Author Topic: Debunking Controlled Demo  (Read 18953 times)

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6366
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Debunking Controlled Demo
« on: February 17, 2007, 07:58:52 PM »
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355

25 October 2006
The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories

Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet.  Some of the most prevalent myths are:

1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.

This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:

    * Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.
    * Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.
    * Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11.  None recorded any explosions during the tower collapses.
    * Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.
    * Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.
    * For more information, see ImplosionWorld’s article on the WTC collapses, the National Institute of Science and Technology’s “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” and Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5.

2)  No plane hit the Pentagon on September 11.  Instead, it was a missile fired by elements “from inside the American state apparatus.”

Conspiracy theorists making this claim ignore several facts:

    * The remains of the bodies of the crew and passengers of American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site, and positively identified by DNA.
    * The flight’s black boxes were also recovered at the site.
    * Numerous eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon.  Some saw passengers through the plane’s windows.  Missiles don’t have windows or carry passengers.
    * Numerous photographs show airplane debris at the crash site, as was also witnessed by survivors and rescue personnel.  See sections 4:57 to 6:00 of the “911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77” video for pictures of airliner debris.
    * For more information, see “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?” and Popular Mechanics, part 6.

3)  The planes that hit the World Trade Center towers were remotely controlled.

    * Boeing, which manufactured the planes that struck the towers, stated that all its commercial jet transports are configured so that they can only be controlled from the flight deck of the aircraft.
    * Passengers onboard the flights made several phone calls.  All reported that hijackers had commandeered the planes.
    * For more information, see “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?”

4)  United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was shot down by a missile.

    * The cockpit voice recorder of this flight was recovered and showed that the passenger revolt caused the hijackers to deliberately crash the plane.  The hijackers controlled the plane until its impact.  See full transcript.
    * The U.S. military did not learn that flight 93 had been hijacked until four minutes after it crashed, as recently released tapes demonstrate.
    * The military never gave interceptor pilots authorization to shoot down United flight 93.  See article on tapes.
    * Listen to the 45-second message left by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles on her home answering machine.  Click on the “Lyles” file or the phone icon in the bottom left corner of the flight 93 page.
    * For more information, see The 9/11 Commission Report chapter 1, “We Have Some Planes,”pages 13-14.

5)  World Trade Center building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition.

    * This allegation was fueled by a comment by the WTC owner that, after WTC 7 was judged to be unstable, he recommended pulling a group of firefighters out of the building, using the phrase “pull it” in reference to the contingent of firefighters.  For more details, see 9/11 Revealed?
    * Conspiracy theorists have interpreted the “pull it” remark as slang for demolishing the building with explosives.  But demolition experts say “pulling” a building means attaching long cables to a weakened structure and literally pulling it down with bulldozers and other powerful machinery – not using explosives.
    * Seismographs recorded no telltale spikes or anomalies that would have indicated the use of explosives.
    * For more information, see ImplosionWorld article, the National Institute of Science and Technology’s “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” and Popular Mechanics, part 5.

6)  Insider trading in the stocks of United Airlines and American Airlines just before September 11 is evidence of advance knowledge of the plot.

    * The 9/11 Commission investigated this issue in detail, concluding, “Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.”
    * For example, it stated, “much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American [Airlines stock] on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.”
    * For other examples, see The 9/11 Commission Report, “Notes” section, page 499, footnote 130.

7)  Four thousand Jews failed to show up for work at the World Trade Center on September 11.

    * It appears from media reports that some 10-15% of WTC victims were Jewish, indicating there were no mass absences.
    * The “4,000” figure apparently came from an early statement by the Israeli Foreign Ministry that some “4,000 Israelis” were believed to be in the New York and Washington areas, where the attacks occurred.  This figure was apparently seized upon by conspiracy theorists, in an attempt to bolster the false rumor.
    * For more information, see “The 4,000 Jews Rumor.”

8)  Al Qaida is not responsible for the September 11 attacks.

    * Al Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, have repeatedly confirmed that they planned and carried out the September 11 attacks.
    * In an audiotape released on May 23, 2006, bin Laden stated, “I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers … with those raids ….”
    * In a November 2001 tape, bin Laden said, “We calculated in advance the number of casualties … who would be killed ….  I was the most optimistic of them all. … Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only.”
    * For more information, see “Al Qaeda and September 11th.”
Squishy face retard

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2007, 08:16:41 PM »
Let me see...

