What Destroyed The World Trade Centers?

[pinkfluffybunny]

Ok that's it you catch me, I've had enough I confess

I did it, I'm with the CIA and the world domination league. Because noone would suspect a pink fluffy bunny, and under person orders from GW himself, I climbed up the stairs pretending it was Easter, caring 600 pounds of det cord and 2700 pounds of C-4 and tet. I snuk into offices on 8 floors, drilled into the concrete, pretending to be hidding eggs, after that I placed the charges and waited for our electronically controlled jets, to hit. It was tough timing it cause the damn joystick was screwed up. but we pulled it off.

It was a double kill because the passengers were all liberals so we were able to fix the election at the same time.
.

[docquesting]

LMao

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Rokerijdude11

youll have to admit this picture and several of notepads pics certainly would appear as "CUTTER" charges or blasts

Well of course they're cutter charges, but I'm way passed that stage and have been for a while. What I would really like to know is who and why. I hope to see some proof of who and why, and I do for some reason have hope that this will be forthcoming before I die. It will be good to see justice on this issue. There is enough injustice in this damn world, I just would really like to see justice this time.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rokerijdude11

youll have to admit this picture and several of notepads pics certainly would appear as "CUTTER" charges or blasts

This idea is also explained here:

http://www.rense.com/general63/cutt.htm

Notice the row of 'smoke' clouds from cutter charges in a row around the building taking out the support columns for an entire floor. The upper unsupported section then hammers the tower to the ground.

In the picture of the world trade center, you see the rows of smoke and dust blown from the sides of the building as the upper floor collapses onto the floor below.

Cutter charges do not produce masses of smoke, nor do they produce fire.



In the implosionworld picture, you see the dust and debris blown out the sides of the building. No smoke. No fire. In fact, you'd get dust and debris blown out the sides of the building no matter how you collapsed the upper floor onto the lower. You cut use cutter charges, weakening of the supports (by way of fire from jet fuel) or any other way. Either and any way you collapse one floor onto another, the sudden dropping of the upper floor onto the lower will displace the air in the lower floor at such a high speed that it will blow dust outside the building directly outside where that floor used to be.

[Atom]

If you've got Real Player, there's a nice little explaination here http://69.28.73.17/ that uses expert physics. Just click on the flash.

[John Scott]

Atom, don't believe everything you hear. These folks are not exactly honest in their presentations.

For example, the statement that the landlord of WTC told the fire department to demolish the building. They report that his statement was "pull it", and this means, to them, "demolish it". He was talking to the fire dept about the fire-suppression efforts, and commented that there had already been such terrible loss of life, so "pull it".

"There has been such terrible loss of life, so demolish the building and kill even more" - doesn't make sense.

"There has been such terrible loss of life, and I don't want more people to die just to save the building, so pull the firefighters out to prevent loss of their lives" - makes much more sense.

Never in the history of the English language has "pull it" meant "demolish the building", but these folks are more than happy to lie to your face and tell you that's exactly what it means.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Never in the history of the English language has "pull it" meant "demolish the building", ..

Your above statement is incorrect, John.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/pull-it2_lo.wmv

The vid will open in winamp and is only about a minute in length.

I will admit, however, that I have not seen/heard any proof that demolition is what Silverstein meant when he said it.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Atom

Your above statement is incorrect, John.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/pull-it2_lo.wmv

The vid will open in winamp and is only about a minute in length.

I will admit, however, that I have not seen/heard any proof that demolition is what Silverstein meant when he said it.

Atom, sounds like a fabrication to me. Very obvious one, too. Nice little "we're getting ready to pull building six", never heard it anywhere else other than a video created by the guy to put on his website in order to, in his own words, "make the context perfectly clear".

In construction, when you demolish a building, you call it "drop". You drop a building. You don't pull anything. I was a licensed contractor and in construction for over 10 years, and we've dropped a lot of things. In some cases you pull out a final remaining support or two, to get the building to drop on its own, but you never say you're "pulling a building".

I'd bet dollars to donuts that the guy's voice on that tape has never even been on a construction site.

