Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air..

In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes.DeleteThis@panix.com> wrote:
> In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough
> to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and
> powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet
> it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any
> bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.

Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that would
require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do undetected.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

In article <fceicb$pcq$5@reader1.panix.com>,
<EskWIRED DeleteThis @spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
>In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes DeleteThis @panix.com> wrote:
>> In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough
>> to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and
>> powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet
>> it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any
>> bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.
>
>Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that would
>require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do undetected.
>


Small charges ? <laugh out loud>

The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced
concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was hear
for blocks around.

There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives
consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of the
collapse.

Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to design a
plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the audio/video
record of the collapse of one of the towers and the laws of physics.

There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says that
WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or
thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many, are on
record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were needed.


Name one and prove me wrong.

(I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you
mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD).


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

I know how they did it.
Bush's evil scientists stopped time long enough for the demolitions
crews to enter and rig the building. Then those crews were placed
into suspended animation for fifty years so they wouldn't talk.
It'll all come out.





On 14 Sep 2007 15:37:56 -0400, adykes.DeleteThis@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

>In article <fceicb$pcq$5@reader1.panix.com>,
> <EskWIRED.DeleteThis@spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
>>In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes.DeleteThis@panix.com> wrote:
>>> In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough
>>> to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and
>>> powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet
>>> it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any
>>> bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.
>>
>>Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that would
>>require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do undetected.
>>
>
>
>Small charges ? <laugh out loud>
>
>The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced
>concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was hear
>for blocks around.
>
>There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives
>consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of the
>collapse.
>
>Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to design a
>plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the audio/video
>record of the collapse of one of the towers and the laws of physics.
>
>There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says that
>WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or
>thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many, are on
>record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were needed.
>
>
>Name one and prove me wrong.
>
>(I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you
>mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD).
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

In misc.survivalism Terryc <newsthreespam-spam.RemoveThis@woa.com.au> wrote:
> EskWIRED.RemoveThis@spamblock.panix.com wrote:

> > I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've worked in
> > a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.

> In established buildings maybe. In a new building just occupied a few
> weeks, a thief did wallets and purses on four floors before I asked him
> WTF are you doing. "Testing power points" was the reply that satisfied
> my co-workers. I ignored my boss and rang security before anything was done.

Bingo. Is your example intended to show that strangers almost always get
caught?

And besides, the WTC complex WAS and "established" complex, with folks
working in the same office for years, eager to break the monotomy by
talking with workmen. Just like you did.

Controlled demolition would require much more than one experienced thief.
Indeed, it would require a lot of men with wires and explosives, or a
fewer number of men for a longer time. Either way, I can't imagine that
it could be pulled off.


> but that doesn't alter your point.

Yeah - I suspected that we agreed.


> > And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of
> > bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me.

> Weekend work?
> Pillar safety check?

It may be possible, but ISTM that the scenario is very unlikely.



> > That work is done by specialty firms. Lots
> > and lots of manhours would be needed for two giant buildigs. It seems
> > unlikely to me that the work could have been carried out in secret.

> Agreed,

I'd like to see some kind of scenario posed by supporters of the theory.
I can't think of any credible theory of how it is possible. I'd liketo
know, from demolition experts, what kind of prep would be involved, the
number of man-hours involved, and whether power tools would be necessary
to set things up.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

In misc.survivalism sonofabitchsky.RemoveThis@hotmail.com wrote:

> Weeks before the cleared the towers for many hours as they did
> 'security checks'.

Interesting. And were "many hours" enough to wire the buildings for
implosion? Do you have an analysis?


Plus, how did the third building crumble to the
> ground when no other steel frame building in the history of
> construction has 'emploded' from fire, a plane hitting it, etc?

I've seen photos of a corner of the building blown off by one of the
towers collapsing. Do you have any structural analysis which shows that
this could not have caused the collapse?


Nobody
> mentions the third building.

I've seen it mentioned many, many times. If you re forming conclusions
based upon the premise that nobody mentions it, I think you need to
rethink your position.


--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

In article <1189808315.307727.187740.DeleteThis@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
<sonofabitchsky.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 14, 10:18 am, EskWI....DeleteThis@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>> In misc.survivalism sonofabitch....DeleteThis@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > Weeks before the cleared the towers for many hours as they did
>> > 'security checks'.
>>
>> Interesting. And were "many hours" enough to wire the buildings for
>> implosion? Do you have an analysis?
>>
>> Plus, how did the third building crumble to the
>>
>> > ground when no other steel frame building in the history of
>> > construction has 'emploded' from fire, a plane hitting it, etc?
>>
>> I've seen photos of a corner of the building blown off by one of the
>> towers collapsing. Do you have any structural analysis which shows that
>> this could not have caused the collapse?
>>
>> Nobody
>>
>> > mentions the third building.
>>
>> I've seen it mentioned many, many times. If you re forming conclusions
>> based upon the premise that nobody mentions it, I think you need to
>> rethink your position.
>>
>> --
>> The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
>> certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
>> -- Bertrand Russel
>
>I can't recall the amount of hours, but it can easily be found. It was
>days and they called it security sweeps I believe. Re-wiring the
>security devices. That's what they said all the wire was for.
>


Why would "security sweeps" require the occupants to leave?

