blair

**Phill** · 05-Feb-10, 23:46

Originally Posted by fred

Then why did it collapse?

Bear in mind that in 1993 someone detonated a 1,500 lb bomb under WTC 1 and it didn't even twitch so it will have to be something a bit more drastic than being hit by a bit of rubble or a few office fires.

I'm brim full of red wine & stella so I'm not going to hypothesise too much right now but doesn't that give you a clue.

1,500lbs at the base and it does nea move, just how much are you going to have to secret away up the whole 110 floors?

**Stavro** · 06-Feb-10, 00:37

Originally Posted by Phill

I'm brim full of red wine & stella so I'm not going to hypothesise too much right now but doesn't that give you a clue.

1,500lbs at the base and it does nea move, just how much are you going to have to secret away up the whole 110 floors?

That all depends upon the type of explosive and where it is positioned. The military have access to endless sums of money, and vast waste areas that are off-limits, in order to develop this stuff, and more than enough experience in using directional charges, for example.

The London Underground atrocity seems to have been military grade explosives positioned underneath the carriages. Smaller scale, but same basic principles.

**Phill** · 06-Feb-10, 00:39

Originally Posted by Stavro

Okay, back to the top to bottom explosions or collapsing floors on WTC1 and WTC2.

Under the controlled demolition scenario, it had to be top to bottom for two reasons: 1) evidence that the collapses were not caused by planes and their burning fuel would be undeniable; 2) due to the fact that the Towers were so tall, exploding them from the bottom would result in at least one of them toppling sideways.

So top to bottom fits both of our hypotheses.

I'm not convinced, a controlled explosion is just that.
An experienced outfit puts the rubble where you want it, there would be a series of charges set at certain individual delays to send the building one way or the other.

Another thing to remember, there must have been some serious damage from the aircraft. How could it be pre planned that they were going to hit "that" floor on "that" tower. How could of all the charges AND aircraft be in the right place at the right time?

As regards an explosion at the base, there is plenty of evidence for a massive explosion in the basements of each tower - these were so large that they registered on seismic detectors at two nearby universities. One reading corresponded to a "quake" of 3.0 and the other, I think, was about 2.3 - occurring moments prior to the collapse of the respective tower.

That's some explosion me thinks, but could be wrong, but doubt it, I don't thing blowing the arse out of the building falls into the controlled demolition arena.

How do you answer the following observation: "If they had been natural collapses there would have been layers of concrete pancaked on top of each other in the rubble pile, which is what often happens to multi-level buildings in strong earthquakes. We would expect to find 110 slabs of concrete and their steel pans stacked on top of each other, yet there is no evidence that any of these floor pans were found in the rubble, much less 110 of them stacked up. Where did these 220 steel floor pans go? How could they have simply disappeared? The fact that they were not found stacked up in the rubble clearly disproves the official version (NIST) of the 'collapses' of the Twin Towers." (Source: http://www.bollyn.com/index.php )

They didn't disappear did they. We're looking at a terrorist atrocity not a David Blane show.
They must have been there before the planes struck, or did some CIA dude sneak in and pinch them. This is what cheapens the argument, utter crap. How do massive chunks of building disappear? They don't, or did Tony Blair and Dubya sneak in there great escape style and reduce them all to dust and trickled them down their pants whilst walking round outside.

Never before has there ever been a aircraft strike of this magnitude into a building. You cannot compare this to a non accelerated fire (China CCTV).

Never before has there been a 47 story building have tonnes of masonry fall onto it.

**Stavro** · 06-Feb-10, 00:48

Originally Posted by Phill

... or did some CIA dude sneak in and pinch them. This is what cheapens the argument, utter crap.

Since you have mentioned the basement and the CIA

... did you know that the CIA had several floors in WTC7 and vaults in the basement of that building? Did you also know that, according to recent revelations by one of the official photographers (now in hiding in South America), the CIA vaults were cleaned out before he photographed through the doorway? And, since he photographed the damage just after the building collapsed, that means that ... the vaults were cleared out (estimated size several van-loads of stuff) before 11 September 2001.

**Phill** · 06-Feb-10, 00:50

Originally Posted by Stavro

That all depends upon the type of explosive and where it is positioned. The military have access to endless sums of money, and vast waste areas that are off-limits, in order to develop this stuff, and more than enough experience in using directional charges, for example.

The London Underground atrocity seems to have been military grade explosives positioned underneath the carriages. Smaller scale, but same basic principles.

I see where your going, but seriously, the work involved!
The scale of this operation, the types of explosives required, the placement, the sheer volume, the wiring, the control and all achieved without detection.
And then to try and tie this into the aircraft striking the correct point and A. not damaging the pre-wired set up B. not accidentally setting the charges off.

