Former US State Governor Questions 9/11 Official Story

1000:
>Thanks turok, so you have proved that it could never
>have been an explosives demo job

I don't hold the belief that I have "proven" anything of the sort. I just wanted it noted that your assertion is simply not true.

Your assertion:
"when using explosives for demolision, there is a simultaneous setting off of all explosives."

I typed in "building implosion" into youtube and picked a couple off the list. BOTH videos clearly show an incredibly wide variety of timing on the charges. This timing is the norm, not the exception.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RkiwNxfB4GM&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RkiwNxfB4GM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

and:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BF55_-OAX5A&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BF55_-OAX5A&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

JB
 
1000, here was your "water bag" assertion:

**********************************
With explosive demolition, in an urban environment, the explosives have to be surrounded by water-filled bags. The amount of water required to cause an explosives blast inwards into the Towers' structure, would have been enough to empty the Manhattan water supply system.

No one ever said their was a water shortage in the preceeding weeks.

huge water pumps would have been required to pump the water up to all the floors

Also what about

1. transporting in all the bags required to fill the water
2. taping/holding the water bags around the explosives

There would have been a physical obstruction with people not being able to move freely (and there was no physical obstruction).

***************************************

Me:
"That's bogus" (paraphrase)

1000:
>3. turok, I shall dig up the water-bag stuff, it was
>quite interesting to watch how that stuff worked
>(it ain't bogus i can assure you), may take
>a while though

Yes, 1000. Please dig up the "water-bag stuff". I'll wait thanks.

When you dig up your "water-bag stuff", be sure it supports the following points of your assertion: (emphasis added)

A: "With explosive demolition, in an urban environment, the explosives have to be surrounded by water-filled bags. "

B: "The amount of water required to cause an explosives blast inwards into the Towers' structure, would have been enough to empty the Manhattan water supply system."

If you can support the above points, I will remove the "bogus" tag -- until then, "bogus" stands.

JB
 
Quote from Hydroblunt:

It is likely, aka coincidental. Yet it is the conspiracy theory that is ludicrous. How ironic is that the official story is based on coincidences & unique assumptions.

Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself more than anyone else. Believe whatever you want. 9/11 is nothing new in the course of human history. Textbook operation, although sloppier than most. Just remember, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat.
More...


Not true, I am not trying to convince myself more than anyone else, its just that the subject has been brought up.

I looked for the same answers just like anyone else, and made the effort to find out for myself the scientific engineering version (using my brain), and, guess what, I found it.

IF THAT IS WHAT'S BOTHERING EVERYONE, FINE, I DON'T CARE, I KNOW I GOT THE ANSWER, AND THAT IS AN ENGINEERING SCIENTIFIC PLAUSABLE ANSWER.

SO WHAT IS NOT RIGHT WITH BRINGING FORWARD A SCIENTIFIC ANSWER TO THE TABLE, IT SEEMS TO BE BOTHERING EVERYONE.

Anything that goes against it sounds says "it was a conspiracy, how convenient," "I need to prove it to myself more than anyone else." Well from an scientific engineering point of view, that just doesn't hold.



Quote from Turok:

1000:
>Thanks turok, so you have proved that it could never
>have been an explosives demo job

I don't hold the belief that I have "proven" anything of the sort. I just wanted it noted that your assertion is simply not true.

Your assertion:
"when using explosives for demolision, there is a simultaneous setting off of all explosives."

I typed in "building implosion" into youtube and picked a couple off the list. BOTH videos clearly show an incredibly wide variety of timing on the charges. This timing is the norm, not the exception.

JB
More...

Thanks turok, this is really good.

1. I saw the original footage of 9/11, prior to the jet hitting into the North Tower

guess what

UNLIKE both your youtube video clips, there were no prior explosions (i.e. if it were a conspiracy theory, the noise would have been there, and, the only way to dampen the noise (or cover up) would be to surround the explosive charges with water bags, and none of this happened

3. Both Towers were a lot taller than those two buildings in the youtube video, and it is possible to see the flashes of the explosives going off within the building, and they are very loud this didn't occur on 9/11

4. The first demo video, shows the building being completely raised to the ground, but with the Towers, the lower floors remained intact, so it couldn't have been rigged, else the evidence wouldn't have been destroyed

5. The explosives demo video shows all the floors falling, but for the Towers, the jets didn't hit the buildings at the top. So had the Towers been rigged, the wiring to the top floors would have been disturbed, with possibly no explosion, which would have been dug up in the debris after the implosion

6. No one can suggest why Cantor Fitzgerald was blown up, if it was a conspiracy? They would have been relocated, there is no doubt about that. The fact that Cantor Fitzgerald got blown up, proves that it was a terror attack and no one knew about it.

7. No one with the conspiracy theory can answer why thermate was there, but here's my version if it was there. When the steel workers came in to cut through the steel beams, it was taking too long with their blow torches. So they used thermate, because at that time 10-20,000 people were feared missing and trapped. So there was a need for urgency to get through the debris as quickly as possible.
 
1000, dude ... you can't stay on point.

