Controlled demolition: disinfo?

by **Qutb** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:52 pm

Slimmouse said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In the meantime, Why go off at tangents when the bleeding obvious is staring you in the face for gawds sake ?<hr></blockquote> Because it isn't bleeding obvious to me. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>To my mind however, this flies over both the head and attention span of the average laymen, and neglects a far simpler method of presentation which is painfully obvious to everyone, from the keenest scholar to a five year old child<hr></blockquote> The thing is, it isn't obvious to everyone. Quite the contrary, in my experience. CD has a way of putting a lot of people off, which obviously was the original posters experience as well. And even if it convinces people, I'm worried about convincing people of inaccurate theories, which might cause the whole thing to be discredited later, if it gains more traction. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by * » Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:03 pm

Of those 6 collapses since 1970, 3 were the WTC buildings and the other 3 were partial collapses of a floor or two or simply beam deflection. This was a worldwide survey and this was all they could come up with?

by **nomo** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:03 am

"CD has a way of putting a lot of people off, which obviously was the original posters experience as well. And even if it convinces people, I'm worried about convincing people of inaccurate theories, which might cause the whole thing to be discredited later, if it gains more traction." Exactly what my question was all about. I love all the responses, and I'm STILL not sure about CD, but it seems wiser to avoid the topic for now when adressing 9/11 with strangers. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=nomo@rigorousintuition>nomo</A> at: 10/4/05 10:43 pm

by **firstimer** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:05 am

Folks, the first example was a wood frame building! page 9 <a href="http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02028.pdf">fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fi...f02028.pdf</a> The most recent incident reported was the destruction of the Santana Row, Building 7 in San Jose, CA on August 19, 2002 (Chui, 2002; Gathright, et.al., 2002). This structure was a 5- story wood frame retail and residential complex that was under construction. With incomplete fire protection systems, the building was much more susceptible to fire spread and damage. Witnesses state that the fire started on the roof, where construction work was underway. The entire complex collapsed due to the fire. "wood frame" thats their leading punch? its an invitation to explore isn't it? example 2 "Another recent fire-induced building collapse occurred in St. Petersburg, Russia on June 3, 2002 (BBC News Online, 2002; Ottowa Citizen, 2002). This building was a 9-story concrete apartment block that totally collapsed after about a one hour fire (See Figure 2.3). The news services reported only 1 related casualty, with about 400 other residents safely evacuating the burning building prior to collapse. It was reported that ongoing reconstruction work at this site had accidentally ruptured a gas line, which ignited and fueled this fire. " The second example from a different account, says that an initial 3 story collapse started the fire by breaking gas pipes. "On Monday the constructions of the western side of a 9-storey apartment building made of brick and having a bituminised concrete roof in the Dvinskaya Street partially broke down. Three upper storeys of the building consisting of four sections collapsed. A fire emerged in the building, and one of its sections broke down." So much for 2nd case supporting the pancake theory, unless there was a gravity based catastrophic structural collapse preceding the fire at WTC buildings- ...not! At WTC on 9/11 there was no structural collapse until about 1hr after impact at , IE. in the 2nd example from NIST, structural collapse was not based solely on fire as suggested by NIST here: ---"Another recent fire-induced building collapse occurred in St. Petersburg..." The weight of the initial 3 collapsed floors probably added to the pressure on the rest of the structure (was it even steel reinforced? not clear) The example is not comparable even by laymans standards. Here's a clue, everybody (199) got out except for 4 reported missing, in the end 1 died, even the firemen got out, not quite the same circumstance is it? I doubt this article was comissioned by WRH, Truthout, Move-on.org or whytheleftkeepsloosing.com (my favorite) So who is straining for a connection? The truth isn't so hard to find or believe. It always makes sense. Occam's razor, as somebody said, sliced through that NIST theory early on. Thats pretty weak research for engineers isn't it? Either that or I'm an engineering genius for pointing that out. (I'm not, so do the math QTUB - BTW I acknowledge your other positions and recognize your scrutiny is for a better cause than most) Shame on the engineers for letting this slide, some blood is on their hands quickmoles: <a href="http://www.seinstitute.org/">www.seinstitute.org/</a> and <a href="http://www.aisc.org/">www.aisc.org/</a> somebody got some hush money CD explains biggest smoking gun that has had no other successful explanation to date:Immediate and highly controlled containment, exportation, and destruction of the main evidence of the crime scene (steel remains) without any of the standard practices of city,state, or Federal law enforcement. Thanks Michael Ruppert for the limited hangout, hold the peak oil though, its hard to swallow such an innocent, sugary motive for 911. The coverup is thin here and obvious, but only to those who verify their suspicions or their explanations. Not enough of that verification going on, the internet invites these questions. That is why the mighty internet will also be eliminated by controlled demolition. "We couldn't help the internet save itself from its own tyrrany." is what the papers will say. I need to get my escapefromnyc plan together. firstimer Am I way off? just let me know? I'm just getting into this conspiricy thinghy anyways. firstimer -full article- 14:06 2002-06-04 Russian minister spoke highly of work to evacuate people from tumbled building in Petersburg The rescuers and firemen of St. Petersburg who evacuated people from the collapsed dormitory "worked brilliantly", said head of the Emergency Situations Ministry (MChS) of Russia Sergei Shoigu. He said this to journalists after the conference held at the site of the incident. Sergei Shoigu noted that the rescuers and firemen stayed in the building till the critical moment (the collapse of the staircase spans) and, risking their life, evacuated the dwellers from the collapsing building. No rescuers or firemen were hurt. As many as 199 people lived in the section that collapsed. As many as 196 people underwent registration after the tragedy; 110 of them are now staying with their relatives and acquaintances, and 80 - in the buildings of communal destination where they are provided with food. Four people - three dwellers who have not provided any information about themselves so far and a woman staffer of the bank whose subsidiary was in the building - are considered to be missing. The rescuers have already done about 40 per cent of the work to clear the ruins. As many as 454 people and 60 machines and units of special equipment are working at the scene. The firemen also keep working to eliminate the burning in the basements and to dismantle the constructions. The specialists are examining the collapsed house to decide the further fate of the building. On Monday the constructions of the western side of a 9-storey apartment building made of brick and having a bituminised concrete roof in the Dvinskaya Street partially broke down. Three upper storeys of the building consisting of four sections collapsed. A fire emerged in the building, and one of its sections broke down. By the preliminary estimates, the collapse and fire could be caused by an explosion of the gas cylinders which remained in the building after the repair made there in early May.

