posted 01-27-2004 12:16 PM            

By Robert L. Parish Sr.

From: Wizzard9@topica.com Charges Placed In WTC Towers When Built? By Robert L. Parish Sr.

1-21-4

The downing of the Twin Towers and other buildings of the complex where done by (Planned Implosions).

I was working at Kirkwood Commutator in Cleveland, Ohio from 1974 to September 30th, 1998. We had an Industrial/Refill Department that large commutators from 1 foot in diameter to 20 feet in diameter were made. A commutator is the circular switching device on an armature shaft that (commutates), switches the electrical current that flows thru the windings of the armature coils of an electrical motor. It is the thing that the brushes ride on that the current flows into an electric motor that energizes the field coils that causes the motor to rotate. The commutator switches the current from coil winding to coil winding that causes the motor to rotate.

I was the metrologest, gage technician who set and calibrated all the measuring devices in the plant for over 18 years.

We had a team of consultants hired by Otis Elevator to supervise and inspect all aspects of those commutators we produced for those motors. That were being made for the largest ever Twin Towers going up in Asia. Otis Elevator had the elevator contract for providing the elevators. The lead consultant engineer would always come into my gage calibration lab to watch and inspect my setting up and calibration of gages for measuring the components we were producing for the assembly of those motors. Most people who worked in the tool room, screw machine and industrial/refill departments knew (because they were making the parts) that we were manufacturing 4 or more very large commutators. But, they did not who the customer was or who they were for. Or what application they would be used in. Most of the other people in the plant had no knowledge whatsoever about was being made. All they did was make this part of something they had prints and shop orders for.

On day, as the lead consultant engineer was in my lab talking just about "stuff", I asked him, "Sometime in future, in 50 years or so, how are these Twin Towers are going to be taken down as tall as they were going to be and as tight as land is in a crowded city, without causing fast destruction to other buildings?"

He was standing upright. He outstretched his right arm with his palm down. And said, "Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam" as he lowered his hand down one imaginary floor at a time. All the way down to the floor. I knew that we had to certify these commutators to be able to operate continuously for 50 years without service or repair as our part of the contract. He explained that as the buildings are being built, explosive charges are being incorporated into the structures at key floor joint locations. So, that when the first charges are set-off at the top floors, they will take that floor down to the next. And the charges at that floor will take it down to the next floor. This will continue all the way down. The Twin Towers will come straight down like a stack of pancakes. When the buildings get old and no longer useful or profitable to have and maintain, all it will take is a phone call to take them down.

So, you see, Jeff, no one had to sneak into the buildings of the WTC in New York and plant charges during a terror drill or a practice fire drill. They were already there...built into the buildings when they were constructed, just waiting for the call to detonate; waiting for the day when the buildings were no longer profitable to keep and maintain for whatever economic reasons of their owners and controllers.

The jet airliners crashed into each one on the Twin Towers and, thirty minutes later, the phone call was made and the first tower was taken down...and then the second tower was taken down. By the way, the other buildings of the complex were going to be a liability and no longer of use. So a phone call was made and they went down as well.

The controllers of the building complex of the Twin Towers made 500 million dollars profit. They did not lose any money. They do not care about people. They only care they have is their profit margin and bottom-line being as far in the black as they can get it.

This is what happened. The true story. Alex Jones is right about Building 7, but he should not forget the above in regards to all of buildings in the Twin Tower Complex.

Again, it is my contention and stipulation that when those buildings were being constructed, shaped charges were set into the joints at key places....waiting for they day when the buildings were to be declared obsolete and to be demolished by the powers that be. This way, they could be taken down...one floor down onto the next...all the way to the ground. This is also the plan for those highest Twin Towers in the World that are standing in Asia.

What needs to done. Is for someone to get the "real" full constructions blue prints, building plans for those building in question. It may show, in detail, what I have said about them.

posted 01-27-2004 01:16 PM            

{snicker}

quote:

---

all it will take is a phone call to take them down

---

It's a good thing no one ever made a wrong number call to that phone number eh?

posted 01-27-2004 01:30 PM            

I know that I will bee vindicated when I state that the WTC complex was INTENTIONALLY demolished.The truth WILL be known. Very soon in fact. Long before the 2004 election.

I will get the last laugh..trust me.

Because I know that YOU are the one that is wrong.

posted 01-27-2004 02:31 PM            

quote:

---

He explained that as the buildings are being built, explosive charges are being incorporated into the structures at key floor joint locations.

---

Right, because we all know it makes the building much safer and the potential for collateral damage much less if we incorporate explosives--that normally deterioriate over time, let alone over the 50-100 year expected lifetime of the towers--into the structure and let them sit there and hope there isn't a short-circuit or a deliberate attempt to set them off early. That makes a lot more sense than just calling a demolition team to bring them down when you want them brought down.

That's what I call some safe construction techniques.

quote:

---

So, you see, Jeff, no one had to sneak into the buildings of the WTC in New York and plant charges during a terror drill or a practice fire drill. They were already there

---

Convenient. So now the conspiracists don't even have to show that anyone snuck into the building since, you see, they were there for decades.

