9/11 - Controlled demolition?

whilst 99.9% of these vids are a complete load of tosh there are one or two small bits that must at least raise an eyebrow and go wtf, for instance how did a 757 only cause a 16 foot hole in the pentagon with no damage to the roof caused by the the tail section and trained military men reportedly smelling cordite? and one of the vids shows a fireman saying to clear the area because "A bomb had been found"

The one part that must ask the most questions though is the small clip of the owner of these buildings stating that it was decided to PULL building number 7, considering that PULL is the word used in the demolition trade for a controlled demolition and that to demolish a building like this must have involved weeks of structorial analysys along with days of instaling the charges this at least seems to point to the fact that the owner had prior knowledge? that and this building was a regional home to the CIA means that they must have as well?
 
sidthesexist said:
iirc the official probe said that the plane bounced before entering the building? but their is no physical proof of this
Click to expand...

Thanks lol

All you get is whitty replies !

Oh well back to watching 24 :)
 
sidthesexist said:
whilst 99.9% of these vids are a complete load of tosh there are one or two small bits that must at least raise an eyebrow and go wtf, for instance how did a 757 only cause a 16 foot hole in the pentagon with no damage to the roof caused by the the tail section and trained military men reportedly smelling cordite? and one of the vids shows a fireman saying to clear the area because "A bomb had been found"

The one part that must ask the most questions though is the small clip of the owner of these buildings stating that it was decided to PULL building number 7, considering that PULL is the word used in the demolition trade for a controlled demolition and that to demolish a building like this must have involved weeks of structorial analysys along with days of instaling the charges this at least seems to point to the fact that the owner had prior knowledge? that and this building was a regional home to the CIA means that they must have as well?
Click to expand...

Have a watch of the video I just linked.
 
sidthesexist said:
iirc the official probe said that the plane bounced before entering the building? but their is no physical proof of this
Click to expand...
the thing is, you can discuss the finer points all day...but ultimately you fall into one of two schools of thought.
you either believe the Pentagon was hit by an airliner or you don't.
 
The_Dark_Side said:
the thing is, you can discuss the finer points all day...but ultimately you fall into one of two schools of thought.
you either believe the Pentagon was hit by an airliner or you don't.
Click to expand...

the fact that early photo's show only a small hole, trained military men have stated that they smelled cordite, the only engine debris found did not belong to a 757 as according to the engine manufacturers (rolls royce and pratt&whitney iirc) the fact that some of the photo's show paper and a book unsinged with zero fire damage even though a plane with loads of aviation fuel supposedly crashed right next to it makes me seriously doubt that it was an airliner
 
Still quite amazing that the only 3 building in history that have collapsed due to a fire are the 2 WTC buldings and the smaller one that was also randomly effected by the 2 planes or something.

The only thing about 9/11 im really not convinced about is a plane hitting the pentagon, i dont think it happened.
 
I don't believe people can see any truth in the random theories that somebody who's obviously being sitting in a darkened room with too much time on their hands has come up with. It just dumbfounds me...
 
sidthesexist said:
the fact that early photo's show only a small hole, trained military men have stated that they smelled cordite, the only engine debris found did not belong to a 757 as according to the engine manufacturers (rolls royce and pratt&whitney iirc) the fact that some of the photo's show paper and a book unsinged with zero fire damage even though a plane with loads of aviation fuel supposedly crashed right next to it makes me seriously doubt that it was an airliner
Click to expand...
if there was a conspiracy of any sort, don't you think that we would only be aware of minor continuity details and not something as blatant as incorrect engines for that type of aircraft?
 
The_Dark_Side said:
if there was a conspiracy of any sort, don't you think that we would only be aware of minor continuity details and not something as blatant as incorrect engines for that type of aircraft?
Click to expand...

where did the engine part come from then? as i said rolls royce have denied it's one of theirs as did the other manufacurer i believe?
 
sidthesexist said:
where did the engine part come from then? as i said rolls royce have denied it's one of theirs as did the other manufacurer i believe?
Click to expand...
i must admit that's a point i've never heard before, but again if there was some type of cover up then "they'd" have at least got the major details right.
 
I found these two websites yesterday:

Loose Change Guide

Well i was going to post two links but there are swearies in the other one :o its "thebestpageintheuniverse".

Having read most of the above link, it is clear that the makers of Loose Change have distorted some facts and (purposely) disregarded up to date information, aswell as ignoring more plausible possibilities for the events that occurred on that day. Please read it all and share your views.
 
Last edited:
sidthesexist said:
The one part that must ask the most questions though is the small clip of the owner of these buildings stating that it was decided to PULL building number 7, considering that PULL is the word used in the demolition trade for a controlled demolition and that to demolish a building like this must have involved weeks of structorial analysys along with days of instaling the charges this at least seems to point to the fact that the owner had prior knowledge? that and this building was a regional home to the CIA means that they must have as well?
Click to expand...
Al Vallario said:
A lot of conspiracy theorists breed off the following quote from Larry Silverstein:

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

However, Silverstein has since said that his decision to "pull it" was to pull the firefighters out of the building — at that stage there were fires all over the building raging out of control — as it was a lost cause. Besides, why would he discuss a top secret plot to carry out a controlled demolition of the building with the fire department commander?
Click to expand...
Also see here: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
 
I would have thought to 'pull' in this context would mean to pull the people out or 'pull the plug' on the operation, which makes perfect sense. Linking that one word to a controlled demolition really is just clutching at straws.
 
yeah right, cos a missile could knock down a load of street lamps. Move a very heavy generator..

also the reason it's a hole is the wings and tail plane are very weak, the pentagon is a reinforced structure. there for the fuselage penetrated. It is the correct size hole for the aircraft.
 
sidthesexist said:
Mr silversteins language doesnt seem to fit that though as he to "PULL IT" i.e. the building rather than "PULL THEM" as in the firemen
Click to expand...
I really recommend having a look at the web site I linked to. Here are just a couple of random quotations:


-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
Click to expand...
So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above. But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorist say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorist use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition. However, was the fire more severe than conspiracy theorist let on and was Silverstein's quote taken out of context?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom