I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 - page 2.

Severian

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 11, 2012, 11:00:49 PM

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? Wink

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on September 11, 2012, 11:04:26 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 11, 2012, 11:00:49 PM

- 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.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on September 11, 2012, 11:00:49 PM

- 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?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

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.

Severian

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: interlagos on September 11, 2012, 09:04:26 PM

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.

Severian

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

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/

interlagos

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/911-is-the-litmus-test-108743) they have failed the test.

Bitware

hero member

Activity: 926

Merit: 1001

weaving spiders come not here

Quote from: JoelKatz on September 11, 2012, 06:19:49 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...

Severian

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: kentrolla on September 11, 2012, 06:56:57 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.

kentrolla

hero member

Activity: 1596

Merit: 566

Eloncoin.org - Mars, here we come!

Quote from: JoelKatz on September 11, 2012, 06:19:49 PM

Quote from: Severian on September 11, 2012, 06:13:55 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on September 11, 2012, 06:09:23 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.

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.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Severian on September 11, 2012, 06:30:02 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on September 11, 2012, 06:19:49 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.

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

Severian

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: JoelKatz on September 11, 2012, 06:19:49 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.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

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.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: Severian on September 11, 2012, 06:13:55 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on September 11, 2012, 06:09:23 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.

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?

Severian

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: JoelKatz on September 11, 2012, 06:09:23 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.

Severian

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

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.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: Severian on September 11, 2012, 06:00:30 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on September 11, 2012, 05:59:12 PM

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

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: JoelKatz on September 11, 2012, 05:59:12 PM

exactly what burning jet fuel did on 9/11.

There was no burning jet fuel involved with WTC 7.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

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

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

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?

Topic: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 - page 2. (Read 3056 times)