I'm starting to lose track, though... weren't the conspiracy theorists saying that bombs were snuck into the towers before 9/11? Now I am to believe that they were actually built-in decades ago? Seems these conspiracists are awfully quick to jump onto a new bandwagon as long as the new bandwagon is even more outlandish and less probable than the previous bandwagon... But present them with a reasonable explanation and and it's propaganda?

quote:

---

The controllers of the building complex of the Twin Towers made 500 million dollars profit. They did not lose any money. They do not care about people. They only care they have is their profit margin and bottom-line being as far in the black as they can get it.

---

posted 01-27-2004 03:49 PM            

What is on topic though, is your statement that each theory is more "outlandish and less probable" than the one before! How is this pre-wired demolition theory more outlandish? It sounds quite common sense to me. Just because people see a demolition behavior and try to find a plausible reason and construct for it, does not mean they're outlandish by any means. It's the same way any detective goes about solving a crime, or any forensic scientist goes about solving a murder or source of a fire after a building's demise. Many theories are proposed at the very beginning of investigations as the process filters through the less probable ones and information arises to support others. One theory may be held for quite awhile until new information arises to support it or refute it, and then the most supported ones or even a new one is held.

I find this new information quite enlightening and quite informative and it only supports the demolition theory in general with the prewiring explanation, which was actually one of the stated explanations. If you read all the material you would have known that, Letxa. Many theorists subscribed to the prewire theory. This is just evidence to support it.

However, more evidence will have to support this statement of a worker and the blueprints and the prewiring of the Asian twin towers will go a long way in supporting this prewiring theory (statement) which makes a whole lot of common sense.

Thanks so much, Mech! This was a great find! Do you have a link to connect to this article by Robert L. Parish Sr.?

You doubters will see the truth in time.

posted 01-27-2004 05:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Letxa, as I've told you before, don't question the theory of greed, because it exists! That's off topic anyway.

---

Greed exists. Murderers exist. But I have yet to see any evidence--much less convincing--that having lots of money makes one more capable of atrocities such as terrorism. There are lots of greed people in the world, but luckily the vast majority aren't murderers. Which is also true of poor people.

quote:

---

What is on topic though, is your statement that each theory is more "outlandish and less probable" than the one before! How is this pre-wired demolition theory more outlandish? It sounds quite common sense to me.

---

It is "common sense" to pre-wire a building for demolition when it is built? Install explosives which, by nature, are dangerous and just let them sit "built into" the building for the lifetime of the building? With the risk of an earthquake, hurricane, or anything else triggering them? Perhaps even a criminal or an operator having a bad day? Why would anyone in their right mind install explosives when a building is being constructed rather than simply plant demolition charges when the building is at the end of its useful life?

Do we have any convincing evidence that explosives have ever been "built-in" to a new building as it was being constructed? Or is this just speculation?

Actually, re-reading this thing it looks like he wasn't even talking about the Twin Towers... it looks like he was talking about some towers in Asia. In which case he just created a new conspiracy theory for the towers in Asia and hasn't actually advanced anything regarding the WTC. I say he's created a new conspiracy theory (or theories) since now any construction plans for the Asian towers or WTC that doesn't include what this person says it should will be rejected as a doctored version of the plans and won't be accepted as proof that this is a nutty allegation.

quote:

---

Just because people see a demolition behavior and try to find a plausible reason and construct for it, does not mean they're outlandish by any means.

---

Without touching the debate as to whether or not there's even any reason to believe there was demolition behavior on 9/11 (after all, how many 110-story buildings have we all seen collapse in an uncontrolled fashion?), that does not mean that any given suggestion is not outlandish.

If you people believe there was more than just airplanes at work, fine--make an effort to explain it. But first we (the non-conspiracists) were told that bombs must have been snuck into WTC prior to 9/11 but the problem was "How and when were they snuck in." Now, conveniently, someome (who doesn't even know how to use the word "stipulate" but uses it because it sounds good) says the conspiracists don't even have to explain that... because they were really there all along.

quote:

---

I find this new information quite enlightening and quite informative and it only supports the demolition theory in general with the prewiring explanation, which was actually one of the stated explanations. If you read all the material you would have known that, Letxa. Many theorists subscribed to the prewire theory. This is just evidence to support it.

---

Actually, this isn't evidence. It's hearsay at this point. Has anyone attempted to verify if this guy is real, whether he was really working on-site during the construction, etc.? To me, it's currently just some guy with a free email account that wrote up something that supposedly supports a conspiracy theory. That's not evidence.

quote:

---

However, more evidence will have to support this statement of a worker and the blueprints and the prewiring of the Asian twin towers will go a long way in supporting this prewiring theory (statement) which makes a whole lot of common sense.

[quote]Thanks so much, Mech! This was a great find! Do you have a link to connect to this article by Robert L. Parish Sr.?

---

Rense, where else? http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

Some comments there, too, about the inherent instability and deterioration of explosives that are planted in a building decades before they are used.

quote:

---

You doubters will see the truth in time. bc

---

You're rolling your eyes?? Heheheh.

posted 01-27-2004 11:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
But I have yet to see any evidence--much less convincing--that having lots of money makes one more capable of atrocities such as terrorism.

---

posted 01-27-2004 11:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
Did someone imply that? I do not believe having money makes one more capable of horrible deeds.

---

The author of the original article implied it. He said "The controllers of the building complex of the Twin Towers made 500 million dollars profit. They did not lose any money. They do not care about people. They only care they have is their profit margin and bottom-line being as far in the black as they can get it." That's pretty cold but seems to go along with the theme that many people seem to have... that anyone with money or power is evil and if he hasn't killed someone yet, he will soon.

