Controlled Demolitions in Action

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
ok well i'm hoping this thread goes somewhere because i for one am quite puzzled as to why people think that the buildings were the result of a controlled demolition.

ebaumsworld.com...

The above video is a video of a controled demoliton of a tall building that is similar to the WTC. sorry that it's from ebaums, but it is quite a good video and will have something u can compare with in later links.

If you notice..the building falls straight down, and only towards the end does the top appear to cave in similar like the wtc.

my point is, the bottom is collapsing from the bottom, down. not the top..i'll come back to that later...

ebaumsworld.com...

that link, sorry again about ebaums, is a real call from one of the towers..while it doesn't proove to much, the part at the end if u listen closley..it sounds like there is rumbling, then people screaming at the end. to me that fits with seeing the towers come down from the top, down. not the bottom down. shaky evidence i know...but i thought it was useful.

now here are the real shots of the towers collapsing

www.cnn.com...

well there's one at least...sorry it wasn't a better footage but i cant seem to find any videos on google that show the towers collapsing..could someone help me out?

well anyway...if you notice, it looks like its coming down from the top, to bottom.. now if this was controlled demolition...wouldn't it look like it was coming down from the BOTTOM, like in the very first video in this thread..

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

the only credible piece of info that might point to controlled demolition, is the wtc 7 collapes in the above video. this appears to be controlled...but if you notice it doesn't collapse anything like the other 2 towers..


well i hope this can make some people relize why they might be off with the whole controlled demolition thing. sorry if some of what i say didnt make sense, just read what i said carefully and watch the links, you should see what i mean when i say the buildings came down from the top, and not the bottom.




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
The first video of your post makes me believe more over that all of the WTC buildings had explosions in them. This video of the sould tower you can watch over and over again and there are similir light flashes as the debris is coming down.

My personal opinion, and I am no structural engineer, is that most of the charges would of been in the center of the building. Due to the 47 steel columns being all centralized. Therefore making most of them unable to be recorded.

Anyway here is the video. Watch please:
video.google.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Those flashes are cutter charges which go off BEFORE the final detination to bring a building down. So to say seeing flashed during the collapse is a bit wierd. They are most likely the sun catching off metal and glass debris.

As for my opinion of controlled demolition? I don't believe it. As you can see from the video from the threadmaker, those bombs make a BIG boom. Louder than the building itself hitting the floor. Another good point is that demolitions are done from the bottom so debris dosent go flying everywhere.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Ok well then I guess the buildings could have fallen without explosives.

And these insane muslim terrorist must of had some inside knowledge since they planned an attack the exact same day the Pentagon and NORAD was running drills that attacked the Pentagon and the WTC. They also figured out how to make two Boeing 757s dissappear.

And the Muslim Extremeist got what they wanted obviously. America was more brought together more than ever. They got a war with Afghanistan and Iraq, big terrorist harboring nations. Even though that most of them supposedly came from Saudia Arabia. Then they got huge no bid contracts for the war effort.

< sarcasm >
Damn terrorist! God! Lets Blow up IRAN SYRIA TURKEY CHINA NORTH KOREA AND RUSSIA WHILE WERE AT IT!

Hell lets just release a muslim vaccine that takes the muslim out of everyone!
< sarcasm >

They had nothing to gain. Who did?

I'm sorry but those planes alone did not bring down those buildings. I will accept that the video I posted could possibly be just light reflecting off of debris. Noises aren't there. Thermate doesn't make any noise though. Not that much anyway.

We can always turn to the Pentagon. Where'd that plane go?

It was more than muslim extremist on that day. I only hope one day, conclusively, that I can be proven wrong. That my country that I dearly love, would not do this to itself.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by n1ghtwalker]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spawwwn
ok well i'm hoping this thread goes somewhere because i for one am quite puzzled as to why people think that the buildings were the result of a controlled demolition.

