Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

M.Dancer · April 22, 2009

They don't like that..especially the thrusting part.

Itsth tho thectual ithin it?

GostHacked · April 22, 2009

It was simple as that for the other wars too....even the ones you "liked".

You assume I support war to begin with.

Guess again....Operation Desert Fox was most certainly an attack. The UK joined in the fun.

I see what you did there. Failing to mention I searched and found the information. But you know, deceit, lies. Status Quo.

If you consider killing Iraqis the solurion....OK.

I know you are not ever going to bother to explain this. So can you clarify this at all?

No long threads about Canada in Iraq....I wonder why?

We did not sign up for it. I know that might be too simple of a concept for you to imagine. OH LAWDY!!

That's the spirit....wishing on a dream.

I wish for genuine debate. Maybe I should go Rabble or something. I ain't finding it here, with all the trolls n all. Sometimes, people just need to not post. Watch this get turned around on me.......

M.Dancer · April 22, 2009

I see what you did there. Failing to mention I searched and found the information. But you know, deceit, lies. Status Quo.

You found one instance and failed to find the others....

On December 16, 1998, United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) military forces launched cruise missile attacks against military targets in Iraq. These strikes were ordered by the President of the United States and were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors. The strikes were designed to deliver a serous blow to Saddam Hussein's capability to manufacture, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten or otherwise intimidate his neighbors

. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_fox.htm

Shortly after the conclusion of DESERT FOX, Iraq announced they would no longer recognize the Northern and Southern no-fly zones. When the ONW mission resumed, Iraqi assets built for air defense went on the offensive as they shot at coalition aircraft with surface to air missiles on 28 December 1998. This act of aggression threatened the lives of the aircrew who responded in turn. This action resulted in the first delivery of ordinance over Northern Iraq by coalition forces since August of 1993. Ever since, Iraq anti aircraft assets continue to antagonize and threaten the coalition aircraft with weapon systems not belonging above the 36th parallel in the first place, prompting aircrews to respond to such hostile acts.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops...thern_watch.htm

GostHacked · April 22, 2009

You found one instance and failed to find the others....

But admitted that Clinton did make attacks. I fail to see the problem here.

tango · April 22, 2009

You assume I support war to begin with.
I see what you did there. Failing to mention I searched and found the information. But you know, deceit, lies. Status Quo.

I know you are not ever going to bother to explain this. So can you clarify this at all?

We did not sign up for it. I know that might be too simple of a concept for you to imagine. OH LAWDY!!

I wish for genuine debate. Maybe I should go Rabble or something. I ain't finding it here, with all the trolls n all. Sometimes, people just need to not post. Watch this get turned around on me.......

I agree there is far too much spin and personal attack and dismissal here, and far to little of informed discussion, though at times it is good quality. Unfortunately, imo rabble is too much constrained by the agreement to certain political stances demanded of posters.

I console myself with the known fact that when posters resort to asinine spin and personal attacks, it's because your arguments have them stumped for any logical or intelligent comeback. :lol:

New info re WTC, not available yet online, but from Mayday magazine:

Dr. Graeme MacQueen (retired) from McMaster Peace Studies reviewed 10,000 pages of testimony from 500 firefighters, staff, police and occupants of the WTC and found 118 spontaneous descriptions of perceptions of explosions, that "are seen, heard and felt", like this one: "They threw me 40 feet, tumbling along the ground, and when I got up I couldn't hear, because it was like this massive firecracker had gone off." MacQueen also says "We also have accounts from people who had been in the US Army who were trained in explosives."

He concludes: "So I think we can now say that there were explosions. If people want to pretend that the explosions had nothing to do with controlled demolition, then we can have a discussion about that. But nobody should even be trying to say that there weren't explosions. So why is it that the 9/11 Commission does pretend that there weren't any? Why is it that the National Institute of Standards and Technology, after a three year study, concludes that there weren't any? Why do they not even discuss this when they both had access to this testimony?"

(More in next month's Mayday.)

bush_cheney2004 · April 22, 2009

You assume I support war to begin with.

I care not either way. Your "support" is irrelevant, but don't take it personally! :lol:

I see what you did there. Failing to mention I searched and found the information. But you know, deceit, lies. Status Quo.

Nonsense....I've been quoting Desert Fox for years as one of the main Iraq continuum actions by the US/UK.

I know you are not ever going to bother to explain this. So can you clarify this at all?

Again.....it doesn't matter...why dwell on it?

We did not sign up for it. I know that might be too simple of a concept for you to imagine. OH LAWDY!!

"Your" choice....(funny how voters count when you agree).

I wish for genuine debate. Maybe I should go Rabble or something. I ain't finding it here, with all the trolls n all. Sometimes, people just need to not post. Watch this get turned around on me.......