It's along the lines of Bush (or the Jews, or the owners of the WTC, etc.) having planned 9/11 for whatever their goals (to have an excuse to attack Iraq, to provoke us to engage in the Middle East, to collect insurance money, etc.). It all assumes that these groups are downright evil and truly don't care about a few thousand lives.

posted 01-28-2004 09:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
That seems to be a common factor in 9/11 conspiracy theories... they all pretty much assume someone rich or powerful was willing to extinguish thousands of Americans.

---

A common thread in 9/11 Coincidence Theories is that 19 highjackers, all using aliases, with no pictures to identify them, flew jets into buildings, with verification of a pristine passport of Mohammed Atta found in the rubble of the WTC, after everything aboard was vaporized.

Having money only multiplies an already insane individual. For example, a man living with his wife, child, and dog, in a run-down apartment, beats the 3 of them regularly. He works a low paying job, and she babysits other people's kids. He is sadistic. Now, a rich and powerful person like Cheney or Bush, use their power to beat up people, though remotely, and having someone else do it. What's the difference? Money makes the crime bigger, but at the core of the situations is using power for destructive ends. There are poor people that are as kind as a Saint, and rich people that give to charity, and try to make a better world. Money just accelerates what is there already.

posted 01-28-2004 02:16 PM            

(Since debunkers never check sources or visit any links other the the RNC or Rush)
Google Results: focused shaped linear charges
1. The Explosives and Weapons Forum Archive - Geometry of linear ...

" ... shockwave is produced that is probably not as strong and focused as with a V ... cavity) doesn't penetrate armor as deep as the V-shaped linear charges (but this ... " www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread/t-2748.html
2. The Explosives and Weapons Forum Archive - Improvising linear ...
" ... have been some threads about linear shaped charges, even from ... I have made numerous shaped charges in sizes from 4 ... effect is due to the focused shock ( monroe ... " www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread/t-3184.html
3. Steel cutting using linear-shaped charges
"Steel cutting using linear-shaped charges. ... Various types of cutting charges already exist, but mainly for ... This work is therefore focused on the development of a ... " www.eu-decom.be/europe/related/land/company/o/fi2d0010.htm
4. Shaped Charges Pierce the Toughest Targets Shaped Charges Pierce ...
" ... The various frames may be focused on different portions of the jet ... (b) The shaped charge in ... Bill Kent assembled a one-twentieth-scale model of linear track 20 ... " www.llnl.gov/str/pdfs/06_98.3.pdf
5. Addendum I. Introduction
" ... 7 Figure I-8 Divers Place Linear Shaped Charges to Cut the ... ten days of diving operations focused primarily on grout removal with shaped charges will likely ... " www.phillips66.com/maureen/decommprog/pdfs/appg.pdf
6. CLASS 102 AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 ...
" ... detonation wave cavity modifier 307 ...Linear or curvilinear ... 474 .Continuous rod warhead 475 .Focused or directed detonation 476 ..Shaped charge 477 ... " www.uspto.gov/go/classification/uspc102/sched102.pdf
7. Class 102: AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES ( Manual of US Patent ...
" ... . Linear or curvilinear cavity. 308, [Patents], . . . ... 475, [Patents], . Focused or directed detonation. 476, [Patents], . . Shaped charge. 477, [Patents], . ... " www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/moc/102.htm
8. FUNDAMENTAL MECHANICS
" ... Both ring charges being focused on the same central ... The hourglass shaped charge has collapsed inward to form a ... point charges expand into the linear arc charges ... " www.protoncosmology.com/fundamental_mechanics.htm
9. Nat'l Academies Press, An Assessment of Techniques for Removing ...
" ... to combine both focused and shaped charges into an integrated tool for cutting conductors. Radial Hollow Charge. This is a short, linear-shaped charge bent ... " www.nap.edu/books/NI000141/html/16.html
10. US Patent Class 102-- AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES
" ... 307, DF, .~.~. Linear or curvilinear cavity. 308, DF, .~.~. Tandem charge. ... 475, DF, .~ Focused or directed detonation. 476, DF, .~.~ Shaped charge. ... " www.patentec.com/data/class/102.html
11. EMERGENCY DESTRUCTION SYSTEM FOR RECOVERED CHEMICAL MUNITIONS BL ...
" ... The mission of PMNSCM is focused on non-stockpile ... a four-part system including a linear shaped charge (LSC ... opener, a pair of conical shaped charges (CSC) meant ... " www.uxocoe.brtrc.com/TechnicalReps/Forum98/Haroldsen.pdf

>degrade over time, etc<...
displays ignorance of the tax money financed advancements in ordinance.
WWII ordinance is still quite effective and deadly<

Building in or adding on demolition charges would be as simple as witing the entire building for a computer network.

Attachments, mostly self stick,
and wiring.

to a command center manned by armed guards and controlled...

by the NY landlord who had just overextended himself financially by 'buying the WTC' in June of 2001.

The guy who had the foresight to buy specific insurance against terrorist acts.

Nobody ever heard of any NY landlord ever 'torching' his own building to get the insurance settlement?

