Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Kevin M. West]

Can you give a single example of an emergency demolition of a structure anywhere near the size of a large office building?

[Peter McKenna]

I agree, Sid.

This guy knows NOTHING about controlled demolition.

Fort Worth has had 5 controlled demolitions of skyscrapers to make room for

TALLER skyscrapers.

Just last year the TALLEST BUILDING IN THE U.S. EVER IMPLODED (not counting

Building Seven) was in Fort Worth. It was the 30-story LANDMARK TOWER (Bldg 7

was 46 stories; some sources say 47).

It took THREE MONTHS TO PREPARE LANDMARK TOWER FOR DEMOLITION.

If you google LANDMARK TOWER you can find videos of the implosion online.

It was done a little differently than most implosions. It was designed NOT to

fall in the building footprint. Engineers calculated that the debris pile would

be too tall and fall into a busy intersection in midtown, so the explosives were

set to make the building tilt about five degrees and fall into a pit dug two stories

deep on an adjacent parking lot. The tilt fall worked perfectly, and most of

the building fell into the pit. The debris pile was still four stories tall and covered

a full city block. Had the building fallen straight down, two main streets downtown

would have been blocked for months, since it took three months to cut steel and

load all debris for removal.

Controlled demolition in an afternoon? Absurd proposal from a know-nothing.

Jack

I never thought the day would come, but I actually agree with Jack on something. Except the 'in their own footprint' part, it's actually common for CDs to be setup to fall in a specific direction. But that's a minor detail really.

This if from a Bechtel website. These were construction people, not military:

"Half of the 17-story Sheikh A. Alakl Apartment Building in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia collapsed when portions of the new reinforced concrete facility were overloaded during final stages of construction. At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety "

Granted, not seven hours, but its just an example I had found.

It can be done.

Especially with enough people trained for just such an event (like the military).

[Len Colby]

I wonder if Jack can document any of his above claims. Who has asked for access to these items? Where are they stored? The FOIA is for access to "federal agency records or information"* not to objects, "Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes" are specificlly exempt.

Crash investigators it seem don't see a need to ID wreckage by serial #. If a plane is known to have crashed in a location all matching debris is assumed to be from it. The only exception I could imagine would be if 2 similar planes crashed into each other or at the same location.

* http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/foia/foiatoc.html

Edited June 29, 2007 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

Who has asked for access to these items? Where are they stored?

Legitimate questions that point to one of the maddening aspects of 9/11. Too many questions are simply not being asked by the mainstream media. It's more important to make fun of people who do ask questions.

Why wouldn't ABC, CBS, or NBC be interested in showing the stored wreckage of any of the planes from 9/11? It would be a scoop. I remember seeing the assembled wreckage of TWA Flight 800 shown time and again during the investigation. What's different about the wreckage of not one but four planes from 9/11? What if the wreckage has already been recycled and shipped to China? Would the mainstream media know or care? Why not?

I wonder why people think the government, with the full cooperation of the media, is hiding things about 9/11.

[Peter McKenna]

I agree, Sid.

This guy knows NOTHING about controlled demolition.

Fort Worth has had 5 controlled demolitions of skyscrapers to make room for

TALLER skyscrapers.

Just last year the TALLEST BUILDING IN THE U.S. EVER IMPLODED (not counting

Building Seven) was in Fort Worth. It was the 30-story LANDMARK TOWER (Bldg 7

was 46 stories; some sources say 47).

It took THREE MONTHS TO PREPARE LANDMARK TOWER FOR DEMOLITION.

If you google LANDMARK TOWER you can find videos of the implosion online.

It was done a little differently than most implosions. It was designed NOT to

fall in the building footprint. Engineers calculated that the debris pile would

be too tall and fall into a busy intersection in midtown, so the explosives were

set to make the building tilt about five degrees and fall into a pit dug two stories

deep on an adjacent parking lot. The tilt fall worked perfectly, and most of

the building fell into the pit. The debris pile was still four stories tall and covered

a full city block. Had the building fallen straight down, two main streets downtown

would have been blocked for months, since it took three months to cut steel and

load all debris for removal.

Controlled demolition in an afternoon? Absurd proposal from a know-nothing.

Jack

I never thought the day would come, but I actually agree with Jack on something. Except the 'in their own footprint' part, it's actually common for CDs to be setup to fall in a specific direction. But that's a minor detail really.

Kevin,

Here's another example, I don't have the building specifications, but it will give the idea;

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=11

"Controlled Demolition Incorporated's team managed over 400 employees of four Mexico City-based general contractors to prepare several structures for implosion simultaneously. Controlled Demolition Incorporated demolished 26 structures for the Mexican People, sometimes as many as 4 in 1 day in various parts of the shattered city. Working in the local language, Controlled Demolition Incorporated's team felled hanging structures that threatened rescue efforts, pulled leaning structures away from occupied buildings without a single injury to workers or contractors who supported our effort."

