Osama Did It - Get A Life !!

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Demolition REVISITED

Another thing I thought about yesterday and today in regard to demolitions: Don't they take like WEEKS to put them together? And dont they cut through the steel support columns about 90% and use hundreds of feet of wire to use an electric charge to fire the blasting caps? And don't they start at the BOTTOM of the buildings, not where the plane crashed into?

Why, yes, they DO.

I found an demolition company which, WITHOUT POLITICAL BIAS, has analyzed the data they have and the video tapes of the collapses from a DEMOLITION point of view, EXCLUSIVE of any conclusion by FEMA, NIST, or anyone else. They put together a little PDF file which can be found here:

The WTC Towers were NOT demolished by explosives.

They are pretty succinct and LOGICAL and they understand what it takes to demolish a building and they understand what a demolition looks like. WTC was not a demolition. Oh yes, also - this company was doing demolition work in the city that day and have their own seismic recordings that day, which along with the readings by Columbia University, show that there were NO seismic indications of preliminary explosions.

Get OVER it CTers.

30 Comments:

  • ok man, i'm reading this "factual" information you've presented today...

    Well, first off I'll point out how they create their own arguments with their assertions.

    Let's start with...
    #1. They argue since it's not a typical demolition then it's obviously not a demolition at all. I'm sorry but we arn't talking about a "typical" demolition. There has never been a building even close to this height demoed. Then they go on to give us only two possible senarios for demolition to be possible, Their first senario "a" brings up an interesting point to me, we don't know of an explosive that doesn't react to heat? Are you kidding me, these guys are experts and they've never heard of c4?

    senario b, someone had to plant them and wire them together afterwards in the limited 55mins? First off why would they have to wire them together? couldn't they just use a radio transmission? Thought these guys where experts? and why is this "sceintific" paper containing no scientfic facts?

    I'm sure I'll have more observations as i continue reading this as so far trash. Hopefully they get to some Factual information as opposed to opinions.

    By Anonymous truthism, at 4:25 PM  

  • #2. I have to type what they said here it's so freaking nuts...

    "With very few execptions, a tall office building cannot be made to tip over like a tree." Their evidence for this is not NEWTON's law, but rather that demolition experts know this. (where be the factual info) Then they talk about pictures they arn't willing to show in there reports" The facts apparently indicate that a relatively small amount of debris landed straight down, but we have to take it at their word, as we're not allowed to see these "facts" they have.

    By Anonymous Truthism, at 4:33 PM  

  • #3 Oh wow, now they are jumping ship that everything falls straight down, to it's completely natural to see debris being pushed violently outward in a rapid structural collapse. Again no evidence, just worthless arguments but suppossed professionals... Where are the facts?! the Sources?!

    By Anonymous yep..., at 4:37 PM  

  • #4
    No shit, people don't know what the heard, but what about the video evidence of the explosions in the lobbies of one of the towers, and the eye witness reports of explosions blowing them up? What about the people that lost limbs from these things in the basement? I guess they probably didn't know what they heard either.. again they fail to show us any evidence of these seismographs, or anything, just take it at their word...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:39 PM  

  • #5, well then why the fuck can you go watch the video on utube? It's obviously some form of metal that can get red hot and still strong enough to hold it's form. Real experts can determine the heat of this subtance too...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:43 PM  

  • you answer anyone of these and i'll read the rest, but i'm done reading bs science. Quite frankly i don't have the time for it. You find me someone who wants to talk about some FACTS and I'll be glad to read their whole paper, no matter what there final view point is. Let's talk about the actual structure and what it was comprised of, how exactly concrete could be pulverised while inbetween a steel pan, and some time of subfloor system and likely carpet or some form of tile. how all 47 core columns gave way at once, despite having just suffering damage in localized locations. Get real man if you can't see through bull shit that smells this bad you've got serious problems.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:54 PM  

  • Hey whiners:

    The demolition guys are not INVESTIGATORS. They do not need EVIDENCE for what they did other than their EYES and the VIDEO OF THE BUILDINGS FALLING DOWN.

    They looked at the collapse from a "professional demolition crew who has dones hundreds of demolitions" point of view.