Riiight!

http://www.implosionworld.com/
HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION?
The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even THIS VAGUE SIMILARITY RELATES MORE TO MILITARY EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITION than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.”
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION INCORPORATED http://www.controlled-demolition.com/index.html
Normal structural collapse: http://www.dem-tech.com/archive.htm
EXPERIENCE THE BLAST: http://www.bigblast.com/blast.htm
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no16/vo11no16_partin.htm
Explosive Evidence of a Cover-up

posted 01-28-2004 02:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:

It's along the lines of Bush (or the Jews, or the owners of the WTC, etc.) having planned 9/11 for whatever their goals (to have an excuse to attack Iraq, to provoke us to engage in the Middle East, to collect insurance money, etc.). It all assumes that these groups are downright evil and truly don't care about a few thousand lives.

---

There is a tale about a poor farmer.
a Jew in the shul
who owned a few goats and farmed a few acres.

He subscribed to an antisemitic paper.

When his neighbors asked him "Why do you read this trash?"

He replied:
"I like to read about how powerful I am."

The strawman argument that:
'everybody' has to be involved in any conspiracy is an old one that Himmler used to great effect.

(Most of those involved in the "Manhatten Project" didn't know they were building the atomic bomb.)

It takes only a few of the rightwingers currently ruling Israel to do a few despicable deeds.
It takes only a few of the rightwingers currently ruling America
to stand down the military
and allow explosive demolition to kill cops and firemen,
to whip up a patriotic fervor to line their bank accounts with gold
during the war that results.

That RICO attitude,
that if two members of any group conspire to break the law,
all members must be involved is a 'police state' lie.

"Many fine decent people are Republicans." President Clinton said (while being attacked daily by a few dozens of influential rightwing extremists who owned newspapers radio and tv stations.

It only takes a few!

A robbery committed by three Brinks employees, who murder other honest Brinks employees during commission of the crime.

The WTC is no different.

High rise buildings (55 floor or otherwise)
have never spontaneously collapsed, from any cause.

Demanding proof for a negative is one of Rush Limbaugh's (talking point) tricks.

Prove that any high rise has ever collapsed into it's own footprint!

Or that any building has ever collapsed into it's own footprint due to a one sided impact.
Truck, airplane, ship, etc. explosion or fire.
Never happened.

The talking points wear out very quickly.

That Operation Northwoods and these invasions and occupations were done for insurance money is an especially transparent and weak strawman.

The goal is to payback Bush campaign contributors by funneling tax money into their coffers.
EG: Halliburton paid millions to buy the election for W,
and has reaped billions in war profiteering thus far.

Other Bush contributors have also made enormous fortunes from the war profiteering.

Greed as a motive?
(duh)

Greed as a motive to sacrifice thousands of innocents' lives? (just to make more money)
Never heard of
DuPont?
Coal mines?
Petroleum industry?
Tobacco companies?

posted 01-28-2004 04:36 PM            

quote:

---

>degrade over time, etc<...
displays ignorance of the tax money financed advancements in ordinance. WWII ordinance is still quite effective and deadly

---

But how stable is it? How much of it was used in, say, Iraq?

I'm not saying that explosives can't last 50 years. I'm saying that most tend to deteriorate over time. This can mean that it might not work when you want it to, or that it might work when you don't want it to.

Either way, as an explosives expert can you comment on the idea of planting a bomb 50 years before you plan on using it? Would you plant a bomb in the home you are building today so that it's easy to destroy when it gets old?

quote:

---

Building in or adding on demolition charges would be as simple as witing the entire building for a computer network.

---

If we're talking about just the wiring then I won't argue. It still seems strange they would prewire it, but not the point that I'm going to argue it. What I'm arguing is the idea that they actually installed the explosives when the buildings were built.

quote:

---

to a command center manned by armed guards and controlled...

---

Is there any evidence that such a command center for the demolition charges was manned by armed guards existed in the WTCs for the last two decades? Any talk about such a command center or pre-wired bombs prior to 9/11?

quote:

---

The guy who had the foresight to buy specific insurance against terrorist acts.

---

Incredible foresight. After the 1993 WTC attack, who could've possibly thought of that?

quote:

---

Nobody ever heard of any NY landlord ever 'torching' his own building to get the insurance settlement? Riiight!

---

So because it can be done means it was done? Conspiracists tend to find the worst case scenario for every possible aspect of an event. Their theory is then based on the assumption that all those worst-case scenarios actually happened.

posted 01-28-2004 07:00 PM            

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>degrade over time, etc<...
displays ignorance of the tax money financed advancements in ordinance. WWII ordinance is still quite effective and deadly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
But how stable is it? How much of it was used in, say, Iraq?

I'm not saying that explosives can't last 50 years. I'm saying that most tend to deteriorate over time. This can mean that it might not work when you want it to, or that it might work when you don't want it to.

Either way, as an explosives expert can you comment on the idea of planting a bomb 50 years before you plan on using it? Would you plant a bomb in the home you are building today so that it's easy to destroy when it gets old?

---

first.
I am not an explosives expert.
Just someone who has used explosives legally and has some experience.
Also I argued (in an AOL chat room) with Tim McVeigh about how to compound and use ANFO
(and so informed the fibbers after OK city/
they already had the transcripts of our arguments and thanked me for calling)
Tim had said the wanted to use explosives to soften desert caliche before digging with a backhoe.
Legal at that time BTW.
As a former arizonian I knew it was a legal discussion (in 1994)

BTW
There is now way anfo could possibly account for the OK city damage pattern.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building in or adding on demolition charges would be as simple as witing the entire building for a computer network.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
If we're talking about just the wiring then I won't argue. It still seems strange they would prewire it, but not the point that I'm going to argue it. What I'm arguing is the idea that they actually installed the explosives when the buildings were built.

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to a command center manned by armed guards and controlled...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
Is there any evidence that such a command center for the demolition charges was manned by armed guards existed in the WTCs for the last two decades? Any talk about such a command center or pre-wired bombs prior to 9/11?

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The guy who had the foresight to buy specific insurance against terrorist acts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
Incredible foresight. After the 1993 WTC attack, who could've possibly thought of that?

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody ever heard of any NY landlord ever 'torching' his own building to get the insurance settlement? Riiight!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
So because it can be done means it was done? Conspiracists tend to find the worst case scenario for every possible aspect of an event. Their theory is then based on the assumption that all those worst-case scenarios actually happened.

Riiiight!

---

The Bushistas assume that all worst case scenarios happened to their exclusive benefit.
That an immaculate "terrorist's" passport survived whereas the aircraft engines did not...
and other fairy tales

that "terrorists" left weapons and documents behind in rental cars, instead of taking them with them for use.

The pile of BS just builds so high
that most of us
are suffocated by the BS Bushistas would have us swallow in order to also swallow their improbable lies.

the evidence is that the administration is lying and obstructing any real investigation into what actually happened.
the fact is that physical evidence was removed, and tampered with;
clearly hampering any honest investigation into what really happened.

Just makes everyone with any honest background sceptical and wondering:
Why?
and what are they so desperate to cover up that they obstruct justice by tampering with evidence?

posted 01-28-2004 11:14 PM            

quote:

---

I am not an explosives expert.
Just someone who has used explosives legally and has some experience...

I personally believe the buildings were retrofitted after the `1993 terrorist bombing; but admit that it is possible that demolition may have been considered during construction.

---

So, let me ask again... Given your experience with explosives, you think it would be a good idea to pre-install bombs in a building many decades before you want to destroy it? Would you build some bombs into your own house just in case the building needs to be destroyed in the future?

quote:

---

In the previous 911 demolition topic,
I posted a link to building maintainance engineers who worked at that guarded command center.

---

Which previous 9/11 thread? I'd like to visit it and see the link and review that.

quote:

---

The Bushistas assume that all worst case scenarios happened to their exclusive benefit.

---

First, I'm not a Bush fan. I just prefer reality. And I'd actually take Bush and reality over any given reality and the nightmare you live in. And I call it a nightmare not because I couldn't handle it if it were true--I call it a nightmare because many people continue to believe what you believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

It's a religion for some of you. It's not a religion for me--give me some real evidence and I could accept it. But for those that this is a religion, evidence isn't enough--because they believe it on faith.

quote:

---

That an immaculate "terrorist's" passport survived whereas the aircraft engines did not... and other fairy tales

---

Given your experience with explosives you should know the results are quite unpredictable. There were other documents and papers recovered from the WTC rubble, too. And if the terrorist who that passport supposedly belonged to was in the cockpit I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it could survive since the explosion itself would be behind the cockpit. I've heard of stranger things.

That said, I could really care less if it did survive or not. It's not like I'm hanging my whole belief in reality based on that fact.

quote:

---

that "terrorists" left weapons and documents behind in rental cars, instead of taking them with them for use.

---

Yeah, imagine that... leaving weapons and incriminating documents behind rather than trying to get them through security and risk screwing up the whole operation. How amazing. Apparently they had everything they needed to get the job done--why would they want to take more and simply increase their risk of getting caught?

quote:

---

The pile of BS just builds so high
that most of us are suffocated by the BS Bushistas would have us swallow in order to also swallow their improbable lies.

---

Actually, it's quite sickening the unfounded, uncorroborated information that a lot of conspiracists believe in. Give a conspiracists an unfounded, uncorroborated "testimonial" from someone who was supposedly there and they'll believe it in a heartbeat. Give 'em 10 engineers saying something else and they'll ignore him and accuse them of being part of the conspiracy.

Like I said, I'm not a Bush fan--but I just prefer reality.

quote:

---

the evidence is that the administration is lying and obstructing any real investigation into what actually happened.

---

As any administration would do. That is not evidence of guilty.

quote:

---

the fact is that physical evidence was removed, and tampered with; clearly hampering any honest investigation into what really happened.

---

The fact is, 99.9% of the population knows what happened. We didn't need an investigation of physical evidence. Now, a good investigation of any errors that were made leading up to 9/11 would be good. But do I need proof that the towers were destroyed by airplanes? No.

posted 01-28-2004 11:45 PM            

In attributing shatoga's kind and succinct responses to "a cobweb of accusations and speculation" you reveal an unfounded and unfair attitude after all the work that was done on the subject.

Shatoga was merely wrapping up his research for you with short commentaries. If you care about investigating this subject for yourself, please go read what was already posted and took hours and hours of reading, writing, and research. All links are there, too! And shatoga was kind enough to offer you links, which he noticed you didn't read.

These articles on this thread are new and add to the already accumulated evidence. Because you're late in getting here, does not mean we have the time nor inclination to argue every already supported claim with you!

