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

In article <IHXGi.791$Qr.369@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
Jonathan <Jonathan.RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>> In article <9ERGi.783$Qr.144@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
>> Jonathan <Jonathan.RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> No. The sound of the impact was not like that of a large cutting
>> charge.
>>
>> In the hour after the impact fires raged in towers 1 and 2 right up to
>> the instant of the collaspe. Video shows the building failing at the
>> location of the fire, nowhere else. No demolition explosions were
>> heard immediatly preceeding the collapse.
>>
>
> There were explosions heard whether you like it or not fool. People that
>were there have stated this over and over again. Man you are a dumb one
>aren't you?
>
> There have been videos made to show this but you refuse to believe anything
>but what you want. You have no credibility and none of your YouTube BS means
>squat. Get back to your video games and dream on little broomstick cowboy.
>


There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of any explosions of
size, placement, timing or brisance [2], that immediatly preceeds any
tower collapse.

Show me a video that specifically shows explosions that indicate
charges placed, timed sized to cause the collapse of a tower.





The core beams were boxes 36x12, and 2 inches thick. [1] That is 200
square inches of solid steel.

Why to Truthers think that the cutting charges for these beams would
be any less loud or visible than those of the Landmark Tower
demolition, a building about 8,000 time less massive than a WTC tower.

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


Cutting charges have a characteristic sharp "crack", called brisance.
That is the sound of the shock wave that makes a cutting charge work.

Each and every beam was examined by at least one civil engineer before
it was shipped to China.[4] A couple thousands were kept for analysis.
1,300 are in storage [3]. None show the characteristics of being cut
with cutting charges or thermite except where the were cut up to fit
on a truck. [5]


[1] http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance

[3] http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.p...ogaller
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4799363656282270164


[4] Dr. W. Gene Corley and the rest of the FEMA/ASCE investigation
team gained full access to the World Trade Center site, on
September 29, 2001. The team also had access to the Fresh Kills
Landfill on Staten Island, where they examined structural
debris. The team also examined steel and debris at two recycling
yards in New Jersey. They obtained samples of the structural
steel, which were subjected to laboratory analysis. Numerous other
professional engineers (members of SEAoNY) continued this work
through Spring 2002, visiting recycling yards and landfills
regularly to examine debris and obtain more samples. Additional
samples were obtained and sent to NIST, for further study and
analysis. While others have expressed some concern that the work
of the team was hampered because debris was removed from the site
and was subsequently processed for recycling, that was not the
case. The team had full access to scrap yards and to the site, and
was able to obtain numerous samples. There is no indication that
having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center
would make a significant difference to understanding the
performance of the structures.[4]


http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html

"Supported by funds from the National Science Foundation to
investigate the collapse of the two 110-story towers, he spent his
days and nights looking at twisted and burnt steel pulled from the
wreckage, searching for clues to the cause and collecting
perishable data.

"In just 10 days looking at the pieces that are coming out, I have
learned so much important data about the collapse - it's amazing,"
he said. "We will be able to learn many valuable lessons from this
tragedy to improve our structural design and construction and (to
understand) the effects of fires on steel structures to avoid such
a catastrophic and complete collapse and tragic loss of life."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history/StatenIsland_photos.htm

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.p...ogaller


[5] Oxy cutting and steelworkers at work
http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/photoarchive/image5.jpg
http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-1.jpg
nhttp://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-2.jpg
nhttp://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-3.jpg
http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-4.jpg
http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-5.jpg




--
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 article <7rXGi.789$Qr.317@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
Jonathan <Jonathan DeleteThis @house.not> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>> In article <1GRGi.785$Qr.266@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
>> Jonathan <Jonathan DeleteThis @house.not> wrote:
>>> EskWIRED DeleteThis @spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>>>> In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes DeleteThis @panix.com> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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 of 911 was "pretty far fetched" before it happened.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> So was the sinking of the Titanic and the crash of a space shuttle and
>> the collapse of the Tacamo-Narrows bridge, until it happened.
>
>
> Just my point. What is yours? You have nothing that proves any more or less
>than anyone else but still you like the taste of Kool-Aid. You post fake
>YouTube BS and expect everyone to swallow your lame fairy tales.




