|
Title: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Atlas on September 11, 2012, 03:40:50 PM Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Bitware on September 11, 2012, 06:44:57 PM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: myrkul on September 11, 2012, 07:52:36 PM I have a quick question on this subject someone may be able to answer: Do planning regulations for skyscrapers and similar structures require the submission or integration of demolition methods for when the building reaches the end of its designed life expectancy? No, but there are demolition companies who can easily plan these things working only from plans, and then set it up pretty quickly, usually 2-3 days for a controlled implosion. There's no "self-destruct" button, if that's what you're asking. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: BitBlitz on September 11, 2012, 09:46:43 PM Wait! Things fall at the same rate due to Earth's gravity??!?
You've uncovered a major part of the grand conspiracy. Newton did it! Gravity- its an inside job! :P Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Severian on September 11, 2012, 09:49:44 PM Wait! Things fall at the same rate due to Earth's gravity??!? That's the point. For WTC 7 to have symmetrically collapsed at near free-fall, all of the supports of the building had to have failed at the same time. It's a statistically improbable event. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Severian on September 11, 2012, 09:58:41 PM Yep, tall things tend to fall over easily. WTC 7 fell down, not over. You do realize how much energy it would take to destroy 80+ steel and concrete columns at the same time? Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: JoelKatz on September 11, 2012, 09:59:12 PM Controlled demolitions exploit the natural tendency of things to fall down when the things that support them are destroyed. It's not a coincidence. You don't do a controlled demolition of a building by breaking every single piece of it. You destroy the critical supports and then let it collapse on its own -- exactly what burning jet fuel did on 9/11. There's an engineering report on the collapse that's very complete and explains exactly which structures failed, how, and why that lead to the total collapse of the building. It's not a mystery.
Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Severian on September 11, 2012, 10:00:30 PM exactly what burning jet fuel did on 9/11. There was no burning jet fuel involved with WTC 7. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: JoelKatz on September 11, 2012, 10:09:23 PM exactly what burning jet fuel did on 9/11. There was no burning jet fuel involved with WTC 7. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Severian on September 11, 2012, 10:11:46 PM Million to one odds do come up, maybe that's what this was because the alternative is simply to big for my mind to accept. Three steel-framed buildings collapsing due to fire on the same day is too much for me to accept. I don't know what actually happened, but what we were told doesn't add up. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Severian on September 11, 2012, 10:13:55 PM the lack of any blast sound on recordings pretty much conclusively rules that possibility out. The video evidence of possible demolition charges on WTC 7 is more compelling than NIST's explanation. NIST had to change it's story when a sizable number of physicists and engineers questioned their original report. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: JoelKatz on September 11, 2012, 10:19:49 PM the lack of any blast sound on recordings pretty much conclusively rules that possibility out. The video evidence of possible demolition charges on WTC 7 is more compelling than NIST's explanation. NIST had to change it's story when a sizable number of physicists and engineers questioned their original report. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: SgtSpike on September 11, 2012, 10:23:31 PM I've always found this conspiracy particularly interesting for some reason. I don't know what to believe, and don't really care anymore at this point. What happened, happened, and if it truly was a conspiracy, it will someday be revealed. Evidence points both ways.
