FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC - The Tower Collapses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8434

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:27 pm    Post subject: Controlled Demolition Reply with quote

Yeah, the words "controlled demolition" are not sinful.
Researchers use the term all the time.

What's interesting is a firm called Controlled Demolition getting the cleanup contract.
Even as an explosives expert begins howling "controlled demolition".
Subtle or what?

We can discuss the 9/11 movement in the 3i Discussion.
Let's stay on topic, The Tower Collapses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Neo
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:37 pm    Post subject: Carol Broulliet etc. Reply with quote

The 9/11 movement is not at all as coordinated at you think. Carol Broulliet does what she does because it’s her job. She’s told to do that. She doesn’t like it, but it’s her job. She’s bored senseless standing on the corner every Wednesday in Palo Alto -- where I still live, by the way -- and she clocks off religiously at 1:30 p.m. when her shift is over. She’s had to do that for five years. Imagine it. Five friggin’ years. Just to build up the credibility. This image of her as a lowly soccer mom, who happens to give a damn. -- Which is all she actually is, in fact. A clueless mom, who’s been given a task. And you know why they use her? Cuz she looks white. I quit when I started getting wise to the real deal, and then found out Carol is tribe. Nuff said.

The money that comes in from selling the books on the table does not pay for the events. No way. Or the Deception Dollars. I’d just guesstimate that somebody puts a good hundred grand in the kitty a year to keep her at the helm. Where they can have veto power over who gets to speak at the events. Webster Tarpley is now speaking on national tv because I put his b.s. Bush book in her hands. She eventually read it, thought it was the shiz, and contacted him. That’s how he ended up speaking at 9/11 events, and eventually becoming one of their center stage show ponies. -- I did that. I messed up. But there it is. That’s how truly uncoordinated the thing is. They aren’t running around looking for people to talk. They’re just trying to keep a handle on who does talk. And it got totally out of their control, because lots of people started getting wise to it and forming their own groups as a result.

You’re chasing phantoms, Fintan, and I agree with the people here who say it makes you yourself look dubious. It’s a shame, but I’ve long since learned to put absolutely no faith in anyone, so it’s not like you’re going to break my heart by turning out to be another fink. It’ll be a bummer to some, but hey, that’s how I learned. Starting with the great Noam. -- Who by the way trashed Carol Broulliet in a letter he wrote to her, saying we had no evidence of conspiracy in 9/11, and then had to walk off the stage in disgrace a couple months later in a debate over it.

They can’t control even a small part of what’s going on with the 9/11 exposure. They just plain don’t have enough people. Most of what’s on the web is legit stuff by legit people. They can only do what ANSWER does. Try to put on the biggest show and steal the thunder. But it’s not working. We’re in the clear. We’re up against a wall for time, but there’s no way they can stop the growing awareness of it. But now you want to go back to some kind of square one, and I just don’t get it.
Back to top
Neo
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:00 pm    Post subject: Upgrades. Hm. Reply with quote

Controlled Demolition Inc. did the job because they're the biggest, best firm to do that kind of thing, bar none, and because the conspirators don't give a rat's ass when it comes to stuff like that. They just plain don't give a flip. What the little people know and what they think is perfectly irrelevant them. They've watched the little people march around in the streets with cardboard signs for 50 years as they've tightened the noose. Do you think they actually waste a second in board meetings worrying about what somebody's going to think when they hire CDI to haul away the wreckage? Is not the fact that they hauled away the wreckage without an investigation evidence enough for you of their sheer arogance when it comes to that kind of thing?

What you're doing, Fintan -- ok, let's put it this way -- what it looks like you're doing, Fintan, is creating bogus issues. You are looking very much like an agent. And see my avatar? I fight with agents. That's my thing.
Back to top
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8434

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:07 pm    Post subject: Useful Links Reply with quote



Ok, these are some heavyweight dudes questioning the official account
and a few good papers questioning the questioners.

Some classic papers on the collapses:

Quote:
The North Tower's Dust Cloud
Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center by Jim Hoffman
Including Version 3.1 Update
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/index.html

Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
by Morgan Reynolds
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html


And from 911Myths here's a series of PDFs by Dr Frank Greening:

Quote:
WTC Report - Dr Greening sent us an interesting study on the WTC collapse, covering such issues as how and why it began, the collapse time, momentum transfer theory, the energy involved in the impacts and the collapse itself (including that required to crush concrete), and more. (PDF file, updated February 16th 2006).

