Originally posted by culorut
What's actually funny is you still believe that explosives can only be set off using a cord.
every single controlled demolition in history has been made using cords. there's a lot of reasons why remotes are not used, i'll let colonel explain the particulars to you, coz this is something you are clearly ignorant of.
culorut
The demolition of towers 1,2 and building 7 was not conventional although building 7 was more like the traditional method. They did mean to hide it but they did a lousy job.
Also explain why you are so hard fixed on the demolition of the towers not being possible, controlled demolitions do not only occur bottom up.
The video below shows the complete opposite. (flashes and squibs included)
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
The demolition of towers 1,2 and building 7 was not conventional although building 7 was more like the traditional method. They did mean to hide it but they did a lousy job.
Also explain why you are so hard fixed on the demolition of the towers not being possible, controlled demolitions do not only occur bottom up.
The video below shows the complete opposite. (flashes and squibs included)
and to achieve that kind of result you simply couldnt use remote detonation. honestly- go and do your research you fool. its embarrassing.
colonelcrisp
here is a easy bit of CT style common sense research to debunk your remote controlled demolition theory...
1. go buy a 300 dollar iphone
2. find your nearest firework stand and purchase a M80 or equivalent lound bang type firework.
3. call your mom to show that cell phone works
4. tape m80 to cell phone and light it
5. attempt to call mom again.....
oh noes! RF/digital transmission devices do not seem to like shockwaves...... and that was only a measly firework.....
culorut
You both argued that controlled demolitions occur from the bottom up which was proved wrong.
What makes you think they have not developed something to detonate explosives by another mean other than a cord or RF?
:eek:
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
You both argued that controlled demolitions occur from the bottom up which was proved wrong.
they do. your example is hardly comparable. look at any large-scale demolition and they're all bottom-up collapses. plus, you don't explain why towers 1&2 fell differently to 7. and how the does this have ANYTHING to do with thermite? :haha:
quote:
What makes you think they have not developed something to detonate explosives by another mean other than a cord or RF?
christ. you really need to stick to your food importation business, coz your arguments here are laughable. fact is you can't show ANY evidence of (yet another) super-secret demolition wire to go with your super secret thermate?
hint: the experts in the demolition world are ALL in the private sector, not in the high levels of black ops government. if the private sector are not using RF to demolish buildings then what reason do you have to assume there are other methods?
its like this:
you need the technology to exist, therefore it exists. that is a thoroughly illogical position.
pkcRAISTLIN
Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse.
9/11 demolition theory challenged
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".
The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.
Resistance to collapse
Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.
In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.
"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.
Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.
His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.
He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.
The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.
This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.
Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.
-so, we have yet another peer-reviewed paper disagreeing with the crazy people. funny how the other side has yet to produce 1. i wonder why that it??
culorut
Great there you go again posting garbage from debunking911.com
The site just like the Popular Mechanics hit pieces are meant to spit out the same old dis-information over and over.
Maybe you forgot to read the important information out there regarding what CIA officials think about 911.
Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report
September 23, 2007
September 23, 2007 – Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,” said Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. “There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,” he said. McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[1]
During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern returned the award[2] in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush Administration’s advocacy and use of torture.
In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote[3]: “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole “war on terror” was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of ‘paranoid conspiracy theorists,’ my highest possible recommendation.”
Originally posted by culorut
Great there you go again posting garbage from debunking911.com
The site just like the Popular Mechanics hit pieces are meant to spit out the same old dis-information over and over.
Maybe you forgot to read the important information out there regarding what CIA officials think about 911.
Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report
September 23, 2007
September 23, 2007 – Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,” said Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. “There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,” he said. McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[1]
During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern returned the award[2] in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush Administration’s advocacy and use of torture.
In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote[3]: “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole “war on terror” was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of ‘paranoid conspiracy theorists,’ my highest possible recommendation.”
jesus, why are you so stupid? what these people THINK is irrelevant. we are talking about what can be PROVEN. or what can be scientifically POSTULATED.
people's random opinions, regardless of who they used to be, is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. , is it that ing hard for you to grasp? i mean , how dumb are you? tell me how your stupid response in ANY WAY undermines the study i referenced? you colossal moron.
perhaps you would like to explain to me how a PHD study that is published in the journal of engineering mechanics is in any way "disinformation" you ing arseclown . that is a respected scientific journal, which is more than anything you tards have been able to provide in 6 years.
you obviously never studied anything that required the least bit of research or assessing said research. your arguments read like a bad highschool essay. you.
culorut
Dr. Frank Legge from Australia continues his diligent efforts to reach the public regarding 9/11 issues with his paper on the collapse of WTC 7 sans math, in an article entitled: "9/11 – Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations"
There is at least one Aussie with some common sense.
culorut
quote:
jesus, why are you so stupid? what these people THINK is irrelevant. we are talking about what can be PROVEN. or what can be scientifically POSTULATED.
27 year veterans of the CIA do not know anything about black ops or cover ups?
You are the ing idiot.
Idiot.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Dr. Frank Legge from Australia continues his diligent efforts to reach the public regarding 9/11 issues with his paper on the collapse of WTC 7 sans math, in an article entitled: "9/11 – Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations"
There is at least one Aussie with some common sense.
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
wow, you really are grasping at straws. that paper is full of fallacies and non sequiturs.
there is nothing in that paper that comes close to anything resembling a proper academic inquiry. you would know this if you had experience in anything other than importing food.
