911 WTC Explosions

[Magical]

Loud explosion...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5047702820460805143

Eyewitness accounts...11 minute video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8533322197808326548&q=911+bombs

[TAM]

1. What a real CD is like

...and now for a REAL controlled demolition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yK9XLRb1u8

Notice where the building starts to collapse. Notice the multiple in sequence explosions. Notice how loud all of them were. Notice the multiple bright flashes. Once again, notice where the collapse begins. Look at what floors are collapsing...now go back and look at the collapse of WTC1 & 2.

(oh and before someone does it, I realize that WTC7 looks more like a REAL CD than 1&2, so don't bother referring me to them...I have watched WTC7 collapse about 500 times already).

TAM

[zforce]

3. Unconventional demolition

However, just as effective.

Instead of destroying all the foundational load bearing members (perimeter and core), "they" probably just destroyed a significant number of foundational core members which in itself had led to a bottom-up interior collpase of the building leaving only the perimeter shells to stand for some time before they too collapsed, though from their weakest points(impact floors) which gave us the appearance of a "top-down" collapse.


In other words, once the core columns had been taken out this caused the core to collapse and also it caused a transferrance of about 60% of the building's load to the perimeter columns. As this weight spread throughout the perimeter it finally came upon a "dead-end" or if you will, the impact zone.

This "dead-end"(impact zone) caused the transferrance of weight to bottleneck , which in itself caused the perimeter columns to fail once the added weight that was being transferred to it became unbearable.

Imagine if you will an empty soda can(no core) and then imagine a hole in the soda can, apply some weight, and try to imagine where that Soda Can will fail first.

[mp3hound]

4. Uncontrolled demolition cleverly disguised as controlled demolition?

Is that what you're suggesting?

Instead of destroying all the foundational load bearing members (perimeter and core), "they" probably just destroyed a significant number of foundational core members which in itself had led to a bottom-up interior collpase of the building leaving only the perimeter shells to stand for some time before they too collapsed, though from their weakest points(impact floors) which gave us the appearance of a "top-down" collapse.

So, how did "they" destroy "a significant amount of foundational core members" in such a way as to lead "to a bottom up interior collapse of the building" when it is painfully obvious that the twin towers did not collapse from the bottom up but from the top down? It is clear from numerous photographs and videos that it was a top-down collapse and I do not understand your suggestion that the top-down collapse witnessed by millions could be a cleverly disguised bottom-to-top collapse.

[zforce]

8. Do you not read?n/t

[mp3hound]

11. Not only do I read, I actually comprehend what I read. Thus the queries.

Who are *they*?

How many is a *significant number*?

Which *foundational core members* were destroyed?

By what means did *they* destroy a *significant number* of *foundational core members*?

How did *they* manage to set up the destruction of a *significant number* of *foundational core members* without anyone noticing?

Please provide facts and evidence to support your suppositions which thusfar appear to be wholly unfounded. Forgive me for saying so but it appears that you are claiming expertise that you do not actually possess.

[zforce]

12. Before we venture off into the land of "argumentum ad ignorantiam "

I need to know if you have resolved the issue *(read it)* of how I argue the towers could have collapsed internally bottom-up, yet top-down externally thus giving you and others the impression it was a total top-down collapse?

Or was there another reason you kept that issue out of your last post?

[mp3hound]

22. In order to evaluate

whether or not your "theory" is even remotely plausible, it is necessary to have more information than you have provided, thus my questions.

Instinctively, I want to say that it is wholly implausible on its face. However, I thought that you might wish to expound further on your theory in order to convince others that it has any merit. You, of course, are free not to do so and not to answer any questions about your theory or to provide any specifics of your theory, and I am free to continue to think that it is wholly implausible on its face.

[zforce]

25. Its a simple theory that explains the evidence (all of it).

Some of the Evidence ...

....explosions in the core foundational area.
.... the core sinking (antenne) prior to the impact zone floors collapsing.
....the rigid core's lack of resistance(zero) against the top-down collapse.

I could go on and on, but why, especially when its so damn simple?

How about this, explain why you think my theory doesn't work.

[mp3hound]

27. Like I said,

Once you provide the details of your theory, beginning with answers to the questions I've asked, it will then make sense to respond to your request that I "explain why (I) think your theory doesn't work".

