charges in strategic places in less than a work day,

Nonsense, such a large building would take months to properly wire for CD - assuming it was empty and there was no need to be secretive about it. To suggest this could be done in a day by a few people in a crowded building occupied by thousands is pure fantasy.

the base being the most critical, where a coupla' loaded vehicles could have been parked and set off to create the damage we seen at the bottom, alot of energy there for sure...

The buildings collapsed at the exact points the airplanes impacted. Even if there were bombs in the base (and there is no evidence there were) they had no effect whatsoever on the structures.

...if someone does not believe what he is told to believe, I don't think it makes him a kook or a nut to want to talk about, research and explore an issue 'till he or she is satisfied...

No, that's not what makes you a kook or a nut. Believing in something despite having no evidence to support it makes you a kook or a nut.

...as far as 'quote mining' and picking apart/including/excluding evidence to suit your goal/end result, I'd say the 911 Commision Report is a very good example of that...

Fine. Please point out one error in the 9/11 Commission report. To date, no troofer has been able to do that, perhaps you'll be the first?

 

[dan from PA]

...nonsense,
I could carry a suitcase into a building and desroy a very large area...and again, wires would not be needed...the controlled demos you are keeping in your head, you have to use yor imagination and think outside of that scenario...conventional explosives were not used, nor conventional demo tecniques...
..as far as supporting theories with no evidence or proof goes, I have yet to see proof there was 19 (or whatever the number is now) hijackers on the aircraft...I wasn't on any of them (or at the baording gates to watch them get on) so I don't know for sure...
...it boils down to what you want to believe...fabricated evidence fom one source or the other...and you yourself have to look at what evidence is still availabe (pics mostly for me anyhow) and decide for yourself...
...to buy the 'official story'...that is quite a stretch for the 'rational' thinker in my opinion...

 

[uk_dave]

...nonsense,
I could carry a suitcase into a building and desroy a very large area...and again, wires would not be needed...the controlled demos you are keeping in your head, you have to use yor imagination and think outside of that scenario...conventional explosives were not used, nor conventional demo tecniques...
..as far as supporting theories with no evidence or proof goes, I have yet to see proof there was 19 (or whatever the number is now) hijackers on the aircraft...I wasn't on any of them (or at the baording gates to watch them get on) so I don't know for sure...
...it boils down to what you want to believe...fabricated evidence fom one source or the other...and you yourself have to look at what evidence is still availabe (pics mostly for me anyhow) and decide for yourself...
...to buy the 'official story'...that is quite a stretch for the 'rational' thinker in my opinion...

So you're saying that by creating structural damage in a localised area of the building, this would result in the collapse of wtc7 which was witnessed?

Correct?

 

[Arus808]

...nonsense,
I could carry a suitcase into a building and desroy a very large area...

yes you could. but it aint enough to bring down a 110 story building

and again, wires would not be needed...the controlled demos you are keeping in your head, you have to use yor imagination and think outside of that scenario...conventional explosives were not used, nor conventional demo tecniques...

So it was a CD that didn't look like a CD that didn't use conventional CD methods...

And no wires? So are you talking about "radio" controlled? Do you know why CD guys do not use RAdio controlled demos? its untrustworthy, prone to early failure and in the middle of downtown busy manhattan with cops, firefighters, the use of wireless networks, radios, cel phones and the like// through all this interference, how do you know that not one of these could set off the explosives prior to the planes crashing into them?

make a stupid claim, but can't follow through logically on why its stupid.

..as far as supporting theories with no evidence or proof goes, I have yet to see proof there was 19 (or whatever the number is now) hijackers on the aircraft...

The passenger manifests have been released and been available since 2001.

I wasn't on any of them (or at the baording gates to watch them get on) so I don't know for sure...

No, you just dont want to know.

 

[A W Smith]

Dan. Who could carry the equivalent of 120 tons of TNT in a suitcase? it is clear you know absolutely nothing about the explosive energy required to perform such a demolition. You have been watching too many 1960's spy movies. You are out of your league here.

 

[WildCat]

...it boils down to what you want to believe...fabricated evidence fom one source or the other...and you yourself have to look at what evidence is still availabe (pics mostly for me anyhow) and decide for yourself...
...to buy the 'official story'...that is quite a stretch for the 'rational' thinker in my opinion...

So you can point out an error in the 9/11 Comission Report or the NIST reports, yes? Just one will do... (sound of crickets chirping)

 

[kookbreaker]

with the correct types of remotely ignited charges in strategic places

Ignoring the other nonsense you prattle: Just how do you plan on setting up remotely detonated charges in the area with the world's highest amount of radio traffic? And then set them off when practically every radio/cellphone and other device is in full use?

