Question for those who believe in controlled demolition

[OPECOILER]

I have a question for those who believe that the twin towers were destroyed by explosives-where'd the remnants of the charges go?

To take down a building that big you would need A LOT of charges. I admit I'm not an expert in regards to demolition, but I can safely that to take out both towers and building 7 you would need at a bare minimum 12,000 charges*.

Now after just about every bombing and demolition in history, there have been fragments of the explosives left over. Yet no one saw these in the rubble at GZ. Where'd they go?

Or is it that the controlled demolition argument is utterly ill-thought out and has no basis in reality?

*I'm going by the demolition of the Hudson building in Michigan which took 4,000 charges to bring down. It remains the largest building in the US brought down by CD.

[Gravy]

The mini-nukes eliminated the evidence.

[Freddy]

I'm no demolitions expert either, but don't demolitions typically require so many charges because they want to make sure the surrounding buildings aren't damaged and that no one is hurt? If your goal were just to bring down a building without concern for the people and other buildings in the area, couldn't you get by with far fewer charges? After all, if you get just one floor of WTC 1 or 2 to give out, the whole thing would come down. Wasn't there a demolition guy in here awhile back who said something to this effect?


Please note that I do not believe that explosives were used on any of the buildings, as there is no evidence for that theory, and if explosives were used there would surely be evidence of it. I also don't subscribe to any of the other 9/11 CTs. I'm just not sure that this particular argument is a good one. Luckily, there are plenty of other arguments that are quite good.

[defaultdotxbe]

After all, if you get just one floor of WTC 1 or 2 to give out, the whole thing would come down.
yes, thats true, but 99% of the CD conspiracy theorists dont think thats the case (after all, if one floor can bring down the towers, a plane could probably take out one floor)

the CTers tend to paint themselves into a corner, saying the towers couldnt possibly have fallen from that little damage, but then claim it wouldnt take much damage to bring them down in a CD

[Gravy]

Freddy, what you say is true, but presents serious problems for the conspiracists. Most of them posit that the collapses could not have progressed to the ground without the aid of explosives in the lower sections.

A few conspiracists believe that the tops could have crushed the bottoms, but posit that the collapses were initiated by explosives in the impact areas. This would require fewer explosives – except that the conspirators wouldn't know at what the floors the buildings were "supposed" to collapse. So in reality it would require explosives on many floors. These people are then faced with the problems of explaining how the explosives could have been installed invisibly and then survived the impact, blast, and raging fires. They also would have to explain the visible gradual inward bowing of the exterior columns and the lack of seismic and audiovisual evidence of explosions when the buildings begin to collapse.

How do the conspiracists approach all these problems? They don't.

[Freddy]

Thanks for the replies. I agree that the point I made does not help the CTer's cause at all.

[TruthSeeker1234]

We don't know what may have been found at ground zero. FEMA took over, sealed the perimeter, and confiscated cameras. Perhaps there were all sorts of remnants found.

Having said that, there are certainly problems with the notion that conventional explosives were the main source of destruction. One being the near total pulverization of the entire towers into dust. Almost 100% of the non-metallic contents were dustified. Conventional demolitions do not aim to pulverize anything. They sever the support columns, effectively chopping the building into manageable pieces, and it falls to the ground.

Unfavorable as this observation is to the conventional explosives theory, it is devastating to the gravity collapse theory. This is why OCTs must claim that the building contents survived, and went hiding in the basement.

So for different reasons, I agree with Freddy. Conventional explosives do not explain 9/11.

[tonicblue]

Does anybody know anything about this?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/7199

Gravy have you heard anything about this?

[Gravy]

Does anybody know anything about this?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7199
Gravy have you heard anything about this?

Just bomb scares and confusion. That particular incident was reported on in the press at the time, as an example of the confusion, suspicion, and fear that prevailed. False alarm, like the others.

[Arus808]

We don't know what may have been found at ground zero. FEMA took over, sealed the perimeter, and confiscated cameras. Perhaps there were all sorts of remnants found.

repeating this lie over and over again will never make it true.

[defaultdotxbe]

We don't know what may have been found at ground zero. FEMA took over, sealed the perimeter, and confiscated cameras. Perhaps there were all sorts of remnants found.
but since all the cleanup workers are part of the coverup theyd never tell us what they found

[Gravy]

Truthseeker doesn't even think they found rubble. He is unwell.

[tonicblue]

Just bomb scares and confusion. That particular incident was reported on in the press at the time, as an example of the confusion, suspicion, and fear that prevailed. False alarm, like the others.

I don't think so. Those men reported seeing a van with a mural of planes crashing into new york painted on it. They arrested the men.

[tonicblue]

In February of 2006, the Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies (MTI) published their report entitled: Saving City Lifelines: Lessons Learned in the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks.

There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.
(source: MTI Report 02/06)


How can a truck with that painted on it be a simple bomb scare?

Edit: Why did they describe the mural as showing remote controlled planes?

