And you should really set your links to open to a new window, particularly for sites that have embedded links so the back button is tedious.
Check out their video on youtube
400 high military and secret to top-secret clearance people are willing to testify in front of congress about what they have seen... its scary...
When I see it on a site more reputable than "ufo blogger" I might give it some due consideration. Until then it is just more crackpot nonsense.
Its also mentioned on CNN, though they try to poke fun at it rather than report it seriously...
How bout the link to the www.nsa.gov document. The link is literally still active. So either nsa.gov got hacked or its a legit document... check it out in the article
Yes, it is a PDF of a badly photocopied article by a single contributor presenting his own work. Nowhere that I can see does the NSA - or any official body or independent reviewer - attest to the accuracy, validity or context of the article.
Also, the only reference I can find anywhere for the article's ostensible author - one Dr. H. Campaigne - is this article itself. There are not other articles, no body of work, no research history, no credentials, etc.
This article is supposed to have been printed in volume XIV of the NSA Technical Journal. That places it somewhere in the the mid 1950s - pre-SETI - which raises serious questions about how, by whom, and through what media/technology these "signals" where detected, received, recorded and analyzed. There is also no indication that any record of the signals has been subjected to modern review. Likewise Dr. Campaigne's analysis of them.
So there are clearly a lot of questions about the merit, validity and conclusions presented. If I see this research presented, analyzed, reviewed and confirmed by legitimate modern sources I will give it some weight but as it stands now it is nothing more than crackpot fodder.
Besides, how is it that no one else has managed to pick up these radio signals? SETI was active for decades and yet never picked up anything like this.
As for the people who are testifying, what defines someone as "high military"? I had someone tell me about his buddy who was a military intelligence lieutenant colonel in the marines who told him 9/11 was a cover up. I laughed because while a LTC may seem like a god to a lowly private, he's really nothing in the grand scheme of things. A sergeant first class is a "senior leader" in the military but unless you happen to be assigned to the right position, you're not even in charge of a company.
For the guys with security clearances, has anyone verified their clearance and position? And even from those, the only ones that should have any credibility are the guys with Top Secret or above. Secret clearances are pretty common, pretty easy to get, and they are not the guys who are going to be privy to this massive government cover up.
I agree with Boraxe. Nothing here says that the NSA agreed with or validated the findings. The only reason I can see that they even have it posted is because it was submitted to the NSA Technical Journal. If they had taken it seriously at the time, it almost certainly would have been classified, which it was not since you can clearly see the word "unclassified" on the pages.
Besides, how is it that no one else has managed to pick up these radio signals? SETI was active for decades and yet never picked up anything like this.
As for the people who are testifying, what defines someone as "high military"? I had someone tell me about his buddy who was a military intelligence lieutenant colonel in the marines who told him 9/11 was a cover up. I laughed because while a LTC may seem like a god to a lowly private, he's really nothing in the grand scheme of things. A sergeant first class is a "senior leader" in the military but unless you happen to be assigned to the right position, you're not even in charge of a company.
For the guys with security clearances, has anyone verified their clearance and position? And even from those, the only ones that should have any credibility are the guys with Top Secret or above. Secret clearances are pretty common, pretty easy to get, and they are not the guys who are going to be privy to this massive government cover up.
Actually at the end of the conference they talk about having the proof of these peoples credentials. They don't even consider them unless they provide credentials and many times declassified reports or radar recordings or other proofs. If you'll notice from the video many of them have top-secret or higher clearance and/or work for specific parts of the military or defense contractors. Many of them have professional statuses to lose and careers or pensions they are putting on the line.
At the very least I think they are deserved the congressional hearings that they are requesting.
I am a defense contractor with top secret clearance.
I am a defense contractor with top secret clearance.
Post your paystub and maybe I'll believe you...
Post your paystub and maybe I'll believe you...
Can't do it. Top secret means top secret. Besides, why are you asking so much of me when, apparently, you don't ask all that much of others?
Post your paystub and maybe I'll believe you...
Can't do it. Top secret means top secret. Besides, why are you asking so much of me when, apparently, you don't ask all that much of others?
Your the one claiming that you have top secret clearance. I'm just asking you to prove it. As far as I know its not illegal to admit you have top secret clearance, just to reveal the info you know...
I wonder, do you require the same of your sources or do ya let 'em slide without showin' ya a pay stub? ;)
I don't have any sources... The www.disclosureproject.org does however and yes they require proof of status. They have over 400 witnesses that are willing to testify before congress. Some of them are ex-military, air traffic controllers, and others. Many of them are putting their lifelong career or pensions on the line in order to do this. You can laugh if you want, but I feel they should get heard. It should also be noted that right before Kennedy was assassinated he was requesting all the files on UFOs from the CIA. The last three presidents have requested the files and have been denied. They were deemed to 'not need to know'. Also there is a technology blacklist in the patent office. Anytime someone sends in a patent if it matches any of these black technologies, it is removed from the patent process and put into the pile and never touched again. Cold-Fusion has shown some real promise lately as they have found out why it doesn't work, but its impossible to get a patent on the new designs unless you steep it so far in technical jargon that they can't tell what your talking about.
EDIT: Also: This one conspiracy theory website says I'm a defense contractor with top secret clearance.
I know it's pointless, but I'll try to point out one more thing: a person can have top secret or higher clearance or be a defense contractor and have no contact whatsoever with the files or events in question. So, to be blunt, even if 'credentialed', the credentials don't always mean anything. I could be a chef at Area 51 and furnish my badge to show I work there. That'd be true. It'd also mean I didn't have access to anything aside from the odd turnip. In other words, 'this guy works here' isn't enough. But whatever. I can't stop anyone from thinkin' anything ... yet.
EDIT: Also: This one conspiracy theory website says I'm a defense contractor with top secret clearance.
Yes but when you are a lieutenant Colonel and you worked at that location with top secret+ clearance its kind of hard to believe that you would not have any idea what was going on at that location. It could be true, but its unlikely. I'm sure that Lieutenant Colonel is the head cook...
This all does inspire in me the very real desire to create a persona to take to the toobz in an effort to 'educate' the masses on the true realities of the world. I wonder just what sort of stuff I could sell. I imagine quite a bit. All I need is some shadowy sources and my fellow conspirealists to validate my credentials. Hmm ... time to plot ...
We sometimes see what we want to see. That's really all I can say. It won't matter, but whatever.
This all does inspire in me the very real desire to create a persona to take to the toobz in an effort to 'educate' the masses on the true realities of the world. I wonder just what sort of stuff I could sell. I imagine quite a bit. All I need is some shadowy sources and my fellow conspirealists to validate my credentials. Hmm ... time to plot ...
Yeah, except the Disclosure Project isn't selling anything and they have actual high ranking ex-military (not shadowy conspirealists) and physical evidence as well as declassified reports. If you don't believe its true then you shouldn't mind if they make fools of themselves in front of congress. I don't completely believe it but they have a lot of evidence stacking in their favor at the very least its a government black ops project that hasn't been revealed yet. At most its aliens visiting earth...either way its getting out of control...
I don't really care if they go in front of Congress with whatever it is they've got. It's not like they'd be wasting anyone's time or anything (honest - not sarcasm). If they could be totally debunked that'd be fantastic. If they force some sort of info out, I'd be fine with that, too. So yeah, let 'em go ahead.
So sorry, but you should probably get reputable before you go talk to congress.
I know it's pointless, but I'll try to point out one more thing: a person can have top secret or higher clearance ...
There is no clearence above TS. There are classifiers for sources such as Humint or SCI, and SCI access can't be granted without a TS (though I wouldn't be surprised to see that change in the next 10 years). There are also other classification systems in use that the US has access to (such as NATO's) that use different terminology altogether. I don't recall off the top of my head the names and relative levels, it was never relevant to the work I was doing.
If you don't believe its true then you shouldn't mind if they make fools of themselves in front of congress.
Because it is a tremendous waste of Congress' time, and by extension the public's money. Every moment they spend dealing with useless conspiracist nonsense like this is time they could spend on something useful. I mean they won't, obviously, they'll just faff about arguing and infighting and kowtowing to special interests but the point still stands.
There is no clearence above TS.
That's what they want you to believe, man!
There is no clearence above TS.
That's what they want you to believe, man!
You seem to forget that I was one of them! And would love to be again (it's an excellent line of work).
I know it's pointless, but I'll try to point out one more thing: a person can have top secret or higher clearance or be a defense contractor and have no contact whatsoever with the files or events in question. So, to be blunt, even if 'credentialed', the credentials don't always mean anything. I could be a chef at Area 51 and furnish my badge to show I work there. That'd be true. It'd also mean I didn't have access to anything aside from the odd turnip. In other words, 'this guy works here' isn't enough. But whatever. I can't stop anyone from thinkin' anything ... yet.
EDIT: Also: This one conspiracy theory website says I'm a defense contractor with top secret clearance.
Yes but when you are a lieutenant Colonel and you worked at that location with top secret+ clearance its kind of hard to believe that you would not have any idea what was going on at that location. It could be true, but its unlikely. I'm sure that Lieutenant Colonel is the head cook...
Actually, from what an army buddy tells me, cooks move up in the ranks fairly fast. Most Generals don't want to be served their meals by Privates.
Frankly it's just that much less time those morons in DC have to ruin the country further.
Yes but when you are a lieutenant Colonel and you worked at that location with top secret+ clearance its kind of hard to believe that you would not have any idea what was going on at that location. It could be true, but its unlikely. I'm sure that Lieutenant Colonel is the head cook...
Actually that's not hard to believe at all. I work for a Lieutenant Colonel (which really isn't all that high up, you make him sound like a four star general or something) who doesn't have access to the same information that I do.
Yes but when you are a lieutenant Colonel and you worked at that location with top secret+ clearance its kind of hard to believe that you would not have any idea what was going on at that location. It could be true, but its unlikely. I'm sure that Lieutenant Colonel is the head cook...
Actually that's not hard to believe at all. I work for a Lieutenant Colonel (which really isn't all that high up, you make him sound like a four star general or something) who doesn't have access to the same information that I do.
Pfft, people who worked 20 feet from the office I was in while in Iraq had no idea what we were doing.
Yes but when you are a lieutenant Colonel and you worked at that location with top secret+ clearance its kind of hard to believe that you would not have any idea what was going on at that location. It could be true, but its unlikely. I'm sure that Lieutenant Colonel is the head cook...
