Controlled demolition: disinfo?

by **nomo** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:49 pm

When discussing what really happened on 9/11, I sometimes mention the theory about controlled demolition of the towers. A lot of people who are willing to entertain alternate suggestions of what took place draw the line there: there couldn't have been controlled demolition, and gravity pretty much explains it all. They say the controlled demolition theory is disinfo meant to discredit all alternate research. What's the concensus among people on this board? I myself am willing to consider it as possible, although I think it's more likely the buildings just came down as a result of the impact and the fires. If it is indeed disinfo, I probably shouldn't be mentioning it anymore, right? -- When all else fails... panic.

by **slimmouse** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:57 pm

Heat - complete bullshit. Pancake theory - Even worse. Those towers were brought down by CD, probably from Gulianis office in WTC 7 -That part of the building that mysteriously caught on fire, and from whence the infamous Larry Silverstein quote originates, where he "remembers getting a call from the Fire chief saying they wouldnt be able to control the fire in WTC 7, and that they would have to pull that building too" Ive seen a bigger fire at a boys scouts jamboree. Controlled demolition is the ONLY feasible explanation.

by **Homeless Halo** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:23 pm

I learned enough basic physics in high school to recognize that the WTC was destroyed on purpose, by multiple planted explosives. Gravity alone would have created a far different type of descent from that which we all saw on TV. Falling would have been a far less "controlled" crumbling, and the friction from the toppling alone would have made it fall far less smoothly, even if there was only air to cause friction, it would've tumbled differently. And there was steel and concrete to cause friction. How is it that all three buildings crumbled in the exact fashion perfectly into their footprints (unheard of) from damages caused by steel bending and fire (also unheard of) ??? (Clearly this was a government controlled Psy-Op. This indeed, was my immediate reaction, followed by my friend who looked at me and said: "Next, we make a Gestapo") I'm not saying that there were no Islamic militants present, they were in the airports, after all, but that they couldn't have done this much damage without help. First rule of counter-intelligence: There is no such thing as an "outside" job.

by **nomo** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:30 pm

Well see, that's the thing. I find it hard to look at the footage of the crumbling buildings and not think that I'm watching an explosion, and not an implosion. But as soon as I bring that up, people look at me like I've gone off the deep end. They usually cite all kinds of scientific theories that purport to explain how all of this could easily happen the way we were told to believe. And you know what? I'm confused. On the one hand, the pancake theory seems plausible to me, but on the other hand, sheesh, you look at the pictures and you think, wow, something went boom really big there... And it seems to me that the topic of CD is the single biggest issue used to discredit 9/11 truth seekers. -- When all else fails... panic.

by **Homeless Halo** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:36 pm

What "scientific" theories? The pancake theory is simply rehashing of the Pentagons' press release. There are no scientists I am familiar with, aside from paid 'debunkers', who have tried to posit this theory. A controlled looking descent on one tower? Unlikely but possible. Two towers? Stretching credibility. Three? Fool me once...

by **slimmouse** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But as soon as I bring that up, people look at me like I've gone off the deep end.<hr></blockquote> I would be tempted to ask these people how solid steel beams manage to "pancake out" horizontally around 300 ft without the aid of explosives. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> Im afraid to say these people are in some kind of denial IMHO. You might also show these "people" what a real inferno in a steel and concrete skyscraper looks like, and as them to compare this with what was seen in the North and South towers approximately 10 mins after impact; a) A real fire <a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html">www.whatreallyhappened.co..._2005.html</a> b) The twin towers ; <a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_woman.jpg">www.whatreallyhappened.co..._woman.jpg</a> And then ask your people which skyscraper of the two fell ?>D Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 10/3/05 2:45 pm

by **glubglubglub** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:15 pm

the towers down, which leaves some kind of planned demolition the only plausible explanation. But, the primary problem with the wtc demolition theory is explaining how the explosives got placed in the first place...once you can explain that you're home free, I think. Explaining how they came to be rigged with explosives is a thorny problem, to say the least, as there's practically no easily obtainable concstruction documentation, etc., and b/c the port authority is a separate legal authority from nyc proper there's even more of a headache trying to track that down. Because of this difficulty you've seen some people jump to the conclusion that: a) 'scalar weapons' were invovled b) 'mininukes' were involved etc., hoping for some deus ex machina that works around the difficulty. I tend to think that if there's evidence it's probably going to require some ninja-style vigilantism, raiding the offices and security boxes of those involved in the construction and maintenance of the building, who would be expected to try to hold onto such damaging records for blackmail purposes.

by **manxkat** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:37 pm

in my opinion. But, rather than focusing on the twin towers and the question about pancake theory vs. controlled demolition, one need only look at WTC7 when trying to convince people who might look at you like you're crazy. Following on, however, regarding access to plant the explosives in the twin towers, my understanding is that Marvin Bush was involved with the company in charge of security at WTC. I read reports too about sections of the WTC being closed off before 9/11 and the bomb-sniffing dogs being called off as well. I don't have the links handy, but could find them if anyone wants further info. But, again, I would focus on WTC7 and other glaring anomalies that point the finger squarely at a conspiracy.

