Author

Topic: I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11 (Read 3069 times)

legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1006
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!

 Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
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.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
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.
Heh, fair enough.

I'll rephrase:  "I don't necessarily believe in 9/11 being a conspiracy by the US government"
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
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.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
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
legendary
Activity: 1264
Merit: 1008
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?

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!         

hero member
Activity: 926
Merit: 1001
weaving spiders come not here
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 ?
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
The conspiracy theory surrounding 911 is a conspiracy designed to make you doubt that the world is really THAT pissed off.
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000
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.
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
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.
hero member
Activity: 496
Merit: 500
I bet this 6 minute video sums it up nicely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6O6sM2Shok
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
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.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
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
legendary
Activity: 826
Merit: 1001
rippleFanatic
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.
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
Many witnesses in and out of the towers reported hearing several explosions. A quick google would show that.
hero member
Activity: 496
Merit: 500
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.


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!
hero member
Activity: 926
Merit: 1001
weaving spiders come not here
hero member
Activity: 496
Merit: 500

- 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?
hero member
Activity: 926
Merit: 1001
weaving spiders come not here
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 1

- 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.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
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
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000

- 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.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500

- 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?
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.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
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.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
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/
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.
hero member
Activity: 926
Merit: 1001
weaving spiders come not here
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...
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
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.
hero member
Activity: 1596
Merit: 566
Eloncoin.org - Mars, here we come!
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.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
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.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
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.
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.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
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?
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
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.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
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.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
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.

sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
exactly what burning jet fuel did on 9/11.


There was no burning jet fuel involved with WTC 7.
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.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
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?
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
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.
sr. member
Activity: 285
Merit: 250
Turning money into heat since 2011.
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!  Tongue
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
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.
hero member
Activity: 926
Merit: 1001
weaving spiders come not here
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
Jump to: