Former US State Governor Questions 9/11 Official Story

Quote from DT-waw:

Turok,
Please explain us, why there are sophisticated operations of controlled demolition undertaken in the world, when you can have exactly the same effect by lighting some fire and adding jet fuel on few floors in a very large building? It will cost probably about 100 times less than controlled demolition.
More...

Yes, the fact that some of the main structural supports were sliced through and then the rest were fatally undermined by fire would definitely not cause the buildings to collapse in the way they did. Undoubtedly this was a planned demolition, and if anyone believes that the grainy but legible pictures available on the internet of the Bush daughters circling the buildings in a black helicopter holding a black box with a little red light and a button are faked, you must believe that all that they have up at Roswell are a bunch of aircraft and a few tumbleweeds.

3 words for you. Follow the money.
 
My friend just tailed me that soldiers from Iraq will com back, because they are needed for marshal law in the USA to fight people that are against the NWO.
Yeah, and more and more of those soldiers are criminals and immigrants. Besides, Blackwater was there at Katrina, and will likely be there in the martial law events to come.
 
yes... that big bad jet that hit bldg 7 was a magical plane. it not only hit the bldg at a high velocity but once it entered the structure the kerosene fires heated the steel to never before heard of temperatures.

what was so magical about this bird was that it was a special demolition jet that was designed to bring down the bldg in a symmetrical fashion. and not too many people know this little tidbit but one of the hijackers called the BBC and told them of the pending doom ahead of time so they could announce it 23 minutes before the actual collapse. kudos to the BBC!

yep.. thats how it happened. it was all planned in that underground <s>hotel</s> bunker at Tora Bora.
 
Quote from ratboy88:

yes... that big bad jet that hit bldg 7 was a magical plane. it not only hit the bldg at a high velocity but once it entered the structure the kerosene fires heated the steel to never before heard of temperatures.

what was so magical about this bird was that it was a special demolition jet that was designed to bring down the bldg in a symmetrical fashion. and not too many people know this little tidbit but one of the hijackers called the BBC and told them of the pending doom ahead of time so they could announce it 23 minutes before the actual collapse. kudos to the BBC!

yep.. thats how it happened. it was all planned in that underground <s>hotel</s> bunker at Tora Bora.
More...

I gots a question for ya.

Do it be hard to sleep at night when yo head be filled wit dis kine of stuff? Or does ya has to stay up all nights ta think dis kina stuffs up?
 
Thanks, unfortunately you didn't provide an answer to my question. See why:

Quote from Turok:

To use a word from your question -- one is "controlled".

One has been studied, practiced and has proven to have a very high rate of *controlled* predictability. This *control* has proven to have a nice side effect -- safety. One can drop a building in a prescribed manner at a prescribed time and into a prescribed place.
More...

Well, that's exactly what happened to the WTC: prescribed manner, time (it took ~10 sec. to collapse), place...


The fire isn't exactly something that lends itself to safety for obvious reasons and the predictability is dramatically lowered -- when will it fall exactly? -- which beam will weaken and fail first?
More...

1. What kind of "safety" are you thinking about here? People are evacuated from the sight of CD, the only thing i can imagine is the safety of buildings around = demolished building should fall into its own footprint. And that's exactly what happened to the WTC.
Magically, we had the same "safety" effect as using controlled demolition! And it was a result of RANDOM fires! And these fires were by no means huge or long-lasting.
It is against any common sense and probability that random fires here and there could turn the very large, modern building into dust in just 10 seconds AFTER they were standing in overall great condition for about an hour, and in case of WTC7 - for 8 hours.

2. You say using fire we'd not know when it will fall. Does it matter at all? The towers fell after 1 hour, WTC7 after 8. So I think experts would able to calculate the maximum time it will take to collapse the whole thing. Then, evacuate all people for that maximum period of time. Problem gone.

To summarize, if fires would be able to demolish buildings like in 9/11 case, there will be no problem of "safety" of the whole operation.

Could you name any differencies between CD and WTC collapse regarding it's manner, time, debris or anything else you can think of?
 
DT:
>Thanks, unfortunately you didn't provide an
>answer to my question.

Yes I did. You asked why there's CD when you can just light a fire. I specifically pointed out the differences and explained *why*, directly answering your question.

Now, you are under no obligation to agree with my answer, but it was an absolute DIRECT answer to your question.