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:57 pm

I doubt controlled demolition of WTC 1&2. "I learned enough basic physics in high school etc." Then why is it that most engineers were not surprised when the towers fell? Do you really learn enough physics in high school to have an educated opinion on this? To argue controlled demolition, you have to argue that all the scientists at NIST who have studied the fall of the towers are disinfo agents or under duress to come up with a bullshit explanation - "paid debunkers", as Halo would call them. I tend to doubt that. The National Geographic documentary on the fall of the towers, based on the research done at NIST, was more convincing to me than anything I've seen from the controlled demolition theorists. Some of the "evidence" presented in support of the cd theory, such as "molten steel", appears to be false. Other evidence is extremely week, such as the explosions heard inside the towers. Gee, explosions in a burning building... The day someone comes forward with credible inside information about the planting of explosives, I'll happily change my opinion. I'm not ruling anything out, but until then, I'm not buying it. WTC7 is another matter. It may have been demolished. The NG documentary didn't mention it at all, which may be telling. But it's a logical fallacy to assume that if WTC7 was demolished, WTC1&2 must have been, as well. The planners of the attack may have had all sorts of reasons why it would be imperative to demolish WTC7, which housed CIA offices etc. They may also have calculated what would be the result of airliners full of fuel hitting the towers at 500 mph. Planting explosives is not something a small team can do in a couple of hours, by the way, which seems to be some people's assumption. I've come to realize that it's virtually impossible to discuss this with CD believers, though. 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** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:12 pm

Well, I think you are forced to accept that WT7 went down naturally if you accept that the 2 big ones did. After all, as you say, you can't just rig the building up in a few hours. So are you suggesting they had that one ready to fall and the other towers just happened to fall in the exact same manner? This seems unlikely. In the NG documentary...were there long steel beams left in tact? I've always wondered. The pancaking wouldn't destroy the beams would they? Wouldn't one floor fall on the other...loosen its moorings, rinse and repeat, leaving the steel columns more or less whole? The coincidence alone of both towers falling so neatly followed by another building not even hit by the plane does not PROVE anything by itself. But come on...surely you are struck by the improbability of it all. And you don't have to assume the explosives were put in in a few hours of course. I mean, Bush's brother had just taken over security at those buildings...as well as at the two airports from which the planes were hijacked. "Hi, this is Marvin. We have to rewire the security system of the building so just ignore all those workmen scuttling about." In case you didn't know about this aspect: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Common Dreams NewsCenter Monday, October 03, 2005 Featured Views Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article Published on Tuesday, February 4, 2003 by the Prince George's Journal (Maryland) Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United by Margie Burns George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family. The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down." It also had a three-year contract to maintain electronic security systems at Dulles Airport, according to a Dulles contracting official. Securacom/Stratesec also handled some security for United Airlines in the 1990s, according to McDaniel, but it had been completed before his arriving on the board in 1998. McDaniel confirmed that the company has security contracts with the Department of Defense, including the U.S. Army, but did not detail the nature of the work, citing security concerns. It has an ongoing line with the General Services Administration - meaning that its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los Alamos laboratory before 1998. Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11, nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done security work for the facilities attacked. Marvin Bush joined Securacom when it was capitalized by the Kuwait-American Corporation, a private investment firm in D.C. that was the security company's major investor, sometimes holding a controlling interest. Marvin Bush has not responded to telephone calls and e-mails for comment. KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec. The managing director at KuwAm, Wirt D. Walker III, was also a principal at Stratesec, and Walker, Marvin Bush and al Sabah are listed in SEC filings as significant shareholders in both companies during that period. Marvin Bush's last year on the board at Stratesec coincided with his first year on the board of HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the WTC. He left the HCC board in November 2002. But none of these connections has been looked at during the extensive investigations since 9/11. McDaniel says principals and other personnel at Stratesec have not been questioned or debriefed by the FBI or other investigators. Walker declined to answer the same question regarding KuwAm, referring to the public record. Walker is also chairman and CEO of Aviation General, a Tulsa, Okla.-based aviation company with two subsidiaries. SEC filings also show al Sabah as a principal and shareholder in Aviation General, which was recently delisted by the Nasdaq. Stratesec was delisted by the American Stock Exchange in October 2002. The suite in which Marvin Bush was annually re-elected, according to public records, is located in the Watergate in space leased to the Saudi government. The company now holds shareholder meetings in space leased by the Kuwaiti government there. The White House has not responded to various requests for comment. Speaking of the Watergate, Riggs National Bank, where Saudi Princess Al-Faisal had her ``Saudi money trail" bank account, has as one of its executives Jonathan Bush, an uncle of the president. The public has not learned whether Riggs - which services 95 percent of Washington's foreign embassies - will be turning over records relating to Saudi finance. Meanwhile, Bush has nominated William H. Donaldson to head the Securities and Exchange Commission. Donaldson, a longtime Bush family friend, was a Yale classmate of Jonathan Bush. On the very day of the tragic space shuttle crash, the government appointed an independent investigative panel, and rightly so. Why didn't it do the same on Sept. 12, 2001? Margie Burns, a teacher and writer, lives in Cheverly, Maryland.<hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 10/3/05 6:35 pm

