CNN Covering 9/11 Discrepancies - really!

[Freakaloin]

google censored it 48 hours until it was pointed out...

[Nightshade]

I'm too tired to d/l any of this tonight, but it looks VERY interesting.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/fdny_dispatches.htm

[R00k]

ok wtf - it looks like a blackout - i just searched cnn's website for charlie sheen, and can't find anything about the story - wtf?

can someone point me to a link?

You can find it here, it's not on the front page anymore.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/

[R00k]

Regardless of what happened, there will never be any real investigation, because (I firmly believe) that the government needed the attacks to happen and serve as a pretense for executing a series of planned events.

So you believe they were complicit, otherwise they would have no reason not to investigate? Just trying to understand what you're saying here.

As for WTC 7, it was already damaged, but there was time for teams of engineers to figure out what exactly needed to be done to drop the building. Pushing over a half-chopped leaning tree doesn't take anywhere near the effort it does to chop one down from scratch.

As far as I know, the idea that they wired the building in the 7 hours after the attacks is as much speculation as the idea that they were wired beforehand.

That being said, do you really think it would be a simple matter to wire up a building that was on fire and already damaged? Like Maiden said, the Murrah building was only a few stories - less than a fifth the size of building 7 - plus the fires had pretty much burned out already; and it took them much longer to wire that one up and bring it down.

And your argument about getting demo charges 'right at the sites of the damage' in the two towers is a straw man, since noone has tried to imply that charges were placed at the impact sites, and that's not where you would place charges to bring the buildings down anyway.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Syria did it.

[R00k]

IX-NAY ON THE YRIA-SAY - NEW NEXT STEP IS IRAN-AY - PLEASE PASS ALONG! THE EAGLE HAS CHANGED DIRECTION!

[Nightshade]

Regardless of what happened, there will never be any real investigation, because (I firmly believe) that the government needed the attacks to happen and serve as a pretense for executing a series of planned events.

So you believe they were complicit, otherwise they would have no reason not to investigate? Just trying to understand what you're saying here.

As for WTC 7, it was already damaged, but there was time for teams of engineers to figure out what exactly needed to be done to drop the building. Pushing over a half-chopped leaning tree doesn't take anywhere near the effort it does to chop one down from scratch.

As far as I know, the idea that they wired the building in the 7 hours after the attacks is as much speculation as the idea that they were wired beforehand.

That being said, do you really think it would be a simple matter to wire up a building that was on fire and already damaged? Like Maiden said, the Murrah building was only a few stories - less than a fifth the size of building 7 - plus the fires had pretty much burned out already; and it took them much longer to wire that one up and bring it down.

And your argument about getting demo charges 'right at the sites of the damage' in the two towers is a straw man, since noone has tried to imply that charges were placed at the impact sites, and that's not where you would place charges to bring the buildings down anyway.

Yes, I believe the government was complicit. I think they knew the attacks were imminent, or at least HIGHLY likely and did nothing (or did things like stand down NORAD) so the attacks would succeed, thereby paving the way for OPERATION: GRAB ALL THE FUCKING OIL.

No, my statement about the towers being wired in just the right spot is not a strawman. My contention is firstly that the towers were not felled by demolition charges. Secondly, if the demo charge theory is to be borne out then the charges were A.) Previously wired over all floors or B.) Previously wired over the floors likely to sustain damage or C.) Wired in place after the planes hit.
Now C is the most laughable, IMO. The idea of teams of demo experts running into the building and getting charges wired where the planes hit is just silly. I say where the planes hit because that's where the collapse started.
I find B to be ridiculous also, because how could anyone guarantee where the planes would hit? Placing more and more charges exposes you to more and more risk of being discovered. This is the most plausible of all three of these scenarios, but still VERY unlikely.
A is completely retarded. I find it impossible to believe that the entire building could be wired with explosive charges on all the structural steel with no one finding any of them. Plus, the collapses of both towers began at the damaged spots, not at the base of the building like EVERY OTHER BUILDING THAT'S EVER BEEN DEMOLISHED.

As for WTC 7, yeah it was huge, but that doesn't mean you couldn't wire enough explosive to it to drop it. The Murrah building was wired over a longer period of time to prevent any further damage to surrounding structures occurring. No need for such precautions for WTC 7, the area already looked like a war zone after the towers came down. Remember, it came down seven hours after the others. And I'm only supporting this argument because the owner's on record saying that they made the decision to drop the building.