by **mirage** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:13 am

oops--- "The second example from a different account, says that an initial 3 story collapse started the fire by breaking gas pipes." nix the "by breaking gas pipes" the second article wasn't as specific about the cause of the fire, only the fact that the fire came after the initial collapse. mirage Theory still holds. sorry- put me in with the rest of the tired, overworked liberationistas Its late for me firstimer

by **maggrwaggr** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:18 am

He's a good friend and I've known him for years. He spent the entire summer in Europe, working. He just got back and we were hanging out and getting caught up. Somehow the subject came up and I told him that I was now convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. He simply shrugged and said "that's what the majority of Europeans believe". He hadn't made the leap yet, but he was open to the possibility. I started going off on it, trying to give him the cliff-notes version. He just kept saying "you should be in europe". I guess my point is that it's not something you can bring up with your average Joe American. Even people you know really well can sort of give you "that look" when you bring it up. It's appalling, really, now uninformed most people are. Maybe we just have more free time than most folks. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Because it does take some time to start researching it.

by **cortez** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:03 am

I just wanted some others to comment on this video, you can hear the explosions going off in it. (maybe it's been debunked already?) <img src="http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem1/watch.frame.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <a href="http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem1/wtc.2.demolitio.south.closeup.zoomout.avi">Link to Video</a> this is the sound only from from the video above of the south tower .<a href="http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/wtc-south-tower.aif">audio link</a> this is the sound from a demolition in detroit, the hudson building (pretty sure thatï¿½s what it is) <a href="http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/jhudson1.aif">audio link</a> There are many more videos from a variety of angles which bring into question how the towers collapsed. -------------- As well when looking at a still photo with an explosion (or a white puff) coming out of the floors far below, it make me wonder was is that puff? <img src="http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem4/1696-01.jpg" style="border:0;"/> I suppose the relevence of the CD argument is, there is still an argument. At this point the rest of the story has been hollowed out as a flimsy sham by most people who actually look at it. I also find that many people find the layers of disinfo too dense to navigate, if a simple slight of hand can be exposed by the WTC collapses (WTC 7 is our best bet on that one), then I believe it is in our best interests to expose it, or at least ask the tough questions. These were posted on this board by someone, sorry I can't remember who <img src="http://www.gogomag.com/rs/x_ricksanchez.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Quote:â€

by **Homeless Halo** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:52 am

Only world controlling power could "destroy" the internet(which has no objective validity, it doesn't have a "location" per se) and even then, much of the information would still exist trapped in the EM field of the planet, stuck under the belts, bouncing around forever once unleashed on the WIFI networks. If you had a server with bluetooth, you could get internet with no provider, if you had the satelite from your dish. (some of us were geeks in highschool) The internet was a military construct specifically designed to reestablish infrastructure after NUCLEAR WAR. They can't take the internet away. Not without destroying the world. They could make it illegal. But that wouldn't stop anyone who really wanted to do it. Like prostitution or prohibitional laws. 30%+ would have bootleg web connections. Its too late. "They" lost a long time ago, it is just taking them a longer time to realize it. Of course, the real "they" are mostly old guys who can't program the clock on the VCR. So it hasn't occurred to them yet how badly they've engineered their own downfall. DON'T PANIC.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:25 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Exactly what my question was all about. I love all the responses, and I'm STILL not sure about CD, but it seems wiser to avoid the topic for now when adressing 9/11 with strangers<hr></blockquote> Having chewed a while on your NIST article NOMO, and having seen their "evidence" for myself, along with later posts here from people pointing out among other things, that one of the structures was timber, and the fact that all of the other buildings have not collapsed completely in any way, I would ask this; "What does the nature of this "new" evidence suggest to anyone about the desperate nature of such institutions to conceal the extremely strong possibility of CD in WTC 1, 2 and 7 ?" I mean, if this is truly the best NIST can do to attempt to corrroborate the official explanation of the collapse of the towers, by way of Heat, pancakes, ' blown off lagging' and all the rest of it ! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/grin.gif ALT=" >D"> It seems to me, that the more that 'They' open their mouths trying to explain away the failure of the 3 buildings on 9/11, the worse they make it for themselves <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **Qutb** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:08 am

If you believe the CD hypothesis, you have to believe that a sufficiently large team of controlled demolition professionals can be assembled, all the members of which are perfectly willing to participate in mass murder of thousands of Americans, and can be trusted to keep their mouths perfectly shut about this afterwards (or does the "intelligence community" have this kind of expertise in-house?). You also have to believe that these people were able to do their work without anybody noticing. No eye witness has related anything about that kind of work going on, that I'm aware of. You also have to believe that the 9/11 conspirators were willing to run the considerable risk of having their plans aborted, simply by someone at the WTC asking these CD people what the hell they're doing. How do you prepare a 110-story building for demolition without anyone noticing? And if someone would happen to notice, as someone surely would, how would they explain what they were doing? "Ah, um, you see, we're just placing these explosives here because, um..." You do realize that the WTC collapse is a case study of great interest to the civil engineering departments of universities all over the world, and yet the non-engineers of the 9/11 Truth movement are somehow the only people in the world who voice these suspicions - or convictions - about explosives. Yep, sure looks like controlled demolition to me! If anyone is interested in the NG documentary, it can be downloaded <a href="http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_september11.htm" target="top">here</a>. Other interesting videos at the same link - be sure to scroll down and see the Bush press conference where the president is asked if he has a comment to Nader's allegations that he knew about 9/11 in advance. Bush's reaction is very interesting. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **Byrne** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:42 am

Nomo, Thanks for digging up NIST report, which was produced in December 2002. Reading the report, it lists 6 examples of ‘fire-induced collapse events’ involving steel framed buildings. 3 of these occurred on 11th September 2001 and the other 3 were not full collapse events (i.e. not fully collapsed to the round AS A RESULT OF THE FIRE ALONE) The statement still stands: NO STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS HAVE EVER FULLY COLLAPSED AS A RESULT OF FIRE. Going into the report deeper……….. Of the 6 No. examples of steel framed construction cited in the NIST Report (page 16), 4 of the cases occurred on 9-11 (WTC1, 2, 6 & 7). (I think WTC-6 was later demolished due to the damage suffered, so that doesn’t qualify!) The other 2 of the 5 examples, the Alexis Nihon Plaza fire in Montreal, Canada on October 26, 1986, caused only the partial collapse of a section of one floor, and that was after the fire burned for 5 hours! The report notes that the partial collapse resulted from fire damage to the smaller ‘clip angles’ at the end of the floor girders, where they connect to the vertical columns. It was noted that the steel girders and beams of the collapsed floor section were virtually straight and un-deformed, The building stood. This is a minor failure in comparison and should not be described as a full building collapse. The other example cited is the fire at One New York Plaza on August 5, 1970. Here the form of construction was a mixed steel/reinforced concrete. The fire burned for approximately 5 hours and again there was some localized failure of end connection bolts, leading to a partial collapse of sections of the 33rd and 34th floors. The building did not collapse. I believe this issue should be raised amongst the engineering fraternity. A recent thread was started on Physics.org at <a href="http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showforum=12" target="top">forum.physorg.com/index.php?showforum=12</a> as 'Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse' & it appears to be ruffling a few feathers.....