As I said, this article supports a theory, but it doesn't definitively support a theory, either. It's just an article that claims that it is a possiblity that the WTC towers could have been prewired. I don't know for sure that they indeed were prewired during building. The other theory is that they were wired, like shatoga said, after the first bombing attempt.

Nonetheless, the theories are still waiting for more accumulated evidence and for many, the evidence for "demolition assisted collapse" already gathered (which you haven't read) is enough for especially the demolition-savvy to recognize and for the research-active to realize through deductive reasoning, witness reports, photos, audio clips, and other types of accumulated evidence from engineers to scientists involved in steel and fire behavior.

We don't owe you any more time on this thread as you're dragging in past information and past argumentation that we've already covered. OK?

No offense taken, hopefully, it's just a matter of energy and time here.

Thanks for understanding and if you care to read and study the argument, please do!

posted 01-29-2004 07:09 AM            

quote:

---

And if the terrorist who that passport supposedly belonged to was in the cockpit I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it could survive since the explosion itself would be behind the cockpit. I've heard of stranger things.

---

STRANGER THINGS, but "Conspiracy Theorists" think that vaporizing bodies in the jet, would also vaporize papers. LOL!

quote:

---

It's a religion for some of you. It's not a religion for me--give me some real evidence and I could accept it. But for those that this is a religion, evidence isn't enough--because they believe it on faith.

---

Evidence channeled from the government and corporate controlled media. Who is being religious here? Silverstein admits "pulling" WTC 7. Not enough evidence? Firefighters that saw small fires burning, and not this inferno that Wolf_Larsen "Coincidizes". Not enough evidence? Smoke coming out of 77th -79th floors BEFORE the collapse, which is where machinery and heating only is kept. Not enough evidence?

posted 01-29-2004 11:45 AM            

On this page, apparently the home page of the self-founded "Star*School Technological University of New Mexico," Robert Paul LeBreton claims to have a PhD. Yet if you click on the link to his resume it looks like he didn't finish high school and got a GED during a 2-year stint in the air force. He seems most proud of his "Undiscovered Genius Certificate" in 1976, and "designed the first successful Perpetual Motion Device; and designed an internal combustion engine to run Perpetually with Permanent Magnets providing the energy, rather than fuel." (Wonder why we're still fueling our cars 28 years later). In 2000, he received a biographical listing in “1,000 World Leaders of Influence” by American Biographical Publishers" (right up there with Clinton, George Bush, and Bill Gates, I guess). And he is "Currently engaged in the design of the first commercial flying saucer in conjunction with Lockheed-Martin Aerospace Company."

I emailed him a couple days ago and still no response.

posted 01-29-2004 12:33 PM            

Want to add some commentary here:

swamp:

quote:

---

STRANGER THINGS, but "Conspiracy Theorists" think that vaporizing bodies in the jet, would also vaporize papers. LOL!

---

One excellent point and so common sense that it literally smacks a grounded and thinking person in the face! Thinking, questioning, and thoughtful pursuit of this one fact literally produces many more questions in the productive mind. Steel beams melt from the intense heat of the jet fuel explosions causing hundreds of floors to collapse perfectly even after the jet fuel has burned off, yet, a piece of plastic coated paper survives which was located in the bowels of burning inferno of hell as the nose of the plane entered first! DUH! ROFLMBO!! (picture an Arab hanging out the cockpit window throwing his passport in the air right before impact! Weeeeee! Booooom! )

swamp:

quote:

---

Evidence channeled from the government and corporate controlled media. Who is being religious here? Silverstein admits "pulling" WTC 7. Not enough evidence? Firefighters that saw small fires burning, and not this inferno that Wolf_Larsen "Coincidizes". Not enough evidence? Smoke coming out of 77th -79th floors BEFORE the collapse, which is where machinery and heating only is kept. Not enough evidence?

---

All this and more was covered before! Documented evidence. Even helicopter pilots took pictures of explosives in floors beneath the impact point, the light of the explosions coming from the windows, the grey smoke coming from the windows (not black jet fuel smoke), the sounds of the explosions heard by many as documented, etc. etc. etc. all documented. Using common sense objective reasoning normal non-brainwashed folk are able to think and see. Even Dick and Jane and Puff could have figured it out!

swamp:

quote:

---

It seems like the only "Religion" is coming from the debunkers that still haunt this site. Like the Crazed Fanatical Muslim or Christian that cannot accept Paganism, Unified Field Theory, Atheism, or Hinduism, the Government and Corporation sponsored Coinicidentalists, cannot accept any other reality, other than what they have been told.

---

Religion? NO ONE applying themselves to a thinking process (logical, objective, and investigative) is or could be construed as a religionist! The surviving wives of 9/11 and the investigative committees themselves here and abroad have never been labelled anything but investigators! The labelling of those who investigate as religionists, reveals the labeller as a double thinker using oxymoronic terminology with a level of personal bias and judgmentalism that throws logic out the window!!

OXYMORON:
"A rhetorical figure in which an epigrammatic effect is created by the conjunction of incongruous or contradictory terms"

Examples:

peace offensive · peacekeeper missile

unbiased opinion; airline food;

investigative religionist;

government evidence;

corporate freedom;

media truth;

WTC towers airliner-caused collapse!

bc

ps. open-minded judgmentalism

posted 01-29-2004 02:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
One excellent point and so common sense that it literally smacks a grounded and thinking person in the face! Thinking, questioning, and thoughtful pursuit of this one fact literally produces many more questions in the productive mind.