Actually that's not hard to believe at all. I work for a Lieutenant Colonel (which really isn't all that high up, you make him sound like a four star general or something) who doesn't have access to the same information that I do.
Pfft, people who worked 20 feet from the office I was in while in Iraq had no idea what we were doing.
Very good at looking busy and important, huh?
Very good at looking busy and important, huh?
Don't you know it, froggy!
Very good at looking busy and important, huh?
Don't you know it, froggy!
Can you teach me? I'm pretty bad at it, honestly.
Can you teach me? I'm pretty bad at it, honestly.
Well, the most important thing is to look at your computer screen as if you were reading something. Don't just stare at it without blinking. Scan your eyes left to right, then dart back right (don''t move your head, that's a dead give away). Every third or fourth time lower your point of focus slightly. Every minute or so move the mouse like you're scrolling downward (extra points if you use the scroll wheel, even better if it makes audible clicks). The key is subtlety. If you are too overt about it you'll look like a damn cartoon character and won't fool anyone.
If you leave your computer for anything, lock the screen. This way no one will know that the document you were looking at was a Wikipedia page or a pdf of The Wheel of Time. If you go for a leisure walk, pick a destination and pretend you have to be there for something. You will walk like someone who knows where they're going and doesn't have time to dawddle. No one will stop you to ask you what you're doing or anything.
Overall, the key is roleplaying. Don't pretend to be busy, you ARE busy... Doing nothing, but that isn't the point, dammit.
Edit: I think the main problem is that I stop too quickly when people come in with actual work.
Yeah, these forums are good for that.
Edit: I think the main problem is that I stop too quickly when people come in with actual work.
You have to act so busy and overworked that they will pass over you and give the work to someone else. Also always have a folder or tool in your hand when you are walking around it makes you look even more busy...
www.aolnews.com/2011/02/25/former-canadi...
Ex-defense minister says they exist as well as another U.S. Colonel...
The canadians are jumping on the bandwagon:
www.aolnews.com/2011/02/25/former-canadi...
Ex-defense minister says they exist as well as another U.S. Colonel...
You act as if the word of high ranking people is gospel; as if they can't be crazy or liars. They can be and often are, just like anyone else. The word of a Colonel or ex defense minister means factually as much as the word of an engineer or a clown.
The canadians are jumping on the bandwagon:
www.aolnews.com/2011/02/25/former-canadi...
Ex-defense minister says they exist as well as another U.S. Colonel...
You act as if the word of high ranking people is gospel; as if they can't be crazy or liars. They can be and often are, just like anyone else. The word of a Colonel or ex defense minister means factually as much as the word of an engineer or a clown.
This ^^^^. I don't know how many high ranking officers I've met who were douchebags, liars, complete idiots, and/or batshit crazy.
The canadians are jumping on the bandwagon:
www.aolnews.com/2011/02/25/former-canadi...
Ex-defense minister says they exist as well as another U.S. Colonel...
You act as if the word of high ranking people is gospel; as if they can't be crazy or liars. They can be and often are, just like anyone else. The word of a Colonel or ex defense minister means factually as much as the word of an engineer or a clown.
This ^^^^. I don't know how many high ranking officers I've met who were douchebags, liars, complete idiots, and/or batshit crazy.
Yeah, you guys hear yourselves right? "Anyone, no matter who they are, sayign things I don't belive in is not a credible source."
That is all, please carry-on with your wacko biggotry.
Didn't Regan make a speach to the UN ambasadors where he went on for five minuets or so about alien life, and UFOs?
Possibly, but I do remember one of Carter's claims to fame was him being an eye-witness of a UFO. The Reagan thing sounds vaguely familiar, but for some reason, I recall that being in direct response to the influx of interest in the topic.
Yeah, you guys hear yourselves right? "Anyone, no matter who they are, sayign things I don't belive in is not a credible source."
That is all, please carry-on with your wacko biggotry.
I think it's more along the lines of "when making crazy-sounding claims, rank doesn't protect you from scrutiny."
The canadians are jumping on the bandwagon:
www.aolnews.com/2011/02/25/former-canadi...
Ex-defense minister says they exist as well as another U.S. Colonel...
You act as if the word of high ranking people is gospel; as if they can't be crazy or liars. They can be and often are, just like anyone else. The word of a Colonel or ex defense minister means factually as much as the word of an engineer or a clown.
This ^^^^. I don't know how many high ranking officers I've met who were douchebags, liars, complete idiots, and/or batshit crazy.
Yeah, you guys hear yourselves right? "Anyone, no matter who they are, sayign things I don't belive in is not a credible source."
That is all, please carry-on with your wacko biggotry.
I doesn't matter if they are credible or not, really. Words are not facts or evidence. I want hard evidence.
Yeah, you guys hear yourselves right? "Anyone, no matter who they are, sayign things I don't belive in is not a credible source."
That is all, please carry-on with your wacko biggotry.
I think it's more along the lines of "when making crazy-sounding claims, rank doesn't protect you from scrutiny."
Exactly. If you present evidence to back up your claims, you've at least got my attention, whether or not I'll believe you depends on how compelling the evidence is. When you say "This guy was in the military so it must be true," that's when I throw down the bullshit flag.
If all these people witnessed these events or were privy to some government secret squirrel project, where is the evidence? Why are they willing to come forward and speak about supposedly classified stuff but they weren't willing to leak any classified documents to support their cases?
If all these people witnessed these events or were privy to some government secret squirrel project, where is the evidence? Why are they willing to come forward and speak about supposedly classified stuff but they weren't willing to leak any classified documents to support their cases?
Just to play Devil's Advocate on this, I will point out that when I got my DD-214 that I was in possession of exactly zero classified documents. Those aren't exactly the kind of things you take home with you.
If all these people witnessed these events or were privy to some government secret squirrel project, where is the evidence? Why are they willing to come forward and speak about supposedly classified stuff but they weren't willing to leak any classified documents to support their cases?
Just to play Devil's Advocate on this, I will point out that when I got my DD-214 that I was in possession of exactly zero classified documents. Those aren't exactly the kind of things you take home with you.
Nor am I, but I very well could be if I wanted to. What I'm saying is that these guys supposedly feel that this is a serious issue and a government cover up that needs to be revealed, yet they haven't done anything except offer their voice. A freaking PFC who was pissed off at the military for being demoted managed to leak tons of classified information, yet between all these other guys were so troubled by the government cover up, not a single one of them can produce a single document?
A freaking PFC who was pissed off at the military for being demoted managed to leak tons of classified information, yet between all these other guys were so troubled by the government cover up, not a single one of them can produce a single document?
That PFC also leaked all that information from a war zone intel facility, wherein the (presumed) professionals who work there won't just walk out with info. I've seen the difference between war zone and garrison intel offices, and the difference in security is huge. In a war zone the important thing is keeping people from getting in. In garrison they have the leisure of also making sure nothing gets out. I could have walked out of the office in Iraq with enough documents to build my own private library with if I'd wanted to. None of the information in question is the kind of stuff you'd see in a war zone facility.
Oh please, even stateside it really isn't that hard. The only thing that has prevented me from having my own personal classified library is my own conscience.
Harder than it is in a war zone. I'm not going to go into all the rules we bent beyond recognition. Fifth Amendment and all that.
The background of the found of The Disclosure Project. Appeaently he will teach you the use of meditation techniques, that allows attendees to "remote view" locations and times (past and present), and develop "cosmic consciousness" and abilities such as precognition.
www.ufowatchdog.com/steven_greer.htm
If all these people witnessed these events or were privy to some government secret squirrel project, where is the evidence? Why are they willing to come forward and speak about supposedly classified stuff but they weren't willing to leak any classified documents to support their cases?
Its funny you ask because they have declassified reports, video recordings from pilots, and radar recordings from before they could easily be faked. If they leaked classified documents they'd be immediately arrested and hidden away somewhere dark and cold and never see the light of day, or 'mysteriously' have an accidental death. Its pretty common place to see these kinds of things in action even in cases where outrageous claims aren't present.
I don't think most people are arguing that UFOs don't exist, just that a UFO isn't necessarily an alien, and these guys aren't offering any proof that they are aliens. In fact, the US colonel is saying that the government has already disclosed most of its information on UFOs.
That's why we need an investigation and opening of classified files. I mean what could possibly need to be kept secret for 50-60 years? Other than the presence of aliens or something else as earth shattering...
It doesn't matter if they are credible or not, really. Words are not facts or evidence. I want hard evidence.
Yeah, except see above there is evidence. A full scale investigation would reveal much much more and corroborate the stories
The background of the found of The Disclosure Project. Apparently he will teach you the use of meditation techniques, that allows attendees to "remote view" locations and times (past and present), and develop "cosmic consciousness" and abilities such as precognition.
www.ufowatchdog.com/steven_greer.htm
That's OK though. The government recently declassified a project where they were doing exactly this. Their success rate was something on the range of 60%-65% for finding hidden bases and identifying where people were hiding. I'm not sure why it was shut down though... Just a note anything over 40% is considered better than random...
Its funny you ask because they have declassified reports, video recordings from pilots, and radar recordings from before they could easily be faked. If they leaked classified documents they'd be immediately arrested and hidden away somewhere dark and cold and never see the light of day, or 'mysteriously' have an accidental death. Its pretty common place to see these kinds of things in action even in cases where outrageous claims aren't present.
LOL. Maybe the Gulag. I need to replace my little floating fat men with black helecopters. It seems far more sinister and story-worthy.
Its funny you ask because they have declassified reports, video recordings from pilots, and radar recordings from before they could easily be faked. If they leaked classified documents they'd be immediately arrested and hidden away somewhere dark and cold and never see the light of day, or 'mysteriously' have an accidental death. Its pretty common place to see these kinds of things in action even in cases where outrageous claims aren't present.
You're joking right? No? Really? Please provide evidence as to how this stuff is commonplace. And how is the government ok with them speaking about classified stuff, and providing radar (which doesn't prove aliens mind you, just UFOs, the existence of which I am not arguing, even my father claimed to have seen UFOs while manning radar), but if they have an actual document suddenly they disappear in a black helicopter in the middle of the night.
That's why we need an investigation and opening of classified files. I mean what could possibly need to be kept secret for 50-60 years? Other than the presence of aliens or something else as earth shattering...
Or nuclear secrets. Or classified sources. Or anything with potential political ramifications. Or maybe there isn't a cover up and the government really doesn't know either. Classified documents /= aliens.
Yeah, except see above there is evidence. A full scale investigation would reveal much much more and corroborate the stories
Well supposedly that colonel already said that he did an investigation and that the government has disclosed everything it actually knows about aliens. I notice you accept one officer's word as proof, but not another's.
The way I see it, no matter how many documents are declassified and released, unless the government says "we met some cool aliens" there will be people that insist they are still hiding stuff because that's what they want to hear.
Oh please, even stateside it really isn't that hard. The only thing that has prevented me from having my own personal classified library is my own conscience.
Harder than it is in a war zone. I'm not going to go into all the rules we bent beyond recognition. Fifth Amendment and all that.
Ha, no argument there. No I'm not saying stuff isn't more relaxed overseas, only that it's far from impossible stateside.
EDIT: Naturally I won't go into any details because if someone hasn't figured it out for themselves I don't feel the need to spell it out for them.
Its funny you ask because they have declassified reports, video recordings from pilots, and radar recordings from before they could easily be faked. If they leaked classified documents they'd be immediately arrested and hidden away somewhere dark and cold and never see the light of day, or 'mysteriously' have an accidental death. Its pretty common place to see these kinds of things in action even in cases where outrageous claims aren't present.
You're joking right? No? Really? Please provide evidence as to how this stuff is commonplace. And how is the government ok with them speaking about classified stuff, and providing radar (which doesn't prove aliens mind you, just UFOs, the existence of which I am not arguing, even my father claimed to have seen UFOs while manning radar), but if they have an actual document suddenly they disappear in a black helicopter in the middle of the night.
The radar recording is not 'classified' it is from a civilian airport. The reports are declassified Freedom of Information Act obtained legally. If they release a document or tell someone they are going to release this document they get put on a helicopter as you say, but more likely they just have an 'accident'. This is common in the espionage business for such mundane things as proof of political wrongdoing or as you say state 'secrets' that have nothing to do with aliens or UFOs. I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't even more aggressively pursue these kinds of actions when something like aliens or UFOs is factored into the equation.
That's why we need an investigation and opening of classified files. I mean what could possibly need to be kept secret for 50-60 years? Other than the presence of aliens or something else as earth shattering...
Or nuclear secrets. Or classified sources. Or anything with potential political ramifications. Or maybe there isn't a cover up and the government really doesn't know either. Classified documents /= aliens.
Sure nuclear secrets that 1/2 of the world knows already. I mean they don't need to go into detail and provide the plans for the recovered UFOs, just admit they exist and maybe show a photo or something. Its possible that its not true, but its not probable with over 400 people coming forward with radar recordings, declassified reports, and eye witness testimony.
Yeah, except see above there is evidence. A full scale investigation would reveal much much more and corroborate the stories
Well supposedly that colonel already said that he did an investigation and that the government has disclosed everything it actually knows about aliens. I notice you accept one officer's word as proof, but not another's.
Here they are probably referring to the public reports of project blue book that have already been proven wrong. They reported that most of the public's reports were weather balloons or hoaxes. In later years we have proven that most of their excuses were invalid and that the investigations were shoddy or not done at all...
The way I see it, no matter how many documents are declassified and released, unless the government says "we met some cool aliens" there will be people that insist they are still hiding stuff because that's what they want to hear.
Well with $60 billion in spending on 'black budget' projects for a 'shadow' government made up of spy agencies and other 'top-secret' agencies and corporations its kind of hard to think they aren't hiding SOMETHING from us...
This is common in the espionage business for such mundane things as proof of political wrongdoing or as you say state 'secrets' that have nothing to do with aliens or UFOs.
Someone watches too many movies.
The radar recording is not 'classified' it is from a civilian airport. The reports are declassified Freedom of Information Act obtained legally. If they release a document or tell someone they are going to release this document they get put on a helicopter as you say, but more likely they just have an 'accident'. This is common in the espionage business for such mundane things as proof of political wrongdoing or as you say state 'secrets' that have nothing to do with aliens or UFOs. I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't even more aggressively pursue these kinds of actions when something like aliens or UFOs is factored into the equation.
These guys are claiming to have worked for the government and claim to be revealing that the government had knowledge of aliens and is hiding it. That would be classified. Therefore they are revealing classified information. Therefore by your logic they should already be gone. Of course, they could release stuff anonymously, either through this organization or through Wikileaks or something, and then the government wouldn't know who it was, but that hasn't happened either.
BTW, you still haven't provided a single shred of evidence that this actually happens.
Sure nuclear secrets that 1/2 of the world knows already. I mean they don't need to go into detail and provide the plans for the recovered UFOs, just admit they exist and maybe show a photo or something. Its possible that its not true, but its not probable with over 400 people coming forward with radar recordings, declassified reports, and eye witness testimony.
Ummm....not half the world. Maybe you should at least Wikipedia something before you start talking. And again, you are assuming that it is aliens they are hiding. You don't know that and you haven't provided any evidence of that.
Here they are probably referring to the public reports of project blue book that have already been proven wrong. They reported that most of the public's reports were weather balloons or hoaxes. In later years we have proven that most of their excuses were invalid and that the investigations were shoddy or not done at all...
Nope, fail again. The Colonel said he was involved in the investigation, not just referring to an older one, and he specifically said the weather balloon story was bogus but also said it was not aliens either. Whether or not he's telling the truth, well I don't know, there's no more evidence than any of the other guys have, but I notice you completely dismiss that without even reading his story.
Well with $60 billion in spending on 'black budget' projects for a 'shadow' government made up of spy agencies and other 'top-secret' agencies and corporations its kind of hard to think they aren't hiding SOMETHING from us...
No **** they're hiding SOMETHING, that's the whole idea behind things like SECRET or TOP SECRET classifications. It's to hide stuff you don't want the world to know. That does not mean that the something is aliens. And yeah there's a lot of money in black ops. By their very nature, black ops cost a lot of money. How much money do you think the Bin Laden operation alone cost? However, the idea that this is a "shadow government" strikes me as completely ridiculous and again, where is the proof of this? And you wonder why no one here takes you seriously?
The radar recording is not 'classified' it is from a civilian airport. The reports are declassified Freedom of Information Act obtained legally. If they release a document or tell someone they are going to release this document they get put on a helicopter as you say, but more likely they just have an 'accident'. This is common in the espionage business for such mundane things as proof of political wrongdoing or as you say state 'secrets' that have nothing to do with aliens or UFOs. I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't even more aggressively pursue these kinds of actions when something like aliens or UFOs is factored into the equation.
These guys are claiming to have worked for the government and claim to be revealing that the government had knowledge of aliens and is hiding it. That would be classified. Therefore they are revealing classified information. Therefore by your logic they should already be gone. Of course, they could release stuff anonymously, either through this organization or through Wikileaks or something, and then the government wouldn't know who it was, but that hasn't happened either.
BTW, you still haven't provided a single shred of evidence that this actually happens.Sure nuclear secrets that 1/2 of the world knows already. I mean they don't need to go into detail and provide the plans for the recovered UFOs, just admit they exist and maybe show a photo or something. Its possible that its not true, but its not probable with over 400 people coming forward with radar recordings, declassified reports, and eye witness testimony.
Ummm....not half the world. Maybe you should at least Wikipedia something before you start talking. And again, you are assuming that it is aliens they are hiding. You don't know that and you haven't provided any evidence of that.Here they are probably referring to the public reports of project blue book that have already been proven wrong. They reported that most of the public's reports were weather balloons or hoaxes. In later years we have proven that most of their excuses were invalid and that the investigations were shoddy or not done at all...
Nope, fail again. The Colonel said he was involved in the investigation, not just referring to an older one, and he specifically said the weather balloon story was bogus but also said it was not aliens either. Whether or not he's telling the truth, well I don't know, there's no more evidence than any of the other guys have, but I notice you completely dismiss that without even reading his story.Well with $60 billion in spending on 'black budget' projects for a 'shadow' government made up of spy agencies and other 'top-secret' agencies and corporations its kind of hard to think they aren't hiding SOMETHING from us...
No **** they're hiding SOMETHING, that's the whole idea behind things like SECRET or TOP SECRET classifications. It's to hide stuff you don't want the world to know. That does not mean that the something is aliens. And yeah there's a lot of money in black ops. By their very nature, black ops cost a lot of money. How much money do you think the Bin Laden operation alone cost? However, the idea that this is a "shadow government" strikes me as completely ridiculous and again, where is the proof of this? And you wonder why no one here takes you seriously?
You can call it $60 billion dollar black ops to keep the United States on top of everyone else, but I just use the shorter term 'shadow government' as it seems appropriate. This is because there is little or no oversight, its compartmentalized so much that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, etc...etc...
[Yeah, except see above there is evidence. A full scale investigation would reveal much much more and corroborate the storiesThe background of the found of The Disclosure Project. Apparently he will teach you the use of meditation techniques, that allows attendees to "remote view" locations and times (past and present), and develop "cosmic consciousness" and abilities such as precognition.
www.ufowatchdog.com/steven_greer.htm
That's OK though. The government recently declassified a project where they were doing exactly this. Their success rate was something on the range of 60%-65% for finding hidden bases and identifying where people were hiding. I'm not sure why it was shut down though... Just a note anything over 40% is considered better than random...
Noticed you didn't have anything in response to the ufowatch dog link
www.ufowatchdog.com/greer_letter.htm
so in essence the UFOwatchdog group has put Steve in thrie hall of shame a number of times
and heres his reponse to Hawking's comment about how we should be careful with aliens from alst year
battleofearth.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/d...
EDIT: and btw didn't you say you were done with WotC or was that just D&D?
You can call it $60 billion dollar black ops to keep the United States on top of everyone else, but I just use the shorter term 'shadow government' as it seems appropriate. This is because there is little or no oversight, its compartmentalized so much that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, etc...etc...
Do they run the US? No, they work for the US, therefore not a shadow government. And yeah, the relatively little oversight (note how I use the term relatively little rather than saying no oversight, since that is definitely false) kind of falls into the no **** category. If all of Congress were watching their every move, it wouldn't be black ops. In fact, it probably wouldn't be any sort of secret at all.
Noticed you didn't have anything in response to the ufowatch dog link
www.ufowatchdog.com/greer_letter.htm
so in essence the UFOwatchdog group has put Steve in the hall of shame a number of times
I wouldn't call a slight exaggeration or a misunderstood agreement a 'hall of shame' moment. It could also have been 'off the record' talk that he had to redact later. The letter is really mild. Now you are the one exaggerating...
and heres his reponse to Hawking's comment about how we should be careful with aliens from alst year
battleofearth.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/d...
EDIT: and btw didn't you say you were done with WotC or was that just D&D?
Um did you even read that article. He makes a very valid point. Other than just to screw with us why would aliens come to earth in the first place? I mean like he says with their technology they could have wiped us from the face of the earth a few years after discovering us and we would be near helpless to stop them. So he pictures them as peaceful travelers. I'm not seeing how that makes him a loon or whatever. I'm just not really seeing your point.
Also I'm done with D&D and WotC corporate crap. I can still visit the off-topic forums and chat around with people...
You can call it $60 billion dollar black ops to keep the United States on top of everyone else, but I just use the shorter term 'shadow government' as it seems appropriate. This is because there is little or no oversight, its compartmentalized so much that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, etc...etc...
Do they run the US? No, they work for the US, therefore not a shadow government. And yeah, the relatively little oversight (note how I use the term relatively little rather than saying no oversight, since that is definitely false) kind of falls into the no **** category. If all of Congress were watching their every move, it wouldn't be black ops. In fact, it probably wouldn't be any sort of secret at all.
They are capable of manipulating the U.S. citizens through the media here is an example from 1962. If they did it then they sure as heck are doing it now. When I say no oversight I mean no real oversight. For example say a problem pops up, say Pakistan isn't agreeing to be our ally and they have access to nukes so we REALLY want them to be our ally or we want to get rid of the nukes. So the 'shadow government' propogates a bunch of news stories and misinformation about Osama Bin Laden residing there. Letters and support gets to congress and the U.S. people are behind going to war to kill Osama Bin Laden so the president sends in troops, congress funds them and we get our nukes or set up a government we like better and maybe if we happen to cross paths we get Osama Bin Laden. This only happens because the 'shadow government' doesn't have to follow 'the rules' that the visible government does. They are basically 'The means justify the ends' part of the government...
He makes a very valid point.
Not really. He's making assumptions about technology, motivations, and capabilities. I mean hell, we haven't found a way to pull of FTL travel yet, so who the hell does he think he is to make assumptions about what resources it will or won't need? As for why they'd do what they do... well, humans do all sorts of weird things without much "valid" reason. Who's to say that aliens won't be the same? If FTL is cheap and easy, we could get anything from the alien equivalent of drunk alien college kids running around causing a fuss for **** and giggles, a sociopath that likes to burn ants (that is, humans) for fun, crazy "environmentalists" that want to "protect us" and so-on. And that's just with human motivations.
So yeah... assuming that all aliens are going to be peaceful is stupid and crazy. There's just way too many assumptions going on.
They are capable of manipulating the U.S. citizens through the media here is an example from 1962. If they did it then they sure as heck are doing it now. When I say no oversight I mean no real oversight. For example say a problem pops up, say Pakistan isn't agreeing to be our ally and they have access to nukes so we REALLY want them to be our ally or we want to get rid of the nukes. So the 'shadow government' propogates a bunch of news stories and misinformation about Osama Bin Laden residing there. Letters and support gets to congress and the U.S. people are behind going to war to kill Osama Bin Laden so the president sends in troops, congress funds them and we get our nukes or set up a government we like better and maybe if we happen to cross paths we get Osama Bin Laden. This only happens because the 'shadow government' doesn't have to follow 'the rules' that the visible government does. They are basically 'The means justify the ends' part of the government...
You're using conspiracy theories to prop up conspiracy theories. You do know how that makes you look, right?
They are capable of manipulating the U.S. citizens through the media here is an example from 1962. If they did it then they sure as heck are doing it now. When I say no oversight I mean no real oversight. For example say a problem pops up, say Pakistan isn't agreeing to be our ally and they have access to nukes so we REALLY want them to be our ally or we want to get rid of the nukes. So the 'shadow government' propogates a bunch of news stories and misinformation about Osama Bin Laden residing there. Letters and support gets to congress and the U.S. people are behind going to war to kill Osama Bin Laden so the president sends in troops, congress funds them and we get our nukes or set up a government we like better and maybe if we happen to cross paths we get Osama Bin Laden. This only happens because the 'shadow government' doesn't have to follow 'the rules' that the visible government does. They are basically 'The means justify the ends' part of the government...
You're using conspiracy theories to prop up conspiracy theories. You do know how that makes you look, right?
I was using a real world example (the 1962 thing) and a made up example to show how it could be done today. I'm not asserting that anything other than the 1962 one is real. The fact that our 'black budget' government can pretty much do whatever they want in 1962 should make you ask questions about what they CAN do today...
He makes a very valid point.
Not really. He's making assumptions about technology, motivations, and capabilities. I mean hell, we haven't found a way to pull of FTL travel yet, so who the hell does he think he is to make assumptions about what resources it will or won't need? As for why they'd do what they do... well, humans do all sorts of weird things without much "valid" reason. Who's to say that aliens won't be the same? If FTL is cheap and easy, we could get anything from the alien equivalent of drunk alien college kids running around causing a fuss for **** and giggles, a sociopath that likes to burn ants (that is, humans) for fun, crazy "environmentalists" that want to "protect us" and so-on. And that's just with human motivations.
So yeah... assuming that all aliens are going to be peaceful is stupid and crazy. There's just way too many assumptions going on.
Overly optimistic maybe, stupid or crazy no. I'd go with naive...
Noticed you didn't have anything in response to the ufowatch dog link
www.ufowatchdog.com/greer_letter.htm
so in essence the UFOwatchdog group has put Steve in the hall of shame a number of times
I wouldn't call a slight exaggeration or a misunderstood agreement a 'hall of shame' moment. It could also have been 'off the record' talk that he had to redact later. The letter is really mild. Now you are the one exaggerating...
Exageerating about what? I simply said what they had on thrie website,whihc is his appearences in thire hall of shame which is more than once.
and heres his reponse to Hawking's comment about how we should be careful with aliens from alst year
battleofearth.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/d...
EDIT: and btw didn't you say you were done with WotC or was that just D&D?
Um did you even read that article. He makes a very valid point. Other than just to screw with us why would aliens come to earth in the first place? I mean like he says with their technology they could have wiped us from the face of the earth a few years after discovering us and we would be near helpless to stop them. So he pictures them as peaceful travelers. I'm not seeing how that makes him a loon or whatever. I'm just not really seeing your point.
Also I'm done with D&D and WotC corporate crap. I can still visit the off-topic forums and chat around with people...
I was simply going "heres what this guy think about Hawking's comments" nothing more nothing else,your the one seeing comments where non exist
Fair enough,but then i guess you really bored just like the rest of us here,lol
Overly optimistic maybe, stupid or crazy no. I'd go with naive...
Let's see... he uses "it hasn't happened yet" to say that visiting aliens aren't hostile, makes wild assumptions about the resource needs of technology we know nothing about, and so-on. So yes, the man is an idiot. A naive, optimstic, idiot. He's about on par with those crowds of hippies that get wiped out in the first salvo of every "Aliens come to Earth and mess **** up" movie.
The fact that our 'black budget' government can pretty much do whatever they want in 1962 should make you ask questions about what they CAN do today...
Um... except they didn't actually do it. You're jumping from they thought about it to they did it, to they could do it again. Your logic... it's like swiss cheese.
I was using a real world example (the 1962 thing) and a made up example to show how it could be done today. I'm not asserting that anything other than the 1962 one is real. The fact that our 'black budget' government can pretty much do whatever they want in 1962 should make you ask questions about what they CAN do today...
Let me quote the article you linked to. "But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership". So it seems there WAS oversight and they in fact COULD NOT do whatever they wanted. Do you actually read beyond the title?
They are capable of manipulating the U.S. citizens through the media here is an example from 1962.
Any semi-sentient being is capable of manipulating citizens through the media.
If they did it then they sure as heck are doing it now.
Except they didn't do it then and you still have no proof that it's happening now.
When I say no oversight I mean no real oversight.
Sure, I mean except for the fact that you're wrong and your own "proof" that you linked to supports that you're wrong.
For example say a problem pops up, say Pakistan isn't agreeing to be our ally and they have access to nukes so we REALLY want them to be our ally or we want to get rid of the nukes. So the 'shadow government' propogates a bunch of news stories and misinformation about Osama Bin Laden residing there. Letters and support gets to congress and the U.S. people are behind going to war to kill Osama Bin Laden so the president sends in troops, congress funds them and we get our nukes or set up a government we like better and maybe if we happen to cross paths we get Osama Bin Laden.
What are you even rambling about? Look, North Korea is not our friend and yet we have not created a false excuse to invade them. Russia is not our friend and we have not killed our own people to justify attacking them. I think if we thought Pakistan's government was going to fail and be taken over by extremists, those black ops guys would go in and capture or destroy its nuclear arsenal, and then leave. Not to mention it turns out that all the talk about Bin Laden in Pakistan wasn't misinformation at all...
They are capable of manipulating the U.S. citizens through the media here is an example from 1962.
Any semi-sentient being is capable of manipulating citizens through the media.
Mmhmm. Every human being is capable of murder. It doesn't make every human being a murderer.
I was using a real world example (the 1962 thing) and a made up example to show how it could be done today. I'm not asserting that anything other than the 1962 one is real. The fact that our 'black budget' government can pretty much do whatever they want in 1962 should make you ask questions about what they CAN do today...
Let me quote the article you linked to. "But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership". So it seems there WAS oversight and they in fact COULD NOT do whatever they wanted. Do you actually read beyond the title?
Yeah, Civilian leadership refers to the President saying no. Read the whole article and you'll see. It was literally the joint chiefs approaching the president with a plan to fake terror cells in the U.S. and sinking a U.S. ship near Cuba to get a positive backing to invade Cuba...
Yeah, Civilian leadership refers to the President saying no. Read the whole article and you'll see. It was literally the joint chiefs approaching the president with a plan to fake terror cells in the U.S. and sinking a U.S. ship near Cuba to get a positive backing to invade Cuba...
So they approached him... A lot of people approach the president with a lot of things that get shot down. The point is that it did not happen. Using things that could happen, that did not happen, as burden of proof is sheer foolishness.