>Well, that's exactly what happened to the
>WTC: prescribed manner, time (it took ~10
>sec. to collapse), place...

No, that's DRAMATICALLY different than CD. From the time a decision is made that it is safe to drop a building using CD (that turn the key moment) it's over in about 10 seconds.

If you can't tell the difference between a 10 second CD and almost an hour (the time between airplane strike and collapse), I can't do much for you.

>demolished building should fall into its
>own footprint. And that's exactly what
>happened to the WTC.

Well, only if your smokin' crack and ignore the fact that the WTC towers hit and significantly damaged other buildings on the way down can you say they fell into it's own footprint.

Whatever you're on must be good to say that WTC towers fell into their own footprint. ROFLAO.


>You say using fire we'd not know when it will fall.
>Does it matter at all? The towers fell after 1 hour,
>WTC7 after 8. So I think experts would able to
>calculate the maximum time it will take to collapse
>the whole thing. Then, evacuate all people for that
>maximum period of time. Problem gone.

To the CD experts, your "So I think" isn't really going to matter. They are going to continue using the method that gives them the best ROI (as will terrorists).

>To summarize, if fires would be able to demolish
>buildings like in 9/11 case, there will be no problem
>of "safety" of the whole operation.

Thank you for your opinion. The CD world disagrees with you -- in other words, the guys who ACTUALLY DO IT.

>Could you name any differencies between CD and
>WTC collapse regarding it's manner, time, debris
>or anything else you can think of?

When you call 10 seconds "exactly" the same as an hour. When you say "into it's own footprint" when it hit buildings all around, there not much point in listing any more differences -- you're incapable of recogizing the difference between and elephant and a mouse.

Carry on.

JB
 
Quote from sho-tim:

I gots a question for ya.

Do it be hard to sleep at night when yo head be filled wit dis kine of stuff? Or does ya has to stay up all nights ta think dis kina stuffs up?
More...

well in the above post i just got into rush limbaugh's head and lost all sense of logic.... at that point it just flowed out of me like i was channeling the drug addict himself. who knows.. maybe i was. you gotta problem wit dat boy.?
 
OK you've answered my question, but the point you've made - demolition by fire would not be safe is not applicable in this case because:
- the 3 buildings fell straight down, not to the side
- sure the time of collapse after fire was much longer than CD, what's the problem with that? evacuate the people until it will collapse.

Of course, i see the difference between 10 sec and 1 hour - this amusing timing is exactly what is sooo strange here!
The official story is:
- steel construction melts from such small fires and loses it's strength causing the towers to fall.

Then tell me did the steel construction lost it's whole strength at a blink of an eye , 1 hour AFTER the fire hit? Is it possible for steel to lose it's strength so badly and so fast, that the whole building collapsed in just 10 sec? Why there was no gradual weakening of the steel? If there would be, the towers would collapse gradually, too. And why it took 1 hour for twin towers to fall from a weak steel and the plane crash, but it took 8 hours for WTC by the same reason, aside from absence of plane crash?

Again, why "demolition by fire" would be so unsafe if we'll have to wait an hour, 3, 8 or 12 hours before it will totally collapse in a straight manner in 10 seconds?

And yeah it is quite damn reasonable to conclude that even CD will cause surrounding buildings to be hit, especially concerning the fact that we had TWO giant 110 floor towers not some relatively small one!
 
Quote from DT-waw:


Then tell me did the steel construction lost it's whole strength at a blink of an eye , 1 hour AFTER the fire hit? Is it possible for steel to lose it's strength so badly and so fast, that the whole building collapsed in just 10 sec? Why there was no gradual weakening of the steel? If there would be, the towers would collapse gradually, too. And why it took 1 hour for twin towers to fall from a weak steel and the plane crash, but it took 8 hours for WTC by the same reason, aside from absence of plane crash?
QUOTE]

What a classic troofer strawman!!!

NIST never said that the fires weakened the steel to the point that it couldn't hold up the building. Matter of fact, it says just the opposite, that the heating wasn't enough.

NIST actually gives another reason for the collapse. But psycho troofers will never actually learn what NIST says so that they can argue intelligently against it.

But the truth is wood, in many instances, can do BETTER than steel in a fire.

http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/EN/p3.htm

http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/images/G3c.gif

http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/images/G3a.jpg
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top