There are multiple layers of security under management by different
organizations.

You can't get the of supplies in the loading dock without paperwork at
any hour.

You can't use the elevators at any hour without advance notice and
paperwork.

Only people that never managed facilities inside a big building could
think this is possible.










--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes RemoveThis @panix.com> wrote:
> In article <fceicb$pcq$5@reader1.panix.com>,
> <EskWIRED RemoveThis @spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
> >In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes RemoveThis @panix.com> wrote:
> >> In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough
> >> to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and
> >> powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet
> >> it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any
> >> bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.
> >
> >Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that would
> >require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do undetected.
> >


> Small charges ? <laugh out loud>

> The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced
> concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was hear
> for blocks around.

That is very different from a controled demolition. My understanding is
that small, strategically placed charges are used. They cut through
structural members in a precise order, to use gravity for help in the
demolition. Indeed, it is my understanding that the compnies that ddo
such work pride themselves on using the least amount of explosives
possible, for reasons of both safety and economy.



> There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives
> consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of the
> collapse.

Yes.

> Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to design a
> plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the audio/video
> record of the collapse of one of the towers and the laws of physics.

I have no answer.


> There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says that
> WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or
> thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many, are on
> record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were needed.


> Name one and prove me wrong.

You seem to misunderstand me. I have no proof of anythig. I have said
repeatedly that te controlled demolition scenario seems pretty far-fetched
to me.


> (I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you
> mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD).

I've never heard of him. If you'd like to cite him, go ahead. Does he
shed light on the CD allegations?

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

In article <fcetta$k9i$1@reader1.panix.com>,
<EskWIRED RemoveThis @spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
>In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes RemoveThis @panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <fceicb$pcq$5@reader1.panix.com>,
>> <EskWIRED RemoveThis @spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
>> >In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes RemoveThis @panix.com> wrote:
>> >> In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough
>> >> to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and
>> >> powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet
>> >> it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any
>> >> bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.
>> >
>> >Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that would
>> >require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do undetected.
>> >
>
>
>> Small charges ? <laugh out loud>
>
>> The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced
>> concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was hear
>> for blocks around.
>
>That is very different from a controled demolition. My understanding is
>that small, strategically placed charges are used. They cut through
>structural members in a precise order, to use gravity for help in the
>demolition. Indeed, it is my understanding that the compnies that ddo
>such work pride themselves on using the least amount of explosives
>possible, for reasons of both safety and economy.


Like this demolition job?

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

I figure that the microphine is about a half a mile away from the
blast.

(That building is about one twentieth the size of either WTC1, 2, or 7.
That means that each WTC tower is about 8,000 times as massive and
that the largest beams are that much stonger.)


There is no audio/video record or eyewitness report of explosions of
size and timing and placement consistant with the collapses of any of
the buildings at WTC.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

<EskWIRED.RemoveThis@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:fccc82$f7$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Jonathan <Jonathan.RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>
>> > I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
>> > worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
>> > And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored
>> > busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is done by
>> > specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two
>> > giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have
>> > been carried out in secret.
>
>> Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their coats. Man
>> you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place charges anywhere
>> they
>> wanted.
>
> Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.

Try this website. Interesting read

.http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html


>
>
>
> You sure are one simple minded soul aren't you? Do you think people
>> would carry their tools in broad daylight while all the workers are on
>> the
>> job? When maintenance workers enter does do they ever do it while
>> everyone
>> is at work? No they don't fool. Does anyone even see the plumber or
>> electrician while they are doing their job?
>
> I've often seen electricians in office buildings. They string new cables
> whenever offices are moved around. Ethernet, electical and telephone cable
> spools all over, with guys on ladders poking their heads above the drop
> ceiling. It is pretty common.
>
> But why do you ask? Is there a point you are heading towards?
>
> --
> The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
> certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
> -- Bertrand Russel
>
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

On Sep 15, 7:01 am, "Jonathan" <Jonat....DeleteThis@house.not> wrote:
> EskWI....DeleteThis@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> > In misc.survivalism Jonathan <Jonat....DeleteThis@house.not> wrote:
>