Yeah, Civilian leadership refers to the President saying no. Read the whole article and you'll see. It was literally the joint chiefs approaching the president with a plan to fake terror cells in the U.S. and sinking a U.S. ship near Cuba to get a positive backing to invade Cuba...
So they approached him... A lot of people approach the president with a lot of things that get shot down. The point is that it did not happen. Using things that could happen, that did not happen, as burden of proof is sheer foolishness.
How bout some real world examples Vietnam Cover-up, Gulf of Tonkin, More Tonkin, Rebuilding America Report. There's plenty more where that came from. Your right though there's no possible way it could happen...
I like this Greer guy. I mean, he talks about some zero point energy source and, apparently, can get people to back it even though they've never seen it. He takes a picture of a moth and distorts it a bit and gets people to believe it's a space alien. He says he can vector in alien spacecraft - and has done so - but never bothered to film it or even take a few stills to mark the occasion and people believe he can ... I mean, this guy is amazing! And people are really, really stupid.
Hmm... care to back that up with links and citations?
I was using a real world example (the 1962 thing) and a made up example to show how it could be done today. I'm not asserting that anything other than the 1962 one is real. The fact that our 'black budget' government can pretty much do whatever they want in 1962 should make you ask questions about what they CAN do today...
Let me quote the article you linked to. "But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership". So it seems there WAS oversight and they in fact COULD NOT do whatever they wanted. Do you actually read beyond the title?
Yeah, Civilian leadership refers to the President saying no. Read the whole article and you'll see. It was literally the joint chiefs approaching the president with a plan to fake terror cells in the U.S. and sinking a U.S. ship near Cuba to get a positive backing to invade Cuba...
Wow, you really are completely incapable of reading your own links aren't you? It literally was not the joint chiefs going straight to the President. They were presented to the Secretary of Defense and then rejected. The President is not the only civilian involved in military affairs.
Hmm... care to back that up with links and citations?
Sure. Go back and look at the links trappedslider provided You'll see where I got that stuff from if you follow those.
How bout some real world examples Vietnam Cover-up, Gulf of Tonkin, More Tonkin, Rebuilding America Report. There's plenty more where that came from. Your right though there's no possible way it could happen...
The first one shows that sometimes the military does ****ed up things during a ****ed up war. But it's hardly proof of the military running rampant and doing whatever it pleases with US citizens. Wrong though it may be, it was foreigners on foreign soil, so it really doesn't support your claim.
The next two show that the military makes mistakes and that our government is really reluctant to admit to mistakes, I don't think that's much of a shock to anyone.
The last one proves nothing either. Have you actually read that? I'll assume not. First off, it's simply a review of America's defensive and military posture and a recommended strategy for moving forward, not some secret league of super villains plotting world domination. All it does it recognize what most Americans didn't realize until after 9/11; the Cold War strategies of deterrent are no longer relevant to the current state of affairs where the US is likely to be involved in multiple smaller conflicts. There's actually a lot of good advice in there that the US should have followed, like scrapping expensive weapons programs and modernizing the force, but absolutely nothing suggesting some massive Iraq conspiracy.
Care to try again?
How bout some real world examples Vietnam Cover-up, Gulf of Tonkin, More Tonkin, Rebuilding America Report. There's plenty more where that came from. Your right though there's no possible way it could happen...
The first one shows that sometimes the military does ****ed up things during a ****ed up war. But it's hardly proof of the military running rampant and doing whatever it pleases with US citizens. Wrong though it may be, it was foreigners on foreign soil, so it really doesn't support your claim.
The next two show that the military makes mistakes and that our government is really reluctant to admit to mistakes, I don't think that's much of a shock to anyone.
The last one proves nothing either. Have you actually read that? I'll assume not. First off, it's simply a review of America's defensive and military posture and a recommended strategy for moving forward, not some secret league of super villains plotting world domination. All it does it recognize what most Americans didn't realize until after 9/11; the Cold War strategies of deterrent are no longer relevant to the current state of affairs where the US is likely to be involved in multiple smaller conflicts. There's actually a lot of good advice in there that the US should have followed, like scrapping expensive weapons programs and modernizing the force, but absolutely nothing suggesting some massive Iraq conspiracy.
Care to try again?
Once again you are mischaracterizing my arguments to fit your straw man, so you can then knock it down. I never said they were unrestrained. they were perfectly restrained. They were told we need to invade country X make it happen, and they did by faking the Gulf of Tonkin stuff, which we now know because of declassified documents is what happened.
The Vietnam cover-up link talks about soldiers that were sent into hostile territory on suicide missions and then immediately declared MIA. Many of them are still alive and suing the government.
Actually the last one calls for another 'pearl harbor' like incident to galvanize support behind going to war in the middle east. How convenient that something like 9/11 happened...
Once again you are mischaracterizing my arguments to fit your straw man, so you can then knock it down. I never said they were unrestrained. they were perfectly restrained. They were told we need to invade country X make it happen, and they did by faking the Gulf of Tonkin stuff, which we now know because of declassified documents is what happened.
Reading about the Tonkin episode, your own links make it clear that there was no conspiracy to fabricate a second attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. What there was, however, was a mistake that no one wanted to take responsibility for. Most likely that mistake had already been used to justify more aggressive action by the time it had been discovered, so it was kept under wraps.
In other words, you did not understand your cited source material.
The Vietnam cover-up link talks about soldiers that were sent into hostile territory on suicide missions and then immediately declared MIA. Many of them are still alive and suing the government.
Sabotage not suicide missions. Also, no where does the article say the commandos were "immeadiately" declared dead. You fail reading comprehension 101.
Actually the last one calls for another 'pearl harbor' like incident to galvanize support behind going to war in the middle east. How convenient that something like 9/11 happened...
No, it does not "call" for one. It states that such an event would be the only thing that would get the military off its ass and actually moderize in a timely fashion. And even if it were calling for such a thing, why would they put this call in an Uncassified document? Why the hell do all conspiracy theorists think that the world is being manipulated by evil geniuses who possess competence rivaling that of Scooby-Doo villains?
You can call it $60 billion dollar black ops to keep the United States on top of everyone else, but I just use the shorter term 'shadow government' as it seems appropriate. This is because there is little or no oversight, its compartmentalized so much that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, etc...etc...
They are capable of manipulating the U.S. citizens through the media here is an example from 1962. If they did it then they sure as heck are doing it now. When I say no oversight I mean no real oversight. For example say a problem pops up, say Pakistan isn't agreeing to be our ally and they have access to nukes so we REALLY want them to be our ally or we want to get rid of the nukes. So the 'shadow government' propogates a bunch of news stories and misinformation about Osama Bin Laden residing there. Letters and support gets to congress and the U.S. people are behind going to war to kill Osama Bin Laden so the president sends in troops, congress funds them and we get our nukes or set up a government we like better and maybe if we happen to cross paths we get Osama Bin Laden. This only happens because the 'shadow government' doesn't have to follow 'the rules' that the visible government does. They are basically 'The means justify the ends' part of the government...
Once again you are mischaracterizing my arguments to fit your straw man, so you can then knock it down. I never said they were unrestrained. they were perfectly restrained.
You're right, how ever could I have misunderstood that you feel the military is perfectly restrained. I must have made those other posts up...
They were told we need to invade country X make it happen, and they did by faking the Gulf of Tonkin stuff, which we now know because of declassified documents is what happened.
Funny, cuz that's not what the article says.
Mr. PRADOS: The research of the NSA historian who worked on these documents uncovered the fact that there had been mistaken translations. Two different NSA intercept posts had gotten the same message, had translated it differently and said to get out at different times led people in Washington to conclude that messages that referred to the August 2nd attack actually...
SIMON: Which was the one that did occur.
Mr. PRADOS: Which was the one that did occur, actually presaged a brand new attack, and thus set them up to believe that the second attack happened. The United States government very quickly, because of the Tonkin Gulf resolution, got itself locked into a posture of assuring that the second attack had in fact happened, so that even in subsequent reviews and chronologies that were compiled for the record, the National Security Agency people continued to maintain the fiction recreating a false chronology that excluded all these other data, which has now turned up.
If you read through it, it sounds less like "we need to invade to let's lie about this attack" and more like "oh **** we read that message wrong and reported two attacks instead of one, well we're gonna look stupid if we say something now so let's just roll with it".
The Vietnam cover-up link talks about soldiers that were sent into hostile territory on suicide missions and then immediately declared MIA. Many of them are still alive and suing the government.
Which, like I said is wrong, but not proof of an out of control shadow government that makes citizens disappear on a whim.
Actually the last one calls for another 'pearl harbor' like incident to galvanize support behind going to war in the middle east.
Actually no, it doesn't. It acknowledges that change is slow without a catalyst. It says that citizens and the government won't likely recognize the need to quickly implement the report's recommendations without an event like Pearl Harbor to spur them forward. As it turns out, they were right. That's a far cry from calling for a disaster to happen.
How convenient that something like 9/11 happened...
Seriously? Are you now insinuating that the government was behind 9/11? With your only evidence being a true statement (backed by actual observations of events after the report was finished) that really just amounted to common sense?
This is like saying slavery would not have ended easily without something to spur legislation forward. Oh gee, how convenient that the South seceded so the North could invade and simultaneously end slavery. You know what, Lincoln must have made the South secede so that he would have an excuse to start a war!
No, it does not "call" for one. It states that such an event would be the only thing that would get the military off its ass and actually moderize in a timely fashion. And even if it were calling for such a thing, why would they put this call in an Uncassified document? Why the hell do all conspiracy theorists think that the world is being manipulated by evil geniuses who possess competence rivaling that of Scooby-Doo villains?
Actually, the Scooby-Doo villians would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids, so the government people the conspiricy theorists talk about are less competent.
The thing I call 'shadow government' has little or no oversight. The military on the other hand were told what to do and went and did it. Two different entities. Military, Shadow Government.
I also never said they can whisk citizens away with no problem. I'm sure they follow a much more efficient pattern. They probably start with 'internet forum arguments' to make the person look stupid or paranoid, from there they defame them publicly, after that threats and or bribes ensue, if that doesn't work the last resort is then to make someone disappear.
You keep drawing extremes when the reality is probably closer to the center.