I don't have a problem with anyone questioning the veracity of the postulation I made.

That's what the forum is about. Open discourse to discuss points of view.

I found these examples in about twenty minutes of searching. If I dedicated myself to the search of examples, and spent a couple of full time days, I'm sure I could provide much better examples. I didn't realize that the idea of a controlled demolition in one seven hour period would be so far fetched.

I do have a problem with Jack White's unqualified projection of an opinion, not researched, but based on second hand information, and not pertinent to the specifics of the postulation I made, and to boot, making his accusaton as the central theme of a childish ad hominem attack, which he directs toward me wihtout provocation (you might have to read the thread back to the point where I began with the WTC 7 discussion). When this happened to Jack in the past (when Craig Lamson made an offhanded remark about Jack, which wasn't really even an ad hom), he went running to the moderators.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Kevin M. West]

I remember seeing the assembled wreckage of TWA Flight 800 shown time and again during the investigation. What's different about the wreckage of not one but four planes from 9/11?

The difference is, we know why they crashed on 9/11, we didn't know why 800 crashed. That's the purpose of the reconstruction they do with aircraft wreckage, to determine the cause of the crash. It isn't done when the cause is known.

[Kevin M. West]

I said large office buildings, referring to things anywhere near the size of WTC7. Not small damaged buildings that they simply pulled over or incomplete construction that was vacant and already partially collapsed.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Has there been a formal identification of the planes used that day from debris etc. or not as suggested in the cite in Ron's post?

Personally, I would be amazed if this had not happened.

Then be amazed. It has not happened, despite FOIA requests to view the warehoused wreckage.

Aircraft parts are serial-numbered for numerous manufacturing, record-keeping and safety

reasons. The govt collected alleged "wreckage" at all sites and has it warehoused. It cannot

be examined by ANYONE.

Jack

...please keep in mind, however, that the truth and the 'evidence' is witheld from We The People for our own 'protection'.....the powers that be don't want us to get upset at their lies and deceptions. They never came clean on Dallas either...nor anything in between, of significance. Ignorance is [not] bliss. Lies are lies and used to manipulate. Why can't they show the wreckage?....I'd wager because if there is any it doesn't support their own fairytale of the events. Gulf of Tonkin, Overthrow of Allende...I could go on for pages on the official lies and deceptions and deletions of the real truth...JFK, RFK, MLK, Monroe, Lennon, Malcom-X and thousands of other assassinations, overthrows, dirty-tricks, special ops and more....

A very sad legacy, but it can be 'righted'!

I agree Peter, however, I am not informed enough about 911 details to have evolved a considered value judgement on this case - though it does seem in keeping with previous MO's as you state.

The point that 'amazed' me was that with all the hoopla concerning the planes a very simple and efficient way to reveal the planes reported to have crashed did indeed do so would be to publish bona fide information regarding the planes serials, recovered debris etc. irrespective of whether there is a legal requirement to do so or not in crash investigations.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Gary Loughran

[Peter McKenna]

I said large office buildings, referring to things anywhere near the size of WTC7. Not small damaged buildings that they simply pulled over or incomplete construction that was vacant and already partially collapsed.

The first example was a seventeen story building.

The Cuneo Roma structures included some failry tall structures, although I couldn't find the actual height of the buidlings which were done four in a day. The idea is that it doesn't have to take months as cited. In fact, the point is, could demolition experts, who are trained to drop a building (even a 47 story building) quickly, in an emergency, drop WTC 7 inside of 7 hours?

I think yes, it is possible. Using a timeline for demolitions which were not on the clock for any reason, does not preclude the possibility.

I do not have time to research demolitions to the point of finding a building of equivalent height (i.e. 47 stories) that was felled inside of seven hours, which could take days of research. The question is, is it possible? If one assumes that WTC 1 and 2 were controlled demolitions, I agree the answer is no.

If WTC 7, which was already severely damaged, could have been brought down in a controlled demolition, after damage was identified, I think the answer is yes, it is possible.

[Ron Ecker]

The point that 'amazed' me was that with all the hoopla concerning the planes a very simple and efficient way to reveal the planes reported to have crashed did indeed do so would be to publish bona fide information regarding the planes serials, recovered debris etc. irrespective of whether there is a legal requirement to do so or not in crash investigations.

Don't be so sensible!

[Ron Ecker]

The difference is, we know why they crashed on 9/11, we didn't know why 800 crashed. That's the purpose of the reconstruction they do with aircraft wreckage, to determine the cause of the crash. It isn't done when the cause is known.