    And they say it did NOT look ANYTHING like a professional implosion.

    By Blogger Larry, at 7:06 AM  

  • You mean, it didn't look like a "typical" demolition. Also, if they don't want to present evidence perhaps they shouldn't state that they are going to in their foreword? When will you people on the other side start caring about the EVIDENCE? Why is it not important to you for example, let's talk about the Pentagon. Am I crazy to believe that it had anti-air defenses? Is it crazy not to believe that the titanium engines melted? Let's talk about the FACTS, what is Titanium? What temp does it melt at? What is jet fuel? What temp does it burn at?
    If the fires and explosions from the crash where so violent and hot, how did the recover and identify a vast majority of the remains? I'll remind you I'm not interested in proving that the government did 9-11, I'm interested in answering realistic questions that these people have. Some of these questions are REAL and SHOULD be answered regardless of what they potentially could reveal. It's important and as a good citizen that you demand to know the facts from your government at all times, in all matters. We've got a lot of history of governments doing just awful things all over, not just America. I'm not really sure of what you think this nation is, and why and how it was formed, but we didn't get this much freedom from lying down in the face of adversity. We got it by standing strong, and telling the POWERS that be, that we're not going to take it, that WE the PEOPLE controll them through OUR consent. I don't consent to murder of innocent people, little children being liberated through shock and awe on their own homes. It's disgusting, it's humiliating and openly wrong. You can't fight terrorism with terrorism.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:52 AM  

  • Let me repeat an important part of the Implosion World report:

    There are NO SEISMIC RECORDINGS by Columbia or anyone else which indicate preliminary explosions.

    By Blogger Larry, at 9:57 AM  

  • It's obvious your not interested in answering any of these familiy members questions. Why do you hate the victim's of 9-11 so much?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:04 PM  

  • How exactly is it PATRIOTIC to accuse the government of mass homicide?

    How is it disrespectful to the family members to agree with the official story, which is clearly what happened?

    Wouldn't all that protesting on their GRAVES be FAR less respectful?

    If there ever is ONE IOTA of REAL EVIDENCE which indicates complicity by the US government, then I will question it.

    By Blogger Larry, at 4:27 PM  

  • All you need is one? Here is a short real list.

    1. Norad - Stood Down.
    2. Black Boxes - destroyed?
    3. Able Danger..
    4. Sibel edmonds.

    There are four good reasons. You crackheads need to keep in mind that no one is accusing anyone, we're asking for a fair and open investigation that's willing to delve as far as is needed to give a truly final report.

    You obviously have no clue what a patriot is. It's one who Loves, supports and defends one country, from enemies both foreign and domestic.

    Since when has it been a crime to question authority in the land of the FREE?

    I can't wait till they throw the people like you into their little prisons they are building, i'd give anything to see that look on your face when you realize who you've been protecting all this time... It's coming sooner than later, keep paving the way for them.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:56 AM  

  • Facts sure shut you up fast don't they Larry? I wish you'd talk about these problems with us.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:16 AM  

  • How many times does this NORAD thing have to be explained to you?

    NORAD is and was NOT DESIGNED to defend INSIDE THE USA BORDERS.

    They did not "stand down" that is a rumor perpetuated by the CTers.

    Read this Vanity Fair story and tell me if you think it sounds like NORAD "stodd down." This is a story which used the ACTUAL TAPES recorded at NORAD that day:

    http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

    In REALITY, it all happend too fast and with poor communication from the FAA for the military fighters to have had any effect on the results of the attacks. Long information lags doomed any chance of accomplishing anything.

    This is a fact the CTers seem to happily ignore.

    By Blogger Larry, at 7:39 AM  

  • A Patriot IS someone who loves his country and defends against enemies, both foreign and domestic, CORRECT.

    What a partiot is NOT is someone who ACCUSES the government of being an enemy with the absence of a coherent scenario which puts them at fault.

    Fight REAL domestic enemies like the hijackers, not the government who is trying to protect you.

