|
The Arrivals: The Foundation of the Anti-Christ (pg. 32)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by basilisk
I always wonder why you would want to invoke controlled demolition. The evidence isn't there, the physics don't support it, and you don't need CD to support the notion that rich white guys let it happen so they could start an unjust war and make a fortune.
That last bit doesn't seem all that unlikely to me--though it's difficult to produce a testable hypothesis. Controlled demolition is another matter. You can ask: what sort of explosive would have been required? How much? What sort of residue would it leave? How could those who planted the charges be sure no one would leak the story? It is entirely valid to treat it like a thought experiment and work backwards to arrive at some kind of scenario. The problem is, anytime this is done you run up against the laws of physics and the lack of physical evidence. (We could get into this but trust me--I have watched the Youtube videos and read the original research. It doesn't amount to anything IMO, but I am not an expert in analytical chemistry or engineering. Then again, the overwhelming majority of experts also fail to find Jones' research credible.)
I get why the physical component is important people. Arguing the geopolitics is forever ambiguous. Yes, Bush and his cronies acted out of self-interest and did all sorts of heinous things. But they didn't leave much of a paper trail so it's all up in the air: how much they knew, when they knew it, etc. Without evidence all we have is our gut feeling.
So the CTs have turned to Youtube to make a case for physical evidence. The issue: as much as physical evidence would create a rock-solid case for Truther concerns, claims of this nature can be evaluated scientifically (unlike geopolitical matters). It's a double-edged sword, you see? And the razor-sharp edge of science has come down in favour of the NIST report, random Youtube videos and non-expert testimony notwithstanding.
Let me sum it up: the evidence for controlled demolition is extremely poor but this has little bearing on whether American foreign policy is orchestrated by shape-changing space lizards. Really. In other words, you don't need CD to advance a conspiracy theory about 9/11 being an inside job. If they're so crafty they could have masterminded the whole multiple plan hijacking thing (which, you know, we do have pretty good evidence for, unlike CD). At the root of all this is an irrational inability to accept that hurling jumbo jets at skyscrapers might knock them down! Why is that?
And again, perhaps someone can answer my long-standing question: if 9/11 was an inside job and the towers were taken down by controlled demolition then why was WTC 7 blown up hours after the fact? It hardly seems like the mark of a perfectly executed conspiracy. Someone couldn't find the trigger for five hours? And this is just one of many questions that would need to be answered for anyone to take controlled demolition seriously.
If you guys are serious about CD I think the very first thing you would need to demonstrate is how plausible it is. What explosives, how much, when and how were they planted, etc.? I've looked into this aspect of CD and it doesn't seem possible, not when you consider the mass of explosives that would be needed (and the manpower to install it all). "Nano-thermite" is constantly bandied around but it is a poor choice for demolition: the explosion isn't directed. No professional would use it. And so on. There's a whole web-work of stuff here that makes CD extremely unlikely.
Of course, if you have some better evidence that I am not aware of... please feel free to bring it up. |
Destroying buildings by means of controlled demolition really doesn't take much effort at all.
Explosive cutter charges placed in the proper locations (support columns) and time (which was plentiful with the complete power downs in the WTC buildings in the weeks/days leading to 9/11).
Coincidentally George Bush's brother Marvin Bush happened to be a key player for Securacom which held the contract for WTC's security right up the until the company's contract expired on 9/11.
Securacom or Stratesec was rather unique as the company defined itself as a single source provider of end to end security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment.
Securacom was also contracted to Dulles International Airport and has never been scrutinized even though the company itself had a Kuwaiti, Kuwaiti-American backing.
Rather unusual I would say, there was definitely enough to go by to at least question this awkwardly backed company which was hired to protect the same buildings that crumbled on the same day their contract expired.
Hear no evil, see no evil. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Destroying buildings by means of controlled demolition really doesn't take much effort at all.
