People act like 2 planes didn't crash into the fucking buildings. How many people would it take to plant the explosives? How many floors had explosives? Where were they placed? Who were the people that would have planted the explosives? The only type that could pull this off are the SF types, and the ones I know wouldn't have done shit like this. And for all you out there who say diesel can't melt steel need to educate yourselves on blacksmithing because getting metal red hot makes it soft enough to be bent by hand, easily. I've seen tanker fires cause concrete bridges to fail, that fuel can't reach temperatures to melt rocks either.
No idea, never put any thought into it. Why go though the extra hassle, the 2 larger buildings came down and the skyline was forever changed. Why even target a short building in the same area if explosives were going to be used. If the plan was to use explosives why stop at the wtc buildings. Hell why even blow them up from the inside, 5 or 6 Oklahoma city style van bombs would have done the trick much easier. Where did the explosives come from? The military? Fucking Chelsea manning leaked all kinds of shit, this kinda stuff can't be kept under wraps. Look at all the leaks coming from Trump's administration, that shit leaks like a sieve, and the crap that's leaked is a millionth less juicy.
Please spend some time on this. If you really care to know the truth, there are tons of resources out there. Don't be so quick to dismiss it. All of your arguments have been refuted ad nauseam. If you need a good place to start, check out "Another Nineteen" by Kevin Robert Ryan and "Solving 9-11" by Christopher Bollyn.
I was going to call you a shill, however, I read through your profile. So i will say this, look at your comment really read it. you dismiss WTC 7 with no thought. How did a building that was in no way damaged fall like it was on purpose?
I have demolitions experience, I've gotten to blow up all kinds of shit. Best I ever got to set off was 800 pounds of bangalore torpedoes in one shot. I've watched the videos, I didn't see any evidence. Shape charges and breaching charges could be tamped down with water or blankets, and you wouldn't see them. Iv bag taped to a charge stuck on a wall sprays water backwards, but directs the force forwards. Pros would be able to hide their work, which is why I think everyone eyes are lying to them.
TNT isn't explosive enough to cut a tree and it won't cut metal which leaves rdx/c4 . 7 hours of fires would have lit c4 on fire rendering it useless and the demolition would have been more chaotic and not as complete. If it was the government / military and the plan would be to lie anyway, why risk detection planting charges in the inside f the building when a tim McVeigh would be just as effective.
My point is this. If it was an inside job then the execution was perfect, despite a thousand moving parts nothing there was no major mistakes. The were no charges weren't stumbled upon. They all remained intact with raging fires all around them. There were no significant premature detonations, every single charge was set off at the correct time. Plans that sophisticated never work.
The triggering device would have to be radio, since it wouldn't have been possible to daisy chain det cord to everything. If they were shielded for fires and water would have made them so bulky it would have taken a large crew to get everything in place in a few days otherwise the risk of discovery would have grown exponentially the more time before the attack lapsed. It doesn't make sense to me to engage in all the extra risk of detection, risk of whistle blowers, risk of failure when the planes would be enough. Why not add a dirty bomb to the planes if the goal was war. There were no bombs at the pentagon, and would there be bombs where flight 93 what was the target, would they set up charges for that target and if so who removed them? Nobody stumbled upon them at a time of heightened vigilance?
As far as how a building can fall like that, regardless if you believe the NIST simulation is a red herring or an attempt at a cover up, the simulation is sound.
building 7 was one of the ''operations center'', had the room where the rigged small scale nuclear explosives for both towers (built-in the WTC towers as a last resort preventive measure, as per building regulations) could be activated (actually launched from a tunnel). this explains the order of destruction (the first building to be hit by a plane was the last to fall, the complex demolition process was hardwired by the original engineers and couldn't be changed on the fly by the plotters) and the almost exact 30 minutes delay between both buildings demolition.
some speculate that it might also have contained a blackmail data/communication center to neutralize whistleblowers or people in the way of the operation, but this remains speculation as far as i can tell. but bottom line is building 7 contained embarrassing evidence or clues that had to go to get the official narrative going.
It wouldn't have to be nuclear, this is way to risky anyone could detect the fallout. People carry dose badges that work with x rays that would have indicated radiation from such a thing. Explosives to destroy hard drives is risky the data is recoverable if the platters are not disintegrated. The Columbia explosion partially destroyed some hard drives, but there was data recovered. Magnetic wiping is not 100% effective either due to hysteres, so that wouldn't work either. The only sure way to erase a hard drive is to heat it to the Curie temperature with thermite. Why wait for a terrorist attack to destroy information when clandestine destruction would make more sense.
rescue workers did have dose badges (but werent told it was for nuclear radiation), were pulled from the site every x hours or according to readings, and most of them got pretty sick in the years afterwards due to mysterious illnesses. most intelligence agencies or valued agents working on the site were wearing hazmat suits.
as for the data, if they were able to take the remaining buildings 1 and 2 steel beams to fresh kills island and ship it to china before the end of the 9/11 investigation, they could have restricted access to the building 7 site, remove any remaining undesirable evidence by trusted agents and disperse it out of view and destroy it safely offsite.
view the rest of the comments →
bman0321 ago
People act like 2 planes didn't crash into the fucking buildings. How many people would it take to plant the explosives? How many floors had explosives? Where were they placed? Who were the people that would have planted the explosives? The only type that could pull this off are the SF types, and the ones I know wouldn't have done shit like this. And for all you out there who say diesel can't melt steel need to educate yourselves on blacksmithing because getting metal red hot makes it soft enough to be bent by hand, easily. I've seen tanker fires cause concrete bridges to fail, that fuel can't reach temperatures to melt rocks either.