[Rokerijdude11]

I just did a search for the defenition of the term "pull the building for giggles as I have heard the term before this thread and i have OVER 10 yrs in construction matter of fact im still in construction

but anyhow what was interesting is the sheer number of WEBSITES discussing this very Subject that we are so when you all say Notepad is out on a limb well so are THOUSANDS of other people then cuz there is no loss of websites that support the theories we are discussing here


Atom yes friend i know your past the Cutter charges i was directing my post towards john scott and not so much you i know you are well informed on this thread as I have READ all of your input here


who and why the towers were brought down??? take a look a page or two back and see who was in charge of planning 9-11 in 1976....now look whos in charge again
it was done by the NWO or the partners for a new american century they needed to get Us to let them go to war

anyhow im still looking to verify the term "pull" the building
the number of websites deicated to the WTC 9-11 fiasco is mind numbing

ok John Scott if there were no cutter charges you live by the "pancake theory? and that the steel melted and failed did ya read about the fire on the forrestal that i posted about why with all that jet fuel was there no superstructure failure on board a ship that had jet fuel fires burning for over 12 hours????

the term Pull the building is an old school term i believ it was used in the old days so that is why its not so prevalent in todays construction terminology

the search goes on

read about the forrestal and the fires from jp-5 and 500 pound bombs exploding on deck and then you can still tell me the WTC with its new aviation mixture for fuel basically kerosene
burned so hot it caused the WTC to collapse??? why is it the jet fuel i have here in this can burns slower and cooler than a petroleum gasoline fire? why is the flsh point so much less on this "aviation fuel"

you see everyone hears the words jet fuel and they immediatly conjure thoughts of a highly volatile fuel that produces the power to make things fly
well John your an ex air force guy you know better than that jet engines are extremely efficient in the sense of how they truly use theyre fuel its the even burn and even heat theyre after

kerosene is basically almost the same as jet fuel
jet fuel is NOT highly volatile like gasoline or many other accelerants the misconception is that jet fuel must be higher in grade and higher in volatility to do its job fact is the racing fuel i have in the garage is FAR MORE VOLATILE thatn the jet fuel i have



why is it then that the forrestal survived as well as did the building in brazil that burned hotter and longer than the WTC
problem is will never know the truth and IF YOU DO STUMBLE ON IT and write about it here YOU WILL DISSAPEAR

im sure some yahoo somehwere in an office has been tasked with following this thread to "make sure" no one does stumble on to it

[Rokerijdude11]

to jazee john and all the others who seem to think that guys like Notepad and atom and myself are in a small minority i think you ought to do a lil research into that.....

According to a CNN poll conducted on 11/11/2004
89% percent or some 9441 called in to say they believ that there is a government cover up surrounding the WTC and 9-11 compared to the

11% or roughly 1200 callers who voted that there was no coverup on the wtc 9-11 issue
this was a call in poll that surrounded a CNN program whic was about the wtc 9-11 theories etc.

startling numbers eh ? if you went according to the numbers in that CNN poll of the American Sheeople that would put YOU JAZZEE and John and the others clearly in the minority category
89 versus 11 percent

that and it was on a Govt controlled news media outlet at that!! they are so confident that the sheeople will let it slide that they let the poll fly and the results be shown

so point being it would appear that some of you all non believers of the conspiracy that are the minority these days or at least as of last November i cannot imagine the nubers changing all that much from then to now

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rokerijdude11

to jazee john and all the others who seem to think that guys like Notepad and atom and myself are in a small minority i think you ought to do a lil research into that.....

According to a CNN poll conducted on 11/11/2004
89% percent or some 9441 called in to say they believ that there is a government cover up surrounding the WTC and 9-11 compared to the

11% or roughly 1200 callers who voted that there was no coverup on the wtc 9-11 issue
this was a call in poll that surrounded a CNN program whic was about the wtc 9-11 theories etc.

That was a world-wide Internet poll (not call in) and I have no doubt that the Internet has a lot more Left-leaning folks than the average US population.

[gorillaboy]

So notepad was given the ole boot, eh?

[John Scott]

Yep. We kinda went over the line with his "little girl" comment.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Yep. We kinda went over the line with his "little girl" comment.

Heh, that's funny .. because that is exactly what I told his wife was my guess when she contacted me about it the next day, same wording and everything. She thought it was because of his views on 9/11. I said no, that wasn't it at all.

[gorillaboy]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Yep. We kinda went over the line with his "little girl" comment.

How did I miss that post.

That's funny stuff!