[losCHUNK]

meh, wasnt the 1st time god commandos tried using a plane as a bomb

they got lucky and everything after that is an excuse for an oil run

[Maiden]

As for WTC 7, it was already damaged, but there was time for teams of engineers to figure out what exactly needed to be done to drop the building. Pushing over a half-chopped leaning tree doesn't take anywhere near the effort it does to chop one down from scratch.

so damaged or not, you are saying that what would be the tallest building ever imploded could be brought down in less than 7 hrs. and wired up while flames are burning freely inside????

and i would have to argue the point about a damaged building taking less effort. you have to rely on the buildings ingerity to bring it down the way you want it. when the ingerity is all fubar you are taking many more chances of the thing falling over sidways or something.
look at the murrah fed buidling, they brought that down in a big hurry to ease they emotional scar and they didn't do that in a day. and it was only 6-7 stories

Ok, apparently you're just tuning in here. I do NOT believe that the towers were brought down by demo charges. The manager of WTC7 admitted on TV that the decision was made to "pull it".
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7.html

WTC 7 came down 7 hours after the attacks. I think that's enough time to get people in and wire it up. At least it's feasible. Getting demolition charges right at the sites of the damage in BOTH the North and South towers in less than an hour is fucking ludicrous.

na, we are on the same page. I know you don't think the towers were imploded, and I wasn't talking about them at all.
wtc7 would be the tallest building ever imploded. The record is 435 ft., I'm pretty sure that #7 was taller than that.
It took 13 guys seven days to wire the record building, after months of planning. If you were going to try it in under 7 hours, I'm thinking you need at least 150 experts to pull it off, probably more. And you can throw out the months of planning because there is no way you could account for what the falling towers did to number 7. I guess it could be done, but I think there is probably a better chance of me putting my schlong in Angelina Jolie's ass this weekend.
As far as Siversteinn's quote, if you look at the entire thing I think you could make the case that he wanted to pull the effort to save the building. Regardless, I'm not going to hang my hat on it because he said "pull it" in the middle of the greatest disaster he has ever seen.
Could have been "pull your men out" or "pull the plug on trying to save it" just as easy. I'm sure he was kinda stressed even if he was already thinking about the millions he was going to make.

Sorry for the sidetrack again Rook. I hope we get to learn more of the truth, and I hope the efforts never stop, but looking at history, I don't have a lot of hope. Just look at some of the other things we really don't know the hole story on i.e. Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, JFK, hell even Bush's election victories.

[Nightshade]

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/de ... 0225133807

These guys are the holders of the record for the tallest building, radio tower, etc. They're also the ones that dropped the Murrah building. I've read the debates about what Silverstein actually meant, who knows what the hell he intended? We're all just speculating anyhow.
I'd like to see footage of WTC 7 coming down if any exists, and I'd really like to have enough time to listen to all the FDNY stuff available from The Memory Hole.

[Freakaloin]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

[Kat]

how long does it usually take to install these charges? about 2 weeks?

For a building that large it usually takes several months. They have to notify the authorities, get permissions, block traffic, evacuate local buildings, set up blast corridors and zones so debris follows a set path with as little or no impact on surroundings.

They have to notify the mains suppliers, don't want gas explosions or vibrational damage being caused to power, water, gas, communications when it's not necessary!

That's just the general logistics.

To actually knock the building down they do test blasts, they'll find a suitable weight bearing structural pillar and do a test blast on it to see how it breaks up - they use a special explosives that produce high temperature (which was one of the things quizzed in the 9/11 stuff) and high frequency 'localised' blast patterns. They also take core samples from other areas of a building and it's surroundings, analysing those for structural integrity. Using all that data to do a simulation before going anywhere near the build. And that's for your average *5 story car-park* or 25 floor tower block in the middle of nowhere, not a 47 story building the middle of New York.

[R00k]

Man, why go to all that work when flying a plane into the side of a building makes it fall perfectly into its own footprint?

Frikkin IDIOTS... GAAAAH!

[Nightshade]

how long does it usually take to install these charges? about 2 weeks?

For a building that large it usually takes several months.

I've seen it done on fairly large structures in less than two months, but still, it's a monumental amount of work.

[Kat]

True. I dare say (although I wouldn't want to speculate too much without being able to back the assumption up) it's possible in very short time spans but one would then have to question whether that would be at the cost of following 'normal' safety precausions/proceedures.

[R00k]

Well, for the purposes of a theory about someone demolishing a building with people in it, I think it's safe to assume they wouldn't contact authorities, get permits, deal with right-of-ways, safety paths, etc. etc.