AncienRegimePremysyl ago
What's your reasoning for WTC 7, then?
bman0321 ago
No idea, never put any thought into it. Why go though the extra hassle, the 2 larger buildings came down and the skyline was forever changed. Why even target a short building in the same area if explosives were going to be used. If the plan was to use explosives why stop at the wtc buildings. Hell why even blow them up from the inside, 5 or 6 Oklahoma city style van bombs would have done the trick much easier. Where did the explosives come from? The military? Fucking Chelsea manning leaked all kinds of shit, this kinda stuff can't be kept under wraps. Look at all the leaks coming from Trump's administration, that shit leaks like a sieve, and the crap that's leaked is a millionth less juicy.
AncienRegimePremysyl ago
How can you say it leaks like a sieve without knowing the amount of data not being leaked?
EngelbertHumperdinck ago
Please spend some time on this. If you really care to know the truth, there are tons of resources out there. Don't be so quick to dismiss it. All of your arguments have been refuted ad nauseam. If you need a good place to start, check out "Another Nineteen" by Kevin Robert Ryan and "Solving 9-11" by Christopher Bollyn.
Tangent-love ago
I was going to call you a shill, however, I read through your profile. So i will say this, look at your comment really read it. you dismiss WTC 7 with no thought. How did a building that was in no way damaged fall like it was on purpose?
bman0321 ago
I have demolitions experience, I've gotten to blow up all kinds of shit. Best I ever got to set off was 800 pounds of bangalore torpedoes in one shot. I've watched the videos, I didn't see any evidence. Shape charges and breaching charges could be tamped down with water or blankets, and you wouldn't see them. Iv bag taped to a charge stuck on a wall sprays water backwards, but directs the force forwards. Pros would be able to hide their work, which is why I think everyone eyes are lying to them.
TNT isn't explosive enough to cut a tree and it won't cut metal which leaves rdx/c4 . 7 hours of fires would have lit c4 on fire rendering it useless and the demolition would have been more chaotic and not as complete. If it was the government / military and the plan would be to lie anyway, why risk detection planting charges in the inside f the building when a tim McVeigh would be just as effective.
My point is this. If it was an inside job then the execution was perfect, despite a thousand moving parts nothing there was no major mistakes. The were no charges weren't stumbled upon. They all remained intact with raging fires all around them. There were no significant premature detonations, every single charge was set off at the correct time. Plans that sophisticated never work.
The triggering device would have to be radio, since it wouldn't have been possible to daisy chain det cord to everything. If they were shielded for fires and water would have made them so bulky it would have taken a large crew to get everything in place in a few days otherwise the risk of discovery would have grown exponentially the more time before the attack lapsed. It doesn't make sense to me to engage in all the extra risk of detection, risk of whistle blowers, risk of failure when the planes would be enough. Why not add a dirty bomb to the planes if the goal was war. There were no bombs at the pentagon, and would there be bombs where flight 93 what was the target, would they set up charges for that target and if so who removed them? Nobody stumbled upon them at a time of heightened vigilance?
As far as how a building can fall like that, regardless if you believe the NIST simulation is a red herring or an attempt at a cover up, the simulation is sound.
chowmetal92 ago
building 7 was one of the ''operations center'', had the room where the rigged small scale nuclear explosives for both towers (built-in the WTC towers as a last resort preventive measure, as per building regulations) could be activated (actually launched from a tunnel). this explains the order of destruction (the first building to be hit by a plane was the last to fall, the complex demolition process was hardwired by the original engineers and couldn't be changed on the fly by the plotters) and the almost exact 30 minutes delay between both buildings demolition.
some speculate that it might also have contained a blackmail data/communication center to neutralize whistleblowers or people in the way of the operation, but this remains speculation as far as i can tell. but bottom line is building 7 contained embarrassing evidence or clues that had to go to get the official narrative going.
bman0321 ago
It wouldn't have to be nuclear, this is way to risky anyone could detect the fallout. People carry dose badges that work with x rays that would have indicated radiation from such a thing. Explosives to destroy hard drives is risky the data is recoverable if the platters are not disintegrated. The Columbia explosion partially destroyed some hard drives, but there was data recovered. Magnetic wiping is not 100% effective either due to hysteres, so that wouldn't work either. The only sure way to erase a hard drive is to heat it to the Curie temperature with thermite. Why wait for a terrorist attack to destroy information when clandestine destruction would make more sense.
chowmetal92 ago
rescue workers did have dose badges (but werent told it was for nuclear radiation), were pulled from the site every x hours or according to readings, and most of them got pretty sick in the years afterwards due to
mysterious illnesses. most intelligence agencies or valued agents working on the site were wearing hazmat suits.as for the data, if they were able to take the remaining buildings 1 and 2 steel beams to fresh kills island and ship it to china before the end of the 9/11 investigation, they could have restricted access to the building 7 site, remove any remaining undesirable evidence by trusted agents and disperse it out of view and destroy it safely offsite.