5 ms·

What's to explain about a controlled demolition? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

by ferdo 13y ago

PavlovsCat 13y ago
or: http://wtc7.net/ http://wtc7.net/ Fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed. Is any of the above untrue? Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world histor? [..] ? Why indeed? That's just scraping the surface, and attacking the ones who ask the questions you kinda should ask yourself, is just being silly. It's been nearly 12 years now, there is no excuse anymore, the shock wore off; "you" accepted Gitmo, so you can deal with this. Wo/man up.
- jussij 13y ago
  > Fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. Unless you replicate all the aspects of the event that statement is meaningless. What other steel building has been hit by a 300 tonne aircraft, fully loaded with jet fuel and flying at full speed? It is actually pretty easy to understand why these steel buildings fell. All it takes is stock standard structural engineering modelling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FfAYIaH-wE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FfAYIaH-wE Now this modelling involves a high level of maths, but we do know the modelling is correct. Why? Because that exact structural engineering modelling is used to put up these massive sky scrappers. I take it you do you not accept the maths?
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    What other steel building has been hit by a 300 tonne aircraft, fully loaded with jet fuel and flying at full speed? This is about WTC 7.
    - jussij 13y ago
      You’re correct. To replicate the event you're describing, we need to have a multi-million tonne building, close to our steel building and we need to make that first building collapse. Naturally flying a plane into the first building won't make if fall, so we'll need a few hundred kilos of strategically placed C4 in that building to bring it down. To hide that C4 explosion we'll use the plane flying into the building as a diversion but at least we're guaranteed to bring down that first building. Now we have a collapsing multi-million tonne building close to the steel building we are trying to bring down and that event will be creating millions of tons of flying debris. Naturally, that amount of flying debris won't be enough to collapse the target building, but luckily we also places some C4 in a second building that is also close by. Once again we are going to need a second plane to hide the C4 explosion in that second building, but that should be easy enough to arrange. Now we've managed to bring down two massive multi-million tonne buildings and created flying debris with the equivalent energy of thousands of tons of C4 but we always knew that wouldn't be enough energy to bring down our target building. Luckily, while laying the C4 charges on the other two buildings, we also manage to plant a few hundred kilos of C4 in the third building. Now to finish the job, all we have to do is detonate those last few kilos of C4 and no one will be the wiser. What a simple plan. It's fool proof and using the planes to cover up the C4 explosions is a stroke of genius. The only problem we face is this last explosion makes the building collapse like a demolition. We should have thought about that!!!
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Notice that the nutters never have any explanation for why conspirators would 1) bother with the 3rd building (are not the first two enough? The third didn't even get much publicity, it surely did little to rally public support) 2) wait so long after the collapse of the first to blow the 3rd (why wait? Surely one of the conspirators should have pointed out that a wait would only serve to make people suspicious. take it down seconds after one next to it falls and everything will look much more "natural") 3) bother with C4 at all (aren't planes slamming into buildings horrific enough? Controlled detonation of them afterwards adds very little but VASTLY increases the chances of something going wrong or the conspiracy being uncovered). Conspiracy theorists almost never put themselves in the minds of the alleged conspirators. They latch onto things that are odd or unusual but the explanations they offer never actually reduce the oddness. WTC7 falling a few hours later is odd... it being blown up deliberately a few hours later is even more odd.
  - olvar 13y ago
    The link you provide is not relevant to your point. Is a simulation of the impact, but says nothing about the collapse of the buildings.
    - jussij 13y ago
      Are you serious? A video showing how the structural integrity of a building is severely compromised and it doesn't explain why the building collapsed? Seems like a fairly myopic view to me. I look at that video and to me it highlights the amazingly good structural engineering used in the design of the building. For it to have taken such a massive hit and still manage to stay standing for as long as it did is a credit to the designers. If only they had done a better job spacing the emergency exits many lives would have been saved.
ollysb 13y ago
This seems like a pretty decent explanation http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  Thanks, a lot of that is very interesting indeed, but is there a version without the constant (and sometimes rather low) personal attacks against a vague group of people? I'm old enough to read past them, but still, bleh. "The conspiracy theorists" are not some monolithic group, for example: http://www.ae911truth.org/ http://www.ae911truth.org/
jussij 13y ago
> What's to explain about a controlled demolition? The physics of a controlled demolition is fairly simple. Take out or weaken one a few pillars and the weight of the building will do the rest. Why would it not possible for a fire and/or an explosion to do exactly the same thing? Nothing. Lets assume it was a controlled demolition. Now answer these obvious questions that this would raise. Did all the people in the building not see the dynamite strapped to the pillars? Did they not see the 100s of meters of wires? When did the guys that wired the build do the wiring? Was it during working hours or after hours? How come no camera, person or security guard managed to see them?
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  Why would it not possible for a fire and/or an explosion to do exactly the same thing? Because it would very likely tip over, or at least veer to one direction, instead of folding neatly into itself. Did all the people in the building not see the dynamite strapped to the pillars? What makes you assume dynamite? Did they not see the 100s of meters of wires? What makes you assume wires? When did the guys that wired the build do the wiring? Who knows? When did the dude who sucked at flying sports planes learn to fly a boeing so well? How did a passport of one of the attackers allegedly get found on the scene? If you want a conspiracy theory, try a bunch of guys taking down THREE high rises with TWO airplanes and a bunch of box cutters. Hah. Was it during working hours or after hours? How is that relevant? How come no camera, person or security guard managed to see them? Are you say it's not possible to deposit bags of C4 (etc.) with remote triggers in the right spots even just 10 minutes before impact, and safely get out? Or, to be alone in a room just enough to hide it in the ceiling or walls or wherever? I'm not saying it's easy, but it seems easier than even just flying a boeing so well without practical experience, or such a tall skyscraper folding neatly just by pure luck, and both of that happening twice on one day.
  - Phlarp 13y ago
    Listen to yourself. The last paragraph is utter nonsense. I actually agree that we aren't being told the full story on 9/11 but you make these accusations with zero grasp on the reality of how much work it takes to down a building like that. Demolitions like what you describe take months of prep, a gutted building, and precise explosives wrapped around multiple central supports. A few bricks of C4 on remote detonators stashed above a drop ceiling is never going to take out an entire building, let alone in the controlled way you claim occurred here... just synchronizing wireless detonators to explode simultaneously is a non-trivial technical feat. (Independent synchronised clocks and all the calculations for the travel time of the signal through various materials to different locations) I'm not saying it's not possible, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence I'm adamant that we're being lied to about things related to these attacks, but making things up to fill the vacuum of information is behavior that belongs back in the middle ages.
anonymous 13y ago
> This is an orange Well... ok, let's assume it is. > If you were told it's something different you wouldn't believe it. Sure I would. It could be an apple wrapped in an orange shell. It could be a hologram. It could be a picture of an orange with a small kitten hidden behind it. It could, indeed, even be a chroma-shifted live-view of earth from space. > What does it look like to you? Looks like all the supports gave out at pretty much the same time. Like if there was a large fire and badly maintained fireproofing on them. Or maybe a gang of small kittens chewed them off. You have to admit it looks precisely like it would if you had a thousand kittens scratching at the supports simultaneously (assuming robot kittens, of course).

What's to explain about a controlled demolition? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

by ferdo 13y ago

What's to explain about a controlled demolition? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

PavlovsCat 13y ago

or: http://wtc7.net/ http://wtc7.net/ Fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed. Is any of the above untrue? Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world histor? [..] ? Why indeed? That's just scraping the surface, and attacking the ones who ask the questions you kinda should ask yourself, is just being silly. It's been nearly 12 years now, there is no excuse anymore, the shock wore off; "you" accepted Gitmo, so you can deal with this. Wo/man up.

jussij 13y ago
> Fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. Unless you replicate all the aspects of the event that statement is meaningless. What other steel building has been hit by a 300 tonne aircraft, fully loaded with jet fuel and flying at full speed? It is actually pretty easy to understand why these steel buildings fell. All it takes is stock standard structural engineering modelling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FfAYIaH-wE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FfAYIaH-wE Now this modelling involves a high level of maths, but we do know the modelling is correct. Why? Because that exact structural engineering modelling is used to put up these massive sky scrappers. I take it you do you not accept the maths?
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  What other steel building has been hit by a 300 tonne aircraft, fully loaded with jet fuel and flying at full speed? This is about WTC 7.
  - jussij 13y ago
    You’re correct. To replicate the event you're describing, we need to have a multi-million tonne building, close to our steel building and we need to make that first building collapse. Naturally flying a plane into the first building won't make if fall, so we'll need a few hundred kilos of strategically placed C4 in that building to bring it down. To hide that C4 explosion we'll use the plane flying into the building as a diversion but at least we're guaranteed to bring down that first building. Now we have a collapsing multi-million tonne building close to the steel building we are trying to bring down and that event will be creating millions of tons of flying debris. Naturally, that amount of flying debris won't be enough to collapse the target building, but luckily we also places some C4 in a second building that is also close by. Once again we are going to need a second plane to hide the C4 explosion in that second building, but that should be easy enough to arrange. Now we've managed to bring down two massive multi-million tonne buildings and created flying debris with the equivalent energy of thousands of tons of C4 but we always knew that wouldn't be enough energy to bring down our target building. Luckily, while laying the C4 charges on the other two buildings, we also manage to plant a few hundred kilos of C4 in the third building. Now to finish the job, all we have to do is detonate those last few kilos of C4 and no one will be the wiser. What a simple plan. It's fool proof and using the planes to cover up the C4 explosions is a stroke of genius. The only problem we face is this last explosion makes the building collapse like a demolition. We should have thought about that!!!
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Notice that the nutters never have any explanation for why conspirators would 1) bother with the 3rd building (are not the first two enough? The third didn't even get much publicity, it surely did little to rally public support) 2) wait so long after the collapse of the first to blow the 3rd (why wait? Surely one of the conspirators should have pointed out that a wait would only serve to make people suspicious. take it down seconds after one next to it falls and everything will look much more "natural") 3) bother with C4 at all (aren't planes slamming into buildings horrific enough? Controlled detonation of them afterwards adds very little but VASTLY increases the chances of something going wrong or the conspiracy being uncovered). Conspiracy theorists almost never put themselves in the minds of the alleged conspirators. They latch onto things that are odd or unusual but the explanations they offer never actually reduce the oddness. WTC7 falling a few hours later is odd... it being blown up deliberately a few hours later is even more odd.
- olvar 13y ago
  The link you provide is not relevant to your point. Is a simulation of the impact, but says nothing about the collapse of the buildings.
  - jussij 13y ago
    Are you serious? A video showing how the structural integrity of a building is severely compromised and it doesn't explain why the building collapsed? Seems like a fairly myopic view to me. I look at that video and to me it highlights the amazingly good structural engineering used in the design of the building. For it to have taken such a massive hit and still manage to stay standing for as long as it did is a credit to the designers. If only they had done a better job spacing the emergency exits many lives would have been saved.