Explosive cutter charges placed in the proper locations (support columns) and time (which was plentiful with the complete power downs in the WTC buildings in the weeks/days leading to 9/11).
Coincidentally George Bush's brother Marvin Bush happened to be a key player for Securacom which held the contract for WTC's security right up the until the company's contract expired on 9/11.
Securacom or Stratesec was rather unique as the company defined itself as a single source provider of end to end security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment.
Securacom was also contracted to Dulles International Airport and has never been scrutinized even though the company itself had a Kuwaiti, Kuwaiti-American backing.
Rather unusual I would say, there was definitely enough to go by to at least question this awkwardly backed company which was hired to protect the same buildings that crumbled on the same day their contract expired.
Hear no evil, see no evil. |
Great detective work, son; however, you may want to look into timelines a little.
Marvin Bush was on the board of directors for Securacom from 1993 to June 2000. He was a large shareholder from from 1997-2000. He has had no connection with the company for more then a year prior to September 11.
Also... The NYPD are responsible for security and public safty at all Port Authority properties... which the WTC was.
Additionally... Securacom was involved in security at WTC from 1993 to 1998 when it's contract ended. It's contract BTW was for installation of an electronic security system, which they ultimately were unable to complete and the contract was terminated and taken over by E-J Electric.
So, what you're arguing is that despite the fact that Marvin Bush only had one vote on a board of directors (note: board members are rarely involved in operations) which he lost a full year prior to the WTC destruction, on a company that had a contract to install electronic surveillance but lost it due to inability to complete the work a full 3 years before the attacks (and 2 years before George was even the president), he managed to set the ground work for a controled demolition, which no one else uncovered or said anything about (including the company that did step in and do the work). That sounds very plausable, indeed. |
|
|
| basilisk |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Destroying buildings by means of controlled demolition really doesn't take much effort at all. |
No? Let's examine this supposition.
First, some details about the twin towers are needed:
| quote: | 1 WTC: 1,355 ft (413.0 m)
2 WTC: 1,348 ft (411.0 m)
Combined: 13.4 million square feet
7 WTC: 741 ft
1.7 million sq ft |
For a sense of scale let's turn to Controlled Demolition Inc. and their record-setting demolition of the JL Hudson building in Detroit:
http://www.controlled-demolition.co...epartment-store
| quote: | | CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition. |
The records set?
| quote: | At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record held by CDI since 1975 with the felling of the 361 ft. tall Mendez Caldiera Building in Sao Palo, Brazil.
At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, eclipsing the record CDI set in 1997 with the felling 344 sq. ft. tall #500 Wood Street Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
At 2.2 Million square feet, Hudson’s is the largest single building ever imploded. |
I think it is reasonable to say that the amount of explosives and manpower necessary to fell the JL Hudson building represents an absolute lower bound for the amount of material that would have been necessary to demolish anything on 9/11. This is far from "not much effort at all" as you stated.
Now to return to your claims:
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Explosive cutter charges placed in the proper locations (support columns) and time (which was plentiful with the complete power downs in the WTC buildings in the weeks/days leading to 9/11). |
You can't simply wave your hands and declare it to be true.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Coincidentally George Bush's brother Marvin Bush happened to be a key player for Securacom which held the contract for WTC's security right up the until the company's contract expired on 9/11.
Securacom or Stratesec was rather unique as the company defined itself as a single source provider of end to end security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. |
Perhaps you have read this article?