by **Elpiper** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:21 pm

I believe they were controlled demolitions. The videos show many explosions, and there are enough stories circulating about "cable upgrades" and bomb-sniffing dog removal and security blackouts in the towers in the days preceding 9/11 to easily account for explosives being put in place by various "engineers" moving throughout the towers. The times of the collapse, all three of which are pretty close to free-fall speed, is all one really needs to look at. And I'd throw in the absence of 30-floor high piles of rubble as well. Even if the collapses were due to natural causes, the towers would not have disintegrated into the huge pyroclastic clouds we saw. Here's something about the "molten steel", from <a href="http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm">Serendipity.li</a>: Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, was asked about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. Photos of the WTC thermal hotspots <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html">HERE</a>

by **cyclonaut** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:01 pm

i remembered reading this in more than one place. the basic premise is that there was some unusual activity the weekend prior to 9/11. long and short it is speculated that with the power out, which allegedly happened, persons were able to avoid surveilance and wire the upper floors with explosives.... <a href="http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/1691636.php">sf.indymedia.org/news/200...691636.php</a>

by **slimmouse** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:12 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I doubt controlled demolition of WTC 1&2.<hr></blockquote> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/nerd.gif ALT="8o"> Im wondering how physics can explain metal beams exploding out horizontally at distances of 300 feet ? Or Heat sufficient to melt or even buckle steel, where a woman can stand 5 minutes later ? I wonder if we would have spotted that poor woman looking out of a gap in the madrid fire ? <a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html">www.whatreallyhappened.co..._2005.html</a> But then again, if a man who cant fly a biplane to save his life, can firstly fly a known hijacked jet liner for 45 minutes across US airspace without even being challenged and with America known to be under attack, and then bank the bird in on a 270 degree angle at 500 mph, 5 feet off the ground, in order to hit an unnoccupied part of the pentagon, I guess anythings possible. Talk about take the long way home. Double meds for me tonight please nurse <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/embarassed.gif ALT=":o"> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 10/3/05 7:19 pm

by **smiths** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:31 pm

one of the things that is repeatedly stated is that the buildings fell at near freefall speed, i myself have never done the maths to know wether this is legitimate, and so am i supposed to take someone else's word for it, but really wtc7 is the key to it, it did not fall down from fire, it was brought down in a controlled demolition, which takes a lot of time to set up, and so the idea that the attack came out of the blue and the towers fell identically on a day when they just happened to be ready to demolish wtc7 is absurd, and steel really doesnt melt like that in an oxygen starved environment, every morning as i stare blankly at my steel coffee pot on the steel stove with temperatures exceeding what the beams would have been exposed to i marvel at the story of 9/11, and seriously, why else would the steel have been shipped off so fast if there was a genuine desire to find some of the answers to the most baffling questions, because if three steel framed buildings had all collapsed from minor fires on 9/11 really, it would be the most serious question facing construction and engineering to this day, and that steel would have been tested and analysed and every building in the world with a similar design and steel from the same source would have been checked, but to the best of my knowledge that hasnt happened, i accept that i dont have the conclusive evidence i need to know for sure, but to believe anything other than controlled demolition knowing everything i now know would be floating down a long river in egypt

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:56 pm

Slimmouse <blockquote>Quote:<hr>if a man who cant fly a biplane to save his life, can firstly fly a known hijacked jet liner for 45 minutes across US airspace without even being challenged and with America known to be under attack, and then bank the bird in on a 270 degree angle at 500 mph, 5 feet off the ground, in order to hit an unnoccupied part of the pentagon, I guess anythings possible. <hr></blockquote> I don't think Hani Hanjour flew that plane into the Pentagon. What has that got to do with the WTC? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Heat sufficient to melt or even buckle steel, where a woman can stand 5 minutes later ?<hr></blockquote> Well, obviously that happened at other places than exactly where that woman was standing. Sheez. Why don't you take that argument to NIST, I'm sure that's something they've overlooked and would be very interested in. 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.

Controlled demolition: disinfo?

Controlled demolition: disinfo?

Re: Controlled demolition: Absolute certainty.

geez

Re: geez

who?

Re: geez

it's basically inarguable to me that the planes didn't bring

definitely controlled demolition

Re: geez

Re: geez

Re: definitely

not a primary source but....

Re: geez

physics

Re: geez

Who is online