The videos were posted for ONE reason:

To demonstrate that your explosion timing assertion is incorrect. It was incorrect when you made it. It is incorrect now. It will remain incorrect.

It matters not whether the twins were a different height than the videos I posted -- my posting simply proves your assertion totally false.

Again, your assertion:
"when using explosives for demolision, there is a simultaneous setting off of all explosives."

You are wrong about the timing of explosives when used in building demolition. The standard use of such explosives create such large timing gaps as to make your assertion laughable.

Get it ??? You're making assertions that are easily refuted. Please try to do better in the future. We'll all appreciate it.

JB
 
Quote from Turok:

1000, dude ... you can't stay on point.

The videos were posted for ONE reason:

To demonstrate that your explosion timing assertion is incorrect. It was incorrect when you made it. It is incorrect now. It will remain incorrect.

It matters not whether the twins were a different height than the videos I posted -- my posting simply proves your assertion totally false.

Again, your assertion:
"when using explosives for demolision, there is a simultaneous setting off of all explosives."

You are wrong about the timing of explosives when used in building demolition. The standard use of such explosives create such large timing gaps as to make your assertion laughable.

Get it ??? You're making assertions that are easily refuted. Please try to do better in the future. We'll all appreciate it.

JB
More...

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT DO YOU.

look at the 9/11 footage, and compare it to what you are saying

1. How in the world do you call the implosions of the Towers an explosives demo job? That's my question.

If it were an explosives demo job, and it clearly wasn't, the timing would have had to be really really precise, to the point of being impossible. i.e. 0.1 seconds per floor. LIKE there weren't thousands of eye witnesses there! Not to forget the people in the Towers, with their cell phones, calling their loved ones! HELLO.

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DON'T GET.

Jesse Ventura says that there were sharp charges or something, clearly that is impossible!

I.E. THE TIMING GAPS MAKE THE CPers ASSERTIONS LAUGHABLE.

These laughable assertions are what the CPers are trying to make, not me. I am just trying to see if it is scientifically possible from an engineering point of view. AND YOU CLEARLY AGREE, IT IS LAUGHABLE.
 
1000:
>1. How in the world do you call the implosions
>of the Towers an explosives demo job? That's
>my question.

Before you look any more like a moron, do a quick search of my posts -- the answers are there in spades.

In short :

I don't believe the "implosions of the Towers" were and "explosives demo job"

I've never believed the "implosions of the Towers" were and "explosives demo job"

And you can't find a post where I "call the implosions of the Towers an explosives demo job" (your words).

Once again, you get your facts wrong and present assertions that are easily refuted.

1. Building demo explosives ARE NOT set off "simultaneously" as you assert.

2. Water bags DO NOT have to be used when demoing buildings in an urban environment as you assert.

3. I DON'T call the implosions of the Towers an explosives demo job as you assert.

Any more bogus assertions you want to carelessly throw out?

JB
 
1000:
>WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DON'T GET.

Ok, as simply as I can put it -- here's what I don't get.

I don't get why you assert the following:

"when using explosives for demolision, there is a simultaneous setting off of all explosives."

...when video evidence clearly shows you're wrong.

JB
 
Quote from Turok:

1000:
>1. How in the world do you call the implosions
>of the Towers an explosives demo job? That's
>my question.

Before you look any more like a moron, do a quick search of my posts -- the answers are there in spades.

In short :

I don't believe the "implosions of the Towers" were and "explosives demo job"

I've never believed the "implosions of the Towers" were and "explosives demo job"

And you can't find a post where I "call the implosions of the Towers an explosives demo job" (your words).

Once again, you get your facts wrong and present assertions that are easily refuted.

1. Building demo explosives ARE NOT set off "simultaneously" as you assert.

2. Water bags DO NOT have to be used when demoing buildings in an urban environment as you assert.

3. I DON'T call the implosions of the Towers an explosives demo job as you assert.

Any more bogus assertions you want to carelessly throw out?

JB
More...

I asked the question, "how in the world does one call the implosions of the Towers an explosives demo job?"

THIS IS CRAZY.

LET ME RE-PHASE

"I am asking how in the world would anyone in their right mind, call the implosions of the Towers an explosives demo job?"

I have read your posts, so I know what you have written.

MAYBE YOU WANT ME TO WRITE AND SPEAK MY ENGLISH LIKE THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND.

Here, here's the question again (as the Queen of England would ask it)

Q. How does one call the implosion of the twin Towers an explosives demo job?

OK it's an open question, not directed at you or anyone except the basis of this thread

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DON'T GET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JESUS
 
Quote from Turok:

1000:
>WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DON'T GET.

Ok, as simply as I can put it -- here's what I don't get.

I don't get why you assert the following:

"when using explosives for demolision, there is a simultaneous setting off of all explosives."

...when video evidence clearly shows you're wrong.

JB
More...

Because that would have been the case, had it been true for the Twin Towers, and clearly it wasn't.

So that can mean only one thing, no explosives demo job ever occurred that contributed to the implosion of the Twin Towers, as Jesse Ventura is implying.

SO HE IS WRONG, AND SO ARE THE CPers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top