So far, you have not provided enough detail to evaluate it in any meaningful fashion. Is there some reason why you appear so reluctant to do so?

[zforce]

28. Sigh...

Who are *they*?

Z: "They" are those who placed the explosives in the building.

How many is a *significant number*?

Z: Lets say 35 Core members.

Which *foundational core members* were destroyed?

Z:Choose any 35.

[mp3hound]

29. You can sigh all you like

But unless and until you actually respond meaningfully, it will mean nothing.

[zforce]

30. Did I not answer your questions?

Lets take another look..

Who are *they*?


Z: "They" are those who placed the explosives in the building.

How many is a *significant number*?

Z: Lets say 35 Core members.

Which *foundational core members* were destroyed?

Z:Choose any 35.

Yesireee..I sure did respond to your questions, moreover I think I did it very meaningfully.

[mp3hound]

32. No, you did not.

I'll cut and paste for you:

Who are *they*?

How many is a *significant number*?

Which *foundational core members* were destroyed?

By what means did *they* destroy a *significant number* of *foundational core members*?

How did *they* manage to set up the destruction of a *significant number* of *foundational core members* without anyone noticing?

Please provide facts and evidence to support your suppositions which thusfar appear to be wholly unfounded. Forgive me for saying so but it appears that you are claiming expertise that you do not actually possess.

[zforce]

36. ummm...pty dumpty sat on the wall.

The "Fall" (collapse) is the evidence.

Now, if you would like, please present some type of arguement against my theory.

And no, such an argument as the following isn't going to help you..

...when it is painfully obvious that the twin towers did not collapse from the bottom up but from the top down? It is clear from numerous photographs and videos that it was a top-down collapse and I do not understand your suggestion that the top-down collapse witnessed by millions could be a cleverly disguised bottom-to-top collapse.

[mp3hound]

37. Don't blame me for your failure to answer simple questions.

You presented a theory.

You were asked questions about that theory.

You have failed to respond to legitimate queries about your theory.

Why are you still trying to avoid answering the legitimate questions asked of your unsubstantiated theory? I suspect that it's because you cannot and will not (but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now). I also think that the reasons for your failure to do so are obvious, but you have the opportunity to change that by ... um... answering the questions and engaging in a legitimate discussion of your theory, should you choose to do so.

(So far, it appears that you are not willing to do so)

And your strange request that I "present some type of arguement(sic) against (your) theory" is premature since you have not presented your theory in sufficient detail, as I mentioned in prior posts.

It's not good enough to present a half baked, feeble psuedo-theory and then ask others to debunk it for you without you ever having actually presented your theory in a coherent fashion. It is up to you to spell out what your theory actually consists of in detail, then answer qualifying questions so that others can either support it or deconstruct it. But you haven't done that.

So, either answer the questions and be prepared for (several) more or admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[zforce]

38. Really, and for some odd reason I thought it was you..

..who has failed and refused to respond.

(it was)

Now that your questions have been answered, you can either explain to me and the others why my collapse theory doesn't fit the facts/evidence or you can waste more of our time leaving my theory to stand uncontested.

If you need help in understanding how this works please feel free to ask me for some pointers.

PS..you did start off on the right-foot with the incorrect claim that ...I do not understand your suggestion that the top-down collapse witnessed by millions could be a cleverly disguised bottom-to-top collapse.


Please, don't let the little fact that I brought up of the sinking antenne (core) that occured before the collapsing floors/perimeter stop you from questioning more of my theory.

[mp3hound]

39. Nice try at subterfuge. Now try answering the questions.

They are all set out for you, plain and simple.

Please, just answer them and we can more forward.

What are you afraid of?

[zforce]

40. Putting things into perspective.

Let use a simple analogy to put things in perspective.

Evidence.

A.Sound of gun shot
B.A man grabs his chest
C.Blood is flowing from the mans chest
D, Man Collapses
D.man dies.

Theory..

Someone shot the man in the chest causing the man to lose a significant amount of blood. The man being weakened by the significant loss of blood collapses and dies.

mp3 comes around and "questions my theory" by asking me.