[Gravy]

I don't think so. Those men reported seeing a van with a mural of planes crashing into new york painted on it. They arrested the men.Yes, and it was a false alarm. The men were released. There was no mural of planes crashing into New York. U-Haul used to have some trucks painted with the New York skyline and jets flying over.

As I said, you can read about that incident in the contemporary press. I did. Fair enough?

[tonicblue]

The NYPD transmission says the truck exploded.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Truthseeker doesn't even think they found rubble. He is unwell.

Gravy, that's the most absurd and easily refuted lie you've come up with. Of course they found rubble. Otherwise, how could we Hunt the Rubble (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/HTRHome.html)?

[gumboot]

The NYPD transmission says the truck exploded.


No transmission in the history of the NYPD has ever been wrong. Ever.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

The NYPD transmission says the truck exploded.
Good lord, tonicblue, the passage you just quoted refutes that. The truck didn't explode, which is why, as I will remind you for the third time, the press used this as an example of the confusion of that day.

You keep doing this. Remember your "no fighters scrambled" claim? Please think.

[gumboot]

You keep doing this. Remember your "no fighters scrambled" claim?


:confused:

When was this?

-Gumboot

[tonicblue]

Good lord, tonicblue, the passage you just quoted refutes that. The truck didn't explode, which is why, as I will remind you for the third time, the press used this as an example of the confusion of that day.

You keep doing this. Remember your "no fighters scrambled" claim?

Please do not bring this up again unless you are wiling to read the contemporaneous accounts. Is that an unfair request?

Could you link me to these accounts? And also a source for the U-haul vans having a new york skyline.

Why does the NYPD say the van exploded but the Mineta report says it didn't? Why does the Mineta report say the van showed a painting of a plane flying into the world trade centre?

[gumboot]

Why does the NYPD say the van exploded but the Mineta report says it didn't?


Why don't you contact (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/phone.html) them and find out?

-Gumboot

[tonicblue]

:confused:

When was this?

-Gumboot

I made no such claim. I simply repeated a pentagon reporters claim that a top official had told him no planes were swcrambled until after the pentagon hit.

The constant changing of NORADs story and Lee Hamilton sdaying he was decieved by them leave me not knowing what to believe.

[Gravy]

Could you link me to these accounts? And also a source for the U-haul vans having a new york skyline.

Why does the NYPD say the van exploded but the Mineta report says it didn't? Why does the Mineta report say the van showed a painting of a plane flying into the world trade centre?In case you missed it the last three times I said it, that's why the press used this story as an example of the confusion of that day. This was the very first 9/11 conspiracy claim I looked into. I had no problem finding the information with Google.

[tonicblue]

In case you missed it the last three times I said it, that's why the press used this story as an example of the confusion of that day. This was the very first 9/11 conspiracy claim I looked into. I had no problem finding the information with Google.

I can't find it on google. If you aren't going to source your claims that's fine.

You said U-haul had the skyline and jets on their vans. Please give me a source for this.

[Gravy]

I made no such claim. I simply repeated a pentagon reporters claim that a top official had told him no planes were swcrambled until after the pentagon hit.

The constant changing of NORADs story and Lee Hamilton sdaying he was decieved by them leave me not knowing what to believe.Why do you not know what to believe?

I gave you the pilots' names, the base they scrambled from, and the time. I also reminded you that hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people saw the fighters over New York shortly after the second tower was hit.

I asked you why you are unwilling to contact any of these people.

What is your reason for choosing to remain ignorant?

[Gravy]

I can't find it on google. If you aren't going to source your claims that's fine.

You said U-haul had the skyline and jets on their vans. Please give me a source for this.All done searching, then? Amazing.

The source for the information on the vans is me. I live in New York City. These vans were a topic of conversation at the time.

[The Doc]

You said U-haul had the skyline and jets on their vans. Please give me a source for this.

Talk to anyone who lived in NYC at the time of 9/11.

Simple.

[tonicblue]

The Mineta report was published in 2006, when all the confusion was resolved. They clearly state the van was painted with an image of the wtc being hit by a plane.

[gumboot]

The constant changing of NORADs story and Lee Hamilton sdaying he was decieved by them leave me not knowing what to believe.



NORAD's story didn't "constantly change". This is a common incorrect claim made by Conspiracy Theorists, and it holds no weight.

NORAD released a timeline of their response which was incorrect. At their initial 9/11 Commission Hearings they presented this version of events.

The Commission then got hold of the NEADS and FAA tape recordings, and realised the NORAD account was incorrect. The NORAD account was then amended to reflect what really happened.

For a comprehensive summary of NORAD's involvement in 9/11, you may like to read this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61752) and this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300).

-Gumboot

[tonicblue]

All done searching, then? Amazing.

The source for the information on the vans is me. I live in New York City. These vans were a topic of conversation at the time.

You have no sources then. Fine.

I have been researching U-haul since you mentioned it. I have done a google image search on their vans and also looked into U-haul history.

I can't find a single van like the ones you claim.

[gumboot]

I can't find a single van like the ones you claim.