Then go...we'll survive...trolls and all.

segnosaur · April 22, 2009

I agree there is far too much spin and personal attack and dismissal here, and far to little of informed discussion, though at times it is good quality.

Unfortunately, those that favour some sort of master Criminal theory orchistrated by Cheney or some shadowy group don't realy do anything to bring 'informed discussion' to the thread.

Look how often I've asked for some sort of overall description about what happened on 9/11. NOT ONE conspricy theorist has bothered to try to respond in any meaningful way.

New info re WTC, not available yet online, but from Mayday magazine:

Not exactly new.. these same type of arguments have been put forward by conspiricy theorists since day 1, and they have been soundly debunked.

Dr. Graeme MacQueen (retired) from McMaster Peace Studies reviewed 10,000 pages of testimony from 500 firefighters, staff, police and occupants of the WTC and found 118 spontaneous descriptions of perceptions of explosions, that "are seen, heard and felt", like this one: "They threw me 40 feet, tumbling along the ground, and when I got up I couldn't hear, because it was like this massive firecracker had gone off."

I've highlighted the most important word in the above statement... he said it was like a firecracker.

Whenever people experience something out of the ordinary, they tend to put it into terms they can come to grips with. For example, anyone caught in the north tower when the south tower collapsed would probably claim they felt shaking and something that sounded like an explosion. And why wouldn't they? We see a lot of explosions (on TV, in the movies, etc.) Very few of us will here ever be near a collapsing building, so when we have the rumblings and shakings, we're going to try to describe it as somethig we know.

Lets try to think logically about this, ok?

- Notice that in all of this, you won't find anyone who claims they actually saw explosive devices

- These testimonials also tend to lack a time frame. When you take a statement like "threw me 40 feet" without a time frame, is it referring to the time RIGHT BEFORE the collapse? During the collapse? When the planes hit the tower?

He concludes: "So I think we can now say that there were explosions.If people want to pretend that the explosions had nothing to do with controlled demolition, then we can have a discussion about that.

Yes, technially there were explostions... when the plane it the building, the fuel in the tanks exploded. (I'm sure there may have been secondary explisions, such as from UPS batteries overheating.) None of this is any sort of proof of demolition.

Oh, and here's a big question for you... when a building is demolished, the explosives are set off RIGHT BEFORE the building collapses. If you had all these people close enough to hear explosions and be 'thrown back' by them, then how exactly woudl they have survived? A demolished building collapses in less than a minute after detonation; anyone close enough to the demoltion charges would have been crushed.

ironstone · April 22, 2009

Hey Tango,were you one of those three guys on "The Lone Gunmen"? :lol:

Oleg Bach · April 22, 2009

It's kind of allowing a street fight - and not intervening. 9 11 was entertainment for the bored rich oil jerks.

benny · April 22, 2009

The explosion thesis is plausible since renovations in 1998-1999 inside the World Trade Center were directed by Jerome Hauer.

Oleg Bach · April 22, 2009

The explosion thesis is plausible since renovations in 1998-1999 inside the World Trade Center were directed by Jerome Hauer.

Yah - hate to give in but of all the films I have seen of the demolishing of tall buildings via controled explosions = the World Trade Centre looked exactly like that..not saying the planes did not crash into the towers - they did...and the towers fell down..not from planes - but from being underminded by sequential explosions....what gets me is that the terrorists dupes - had no idea that they were being used and double crossed.. :lol:

segnosaur · April 23, 2009

The explosion thesis is plausible since renovations in 1998-1999 inside the World Trade Center were directed by Jerome Hauer.

Ummmm... not really.

You see, I'm starting to ignore your posts because they seem like they are just random junk with no real meaning. At least here you made a real claim, one that, of course, is completely false.

So, exactly how many ways are you wrong? Lets see..

- Jerome Hauer was not involved in renovating the World Trade Center. He was involved with setting up the emergency response center, but he was not involved in doing any sort of wide-scale renovations in the building itself. (The only renovations he would have been involved in were on one floor in WTC7....he would have had nothing to do with the 2 towers, or other floors of WTC7.)

- Where exactly is your proof that the twin towers of the World Trade Center got any sort of renovations (directed by Hauer or anyone else) in 1998/1999?

- How exactly do you think Hauer could have actually managed to plant the tons of explosives needed to bring the buildings down without a lot of help? I'm talking dozens if not hundreds of people running through the buildings, carrying tons of explosives

benny · April 23, 2009

Ummmm... not really.
You see, I'm starting to ignore your posts because they seem like they are just random junk with no real meaning. At least here you made a real claim, one that, of course, is completely false.

So, exactly how many ways are you wrong? Lets see..

- Jerome Hauer was not involved in renovating the World Trade Center. He was involved with setting up the emergency response center, but he was not involved in doing any sort of wide-scale renovations in the building itself. (The only renovations he would have been involved in were on one floor in WTC7....he would have had nothing to do with the 2 towers, or other floors of WTC7.)