---

What literally smacks a grounded and thinking person in the face is how people can believe so much unfounded, uncorroborated information that is based on speculation and circumstantial evidence. And when the same person is provided with down-to-earth information provided by people not scared to use their names, they ignore it.

It's not the conspiracy that scares thinking people. It's that thinking people don't see enough evidence to believe it--and the fact that some people believe it anyway worries us.

quote:

---

Steel beams melt from the intense heat of the jet fuel explosions causing hundreds of floors to collapse perfectly even after the jet fuel has burned off, yet, a piece of plastic coated paper survives which was located in the bowels of burning inferno of hell as the nose of the plane entered first! DUH! ROFLMBO!!

---

So you're saying that in any given fire or building collapse it is automatically suspect if a piece of paper survives? If the building collapses or there is an explosion then that automatically means every piece of paper must be vaporized? Is that your position?

quote:

---

Evidence channeled from the government and corporate controlled media.

---

So basically we can't believe anything on the news. We have to believe, uhm... a high-school dropout with a PhD from the Star*School Technological University of New Mexico?

posted 01-29-2004 03:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
It's fine to question everything and to analyze the spin in the media. But going from there to believing Star*School Tech University (also building a commercial flying saucer) is where you lose most thinking people.

---

A "thinking" person believes 19 hijackers, whose names used were aliases, with no pictures except a grainy Logan airport security camera (not known for high resolution) of, maybe Atta, is the truth. Huh!?

Folks, Letxa is here for nothing except to say black when somebody says white, or goodbye when somebody says hello.

As far as your OPINION of the news, one can't argue that Captain Kangaroo passed away. that was reported on the news. It is fact, and we can't argue that. When somebody on the news says, "Captain Kangaroo" was terribly obsolete as an educator", is that fact? Or is it opinion? The same with the WTC. One can say, "My government and corporate media would NEVER lie, so I trust them"..or "Corporate media is infected with CIA plants, and slant news to fit their agenda". Which is more true? Both are OPINION.

We are all dealing with OPINIONS of 9/11. What makes Letxa such a "thinking" person, and everybody is not? Is it his OPINION that he believes to be more true?

The destruction of WTC is still an opinion. Were hijackers captured and tried? What proof existed, besides the Pyrotechnical Anomoly of the pristine passport found in the rubble? Come on, we weren't born yesterday, and fish still smells like fish at last check.

posted 01-29-2004 04:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by swamp gas:
A "thinking" person believes 19 hijackers, whose names used were aliases, with no pictures except a grainy Logan airport security camera (not known for high resolution) of, maybe Atta, is the truth. Huh!?

---

Would you find it more believable if they had 8x10 full-color pictures for each hijacker? Or would you find that a little to "conveninient." Or do you think the lack of photos is precisely a trick by our government to make it look like they didn't really know that much about them, which would be suspicious.

We can play these back and forth games all you want. But ever since someone (I think a French guy) suggested that an airplane couldn't have hit the Pentagon and that all the witnesses that saw it were just wrong or lying, things got off on a "bad foot" for those that might question the chain of events that day. Then we saw that "Flight of the Bumble Planes" or whatever where we were told that somehow these planes landed somewhere and their passengers all loaded into Flight 93 and then some other similar-looking planes were flown into the WTC and a missile (if I'm not mistaken) was what hit the Pentagon. Then we add that it wasn't just airplanes at the WTC, now there's a missile hitting WTC6. Oh, and it wasn't the planes that destroyed the WTC--it was bombs inside the buildings (so why bother with the planes??).

Basically, this thing just keeps evolving or mutating and there hasn't been one shred of real evidence to support any of it. Just lots of fun speculation.

Anonymous people "heard this" or "saw that" ignoring the fact that people always see and hear different things when something like this happens. And people that were every-day citizens hundreds or thousands of miles away from the event suddenly become experts in building demolition simply because they think an uncontrolled building can't fall into its own footprint (despite the fact that much of the falling towers DIDN'T fall into its own footprint) and are now experts in analyzing video, too.

quote:

---

Folks, Letxa is here for nothing except to say black when somebody says white, or goodbye when somebody says hello.

---

All I want is some honest evidence. Something I can confirm. Something that at least 50% of civil engineers agree on. I haven't seen that kind of support for any of the theories advanced concerning n 9/11.

I'm not an explosives engineer and I'm not a civil engineer either. I must base my informed decision on the expertise of others. When virtually every expert says one thing and then some anonymous guy says something else, I'm sorry, it's not close-minded or blind to go with what the vast majority of the field agrees on. In fact, I would wonder why you would think that an engineer that contradicts what the rest of his field agrees on isn't just wrong himself? Which is more probable... a few "engineers" that think that the disaster couldn't have been caused by the planes, or the vast majority of the engineering community that does.

If even, say, 20% of the civil engineers in the country were saying, "There's something hokey there" I'd be a little more sympathetic.

quote:

---

As far as your OPINION of the news, one can't argue that Captain Kangaroo passed away. that was reported on the news. It is fact, and we can't argue that.