Well if there's no images via google of a U-Haul van with an image of NYC on it, it can't possibly exist.

-Gumboot

[tonicblue]

Well if there's no images via google of a U-Haul van with an image of NYC on it, it can't possibly exist.

-Gumboot

It's his claim, his burden. I'm just trying to help him out and I haven't finished.

Tomorrow morning I will ring the New York office of U-haul and ask them.

[Gravy]

You have no sources then. Fine.

I have been researching U-haul since you mentioned it. I have done a google image search on their vans and also looked into U-haul history.

I can't find a single van like the ones you claim.

:hb:

[Gravy]

It's his claim, his burden. I'm just trying to help him out and I haven't finished.

Tomorrow morning I will ring the New York office of U-haul and ask them.And if the clerk isn't aware of the design from five years ago? Try ringing the NYPD bomb squad instead. Or just try that Google search. You gave it all of what, three minutes? It's your claim that the published reports are suspicious. You can easily verify them, just as you can easily verify the NORAD scrambles.

I hope you will.

[tonicblue]

:hb:

Will you address the Mineta report, published in 2006, that clearly states the van had a painting on it of a plane flying into the world trade centre?

[negativ]

The mini-nukes eliminated the evidence.

How dare you deny the contributions of the Satanist* leprechauns? They spent all that time saddle-training the unicorns and eating the sacred Spaghetti only to be disparaged by the likes of you.

You will be among the first up against the wall when the Revolution comes.







* Michael Aquino, not Anton LaVey.

[tonicblue]

And if the clerk isn't aware of the design from five years ago? Try ringing the NYPD bomb squad instead. Or just try that Google search. You gave it all of what, three minutes? It's your claim that the published reports are suspicious. You can easily verify them, just as you can easily verify the NORAD scrambles.

I hope you will.

The U-haul claim was yours. It is your job to back that claim up. You can't.

Edit: I will email the U-haul headquarters. They should know.

[gumboot]

Gravy have you ever personally seen a U-Haul truck with a NYC skyline mural on it, and an aircraft hitting the towers?

-Gumboot

[negativ]

Having said that, there are certainly problems with the notion that conventional explosives were the main source of destruction. One being the near total pulverization of the entire towers into dust. Almost 100% of the non-metallic contents were dustified. Conventional demolitions do not aim to pulverize anything. They sever the support columns, effectively chopping the building into manageable pieces, and it falls to the ground.

This is what a real explosive demolition looks and sounds like. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153) This was a 30-story building constructed in the early 1950s. Please explain to me why nothing remotely close to this was heard at Ground Zero, where buildings orders of magnitude larger are alleged to have been destroyed by explosives.

For bonus points, explain to me why the Landmark Tower in my link was not destroyed by Hush-A-Boom thermite/thermate or perhaps Whisperbang explosives.

[Gravy]

Will you address the Mineta report, published in 2006, that clearly states the van had a painting on it of a plane flying into the world trade centre?Sure. They were reporting what came over the police radio, which was an inaccurate report. Don't believe it? Call the NYPD.

[Gravy]

Gravy have you ever personally seen a U-Haul truck with a NYC skyline mural on it, and an aircraft hitting the towers?

-GumbootNo. A large rental truck company would not put pictures of planes crashing into buildings on their trucks. :)

[The Demon's Head]

According to the troofers, the USG are the worst conspirators in the world. Evidently the USG liked to leave a trace a big clues.

There a huge conspiracy going on, yet the troofers are the only one's who can see it happening.

[tonicblue]

No. A large rental truck company would not put pictures of planes crashing into buildings on their trucks. :)

I have emailed U-haul so lets see what they say.

Why did the police mention remote control? Why does the Mineta report not say that this was inaccurate?

[WildCat]

The U-haul claim was yours. It is your job to back that claim up. You can't.

Edit: I will email the U-haul headquarters. They should know.
Am I to understand that you think that Zionists/neocons/Republicans/Mossad/CIA/Bushies/NWO/freemasons or whoever else you think masterminded the CT would paint a mural of planes hitting the WTC on their "company" trucks? :boggled:

[The Doc]

And detonate it without causing any damage to the World Trade Center?

[tonicblue]

Am I to understand that you think that Zionists/neocons/Republicans/Mossad/CIA/Bushies/NWO/freemasons or whoever else you think masterminded the CT would paint a mural of planes hitting the WTC on their "company" trucks? :boggled:

Well somebody did. The Mineta report in 2006, well after any confusion was resolved, state it as a fact.

[The Doc]

tonic,

Did the Mineta report state that the truck exploded?

[steve s]

Years ago, U-haul did an entire series of murals, one for each state. I can remember seeing a few of them. One had the Golden Gate bridge. The one for Arizona showed Monument Valley. I haven't been able to find the one for NY, but any depiction of NY would certainly have had the Twin Towers in it.

ETA: Here's the one they did for Ohio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UHI_JH9586T_Hpt%2CVA.JPG
Steve S.