I am equally puzzled as to why people think the buildings' symmetrical, freefalling, explosively ejective, radio interfering, seismic spiking footprint collapses complete with explosions and obvious squibs, pools of molten steel, and visual evidence of thermite reactions could have been anything but a controlled demolition. Especially considering the fact that CDI was contracted to do the cleanup, FEMA was ordered into NY Sept. 10, the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled out of the building the weekend before, with an UNPRECEDENTED power down of the complex. building 7.

Look at this picture and tell me that looks anything like a fire related collapse to you.


Watch this animation and tell me how this doesn't look controlled to you?


Squibs


Explosions in the Basement


And the just plain inexplicable...
911review.org...

Do you believe in Pyschic ability to predict the immediate future? I don't either...

“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barclay Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse."
-Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Willie Brown's "Security People's" Pyschic Episode

Odigo's Amazing Pyschic Powers

Promis Software's Pyschic Visions of Impending Doom

anonymous top-level White House source has psychic vision

Echelon's Amazing Psychic Abilities

It goes on and on.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Controlled Demolitions can have many manifestations, they can be manipulated as they are CONTROLLED by definition.

IF you want to do it from the top down, you can.
If you want to hide the cutter flashes, you can.
If you want you can try to hide the squibs.
If you want to muffle th noise through incendaries you can.

If is all about the charges, explosives, incendaries and timing. By adjusting these variables, you can come up with many different ways to do a CD.

IF MAKING IT NOT LOOK LIKE A CD is your main goal, then I would imagine that it would not show the classic flashes, etc to the viewing public.

Use your heads. Assuming that TOP LEVEL military or CIA experts planned or did the CD, do you think they would be dumb enough to make it show the most classic signs if at all possible?



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
You're just making that up as you go.

Why is it that no people involved in CD think the collapses were the result of explosives?

www.implosionworld.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Why is it that no people involved in CD think the collapses were the result of explosives?


This question is categorically false.

The fact that you infer that you have accounted for all the "people involved in CD" is ridiculous.

Maybe if your statement said "Why is it that no people that work for Protec AND contributed to the document I linked think the collapses were the results of explosives?" you would for once be making and accurate and concise point.

PROTEC DOES NOT PLAN OR IMPLEMENT CD... They only document THEY VIBRATIONS FROM things... their input is far for all encompassing as you state.


Protec personnel have studied the effects of vibrations on structures as related to construction, demolition and blasting operations


THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS IN CD, SO, the document you link is BUNK.

0. PROTEC is a GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR.
1. The claim to have had DOZENS of siesmographs in the area but present NO DATA from any of these devices.
2. They give no sources for their "private photos and videos" used for this paper NOR do they present ANY of them.
3. They give no citations for thier aquired data.
4. It is not peer reviewed, just the opinion of a few guys at one company.
5. Their answers ASSUME ONLY A TRADITIONAL BOTTOM UP GRAVTIY DEMOLITION, the problem with that is, there are other was to demo a building if you have differing goals.
6. They make ABSURD assumptions which I would post here but they "locked" the PDF so you cannot cut and paste. GEE... WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?
7. They do not consider incendaries, only HE.
8. Anyone who uses terms lik "Wyle e. Coyote" in their JUNK PSEUDO SCIENCE PAPER sohlud be ignored as they are unprofessional and ignoring the gravity of the topic.

A sample of their inepness: Page 7 point 1... Did they miss out on the thermal imaging of the site or are they ignoring it on purpose? Point 2: No excavator dug into molten metal. They pulled the "cold" ends and what came out was molten on the other end. Why do they make this flase claim that an excavator driver would put the buckt into a puddle of molten metal? JUNK SCIENCE.

In summation, Vushta, as usual, you are dead nuts wrong.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   


obvious squibs


That happened AFTER the collapse started, couldn't have brought it down.



visual evidence of thermite reactions


You can identify thermite on sight, through a photo? Wow, we'll never need to analyse any substance ever again, we'll just ask you.