---

Why can't we argue it? People accuse the media of outright lying or covering for the administration. Perhaps Captain Kangaroo is actually in NORAD or at Guantanamo and they just want us to think he's dead.

quote:

---

When somebody on the news says, "Captain Kangaroo" was terribly obsolete as an educator", is that fact? Or is it opinion? The same with the WTC.

---

No, one is opinion, one is fact. Something happened on 9/11. The only question is what. There is only one truth. You can have an opinion of what happened that day. You can also be wrong.

quote:

---

One can say, "My government and corporate media would NEVER lie, so I trust them"..or "Corporate media is infected with CIA plants, and slant news to fit their agenda". Which is more true? Both are OPINION.

---

Well, saying it is a matter of opinion, yes. But whether it is true or not is a matter of fact. Now, perhaps we can't know 100% for certain what the facts are. But we can build a case that lends credibility to one side or the other--or we can poke logical holes in one side or the other that makes that side look less credible.

But in the end there is only one truth.

quote:

---

We are all dealing with OPINIONS of 9/11. What makes Letxa such a "thinking" person, and everybody is not? Is it his OPINION that he believes to be more true?

---

We are dealing with facts that point to a logical conclusion. The only people who can know with 100% certainty what happened that day are those people that are responsible--most of which are probably dead, so you can ask them when we meet in the afterlife (if you go up or down in the same direction they did, of course).

How do most of us know that we really invaded Iraq? Because we saw it on TV? Because someone supposedly was there? What if those people are just under orders to tell us that they were actually there?

There is no end to how you can play that kind of game once you start. It ends wherever the imagination wants it to end. And the problem with 9/11 is that everyone's imagination hasn't ended yet. That's why the story keeps evolving.

The question you have to ask yourself is: "Is this theory more probable and logical than the alternative?" In the case of the 9/11 theories, the answer is no, they aren't. They contradict what the majority of the experts in corresponding fields state. They are improbable as to their scope. They are improbable given terrorism in the Middle East.

They are just plain improbable.

quote:

---

The destruction of WTC is still an opinion.

---

Just as the Civil War is just an opinion... none of us were there. We just trust what we've read or been told.

quote:

---

Were hijackers captured and tried? What proof existed, besides the Pyrotechnical Anomoly of the pristine passport found in the rubble? Come on, we weren't born yesterday, and fish still smells like fish at last check.

---

posted 01-29-2004 04:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by swamp gas:

The destruction of WTC is still an opinion.

---

posted 01-29-2004 04:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolf_Larson:

---

I admire you, Wolf. I don't know how you can leave it at in the face of some of the things said here.

posted 01-29-2004 05:11 PM            

So far, all I have seen from the two NWO proxy parrots, Wolf_Larson and Letxa2000, is exactly that. Notthing new than what our "Truthful" administration is saying.

Oh, Lexxie, I guess you never have thought of the fact that history has manifold ways to look at something. Did the slave owner write differently about slavery than the slave did? And cut your "The Truth" crap. You are beginning to sound like that other psyco Whitemajikman who keep repeating the same phrase, like some insane fundamentalist, bent on convincing a Pagan what "God" is. And who said I believe aliens or F-16's shot at WTC? You're assuming a lot

The same with the WTC. The government (slave owners) will look at the WTC differently than people who are not blinded by the propaganda (slaves).

There wqas more than enough evidence to convince an innocent bystander that there is a high probability that something was askew concerning the collapses.

posted 01-29-2004 05:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by swamp gas:
So far, all I have seen from the two NWO proxy parrots, Wolf_Larson and Letxa2000, is exactly that. Notthing new than what our "Truthful" administration is saying.

---

Apparently you haven't read much. I've seen a lot of good information provided by Wolf on this topic. I bet his rolling eyes were regarding the fact that anyone could still believe that the cause of the WTC destruction is "opinion" after all the excellent evidence he has provided from multiple acknowledged experts in their fields in past threads.

I'm not going to spend time reposting what Wolf has already done a supurb job explaining and documenting. My "conspiracy time" is currently being spent investigating the radar anomalies reported at RadarMatrix.com.

By the way, why is it that anyone that disagrees with you is a "NWO proxy parrots?" You think we have something to do with the NWO? You think they're going to give us something for disagreeing with you? I wish...

quote:

---

Oh, Lexxie, I guess you never have thought of the fact that history has manifold ways to look at something.

---

Different ways of looking at it, yes. But in the end there is only one truth.

quote:

---

Did the slave owner write differently about slavery than the slave did?

---

I'm sure they did. That doesn't change the truth of slavery.

quote:

---

And cut your "The Truth" crap.

---

Are you going to tell me that there is more than one "truth?" Something is true or it is false. I'm sorry if the absoluteness of truth bothers you, but I'm not surprised that it bothers you.

quote:

---

And who said I believe aliens or F-16's shot at WTC? You're assuming a lot

---

I didn't say you did. I was simply explaining why you need to bring some very amazing, credible evidence to the table. There have been so many silly conspiracy theories on what happened on 9/11 that if you want someone to believe you you need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and that includes the experts in the fields.

No-one has done that yet.

quote:

---

There wqas more than enough evidence to convince an innocent bystander that there is a high probability that something was askew concerning the collapses.

---

Perhaps... An innocent bystander is convinced and influenced by speculation and circumstantial evidence.