On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
and WTC.


Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars by Ray Rivera http://rayrivera.net
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet

Marks's collapse video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007 Sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo



--
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.DeleteThis@panix.com> wrote:
> >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

Yes, but I don't realy know anything about that implosion other than a
brief id.

> (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.)

Ummm...OK. So what?


> 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.

Yes, but what does that have to do with your point? You'e said it 5 times
already.

--
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 <fchc1s$lau$3@reader1.panix.com>,
<EskWIRED RemoveThis @spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
>In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes RemoveThis @panix.com> wrote:
>> >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
>
>Yes, but I don't realy know anything about that implosion other than a
>brief id.
>
>> (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.)
>
>Ummm...OK. So what?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>Yes, but what does that have to do with your point? You'e said it 5 times
>already.




Cutting charges go boom.

Cutting charges for big beams go BOOM

Nobody saw or heard BOOM immediatly preceeding the collapse of any tower.



The core beams were boxes 36x12, and 2 inches thick. [1] That is 200
squuare inches of solid steel.

Why to Truthers think that the cutting charges for these beams would
be any less loud or visible than those of the Landmark Tower
demolition, a building about 8,000 time less massive than a WTC tower.

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



There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of any explosions of
size, placement, timing or brisance [2], that immediatly preceeds any
tower collapse.

Cutting charges have a characteristic sharp "crack", called brisance.
That is the sound of the shock wave that makes a cutting charge work.

Each and every beam was examined by at least one civil engineer before
it was shipped to China.[4] A couple thousands were kept for analysis.
1,300 are in storage [3]. None show the characteristics of being cut
with cutting charges or thermite except where the were cut up to fit
on a truck. [5]


[1] http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance

[3] http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.p...ogaller
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4799363656282270164


[4] Dr. W. Gene Corley and the rest of the FEMA/ASCE investigation
team gained full access to the World Trade Center site, on
September 29, 2001. The team also had access to the Fresh Kills
Landfill on Staten Island, where they examined structural
debris. The team also examined steel and debris at two recycling
yards in New Jersey. They obtained samples of the structural
steel, which were subjected to laboratory analysis. Numerous other
professional engineers (members of SEAoNY) continued this work
through Spring 2002, visiting recycling yards and landfills
regularly to examine debris and obtain more samples. Additional
samples were obtained and sent to NIST, for further study and
analysis. While others have expressed some concern that the work
of the team was hampered because debris was removed from the site
and was subsequently processed for recycling, that was not the
case. The team had full access to scrap yards and to the site, and
was able to obtain numerous samples. There is no indication that
having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center
would make a significant difference to understanding the
performance of the structures.[4]


http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html

"Supported by funds from the National Science Foundation to
investigate the collapse of the two 110-story towers, he spent his
days and nights looking at twisted and burnt steel pulled from the
wreckage, searching for clues to the cause and collecting
perishable data.

"In just 10 days looking at the pieces that are coming out, I have
learned so much important data about the collapse - it's amazing,"
he said. "We will be able to learn many valuable lessons from this
tragedy to improve our structural design and construction and (to
understand) the effects of fires on steel structures to avoid such
a catastrophic and complete collapse and tragic loss of life."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history/StatenIsland_photos.htm

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.p...ogaller


[5] Oxy cutting and steelworkers at work
http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/photoarchive/image5.jpg
http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-1.jpg
nhttp://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-2.jpg
nhttp://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-3.jpg
http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-4.jpg
http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-5.jpg


--
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.. 