- Where exactly is your proof that the twin towers of the World Trade Center got any sort of renovations (directed by Hauer or anyone else) in 1998/1999?

- How exactly do you think Hauer could have actually managed to plant the tons of explosives needed to bring the buildings down without a lot of help? I'm talking dozens if not hundreds of people running through the buildings, carrying tons of explosives

- September 10, 2001, John O'Neill began his new functions as security chief at the WTC; he had been hired by Hauer.

- The morning of 9/11, Hauer had moved temporarily OEM out of WTC7 and in NY port to busy himself with anthrax.

Edited April 23, 2009 by benny

segnosaur · April 23, 2009

- September 10, 2001, John O'Neill began his new functions as security chief at the WTC; he had been hired by Hauer.

O'Neil died on September 11. Not exactly evidence of an internal conspiracy if the people who would have been involved get killed.

Not to mention the fact that you were wrong on your original claim that Hauer was in charge of 'renovations' at the WTC. And not to mention the fact that any sort of plan to plan explosives would also require dozens if not hundreds of people to actually carry on the work, and would require thousands of people to overlook any sort of 'suspicious' activity.

You know, I'm still waiting for your big huge explaination about what happend and when, and who was involved in pulling off 9/11. Come on, we're waiting. You can do it.

tango · April 23, 2009

Yah - hate to give in but of all the films I have seen of the demolishing of tall buildings via controled explosions = the World Trade Centre looked exactly like that..not saying the planes did not crash into the towers - they did...and the towers fell down..not from planes - but from being underminded by sequential explosions....what gets me is that the terrorists dupes - had no idea that they were being used and double crossed..

What do they care? More Americans dead is fine with them. No, I don't think it was a problem for them.

It does look incredibly suspicious doesn't it.

bush_cheney2004 · April 23, 2009

...It does look incredibly suspicious doesn't it.

Nope...the identical target was attacked in 1993...even had "dead Americans". Imagine that.....

tango · April 23, 2009

- How exactly do you think Hauer could have actually managed to plant the tons of explosives needed to bring the buildings down without a lot of help? I'm talking dozens if not hundreds of people running through the buildings, carrying tons of explosives

Easy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_C...ructural_design

Of the 110 stories, eight were set aside for technical services in mechanical floors Level B5/B6 (floors 7/8, 41/42, 75/76, and 108/109), which are four two-floor areas evenly spaced up the building.

And I'll bet there are special secure heavy duty service elevators going directly to those floors.

Couldn't be easier to access the buildings and place explosives. Also, each of those floors had an 'uninterruptible power source' (UPS).

Edited April 23, 2009 by tango

bush_cheney2004 · April 23, 2009

And I'll be there are special secure heavy duty service elevators going directly to those floors.

Not to mention the skylobbies on 44 and 78.....diabolical!

Edited April 23, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

benny · April 23, 2009

O'Neil died on September 11. Not exactly evidence of an internal conspiracy if the people who would have been involved get killed.
Not to mention the fact that you were wrong on your original claim that Hauer was in charge of 'renovations' at the WTC. And not to mention the fact that any sort of plan to plan explosives would also require dozens if not hundreds of people to actually carry on the work, and would require thousands of people to overlook any sort of 'suspicious' activity.

You know, I'm still waiting for your big huge explaination about what happend and when, and who was involved in pulling off 9/11. Come on, we're waiting. You can do it.

It is O’Neill not O’Neil. WTC includes WTC7. Anthrax includes Cipro. Hauer was having the thrill of his life I guess.

segnosaur · April 23, 2009

- How exactly do you think Hauer could have actually managed to plant the tons of explosives needed to bring the buildings down without a lot of help? I'm talking dozens if not hundreds of people running through the buildings, carrying tons of explosives

Easy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_C...ructural_design

Of the 110 stories, eight were set aside for technical services in mechanical floors Level B5/B6 (floors 7/8, 41/42, 75/76, and 108/109), which are four two-floor areas evenly spaced up the building.

You see, this is a perfect illustration of people making claims without thinking through the logic.

What exactly are you suggesting? That it was ONLY those floors that were wired for demolition?

Those floors aren't exactly abandoned. Maintenance staff would require regular access to those areas. (Not exactly the best way to keep things secret.) Not to mention that demoliton crews would never plant explosives on less than 10% when they actually bring down a building. (Heck, that isn't even consistent with the claims of conspricy theorists when they point to their magical 'squibs' and other nonsense.)

Or are you suggesting that they used those areas to store explosives, until it was time to wire the rest of the building?

That doesn't make sense either, since there would never be a time when every floor of the building would be unoccupied. The buildings had hundreds of offices, and many of them would have people working round-the-clock. I'm pretty sure they'd notice people carrying huge piles of explosives around, regardless if they were being brought in from outside or just from a maintenance floor.