There is a reason demolitionists use detcord. A very, very, very good reason.

 

[pgwenthold]

A suitcase of explosives could bring down a building? Man, a 757 going 600 mph didn't even bring the damn thing down directly!

 

[A W Smith]

A suitcase of explosives could bring down a building? Man, a 757 going 600 mph didn't even bring the damn thing down directly!

Must have been one of them wardrobe suitcases. You know the huge folding ones you hang from a hangar? HAHAHAHAHA .

What they fail to realize is the further away you plant an explosive from a member you are trying to cut. The force required goes up by the square. At the very least!

Listing to these troofers is like listening to the old website (defunct) retardedadvice.com. Its so WRONG but you cant help from laughing your ass off.

 

[chippy]

...nonsense,
I could carry a suitcase into a building and desroy a very large area...and again, wires would not be needed...the controlled demos you are keeping in your head, you have to use yor imagination and think outside of that scenario...conventional explosives were not used, nor conventional demo tecniques...
..as far as supporting theories with no evidence or proof goes, I have yet to see proof there was 19 (or whatever the number is now) hijackers on the aircraft...I wasn't on any of them (or at the baording gates to watch them get on) so I don't know for sure...
...it boils down to what you want to believe...fabricated evidence fom one source or the other...and you yourself have to look at what evidence is still availabe (pics mostly for me anyhow) and decide for yourself...
...to buy the 'official story'...that is quite a stretch for the 'rational' thinker in my opinion...

Would these suitcases also make the beams of the World Trade Center bend considerably moments before the building "collapsed"? Because you kind of need to explain that if you're going with the controlled demolition theory.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

A suitcase of explosives could bring down a building? Man, a 757 going 600 mph didn't even bring the damn thing down directly!

For some reason I got the impression that he was referring to a "suitcase nuke" with that comment.

 

[JimBenArm]

Gilligan's Island, sharks...

What is there not to like?

Getting there on a broke-down sub and spending three weeks just working on repairs on two disabled generators doesn't make for fond memories!

That, and a psycho engineering officer breathing down your neck the whole time also adds to the enjoyment!

Didn't see any women there when I was there either! (1980)

 

[HeyLeroy]

You have no clue based on ONE thread, what it is I've read, researched or know. Prove you wrong? Sure, in time, as I raise questions I have.
(snip).

You're not going to prove anything with questions.

And you laugh at me. Ha.

Wow, heres how you see it.
Planes hit.
Fire got hot.
Buildings fell.


Sorry, I don't see it like that.

If I'm doing an investigation, and I watch the building fall, would I see the quibs and say "oh thats nothing, maybe compressed air, don't worry"? No, wouldn't anyone say"hey, people heard explosions, and there are LARGE bursts coming out the sides of the building, maybe we should ACCOUNT for them.

But no, if I raise that question, I must be stupid.

Actually, I just don't see how it could be compressed air, a diagram would help. And I'm not saying you have to draw one, but if someone has, you could point me to a website that accurately details how it could be possible. Jeeez.

I guess you missed that big long post o' links by PerryLogan.

I know this is not exactly fair but the energy of the impact, 175 for sure, had enough energy to cut all the steel columns in the WTC.

.

2 X 10⁹ Joules.Source.

 

[ConspiRaider]

For some reason I got the impression that he was referring to a "suitcase nuke" with that comment.

Probably. Good call.

So apparently wallet nukes were planted.

And then the remote-controlled planes each had a Geiger counter in the nose that zeroed in on the wallet nuke in each building and hit there and then that exploded the wallet nuke too which was the real culprit All Along.

And as we know when a wallet nuke goes off in a tall building, that building won't collapse right away. As the Wicked Witch said: These things must be done DELICATELY.

 

[Architect]

This is a logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent". Its basic form is
P1) If A, then B.
P2) B.
C) Therefore A.

There was a classic example of this in the 80s with Alice Coleman and her theories of "defensible space", based on some American study of similar nature.

Essentially:

1. Middle class areas have gardens, private amenity space, and little public space crime/vandalism/dereliction.

2. Working class areas, especially schemes (scotland), estates (england), and projects (US) have no private gardens and the like but do have high crime.

3. Hence private gardens cut crime.

Really! Our sociology lecturer (yes, even in architecture school) demolished it this way.

(a) Where we find fires, we find fire engines.

(b) Fire engines cause fire.