Okay, truthers...

[SDuderstadt]

Here's a picture of a building (actually part of a building) wired for controlled demolition. Simple question. Do you have a single witness that saw anything like this at WTC's 1, 2 or 7? You don't? Hmmm.

[SDuderstadt]

1. Here's a video of a controlled demolition of a high-rise building...

that appears to be shot some distance away from either a helicopter or another building. What sounds like a helicopter and is quite loud is also present. Despite that, notice the flashes and how loud the explosives ate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

[SDuderstadt]

2. Another CD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSDagV2ELjQ

[SDuderstadt]

3. Here's a great video of an actual CD company showing you...

behind the scenes prep for a CD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cwO8loSeaA

ETA: this is actual a CT video that cites footage from an actual CD company. Of course, the video is forced to admit that the prep would have had to be done in a very narrow timeframe between the airline strike and the collapse of the building. Do you honestly think this could have occurred?

[SDuderstadt]

4. Another great vidceo of an actual controlled demolition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

[whatchamacallit]

5. The problem I'm having is finding any wtc7 vids that have enough audio to make a valid comparison

So far I've found 2. One that starts almost immediately before total collapse, too late to hear if the there were any structure weakening detonations or not. And one where you can barely hear anything. The ae911 vids had no live sound at all. Inconclusive.

[SDuderstadt]

6. Let me express my appreciation for your....

obvious objectivity here, WC. It's a very good start. The question I would ask here is why the ae911truth clips contain no sound. Is that deliberate and, if so, why?

[whatchamacallit]

7. Well... It could be nefarious

or it could just be it's hard to find good clips of wtc 7 with audio :shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

8. I think I allowed for that possibility....n/t

[jberryhill]

9. The reason why there are none with good audio...

...is that the area had been cleared in anticipation of the collapse.

[SDuderstadt]

16. I'm not sure that people had been cleared back any further than...

the normal viewing distance from a controlled demolition, but that might have something to do with the height of the building, although I have seen videos of demos close to the height of WTC 7 and there is clear audio that demostrates how loud the explosives are.

[BeFree]

13. Basement 6 floors deep, right?

Not much sound coming from that deep.

And there were eyewitnesses who heard explosions, so there is that.

[SDuderstadt]

14. But if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition...

you would need more than explosives in the basement. And, again, explosions doesn't mean explosives, but I understand why people think it might.

However, the firefighters who were in the building well before the collapse descibed the building as unstable. So, that doesn't sound like explosives to me.

[Ghost in the Machine]

42. Why would you need more explosives?

Apparently, the failure of one truss was enough to bring the building down, in regards to WTC 7.

Why wouldn't a few strategically placed C4 charges be enough to do the same damage, with the same results?

For the sake of debate, why couldn't someone with access to the blueprints, like a "security company", have an engineer look over the drawings and figure out where some vulnerabilities were in the structural system and exploit those vulnerabilities? How many occupants, employees, etc. are going to be paying attention to the security company employees who are there "upgrading" the security system?

As for the Twin Towers, I don't think anyone was worried about making it "look like" a controlled demolition. With plans already in place for planes to hit the buildings, intending to kill thousands of citizens, there is no need for the safety measures of a "controlled" demolition. Quite the opposite would be true: Planes hit the buildings, things explode, people die. An unconventional, top-down explosive demolition. I believe they thought the Tower/s would topple, causing damage to surrounding buildings.


Peace,

Ghost

[wildbilln864]

146. no reply i see....

hmmm. :hi:

[SDuderstadt]

15. Thanks for your civility and respectful behavior in the...

controlled demolition thread, BeFree.

ETA: I could have sworn I did this as a PM, but I am quite happy to say it publicly as well.

[BeFree]

52. Say what? You're welcome.

What Happened?

[SDuderstadt]

17. What's the source on the non-ae911truth files....

do you have a link for them?

[Subdivisions]

10. Has a tower ever been demoed from the top down? Also, one of the

most frequent arguments against CD is this: "Look at that image. Does that look like it fell into its own footprint? There's nothing "controlled" about it."

Well, after viewing hundreds of images of the aftermath, I've decided it really doesn't look controlled, though most of the damage is contained within the WTC complex. But, then, why would it need to be controlled if it were an explosive demolition? It's not like anyone planning an explosive demolition would care if it were controlled or not.

Though it looks like a demo to me, rather than a collapse, and though I can think of a couple of ways it might have been achieved, I am at this moment agnostic about this particular aspect of the events of that day with regard to the Twin Towers. I am still not convinced, regardless of the NIST report, that WTC 7 collapsed the way it has been explained that it did.

I reserve my thoughts on the matter until such time as adequate evidence surfaces to support my suspicions. I realize that may never come.

[SDuderstadt]

11. I'd like to observe at this point that....

although there are posters on both sides of this issue, the discourse is remarkably civil and respectful. Maybe we can set an example for the rest of the forum and my hat is off to both Subdivisions and WC. Thanks, guys.

Maybe we can start a new chapter.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Hey, Subdivisions....

I tried to send you a PM but could not get through. Thanks for your civility and respect here.

[Subdivisions]

18. No problem, Dude. I'm learning to control my emotions with regard

to this topic.

[spooked911]

19. If they used nukes

they wouldn't need such extensive wiring-- fewer devices to plant.

Also, if it was done mostly in the basement, it could be kept from innocent eyes fairly easily.

[LARED]

20. The same could be said for

magical spells being cast to demolish the tower. Only a few people with magical wands would be needed and they could easily hide themselves from prying eyes.

[spooked911]

43. are you saying magic exists?

becoz obvsly nukes do.

[LARED]

46. No I'm saying

that the probabilty the nukes were used is exactly the same as magical spells being used.

[spooked911]

49. well, I strongly disagree

and the evidence, in total, strongly supports nukes

[LARED]

55. Don't change Spooked I love just as you are. nt

[LARED]

56. and the evidence, in total, strongly supports nukes

This is an odd statement in my view. Are you saying that the individual bits of evidence do not give you a clear understanding of how nukes are supported, but once you add them all up nukes are somehow magically the top contender for how the building fell on 9/11?

From a mathematical perspective it's sort of like saying 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=1

As there is not even a bit of evidence supporting nukes.

[spooked911]

61. that's cute, but intentionally or not, you miss the point

it's more like

1+1+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0= collapse

1+1+1+1+1+0+0+0+0+0+0= conventional explosives

1+1+1+1+1+0+0+0+0+0+1= thermite

1+1+1+1+1+1+0+0+0+0+0= DEW

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1= mini-nukes

where each digit is a major piece of evidence.

[LARED]

65. That's nice, but

you don't have any evidence for any of the above.

[spooked911]

67. 35 Reasons for Many Small Fission Nukes at the WTC

1) heat generation at ground zero for six months (china syndrome)
2) inability to quench ground zero heat with water
3) red hot/molten steel at ground zero
4) missing core columns from ground zero (vaporized during destruction)
5) spreading of sand at ground zero consistent with attempts to limit radiation
6) washing of steel recovered from pile consistent with radiation decontamination
7) extreme security for ground zero steel shipments consistent with limiting access to radioactive steel
8) extreme security at ground zero, limiting exposure, view of devastation
9) extreme pulverization of WTC concrete into very fine particles
10) disappearance of over one thousand human bodies from WTC debris
11) disappearance of furniture, phones, filing cabinets and computers from WTC debris
12) disappearance of elevator doors, office doors, office cubicle walls, toilets and sinks from WTC debris
13) several floor fragments fused together in “meteorite” object
14) bone fragments sprayed into Bankers Trust upper floor during destruction
15) multiple blast waves during destruction of tower
16) large fireballs during initiation of WTC1 destruction
17) small backpack-sized fission nukes exist
18) fission-nuke technology well-established
19) low efficiency of fission nukes ensures leftover radioactive fragments and China syndrome
20) EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning)
21) Description of heat in WTC blast cloud
22) Extensive cover-up of ground zero air by EPA
23) High rate of cancers, including thyroid cancer typically associated with radiation exposure, in ground zero responders
24) Melted, hanging skin in WTC survivor Felipe David in absence of fire
25) Vaporized press and crumpled steel door in WTC basement reported by Pecoraro
26) Steel beam bent in U, without cracking, evidence of extreme high temps
27) Steel beam bent in U has layer of molten metal on surface
28) Extreme overall devastation of two massive towers and blasted out Ground Zero aftermath
29) Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical DEW theory by likely govt agents-- uses evidence of nukes (EMP, extreme pulverization of tower into dust) but denies nukes at all costs
30) Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical thermite (super nano-thermite) theory by likely govt agents-- uses evidence of nukes (molten steel, china syndrome) but denies nukes at all costs
31) Small iron microspheres found by Jones et al in WTC dust— evidence of steel vaporization by high temps of nukes
32) Pyroclastic debris cloud during WTC destruction
33) Upwards jutting debris trails reminiscent of debris trails formed during underground nuke test
34) Small bright flashes during destruction of both towers
35) Extremely compacted ground zero debris

[SDuderstadt]

69. Let's just take #'s 3 and 10, Spooked...

Do you have any hard evidence that what people saw was "molten steel"? Hint: no.

Secondly, does it really surprise you that many bodies "disappeared" when a lot of the debris looked like this?

http://www.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.91686.1243468513!image/2160189413.jpg_gen/derivatives/display_600/2160189413.jpg


How many "bodies" do you suppose would be in there, Spooked? Is there no end to your silliness?

[spooked911]

78. funny you should show that pic

as itself is really evidence for nukes-- multiple floors fused together by high heat, without vaporization of all but the strongest components. And I didn't realize that much of the debris was like that. So that's more evidence for nukes.

So how many bodies do YOU think were in there?

[SDuderstadt]

79. Why would "nukes" be necessary for the floors to...

look like that, Spooked? Why would you think whole bodies or even significan't parts of bodies would have survived compression like that? Do you have any idea how many floors are compressed there, Spooked?