    By Blogger Larry, at 7:41 AM  

  • If no one ever was accused of anything then no one would ever be TRIED and PROVEN GUILTY. So what exactly are you saying Larry? Why do you think I'm such a big idiot, when your spreading this garbage? There is not a damn thing wrong with accusing your government of anything, you should understand that their POWERS are through the CONSENT of the PEOPLE. I am the people, these other "CTs" as you've labeled them, are the PEOPLE. You are the PEOPLE. It is our RIGHT and DUTY to question OUR government. You really should figure this part out Larry, I don't care how outraged you are, this is still a FUNDAMENTAL part of DEMOCRACY.

    I think you are missing the point of what a Domestic enemy is. Go read some quotes from our founding fathers. There was a great one, that talks about the only way this country will ever fail. (i'll try and find it for you)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:11 AM  

  • I'm not saying and I would never be such an idiot as to say "never question the government." That would be a mistake and a ridiculous thing to do.

    My point is this: Don't WASTE YOUR TIME by questioning something as OBVIOUSLY SELF-EXPLANATORY as the 9-11 attacks !!!

    The official story is correct. My blog points out all the impossible things that would have to happen for it to have happened ANY OTHER WAY.

    The "Conspiracy Theorists" are those to whom I refer as the "CTers".

    Find a good reason to question government, like why all our tax money goes to bullshit Pork projects, and why we cannot force automakers to hit 30 MPG, and why we are still allowing dirty diesel engines to pollute the world.

    Don't question them on something so ridiculous as blaming 9-11 on them.

    By Blogger Larry, at 8:29 AM  

  • Perhaps you should take your own advise. Why waste your time fighting the CTs. When it's so obviously self explained. You created a good list, of problems that the people of this country should address. Even if it was a small one. I have to agree with you to a certain extent on 9-11. But, for different reasons. I do believe that trying to prove that our government did the dirty deed is almost to the point of being counter-productive, but only because it's the "BIG LIE". Not because of a lack of evidence or reasonable doubt. Just because people are not capable of seeing the true evil our county has been involved in post ww2. But, my point is that your a guy out here stifling dissent, and that in my opinion is not a good thing and I have a hard time understanding how anyone could see it as such. But, I must admit I don't understand how it's OBVIOUS, or SELF-EXPLAINED and as far as PORK, I think that is directly in-line with our defense spendings. Look at a chart of our defense spendings vs. all the other nations of the world. It's a sickening ratio, now the problem I have with this is not that I think we're getting too much defenses as much as I think that the defense contractors have strong interest within out current government, so as having these interest they feel justified to charge what ever they disire for our defense, because the world has truly gotten to a point where people thing you can measure the effectiveness of something with how many $'s have been assigned to deal with a problem and sadly that's a false sense of logic.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:39 PM  

  • I don't see myself as "stifling dissent" at all.

    That would mean someone is reading my Blog and saying, "Well, before reading LARRY'S BLOG I thought FOR SURE that the government did it, but now I know they didn't." That would be VERY EGOTISTIC of me to think my words had that sort of an effect on anyone.

    My point is to counter the CTers with the other side of the story, the one which says "the official story is what happened and nothing else" just because the CTers have us FAR FAR outnumbered.

    There are indeed far greater problems in this world, and I realize that. But you gotta be passionate about what you believe in or you are just a shell of a person.

    By Blogger Larry, at 12:50 PM  

  • "You mean, it didn't look like a "typical" demolition."

    What kind of comment is that? How does it get around the physical difficulties and impossibilities that controlled demolition fantasies induce? How does it answer the many demolition experts who point out that demolitions must start by undermining support at the base of the structures, not from the top? How does it invalidate an expert firm's professional judgment regarding the possibility of demolitions use?

    Besides, you all also keep denying the role of the fire in the collapse, saying it could never have burned hot enough. Engineers and fire & structure researchers saying it wasn't a typical fire doesn't seem to fly with you all. Why turn around and try to defend your demolition argument by saying it wasn't "typical"? And then not providing evidence?

    "If the fires and explosions from the crash where so violent and hot, how did the recover and identify a vast majority of the remains?"

    From the parts of the building that didn't burn. Note that some people's remains have never been discovered. The fire didn't consume the whole building.

    That's just common sense, man. You're really stretching to come up with questions to come up with that one.

