Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:00 am Post subject: Re: Controlled demolition believers answer this question
Easy Rider wrote:
So you believe both the twin towers and building 7 were rigged with explosives of some sort and somebody pressed the plunger on 9/11.
Preparation would have taken weeks, and with thousands of people in those buildings the chances of being caught out would be high.
Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
If there were no explosives planted then what caused the two explosions?
If you look at the thread 'Show me the ektachromes', you will note that NPT is the basis. Simply put, no planted explosions being planted equate to some external catalyst such as a missile making things go 'BOOM'.
If there were no planes and there were many photographers on site - then they would have captured the 'real' cause of the explosions, or at least the second one, on film.
Explain please why there are no photographs/video of anything other than planes?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject:
There is more than a certain amount of mirth inherent in being asked by a noplaner/space beam/hologramaticist to consider the practical problems of CD.
In fact, once the tears have stopped streaming, and one has dried one's trousers, the words 'mote', 'beam' and 'eye' spring to mind.
Were this a real enquiry, I'd post a link, but as it's only one of Easy Rider's half-witted forays out into the real world and there is no intention of considering anything else but the aforesaid noplanespacebeamhologramnonesense, I'll only say that Gordon Ross has some interesting insights, from estimated measurements of core damage, into how the elevator system could likely have been used to destroy the core of the Towers, in effect pulling them down from within.
Oh alright, I'll post the link to his site for anyone else with a real interest.
http://gordonssite.com/index.html _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:18 am Post subject: Re: Controlled demolition believers answer this question
Easy Rider wrote:
So you believe both the twin towers and building 7 were rigged with explosives of some sort and somebody pressed the plunger on 9/11.
Preparation would have taken weeks, and with thousands of people in those buildings the chances of being caught out would be high.
Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
your very confusing ER, first of all you believe NPT but also disagree with pre planted explosives.
so what have you got left if we take your mindset? the explosion that took place when the so called tv fakery plane hit was not caused by a plane if it was fake, you don't believe it was possible for pre planted explosives to of been the case either.
so what caused the explosion?
the only thing left would be a invisible object(which ive pointed out the problems of many times, like who the f*** would of seen it to know?) or some kind of hologram cloaked missle(back to the original theory and also has problems).
so what exactly do you believe?
from a NPT viewpoint i'd say pre planted explosives is the only thing that might explain the explosions if its NPT your convinced that happened.
other than that and it may be a shocker, but just maybe, just maybe the explosion may of been caused by a plane.
so you have two problems here, either there was a plane or their was no plane and preplanted explosives that caused the massive fireball upon T.V simulated impact.
failing that you go back to the bizarre explainations ive already mention above, invisible or hologram cloaked missle of some sort.
the very fact you question pre planted explosives(the only thing to explain the fireball whilst missing a plane), shows you have not thought things through properly and just how bizaree this NPT theory gets and how promoters contridict all possible explainations that go for NPT rather than against.
so basically, yet again i am forced to question the reasoning beind NPT and am exposed to promoters disproving their own theory again, by throwing out the only possible explainations.
My question here related to the rigging of the entire building with explosives, I do not rule of the possibility of explosives being planted and detonated at the point where the cartoon planes hit the building
My question here related to the rigging of the entire building with explosives, I do not rule of the possibility of explosives being planted and detonated at the point where the cartoon planes hit the building
So you believe both the twin towers were rigged with explosives of some sort and somebody pressed the plunger on 9/11?
Preparation would have taken weeks, and with thousands of people in those buildings the chances of being caught out would be high.
Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
Gordon Ross has some interesting insights, from estimated measurements of core damage, into how the elevator system could likely have been used to destroy the core of the Towers, in effect pulling them down from within. Oh alright, I'll post the link to his site for anyone else with a real interest.
http://gordonssite.com/index.html
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:01 pm Post subject: Re: Controlled demolition believers answer this question
egw wrote:
Easy Rider wrote:
Preparation would have taken weeks, and with thousands of people in those buildings the chances of being caught out would be high.
Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
How the flock else could they blow the buildings up, unless they rigged them over a period of weeks, risking detection all the while??
Huh??
By what other means did those buildings catastrophically go "oops!?"
exactly, and on top of that, how many people here question what the man in overalls is doing when they are at work? does anyone here think they may be rigging your building or just carrying out general maintenance work?
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: Re: Controlled demolition believers answer this question
marky 54 wrote:
exactly, and on top of that, how many people here question what the man in overalls is doing when they are at work? does anyone here think they may be rigging your building or just carrying out general maintenance work?
Good point, plus the explosives would have been well hidden.
I found this image taken inside the WTC just days before 911 and I can't see anything suspicious.