**Stavro** · 06-Feb-10, 00:54

Originally Posted by Phill

I see where your going, but seriously, the work involved!
The scale of this operation, the types of explosives required, the placement, the sheer volume, the wiring, the control and all achieved without detection.
And then to try and tie this into the aircraft striking the correct point and A. not damaging the pre-wired set up B. not accidentally setting the charges off.

Yes, I take your point, but there is one aspect of all this that has not been mentioned yet. And, if I mention it, all hell will no doubt break loose!

**Phill** · 06-Feb-10, 00:56

Originally Posted by Stavro

Since you have mentioned the basement and the CIA

... did you know that the CIA had several floors in WTC7 and vaults in the basement of that building? Did you also know that, according to recent revelations by one of the official photographers (now in hiding in South America), the CIA vaults were cleaned out before he photographed through the doorway? And, since he photographed the damage just after the building collapsed, that means that ... the vaults were cleared out (estimated size several van-loads of stuff) before 11 September 2001.

Yeah, I've seen that one too. But again self defeating, apparently it is/was all the evidence of major corporate frauds. The "conspirators" blew up the building to destroy the evidence so they would go scot free. But apparently it was all moved beforehand

**Phill** · 06-Feb-10, 00:57

Originally Posted by Stavro

Yes, I take your point, but there is one aspect of all this that has not been mentioned yet. And, if I mention it, all hell will no doubt break loose!

Oh go on, try and surprise me.
Fred was driving the plane?

**Stavro** · 06-Feb-10, 00:59

Originally Posted by Phill

Yeah, I've seen that one too. But again self defeating, apparently it is/was all the evidence of major corporate frauds. The "conspirators" blew up the building to destroy the evidence so they would go scot free. But apparently it was all moved beforehand

The CIA is more interested in personal data, subversion and deceit on a national and international scale. I think it more the domain of the FBI and other agencies to deal with corporate fraud.

**Phill** · 06-Feb-10, 01:11

Originally Posted by Stavro

The CIA is more interested in personal data, subversion and deceit on a national and international scale. I think it more the domain of the FBI and other agencies to deal with corporate fraud.

OK but why let someone take photo's before and after of vaults which are to be part of a "conspiracy"?
Why then remove the evidence that you are "destroying" by controlled demolition?
It doesn't make much sense.

Besides, I would expect the majority of data would have been electronic anyway.

Anyway, what aspect have we not yet covered?

**Stavro** · 06-Feb-10, 01:23

Originally Posted by Phill

OK but why let someone take photo's before and after of vaults which are to be part of a "conspiracy"?
Why then remove the evidence that you are "destroying" by controlled demolition?
It doesn't make much sense.

Because it was not envisioned that he would be able to see into the vaults, since they were sealed. The structural damage had created a small crack between the wall and the steel vault door, which was enough to use a video camera and a light.

Getting back to the pancake (conspiracy) theory, are there any photos of these stacked up floors, taken before all the evidence was (illegally) taken away to the far east?

**Tubthumper** · 06-Feb-10, 01:26

Originally Posted by Stavro

The London Underground atrocity seems to have been military grade explosives positioned underneath the carriages.

Eh??????????

**Alan16** · 06-Feb-10, 01:28

Originally Posted by Stavro

The London Underground atrocity seems to have been military grade explosives positioned underneath the carriages. Smaller scale, but same basic principles.

Is there anything you don't see a conspiracy in?!

**Phill** · 06-Feb-10, 01:30

Originally Posted by Stavro

The structural damage had created a small crack between the wall and the steel vault door

These were not vaults then, it was just a room with a big door.
An archive room which could have been filled with any old rubbish.

**Alan16** · 06-Feb-10, 01:33

Originally Posted by Boozeburglar

I am the last person to play the age card, but how old were you again??? Did you have someone involved?

Yet you are here telling me who brought the pain back again the most with a speech you have dug up on the internet?

I would have been 11, but I still remember it vividly. I think you've just mistaken what I said - it wasn't so much my memories/thoughts/pain that it would bring back, it was more about other people.

Also I actually saw this speech live at the time - I've been watching The Daily Show since '97/'98 - I remember seeing it with Kilburn as the host.

Originally Posted by Boozeburglar

Relative to Letterman, Stewart was not up there at that time.

True, but I was merely pointing out that Stewart wasn't the nobody that you suggested. Nowadays, although Letterman still has the much larger audience, Stewart probably pulls more power than him. I'm not trying to say anything with that, just mentioning it.