[WildCat]

Well somebody did. The Mineta report in 2006, well after any confusion was resolved, state it as a fact.
Well then, your perps should be easy to find. Just find an abandoned warehouse on the outskirts of town w/ crooked floors. This will be the hideout, and the perps should all be dressed alike except for the leader. They'll even likely have nametags, or at least their shirts will be embroidered w/ "Henchman #1. Henchman #2" etc. Be sure to bring your utility belt, as they will likely capture you and leave you to die in a most gruesome manner, but if you have the right tool in your belt you'll escape just in the nick of time and capture them for good next time.

[tonicblue]

Gravy, will you please post the sources to the articles on this that you mentioned. If you don'tI will assume they don't exist. I am leaving trhis thread until I get the email back from U-haul.

Edit: I am searching Lexis. Thus far no stories like the ones you claim.

Your claim, your burden.

[steve s]

Tonic, what exactly did you ask them in your e-mail. The murals were part of a campaign called America's Moving Adventure.


From this site (http://www.csicop.org/sb/2001-12/uhaul.html) comes...
Up until about ten years ago, the trucks were pretty boring, just the logo and the signature red stripe. But in 1988, the company decided it was time for a makeover and launched a campaign titled "America's Moving Adventure." The program featured nearly 200 different images from across the United States (with a similar campaign in Canada), each depicting individual states, provinces, and cities. The images featured large, striking colors and artwork on the sides of trucks and trailers.

Steve S.

[The Doc]

I knew he wouldn't answer me...

"tonic,

Did the Mineta report state that the truck exploded?"

[tonicblue]

Tonic, what exactly did you ask them in your e-mail. The murals were part of a campaign called America's Moving Adventure.


From this site (http://www.csicop.org/sb/2001-12/uhaul.html) comes...


Steve S.

I asked them if they have ever depicted the new york skyline and a jet on any of their trucks.

Gravy specifically said they had a jet on.

[Alareth]

Hey look, all the U-Haul graphics from the "Salute to America" campaign. (http://www.uhaul.com/supergraphics/classic.aspx)

New York only has the Statue of Liberty, no buildings or planes. I didn't look at all of them so there is no ruling out one of them having a something similar.

ETA: All the graphics put on new trucks from 1998 to present (http://www.uhaul.com/supergraphics/)

[Gravy]

And detonate it without causing any damage to the World Trade Center?Actually, it was on King Street, which is far from the WTC. Needless to say, no bomb went off on King Street. tonicblue may not be aware of the many, many bomb scares that day. He or she would rather believe that terrorists were driving around in trucks that illustrated the attacks.

[steve s]

New York only has the Statue of Liberty, no buildings or planes.


That page doesn't have all the pics. There were nearly 200 murals in the series. That page only shows 78.

Steve S.

[Gravy]

Gravy, will you please post the sources to the articles on this that you mentioned. If you don'tI will assume they don't exist. I am leaving trhis thread until I get the email back from U-haul.

Edit: I am searching Lexis. Thus far no stories like the ones you claim.

Your claim, your burden.Sorry, tonic, I looked it up in April. I suggest calling the NYPD. They'll set you straight.

[Alareth]

That page doesn't have all the pics. There were nearly 200 murals in the series. That page only shows 78.

Steve S.

Damn JREF'ers with your "facts" and "evidence" :P

[gumboot]

Do any reports explicitly state it was a U-haul truck?

-Gumboot

[The Doc]

Actually, it was on King Street, which is far from the WTC. Needless to say, no bomb went off on King Street. tonicblue may not be aware of the many, many bomb scares that day. He or she would rather believe that terrorists were driving around in trucks that illustrated the attacks.

Exactly.

I fail to see how detonating a bomb on King St would help the evil conspirazoid overlords in destroying the WTC's.

[negativ]

The NYPD transmission says the truck exploded.

On 9/11/01, I was watching as CNN announced that a car bomb had exploded outside the US Department of State. How have the conspirators been so successful at covering this up? Why has the Truth movement been so hesitant to investigate the car bomb at the State Department?

[gumboot]

No. A large rental truck company would not put pictures of planes crashing into buildings on their trucks. :)


Sorry, let me rephrase...

Have you ever personally seen a truck that had on the side of it imagery depicting a New York City skyline with an aircraft depicted in the sky?

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

Do any reports explicitly state it was a U-haul truck?

-GumbootI can't recall which reports I read, and I'm not about to dig into it again. There's nothing mysterious about it. I'm sure tonicblue will get the straight dope from the people involved.

[Gravy]

Sorry, let me rephrase...

Have you ever personally seen a truck that had on the side of it imagery depicting a New York City skyline with an aircraft depicted in the sky?

-GumbootYes! :D

[The Doc]

tonic... I have to know,

Let's pretend for a second that a van exploded on King St.

What does this prove?

[gumboot]

Yes! :D

Thank you. That's enough for me to accept that such trucks exist. An over-zealous/jittery NYPD officer allows that such imagery may be misinterpreted. And let's be frank... the fact that the renters were middle-eastern and did not speak much english is not a coincidence. In all probability this is the main reason the NYPD were interested in the truck.

From the POV of a middle eastern man, potentially staying illegally in the US... someone just blew up the WTC, if you have a brain you know it was muslim terrorists, and now you've just driven up to an NYPD roadblock where they're taking a GREAT interest in you.

Frankly I might try to run away too.

Not saying it's what happened. Saying it's plausible.

The perpetrators of 9/11 (be they government agents or Al Qaeda or Mossad or whatever) intentionally involving a van depicting the attacks is not even remotely plausible.

-Gumboot

[negativ]

I have emailed U-haul so lets see what they say.

Why did the police mention remote control? Why does the Mineta report not say that this was inaccurate?

Why don't you email the Associated Press, Reuters, the New York Times, Time Magazine, the Bild-Zeitung, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, the National Enquirer, USA Today, Pravda, the Wall Street Journal, The Times (UK), the Los Angeles Times, Yomiuri Shimbun, the BBC, Random House, the Australian, the Houston Chronicle, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, or even the friggin' Weekly World News? Any journalist or editor at any of those publications would eat their grandmother's eyeballs in order to break the story of the Biggest Lie Ever Told.

Why have none of them done so? Is it because they're all IN ON IT, or are they all stupid hypnotized sheeple, or is there not a curious investigative soul among them, or have they all been paid off by the NWO?

Why is it that only a handfull of people on the Internet have managed to uncover this vast conspiracy? Please explain.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

NORAD's story didn't "constantly change". This is a common incorrect claim made by Conspiracy Theorists, and it holds no weight.

NORAD released a timeline of their response which was incorrect. At their initial 9/11 Commission Hearings they presented this version of events.

The Commission then got hold of the NEADS and FAA tape recordings, and realised the NORAD account was incorrect. The NORAD account was then amended to reflect what really happened.

For a comprehensive summary of NORAD's involvement in 9/11, you may like to read this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61752) and this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300).

-Gumboot

Well, that's almost like changing the story. OK, ok, so it wasn't NORAD who changed it. They just got it wrong.

[gumboot]

Well, that's almost like changing the story. OK, ok, so it wasn't NORAD who changed it. They just got it wrong.

It's not so much the "change" part that bugs me. Yes it did change. It went from wrong to right. And that's a change.

It's the idea that it was constantly changing, therefore we can't trust the current version.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

Why have none of them done so? Is it because they're all IN ON IT, or are they all stupid hypnotized sheeple, or is there not a curious investigative soul among them, or have they all been paid off by the NWO?I vote for "paid off by the NWO." It's a well known confirmed peer-reviewed fact that's it's been reported that many have said that the NWO has really been greasing some palms with the $1 trillion they stole from the WTC vaults.

[Gravy]

It's not so much the "change" part that bugs me. Yes it did change. It went from wrong to right. And that's a change.

It's the idea that it was constantly changing, therefore we can't trust the current version.

-GumbootWe've seen ample evidence that conspiracists are deeply suspicious of people who change a story to conform with facts. You'll rarely catch them doing so.

[LashL]

Tonic, what exactly did you ask them in your e-mail. The murals were part of a campaign called America's Moving Adventure.


From this site (http://www.csicop.org/sb/2001-12/uhaul.html) comes...


Steve S.

You are quite correct, and as you noted, there was a similar campaign in Canada. As an aside, the one labelled "Niagara Falls" does depict the Falls, but the focus of the mural is the CN Tower and the Skydome, both of which are, of course, located in Toronto :)

[negativ]

I vote for "paid off by the NWO." It's a well known confirmed peer-reviewed fact that's it's been reported that many have said that the NWO has really been greasing some palms with the $1 trillion they stole from the WTC vaults.

I'd speculate that this averages out to about 12 bucks for every Pulitzer-hungry journalist on the planet.

AND THEY STILL HAVEN'T PAID ME!! Dammit, I've still gotta fix the toilet in the front bathroom. If I don't get my shill money soon, I'm gonna take Them to The People's Court.

[OPECOILER]

We've seen ample evidence that conspiracists are deeply suspicious of people who change a story to conform with facts. You'll rarely catch them doing so.

And yet they have no trouble changing their own stories-remember the dropping of the pod theory between LC1 and 2?

[WildCat]

The perpetrators of 9/11 (be they government agents or Al Qaeda or Mossad or whatever) intentionally involving a van depicting the attacks is not even remotely plausible.

-Gumboot
Don't forget, these are people that believe in energy beam weapons, mini-nukes, Pentagon flyovers, thermite, evil NWO who control everything, etc. It's a cartoon world they live in, why wouldn't the perps drive around in such trucks? :D

At any rate, Nevada's mural (http://www.uhaul.com/supergraphics/view_graphic.aspx?graphic=classic_nevada2&title=Nevada%20-%20Airplane%20racing) could at a glance be interpreted in such a manner.

[Bandersnatch]

Could it be Missouri?

[CHF]

Conventional explosives do not explain 9/11.

Which of course allows twoofers to make up all sorts of stupid things.