This is what I mean about trying to reason with you. It doesn't make any difference what evidence anyone provides because you just automatically claim that any evidence that refutes "mini-nukes" actually proves your silly claim. You're not merely illogical, you're aproaching "anti-logical". And, in true form, it appears nearly everyone knows that, except you.

[spooked911]

85. I said the extreme heat from a nuke is a good explanation for the floors fusing together

as far as the bodies, that is somewhat irrelevant-- if a high proportion of floors were fused liked that as you seem to say, then that goes strongly against the official story.

As far as reasoning, I could easily say the same about you.

[SDuderstadt]

89. How in the world do the floors "go against the 'official story' ", Spooked/

I'll put my reasoning skills up against yours any day, dude.

[spooked911]

108. question

what happened to all the stuff between the floors? You know, the walls, furniture, carpet, padding, ductwork, insulation, etc

Remember, you said much of the floors of the towers ended up like this, but only a fraction of the floors were burnt.

Also, what fused the concrete together if there was so much stuff between the slabs?

[LARED]

70. You must be kidding

1) heat generation at ground zero for six months (china syndrome)

It's called an underground fire.

2) inability to quench ground zero heat with water

See number 1

3) red hot/molten steel at ground zero

No evidence of steel, molten metal was created by underground fires. If it was a china syndrome all those workers you saw picking up the molten metal with heavy equipment would be long dead from radiation poisoning

4) missing core columns from ground zero (vaporized during destruction)

Who says they're missing?

5) spreading of sand at ground zero consistent with attempts to limit radiation

Sand mitigates radiation? Really. What radiation?


6) washing of steel recovered from pile consistent with radiation decontamination

That actually is far more consistent with asbestos mitigation.

7) extreme security for ground zero steel shipments consistent with limiting access to radioactive steel
8) extreme security at ground zero, limiting exposure, view of devastation

Extreme security? Where? What is extreme?

9) extreme pulverization of WTC concrete into very fine particles

How do nukes explain that? And some not all of the concrete was ground into fine particles.

10) disappearance of over one thousand human bodies from WTC debris
11) disappearance of furniture, phones, filing cabinets and computers from WTC debris
12) disappearance of elevator doors, office doors, office cubicle walls, toilets and sinks from WTC debris
13) several floor fragments fused together in “meteorite” object
14) bone fragments sprayed into Bankers Trust upper floor during destruction

First off nukes don't explain any of those things. And a 200' by 200' by 1400' building collapsing does

skipping a few for time

20) EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning)

Strangely the supposed EMP blast did not effect electronic equipment.

21) Description of heat in WTC blast cloud

Buildings on fire are hot. Nukes are really, really, really, really, hot. Somehow the heat of the nuke blast hardly burned a thing

22) Extensive cover-up of ground zero air by EPA

It's been so covered up everyone with a computer can see the reports

25) Vaporized press and crumpled steel door in WTC basement reported by Pecoraro

The press didn't vaporize, it fell through the floor.

26) Steel beam bent in U, without cracking, evidence of extreme high temps

No it's not


27) Steel beam bent in U has layer of molten metal on surface

So what?

[spooked911]

80. No I'm not-- I'm totally serious

Underground fires don't normally burn for months, without proper oxygen, and after being extensively sprayed with water.

Workers exposed to radiation can take years to develop cancer-- and indeed they have.

Sand can indeed block, or mitigate, radiation.

Extreme security is putting GPS trackers on trucks carrying the steel and firing drivers who stray off course.

Nukes of course can explain pulverization of bldg contents better than collapse.

How do you know that some electronic equipment wasn't affected by the EMPs?

Of course, the complete building was not on fire, only 5% or so. And the dispersal of the building contents into air would rapidly cool everything in a collapse. So how can the dust cloud from the complete tower going down have been so hot?


The EPA of course kept the report on GZ air secret for a long time-- that's the point-- and who knows what has been covered up in the final report.


"The press didn't vaporize, it fell through the floor."

Link please. And what made the press go through the floor exactly?

"26) Steel beam bent in U, without cracking, evidence of extreme high temps

No it's not."

Why not?


And a layer of molten metal is "so what?". I think that is remarkable.

[LARED]

81. Lets take one

Workers exposed to radiation can take years to develop cancer-- and indeed they have.




It seems you are suggesting that the red hot material seen in this image is the result of a nuke being used to demolish the building and the resultant "china syndrome". Yet the radiation emanating from this red hot radioactive metal is so mild it's effects will take years to manifest themselves.

Spooked; stop kidding yourself.

[spooked911]

84. heat does not equal radiation

the beam would not be strongly radioactive

nice to see you using this pic though

[LARED]

91. So let me see if I understand

You are trying to say that a nuclear device was used to demolish the WTC. This nuclear device created an underground molten pile of metal that persisted for many months. Yet the molten pile of metal did not contain high levels of radiation. Only enough radiation to cause cancer years later.

Is the concept of half-life something you are familiar with? Are you aware no one detected any elevated radiation at ground zero, something absolutely required if a nuke was used.

Using known scientific principles please explain how that is possible.