"Who is this someone"
"What is a significant loss of blood"
"Which blood was actually lost"

Ah...you got me again mp3 (sarcasm).

[greyl]

41. But, your theory is that the man killed himself with a cherry bomb. ;)

In A, you are assuming a fact not in evidence. The "sound of a gunshot" may not have been a gun at all, right?

Just answer the questions.

[zforce]

42. Indeed, the "sound of a gunshot" can be many things.

Though, in the light of the other surrounding evidence the "sound of a gunshot" begins to define itself.

[greyl]

44. The questions again:

Who are *they*?

How many is a *significant number*?

Which *foundational core members* were destroyed?

By what means did *they* destroy a *significant number* of *foundational core members*?

How did *they* manage to set up the destruction of a *significant number* of *foundational core members* without anyone noticing?

[zforce]

45. I assume by the questions my "empty soda can" theory stands uncontested.n/

[greyl]

46. Your empty soda can is irrelevant to the questions,

as well as being a very weak analog to the WTC towers. However, the OCTists may be able to use it when explaining to the curious why the collapses initiated near the holes created by the plane impacts.

[zforce]

47. and similarily, your questions asking for more detail are irrelevant

to the theory that I had proposed.

Note how I had answered the questions before in post 28, Who are *they*?

Z: "They" are those who placed the explosives in the building.

How many is a *significant number*?

Z: Lets say 35 Core members.

Which *foundational core members* were destroyed?

Z:Choose any 35.

Mp3 wasn't satisfied with these simple answers because as he said there was no evidence in support of my answers, when in reality, there was.

As noted here just like post 25
....explosions in the core foundational area.(more than likely they were place there by "they")
.... the core sinking (antenne) prior to the impact zone floors collapsing.(more than likely a significant number(35) of foundational core members missing would account for this behavior)
....the rigid core's lack of resistance(zero) against the top-down collapse.(more than likely 35 members would account for this "lack of resistance")



Also, it should be noted that the "empty soda can" description I had put forth describes very well the WTC Towers during (immediately prior) to their collapses.

So tell me Greyl, what arguement would you put forth against those OCTists proposing such a theory when explaining why the collapses *seemed* to be initiated near the impact area?

[greyl]

48. There must be a problem with your browser.

There are 5 questions, 2 of which you haven't attempted to answer. Here they are:

By what means did *they* destroy a *significant number* of *foundational core members*?

How did *they* manage to set up the destruction of a *significant number* of *foundational core members* without anyone noticing?

See, your answering the first 3 questions is cake. The OCT answers those questions better than you have. Lets use our wild imaginations to suppose each plane destroyed 35 columns...
Get it?

[zforce]

49. Hmmm..

First, I don't think the plane was able to destroyy 35 "foundational core members",since the planes were nowhere near the foundation, and secondly based on simple observations we can determine the buildings stood for a considerable amount of time after impact thus bringing into question your wild hypothetical "plane destroyed 35 core members" because if the planes had destroyed 35 core members, then the bulidings would have *partially collapsed*(to the point where the columns had been destroyed(78th floor and 94th) upon impact rather than sometime later.

[greyl]

50. Does your browser replace words on you?

I said: "Lets use our wild imaginations to suppose each plane destroyed 35 columns..."

I never mentioned "foundational core members", you did, and you have yet to answer all of the questions pertaining to your theory about them even though you insist you have.
I'm bowing out so as not to interrupt mp3hound any longer.

[mp3hound]

51. You weren't interrupting, greyl.

But it is obvious that zforce has no interest in defending his "theory" since he cannot answer the most basic of questions about it. It seems to me that if his "theory" had any merit at all, he would be happy to answer the simple questions in a straightforward manner rather than play silly semantic games while pretending to be responsive. I see no point in wasting the limited amount of spare time that I have with such obvious non-starters as a "theory" that its proponent cannot be bothered to defend in a meaningful fashion.


Edit to add that I have several more questions for you, zforce, if you ever answer the preliminary ones in a meaningful fashion, although I won't hold my breath waiting. For instance, you said that after your hypothetical bottom-up interior collapse, the "perimeter shells" were left to stand "for some time before they too collapsed" - question: for how long would the perimeter stand after the hypothetical interior bottom-up collapse in your theory? Also, you said that after the interior collapsed, about 60% of the building's load would shift to the perimeter columns - question: how did you arrive at this 60% figure?