I just read the whole of Ross's actual demolition analysis. It's the first one I have seen that deals with the actual observed behaviour of the cores, which as I have said on various threads on this board can be seen in various videos NOT "vaporising in situ" but hingeing out in sequence.
http://gordonssite.com/id2.html
he also points to this useful little clip which shows the intact LOWER core of tower 2 after the floors fall away:
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject: Re: Controlled demolition believers answer this question
Easy Rider wrote:
So you believe both the twin towers and building 7 were rigged with explosives of some sort and somebody pressed the plunger on 9/11.
Preparation would have taken weeks, and with thousands of people in those buildings the chances of being caught out would be high.
Why would they risk 9/11 not going to plan by doing it this way?
That question turns logic upside down. The perps HAD to destroy the buildings. Therefore they HAD to blow them up but make it look like the floors were collapsing due to structural failure. They had no choice but to do it this way! So the demolition started from the top. All indications are that the demolition team went in over the weekend before 9/11 and planted the explosives. Anyway, what risk was there? It did not need weeks of pre-wiring because the towers were designed to be demolished and the electrical wiring was already in place. Paul Laffoley worked for a short time on the design of the South Tower and made the explosive statement on radio that the towers were designed for speedy demolition by being pre-wired. Listen to his two interviews here:
http://kentroversypapers.blogspot.com/2007/04/bin-laden-construction-c ompany-worked.html
As for the chances of being caught being high - not when all CCTV was closed down, all computers out of action, security was at a minimum according to reports, with sniffer dogs used to detect explosives being withdrawn and when office workers assumed that the uniformed technicians that they saw coming and going were working on the upgrade of the computer systems throughout the towers.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:24 pm Post subject:
Rowan Berkeley wrote:
I just read the whole of Ross's actual demolition analysis. It's the first one I have seen that deals with the actual observed behaviour of the cores, which as I have said on various threads on this board can be seen in various videos NOT "vaporising in situ" but hingeing out in sequence.
http://gordonssite.com/id2.html
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject: Re: Controlled demolition believers answer this question
telecasterisation wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
exactly, and on top of that, how many people here question what the man in overalls is doing when they are at work? does anyone here think they may be rigging your building or just carrying out general maintenance work?
Good point, plus the explosives would have been well hidden.
I found this image taken inside the WTC just days before 911 and I can't see anything suspicious.
Look a little closer, and you'll notice that the office worker is holding a TATP liquid explosive device disguised as a bottle of mineral water.
That one bottle alone - with goodness knows how many more freely distributed throughout the building - could be estimated to be the equivalent of at least 20 megatons of TNT (using figures by HMG circulated to airports last summer). _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: Re: Controlled demolition believers answer this question
Easy Rider wrote:
Preparation would have taken weeks, and with thousands of people in those buildings the chances of being caught out would be high.
There was work being done in the weeks prior to 911. They didn’t get 'caught' because it was done under the guise of essential rewiring work.
The fact remains that explosions were heard (and some even seen). And the fact remains that the towers came down at very close to free-fall, which is impossible to happened when falling through itself. It is impossible unless the material was disintegrated and blown away so as to not impede the fall as it came down.
If something is impossible it is impossible and the official story is therefore impossible. This is obvious to anyone who isn’t in denial.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:14 pm Post subject:
I'm afraid I stopped even occasionally monitoring Fintan's site after I heard him offering himself on one of his podcasts as an intermediary between 'we the people' and presumably, the PTB (who no doubt slavishly stay current with BfN). _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
well, the person he is featuring with such glee is this character:
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
a certain christopher a. brown, whose entire site is sorta
on the other hand, here is a site created by what appears to be a firm that prints stuff on t-shirts to order, but just happens to coincide quite closely with Ross's conclusions on the demolition of the towers:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 41 Location: Santa Barbara california
Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:18 pm Post subject:
Rowan Berkeley wrote:
well, the person he is featuring with such glee is this character:
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
a certain christopher a. brown, whose entire site is sorta
on the other hand, here is a site created by what appears to be a firm that prints stuff on t-shirts to order, but just happens to coincide quite closely with Ross's conclusions on the demolition of the towers:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 41 Location: Santa Barbara california
Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject:
Rowan Berkeley wrote:
I just read the whole of Ross's actual demolition analysis. It's the first one I have seen that deals with the actual observed behaviour of the cores, which as I have said on various threads on this board can be seen in various videos NOT "vaporising in situ" but hingeing out in sequence.
http://gordonssite.com/id2.html
he also points to this useful little clip which shows the intact LOWER core of tower 2 after the floors fall away:
That "intact" core is a CGI overlay in the video based on the appearance of the inner wall of the outer tube or steel framework that supported the floors. Very deceptive. The framework of interior box columns is formed by the only heavy continuous columns that actually existed and the floor beams and is seen in the spire photos. Nothing is seen in the core area.
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 You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
