This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

New 9/11 Documentary

ryan750

Pull is a demolition term - in fact i've seen it used in the closest context to this scenario as is possible. WTC 6 was demolished and a man is heard relaying the fact that they are about to 'pull' the building to a colleague. Then we see it demolished with explosives. This footage is on many documentaries and is on a new documentary on google - so this shows that you haven't researched this at all or you are lying (which i know you do because of the last time we debated this topic).

No it isn't. The word was used with WTC6 because the building was literally pulled over using cables and heavy machinery. It is NOT used to describe explosive demolition. I told you to read this paper from Implosionworld, demolition experts, last time - you ignored it: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

See Assertion #7, they say 'We have never, ever heard the term pull it being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we have spoken with' Also note that they had many demolition experts nearby when WTC7 fell and none of them had any suspicions.

Hell, last time ryan you couldn't even think of a valid motive for getting rid of WTC7! Did they blow it up for the sake of it? Pull IS used by firefighters though. Have a read of this quote:

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there"

So no Ryan, I am not lying. You ignored it when I pointed this out last time, and I suspect you will ignore it again.

ryan750

Molten metal under all 3 collapsed buildings anyone? Found days and weeks after anyone?

Find an example of a controlled demolition that left molten metal in the rubble. Just one will do. Thanks.

Reply 61

caw123

10

ryan750

Caw - Why don't you provide a credible explanation for the molten metal beneath the 3 collapsed buildings? Before you demand all the answers, why don't you start providing some.

Oh, I dunno. How about highly insulated underground fires with 200 stories worth of office materials and thousands of vechicles as fuel? I reckon that lot could get quite hot.

If molten metal was created by explosives it would have began to cool and solidify the morning the towers came down, it would not remain for days or weeks. The only credible explanation is those underground debris fires, which burned for 100 days.

Reply 62

caw123

10

ryan750

Are you kidding me - did you actually have your eyes and ears open when you watched that section? The reason why NORAD and the FAA weren't able to detect the *real* attacks is because they were conducting simulations on their actual radar screens that involved putting false blips to indicate terrorist attacks happening at significant targets in the US. This operation was carried out by Rumsfeld on that day. This also involved sending the majority of jets across america to far away places to take part in simulations of different events.

You are wrong.

NORAD had two events going on that day.

One was a real world exercise, Operation Northern Vigilance, in which fighter jets were sent to Alaska/Canada because the Russians were conducting an exercise in Siberia. Ever since the Cold War, it has been procedure for the US and the Russians to move their defence/attack forces closer to the other when one of them is conducting an exercise. There is nothing unusual about jets being moved to Canada, as NORAD is actually a North American body, not only a US one.

The second was called Global/Vigilant Guardian, a NORAD exercise held yearly around September. This involved two command post units, which both had more staff than usual because of the drill, including many senior commanders and this apparently improved the response to the hijackings.
However, this exercise did not involve any actual aircraft, it was all about simulated troop + squadron movements responding to a nuclear attack by the Russians.
One imaginary hijacking was scheduled for this exercise, it did not involve crashing into a building, and in the end it was not even run anyway.

So you are incorrect - the '20 blips' stuff is completely false.

By the way, on a normal day there were 14 fighter jets to protect the entire US, at seven air bases. On 9/11, all of these jets were still at their designated bases, none were used in the exercises.

And none of the exercises involved NEADS(North Eastern Air Defence Sector) - the NORAD controllers who had the job of responding to US hijackings.

Reply 63

ryan750

2

Mad Vlad

Oh for Christ's sake. Like Bismarck, I can't be bothered spending any more time discussing this issue.
Ryan, you seriously have something stuck far up your arse going on about this molten metal finding. I have no idea how molten metal was found there. I'm not a chemist. How do you suggest it got there? Can you show me any UNBIASED sources to show me how it got there? (By unbiased, I'm taking a well respected journal article - not some 9/11 conspiracy site :rolleyes:

) My only theory off the top of my head would be that during the collapse, some of the steel support columns or the re-bars from the concrete pillars got ground up by the falling debris during the collapse. The pressure from all the weight above it then created a "melting pot" environment where pockets of fire and metal came together to create high temperatures.
I'm merely speculating about this though as I have no expertise on this.
If you want to believe that the US government deliberately killed thousands of their own citizens that day, so be it. I'm happy in the knowledge that you all need to stop dismissing widely held opinion because it supports your own political agenda to make Bush look like a war criminal.

http://physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

That is the site where a study carried out by a physics professor, critically examines the world trade center collapse. His expert opinion is that thermate was used in the demolition and this cut through the steel and left molten iron beneath the towers and wtc 7.