[spooked911]

95. the key question is

who says "no one detected any elevated radiation at ground zero", and how much can they be trusted?

[LARED]

98. Are there any reports of elevated radiation at ground zero?

The type of radiation associated with nuclear fission?

[spooked911]

100. I asked who exactly said there was no radiation at GZ

and how trustworthy they are.

Thanks.

[LARED]

105. You're asking to establish a negative

I am not aware of any reports of no radiation. Why you think this is important is a mystery. Do you honestly think a nuclear bomb could be detonated in lower Manhatten and no one notices the EMP or the radiation?

Perhaps using magic someone can detonate a nuke without an EMP and without radiation.

And how is that scientific evidence for nukes?

[spooked911]

107. So you have no evidence against radiation?

you said "Are you aware no one detected any elevated radiation at ground zero", and when I ask for substantiation of that claim, you hand-wave and say you don't know "of any reports of no radiation."

Wouldn't it make sense if micro-nukes were used to covertly demolish three major skyscrapers, that there would be a cover-up?

"Why you think this is important is a mystery."

Are you saying the nuking of the WTC is NOT important?


"Do you honestly think a nuclear bomb could be detonated in lower Manhatten and no one notices the EMP or the radiation?"

I wouldn't say no one noticed, but that the radiation was covered up (we're not talking massive levels) and that the EMP was overlooked in all the chaos and general destruction.

[LARED]

110. Spooked this is not even close to a rational discussion

so I will leave you to your darkweaving.

Feel free to declare victory.

[spooked911]

113. and so it goes

my points were perfectly valid and rational and you know it.


So glad you are willing to ignore this issue again.

[LARED]

114. One more chance at rational discussion

Assuming there was a EMP, why was radio communications still functioning? (yes I know it was lousy, but the electronics worked)

[spooked911]

115. Micro-nukes

would produce micro EMPs, with limited power and distance. So it would depend on the distance the radios were from the towers.

[LARED]

117. Nice ot see you have this all figured out. Good luck nt

[spooked911]

120. so you'll start spreading the word then?

or at least not mock mini-nukes at the WTC?

[LARED]

121. Funny

Although I am sure you didn't mean to be.

Just because I grew weary of engaging in a completely irrational discussion is no reason to think I am swayed in any way shape or form regarding controlled demolition.

[spooked911]

122. No, I was being facetious

the problem of course is that you haven't shown how I am being irrational.

[LARED]

123. Spooked, nukes at WTC is irrational.

That's all that is needed. I don't have to do anything.

[spooked911]

124. well sure, you don't HAVE to do anything

but it would be really nice if you could say specifically what is irrational about the idea.

[LARED]

125. Res ipsa loquitur. nt

[spooked911]

126. that's cute but

what exactly is the MOST irrational thing about nukes to you?

1) that someone would use them in the first place?

2) the apparent lack of radiation (though you have not offered any real proof that there was no radiation)?

3) you think they don't fit the physical evidence of destruction?

[SDuderstadt]

128. Dude...

Lared doesn't have to offer proof there was no radiation (exactly how would he do that anyway?), YOU have to offer proof that there was and, of course, you've failed miserably.

[spooked911]

130. I have offered strong evidence-- massive rate of cancers in GZ workers

Also, I also said even the EPA found elevated beta radiation in the dust; there was of course excess tritium as well.

[SDuderstadt]

131. Good for you, dude....

now, show a causal relationship between the "beta radiation" and the tritium and the "massive" rate of cancer, then people might pay attention to your nonsense.

Simple question: what other kinds of radiation would "mini-nukes" have emitted, dude?

[LARED]

132. Everyone know this, mini-nukes emit

mini-neutron and mini-gamma radiation.

They are mini's so they're hard to detect.

[spooked911]

135. Dear Mr. Duderstadt--

I can only do so much myself.

At some point, you need to pick up the ball and do something with it yourself.

Sincerely,

Spooked911

[OnTheOtherHand]

136. you want him to document your theory for you?

I very much doubt that is even possible. I certainly wouldn't hold my breath for it to happen.

Look, spooked, if you actually believe what you say, it's hard to understand why you don't think it's worthwhile to lay out the arguments systematically in a manner accessible to curious readers, as distinct from scattershot blog posts. It may be that you have no idea how to make your arguments accessible.

[SDuderstadt]

137. My guess is...

Spooked doesn't really know how to make a coherent argument.

[LARED]

129. Spooked

1) that someone would use them in the first place?

2) the apparent lack of radiation (though you have not offered any real proof that there was no radiation)?

3) you think they don't fit the physical evidence of destruction?


1.To what purpose would using mini-nukes (assuming that technology is available) provide if planes where crashed into the WTC. Oh, I forgot you have the completely irrational belief in no-planes.

2. The concept of proving a negative seems completely lost on you.

3. see 1 and 2.

[hack89]

111. NY was covered by radioactive dust - right?

dust that laid around for years - right? Dust that the Truth movement surely collected and tested - right?

[spooked911]

112. I don't know that it laid around for years

a lot of it was cleaned away quickly.

I can't speak for the truth movement and their dust collection efforts. I'm sure there are some in the "truth movement" who actually want to cover up evidence of the nuking.

I do know, as I have noted here before, that even the EPA detected elevated beta radiation in the dust.

[wildbilln864]

58. exactly the same eh?

c'mon now. you knew that statement was pure bullshit when you wrote it didn't you! Yes you did!

[LARED]

60. No

Believing nukes took down the towers is the same as believing magical spells were responsible.

[spooked911]

62. that's pure bull

there is scientific evidence for nukes. None for magic.

[LARED]

63. scientific evidence for nukes???? funny. nt

[spooked911]

71. of course there is

obvsly there is scientific support for nukes and none for magic

[SDuderstadt]

72. Point to the "scientific support" for...

nukes, Spooked...

[spooked911]

74. I already did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=281737&mesg_id=281926

but also see here
http://bogus911science.wordpress.com/
particularly here:
http://bogus911science.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/the-three-fatal-flaws-in-bazants-wtc-concrete-pulverization-calculations-and-why-his-calculations-really-support-nuclear-demolition/

[LARED]

76. In what way is that list scientific? nt

[spooked911]

87. there is plenty of science in there

the hypothesis is nukes were used to destroy the WTC, and evidence for nukes has been collected and described briefly in that list.

[SDuderstadt]

77. And we already took it apart, Spooked...

that's why only you and a handful of people believe this silly "mini-nukes" nonsense.

[spooked911]

86. except you didn't take it apart at all.

In fact, for all the back and forth we've done here, you have made surprisingly few real rebuttals. Mostly you've just dismissed me out of hand.

[SDuderstadt]

93. Jesus, Spooked...

Your "no-planes" and "mini-nukes" bullshit is so goofy, you can't even find more than a handful of other "truthers" to sign on to your "cause", What does that tell you?

And when people challenge you to provide proof of your "molten steel" and "they were mini--nukes, but they emit hardly any radiation" bullshit, the laughter and snickering is almost audible here. My favorite is how you claim the live, direct witnesses to the planes crashing into the towers were "fooled" into believing thata..s what they saw.

Why do you think you're such an object of derision here, Spooked? Do you think it could anything to do with your goofy bullshit?

[SDuderstadt]

21. Can you explain how "nukes"...

"mostly in the basement" would have brought the building down? I don't think you'll find a single CD expert that would agree with you.

[spooked911]

44. the tower went down smoothly from the base up

so it would fit if all the columns in the basement were wiped out at once-- the tower would fall straight down. Not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

[SDuderstadt]

47. Do you have a video of the collapse of WTC 7 with...

an unobtructed view of the entire building? No, of course you don't.

[spooked911]

48. even the official story says the collapse started from the base up

-- certainly from the lower floors-- why are you arguing this?

[SDuderstadt]

51. I think you're misrepresenting the "official story" by...

omitting the fact that the penthouse(s) collapsed first. That's one more reason it doesn't look like a controlled demolition.

[spooked911]

64. WTC7 looked remarkably like CD and you know it

As far as the Penthouse, that simply means the center of the base went down before the outer walls.

[SDuderstadt]

68. Do you have a video of the entire building, Spooked?

You don't?

Dude, the collapse looked and sounded remarkably unlike a controlled demo in key aspects. Again, calculate what it woud have taken to bring the building down and point out where the rapid flashes and multiple loud explosives are. Hint: you can't.

[spooked911]

73. Everyone with eyes can see that the way the tower went down looked like perfect CD.

And the simple refutation of your point is that the part we can't see in the videos we have is where the explosions and flashes were. My point remains, that is they blew out the lower floors completely and simultaneously, with nukes, the tower would come down smoothly and evenly as seen.

The official collapse story says that one beam failing gave rise to the whole bldg coming down as seen. Clearly, taking out the lower supports simultaneously with bombs would be even more likely to give the observed result.

[SDuderstadt]

75. Simple question, Spooked...

what was WTC7 built over?

Similarly, do you believe that the blueprints for WTC7 had a big flashing sign that screamed "DESIGN FLAW YOU USE TO BRING THIS BUILDING DOWN!"? How do you think it got past everyone to begin with? The way you keep using "obviously" and "anyone with eye can see" demonstrates how little you've thought this through. Your blind spots are particularly stunning. You actually seem to believe the lack of video evidence for your theory actually "proves" it. As I said before, stunning.

[spooked911]

88. Huh?

How does this at all refute what I wrote above?

You are not making sense. Talk about blind spots!

[SDuderstadt]

90. I'm making far more sense than you are, Spooked....

please point to one of my blind spots, dude.

[spooked911]

99. Let's see now.

I wrote:
Everyone with eyes can see that the way the tower went down looked like perfect CD.

And the simple refutation of your point is that the part we can't see in the videos we have is where the explosions and flashes were. My point remains, that is they blew out the lower floors completely and simultaneously, with nukes, the tower would come down smoothly and evenly as seen.

The official collapse story says that one beam failing gave rise to the whole bldg coming down as seen. Clearly, taking out the lower supports simultaneously with bombs would be even more likely to give the observed result.

I guess that must have been too clear for you, because then you change the subject:

Simple question, Spooked...

what was WTC7 built over?

You do not give any explanation of the significance of this question. But you are changing the issue.

Then, some silliness:
Similarly, do you believe that the blueprints for WTC7 had a big flashing sign that screamed "DESIGN FLAW YOU USE TO BRING THIS BUILDING DOWN!"? How do you think it got past everyone to begin with?

What kind of question is this? Considering:
1) the official story relies on a specific design flaw
2) controlled demolition would either be done by people who knew of the design flaw or who designed the demolition such that the design flaw was irrelevant (i.e. use way more charges than necessary)
your query makes no sense.

So, you are asking a nonsensical question and changing the subject without any clear reason.

The way you keep using "obviously" and "anyone with eye can see" demonstrates how little you've thought this through.

Most people-- and I do mean most -- see WTC7 come down and think of controlled demolition. What exactly haven't I thought through???

Your blind spots are particularly stunning. You actually seem to believe the lack of video evidence for your theory actually "proves" it. As I said before, stunning."

But I said nothing of the sort. I actually said that the lack of a video of the lower part of the building proves nothing. We can't use evidence we don't have. I just said that such a video would be useful as we would expect to see explosions there.

But now, I bet you will give up on me, saying I can't be reasoned with, because I am so silly and goofy and illogical.

[spooked911]

109. no answer?

hmm...

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[BeFree]

22. What about the explosions...

...@ 20 stories down from the fire zone?

[SDuderstadt]

25. Explosions doesn't necessarily equal explosives and...

how do you know there weren't fires wherever the "explosions" were heard? Also, what time were these "explosions" heard"?

[BeFree]

28. Videos

The videos of the explosions. There were no fires there.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Unless the cameras were inside WTC 7...

about all you could say is there were no "visible fires" but that doesn't really prove much either. And, again, what time were these videos taken? Was it after the FDNY had already pronounced the building unstable?

And, last, explosions do not equal "explosives". If you have anything other than anecdotal "evidence" of explosives, I'd love to see it.

[no limit]

23. ahahahahahahahahahahaha. Nukes? You're kidding right?

Do you know what nukes leave behind after they go off?

[Subdivisions]

24. My first thought upon reading that was EXACTLY what you're alluding to.

If nukes had been used, the entire island would have been coated in radioactive fall-out. I don't recall any reports of excess radiation levels being detected after the attacks.

[SDuderstadt]

26. I think it's clear that "nukes" can be ruled out...n/t

[no limit]

31. Yeah, you're just saying that because you work for the evil government

Anyone that doesn't believe nukes were used is a fucking moran.

[SDuderstadt]

33. I am assuming you forgot to include the....

sarcasm tag, at least I hope this is intended as satire. is it?

[no limit]

34. I didn't think the tag was necessary

Then I read some more threads and post under this board and I can see how it's not as obvious as it should be, from now on any time I'm being sarcastic I will be sure to spell it out.

Seriously though, if half of the people on here are serious I fear for humanity. I came in here for the first time today just for shits and giggles, I regret it.

[SDuderstadt]

35. I figured as much...

no harm, no foul...

[Subdivisions]

27. Spooked...

With all due respect, a nuclear weapon component to the attacks of 9/11 is just not supported. All of Manhattan would have been coated in radioactive dust and, though the term "Ground Zero" is commonly connected to nuclear blasts, in this case the moniker is purely metaphorical.

However, realizing that I don't recall radiactive fallout as being an official concern in the aftermath of the attacks (while acknowledging a nagging recollection of first-reponders being equipped with radiation indicators, which if my recollection is correct, were attached to their persons, be it to their fire coats, or hats, or attached to suspenders or pinned directly to their shirts, etc.), I decided to do a little quick Googling. All I could find was speculation, much of it originating from a very small faction of the 9/11 Truth Movement that has forwarded the theory that nukes were used in the attacks.

I just think that, in the absense of nuclear fallout, nukes were not used to bring down the towers. And, anyway, if there was radiactive fallout detected at Ground Zero, they would not have allowed bush to stand amidst that rubble. That they did allow him to do so is a good indicator that he was in no danger from radiation contamination.

[zappaman]

29. mmmaybe...but

what if a new kind of nuke was used? One that leaves no radiation? How do we know exactly what kind of technology was recovered at Roswell? Maybe they have developed this technology along with the one they have obviously used when generating earthquakes. Unless, of course, you have been brainwashed into thinking that the earthquake in Haiti was just some random event...

[no limit]

32. Oh. My. God. Please tell me you are joking.

[OnTheOtherHand]

37. I would bet on it

Granted, I've been wrong before. But really.

[Subdivisions]

36. You seem to have forgotten where you are...

This is neither Godlike Productions or Above Top Secret.

Either that or you forgot to use the sarcasm icon because you can't seriously believe that silliness is discussed here.

[spooked911]

45. it would be good if you could read more on this

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2007/06/on-issue-of-nuclear-demolition-of-wtc.html

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

http://wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com/

Note, that nukes can be designed that release relatively less radiation and have more explosive power.