I have an interesting hour-and-a-half video from the conspiracy side that I'll upload if anyone cares to watch it. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Severian on September 11, 2012, 10:30:02 PM How do you explain the absence of a blast sound? And what's wrong with NIST changing their explanation when made aware of facts that contradict their previous explanation? Isn't that what they should do? I don't. I trust my eyes and my common sense over the pronouncements of government agencies. There are videos that purport to have sounds of detonations on them. I'm sure you could find them and make up your own mind. I spent my younger years (long ago) as a builder. The chances of all supports in any building failing at the same time so as to cause symmetric collapse is unheard of unless they have some help. It happened three times on 9/11. Too much for me to swallow. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: SgtSpike on September 11, 2012, 10:52:26 PM How do you explain the absence of a blast sound? And what's wrong with NIST changing their explanation when made aware of facts that contradict their previous explanation? Isn't that what they should do? I don't. I trust my eyes and my common sense over the pronouncements of government agencies. There are videos that purport to have sounds of detonations on them. I'm sure you could find them and make up your own mind. I spent my younger years (long ago) as a builder. The chances of all supports in any building failing at the same time so as to cause symmetric collapse is unheard of unless they have some help. It happened three times on 9/11. Too much for me to swallow. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: kentrolla on September 11, 2012, 10:56:57 PM the lack of any blast sound on recordings pretty much conclusively rules that possibility out. The video evidence of possible demolition charges on WTC 7 is more compelling than NIST's explanation. NIST had to change it's story when a sizable number of physicists and engineers questioned their original report. Inc. "ignorant American" slander. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Severian on September 11, 2012, 10:59:24 PM Joel. you're wasting your time trying to pass any knowledge to these guys. I tried yesterday. I gave up. Just because you and I disagree with each other doesn't mean that either one of us possesses superior knowledge. We have our opinions. That's it. We all know what opinions are worth. Quote Inc. "ignorant American" slander. I believe I said "gullible" but I've also been known to use "ignorant" in regards to Americans, especially when it comes to history and economics. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Bitware on September 11, 2012, 11:53:23 PM How do you explain the absence of a blast sound? Joel, there were many reports of numerous explosions/blasts on 9/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n593Hth8h9M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Iup3z_gTw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URpC6C3FRbk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N_geMb9NOs many many more too How were these and countless other similar issues and voices missing from media, congressional hearings and report, NIST report, etc... Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: interlagos on September 12, 2012, 01:04:26 AM It's funny how this subject shows real faces of some highly respected individuals on this forum, well maybe they are just afraid to express freely on this matter and that's understandable.
Anyways, according to this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108743.0) they have failed the test. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Severian on September 12, 2012, 01:50:38 AM I'm pretty sure they don't. The supports failed due to fire, according to NIST. Or something. We can't know because NIST won't release their data. Quote NIST’s WTC 7 model shows a longer fall time, no eight-story period of free fall, and massive deformations that are not seen in the actual video footage of the WTC 7 fall.[3] So NIST’s model does not replicate reality and is therefore not a valid scientific experiment. Because the model is not a valid experiment, none of its results count as supporting evidence. So NIST, contrary to their pronouncements, has no scientific evidence at all to support their hypothesis as to how WTC 7 came down. Claiming to have scientific supporting evidence when none actually exists is misrepresentation. It is outright fraud. To make matters worse, the data their WTC 7 computer model is based on is unavailable to independent researchers. It is unavailable because NIST refuses to release it. NIST has stated that releasing the data “might jeopardize public safety”.[4] The NIST experiment therefore cannot be independently verified or validated. So NIST’s only evidence for their hypothesis, their computer model, violates both scientific principles for computer modelling and is therefore scientifically irrelevant. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the official hypothesis for WTC 7′s fall. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/10/911-pseudo-science-a-us-foreign-policy-built-on-fraud/ Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Severian on September 12, 2012, 01:56:33 AM maybe they are just afraid to express freely on this matter and that's understandable. It's part of social control. It's like living in medieval Europe and having to say that you believe all the claptrap taught by the Church even if you know it's BS. If you didn't profess faith in the fables of the Church and State, you were an outcast. 9/11 fits the same mold. It's akin to an American religion. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: FirstAscent on September 12, 2012, 03:00:49 AM Notice what is common about all of these subjects? They are:
- The subject is called a conspiracy theory - The believer insists the government is pulling the wool over our eyes - The believer insists the event was masterminded by the government. - The conspiracy requires whole organizations to remain quiet and lie. - The so called experts are actually a minority compared to the number of real experts in the field - If you look closely, you'll see careful editing and cutting of the interviews of the experts - The believer accuses the public for being sheep. - The believer has a major distrust of the government. - The believer credits the government for masterminding complex scenarios. - The believer thinks the government is horribly incompetent (except in masterminding these events). The last two, taken together, are particularly interesting. Examples include: - The Moon landing - 911 - Even the Colorado shooting (people on this forum think it was faked) - Assassinations - Etc. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: bb113 on September 12, 2012, 03:04:26 AM - The believer credits the government for masterminding complex scenarios. - The believer thinks the government is horribly incompetent (except in masterminding these events). Well, which is it then? Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: FirstAscent on September 12, 2012, 04:59:42 AM - The believer credits the government for masterminding complex scenarios. - The believer thinks the government is horribly incompetent (except in masterminding these events). Well, which is it then? It's both. The believer is generally inconsistent in his logic. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Severian on September 12, 2012, 07:21:20 AM Notice what is common about all of these subjects? They are: - The subject is called a conspiracy theory The government's theory is also a conspiracy theory. The fact is, the official pet conspiracy theory has just as many holes as anyone else's official pet conspiracy theory. I don't know what happened but I do know bullshit when I hear it. Quote The believer has a major distrust of the government. And many are here on bitcointalk.org because...why? ;) Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Atlas on September 12, 2012, 07:23:16 AM - The believer credits the government for masterminding complex scenarios. - The believer thinks the government is horribly incompetent (except in masterminding these events). Well, which is it then? It's both. The believer is generally inconsistent in his logic. I have never claimed the American government perpetrated this attack. Rather, a well-funded, impassioned and well-organized intelligence agency known as the Israeli Mossad is the likely perpetrator of this attack. Title: The Israeli's Post by: Bitware on September 12, 2012, 08:57:28 AM The Israeli's - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8EweNlo8LA
Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: interlagos on September 12, 2012, 09:29:21 AM - The believer credits the government for masterminding complex scenarios. - The believer thinks the government is horribly incompetent (except in masterminding these events). Well, which is it then? It's both. The believer is generally inconsistent in his logic. The government is not a single monolithic entity, there are dozens of fractions with their own conflicting interests or so it seems. But the fishy part is no matter what talking head they put at their facade, the gist of the policy never changes despite loud promises of otherwise. Don't you find it suspicious? Anyway, forget the building 7, why fighter jets weren't scrambled? Is it really that simple to hit the military headquarters of the most powerful country on Earth? Just quietly maneuver a commercial aircraft and crash it? Really? And nobody in the whole country would move a finger? Really? Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Bitware on September 12, 2012, 09:33:30 AM Full - http://vimeo.com/39578648
Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: interlagos on September 12, 2012, 12:48:38 PM exactly what burning jet fuel did on 9/11. There was no burning jet fuel involved with WTC 7. The lack of something cannot conclusively rule anything out. It's like saying "No one has seen it, therefore it doesn't exist" Lol. Didn't it occur to anybody that there are technologies other than explosives to deal with steel support beams without any sound? Something like high temperature chemical reaction involving thermite? Oops, haven't heard of that one! Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Atlas on September 12, 2012, 12:53:08 PM Many witnesses in and out of the towers reported hearing several explosions. A quick google would show that.
Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: bitcoinBull on September 12, 2012, 01:11:05 PM Many witnesses in and out of the towers reported hearing several explosions. A quick google would show that. Yes, esplosions heard in the twin towers. But your gif was of WTC 7, which collapsed several hours after the twin towers. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: myrkul on September 12, 2012, 01:25:53 PM Many witnesses in and out of the towers reported hearing several explosions. A quick google would show that. Yes, esplosions heard in the twin towers. But your gif was of WTC 7, which collapsed several hours after the twin towers. I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u2lp4d1GjzE#! Edit: and this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=972ETepp4GI Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Atlas on September 12, 2012, 01:27:14 PM Many witnesses in and out of the towers reported hearing several explosions. A quick google would show that. Yes, esplosions heard in the twin towers. But your gif was of WTC 7, which collapsed several hours after the twin towers. I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u2lp4d1GjzE#! If anything, the type of smoke and flames is a clear indicator of explosives. Similar plane crashes don't result in the same results. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: interlagos on September 12, 2012, 03:36:33 PM I bet this 6 minute video sums it up nicely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6O6sM2Shok Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: CoinDiver on September 12, 2012, 03:54:49 PM I bet this 6 minute video sums it up nicely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6O6sM2Shok Perfect! Both "sides" are insane. The truth almost certainly lies somewhere in the middle. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: benjamindees on September 12, 2012, 05:59:22 PM When we say that the government is "incompetent" we mean incompetent at governing, not at blowing things up, lying and killing people.