You can read what you want into the Gulf of Tonkin thing, but the fact is the second attack didn't happen, it was also the catalyzing element that pushed us into the war. Without it we would not have gone to war. It was pretty convenient for people that wanted the war. Its one of many 'mishaps' that really taint the ideals if it were the only one of its kind, I'd probably agree to you, its not as the Cuba documents show as well as the many other times it has happened.
As far as 9/11 goes, building 7 is the clincher for many. Nothing hits it and it falls like a demolition building, no matter how you slice it the chances of that happening under any other circumstances is billions to one. Short of some magical ray that powders the metal supports instantaneously, there really is no other conclusion. A fire wouldn't do it, debris hitting it from ANY angle wouldn't do it, there are literally no explanations other than controlled demolitions... but that's an entire other topic. (Note: I didn't say who did it, just that it was orchestrated in some way {it could even have been done by al-queida, but used explosives rather than planes}
In conclusion you can actually try to refute the facts or you can continue to call me and people calling for investigations 'loonies', 'tin-foil hat wearing crazies' or whatever, but until they investigate it you and they don't have a leg to stand on...
I also never said they can whisk citizens away with no problem. I'm sure they follow a much more efficient pattern. They probably start with 'internet forum arguments' to make the person look stupid or paranoid, from there they defame them publicly, after that threats and or bribes ensue, if that doesn't work the last resort is then to make someone disappear.
On damn, I think hes on to you naga! Better put pressure on the mods to remove the thread and start in with the bribing. I promisie, I will have never seen a thing for a moderate fee.
I also never said they can whisk citizens away with no problem. I'm sure they follow a much more efficient pattern. They probably start with 'internet forum arguments' to make the person look stupid or paranoid, from there they defame them publicly, after that threats and or bribes ensue, if that doesn't work the last resort is then to make someone disappear.
On damn, I think hes on to you naga! Better put pressure on the mods to remove the thread and start in with the bribing. I promisie, I will have never seen a thing for a moderate fee.
It's been my experience that those kind of people are perfectly capable of making themselves look stupid and paranoid without the assistance of others.
I also never said they can whisk citizens away with no problem. I'm sure they follow a much more efficient pattern. They probably start with 'internet forum arguments' to make the person look stupid or paranoid, from there they defame them publicly, after that threats and or bribes ensue, if that doesn't work the last resort is then to make someone disappear.
On damn, I think hes on to you naga! Better put pressure on the mods to remove the thread and start in with the bribing. I promisie, I will have never seen a thing for a moderate fee.
It's been my experience that those kind of people are perfectly capable of making themselves look stupid and paranoid without the assistance of others.
It's been my experience that you are recursevly one of 'thoes people'.
Once again bone_naga you try to mischaracterize my statements in order to make me look bad...
All I've done is quote you. Besides, I don't need to make you look bad, you've done a better job than I could ever dream of.
The thing I call 'shadow government' has little or no oversight. The military on the other hand were told what to do and went and did it. Two different entities. Military, Shadow Government.
I still don't think you understand what a shadow government is. But since we're on the subject, please explain exactly what you define the shadow government is. Given your own rantings on the subject, I imagined it would be mostly spec ops military with a few others thrown in, such as the CIA's paramilitary group.
I also never said they can whisk citizens away with no problem. I'm sure they follow a much more efficient pattern. They probably start with 'internet forum arguments' to make the person look stupid or paranoid, from there they defame them publicly, after that threats and or bribes ensue, if that doesn't work the last resort is then to make someone disappear.
Ha ha. You did suggest that they kidnapped, blackmailed, and assassinated people regularly, to include US citizens as well as anyone that claims to develop cold fusion (despite evidence to the contrary).
You keep drawing extremes when the reality is probably closer to the center.
I'm drawing extremes. Really?
You can read what you want into the Gulf of Tonkin thing, but the fact is the second attack didn't happen, it was also the catalyzing element that pushed us into the war. Without it we would not have gone to war. It was pretty convenient for people that wanted the war. Its one of many 'mishaps' that really taint the ideals if it were the only one of its kind, I'd probably agree to you, its not as the Cuba documents show as well as the many other times it has happened.
I'm reading what was printed in the article that you linked to. The fact is that not owning up to a mistake is not the same as intentionally perpetrating the event to begin with. The fact is that a lot of things in history are convenient for those that want them to happen. In fact, any event that triggers another event is convenient for those that wanted said event to happen. That's common sense. The Civil War was convenient for those that wanted slavery to end. Pearl Harbor was convenient for those that wanted the US to enter WWII. The invention of the A-Bomb was convenient for those that wanted WWII to end. The Six Day War was convenient for anyone that didn't like Arabs. Hurricane Katrina was convenient for anyone that hated New Orleans. Convenience /= conspiracy. Also, it's hard to say that without it we wouldn't have gone to war. Many different events have triggered wars. We could have easily gone into Vietnam for a multitude of other reasons.
As far as 9/11 goes, building 7 is the clincher for many. Nothing hits it and it falls like a demolition building, no matter how you slice it the chances of that happening under any other circumstances is billions to one. Short of some magical ray that powders the metal supports instantaneously, there really is no other conclusion. A fire wouldn't do it, debris hitting it from ANY angle wouldn't do it, there are literally no explanations other than controlled demolitions... but that's an entire other topic. (Note: I didn't say who did it, just that it was orchestrated in some way {it could even have been done by al-queida, but used explosives rather than planes}
I'm sorry, are you a structural engineer now? Do you know that nothing could have caused it's collapse? You say debris from any angle couldn't do it. I've seen fragmentation (or "debris") do a lot of weird things that no one would have expected it to. The debris also started fires within the building. So yes, there are explanations other than controlled demolition.
In conclusion you can actually try to refute the facts or you can continue to call me and people calling for investigations 'loonies', 'tin-foil hat wearing crazies' or whatever, but until they investigate it you and they don't have a leg to stand on...
Yeah, the problem is that even after this stuff is investigated, the loonies insist that it's not good enough and that the investigation is part of the cover up. Nothing will satisfy them until someone tells them exactly what they want to hear, and even then they'll just use that as "proof" of some other theory or modify their original conspiracy theory so that they have something else to whine about.
It's been my experience that you are recursevly one of 'thoes people'.
Wow, that's pathetically weak. Even by your standards.
I also never said they can whisk citizens away with no problem. I'm sure they follow a much more efficient pattern. They probably start with 'internet forum arguments' to make the person look stupid or paranoid, from there they defame them publicly, after that threats and or bribes ensue, if that doesn't work the last resort is then to make someone disappear.
On damn, I think hes on to you naga! Better put pressure on the mods to remove the thread and start in with the bribing. I promisie, I will have never seen a thing for a moderate fee.
Bribery? Silly amphibian, that's for Congressman. Haven't you caught on to how we operate? There is no money; you just cooperate or we make you disappear, take you to Kyrgistan, rent a house, and waterboard you in the basement until you confess to being a terrorist because you were associated with Lokiare who is clearly an antigovernment individual and therefore a person of interest for the FBI and NSA.
It's been my experience that you are recursevly one of 'thoes people'.
Wow, that's pathetically weak. Even by your standards.
If you want stronger counter-punches, do not start a wet sponge fight.
Bribery? Silly amphibian, that's for Congressman. Haven't you caught on to how we operate? There is no money; you just cooperate or we make you disappear, take you to Kyrgistan, rent a house, and waterboard you in the basement until you confess to being a terrorist because you were associated with Lokiare who is clearly an antigovernment individual and therefore a person of interest for the FBI and NSA.
Better to just put me outside. Besides, buying my silence is probably much cheaper than renting a house and transporting me to "Kyrgistan".
It's been my experience that you are recursevly one of 'thoes people'.
Wow, that's pathetically weak. Even by your standards.
If you want stronger counter-punches, do not start a wet sponge fight.
LOL. You think just because I quoted you I was referring to you?? Sheesh, TA. Pay a little closer attention.
It's been my experience that you are recursevly one of 'thoes people'.
Wow, that's pathetically weak. Even by your standards.
If you want stronger counter-punches, do not start a wet sponge fight.
LOL. You think just because I quoted you I was referring to you?? Sheesh, TA. Pay a little closer attention.
So now your calling me a sponge? Hell man, thats just.... strange. I approve of this message.
It's been my experience that you are recursevly one of 'thoes people'.
Wow, that's pathetically weak. Even by your standards.
If you want stronger counter-punches, do not start a wet sponge fight.
LOL. You think just because I quoted you I was referring to you?? Sheesh, TA. Pay a little closer attention.
So now your calling me a sponge? Hell man, thats just.... strange. I approve of this message.
LOL. If you want to fight, just say so. I am sure that someone here will oblige.
Truth be told, I was the sponge. I sponged off your response... but I was adding to it, not refuting it or applying my response to you. LOL. Tell you what, next time I insult you, I'll make it crystal clear as to avoid any confusion.
Bribery? Silly amphibian, that's for Congressman. Haven't you caught on to how we operate? There is no money; you just cooperate or we make you disappear, take you to Kyrgistan, rent a house, and waterboard you in the basement until you confess to being a terrorist because you were associated with Lokiare who is clearly an antigovernment individual and therefore a person of interest for the FBI and NSA.
Better to just put me outside. Besides, buying my silence is probably much cheaper than renting a house and transporting me to "Kyrgistan".
Kyrgyzstan. Damn stupid foreign countries and their stupid foreign names. Hey I've only been there once, I can't be expected to spell it on demand. Anyway, just for you we will start a new process called sandboarding.
:P
Bribery? Silly amphibian, that's for Congressman. Haven't you caught on to how we operate? There is no money; you just cooperate or we make you disappear, take you to Kyrgistan, rent a house, and waterboard you in the basement until you confess to being a terrorist because you were associated with Lokiare who is clearly an antigovernment individual and therefore a person of interest for the FBI and NSA.
Better to just put me outside. Besides, buying my silence is probably much cheaper than renting a house and transporting me to "Kyrgistan".
Kyrgyzstan. Damn stupid foreign countries and their stupid foreign names. Hey I've only been there once, I can't be expected to spell it on demand. Anyway, just for you we will start a new process called sandboarding.
Salt boarding. Sand is not particularly absorbent.
Oh, so sorry. I thought we where playing the non-sensical, tangentally related and unexplained post game, on account of your complete failure to elaborate on just what the **** you where talking about.
:P
It's pretty clear if you read Loki's post (which I also quoted in that response), then your post, then my response.
Oh, so sorry. I thought we where playing the non-sensical, tangentally related and unexplained post game, on account of your complete failure to elaborate on just what the **** you where talking about.
:P
It's pretty clear if you read Loki's post (which I also quoted in that response), then your post, then my response.
Your implying that you belive a 'punch' must be directed at me for me to swing at the thrower? Do you forget your lesons that quickly?
Oh, so sorry. I thought we where playing the non-sensical, tangentally related and unexplained post game, on account of your complete failure to elaborate on just what the **** you where talking about.
:P
It's pretty clear if you read Loki's post (which I also quoted in that response), then your post, then my response.
Your implying that you belive a 'punch' must be directed at me for me to swing at the thrower? Do you forget your lesons that quickly?
Considering your swipes at Loki, I hardly think you were running to his defense.
Salt boarding. Sand is not particularly absorbent.
Foiled again! It would have worked if it wasn't for you meddling amphibians!
Oh, so sorry. I thought we where playing the non-sensical, tangentally related and unexplained post game, on account of your complete failure to elaborate on just what the **** you where talking about.
:P
It's pretty clear if you read Loki's post (which I also quoted in that response), then your post, then my response.
Your implying that you belive a 'punch' must be directed at me for me to swing at the thrower? Do you forget your lesons that quickly?
Considering your swipes at Loki, I hardly think you were running to his defense.
I'll swing at anyone who looks particularly slow at the moment. You made a soggy ass jab at Loki, and I came out with an equally limp sucker punch from left field. Where is the confusion comming from?
Oh, so sorry. I thought we where playing the non-sensical, tangentally related and unexplained post game, on account of your complete failure to elaborate on just what the **** you where talking about.
:P
It's pretty clear if you read Loki's post (which I also quoted in that response), then your post, then my response.
Your implying that you belive a 'punch' must be directed at me for me to swing at the thrower? Do you forget your lesons that quickly?
Considering your swipes at Loki, I hardly think you were running to his defense.
I'll swing at anyone who looks particularly slow at the moment. You made a soggy ass jab at Loki, and I came out with an equally limp sucker punch from left field. Where is the confusion comming from?
Looks can be deceiving, and you are simply backtracking, and I'm not playing your silly games. Game of Thrones awaits.
Oh, so sorry. I thought we where playing the non-sensical, tangentally related and unexplained post game, on account of your complete failure to elaborate on just what the **** you where talking about.
:P
It's pretty clear if you read Loki's post (which I also quoted in that response), then your post, then my response.
Your implying that you belive a 'punch' must be directed at me for me to swing at the thrower? Do you forget your lesons that quickly?
Considering your swipes at Loki, I hardly think you were running to his defense.
I'll swing at anyone who looks particularly slow at the moment. You made a soggy ass jab at Loki, and I came out with an equally limp sucker punch from left field. Where is the confusion comming from?
Looks can be deceiving, and you are simply backtracking, and I'm not playing your silly games. Game of Thrones awaits.
Recent exchanges suggest otherwise.
Edite: It's a pretty good one this week. Creative interpretations of spilling blood. Rules lawyering at its best.
I saw a clip from it that actualy piqued my interest in the show. Unsurprisngly, it was that scene where that one guy is shaving that other guy while they're talking about why he should make a bid for the throne. It ends in a ****. Do you actually see those characters much? From what little I read it sounded like the producers added that scene (it wasn't in the book?) because they didn't get much screen time.
Edit:I am saddened that **** is censored, but what can you do? Oral just sounds so clinical...
Controlled demolition
Fire
Building Comparison
Structural Engineer Proves Government Investigaters Wrong
Inquiries to Obama
At the very least an independent investigation needs to be done...
www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Look I can post links too!
Steel doesn't need to be anywhere near it's melting point to lose the majority of it's structural integrity. The steel became malleable under both the load and stresses of having major structural supports destroyed and having heat exposure. At 800 degrees steel loses over half of it's strength IIRC.
The insulating foam that protects steel from fire, was knocked off during impact with the planes, which then precipiated the collapse of the first supports. The other supports as the fire spread became compromised as they exceeded their load point, causing the insulation to snap off in places and allowing for further compromise of structural integrity.
But hey what do I know? I've only worked around Steel, for several years of my life and bent steel on a routine basis.
I always get a laugh out of "the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel" remarks.
Steel doesn't need to be anywhere near it's melting point to lose the majority of it's structural integrity. The steel became malleable under both the load and stresses of having major structural supports destroyed and having heat exposure. At 800 degrees steel loses over half of it's strength IIRC.
The insulating foam that protects steel from fire, was knocked off during impact with the planes, which then precipiated the collapse of the first supports. The other supports as the fire spread became compromised as they exceeded their load point, causing the insulation to snap off in places and allowing for further compromise of structural integrity.
But hey what do I know? I've only worked around Steel, for several years of my life and bent steel on a routine basis.
Capt Micha (actual photo). ;)
The other thing people forget is that the steel columns holding the towers up weren't gigantic, thousand foot long pieces of steel. They were multiple pieces riveted together. So you don't need to get an i-beam to fail, just some rivets.
And the insulation was knocked off of every single piece of steel support at exactly the same time, and the metal heated across completely equally at all points so building 7 could collapse in its footprint. Yeah, I got a bridge I can sell you too...
Let me review your links and get back to you. I have no problem with the main two towers, but building 7 was a blatant controlled demolition...
Dude you want investigations on EVERYTHING. Like on stuff that's already been investigated. There's only so much that can be expected. Some people will never be happy with the investigation results no matter who it comes from unless it proves their own theories right.
www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Look I can post links too!
The problem with this link is they don't really adress anything directly. Like they claim that building seven had a hole one one corner. If that were the case it would have fallen in the direction of that hole, not straight down floor to floor like a controlled demolition.
They talk about using cables on other buildings, but they don't talk about it on building 7. Which is funny because even if they did use wires, it still would have looked differently. It would have fell in a direction. Not straight down.
It also claims that they were worried that it got hit by part of one of the main towers. The problem with this is that it wouldn't have been symetrically hit head on or whatever. It was at an angle to the two towers AND there were intervening buildings. It would have fallen at an angle and NOT in its footprint.
They show a photo of a building smoking. The problem is building 7 was not brick red. It was a different color (steel grey in the video). In the video there is no smoke until it begins to fall.
Later it claims a hole in the side of the building. This would have caused a collapse where the top fell toward the hole, then the bottom falls in the opposite direction. This didn't happen. It is clearly the exact same as a controlled demolition.
This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, I suspect there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make "a hole 20 stories tall".
In other words it would have fallen in 2 or more directions if this were true, or it would have fallen with half of it first, then the rest either still standing or falling over or following shortly after. Basically it falls uniformly in its footprint. So these holes are fictional or were taken into account when it was taken down in a controlled demolition.
but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
A bulge means its going to fall in the opposite direction. A universal fall would show a bulge all around NOT in a single direction.
I could go on and on, but the site you picked proves itself wrong.
The main problem that everyone is forgetting is that you don't get a uniform fall when you have steel melting... or debris hitting it from another direction. I mean what the debris flew almost straight up in the air half a mile and then came down directly in the center of building 7. I got a bridge I'm willing to let go for $10,000...
And the insulation was knocked off of every single piece of steel support at exactly the same time, and the metal heated across completely equally at all points so building 7 could collapse in its footprint. Yeah, I got a bridge I can sell you too...
Let me review your links and get back to you. I have no problem with the main two towers, but building 7 was a blatant controlled demolition...
To play devil's advocate for a moment, why would you Demo building 7, and not 1 and 2. Seriously, think about that for a few moments. Building 7 was no where near as important, nor as symbolic.
Now back to reality.
Most people, (yourself included) it seems have no clue of how Big the Debris cloud really was, or just how much of it, there was. From 1 and 2 collapsing, most of lower manhatten from one extent or another, was absolutely covered in the debris cloud. Not the area just around the tower, almost the entire area of the island, for Miles. It also went several thousand feet into the air as it followed prevailing winds.
Actually that depends entirely on the way the building is constructed. Only the most Loadbearing supports would need to be damaged, along with only a handful of secondary supports. Since the worst of the fire was also in the lower part of Building 7, coupled with impact from debris moving at a high rate of speed hitting upper supports, middle supports, and lower floors. The building took some pretty hard shots from the debris, when the fire started it had plenty of fuel to reach a point where it was going to burn, damaged foam off, (foam which wasn't designed to withstand fire for that prolonged of a period of time) which then weakened the steel.
The collapse followed the path of least resistance which was straight downwards. Something to remember, is that the very principles of making a building stand up straight also apply to them falling down in more modern built structures. Hence, tower 1 and 2s more or less 90 degree falls, the same applies to building 7.
Seriously think about it, towers 1 and 2, were hit at Uneven points, and not into the Core of the building. The fires started up on the Upper floors and they still came down more or less straight up and down, and you're shocked that building 7 did the same, when more of it was damaged over a larger area, with longer burning fires to damage the core support?
PS I am not a robot. As that would spare me having to fight against Klirshon's mechanical forces when the Uprising happens. :-p
Dude you want investigations on EVERYTHING. Like on stuff that's already been investigated. There's only so much that can be expected. Some people will never be happy with the investigation results no matter who it comes from unless it proves their own theories right.
www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Look I can post links too!
I provided him a link weeks ago to the Popular Mechanics article that debunked the building 7 conspiracy (as well as other 911 conspiracies). He completely ignored the facts that were provided within and probably the article altogether because it was from a reputable source and disproved his beliefs.
web.archive.org/web/20071224095207/http:...
That ones even funnier.
[The windows blowing out]Could have been caused by electrical cables & boxes going.
[] added by me to show what they were talking about.
First off you don't have boxes that big on every level. Usually you get a small box that is put inside some closet or stairwell, they don't put these things next to windows for a reason. Second off there is no way that the electrical boxes would all explode at the same time. You would get a single box going and then all the boxes connected to that box would be dead and receive no more electricity.
I particularly like the part where they talk about how nobody noticed them putting charges up in the building, duh... they all died in the collapse! The few that didn't would need to be contacted and interviewed. Of course if it was a government project they could have been silenced by threat or bribery.
It also claims that comparative videos don't look anything like the building 7 collapse. Which is funny because they actually do...
Other than that they remain strangely silent about building 7...