CDI was contracted to do the cleanup


They are considered the best, you want the second best to handle important work like this?




the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled out of the building the weekend before




The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.


The dogs were deployed during a period of heightened security.
www.newsday.com...



UNPRECEDENTED power down


A single source story, with no corroboration, and only happened in half of 1 tower.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
That happened AFTER the collapse started, couldn't have brought it down.


No, DURING and was part of a process. Your ABSOLUTE LOGIC is deeply flawed in this statement.



Originally posted by Mr_pointy
They are considered the best, you want the second best to handle important work like this?


IT is highly suspicious that the worlds foremost DEMOLITION company cane to do a CLEANUP. Who says they are "considered the best" at CLEANUP? NO ONE. Only you.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
The dogs were deployed during a period of heightened security.
www.newsday.com...


You are correct... probably just a coincidence.... one of many thousands.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
A single source story, with no corroboration, and only happened in half of 1 tower.


Again, you are correct... probably just another coincidence.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
well a couple things, first off nightwalker your link doesnt work...sorry i cant see it for some reason, maybe i dont have full quicktime...now something struck me in this post said by capt lazy . he said that there was no SOUND of any bombs going off in the building, a point that was later challenged. well i am not a CD expert, but i am an audio expert seeing as im an audio engineer by trade.

the fact that no explosions could be heard, is actually quite a strong peice of evidence that there may have not been bombs in the building after all.

Take footage shot from under the towers or close to the towers as the fell...there was no explosions, even muffled booms, there was a crack, which in my opinion was the tower top part breaking off and starting to fall.

Also take the idea of sound...ok everything in life makes a sound..now for them to explode a building with no sound, they would have to plant the charges on the interior of the building, and then soundproof the outer exterior of the building.

can you immagine that?? you'd have to have people working for months on the interior of the building, carfully placeing explosives without any workers, tourists or the bomb sniffing dogs find them. either that, or you'd have to make a silent bomb. what bomb, or charge, do you know that is silent?? i dont think one exists, i could be wrong...but i've never heard of a silent bomb...even audio bombs resonate sound at some level, and those arent your typical bomb.

so then if you cant get a silent bomb, and lets say u DID manage to rig the explosions from the interior of the building, how are you gonna stop the sound from escaping out and not causing any audio or vibration to escape the building? you'd have to sound proof the entire building so that no sound heard from inside would be able to escape it.

that means coating the entire building, exterior and probly some interior, with sound proof material. yes all 1,110 stories with sound proof matieral, and again...without anybody even seeing this. Even if you somehow did this unimaginable feat, it still wouldnt work because the damage zones would have had the sound proofing blown off and thus some sound would have inevitably escaped anyway.

and even if u get a silent charge or detonation or whatever, how do you explain the building not falling from the bottom, down? someone said the debris was falling weird...if you notice, the debris is falling outward, not inward. everything is being pushed out, which does go along with the theory that the building was collapsing in on itself, and the force was pushing ruble outward.

ok and lets say u CAN take that building down from the tom to bottom, how are u gonna account for the damage zones? any charges from the damage zones, would have been completley useless. maybe even some higher than the damage zones might have been usless because they could have sustained damage.

and the footage of that plane, hate to tell you doesnt convince me at all. considering that virtually every eye witness saw the plane flying to the building before it even hit and a great number of others saw the plane on live tv, i cant belive for one second that was a missle. especially since that video is slowed down frame by frame, it's not fully accurate. watch the video on full speed and you see yes the building does eat the plane, but theres a huge explosion as the plane blows up.

there was a giant, firey, hole in the building. a scyscraper is a very delicate peice of work, you have tons, literally thousands of pounds, of steel and concrete above the impact zone, you dont think that will weaken the building? especially considering that peices of steel and concrete needed to keep that upper part of the building on and balance the weight of other floors, were either severley damaged, or completley blown away. It's not like the plane just took out some concrete and a skeleton was left, an entire section was completley missing



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   


THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS IN CD, SO, the document you link is BUNK.