ollysb 13y ago

This seems like a pretty decent explanation http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

PavlovsCat 13y ago
Thanks, a lot of that is very interesting indeed, but is there a version without the constant (and sometimes rather low) personal attacks against a vague group of people? I'm old enough to read past them, but still, bleh. "The conspiracy theorists" are not some monolithic group, for example: http://www.ae911truth.org/ http://www.ae911truth.org/

jussij 13y ago

> What's to explain about a controlled demolition? The physics of a controlled demolition is fairly simple. Take out or weaken one a few pillars and the weight of the building will do the rest. Why would it not possible for a fire and/or an explosion to do exactly the same thing? Nothing. Lets assume it was a controlled demolition. Now answer these obvious questions that this would raise. Did all the people in the building not see the dynamite strapped to the pillars? Did they not see the 100s of meters of wires? When did the guys that wired the build do the wiring? Was it during working hours or after hours? How come no camera, person or security guard managed to see them?

PavlovsCat 13y ago
Why would it not possible for a fire and/or an explosion to do exactly the same thing? Because it would very likely tip over, or at least veer to one direction, instead of folding neatly into itself. Did all the people in the building not see the dynamite strapped to the pillars? What makes you assume dynamite? Did they not see the 100s of meters of wires? What makes you assume wires? When did the guys that wired the build do the wiring? Who knows? When did the dude who sucked at flying sports planes learn to fly a boeing so well? How did a passport of one of the attackers allegedly get found on the scene? If you want a conspiracy theory, try a bunch of guys taking down THREE high rises with TWO airplanes and a bunch of box cutters. Hah. Was it during working hours or after hours? How is that relevant? How come no camera, person or security guard managed to see them? Are you say it's not possible to deposit bags of C4 (etc.) with remote triggers in the right spots even just 10 minutes before impact, and safely get out? Or, to be alone in a room just enough to hide it in the ceiling or walls or wherever? I'm not saying it's easy, but it seems easier than even just flying a boeing so well without practical experience, or such a tall skyscraper folding neatly just by pure luck, and both of that happening twice on one day.
- Phlarp 13y ago
  Listen to yourself. The last paragraph is utter nonsense. I actually agree that we aren't being told the full story on 9/11 but you make these accusations with zero grasp on the reality of how much work it takes to down a building like that. Demolitions like what you describe take months of prep, a gutted building, and precise explosives wrapped around multiple central supports. A few bricks of C4 on remote detonators stashed above a drop ceiling is never going to take out an entire building, let alone in the controlled way you claim occurred here... just synchronizing wireless detonators to explode simultaneously is a non-trivial technical feat. (Independent synchronised clocks and all the calculations for the travel time of the signal through various materials to different locations) I'm not saying it's not possible, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence I'm adamant that we're being lied to about things related to these attacks, but making things up to fill the vacuum of information is behavior that belongs back in the middle ages.

anonymous 13y ago

> This is an orange Well... ok, let's assume it is. > If you were told it's something different you wouldn't believe it. Sure I would. It could be an apple wrapped in an orange shell. It could be a hologram. It could be a picture of an orange with a small kitten hidden behind it. It could, indeed, even be a chroma-shifted live-view of earth from space. > What does it look like to you? Looks like all the supports gave out at pretty much the same time. Like if there was a large fire and badly maintained fireproofing on them. Or maybe a gang of small kittens chewed them off. You have to admit it looks precisely like it would if you had a thousand kittens scratching at the supports simultaneously (assuming robot kittens, of course).