by **Qutb** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:24 am

Well, I checked out the discussion at the physorg.com forum. They were obviously invaded by a horde of uregistered CD theory adherents, writing things like: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What Andrew Johnson has suggested is simply irrefutable, even though a couple of "characters" (naming no names as to whom I'm referring to (but it wouldnt take "a degree in structural engineering" to figure it out)) have attempted to, and then resorted to insults and slander having failed.<hr></blockquote> ...which is fairly representative of their style of argument. Their arguments were refuted by those who knew more than them about structural engineering, and the CDers sourly "retort" that this is "resorting to slander and accusations", when in fact the CDers are the ones resorting to slander and accusations. If you don't agree with their theories, then you "believe the official conspiracy theory", "believe the reptiles' lies" etc. Blah. And when arguments and insults fail, they can always resort to SHOUTING their pseudo-arguments, either in CAPS or in bold. Unfortunately, this CD mythology is spreading, and is increasingly identified with alternative analyses of 9/11. If the 9/11 Truth movement continues to insist on this, they are doomed to perpetual irrelevance. Why is it that otherwise intelligent people can't see the vacuity of the case for CD? Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:56 am

Qutb, I actually believe that a CD could be pulled off. However, I can't prove it. But I can't PROVE any element of 9/11 conspiracy. However, I did want to contribute this little bit of analysis as to WHY we can't get a coherent story together. Watchful Citizen a week or so ago linked to this Donovan paper on "morale operations". It's an image and not a text file so I can't cut and paste. One tactic mentioned...and refined in the 60 years since the paper was written... is to set up a fake radio station (now I'd say website) and put out information that supports the enemy but then take positions SO extreme that the enemy's entire position is discredited. Sound familiar? I think theories that no planes hit the world trade center (not even talking about Penatagon) but that they were "holograms" would be a fine example. Add this method to intentional red herrings and well, it gets very muddy. If we assume there was a conspiracy, whether or not it involved explosives, the number of people involved would have to be so large that your objections to CD would actually still be valid. Although I do think they have ways of compartmentalizing things, but if there was a conspiracy...many people had to play a role and even with compartmentalization could surely have put the picture together. Perhaps today, many of them feel like the final "suicide bomber" on the double decker bus in London when he was told of bombs going off and realized what he was carrying. And if there was a conspiracy then a large part of it would HAVE to be information control. So, fake extreme theories would be part, but gatekeeping would be a big part as well. And I think it's the gatekeeping that may be the problem with the CD theory (unless, as you suggest, it's simply not true.) But I think that whatever lines of inquiry one follows, the gatekeeping will be there to take care of it as well. Or does Sander Hicks get space in the Nation?

by **slimmouse** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:15 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If you believe the CD hypothesis, you have to believe that a sufficiently large team of controlled demolition professionals can be assembled, all the members of which are perfectly willing to participate in mass murder of thousands of Americans, and can be trusted to keep their mouths perfectly shut about this afterwards (or does the "intelligence community" have this kind of expertise in-house?).<hr></blockquote> And if you believe the above, you would have to dismiss out of hand the possibility that only 3 people knew the eventual outcome of the Manhattan project, since their were thousands of eminently intelligent proffesional scientists involved. And yet they did that. Any idea how ? I would hazard an educated guess that it was the same way they rigged up the towers for demolition. Shouldnt wonder a few of those involved had an 'accident' here and there too - in the mould of Rocky Ahmeds sponsor, who spontaneously burst into flames one day whilst driving her car. Go back to the basics QUTB. have a look at those pics posted in my links, and then ask a five year old child the obvious; Which building should have collapsed due to heat ? Having obtained a childs answer you might then ask yourself, Which building did "officially" collapse due to heat, and which didnt ? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 10/5/05 8:19 am

by **bamabecky** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:15 am

I read somewhere about a maintenance shut down prior to 911. And they said it was the first time that the towers had ever been shut down for maintenance. I just went through 10 search engines looking for it to give you guys the link. Found nothing! Does anyone else remember reading that? I need help finding this link because it will help establish "lost time" in the towers prior to 911. Bama

Controlled demolition: disinfo?

Re: The Gospel

Re: Flat as a 'Pancake' Theory

Exactly

a little bit more about st. petersburg building in NIST doc

oops

I was discussing this with a friend the other day

hate to be a pest

nope

What should this NIST article REALLY suggest to a layman ?

Re: CD

The NIST Report...........

Re: Physorg.com

Re: Physorg.com

Re: CD

Shut down for Maintenance

Who is online