Michael Hardner · April 23, 2009

segnosaur,

Those floors aren't exactly abandoned. Maintenance staff would require regular access to those areas. (Not exactly the best way to keep things secret.) Not to mention that demoliton crews would never plant explosives on less than 10% when they actually bring down a building. (Heck, that isn't even consistent with the claims of conspricy theorists when they point to their magical 'squibs' and other nonsense.)

Your point illustrates why it's impossible to pin down truthers. Their arguments are all independent of each others' - random threads that don't make sense when taken together. If you try, for example, to relate the squibs to the so-called vacant floors, they will answer "we don't know - that's why we're asking questions".

This is infuriating to me, when you consider that they accuse the 9/11 commission and/or the government of "ignoring" things like reports of explosions. They accuse others of negligence, but they don't even have a firm theory down themselves - let alone any direct evidence of anything.

They're just sifting through the debris, then picking up random anomalies that can't be immediately explained and posting them as proof of government involvement.

benny · April 23, 2009

I'm pretty sure they'd notice people carrying huge piles of explosives around, regardless if they were being brought in from outside or just from a maintenance floor.

An open mind will not repeat over and over that huge piles of explosive (especially nano- stuff) were absolutely required.

segnosaur · April 23, 2009

O'Neil died on September 11. Not exactly evidence of an internal conspiracy if the people who would have been involved get killed.
Not to mention the fact that you were wrong on your original claim that Hauer was in charge of 'renovations' at the WTC. And not to mention the fact that any sort of plan to plan explosives would also require dozens if not hundreds of people to actually carry on the work, and would require thousands of people to overlook any sort of 'suspicious' activity.

It is O’Neill not O’Neil.

Yes, I typed his name wrong. I find it ironic that, after you have posted so many spectacular blunders in facts, logic and reasoning, that you pick on a small typo in my posting. I guess when you make as many mistakes as you do, you have to do something to try to boost your ego.

Typo aside, I was correct in the facts about the individual... they died during 9/11, so why would it be relevant if Hauer had appointed him? In fact, I can just imagine the meeting now:

Hauer: I'm part of a big conspricy. We're going to blow up the WTC and become really rich and powerful and we want you to be part of it

O’Neill: What do you need me to do?

Hauer: We're going to hire you to work at WTC

O'Neill: Ok

Hauer: Only problem is, you are going to have to get crushed by the building in order for us to become rich and powerful

O'Neill: Go f*ck yourself.

WTC includes WTC7.

It also includes WTC1&2, which also collapsed, which Hauer was not involved with.

Not to mention that the renovations involving Hauer involved only part of WTC7, not the entire building.

Not to mention that even if Hauer managed to wire all of the WTC7 to collapse, you'd have to explain:

- The firemen that saw signs of collapse long before the building collapsed, not exactly the way a demolition works

- How explosives could survive being stuck inside a burning building for hours before the actual collapse, with none of them going off prematurely

Anthrax includes Cipro. Hauer was having the thrill of his life I guess.

Ummm, no. Anthrax is treated with Cipro.

Frankly, I'm not even sure why its relevant. The patent for Cipro is owned by Bayer, Hauer is involved with Hollis-Eden, a totally different drug company. If anything, the whole Anthrax scare would have actually HURT Hauer since it would have benefitted the competition.

You know, I'm still waiting for your big huge explaination about what happend and when, and who was involved in pulling off 9/11. Come on, we're waiting. You can do it.

(Well, maybe you can't actually do it, but I like to remind people that you can't to show how much nonsense your posts include)

segnosaur · April 23, 2009

I'm pretty sure they'd notice people carrying huge piles of explosives around, regardless if they were being brought in from outside or just from a maintenance floor.

An open mind will not repeat over and over that huge piles of explosive (especially nano- stuff) were absolutely required.

So you admit that they 'absolutely' need huge piles of explosives, but at no point have you ever given any sort of reasonable explaination about how:

- they would have been able to sneak such explosives on site so that they would not be discovered by either security or other staff

- how they would have recruited enough people to carry around those huge piles of explosves, without not one of the people coming back later to say "I was involved".

- How they (or even why) they would have coordinated the attack with the "terrorists"

- Why, if it was supposedly such a clean demoltion (all the false claims about the building "falling into its own footprint"), that so many surrounding buildings were damaged (certainly NOT the sign of a building demolition)

benny · April 23, 2009

You know, I'm still waiting for your big huge explaination about what happend and when, and who was involved in pulling off 9/11. Come on, we're waiting. You can do it.
(Well, maybe you can't actually do it, but I like to remind people that you can't to show how much nonsense your posts include)

What happened for sure is the destruction of documents of interest (for those interested to know the truth about 9/11) in the collapse of WTC7.