When i tried to access it, it said page unavailable - but i have accessed and quoted from it on here many times - so hopefully it will work soon. I would also like to add that i have to get very specific in my google search to find this paper now - whereas i just needed to write 'towers thermate' to find it at the top of the list. Now, i added BYU (the university the professor works at) to find it appear about 7th down the list. Just a side note there :rolleyes:

Reply 64

caw123

10

ryan750

http://physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

That is the site where a study carried out by a physics professor, critically examines the world trade center collapse. His expert opinion is that thermate was used in the demolition and this cut through the steel and left molten iron beneath the towers and wtc 7.

When i tried to access it, it said page unavailable - but i have accessed and quoted from it on here many times - so hopefully it will work soon. I would also like to add that i have to get very specific in my google search to find this paper now - whereas i just needed to write 'towers thermate' to find it at the top of the list. Now, i added BYU (the university the professor works at) to find it appear about 7th down the list. Just a side note there :rolleyes:

Expert opinion? No. Not by a long shot. The man has no experience with engineering or demolition, his field of expertise is nuclear fusion.

If you want to know why his paper is no longer online, here is your answer:
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199800,00.html

Reply 65

Mad Vlad

19

ryan750

http://physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

That is the site where a study carried out by a physics professor, critically examines the world trade center collapse. His expert opinion is that thermate was used in the demolition and this cut through the steel and left molten iron beneath the towers and wtc 7.

When i tried to access it, it said page unavailable - but i have accessed and quoted from it on here many times - so hopefully it will work soon. I would also like to add that i have to get very specific in my google search to find this paper now - whereas i just needed to write 'towers thermate' to find it at the top of the list. Now, i added BYU (the university the professor works at) to find it appear about 7th down the list. Just a side note there :rolleyes:

You're backing up your evidence with a guy who's known for his research into Cold Fusion.
For those of you who want to see this "evidence", I've found the cached version of the page linked by Ryan here: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:3s5rWogYqTsJ :tongue:

hysics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html+physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2

As for caw123, good work finding that article :smile:

Rep for you tomorrow (Remind me if I forget :smile:

)

Reply 66

seanaldo123

Mad Vlad

If this evidence is of the standard of most 9/11 conspiracy theorists, you might as well pack it in now. You'll just make a tit of yourself.

explain please. Im just pointing out the facts that have been discovered, and those facts suggest the government was actualy behind the attacks. Id like you to list the facts that suggest otherwise.

Reply 67

seanaldo123

caw123

The Flight 93 phone call 'evidence' is something I find disturbing. Do you seriously think they could use actors good enough to fool close family members for several minutes and talk about specific family details?

yes. In fact the documentary i watched points out a scientist who has developed voice mimicing technology, with a sound clip of someones voice, they can recreate it to say whatever they want. Plus some of the phone calls were strange, one person ringing his mum saying "its john smith"....why on earth would you use your second name when phoning your mum, and he kept on saying, "you do believe me, dont you?". I cant relay the facts because it was about 2 hours long (and every point made was backed up with evidence and quotes from relavant sources. All i can say is if you type in emule 'united 93' , you may get the blockbuster film, or like my mate did, get the documentary of the same name.
btw the evidence is in papers, it is in best selling books in america and there are meetings held quite frequently with people talking and showing evidence. Dont just assume it is all lies because 'it sounds too far-fetched'.

And i dont know the reason behind the faking of flight 93, im sure no one knows, but perhaps it was to put doubt on the possibility of conspiracy theories, and if that is the case then it worked on people like you. Or maybe it was to give the american people some sence of pride, thinking people gave their lives to protect their country, when a city is a victim of a terror attack like that, it would be a good idea to have something the people can aspire to, to keep the hopes alive of americans. sorry for long post but look at all evidence b4 u dismiss it please.

New 9/11 Documentary

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you