Mini-nukes, laser beams, "thermite arson"....

[Myriad]

In 1988, U-Haul launched the SuperGraphic program entitled America's Moving Adventure and Canada's Moving Adventure respectively. Examples of some of the first SuperGraphics were South Dakota's Mount Rushmore and Florida's Space Shuttle. Nearly 200 different images have been created since the SuperGraphics Program began, each one honoring individual states and provinces, and saluting North America's public. The program became an international hit almost immediately, and was praised for its spectacular artwork and compelling subject matter. These classic graphics have won national industry awards for vehicle color design.

While the trucks are adorned with images that represent the states and provinces, the trailers display images that honor individual cities. The SuperGraphics Program was envisioned as a medium to recognize and honor each state and province.
(bold added)

source: http://www.uhaul.com/supergraphics/about.aspx

The posted examples of "classic SuperGraphics" appear to focus on the state and province examples, with few if any "images that honor individual cities" included.

78 Classic images are shown, 44 Modern, and 8 Commemorative. That doesn't add up to "nearly 200," so apparently the city series used on trailers aren't exhibited at the U-Haul site.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[tonicblue]

(bold added)

source: http://www.uhaul.com/supergraphics/about.aspx

The posted examples of "classic SuperGraphics" appear to focus on the state and province examples, with few if any "images that honor individual cities" included.

78 Classic images are shown, 44 Modern, and 8 Commemorative. That doesn't add up to "nearly 200," so apparently the city series used on trailers aren't exhibited at the U-Haul site.

Respectfully,
Myriad


The problem is that the officer in this audio clearly describes a mural that shows a plane swooping into the city and exploding. They also say the two middle eastern looking men run away but are caught.

I can find no mainstream reference to this except the Mineta paper, from 2006, which confirms the detail of the mural.

Gravy has offered no evidence to back up his refutation of this.

[WildCat]

The problem is that the officer in this audio clearly describes a mural that shows a plane swooping into the city and exploding.
Explain how this can be shown in a painting.

[tonicblue]

Explain how this can be shown in a painting.

Well the officer thought it was. Is he lying?

[Bandersnatch]

Do you have any proof it showed this, or a single report?

[tonicblue]

Do you have any proof it showed this, or a single report?

I am trying to find some coverage of this event but none seems to exist. Gravy claims to have seen it but he won't provide links.

The police in the audio describe it that way exactly and they were on the scene. That description is then repeated in the Mineta report, released last year.

[Pardalis]

How do you draw remote controlled airplanes? Unless you draw a big remote with a hand activating it in the foreground and radio waves in the sky? That would make one lousy and cheesy drawing...

What kind of idiots those conspirators are anyways?

[WildCat]

Well the officer thought it was. Is he lying?
No, he's simply describing something in a dramatic fashion. When I was in college a kid set off an m-80 in the lobby of a residence hall. Many people related how he "blew up the building" when in fact there wasn't even any damage at all.

Now, I can see how a mural can depict a plane swooping down, or a plane exploding, but not "swooping into the city and exploding".

And it is just ridiculous to think that your perps (whoever you think they are) would drive around in trucks w/ a mural on the side depicting their terrorist acts. Seriously, that is just incredibly stupid.

[tonicblue]

No, he's simply describing something in a dramatic fashion. When I was in college a kid set off an m-80 in the lobby of a residence hall. Many people related how he "blew up the building" when in fact there wasn't even any damage at all.

Now, I can see how a mural can depict a plane swooping down, or a plane exploding, but not "swooping into the city and exploding".

And it is just ridiculous to think that your perps (whoever you think they are) would drive around in trucks w/ a mural on the side depicting their terrorist acts. Seriously, that is just incredibly stupid.

Your argument from incredulity holds no weight. Please explain the evidence. Gravy already failed to do so.

[WildCat]

Your argument from incredulity holds no weight. Please explain the evidence. Gravy already failed to do so.
What evidence? You have a description that could well be hyperbole. You have a scenario (terrorists driving around in trucks bearing a picture of their acts) that makes no sense. And why would they even need to be in the area in a truck?

Sorry tonicblue, it's just stupid.

[tonicblue]

What evidence? You have a description that could well be hyperbole. You have a scenario (terrorists driving around in trucks bearing a picture of their acts) that makes no sense. And why would they even need to be in the area in a truck?

Sorry tonicblue, it's just stupid.


The officer said the truck had exploded, was that hyperbole?

[WildCat]

The officer said the truck had exploded, was that hyperbole?
No, now it just got more stupid. Where is the poice report? What was the purpose of the explosion? Where is this officer today? etc etc.

Stupid.

[Pardalis]

So a truck exploded, what damage did it do? What was the purpose of this explosion?

If the drivers ran before the truck exploded, isn't it contradictory with suicide terrorism?

[WildCat]

The officer said the truck had exploded, was that hyperbole?
I'm still waiting for you to explain this. So your NWO (or whoever) perps blew up a truck, and then covered it up? Explain.