Read the second page, it's right there.


5. Their answers ASSUME ONLY A TRADITIONAL BOTTOM UP GRAVTIY DEMOLITION, the problem with that is, there are other was to demo a building if you have differing goals.


I checked and can only conclude that you are lying, they never presume that.



6. They make ABSURD assumptions which I would post here but they "locked" the PDF so you cannot cut and paste. GEE... WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?


So paraphrase, pfd's are commonly used by professionals.



7. They do not consider incendaries, only HE.


They don't consider something that demolitionists never use? Shocking. Incendiaries burn down, they could never take out a vertical core.



8. Anyone who uses terms lik "Wyle e. Coyote" in their JUNK PSEUDO SCIENCE PAPER sohlud be ignored as they are unprofessional and ignoring the gravity of the topic.


Prove it's psuedoscience, get a real expert to back you up, and look at the Wyle e. Coyote reference in context, he doesn't use it to support anything.



Why do they make this flase claim that an excavator driver would put the buckt into a puddle of molten metal? JUNK SCIENCE.




Maybe because that what he said he did?
Did they miss out on the thermal imaging of the site or are they ignoring it on purpose?


What would they have done with it?



No excavator dug into molten metal. They pulled the "cold" ends and what came out was molten on the other end.


Guess you've never seen the picture that's usually used to 'prove' molten steel was present. It shows exactly that an excavator holding a glowing piece of something that's dripping something off of it.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
removed by Author

[edit on 17-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   


One eye witness says no sound? (I hat using eyewitness testimony as the human mind is very FALLIBLE and CONTROLLABLE).


How about all vidoes, they aren't subject to such things.


1.5 Many say they DID hear "booms". (again, hate eyewitness testimony.)


Could have come from many sources, snapping steel, blowing transformers, heated cans...


2. Incendaries do not go boom.


Again they aren't used in demolitions, and can only burn down, useless for taking out cores, which would have to be accessed by ripping out walls.



3. You are asuming you would hear this over all of the other sirens, alarms, roaring, crumbling of buildings, etc.


yes, watch the video, the explosions are louder than the building coming down.
www.break.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   


No, DURING and was part of a process. Your ABSOLUTE LOGIC is deeply flawed in this statement.


That what I said during the collapse, which is after it started, and that side was already falling. This means the windows would break, releasing the smoke inside.


IT is highly suspicious that the worlds foremost DEMOLITION company cane to do a CLEANUP. Who says they are "considered the best" at CLEANUP? NO ONE. Only you.


Demolitions crews don't clean up after buildings that have collapsed?


[edit on 17-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]

[edit on 17-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Read the second page, it's right there.


READ what their company does on their website. They DOCUMENT things (photograph, vidoetape, record seismic records) SOMETIMES CD. Certainly NOT experts in CD itself. But you know that and are just here to dilute with weak arguments.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
I checked and can only conclude that you are lying, they never presume that.


Page 3... Assertion one... they claim WTC #1 and #2 could not have been CD because it was top down... Stupid conclusion that assumes there is only one way to skin a cat. You would know that if you read it. Stop calling me names.



Originally posted by Mr_pointy
So paraphrase, pfd's are commonly used by professionals.


I donot know what a pfd is, but pdf's are usually left unlocked to alow quoting and citing.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
They don't consider something that demolitionists never use? Shocking. Incendiaries burn down, they could never take out a vertical core.


More non-sensical exacting statements by our local genius. Patents exist for shaped thermite/thermate cutting charges to do EXACTLY that. But you know that already.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Prove it's psuedoscience, get a real expert to back you up, and look at the Wyle e. Coyote reference in context, he doesn't use it to support anything.


It is not pseudoscience... you are correct. It is not science AT ALL. Where is the DATA? The CITATIONS? THE PHOTOS? THE SEISMIC RECORDS? They claim to have used all of this to draw their conclusions yet present NONE of it. NOT SCIENCE, just an OP/ED piece.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Maybe because that what he said he did?


source?