Energy Transfer Addendum - This companion to the WTC Report addresses other issues, including Jim Hoffmans claim that there was insufficient evidence from a gravity-driven collapse to pulverise concrete and create and expand the observed dust clouds. (PDF file).

NIST Report - Dr Greening has some questions of the NIST WTC report, though. Does it really provide a plausible mechanism to show how the process of global collapse was initiated? He points out some possible contradictions and other issues (PDF file).

WTC Thermite - Another Greening article suggests that perhaps a thermite reaction really did play a part in the collapse of the WTC... Though not for the reasons commonly assumed. (PDF file, updated 8th April 2006 with new observations on the molten metal pouring from 80th floor of WTC2).

Sulfur - Thermite (or thermate) is also commonly suggested as an explanation for the sulfur traces found on WTC steel, but it’s not the only one. In this paper Greening discusses other possible sources of sulfur in the WTC, and mechanisms for the observed sulfidation of the structural steel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

atm wrote:
Stallion4

we are, as Fintan succinctly put, just 'kicking the ball around' at this preliminary stage.

That's all well and good, but let's try to keep the ball in the friggin' field of play shall we?.

atm wrote:
So, at this preliminary stage we must evaluate the possibility of directed energy weaponry as a potential method in the conventional, tried, tested and trusted means-method-motive (3M) investigative procedural process.

atm Idea Exclamation

Where have you been? I've personally been investigating 9/11 for 4 years now and haven't seen any evidence whatsoever pointing toward "directed energy weaponry" as you call it, or the more SciFi term, 'Laser/Particle beams'.

All the evidence I've seen points toward explosives being planted inside the buildings bringing them down. It didn't happen from some friggin' plane with lasers or whatever hovering above them. That's the kind of 'kooky talk' that government apologists love to focus on when trying to discredt the entire 9/11 truth movement.

And let's not forget it was Fintan who did a whole radio program making fun of Eric Hufschmid and Jimmy Walter's 'kooky talk' during some lame cable TV program. And now IMO Fintan is engaging (and encouraging) the same type of lame nonsensical 'kooky talk' here.

But if you think by talking about lasers and such will put the bastards that did 9/11 in a prison cell some day, then keep 'kicking that ball around', but IMO you'll be kicking it around forever and will never achieve a damn thing. And while your kicking it around the perps behind 9/11 are roaming free and laughing their asses off.

But you do what you think is best. I'm not the thought police. Just telling what I think about all this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Controlled Demolition Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
Yeah, the words "controlled demolition" are not sinful.
Researchers use the term all the time.

What's interesting is a firm called Controlled Demolition getting the cleanup contract.
Even as an explosives expert begins howling "controlled demolition".
Subtle or what?

We can discuss the 9/11 movement in the 3i Discussion.
Let's stay on topic, The Tower Collapses.

So everyone who said the Towers looked like a professional demolition are in on it too?

How 'bout this guy? Do you think he was part of the controlled demolition disinfo plot?

Quote:
-Professor Shi Yongjiu – Architect - Expert on Steel Structure
Director of Civil Engineering Department, Qinghua University

Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow - September 20, 2001
“Professor Shi Yongjiu, director of civil engineering department of Qinghua University and an expert on steel structure, guesses that the lower part of the WTC twin towers may got seriously damaged.

According to steel structure's mechanical nature, the towers shouldn't collapse as late as an hour later after the planes slammed into. What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. It looks more like a directional blast in doing the job of destruction, so he feels that huge damages must have been done at the lower part of the towers.

As seen on TV, the big fire, climbing higher and higher, is still more than 300 meters away from the base of the towers, not big enough to destroy the steels of the lower part.

He was surprised that a 40-storied supportive building [WTC 7] beside the towers should collapse 6 hours later, for at that time the blast force by main towers should have been lost for a long time.

Professor Shi's conjecture coincides with a running rumor in the US that terrorists had planted explosives in advance and set them off on the sly after the airplane crash, so soon collapsed the twin towers.”
http://english.people.com.cn/english/200109/20/eng20010920_80655.html

Are all the people I listed at the link below 'in on it' too, because they said the buildings also looked like they came down just like those buildings they'd seen on TV when professional demolition teams blow them up using explosives?

http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3883#3883


And all the news reports about firefighters and police saying bombs were planted in the buildings was really just a cover story -- to throw us off the path of the much more sophisticated method of using 'Laser/particle beams'?