TRIMMING THE BUSHES
Family Business at the Watergate
http://www.washingtonspectator.org/...215bushes_1.cfm
An excerpt:
| quote: | | Securacom, beginning with its previous incarnation, Stratesec, unlike many other security firms, did not separate security consulting from providing security services. As a single-source provider of end-to-end security services, it offered everything from a diagnosis of existing systems, to hiring subcontractors, and to installing video and electronic equipment. |
That's funny. It almost looks like you plagiarized that just now.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Rather unusual I would say, there was definitely enough to go by to at least question this awkwardly backed company which was hired to protect the same buildings that crumbled on the same day their contract expired. |
Now did the buildings crumble on the same day their contract expired? Or did their contract expire when the buildings crumbled? :D
Another slice of the article above:
| quote: | | Securacom got the $8.3 million World Trade Center security contract in October 1996 and received about $9.2 million from the WTC job from 1996 (a quarter of its revenues that year) to 1998. But in 1998, the company was "excused from the project" because it could not fulfill the work, according to former manager Al Weinstein, and the electronic security work at the WTC was taken over by EJ Electric, a larger contractor. |
I spent a little more time Googling the claims you present and ran up against the usual ambiguities on the 9/11 Truther side:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHAR...11security.html
This seems to be soundly debunked over here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html
Perhaps you can excuse others for mocking the Truther tendency to connect the dots... but what you're worried about here is Bush's brother holding a chair on the board of directors of a company that had a contract for security services at the WTC between 1996 and 1998. Oh, and this company was backed by Kuwaiti money and also did some work for the Dulles airport, where one of the planes was hijacked, although they weren't actually involved in security screening.
It doesn't seem like any of this stuff is particularly relevant to me. How about anyone else?
So, again, I ask: if controlled demolition is the theory you lend credence to... why demolish WTC 7 hours after the twin towers? |
|
|
| basilisk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
So, what you're arguing is that despite the fact that Marvin Bush only had one vote on a board of directors (note: board members are rarely involved in operations) which he lost a full year prior to the WTC destruction, on a company that had a contract to install electronic surveillance but lost it due to inability to complete the work a full 3 years before the attacks (and 2 years before George was even the president), he managed to set the ground work for a controled demolition, which no one else uncovered or said anything about (including the company that did step in and do the work). That sounds very plausable, indeed. |
Beat me to it!
Good work. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Again I'm not confused at all, 9/11 was a black ops. Without it there would have been absolutely zero support for US occupancy in the middle east. You keep generalizing people and ignoring the points which you brought up that were proven wrong.
You keep playing the GOP (2001-2009) were a bunch of idiots card when in reality they were really playing everyone else but them for fools throughout. |
Yea, so the US government ignored intel warnings about their own "black ops" 9/11 plot. :haha: Oh, and Cheney gave a stand down order to NORAD, but it was a missile that hit the Pentagon! LOL. You are more than confused. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Destroying buildings by means of controlled demolition really doesn't take much effort at all.
Explosive cutter charges placed in the proper locations (support columns) and time (which was plentiful with the complete power downs in the WTC buildings in the weeks/days leading to 9/11). |
You know all about demolitions. It would take several tonnes of explosives to bring down the towers. Impossible to hide placing them. Impossible to prevent anyone who would be supposedly involved, to not leak it to the press. Not to mention the fact that two huge ing airliners crashed into them. If you saw Jesus walk on water, you'd say he can't swim! :rolleyes: |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by basilisk
No? Let's examine this supposition.
First, some details about the twin towers are needed:
For a sense of scale let's turn to Controlled Demolition Inc. and their record-setting demolition of the JL Hudson building in Detroit:
http://www.controlled-demolition.co...epartment-store
The records set?
I think it is reasonable to say that the amount of explosives and manpower necessary to fell the JL Hudson building represents an absolute lower bound for the amount of material that would have been necessary to demolish anything on 9/11. This is far from "not much effort at all" as you stated.
Now to return to your claims:
You can't simply wave your hands and declare it to be true.
Perhaps you have read this article?
TRIMMING THE BUSHES
Family Business at the Watergate
http://www.washingtonspectator.org/...215bushes_1.cfm
An excerpt:
That's funny. It almost looks like you plagiarized that just now.