<snip>

> >> Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
> >> coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
> >> charges anywhere they wanted.
>
> > Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.
>
> So you want someone to make up a story about how it could happen? Some
> fantasy that you guys like to engage in? Where is the security of such a
> building and who checks out each maintenance worker that enters and leaves?
> Do you know for sure that no one could have possibly entered at any time to
> do what needed to be done? There is always a possibility that anything could
> happen and just because there is no proof positive one way or the other than
> this means nothing. Who would have believed that 911 could have occurred in
> the first place? Reasonable suspicion is all that it needed to create doubt
> and many people have plenty of that. To think that everything is as it is
> told to you is the absolute truth is pretty lame and to try to argue that
> way is just a loony and someone that doubt what is fed to them.
>

<snip>

When you can come up with some way that hundreds of workers working
for months on end, stripping walls, making one huge mess, hauling
away tones of the debris that was made getting access to the columns,
cutting notches in beams, stringing miles of det cord, without anyone
noticing then the sane people here will listen. Until then your
disbeif is flat kookery.

The hundreds of men is probably too many but the crew would have been
big. The 'months on end' is accurate. It would take that long to
prepare a building the size of the WTCs for demo.

Watch a show on controlled demolions some time, the History channel
runs them occasionally. Here is a clue, just prior to detonation, you
can look clear through the building - that is how much stuff has been
removed.

But of course you will still somehow believe that all that is possible
without being noticed.

Harry K

Harry K
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

EskWIRED.RemoveThis@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> In misc.survivalism Jonathan <Jonathan.RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>
>>> I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
>>> worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
>>> And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored
>>> busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is done by
>>> specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two
>>> giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have
>>> been carried out in secret.
>
>> Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
>> coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
>> charges anywhere they wanted.
>
> Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.

So you want someone to make up a story about how it could happen? Some
fantasy that you guys like to engage in? Where is the security of such a
building and who checks out each maintenance worker that enters and leaves?
Do you know for sure that no one could have possibly entered at any time to
do what needed to be done? There is always a possibility that anything could
happen and just because there is no proof positive one way or the other than
this means nothing. Who would have believed that 911 could have occurred in
the first place? Reasonable suspicion is all that it needed to create doubt
and many people have plenty of that. To think that everything is as it is
told to you is the absolute truth is pretty lame and to try to argue that
way is just a loony and someone that doubt what is fed to them.



>
>
>
> You sure are one simple minded soul aren't you? Do you think people
>> would carry their tools in broad daylight while all the workers are
>> on the job? When maintenance workers enter does do they ever do it
>> while everyone is at work? No they don't fool. Does anyone even see
>> the plumber or electrician while they are doing their job?
>
> I've often seen electricians in office buildings. They string new
> cables whenever offices are moved around. Ethernet, electical and
> telephone cable spools all over, with guys on ladders poking their
> heads above the drop ceiling. It is pretty common.
>
> But why do you ask? Is there a point you are heading towards?
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

Al Dykes wrote:
> In article <fccc82$f7$1@reader1.panix.com>,
> <EskWIRED RemoveThis @spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
>> In misc.survivalism Jonathan <Jonathan RemoveThis @house.not> wrote:
>>
>>>> I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
>>>> worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
>>>> And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored
>>>> busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is done by
>>>> specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two
>>>> giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have
>>>> been carried out in secret.
>>
>>> Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
>>> coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
>>> charges anywhere they wanted.
>>
>> Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.
>>
>>
>>
> There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of size,
> placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any of the
> towers on 9/11.

No eye witnesses. Man you are ignorant aren't you? There were plenty of
people that said they heard explosions from down below. Now go ahead and
make up a story to show that was not true and they really didn't hear
anything fool.

>
> In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough
> to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and
> powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet
> it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any
> bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.

Were aircraft used along with the explosion to mask and confuse the issue?
Make up all the BS you want but this does not show anyone a single thing.
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

Al Dykes wrote:
> In article <fceicb$pcq$5@reader1.panix.com>,
> <EskWIRED.DeleteThis@spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
>> In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes.DeleteThis@panix.com> wrote:
>>> In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud
>>> enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the
>>> complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced
>>> concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's
>>> structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as bigger and
>>> louder to have any effect.
>>
>> Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that
>> would require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do
>> undetected.
>>
>
>
> Small charges ? <laugh out loud>
>
> The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced
> concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was hear
> for blocks around.
>
> There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives
> consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of the
> collapse.
>
> Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to design a
> plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the audio/video
> record of the collapse of one of the towers and the laws of physics.
>
> There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says that
> WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or
> thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many, are on
> record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were needed.
>
>
> Name one and prove me wrong.
>
> (I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you
> mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD).

You are a buffoon.
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air..