Is this what your saying, Fintan?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hawkwind



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 740

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:22 pm    Post subject: I smell fish ... Reply with quote

Sorry for taking so long before getting back involved with this thread. I was vacationing for a few days and one of the posts above sent me into fits of hysterical laughter … you just can’t make this shit up … anyway.

Back to my original post … a long time ago it seems. I’ve been ‘kicking around’ (sinful, but fuck it) the possibility that the towers' core, is a simple ‘closed’ system, and can be viewed as a very large tuning fork. It is a well known fact that everything in nature is influenced by harmonics … constructively or destructively. I posted previously a link to the 'Tacoma Narrows Bridge' ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0Fi1VcbpAI

This bridge completely failed back in 1940 and was due to a natural/chaotic phenomenon. I would like to propose that much was learned from that unfortunate engineering failure and it has been incorporated into many ‘weapons based’ programs.

The argument of ‘lasers’ or ‘particle beam’ weapons is irrelevant for their raw destructive capability. All that matters is that whatever the energy source was, it caused a harmonic vibration that was extremely destructive to steel. At this point it is important to point out that I have no allegiance to ‘Bearden/Tesla/Scalar’ technologies. I have read extensively on these subjects and even with a basic understanding of thermodynamics or simple conservation of energy … you could immediately discount any hijacking of a major energy source in a closed system … just can’t seem to shove this thing or theory into the proven models of reality.

A while back I posted this:

Quote:
I think that Jerry posted a comment about your inference to scalar weapons and that they are being used by the MIC. In a related topic this guy, Martin Kaiser III, who wrote a book titled “Odyssey of an Eavesdropper: My Life in Electronic Countermeasures and My Battle against the FBI “, was on C-SPAN2 last Sunday, he had some interesting comments on the 911 building collapses.

http://www.booktv.org/PublicLives/index.asp?segID=6660&schedID=398

During the Q&A session, a fellow conspiracy theorist asked for his opinion on 911. He told a subtle little story about helping to design a 150 mile long antenna in the Virginia area, designed to communicate with submarines located deep under the ocean. Since the transmissions needed to penetrate very deeply through all sorts on geographic features, very low frequency signals were needed. At first they tried using 6 cycles per second and found that this caused insanity and suicidal behavior in humans after very short exposure … not cool (brown note?). They settled on 10 cycles per second as an acceptable frequency. On the plus side, they achieved excellent deep earth penetration, on the negative; the frequency caused powerful seismic and sub-seismic waves that made things like buildings, fall down for seemingly no reason! This is very interesting stuff and worth investigating further.


What if … the energy source that caused the destructive harmonic was located in space? Is it possible that some orbiting satellite left over from a publicly funded, but now black opp project is the culprit? Are there one or many “capacitive” satellites orbiting around the earth being charged by the sun or some mechanical rotation system, just waiting to fire a powerful electromagnetic pulse capable of creating a devastating harmonic? Think about what would happen if a deadly sine wave was created to vibrate the steal columns. I’m not an expert in the use of harmonics but would that wave ‘powder’ concrete, throw the steel beams in all directions as they failed at each weld point? Is it possible that the ‘failure’ happened so quickly because the ‘failure’ happened all at once and gravity finished the job?

Take a look at what Wikipedia has to say about ‘Infrasound’:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound

The idea of a ‘controlled demolition’ as the only option in a preliminary investigation stinks of disinfo and red/dead herrings … don't even get me started on what the seismic data shows considering the towers' core structure was connected to the bed rock ....

I’m out …

- Hawk

_________________
"Look up here, I'm in heaven. I've got scars that can't be seen. I've got drama, can't be stolen. Everybody knows me now." - David Bowie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neo
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:14 am    Post subject: Still on CDI Reply with quote

Quote:
Yeah, the words "controlled demolition" are not sinful.
Researchers use the term all the time.

What's interesting is a firm called Controlled Demolition getting the cleanup contract. Even as an explosives expert begins howling "controlled demolition".
Subtle or what?


Sorry, but I still haven’t got why it’s “interesting” that the firm called “Controlled Demolition Inc.” got the contract to do the clean up at the WTC site.

“Subtle or what?” is a mocking expression. I don’t understand what’s being mocked. There was a controlled demolition. People with a brain recognized that. Some of them commented on it. -- What’s subtle got to do with it?