    "It's obvious your not interested in answering any of these familiy members questions. Why do you hate the victim's of 9-11 so much?"

    Why are you dodging Larry's hard, factual evidence arguing against demolition?

    "All you need is one? Here is a short real list.

    1. Norad - Stood Down.
    2. Black Boxes - destroyed?
    3. Able Danger..
    4. Sibel edmonds."


    You keep on bringing up motive - unproven, but still, you keep on harping on motive - but that's a long way from proving opportunity. And it does not address the factual impossibilities you continue to bring up.

    "I think you are missing the point of what a Domestic enemy is. Go read some quotes from our founding fathers. There was a great one, that talks about the only way this country will ever fail. (i'll try and find it for you)"

    You keep on using political language to defend your physical impossibilities. We're all aware of the Founding Fathers' opinions of civic duty. Here's one you all seem to continually miss: Participation must be informed. Here's another: The reason the US is a Republic and not a direct democracy is precisely because the Founding Fathers realized the dangers of mob rule, and by extension mob thinking. Conspiracy fantasies are the epitome of mob thinking: All emotion, context-less facts, zero analysis.

    And, regarding physical impossibilities: Someone should explain how government got the demolitions inside the WTC's. Political theory cannot provide physical explanations. Talking about the Founding Father's quotes does not address how impossibilities can occur.

    "Why waste your time fighting the CTs. When it's so obviously self explained."

    It's not. It's never been. Only incomplete theories and philosophies appear to be "obviously self explained". In reality, they're missing quite a bit. Much like the cultish religions, like what Jim Jones or David Koresh spouted. Again, all these theories spout motive, but none ever give proper explanations of opportunity. And so many are based on incorrect interpretations of facts; for the billionth time, think of the fantasies about steel and thermite. Thinking the CT's are self explanatory shows that you have not applied any critical thinking to them. You've only swallowed them whole.

    "But, my point is that your a guy out here stifling dissent"

    It is not stifling dissent to require a side defend its statements. The ideal of free speech is to allow for opportunity of speech, not automatic acceptance of such. All Larry's done is point out very obvious weaknesses in conspiracy fantasies. The fact he's engaging you all is proof it's not stifling of dissent.

    Besides, he's not in charge of the servers publishing these theories, nor is he in charge of media organizations that can print or broadcast information. So how exactly can Larry be the one "stifling" anyone's opinion.

    And also: Dissent must be informed, otherwise there is nothing constructive about it. If you wish to take the mantle of dissenter, you must also assume the responsibility of working towards being informed. Ill formed dissent may be satisfying to the ego, but it does nothing for the truth. And truth is what you're after, is it not? That's what you all claim to want with these conspiracy fantasies, after all.

    By Blogger Elmondohummus, at 8:56 PM  

  • Do you even think about what you post elmondo. You're lucky no one reads this crap anyway.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:54 PM  

  • You need to add substance to your posts, anon. Construct arguments, use reason and logic... the fact that you don't is why you're not being taken seriously. If the post is crap, then explain why it's crap. Build an argument. Pick out points and refute them. You're not even trying to address what substance exists in my post. Which is sad, given that I just did it off the top of my head. If you can't take the time to refute a hastily constructed argument, you're not even trying. And that's sad. You're able to generate anger, but not the discipline required to analyze the facts in front of you.

    "You find me someone who wants to talk about some FACTS"

    If you're the same anonymous: Funny you should say you're interested in talking "FACTS", yet you ignore people when they do. You should start trying to answer Larry's questions, as well as my own. You're good at raising those, even though you're simply repeating the same old talking points brought up elsewhere and refuted by others, but you're no good at answering them. Here's one thing Larry asked:

    "Don't they take like WEEKS to put them together? And dont they cut through the steel support columns about 90% and use hundreds of feet of wire to use an electric charge to fire the blasting caps? And don't they start at the BOTTOM of the buildings, not where the plane crashed into?"

    You haven't provided any satisfactory answer to that. Neither has Truthism; that statement "First off why would they have to wire them together? couldn't they just use a radio transmission?" shows a lack of thought. Even if wires weren't used - and you should research why they are used, BTW - how in God's name would they have torn down enough structure and properly placed explosives on every floor in the amount of time you cite? Regardless of whether a demolition is typical or atypical, you can't just plant explosives anywhere you wish. They have to be placed properly.