1. I'll skip the tower part as that's always the most "shaky" conspiracy theory and go from there.

2. The manufacturer of the engines that would have been aboard that American Airlines flight have adamently denied that their engine parts were retrieved from the wreckage... Also, the hole as was left in the pentagon does not even remotely seem to be the correct size for an airplane of that size as there is absolutely no visible aircraft yet also no point where we see wing impressions in the Pentagon either.

3. I don't know about remote controls... whether or not they were used, isn't of great importance.

4. I do not know what shot down Flight 93... however it has been stated by the Coroner of the county in question that he stopped being coroner as of 15 minutes on the scene as there were absolutely NO bodies to be found. There is also interest as to why there were two flights which landed in cleveland (maybe chicago I can't remember) that day, but for some reason only 1 was ever talked about although eyewitness accounts state that a second flight (which followed the path of flight 93) landed there was no mention of it.

5. We all know that many people use the same terms when the eventual outcome is the same... pulling it in either nomenclature would equate to the building coming down.

6. I don't buy the faxed "options" line... That's just convenient... sorry.

7. I don't have a clue what being "jew" has to do with this at all.

8. Many people (including members of the government) are saying that Osama has been dead for quite some time... It's also quite apparent to video tape footage that many of the scenes in videos where Osama has been stating, "we did it", are NOT Osama Bin Laden. It looks nothing like the guy.

mightymouse72

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 891
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2007, 08:54:58 PM »
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355

25 October 2006
The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories

Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet.  Some of the most prevalent myths are:




240's going to up all night now!   ;)

thanks cap   ;D
W

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2007, 11:37:57 PM »
Yawn.

If there was nothing to hide, they would have done the most extensive investigation in human history on this - the biggest attack in American history.

Instead, they had the f'king gall to FIGHT AN INVESTIGATION.

This speaks volumes.  And no offense cap, but if people will have the audacity to knock down towers full of people, they'll probably have the audacity to put up websites with misleading information to try to slow the turn of say, the whole world realizing it was an inside job.


mightymouse72

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 891
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2007, 07:18:41 AM »
the audacity to put up websites with misleading information



do you actually read what you type?   

ohh brother    ::)
W

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2007, 07:31:04 AM »
no, but some people take what they read on a website as gospel becuase it quells their fears.

look at the videos, look at the evidence.  If this was really the most incredible physics day of all time - as it would have had to have been for all 3 to fall as they didn - it's very odd Bush fought an investigation.

Wouldn't you agree?

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6366
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2007, 07:37:04 AM »
no, but some people take what they read on a website as gospel becuase it quells their fears.

look at the videos, look at the evidence.  If this was really the most incredible physics day of all time - as it would have had to have been for all 3 to fall as they didn - it's very odd Bush fought an investigation.

Wouldn't you agree?

Please direct yourself to the bold statements.
Squishy face retard

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2007, 07:40:17 AM »
evidence = video, statements, actions.  Bush told congress there would be no investigation.  He fought it for 441 days until the 911 widows marched on the white house lawn.  You know this, right?

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6366
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2007, 07:45:03 AM »
evidence = video, statements, actions.  Bush told congress there would be no investigation.  He fought it for 441 days until the 911 widows marched on the white house lawn.  You know this, right?
Well when you have scientists on both sides saying the opposite thing it really provides for more of a stalemate than a win for you.  (insert 240 comment/response about propoganda)  Things like "pulling" when kh3000 defined that term and my post backed up it doesn't mean to blow up the building.  The exact opposite of a controlled demo in terms of bottom to top, whereas the buildings went top to bottm.
Squishy face retard

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2007, 08:21:42 AM »
Just looking at wtc7 there, how in hell does this debunk controlled demo... I'm all for a real debunking, where is it?
  Let's getterdone!!!!!!!!!!!  :-\ This ain't it and the popular mechanics work by Michael Chirtoff's cousin insn't going to be seen without seeing the bias behind where it came from....


5)  World Trade Center building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition.