[Ka hrnt]

19. A few hints from a fellow newbie:

Whilst in The Dungeon (aka The 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Board), do not:

1. Apply common sense.
2. Ask for factual, physical evidence.
3. Ask for analysis that's been verified and/or corroborated.
4. Point out the blatantly obvious.
5. Agree with the overwhelming majority of experts; if one person disagrees, then he/she must be right.
6. Behave rationally.

For example: just because the buildings obviously started collapsing around the point of impact as all video and photographic evidence shows doesn't mean they didn't actually start at the bottom.

I think you'll find out these rules will lead to a much better experience here in The Dungeon. Enjoy.

[dailykoff]

20. One more: all the correct answers are in the Teacher's Manual

published and printed in Houston, Texas.

[TAM]

24. You said it.

Yes...and as soon as I get that frontal lobotomy they have also suggested, things will be as smooth as glass.

TAM

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

33. Nothing says that you can't disrupt with more than a 1000 posts, eh?

Based on a very quick search, I can see that Ka hrnt has posted in at least 4 forums.
Why would you make such an easily disproven statement as "probably all in 9-11"?

[mp3hound]

34. Well, I'm newly registered but have read for quite some time,

and I read the rules while I was at it.

If memory serves, the rules said something specific about it being off limits to comment on low post counts as a means to criticize people, off limits to suggest that newcomers are less worthy of belief by virtue of being newcomers, etc., so I can only suppose that some self professed "old timers" have either short memories or deliberate agendas. But what would I know since I'm just a newcomer?

[AZCat]

35. Yep, your memory would be spot on.

DU includes a handy-dandy link to the rules at the bottom of the page, but you have to go to the detailed explanation to get to the section to which you referred. It is as follows:

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.

Pretty self-explanatory, if you ask me.



On Edit: Minor changes

[JackRiddler]

5. The "spires" argue against this...

Both South and North Towers show core column members still standing up to 60 stories after everything around them has collapsed. (These then also fall straight down, which is strange, no?) This seems to argue against your scenario of cores taken out at the bottom first - though I can still believe a floor-by-floor shredding from the impact zones down, triggered electronically.

The sound problem brought up by TAM is hard to judge given the great distances involved in filming from the ground, the bulk of the buildings also possibly insulating the sound of internal explosions - to me it does sound like a series of explosions. The noise level or what it's "supposed to" sound like are subjective and irrelevant considerations.

All this has nothing, de nada to do with "controlled demolition." This is the wrong term, because it invites OCTs to compare it to conventional controlled demolitions, where there are considerations like safety and landing the rubble in the footprint, none of which would matter to anyone intending to blow up the buildings with people still in them. Everyone arguing for bombs in the buildings should call it that: bombs in the buildings. (Or thermite-based explosives, as has been suggested - which would not "sound like" conventional bombs.)

As far as the Towers are concerned, nothing need be "controlled" about the demolitions hypothesis. As for Seven... well it sure looks conventional. And perfect!

[zforce]

9. They need not destroy all the core columns.N/T

[TAM]

16. ok...no more talk of explosions BY ANYONE

Ok, so what your saying is the noise level or the sounds that are suppose to occur with a controlled demolition are irrelivent..I can live with that...if...if I never hear a CTer bring up the witnesses who heard "Explosions" EVER AGAIN!!!

Ya, like that is going to happen.

[JackRiddler]

17. There was no "controlled" demolition of the Towers.

There may have been bombs in the building.

And when I look at this debate, I look at concrete items, not at reports what people may think they have heard. (Honestly, it tires me because strawman-slammers on either side keep posting the same goddamn pictures of puffs of smoke.) So whatever complaints you have about what others do, don't bother me with them.

This is a debate separate from the central one, which is between differing paradigms of the 9/11 events: inside job/false-flag/covert op (in keeping with a multitude of historical precedents and the actual available evidence), as opposed to official conspiracy theory/theory of luck with its bizarre insistence that a general surrounding of incompetence in government is in any way a hindrance to the commission of crimes by men with long rap sheets as mass murderers and financial plunderers.