[Pardalis]

I'm still waiting for you to explain this. So your NWO (or whoever) perps blew up a truck, and then covered it up? Explain.

I bet he's going to say that "they" covered it up because it had an incriminating drawing on it. :boggled:

[JAStewart]

If the truck was meant to explode, what was the point of painting your fellow Jihadists attack on it?

Unless you want to put all the bits of burnt paint together...

Stupid.

[Bandersnatch]

The officer said the truck had exploded, was that hyperbole?

They forgot to mention that in the Mineta report. Now, we have the officer saying that it exploded. The report said nothing happened. Who's the bad source?

[Pardalis]

Guess we'll have to wait for Tonic's return for chapter two of this palpitating new plot twist, "The Terrorist Billboard Truck Conspiracy".

:popcorn2

[gumboot]

The police in the audio describe it that way exactly and they were on the scene.


Were they? How can you tell that? I don't believe they even mention they're NYPD in that audio. One guy gets called "sergeant", and that's it. We don't even know when this audio was recorded. You're accepting a lot of things about this audio without any evidence whatsoever. Pardon me if I refrain.

-Gumboot

[Stellafane]

I need you guys to do me a favor. I know that CT'ers have claimed some mind-numbing things from time to time, but in this thread I saw something so ultra-dimensionally bizzare that it's hard for me not to conclude I must be experiencing a psychotic break with reality:

Is someone really claiming that on 9/11, there were some unaccounted-for terrorists that were driving around in a van with...with...

(Hold on, I need to steady myself before actually writing words this infra-insane)

...a van that actually had a drawing of airplanes crashing into WTC on it???

Why would anyone do something that flatworm-disgracingly stupid???

[WildCat]

Why would anyone do something that flatworm-disgracingly stupid???
We're all awaiting tonicblue's expert explanation for that.

[Gravy]

So when police radioed reports of a missile being fired from the Woolworth building on 9/11, that means a missile was fired from the Woolworth building?

And there was really a bomb in Stuyvesant High School?
And other hijacked planes were really headed for NYC?
And New York University Hospital was really hit by a hijacked airliner?
And there was an explosion at South Street Seaport?
And a missile was fired from the American Express building?
And a white van in Hoboken contained explosives?
And the Washington Monument, the Washington Mall, The White House, and the Sears Tower were hit?

In the heat of the moment, all these things were reported as having possibly or actually occurred, but none did, just as no truck bomb went off on King Street and no one was driving around with a rental truck illustrating a radio-controlled plane crashing into New York City.

[Hokulele]

The problem is that the officer in this audio clearly describes a mural that shows a plane swooping into the city and exploding. They also say the two middle eastern looking men run away but are caught.

I can find no mainstream reference to this except the Mineta paper, from 2006, which confirms the detail of the mural.

Gravy has offered no evidence to back up his refutation of this.


This is not described in the report from the Mineta Institute (http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/02-06.pdf) (linked for those who wish to see this in context). They simply are using an anecdote when describing the process of restoring the Office of Emergency Management. The very paragraph you quote states that "The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck." Regardless of what may or may not have been painted on the truck, it really isn't evidence of anything other than how communications had broken down by that point.

[Brainache]

Maybe they meant that the truck was a bomb. You know, real old and crappy.

Or maybe they were trying to be cool cops and said it was "Da Bomb"(hey it was 2001) coz of all the mad art stuff painted on it.

[Stellafane]

So when police radioed reports of a missile being fired from the Woolworth building on 9/11, that means a missile was fired from the Woolworth building?

And there was really a bomb in Stuyvesant High School?
And other hijacked planes were really headed for NYC?
And New York University Hospital was really hit by a hijacked airliner?
And there was an explosion at South Street Seaport?
And a missile was fired from the American Express building?
And a white van in Hoboken contained explosives?
And the Washington Monument, the Washington Mall, The White House, and the Sears Tower were hit?
...

Why stop there? Al Gore must be president, since it was originally reported that he won Florida. And no one died in the Sago mine disaster, because it was originally reported that everyone survived. And the Oklahoma City bombing was the result of Middle Eastern terrorists, and the D.C. sniper was a military sharpshooter who drove a white van.

Life must be fun when you can pick and choose which realities you want to live in, unencumbered by mere trivialities called "facts."

[PhantomWolf]

So when police radioed reports of a missile being fired from the Woolworth building on 9/11, that means a missile was fired from the Woolworth building?

And there was really a bomb in Stuyvesant High School?
And other hijacked planes were really headed for NYC?
And New York University Hospital was really hit by a hijacked airliner?
And there was an explosion at South Street Seaport?
And a missile was fired from the American Express building?
And a white van in Hoboken contained explosives?
And the Washington Monument, the Washington Mall, The White House, and the Sears Tower were hit?

You forgot the televised reports of a truck bomb being set off outside the Capital Building in D.C.

[gumboot]

What I want to know is how on earth an image on a truck managed to depict an aircraft swooping into the NYC skyline, but also managed to depict said same aircraft exploding.

One would think it would have to be one or the other...