Of course, there have been hundreds of cancers from Ground Zero, NYC responders, and note the radiation there would be comparatively much less to Hiroshima.

As far as Bush, he was a patsy, and I don't think they cared that much if he was there for a little while and got exposed. And remember they waited a few days before he went there.

[William Seger]

54. Bullshit. You're the one who needs to read more

"Radiation" is not the same thing as "radioactive fallout." You cannot conceivably have any type of nuclear explosion without huge amounts of radiation, because radiation is the thing that drives the nuclear chain reaction. The "clean" bombs you're talking about are designed to minimize radioactive fallout -- the radioactive dust that's produced when nuclear bombs vaporize their casings and surroundings, which condense into particles containing unstable compounds -- but even that can't be eliminated.

Your imaginary ways of shielding this radiation are ridiculously inadequate, since the radiation released by even the smallest possible nuclear blast would be many, many orders of magnitude more energetic than that of a nuclear reactor, which requires very heavy shielding. There were hundreds of thousands of "radiation detectors" in Manhattan that day, and at least tens of thousands of them would have been dead within a day to a month from "radiation poisoning" -- the immediate cell damage done by direct radiation -- forget about the long-term effects of fallout. There were exactly zero cases of even non-fatal radiation poisoning on 9/11, even among those people who survived in the stairwell, and the obvious explanation for this, as well as the other missing indicators such as fallout and electromagnetic pulses, is that there were zero nuclear bombs. This theory is even more idiotic than no planes. What kind of contest are you guys running?

[spooked911]

66. that's pure bull about what we would expect from radiation poisoning

the scale of the bombs used is much smaller than what you seem to be thinking about

[spooked911]

50. also, in terms of wtc7

if they blew out the basement, most of the radiation would be trapped underneath the building. And don't forget the thermal extremely hot spots in WTC7 for a week after 9/11, that fits with nuking and leftover nuke debris.

[BeFree]

53. Nukes?

I am having a real hard time with them using nukes. I guess it is plausible, but probable? First, they would have had to test the use of such a bomb and one would think that satellite nuke sensors would have seen a signature.

However, the idea that a new type of explosive device not well known is probable and plausible. I lean toward a solid rocket fuel being used as a way to melt the steel.

[Kesha]

38. Stupid question...

As we all know, CD is unnecessary since 9/11.

Some gallons of Kerosine will do the job.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Simple question, dude...

do you have anyone who witnessed anything remotely like the picture in the OP occurring in WTC 1,2 or 7

BTW, thanks for shattering the civility and respectfulness. In fact, I'm just going to ignore you in this thread and I hope others will too.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

41. Dude...

I already replied to you. You just didn't like the answer. Kinder says he doesn't even recall writing the e-mail. Doesn't sound very strong to me, dude.

[wildbilln864]

57. ok no-truthers.

do you believe they would try to hide the rigging if indeed the WTC were deliberately rigged to be covertly demolished!? Very disingenuous Sduders.

[SDuderstadt]

59. Ummm, Bill...

Please explain how they would "hide" the preparation necessary and how they could possibly pre-cut the columns without anyone seeing them. All you're doing is demonstrating how little you know about controlled demolition. I wasn't being "disengenuous" about anything, but you are if you maintain the necessary preparation to bring down two 110 story towers could be done on the sly.

[wildbilln864]

82. Ummmm, Sduders...

Please explain how and why it couldn't be done "on the sly".

[SDuderstadt]

83. Bill...look at the picture I posted...

in an actual controlled demolition, columns have to be pre-cut, because explosives can't do the job all by themselves. Why didn't a single recovery worker report a single piece of evidence of CD? Not a single piece of det cord, not a single blasting cap, nothing. Do you honestly believe the work necessary to bring down the towers could have been done in the time available, given the time it takes (months) to bring down a much smaller building?

More importantly, your question is the typical "truther" attempt to shift the burden of proof by demanding that I disprove YOUR claim. So, the bottom line is, unless you can prove your claim (which you've failed at miserably for 8 years), the claim the towers were brought down by controlled demolition is, for all intents and purposes, dead in the water. The fact that you would even make such a demand demonstrates how little you know about Logic, dude.

[wildbilln864]

92. the pic you posted...

has nothing to do with a covert demolition rigging. All your no-truther logic won't change that.

[SDuderstadt]

94. Dude...

I keep asking you to provide some proof of what a "covert controlled demolition" would even look like. Here's the challenge; calculate how much explosives would be needed, then tell us how the "perps" got that unnoticed into the towers.

And, as I explained before, columns and other structural supports have to be pre-cut. So, are you saying the perps accomplished all that, then covered it back up? Further, once the pre--cutting has been done, do you realy think the building could support its normal live and dead loading? Hint: no, that's why buildings that are to be brought down by controlled demolition are literally "ghost buildings", dude.

Why can't you answer these rather simple questions, dude? Hint: because your claims are bullshit.

[wildbilln864]

97. Sduders...

you make way to many assumptions for me to even bother. But one thing. If you believe a bunch of columns would have to be precut and all, how can you believe the official story that just one expanding column brought another whole building down that had no impact damage.