    So, are you willing to "talk about some FACTS" by answering the questions Larry raised?

    By Blogger Elmondohummus, at 6:15 AM  

  • make your post shorter and to the point and i'll read them more often. You act like I have all this time to spend dealing with people that don't get it. It's really a great waste I spend any... Think about the other side to this buddy.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:21 PM  

  • You haven't provided any satisfactory answer to that. Neither has Truthism; that statement "First off why would they have to wire them together? couldn't they just use a radio transmission?"

    Did I give a time frame for the work? Would be new to me, I'm not an expert in demolition, I can just see biased work fairly easy. I know remote devices could be used, and I know it'd make more sense for them to be used under the circumstances we're talking about.

    Do you know what's the most annoying about people that think the way you do? You don't have the ability to step out of your own point of view. Like I can read what you say, and see how you might see, but you have no concept of other view points. It's just dead right or dead wrong. The problem with this is that it's not really trying to work at a real solution to this, and a solution is something I very much need. Do you think I or any of these other people want this to be true? Give me one rationale reason why I'd want to belive this is true. I'm sorry but I'm just a normal person, I don't like to see people suffering, I don't have illusion of grand conspiracy. I've just considered the evidence from a non-bias point of view, and really questioned the information with the best of my own wits. You may determine that my wits are not up to par with yours, but I'm telling you I'm not crazy and I have no reason to want this to happen, no matter how much I didn't like what bush was doing about taxes before this. Just think about it, your talking to a sane person that says they have honestly considered the evidence and based on their own findings they believe that fire could not of possibly caused the type of collapses we saw in WTC 1 WTC 2 or WTC 7. In my opinion there is no way to really question it, I can't even fathom how you could possibly think it if you've reviewed the tempatures of the fires. I mean you can go buy a piece of steel, and a torch and heat it up under load and see EXACTLY how strong the stuff is, I mean we started using it for a reason. So, when you want to get at the FACTS, we can get at the FACTS. But you have to want to. You have to want to look at them and prove to yourself that those buildings collapsed from the extreme tempatures in the buildings. But, DONT tell me you want to unless you REALLY want to, and you REALLY can do it. It takes a strong strong person.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:32 PM  

  • "make your post shorter and to the point and i'll read them more often."

    Hehe... "I don't like what you post, but I have no argument against them, so I'll find some BS thing to complain about in order to get my cut in".

    If you can't handle length, how in God's name are you going to understand the truth behind 9/11?

    By Blogger Elmondohummus, at 4:20 PM  

  • "Did I give a time frame for the work? Would be new to me, I'm not an expert in demolition, I can just see biased work fairly easy. I know remote devices could be used, and I know it'd make more sense for them to be used under the circumstances we're talking about."

    Time? You think this happened not on the day of the impact, but over the months necessary beforehand? Unobserved? And that people missed all the prep work? I noticed you're not addressing the necessity of pre-cutting in demolitions, and how people could've missed all that. Given the amount of structure they'd have to clear to get at the support structure, and all that. So okay: It took months. How'd they hide the work?

    Radio makes sense? And that's an explanation?

    On top of that, you "know remote devices could be used"? Okay... tell me, what prep work was done in order to allow the use of such radio remotes? Have you looked at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's guidelines for proper radio control of explosives? And what was done in order to prevent their accidental detonation? Road builders, miners, and controlled demolition firms all have to follow these guidelines, not because the government tells them to, but because not doing so might result in accidental radio interference triggering the demolitions.

    You're singling out a possiblity because it neatly fits your theory and not considering the environment it's placed in.

    By Blogger Elmondohummus, at 4:29 PM  

  • "So, when you want to get at the FACTS, we can get at the FACTS. But you have to want to. You have to want to look at them and prove to yourself that those buildings collapsed from the extreme temperatures in the buildings. But, DONT tell me you want to unless you REALLY want to, and you REALLY can do it. It takes a strong strong person."

    Facts? Argue facts, then. Don't mistake canards for facts.