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
What would they have done with it?


Lifted out the protruding end maybe like in the famous photos they are referencing?


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Guess you've never seen the picture that's usually used to 'prove' molten steel was present. It shows exactly that an excavator holding a glowing piece of something that's dripping something off of it.


It is a steel clolumn, I would expect any average moron to be able to see that...

WHY HAVE YOU AVOIDED MY POINTS 0-4?

[edit on 17-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
OK, let's can the the attitude and discuss this topic civilly.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
That what I said during the collapse, which is after it started, and that side was already falling. This means the windows would break, releasing the smoke inside.


More flawed logic with no factual basis.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Demolitions crews don't clean up after buildings that have collapsed?


I was pointing out your lie/factual error "They are considered the best". Usually the cleanup is sub contracted but I do not know if CDI subs it out or not.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spawwwn
ok well i'm hoping this thread goes somewhere because i for one am quite puzzled as to why people think that the buildings were the result of a controlled demolition.

ebaumsworld.com...

The above video is a video of a controled demoliton of a tall building that is similar to the WTC. sorry that it's from ebaums, but it is quite a good video and will have something u can compare with in later links.

If you notice..the building falls straight down, and only towards the end does the top appear to cave in similar like the wtc.



Yeah.. I saw that clip too on the site and the first thing i said to myself was wow, another WTC demolition. It looked exactly like it. There is no way a plane hitting a building and the building collapsing would fall the way the WTC did. Case in point, the Pentagon. The pentagon had SOMETHING hit it, and it collapsed over like domino's, it didn't crumble like a demoltioned building.

Watch THIS video and around 2:00 is the most important part. Some NYC firemen describe a demolition type of scene and then the abc news reporter is on site as the tower falls and states "a loud explosion". Hmmmmmmmmmm??



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   


Page 3... Assertion one... they claim WTC #1 and #2 could not have been CD because it was top down... Stupid conclusion that assumes there is only one way to skin a cat. You would know that if you read it. Stop calling me names.


Don't just read the bolded part, read the whole thing, that is never their arguement. point 1 covers:
1. Doesn't look like any demo ever done
2. They cover the how the charges couldn't have been planted, and wouldn't survive the impact
3. They cover the prep work needed, for which there is no evidence


I donot know what a pfd is, but pdf's are usually left unlocked to alow quoting and citing.




A pdf is a type of file format, it seems to be commonly used by professionals.



More non-sensical exacting statements by our local genius. Patents exist for shaped thermite/thermate cutting charges to do EXACTLY that. But you know that already.


Patents mean nothing, you can patent anything, and from what i've heard, they are bulky, and can't penetrate far, only an inch or 2.


It is not pseudoscience... you are correct. It is not science AT ALL. Where is the DATA? The CITATIONS? THE PHOTOS? THE SEISMIC RECORDS? They claim to have used all of this to draw their conclusions yet present NONE of it. NOT SCIENCE, just an OP/ED piece.


This is not a peer reviewed work, it was something he wrote on his own time to counter CTers.


source?


You want a source that was never give? Fine.
911myths.com...
There's a picture


It is a steel clolumn, I would expect any average moron to be able to see that...


I'm sorry, you expect people to be able to identify the type of metal on sight.



0. PROTEC is a GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR.


Meaningless, unless you can show that because of that he's lying somehow.



1. The claim to have had DOZENS of siesmographs in the area but present NO DATA from any of these devices.


What would this prove, we wouldn't be able to read it properly, we don't know how.



2. They give no sources for their "private photos and videos" used for this paper NOR do they present ANY of them.


Because they're private, they can't present them legally, and he wouldn't release the names for privacy reasons.



3. They give no citations for thier aquired data.


Again, not a peer reviewed paper.



4. It is not peer reviewed, just the opinion of a few guys at one company.


Why would they bother, you guys aren't that important to them.





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join