[Twist_U_Up]

104. Shouldnt you be asking Marvin Bush these questions?

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served.
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

things that make ya go hmmmm

[Make7]

118. things that make ya go hmmmm

If one Googles the first half dozen words from the body of your post...

http://www.google.com/search?q="Marvin+P.+Bush,+the+president's+younger+brother"

... the top result is from a site that isn't allowed to be linked here because it is considered bigoted and an unreliable source of information.

things that make ya go hmmmm
 

[wildbilln864]

119. the top one out of how many? nt

[Make7]

134. It just makes me wonder why he would copy word-for-word from a source without providing a link.

Perhaps the reason is that he didn't want to link to the source where he actually did get the material for his post. Perhaps not.

Things that make ya go hmmmm.
 

[Twist_U_Up]

147. I`m sorry make7 Ill fix it. And dont be so paranoid .geesh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0Ms7mId34

Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Bush also served.
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."

Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.

More here w/ video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0Ms7mId34

[Make7]

156. Shouldn't your current link match what was in post 104?

Twist_U_Up wrote pasted into post 104:

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served.
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

Twist_U_Up pasted into Post #147:

Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Bush also served.
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

What source did you copy and paste from for your prior post? Why not just provide the source when you copy material from elsewhere?
 

[Twist_U_Up]

150. Good observation Bill.

the OS is dying.
you'll see feeble attempts to discredit anyone who says otherwise.

[SDuderstadt]

151. Read your last sentence again, dude...

the way you have it worded, you're referring to "truthers". Duh. Let me know if I need to point it out more specifically, so it won't go over your head, dude.

[wildbilln864]

138. so no answer for post #97?

"And, as I explained before, columns and other structural supports have to be pre-cut."

[BeFree]

139. Yeah, bill

What about that theory of "one truss gone and down falls a 42 story building"?

Ya know, he is always asking for evidence from us, so ya have to wonder, does he want the evidence that a new investigation would uncover? Or is he just spewing partisan bullshit and would hate to see a new investigation?

[wildbilln864]

140. So you caught that too BeFree?

He says that in order for the building to be demolished, "...columns and other structural supports have to be pre-cut."
But when it comes to Building #7, one anomalous beam expanding is all it took for 47 stories to completely collapse to the ground. :crazy:

[BeFree]

141. 47 is right?

I stand corrected.

Really, one has to wonder about their credibility when such nonsense is repeatedly heard.

[wildbilln864]

142. at least the anti-truthers it seems have given up......

the ignorant sledge hammer effect analogy. That one was a real hoot.

[BeFree]

143. Yeah

It's rare that a DUer makes such a fool of themselves.
But the anti's have been embarrassing liberalism for far too long. It was bound to happen.

[SDuderstadt]

145. The only foolishness we're guilty of is....

trying to reason with guys like you and Bill, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

144. Jesus, Bill....

"demolished" does not = controlled demolition. Quit twisting my words.

[Twist_U_Up]

103. Your persecution complex is stunning.

If I didnt know any better, I would think that you would be talking to yourself in this fashion.
egos :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

127. Do you even understand what a "persecution complex"...

is, dude?

[Twist_U_Up]

149. Does it have anything to do with post #97?

[SDuderstadt]

152. That's WildBill's post, dude...

are you accusing HIM of having a stunning "persecution complex"?

[Twist_U_Up]

154. No Im accusing you of another hit and run

[SDuderstadt]

155. What on earth does that have to do with...

a "stunning persecution complex"?

[Twist_U_Up]

102. I think the new term is "Trusters"

Hi Bill :hi: glad to see your still engaging the mindless.

[wildbilln864]

106. Hey Twist.

:hi:
Good to see you still on board also. "And, as I explained before, columns and other structural supports have to be pre-cut." But one expanded column was supposed to be the reason #7 completely collapsed. :shrug:

[Twist_U_Up]

148. Black is white and white is black in the DU bizarro world,WB

Tell me, how many times does dude guy have to be proven wrong before he changes sides
and starts working for truth instead of falsities and lies?

[SDuderstadt]

153. Well, you might start with actually proving me wrong, dude...

Thanks for sharing your bizarro world with us, nonetheless.

[spooked911]

96. A damning thing about wtc7 is that it actually fell at same speed as a typical CD

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/09/wtc-7-collapsed-at-same-speed-as-known.html


also the fall was associated with a hot blast
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/10/bent-and-charred-parking-meter.html

[SDuderstadt]

133. "WTC 7 collapsed in approximately 7 seconds, not counting the earlier collapse of the penthouses"

Duh. Beyond that, how is the total time for the collapse calculated from a video in which the bottom third of WTC 7 is not even visible????

So, the collapse of WTC 7 was at free fall speed, AS LONG as you dishinestly start the clock well after the penthouses have collapsed and stop it well before the building has finished collapsing. So much for "truth".

[Twist_U_Up]

101. defending a story that is falling apart day by day

How do you sleep at night?
oh wait you dont, your posting on here.