Why is it stored? For what purpose? If not to reconstruct, then just to keep it hidden? How about putting it in a museum? How about anything that doesn't look like a cover-up.

[Jack White]

I said large office buildings, referring to things anywhere near the size of WTC7. Not small damaged buildings that they simply pulled over or incomplete construction that was vacant and already partially collapsed.

The first example was a seventeen story building.

The Cuneo Roma structures included some failry tall structures, although I couldn't find the actual height of the buidlings which were done four in a day. The idea is that it doesn't have to take months as cited. In fact, the point is, could demolition experts, who are trained to drop a building (even a 47 story building) quickly, in an emergency, drop WTC 7 inside of 7 hours?

I think yes, it is possible. Using a timeline for demolitions which were not on the clock for any reason, does not preclude the possibility.

I do not have time to research demolitions to the point of finding a building of equivalent height (i.e. 47 stories) that was felled inside of seven hours, which could take days of research. The question is, is it possible? If one assumes that WTC 1 and 2 were controlled demolitions, I agree the answer is no.

If WTC 7, which was already severely damaged, could have been brought down in a controlled demolition, after damage was identified, I think the answer is yes, it is possible.

How could this happen without being observed, reported on, admitted, witnesses or other evidence?

This was the most widely observed event in the history of the world. Wouldn't someone have noticed?

If it happened that way, why would the 911 commission say the cause of the collapse was unknown?

Jack

[Jack White]

"In fact, the point is, could demolition experts, who are trained to drop a building (even a 47 story building) quickly, in an emergency, drop WTC 7 inside of 7 hours?"

What is the starting point for your SEVEN HOURS?????

Bldg 7 fell around 5:15 as I recall.

Seven hours earlier would be 10:15 a.m.

Are you proposing that they started preparing to demolish the building at 10:15?

If they started that early it would PROVE CONSPIRACY, wouldn't it?

Now that would be a major finding!

Jack

[Jack White]

"If WTC 7, which was already severely damaged, could have been brought down in a controlled demolition, after damage was identified, I think the answer is yes, it is possible. "

NOBODY HAS PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE THAT BUILDING SEVEN WAS "ALREADY SEVERELY DAMAGED".

Jack

[Peter McKenna]

I said large office buildings, referring to things anywhere near the size of WTC7. Not small damaged buildings that they simply pulled over or incomplete construction that was vacant and already partially collapsed.

The first example was a seventeen story building.

The Cuneo Roma structures included some failry tall structures, although I couldn't find the actual height of the buidlings which were done four in a day. The idea is that it doesn't have to take months as cited. In fact, the point is, could demolition experts, who are trained to drop a building (even a 47 story building) quickly, in an emergency, drop WTC 7 inside of 7 hours?

I think yes, it is possible. Using a timeline for demolitions which were not on the clock for any reason, does not preclude the possibility.

I do not have time to research demolitions to the point of finding a building of equivalent height (i.e. 47 stories) that was felled inside of seven hours, which could take days of research. The question is, is it possible? If one assumes that WTC 1 and 2 were controlled demolitions, I agree the answer is no.

If WTC 7, which was already severely damaged, could have been brought down in a controlled demolition, after damage was identified, I think the answer is yes, it is possible.

How could this happen without being observed, reported on, admitted, witnesses or other evidence?

This was the most widely observed event in the history of the world. Wouldn't someone have noticed?

If it happened that way, why would the 911 commission say the cause of the collapse was unknown?

Jack

Well that is a good question.

Why wouldn't a seeming legitimate demolition of WTC 7 be admitted to.

for the insurance?

Wasn't Silverstein overheard saying 'Pull It'?

I know the CT theory that the demolition was planned and set up far in advance of the first attack on 9/11.

I don't have any 'proof', but is it possible that, in the event of discovery during subsequent rescue (floor to floor, room to room examinations for survivors) or inspections of the WTC 7 structure following 9/11, that there were items, devices, weapons, (don't know what may have been there but there was a reported operable Stinger Missile in that building for use during Presidential visits to NYC) that the Secret Service wanted destroyed or eliminated? This isn't my theory, I read it somewhere else.

Or did Silverstein need the insurance money? Did he hatch some scheme to destroy the building for insurance purposes? I don't think so, but is it possible?

If the military were involved in a covert demolition, wouldn't they be perfectly capable of pulling it off without anyone 'noiticing'? The building was evacuated very early on in the timeline of events. There should have been access from below street level, in fact, much of the preparation could have been made from the basement/sub-basement (if this postulation has any merit).

FEMA personnel were the last to evacuate WTC 7 at 09:30. This building was fully evacuated before the twin towers and people were told to return to their offices in the South Tower, even as people were evacuating the WTC-7 building.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....&startpos=0