Now did the buildings crumble on the same day their contract expired? Or did their contract expire when the buildings crumbled? :D
Another slice of the article above:
I spent a little more time Googling the claims you present and ran up against the usual ambiguities on the 9/11 Truther side:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHAR...11security.html
This seems to be soundly debunked over here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html
Perhaps you can excuse others for mocking the Truther tendency to connect the dots... but what you're worried about here is Bush's brother holding a chair on the board of directors of a company that had a contract for security services at the WTC between 1996 and 1998. Oh, and this company was backed by Kuwaiti money and also did some work for the Dulles airport, where one of the planes was hijacked, although they weren't actually involved in security screening.
It doesn't seem like any of this stuff is particularly relevant to me. How about anyone else?
So, again, I ask: if controlled demolition is the theory you lend credence to... why demolish WTC 7 hours after the twin towers? |
Interesting.
What you are saying and proved is that controlled demolition can take down buildings in this manner but because you and some others think it was impossible to do it without getting caught it did not happen.
In regards to WTC 7, why would they blow it up right away if nothing hit it? Blame it on the fire, blame it on the fire. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
You know all about demolitions. It would take several tonnes of explosives to bring down the towers. Impossible to hide placing them. Impossible to prevent anyone who would be supposedly involved, to not leak it to the press. Not to mention the fact that two huge ing airliners crashed into them. If you saw Jesus walk on water, you'd say he can't swim! :rolleyes: |
Hey dick, bring some febreze with you next time. You're stinking up the joint. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
In regards to WTC 7, why would they blow it up right away if nothing hit it? Blame it on the fire, blame it on the fire. |
Just and FYI, WTC 7 shared foundation members and some infrastructure systems with the towers, damage to those lead to a critical failure of WTC7's internal support structure... if I recall my conversation with the engineer that wrote the report for WTC's insurers correctly.
Also, why is it that you don't address the weaknesses in your whole Bush Securacom thing? None of your CT websites have done this for you already?
Ultimately, nothing we say here matters to you because you're only going to look for things that support your pre-conceived conclusions based on suspicion toward the US government/the man because it helps you feel more at ease with how inconsequential you are (external locus of control much?); however, for the benefit of those that may read your idiocy and think there may be something to it we'll continue to expose the fact that you cannot substantiate your position with credible evidence. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Hey dick, bring some febreze with you next time. You're stinking up the joint. |
best response so far |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Great detective work, son; however, you may want to look into timelines a little.
Marvin Bush was on the board of directors for Securacom from 1993 to June 2000. He was a large shareholder from from 1997-2000. He has had no connection with the company for more then a year prior to September 11.
Also... The NYPD are responsible for security and public safty at all Port Authority properties... which the WTC was.
Additionally... Securacom was involved in security at WTC from 1993 to 1998 when it's contract ended. It's contract BTW was for installation of an electronic security system, which they ultimately were unable to complete and the contract was terminated and taken over by E-J Electric.
So, what you're arguing is that despite the fact that Marvin Bush only had one vote on a board of directors (note: board members are rarely involved in operations) which he lost a full year prior to the WTC destruction, on a company that had a contract to install electronic surveillance but lost it due to inability to complete the work a full 3 years before the attacks (and 2 years before George was even the president), he managed to set the ground work for a controled demolition, which no one else uncovered or said anything about (including the company that did step in and do the work). That sounds very plausable, indeed. |
The company changed it's name to Stratesec.
Marvin Bush was one of the directors of the company all along and had a significant share in it. Last time I checked directors help to direct companies, so do major share holders. Wirt Walker, his cousin also just happened to be the CEO of the same company. He also backed the company through KuwAm with some other notable persons.
Securacom was backed by the Kuwait-American Corporation, the same private firm which the Bush's have been linked to since the Gulf War. Mishal Yousef (Kuwaiti royal family member) included. The company had contracts for the WTC buildings, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines. All 3 were major players on 9/11.
A little odd that a security company which such coincidental contracts which was backed by some interesting individuals were never mentioned once in the 9/11 Commission Report. |
|
|
|
|