Still it's just one of many theories at this point; just like the idea that Al Quaeda did it alone is still an unproven theory.

[seremtan]

i thought larry silverstein admitting WTC7 was 'pulled' was all the evidence needed. that, combined with the logistical difficulty of rigging a building for demo in a few hours, points to at least the WTC7 collapse being a pre-planned event. either that or the small fires from the WTC1&2 debris were enough to bring down a 50-storey building in 8 hours and larry silverstein is lying

p.s. hi kat

[R00k]

Yes, that's my opinion of the WTC7 issue as well.

Or even more to the point, if the owner of the building admitted demolishing it on national television, then why did the 9/11 Commission feel compelled to create an elaborate lie and an alternate physical universe, where a few coals fell on a 47-story building and burned it down in less than half a day?

Sane people would look at this scenario and wonder what the Commission's motive was. Other people would simply mock anyone trying to come up with an answer.

[Kat]

There is an interestng 'requirement' about emergancy events in that they *do* allow for something like the rapid demolition of a building, so it is possible that B7 was pulled *legitimately* (due to fire and not a conspiracy, etc. etc..). The remarkable thing was that B7 happened within a few hours when the building was reported as still being on fire; that's a remarkable feat of human resources to get everything in place and guarentee a building falling the way they need it too, whilst it's still 'hot'.

The father of a buddy of mine is Fire Chief (was, I think he's retired now) of a local Brigade (UK) and even in instances of building becoming unstable they would normally let one of two things happen; clear the area and let the building fall on it's own, or wait till the fires were out and it was safe for demo teams to go in, both of which usually took a few days.

P.P.S. hullo seremtan, I shouldn't take so long to write me posts as you said the same thing re. 'time', heh

[seremtan]

while i've cooled off on the (other) conspiracy theories a little, having checked out a few things further, i'm still a bit baffled by those explosions in the WTC towers right before they collapsed, and all that molten metal found in the basement. both of these have been amply recorded either on video or still photos

[Kat]

I don't have access to high explosives so I can't qualify this statement (not tried it..!). Apparently demo teams no longer use TNT (dynamite) on buildings like that but instead favour this incredibly powerful explosive that's essentially a much better plastic explosive - I cant remember exact reasons why other than it was less volatile than TNT and Nitro.

I *think* it's the same stuff the military uses to blow up bunkers (weapons depots *cough*Iraq*cough), it's a concentrate that they mix with putty (or something) which they can then mould into whatever shapes they need. Need someone in the military to confirm that though.

According to, not just Messrs Jones, but other sources, it leaves a telltale sign; incredibly hot residue (not necessarily 'liquid') that *is* hot enough to show up as hot spots like we saw.

The problem is that you'd be hard pushed to get qualification on this type of info now as everyone would make the usual and incorrect assumptions as to why you were asking.

[EDIT]iirc there's even an explanation on the web site of 'Controlled Demolition' the company behind the clear up for Oklahoma and TT.

[Nightshade]

Yes, they used copper-clad shaped charges that literally burn right through steel. I've seen them used, but they didn't leave any slag behind.

[seremtan]

question is: what did? not only does jet fuel not burn hot enough to melt steel to a molten state, but the steel in the twin towers was encased in concrete, adding an extra impediment to the spread of heat energy

if they'd done a proper investigation of course, all of these questions would have been answered...

[Guest]

They wouldn't need to melt the steel to weaken it enough to fail to support all that weight. Failing and melting are two totaly different things.

[Kat]

question is: what did?...

From my understanding controlled demolitions tend to create lower airpressure inside the controlled space which means the oxygen content will be lower - so yeah, the jet fuel 'arguement' of the official story is so untrue it's not even funny.

Now if we talking about fires and heat here (irrespective of *where* it happened) the only things that can burn without or in low oxygen environs are certain types of *chemical* fires, so depending on the chemicals it's most certainly possible to produce extraordinary localised temperatures.

The question then becomes one of what chemicals. Conspiracy Theorists like to put forward the 'special' explosive demolition organisations use but I personally don't know anything about it other than that fact that it's used (as Nightshade confirmed above).

Without anyone from a demo org coming forward and saying "yeah you know what, we had instances where this stuff goes nuts for days" we're pretty much left with continual speculation and theories, which feed the beast.

Slightly OT : There is one video I recommend trying to watch if you've not seen it, I think it's called 9/11 - eye witness. A guy living over the bay basically set up camera and filmed the whole thing and there are more than just a few "WTF?" moments.