-Gumboot

[TraitorBasher]

What I want to know is how on earth an image on a truck managed to depict an aircraft swooping into the NYC skyline, but also managed to depict said same aircraft exploding.

One would think it would have to be one or the other...

-Gumboot

U-haul certainly didn't depict any of those. Here are the only four truck designs that represent New York in any way.

I wonder which one the officers mistook for a representation of the attack.

[David Wong]

What I want to know is how on earth an image on a truck managed to depict an aircraft swooping into the NYC skyline, but also managed to depict said same aircraft exploding.

One would think it would have to be one or the other...

-Gumboot

I'm thinking it was in panels, like a comic strip.

[Dave Rogers]

U-haul certainly didn't depict any of those. Here are the only four truck designs that represent New York in any way.

I wonder which one the officers mistook for a representation of the attack.

Were there any truck designs that weren't specifically of New York, but depicted skyscrapers and an airliner?

Dave

[TraitorBasher]

That isn't what was alleged. Somebody said that the truck had the New York skyline because it was in New York. That is clearly false.

[The Doc]

I was talking about this specific topic to someone in a chat room the other day.

I redirected them to this thread I think. Specifically Gravy's posts. I think you should read them TraitorBasher.

[Dave Rogers]

That isn't what was alleged. Somebody said that the truck had the New York skyline because it was in New York. That is clearly false.

I'm just wondering whether, if the truck was in New York and it featured a city skyline, it might have been incorrectly assumed to be the New York skyline. Perception isn't perfect, particularly under stress. I'm not pushing a specific theory here, just asking questions.

Dave

[TraitorBasher]

I was talking about this specific topic to someone in a chat room the other day.

I redirected them to this thread I think. Specifically Gravy's posts. I think you should read them TraitorBasher.

I have read them. I don't think this story is that significant but I thought it odd that people were lying about these trucks in New York. They didn't exist. None of those U-haul designs resemble a skyline. Just wanted any lurkers to see who might be lying.

[Gravy]

This idiotic issue is being resurrected? Here's a post about it in another thread. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2462243&postcount=453

You're sure working hard to bring down the evil worldwide terrorist organization that's known as the NWO, TraitorBasher! When you've solved this pressing issue, can you apply your investigative skills to finding out what NWO conspirator was behind this terror campaign?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046273289619c2.jpg

[Gravy]

I have read them. I don't think this story is that significant but I thought it odd that people were lying about these trucks in New York. They didn't exist. None of those U-haul designs resemble a skyline. Just wanted any lurkers to see who might be lying.How about "mistaken," chief? That ever occur to you? Had I known it would be brought up by paranoiacs five years later, I would have taken notes.

[CHF]

It's amazing how we all see mistakes every day of our lives yet when it comes to 9/11 no mistaken observations of statements are possible.

The guy at the office who orders stock gets legal size paper instead of letter....your roommate doesn't take out the trash because he thought you had already done it....you identify a car as blue when it was green....

Mistakes happen! Except on the most chaotic day in US history, I guess :rolleyes:

[Belz...]

We don't know what may have been found at ground zero. FEMA took over, sealed the perimeter, and confiscated cameras. Perhaps there were all sorts of remnants found.

Just caught this.

Typical truther "speculation to evidence" conversion.

[Vincent Vega]

With explosive detonations there is residue left over, to include spalling on the steel from the cutting charges.

I never understood how CD'ers thought the charges were detonated. Radio transmitters in a signal rich environment like Manhattan? Miles of wiring?

When asked how the explosives would have survived the crashes and fire they mumble something about "thermal resistant explosives". Even if the the explosives were hardened against the effects of fire (5 min, perhaps, an hour is doubtful), detonators cannot. Static charges, fire and even jolting can set them off.

Charges at the point of collapse is bad enough. Once we move on to charges on every floor we get into the realm of insanity. CD'ers simply do not understand that energy is energy, whether chemical or kinetic. I did the calcs once regarding the amount of stored potential energy in the buildings, it came to equal hundreds of pounds of TNT per floor. Hence the explosive expulsion of dust and debris.

Since none of this is at all practical, the CD'ers (Christopheria) came up with the plastic explosive coated rebar as a workaround. Nevermind the WTC towers lacked structral rebar.

[JonnyFive]

U-haul certainly didn't depict any of those. Here are the only four truck designs that represent New York in any way.

I wonder which one the officers mistook for a representation of the attack.

Two of those designs are not NY-specific (the helicopter and the "United We Stand" Statue of Liberty are country-wide commerative designs), you're missing at least one of the state-specific graphics (the speed skater one (http://www.uhaul.com/supergraphics/view_graphic.aspx?graphic=classic_new_york2&title=New%20York%20-%20Speed%20skating) that can be found on the Uhaul web site), and the two NY-specific ones are the new graphic series. The old one was retired in '97, but that doesn't mean they didn't have any of the old designed trucks in the fleet.

As pointed out earlier, there were something like 200 graphics in the old series (not sure of the number in the new series). The U-Haul site shows only 78.