    * This allegation was fueled by a comment by the WTC owner that, after WTC 7 was judged to be unstable, he recommended pulling a group of firefighters out of the building, using the phrase “pull it” in reference to the contingent of firefighters.  For more details, see 9/11 Revealed?
    * Conspiracy theorists have interpreted the “pull it” remark as slang for demolishing the building with explosives.  But demolition experts say “pulling” a building means attaching long cables to a weakened structure and literally pulling it down with bulldozers and other powerful machinery – not using explosives.
    * Seismographs recorded no telltale spikes or anomalies that would have indicated the use of explosives.
    * For more information, see ImplosionWorld article, the National Institute of Science and Technology’s “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” and Popular Mechanics, part 5.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2007, 08:23:00 AM »
Well when you have scientists on both sides saying the opposite thing it really provides for more of a stalemate than a win for you.  (insert 240 comment/response about propoganda)  Things like "pulling" when kh3000 defined that term and my post backed up it doesn't mean to blow up the building.  The exact opposite of a controlled demo in terms of bottom to top, whereas the buildings went top to bottm.

cap - I'm not trying to win an argument.  I'm trying to show the need for a second investigation.  An independent investigation.  Four of the ten members of the 911 Commission want one.  So do I.  They were pretty crippled in that investigation, if you've looked into it.

I just want a real investigation where this time, the firefighters CAN testify about bombs in the basement.  Where the metal from the towers IS tested for explosives.  I don't want anyone convicted based on our lame internet arguments - I just want a real investigation, like they would do with any crime.

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6366
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2007, 08:25:18 AM »
cap - I'm not trying to win an argument.  I'm trying to show the need for a second investigation.  An independent investigation.  Four of the ten members of the 911 Commission want one.  So do I.  They were pretty crippled in that investigation, if you've looked into it.

I just want a real investigation where this time, the firefighters CAN testify about bombs in the basement.  Where the metal from the towers IS tested for explosives.  I don't want anyone convicted based on our lame internet arguments - I just want a real investigation, like they would do with any crime.
I'm gonna punch you right in the baby maker.   :o ;D

At least I know you and I can always debate.  ;D

You are helping me improve my argumentation skills, thanks Rob.
Squishy face retard

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2007, 08:28:48 AM »
controlled demolition companies are con-men!!!... who knew, all this time they only needed a cleanup crew ;D  In light of new evidence of how large buildings come down, I propose the requirements for bringing down large structures be simplified to setting a fire 3/4 of the way up or damaging one side of the building with a wrenching ball and wait a few hours for imminent collapse... ahahhahaha :-X  No need to go through the expensive process to make sure the building comes straight down. ::)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2007, 08:31:08 AM »
no prob.

so what's your take on a second 911 investigation?

background: crippled with only $13mil and a year to investigate.  Only 2 of the members saw most of the documents.  All saudi and paki connections were forbidden, as was the CIA connection to inside trading based upon foreknowledge.  9 of 10 members had worked for Bush1 in oil field and STILL were not happy with the investigation.  They never looked at WTC7.

currently: polls show 84% of Americans doubt the official story.  That's a HUGE national division on the biggest event of our lifetimes and the catalyst for numerous wars.  An investigation which answers these growing questions would either 1) show some assistance here, and expose the traitors, or 2) settle down the conspiracy folks and show that the official story was true.

Do you support a second investigation?  Why or why not?

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2007, 08:34:19 AM »
no prob.

so what's your take on a second 911 investigation?

background: crippled with only $13mil and a year to investigate.  Only 2 of the members saw most of the documents.  All saudi and paki connections were forbidden, as was the CIA connection to inside trading based upon foreknowledge.  9 of 10 members had worked for Bush1 in oil field and STILL were not happy with the investigation.  They never looked at WTC7.

currently: polls show 84% of Americans doubt the official story.  That's a HUGE national division on the biggest event of our lifetimes and the catalyst for numerous wars.  An investigation which answers these growing questions would either 1) show some assistance here, and expose the traitors, or 2) settle down the conspiracy folks and show that the official story was true.