On Sep 15, 2:11 pm, "Jonathan" <Jonat....RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
> Harry K wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 7:01 am, "Jonathan" <Jonat....RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
> >> EskWI....RemoveThis@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> >>> In misc.survivalism Jonathan <Jonat....RemoveThis@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
>
> You are the one that says that is what is needed to get the job done not
> me. Given enough time anything can be done and no explanation need be given.
> How much time was needed? Do you think this might have had to been planned
> over one weekend? Was every floor occupied and was anyone expecting
> something to happen and was everyone looking for something suspicious? How
> was it that 12 terrorists got by all the security needed to fly all the
> planes at the same time into the most crowded city in the country? How did
> all this come about without anyone even finding out? How was it that even
> when Bush was told about it he just sat there on his stupid ass and did
> nothing? This was the unbelievable part you fool. Not the part about placing
> charges in a tall building. Why are you loons so dumb to think otherwise?
> This whole 911 even happened and you obsess about some simple thing that
> could have easily have occurred. Man you are a stupid lot of asshats.
>
> If before 911 someone was asked what they thought more likely to occur.
> Some team of crack specialists blowing up a tower in NYC or flying huge
> jumbo jets into sky scrappers what do you think would have been the answer?
>
> Why are you so lame?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You must have missed all the people saying that "until you can make a
believable explanation for how the charges were placed in an occupied
building, you have nothing but kookery going for you.

Clue 1. Even a small house cannot be prepared for demo in one
weekend.

Clue 2. The WTC towers were occupied by thousands of workers and
maintenance staff 24/7. The maintenance staff alone would have had to
be deaf and blind not to have seen the activity or, even allowing the
impossibility of doing it in one weekend, they would have had to be in
on the conspiracy.

Clue 3. Further assuming that the charges were somehow placed without
notice (LMFAO), you have the problem of miles of det cord strung
throughout the building just prior to the demo in the middle of a work
day with noone noticing.

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

In misc.survivalism Jonathan <Jonathan.TakeThisOut@house.not> wrote:

> The whole of 911 was "pretty far fetched" before it happened.

Is that some reason to accept poor evidence?

And besides, the scenarios were predicted and studied. Bush was warned.


--
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 Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:36:05 +0000 (UTC),
EskWIRED.DeleteThis@spamblock.panix.com wrote:

>In misc.survivalism Jonathan <Jonathan.DeleteThis@house.not> wrote:
>
>> The whole of 911 was "pretty far fetched" before it happened.
>
>Is that some reason to accept poor evidence?
>
>And besides, the scenarios were predicted and studied. Bush was warned.

Hell, Tom Clancy wrote about something very similar in a
book. There was nothing far-fetched about it. The people
in charge of airspace defense were caught off guard, but
there was no reason they should have been. They just
weren't paying attention to the all-too-obvious
possibilities. I mean, really, TWO fighters ready on the
ground in Massachusetts, to defend the entire northeast???

It's just like Pearl Harbor, which also shouldn't have come
as such a surprise. The U.S. Navy had already run two
wargames showing the power of carrier attack. The British
had already sunk several Italian warships at Taranto using
torpedoes, and Taranto was also "too shallow" to allow
torpedo attack.

The typical defense establishment just isn't very good at
preparing for anything they haven't handled in the immediate
past. The "next time" will also be something they should
have seen coming, but didn't. Expecting them to is just
expecting too much of them. They don't think outside the
box. They don't even think inside the box, unless it's
their own box.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

Al Dykes wrote:
> In article <fchc1s$lau$3@reader1.panix.com>,
> <EskWIRED.DeleteThis@spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
>> In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes.DeleteThis@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>
>> Yes, but I don't realy know anything about that implosion other than
>> a brief id.
>>
>>> (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.)
>>
>> Ummm...OK. So what?
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yes, but what does that have to do with your point? You'e said it 5
>> times already.
>
>
>
>
> Cutting charges go boom.
>
> Cutting charges for big beams go BOOM
>
> Nobody saw or heard BOOM immediatly preceeding the collapse of any
> tower.
>
Al goes boom boom. You have no clue little Al. None what so whatever about
what no one saw of didn't see Al. Now grow up and go play your mindless
video games little guy. There are plenty of people that heard explosions
that went boom boom Al. There are people that reported hearing BOOM BOOM
Al. You just don't want to believe anything that says you are wrong little
Al. Repeating your BS over and over does not make you any more right Al. You
are wrong little Al. WRONG. There are videos of people talking while taking
them where you can hear the explosions as they describe what they hear. You
have seen them but still you lie. You claim they do not exist. Why do you
lie little Al? Why do you lie?
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