This is a more than typical example of the kind of “reasoning” you employ in your blog articles. Things with a simple explanation -- or any of an infinite number of alternate explanations -- are held up as obvious examples of CIA mind games, designed to trick you into a line of thinking. Conclusions come first, then a recitation of facts that supposedly supports them. But doesn’t. -- These people are complicit, cuz they are. There. See. Proved it. -- And the conversation just moves endlessly along, so that none of it is ever questioned in any detail at all.

Here I want to know about one thing in particular. Since it’s all so obvious to you, it shouldn’t be a big task for you to expound a little bit. What weight can you put behind this idea that they deliberately used a company because of its name, as part of a larger strategic “information management” operation of 9/11? An operation that was supposedly planned out in detail for years before the event. -- Another assertion you’ve made, for which I see no evidence.

If it’s no weight at all, then why do you write in this style?
Back to top
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:30 am    Post subject: ... Reply with quote

Fintan said, and Neo quoted:
Quote:
“Subtle or what?”

A bit of dark humour. Not just by Fintan, obviously, but also by the CIA/MIC. It's not so much "interesting", I suppose, as, well - blatant. You say yourself that it's obvious that there were 3 controlled demolitions - having a firm called "Controlled Demolitions" doing the cleanup work is a bit, like we say over here - "taking the piss"

Or you could just look at it like another of those mocking clues they seem to leave for the more observant spectators.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
This descending mass could have met either:

1) An upward-directed, core-centered explosion which destroyed the
core ahead of the down-falling mass.

OR

2) A basement level destruction (by whatever means) of the lowest
portions of the core, which got the core dropping as it was pile-driven
by the falling mass transfer --so that the core crushed itself.

Now it's interesting that we see a lot of bits and pieces of the exterior
being flung off or dropping down as the top of the towers collapse.

But we see a lot of very long sections of the exterior lying around the
debris field after collapse. Was the collapse of the bottom section
different from the collapse of the top?


Good points.

Why not both? Option 1 takes care of the 'visible' portion of the collapse, then option 2 takes out the core 'stub', hidden behind the dust and the other buildings.

The north tower collapse definitely looks like the core drops immediately following the explosions and the middle of the building gets 'sucked' down.

Thats what always looked weird to me - the way that the collapses began exploding violently outward 'chewing' their way down the building, then the dynamics seem to change as the lower portion appears to be 'sucked' inward and down.

It also appears that the real 'pyroclastic' flow is 'released' at the end of the collapse as expansion rapidly begins to react to the sudden violent increase in temperature, and the 'sucking' in and down comes to an end.

I find it interesting that portions of the actual aluminum facade of the lobby remained intact. That suggests to me that a relatively intact core stump did indeed remain, and that it 'toppled' in one direction, leaving the facade of the opposite side standing.

This suggests a dual procedure in the collapse - the top down action of the upper floors, and another process to deal with the core 'stump'.

Hawk wrote:
I’m not an expert in the use of harmonics but would that wave ‘powder’ concrete, throw the steel beams in all directions as they failed at each weld point? Is it possible that the ‘failure’ happened so quickly because the ‘failure’ happened all at once and gravity finished the job?


The collapses, south in particular, certainly look like there is a large amount of explosive force exploding outward, and even upward.

In relation to the bridge video, and as far as I think I understand your hypothesis, those kinds of resonance frequencies are going to be very long, and are going to show amplitude modulations of tens to hundreds of feet between oscillations - like the extreme waving and bending of the bridge.

That implies to me that the towers would have gone all 'gooey' or wave-y looking, and the debris patters would show a wider range and been flying all over the place like the bridge.

Also, from what I understand, creating that sort of resonance vibration requires both ends of the 'string' to be fixed to a surface solid enough to 'reflect' a phase reversed version of the vibrational energy introduced into the system.

Boy, that sounds 'science-y', don't it? Well, it ain't, and I hope you can see what I'm getting at.

I agree that's it's good to look at all possibilities initially... even if the words 'space laser' immediately make me slap my forehead...Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
And from 911Myths here's a series of PDFs by Dr Frank Greening:
Quote:

WTC Report - Dr Greening sent us an interesting study on the WTC collapse, covering such issues as how and why it began, the collapse time, momentum transfer theory, the energy involved in the impacts and the collapse itself (including that required to crush concrete), and more. (PDF file, updated February 16th 2006).


Ok, here are my thoughts on these. I found the mathematical formulas extremely attractive and very impressive, however, I have no idea what they mean or whether or not they're accurate. I think I get the gist from the text, though.

