I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11

[Atlas]

[1714063253]

1714063253

[1714063253]

1714063253

[1714063253]

1714063253

[Bitware]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg

[myrkul]

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.

[BitBlitz]

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! 

[Severian]

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.

[Severian]

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?

[JoelKatz]

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.

[Severian]

exactly what burning jet fuel did on 9/11.

There was no burning jet fuel involved with WTC 7.

[JoelKatz]

exactly what burning jet fuel did on 9/11.

There was no burning jet fuel involved with WTC 7.

That's correct. WTC 7 was, in fact, the only collapse of the three that could feasibly have been replicated with explosives. However, the lack of any blast sound on recordings pretty much conclusively rules that possibility out.

[Severian]

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.

[Severian]

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.

[JoelKatz]

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.

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?

[SgtSpike]

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.

[Severian]

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.

[SgtSpike]

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.

I've always kind of wondered why they came straight down, and didn't topple to one side or the other.

[kentrolla]

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.

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?

Joel. you're wasting your time trying to pass any knowledge to these guys. I tried yesterday. I gave up.

Inc. "ignorant American" slander.

[Severian]

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.

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.

[Bitware]

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...

[interlagos]

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.

[Severian]

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.

 

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/