(In the spirit of all the media coverage of 9/11 skepticism lately, I wonder what exotic psychological syndromes make these people in denial about 9/11 being an inside job tick! I guess in this over-complex universe, they just need simple explanations, where outside enemies no matter how contrived are always responsible for bad things. There is a long paranoid tradition for this in American society.)

[TAM]

21. My response.

Since your reply is attached to my comment, I feel I owe it a response.

I wasn't speaking to you in particular wrt explosions, so if you do not want to hear of it...don't listen/read. I agree, let us look at CONCRETE, SOLID EVIDENCE. Lets look at EXPERT testimony. LETS look at the UNDISPUTED FACTS.

wrt to your Paradigm comment. I agree the central debate does surround the "inside job/ff/covert-op" Conspiracy Theory versus the "19 Hijackers from the middle east via Al-Qaeda" based Conspiracy Theory.

I disagree with your statement on what each side has going for it. Historical Precedents for False Flag ops - ya I will give you that vague statement. How many countries, if you dug, would be guilty of False Flag Ops?

wrt Actual Available Evidence...not a chance. You made the statement, so prove to me the actual available evidence ONLY supports that side of the paradigm. Even better, prove to me that all the available SOLID FACTS, EXPERT TESTIMONY/OPINION only support that side of the paradigm. I think that very little SOLID FACTS or EXPERT TESTIMONY/OPINION supports that side of the paradigm.

As for the incompetence of the USG and it hindering them to commit murder. It certainly makes them pulling it off without most people seeing it very hard...I am still waiting for the first whistleblower without an agenda to comeout and provide us with the definitive proof of an "inside job".

As far as their previous murders (you did say that they were men with long rap sheets of mass murder), provide a list of the people that Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, or President Bush has directly murdered, or has had killed for them on purpose prior to the crimes you allege them of now.(oh and sending people to war is not murder, if it was, then every leader in all of recorded history would be a murderer, including the leaders in the American Revolution).

TAM

[Make7]

13. What role did the floors have in this collapse scenario?

And if they had no role, what happened to them during the collapse?

- Make7

[TAM]

15. Please!

1. I have no demolition experience.
2. Is your suggestion a theory, or do you have a REAL world example (besides the twin towers if you feel this is how they collapsed) ever in recorded history to show us?
3. Do you have any witnesses to say that this is what happened.
4. Do you have ANY EXPERTs in the field of Demolition to say this could have been done?

TAM

[mirandapriestly]

26. detonation flashes

at around 35 secs. Gee, how come the camera shakes BEFORE the building collapses. I wonder what that helicopter was doing right before the building collapsed? one was taped hovering over the roofs on BOTH towers before each. what is that plume of smoke going up to the north?

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem25/911.wtc.2.implosion.sw.avi

[Sinti]

2. And here's another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT8mW8FNjBI&mode=related&search=

And another
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcFuXodKJEA&mode=related&search=

and Another
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m0dVWfSuK0&mode=related&search=

And another
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsR7sTc0ghY&mode=related&search=

Sounds like gunfire - check this clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IqSsTmWv7k&mode=related&search=


This is OTOH is really heart wrenching and horrifying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_cC37d5kOs&mode=related&search=

[JackRiddler]

6. Sinti...

Given your signature line, and if I may ask... are you Paul Wolf?

[Sinti]

7. No, I am not - my mother was not so cruel as to name her daughter Paul

;)

I am hoping some folks will actually click that link and learn more about COINTELPRO, if they don't know about it already. I probably should put it in HTML, so you see the term COINTELPRO rather than just the link as text. It's a great site, based around the Church Committee hearings in large part.

edited to add:

Well.. no can do. No HTML allowed in sigs.

[JackRiddler]

10. Mea culpa, Madam S...

And thanks for the link to Paul Wolf's great work, with which I am familiar (he has an irregular but always top-notch newsletter).

[Make7]

14. RE: No HTML allowed in sigs.

"You may not use any HTML code in your signature line except the special message board code for: bold, italics, links, center, and line breaks."

The [link:|] command does work in signatures.

- Make7

[Sinti]

18. Thanks Make7 n/t

[psychopomp]

23. No HTML in sigs? News to me...

[mirandapriestly]

43. heh hehe.eom