Do you support a second investigation?  Why or why not?
wow, 13 million a year is a crippled investigation >:( Shit there are people making way more than they should...  You should be able to have one hell of a team of people looking into shit for that unless... there's a lawyer somewhere involved :-X

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6366
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2007, 08:35:33 AM »
If there is a legitimate need for it I guess it wouldn't hurt but I wouldn't base the reopening off a small unrepresentative sample of the population and conspiracy theories.  That's where we disagree.  Let's just leave it at that between you and for now.
Squishy face retard

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2007, 08:35:57 AM »
controlled demolition companies are con-men!!!... who knew, all this time they only needed a cleanup crew ;D  In light of new evidence of how large buildings come down, I propose the requirements for bringing down large structures be simplified to setting a fire 3/4 of the way up or damaging one side of the building with a wrenching ball and wait a few hours for imminent collapse... ahahhahaha :-X  No need to go through the expensive process to make sure the building comes straight down. ::)

The company that did 9/11, "controlled demolition, inc", also did WACO (where they bulldozed and BURIED the building immediately without any investigation) and Oklahoma City (which if you have researched, is very clearly the shadiest f'king thing ever).

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2007, 08:36:54 AM »
wow, 13 million a year is a crippled investigation >:( Shit there are people making way more than they should...  You should be able to have one hell of a team of people looking into shit for that unless... there's a lawyer somewhere involved :-X

they spent $60 million on Bush's inauguration parade  ;D

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2007, 08:49:00 AM »
they spent $60 million on Bush's inauguration parade  ;D
good point...

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2007, 08:51:43 AM »
Looking at that list, I just grabbed one item out of that list to see if I could find out just how true it is.  I don't have all day to go through the list so I grabbed something important:

* Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.

First, were they looking for that?  probably not, but here's what I found on this:



Not exactly what I would call, "no signs"

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6366
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2007, 08:55:33 AM »
It takes several weeks or months to prepare a building for implosion. All items of value, such as copper wiring, are stripped from a building. Some materials must be removed, such as glass that can form deadly projectiles, and insulation that can scatter over a wide area. Non-load bearing partitions and drywall are removed.[2] Selected columns on floors where explosives will be set are drilled and nitroglycerin and TNT are placed in the holes. Smaller columns and walls are wrapped in detonating cord. The goal is to use as little explosive as possible; only a few floors are rigged with explosives. The areas with explosive are covered in thick geotextile fabric and fencing to absorb flying debris.[2]

Squishy face retard

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2007, 08:58:27 AM »
It takes several weeks or months to prepare a building for implosion. All items of value, such as copper wiring, are stripped from a building. Some materials must be removed, such as glass that can form deadly projectiles, and insulation that can scatter over a wide area. Non-load bearing partitions and drywall are removed.[2] Selected columns on floors where explosives will be set are drilled and nitroglycerin and TNT are placed in the holes. Smaller columns and walls are wrapped in detonating cord. The goal is to use as little explosive as possible; only a few floors are rigged with explosives. The areas with explosive are covered in thick geotextile fabric and fencing to absorb flying debris.[2]

1- So they didn't strip the copper or glass from the buildings.  Yes, it's recommended.  But they didn't do it.

2- Yes, that is how they do it - drill and fill then wire. 

I don't understand the point you're making here.  It does take weeks.  And the 6 weeks before 9/11 there were a great deal of oddities at the towers, including teams of men in jumpsuits and cable spools, when the power was down the weekend before 9/11.

cap, i'll paypal ya $ to watch 911 mysteries, man.  They show all this. 

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2007, 09:00:17 AM »
It takes several weeks or months to prepare a building for implosion. All items of value, such as copper wiring, are stripped from a building. Some materials must be removed, such as glass that can form deadly projectiles, and insulation that can scatter over a wide area. Non-load bearing partitions and drywall are removed.[2] Selected columns on floors where explosives will be set are drilled and nitroglycerin and TNT are placed in the holes. Smaller columns and walls are wrapped in detonating cord. The goal is to use as little explosive as possible; only a few floors are rigged with explosives. The areas with explosive are covered in thick geotextile fabric and fencing to absorb flying debris.[2]


exactly a point made by many CTers... yea so?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2007, 09:01:03 AM »
cap,

the building was wired for demolition in the 6 weeks before 9/11.


Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Debunking Controlled Demo
« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2007, 09:01:06 AM »
1- So they didn't strip the copper or glass from the buildings.  Yes, it's recommended.  But they didn't do it.

2- Yes, that is how they do it - drill and fill then wire. 

I don't understand the point you're making here.  It does take weeks.  And the 6 weeks before 9/11 there were a great deal of oddities at the towers, including teams of men in jumpsuits and cable spools, when the power was down the weekend before 9/11.

cap, i'll paypal ya $ to watch 911 mysteries, man.  They show all this. 
exactly...