They seem to be rather good at that. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: drakahn on September 12, 2012, 06:01:11 PM The conspiracy theory surrounding 911 is a conspiracy designed to make you doubt that the world is really THAT pissed off.
Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Bitware on September 12, 2012, 06:25:55 PM I dont KNOW what happened but I know it was not handled as a crime.
I know there needs to be a real investigation, but all the evidence was gone as soon as it was removed from the site. Government is bad at stuff because the reasons we are given for them doing stuff isnt the main reasons, so they are very inept and inefficient at doing what they say they are going to do. For instance, if FEMA really were about helping the people, they wouldnt suck at it, so what IS FEMA good at? Government is a bad nanny and wastes your money. What is goverment good at? Violence, fear, intimidation, takings, making laws, enforcing laws, imprisoning offenders, stealing money, tyranny, oppression, etc... they are very good at keeping power and controlling you... their very existence requires these things, so we were supposedly given tools to combat them... how are those tools working for you lately ? Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: hashman on September 13, 2012, 04:19:39 PM the lack of any blast sound on recordings pretty much conclusively rules that possibility out. The video evidence of possible demolition charges on WTC 7 is more compelling than NIST's explanation. NIST had to change it's story when a sizable number of physicists and engineers questioned their original report. Just curious, what spooks are we trying to impress here? Help me out please I'm not getting it. Countless examples of blast sounds which were reported on the news that day and described ad nauseum by eyewitnesses as I'm sure you know, one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IzRnjHfMyc0#t=27s It's not like stating the obvious (controlled demolition) goes against the official story, after all the official story is that it was terrorists, nobody has been charged, nobody has lost their job, investigations of foreknowledge (financial / SEC / Able danger / NIST) have completely destroyed all evidence and its time to move on and do better in the future with a strong fatherland security force right? I mean, it's not like I have a clue who was involved and what happened when, but somebody please let me know if it help me somehow to act like a total fucking idiot. Thanks! Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: SgtSpike on September 13, 2012, 04:34:57 PM I posted this in the other 9/11 thread already, but everyone should watch this video, regardless of which side you are on. And certainly, give your opinion of the evidence it presents. I don't necessarily believe in 9/11 being a conspiracy, but I am not discounting the idea either.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/76051207/9_11_Conspiracy.avi Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Severian on September 13, 2012, 04:38:27 PM I don't necessarily believe in 9/11 being a conspiracy The only thing the government and its detractors agree on is that it was a conspiracy. It just depends on which conspiracy theory one is partial to. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: SgtSpike on September 13, 2012, 05:19:31 PM I don't necessarily believe in 9/11 being a conspiracy The only thing the government and its detractors agree on is that it was a conspiracy. It just depends on which conspiracy theory one is partial to. I'll rephrase: "I don't necessarily believe in 9/11 being a conspiracy by the US government" Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: Severian on September 13, 2012, 05:33:32 PM I'll rephrase: "I don't necessarily believe in 9/11 being a conspiracy by the US government" I respect that but also gently point out that members of the US government have stated they were stonewalled in their investigations by other members of the government, specifically the Executive Branch and intelligence sectors. Efforts to cover for one's own negligence in the commission of a crime that one had no part in puts someone on the same moral and perhaps legal ground as the actual criminals. Title: Re: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 Post by: foggyb on September 13, 2012, 05:46:08 PM Notice what is common about all of these subjects? They are: - The subject is called a conspiracy theory - The believer insists the government is pulling the wool over our eyes - The believer insists the event was masterminded by the government. - The conspiracy requires whole organizations to remain quiet and lie. - The so called experts are actually a minority compared to the number of real experts in the field - If you look closely, you'll see careful editing and cutting of the interviews of the experts - The believer accuses the public for being sheep. - The believer has a major distrust of the government. - The believer credits the government for masterminding complex scenarios. - The believer thinks the government is horribly incompetent (except in masterminding these events). If you don't think the government is puling the wool over your eyes, maybe that just means..... ITS WORKING! :) |