    Look, the reason I've come into my knowledge, limited as it is, is because I too saw those assertions by the fantasists. I had no answer to some of their questions at first, so I was forced to consider it carefully. Yes, I did know that jet fuel didn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Yes, I did not know about the traces of phosphorous found on the steel columns. No, I did not know about the rate of fall of the towers. But did I just buy the assertions of the fantasists? No! I researched, and I found the answers myself. You can too. Go look. Don't just buy into the fantasists arguments because they sound right. Compare them against reality.

    If you want to talk about strength, then show some. Confronting the truth really does require strength, real strength. Not the false bravado you get when you think you've discovered something you believe someone wants covered up, but truths separate from political view. Truths that don't violate facts. Truths that don't violate physics. Truths that recognize the validity of mundane explanations for seemingly charged facts. Yes, steel is incredibly strong. What temperature does it lose 50% strength at? Also, what else was burning? It wasn't just steel. Yes, it is a strong material; that's why you have to consider more than just the effect of the fire the jet fuel started, but the effect of all the other things that were burning too. And in an insulative environment on top of that. Also, what's the nature of heat? Fires don't give off a temperature, they give off energy measurable in joules, which go into the surrounding materials and heat those up. Were there enough joules available in all the fuel - jet fuel, furniture, wiring, etc. - to account for the steel losing strength? The more I looked, the more I realized how much the fantasists were ignoring on just that isolated point by just peddling the "facts" about steel's melting point and what temperature jet fuel burns at. By honestly looking at all the facts, I discovered that I didn't have to lean on thermite or the Deus ex Machina of government conspiracies to explain the collapse. I only needed to understand the details of the physics involved.

    I looked too. I didn't just accept. I too have honestly considered the evidence, but unlike you, I didn't stop at only considering the fantasists "evidence". I included the evidence of the engineers, the fire & structure researchers, the other academics, and all those who've taken the time to truly be honest at looking at the facts. And I've read the rebuttals of the fantasists, and I've read the counters from the others. There's a definite difference in rigor of thought between the two. I too am a sane person who's looked at the facts, but I've reached the understanding that I don't need to invoke politics or fantasies to explain the collapse. If you want to try to argue that I'm a closed mind, then go for it, but understand that I'm not the one only buying the point of view of one side. I did step outside my own point of view. That's exactly how I've come to the conclusions I have. By realizing that my initial calls of BS on the NIST report and the government's story were nothing more than my misunderstandings, and my own erroneous face-value acceptance of the fantasist’s narrative.

    Step outside your own point of view. Consider reality. It may not be the neat, everything-fits, everything's explained place that the conspiracy fantasies are, but it's the truth. And that, in the end, is what we're all after, isn't it?

    By Blogger Elmondohummus, at 5:05 PM  

  • LMAO! NORAD was not meant to defend our country? Funny it should be named NORTH AMERICAN air defense, then. Also, that means that we don't have any air defense of this country, despite trillions being spent over the years on it. I laugh at you politican loving nuts. You don't believe politicians ever lie...I guess they are Christ.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:21 AM  

  • to those who understand, no explanation is needed...

    Those who believe in the CT of 9/11 also believe OJ was innocent, no one landed on the moon, the Jews are behind all wars and that Unions are good for the economy.

    You are going about this all wrong. You cannot convince an idiot through logic and reason; here is how you have to answer:

    9/11 was not blown up by the US government or MOSSAD or any earthly force but by the same aliens that are worshipped by the Scientologists. As proof, read L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology - Book 9, chapter 11, Page 8, starting at the 46th word (get it? 9/11 8:46 am - the first plane hits the WTC) where it says "and at that very moment the twin engrams will fall from sight"!

    Now Anon, I dare you to dispute that!

    By Blogger bernie, at 6:02 PM  

  • Demolitian Experts highly overrated

    Until 9/11 in 2001, we believed controlled demolitions, especially so-called "building implosions", required highly-skilled demolition experts.

    But on that very day we were all proved wrong. When severely damaged, buildings have no choice but to fall straight down due to gravity, as Jonathon Moseley clarifies.

    Full article on my blog

    By Blogger Just, at 12:13 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home