Quote:

Energy Transfer Addendum - This companion to the WTC Report addresses other issues, including Jim Hoffmans claim that there was insufficient evidence from a gravity-driven collapse to pulverise concrete and create and expand the observed dust clouds. (PDF file).


Dr. Greening states that the 'pyroclastic flow' was a simple dust cloud powered by the "piston like action of each collapsing floor". Sorry, Doc, can't buy that one.

He concludes his analysis by mentioning that he's still pretty flummoxed by WTC 7. I don't blame him - it's gonna be tough to explain that without any 'splosions.

Quote:

NIST Report - Dr Greening has some questions of the NIST WTC report, though. Does it really provide a plausible mechanism to show how the process of global collapse was initiated? He points out some possible contradictions and other issues (PDF file).


And comes to the conclusion that the computer model for the 'pancake theory' is inaccurate and useless - but that it happened anyway. Hmmm.

Quote:

WTC Thermite - Another Greening article suggests that perhaps a thermite reaction really did play a part in the collapse of the WTC... Though not for the reasons commonly assumed. (PDF file, updated 8th April 2006 with new observations on the molten metal pouring from 80th floor of WTC2).


Oh for poops sake! C'mon.

Then the cunning molten aluminum formed itself into the shape of a person, donned a policeman's uniform, and snuck away in search of the boy John Connor...

Quote:

Sulfur - Thermite (or thermate) is also commonly suggested as an explanation for the sulfur traces found on WTC steel, but it’s not the only one. In this paper Greening discusses other possible sources of sulfur in the WTC, and mechanisms for the observed sulfidation of the structural steel


Here Dr. Frank seems to be reaching pretty hard to find possibilities for all the sulphur residue in order to avoid the most common cause - explosives. Seems flimsy and confusing. There's also the possibility of a gaseous source - the terrified flatulence of deli-fed NYFD.
Anyway, it seems like an attempt to ignore the obvious in favor of remote possibility.

Are his analysis intended to be scoffed in order to engender popular support for 'controlled demolition?' Dunno. Maybe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Neo
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:22 pm    Post subject: Church of Skepticology Reply with quote

Quote:
A bit of dark humour … by the CIA/MIC. It's not so much "interesting", I suppose, as, well - blatant. … having a firm called "Controlled Demolitions" doing the cleanup work is a bit, like we say over here - "taking the piss."


Let me just explain this point I'm making, and then I'll drop it for now. This is quite tedious, but I can't apologize for that. It's tedious in inverse proportion to the amount of fun you're having concocting this spy story.

What is happening here, with your deep cover-up theory, is that a hypothesis is being stated, and then turned into a conclusion by interpreting a number of things in a manner which would conform to that hypothesis. These interpretations then become your supporting evidence -- your only evidence. You apparently think yourselves clever -- too clever, too hip, to be tricked -- but this is not cleverness. It's muddled thinking. And if I we’re in the business of confusing people for a living, I certainly wouldn’t need to spend time focusing on you, since you’re already your own worst enemies.

"Controlled Demolition knows how to bring the house down. It is a global leader in controlled demolition, explosive demolition, and implosion of buildings and other structures. Controlled Demolition has brought down some 7,000 structures worldwide. ... In addition, Controlled Demolition provides mass concrete, rock, and debris removal and assists architects and engineers with blast-resistant design services. Founded in 1949 by Jack Loizeaux, Controlled Demolition is owned by the Loizeaux family and part of the Loizeaux Group of companies."

From this profile.

Here is CDI's own website.

In this case, then, the planning for the 9/11 cover up apparently goes back as far as 1949. -- Or would you like to spin it somewhat differently?

I'm trying here to deal with one particular piece of your tendentiousness. We could deal with each piece of your "evidence" for this general theory in the same manner, and I'd be happy to do that. But if you can't be brought to see how any one piece of your puzzle is being cut to measure, then it’s pointless to try to show how your many one things do not add up to a "bigger picture." How these things that are "blatant" and "obvious" to you are, to us logical folk, plodding along in the wake of your brilliance, basically incomprehsible bits of your -- what would you call it? I don't know. Your religion.

Maybe someone is thumbing their nose at you, in some cases. It's quite possible. -- But what does that prove? What does it demonstrate? So far you've offered nothing by way of a cohesive explanation for anything. You're merely saying that there must be something even more sinister going on behind 9/11 that nobody's yet guessed at.

Well, where’s the beef? I’m anxious to see it.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 8 of 16

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.