Al Dykes wrote:
> In article <7rXGi.789$Qr.317@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
> Jonathan <Jonathan.TakeThisOut@house.not> wrote:
>> Al Dykes wrote:
>>> In article <1GRGi.785$Qr.266@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
>>> Jonathan <Jonathan.TakeThisOut@house.not> wrote:
>>>> EskWIRED.TakeThisOut@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>>>>> In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes.TakeThisOut@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <fceicb$pcq$5@reader1.panix.com>,
>>>>>> <EskWIRED.TakeThisOut@spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes.TakeThisOut@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 of 911 was "pretty far fetched" before it happened.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So was the sinking of the Titanic and the crash of a space shuttle
>>> and the collapse of the Tacamo-Narrows bridge, until it happened.
>>
>>
>> Just my point. What is yours? You have nothing that proves any more
>> or less than anyone else but still you like the taste of Kool-Aid.
>> You post fake YouTube BS and expect everyone to swallow your lame
>> fairy tales.
>
>
>
>
> On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
> that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
> should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
> and WTC.
>
Your videos are no more creditable than the ones you do not like that also
exist. You have nothing AL. NOTHING.
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

Al Dykes wrote:
> In article <IHXGi.791$Qr.369@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
> Jonathan <Jonathan DeleteThis @house.not> wrote:
>> Al Dykes wrote:
>>> In article <9ERGi.783$Qr.144@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
>>> Jonathan <Jonathan DeleteThis @house.not> wrote:
>>>> Al Dykes wrote:
>>>>> In article <fccc82$f7$1@reader1.panix.com>,
>>>>> <EskWIRED DeleteThis @spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In misc.survivalism Jonathan <Jonathan DeleteThis @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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No. The sound of the impact was not like that of a large cutting
>>> charge.
>>>
>>> In the hour after the impact fires raged in towers 1 and 2 right up
>>> to the instant of the collaspe. Video shows the building failing
>>> at the location of the fire, nowhere else. No demolition
>>> explosions were heard immediatly preceeding the collapse.
>>>
>>
>> There were explosions heard whether you like it or not fool. People
>> that were there have stated this over and over again. Man you are a
>> dumb one aren't you?
>>
>> There have been videos made to show this but you refuse to believe
>> anything but what you want. You have no credibility and none of your
>> YouTube BS means squat. Get back to your video games and dream on
>> little broomstick cowboy.
>>
>
>
> There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of any explosions of
> size, placement, timing or brisance [2], that immediatly preceeds any
> tower collapse.
>
> Show me a video that specifically shows explosions that indicate
> charges placed, timed sized to cause the collapse of a tower.

There is no proof of anything Al. The real truth will never be known. You
can believe any BS stories you choose to Al. If you choose to swallow the
official story then that is your problem. The truth is that the US
government failed to protect against the attacks and continues the cover up.
There was plenty of time and opportunity to plan and plant any amount of
charges that could have been used to take down buildings that were also
struck by airliners or missiles. There is no way you can prove this was
impossible and there is no need for any proof that is did occur either.
There is plenty of proof that the government fought the investigations and
plenty of proof of cover up and failures. Plenty of reason for suspicion and
that is all there is needed. Poor Al just has no clue and he never will.
You are a sad case little Al. Very sad indeed.
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <u6YGi.795$Qr.457@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
> Jonathan <Jonathan RemoveThis @house.not> wrote:
>
>> No one said it was precise but surely was predictable now wasn't it?
>> If charges are going to be used and planes to mask such an even then
>> what else matters than the fact that one could not have been used
>> alone to get the job done. How complicated do you want to make it?
>> All that was needed was the fact that there were planes about to be
>> flown. Fore knowledge. People that allowed it to happen. I say that
>> 12 men could not have done this alone and all the facts are not
>> evident and this should not be put to rest like some seem to think.
>> If you have a hard time with this then that is your problem and you
>> will remain one of the lame ignorant ones. Your choice and your loss.
>
> Time to adjust your tinfoil.

Wahahaha.........This is all you have? This is where you leave now I see.
Man you are one loser bigtime. Wahahahaha.......
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

EskWIRED RemoveThis @spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> 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.

You have no clue what it would take and no idea how mush time there was.
You have nothing. Dream on........



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

The first thing you got right!



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.

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