Dude you want investigations on EVERYTHING. Like on stuff that's already been investigated. There's only so much that can be expected. Some people will never be happy with the investigation results no matter who it comes from unless it proves their own theories right.
www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Look I can post links too!
I provided him a link weeks ago to the Popular Mechanics article that debunked the building 7 conspiracy (as well as other 911 conspiracies). He completely ignored the facts that were provided within and probably the article altogether because it was from a reputable source and disproved his beliefs.
Can you repost the link. I've got time to review it now. Of course there is this.
Plenty of articles covering much of 911. Specific to WTC7:
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
I always get a laugh out of "the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel" remarks.
Steel doesn't need to be anywhere near it's melting point to lose the majority of it's structural integrity. The steel became malleable under both the load and stresses of having major structural supports destroyed and having heat exposure. At 800 degrees steel loses over half of it's strength IIRC.
The insulating foam that protects steel from fire, was knocked off during impact with the planes, which then precipiated the collapse of the first supports. The other supports as the fire spread became compromised as they exceeded their load point, causing the insulation to snap off in places and allowing for further compromise of structural integrity.
But hey what do I know? I've only worked around Steel, for several years of my life and bent steel on a routine basis.
Capt Micha (actual photo). ;)
Incorrect. We have already been over this. He is "Cpt 'sometimes you have to be the hammer' Micha"
www.popularmechanics.com/technology/mili...
Plenty of articles covering much of 911. Specific to WTC7:FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
This quote here proves itself wrong. If the damage was localized the building would not have fallen uniformly, the damaged parts would have fallen first and then the less damage parts would have fallen or stayed standing...NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
The video I posted shows that the building fell uniformly and therefore they didn't even compare their own report to the known video. One side did not fall before the other. The kinks happen in a completely uniform manner from top to bottom one after another starting at the top. It would in fact be in the opposite order from bottom to top going with the ones with the most load first. This is clearly a contradiction.According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
Yes, but the problem with this is that the section where the columns are would be the first to fall, followed by the rest of the building where you would see half of the building fall then a second later the other half would follow in a 'n' pattern...There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Once again if this were true they would not all have collapsed at the same time, you would have seen 'w' shapes as the building fell with different columns giving up at different times. They magically all gave up at the same time though for this theory to be correct...Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
7 hours? wow, on the fifth floor. So then the fifth floor should have collapsed first rather than the top floor and each succeeding floor below that... Not to mention that the metal in the building would not have gotten hot enough unless the entire building was on fire all at once...WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
Well obviously facts aren't going to sway you.
On the contrary, facts are what swayed me into believing that building 7 was a controlled demolition. If you examine some of the links you'll find some interesting facts. The number of 'coincidences' that are required for the government scenario to be even remotely believable move the chances of this happening into the range of 1 in 100 billion or more. All the CEOs that worked in the WTC were 'at a meeting' on a military base. They had insurance against 'terrorists attacks' and other interesting facts you'll find in that link...
What about common sense? There was no motive (the terrorists already had juicier targets and the government already had plenty cause to invade after this) and no benefit for anyone involved (no terrorists took credit for a separate attack on that building nor did the government claim there was a separate attack, and that particular building really didn't get any media coverage). Not to mention that in order for this to be true, someone had to plant explosives all around that building and rig them for simultaneous detonation without themselves or the explosives being detected, both during emplacement and while they sat there until the big event. How did this happen? And why?
Juicier targets? like what? two of the main buildings that symbolized the U.S.'s wealth? The pentagon, the paragon of military power? how bout the 'failed' plane that was supposed to hit the white house? I'm not sure what better targets there were, but please inform us...
As to the explosives, all they had to do was install those power outage lighting boxes all over the building (filled with the explosives) and bam you got your bombs without questions. There are other ways to have done this also. The explosives were detected in the rubble
You can go on ignoring the facts if you want though...
More to the point: why controlled demolitions? The whole theory hinges on the fact that the building supposedly fell in a very particular way, a way that is said could not happen unless demolished by very carefully placed explosives designed to make it fall in just that way for the purpose of minimizing collateral damage (that is the goal of controlled demolition). So the theory is that someone went way way way out of their way to make sure that this particular building fell in a certain way so that it did not damage its neighbors while its neghbors where getting the **** ****ed out of them by uncontrolled collapsing of much larger buildings. More work, more cost, more time, more suspicion. Why, when they could have just light a gas can on fire next to the propane tank in the basement and called it a day? Why would someone need to make it fall that way, when they could easily make it fall with no suspicion of foul play with a single explosion?
The main reason is the same for controlled demolitions. They didn't want to start a huge fire that would spread from building to building and take out a large portion of the area. They wanted to take out just the three buildings, not take out the entire city. Their reasoning is the same as the terrorists. To incite panic and get support behind going to war with whatever country they want. So far we've gone to war with 3 countries over this: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. They are trying to link it now to Iran. Looks like they are getting a lot of mileage out of this False Flag operation...
This quote here proves itself wrong. If the damage was localized the building would not have fallen uniformly, the damaged parts would have fallen first and then the less damage parts would have fallen or stayed standing...
You keep saying this, yet repeating it doesn't make it more true. Have you noticed that when the towers fell, they also appeared to fall straight down despite the plane hitting from the side, not coming down dead center through the top. It's funny what happens when you have an insane amount of weight all pressing downward. This isn't a jenga tower we're talking about here.
This quote here proves itself wrong. If the damage was localized the building would not have fallen uniformly, the damaged parts would have fallen first and then the less damage parts would have fallen or stayed standing...
You keep saying this, yet repeating it doesn't make it more true. Have you noticed that when the towers fell, they also appeared to fall straight down despite the plane hitting from the side, not coming down dead center through the top. It's funny what happens when you have an insane amount of weight all pressing downward. This isn't a jenga tower we're talking about here.
It's pointless. It's obvious that he (believes he) knows more than people directly in the field. His mind is made up. There is nothing that anyone could present that would sway him. Logic and common sense do not work. Neither do facts.
The main reason is the same for controlled demolitions. They didn't want to start a huge fire that would spread from building to building and take out a large portion of the area. They wanted to take out just the three buildings, not take out the entire city. Their reasoning is the same as the terrorists. To incite panic and get support behind going to war with whatever country they want. So far we've gone to war with 3 countries over this: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. They are trying to link it now to Iran. Looks like they are getting a lot of mileage out of this False Flag operation...
So you are saying that terrorists attacked the US, and simultaneously the US government conducted a secret demolition of a building that got very little attention and pretty much played no part in the decision to go to war with Afghanistan? How does that add up?
BTW, we didn't actually go to war with Pakistan. So that would be 2 countries. Again, read, comprehend, use actual facts and not made up events. And even Iraq, while related, was not a direct result of 9/11. Had Saddam been cooperating the entire time Bush would not have had any cause to invade. And it doesn't look like we're going into Iran any time soon. If we were going to we would have used their direct support of terrorists in Iraq as reason to invade. That moment is already passed. We have a much greater chance of ending up in Libya than in Iran right now.
And please explain how it is a false flag operation. You haven't provided any proof that terrorists did not attack the US.
The main reason is the same for controlled demolitions. They didn't want to start a huge fire that would spread from building to building and take out a large portion of the area. They wanted to take out just the three buildings, not take out the entire city. Their reasoning is the same as the terrorists. To incite panic and get support behind going to war with whatever country they want. So far we've gone to war with 3 countries over this: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. They are trying to link it now to Iran. Looks like they are getting a lot of mileage out of this False Flag operation...
So you are saying that terrorists attacked the US, and simultaneously the US government conducted a secret demolition of a building that got very little attention and pretty much played no part in the decision to go to war with Afghanistan? How does that add up?
LOL. No. He is saying that the government plotted to take down the Twin Towers as well. They obviously had to throw the plane into the Pentagon and the Pittsburgh flight into the mix to really sell it.
LOL. No. He is saying that the government plotted to take down the Twin Towers as well. They obviously had to throw the plane into the Pentagon and the Pittsburgh flight into the mix to really sell it.
I worded it that way because earlier when I asked him if he was seriously insinuating that the government was behind 9/11, he responded only by specifically addressing WTC 7 and nothing else, leading one to draw the conclusion that this was the only aspect of the commonly accepted story that he was contesting, which really makes even less sense than contesting the entire thing (which is not to suggest that those people aren't complete idiots).
It had to be done that way or the Corporations and their puppet Shadow Government would have had everyone openly opposed to the plan assassinated by the alien assassins housed in Area 51.
I mean I didn't say anywhere who perpetrated it, I simply showed facts that discredit the story that's been put forth. It could have been terrorists, it could have been the government or it could have been the CEO of the WTC. It could have been someone else. However the facts don't fit the story... That's what I'm saying...
The fact that everyone is insistent on trying to convince me I'm stupid or looney for looking at the facts and making an informed opinion. Post some facts and we can discuss them. Otherwise your wasting your time with insults. I don't care about them.
As to getting blocked because you post in a thread I start about aliens... There are better reasons, for instance I mispelled a few words in this post. I also use "..." too often. Or the sky is blue...
This quote here proves itself wrong. If the damage was localized the building would not have fallen uniformly, the damaged parts would have fallen first and then the less damage parts would have fallen or stayed standing...
Acording to Jinga physics, sure. Real buildings fall in a somewhat less predictable manner. The quotes naga provided claim the building was constructed in such a way as to distribute the load evengly across all the beams. In such a scenario, large amounts of damage to one or more beams would increase the load on the other beams, but the building would remain standing. Until, the load on the remaining beams is too great, and then they all fail at once. Makes sense, just not in Jinga.
The main reason is the same for controlled demolitions. They didn't want to start a huge fire that would spread from building to building and take out a large portion of the area.
Controlled demolition is designed to prevent flying debrie, not fire. Most sky scrapers are pretty flame retardant on the outside I would think. The decision that the small building coming down uncontrolled would create too much potential collateral damage but that the big giant ones could be allowed to fall all willy-nilly seems much less plausible than "that building fell down funny".
This quote here proves itself wrong. If the damage was localized the building would not have fallen uniformly, the damaged parts would have fallen first and then the less damage parts would have fallen or stayed standing...
You keep saying this, yet repeating it doesn't make it more true. Have you noticed that when the towers fell, they also appeared to fall straight down despite the plane hitting from the side, not coming down dead center through the top. It's funny what happens when you have an insane amount of weight all pressing downward. This isn't a jenga tower we're talking about here.
Damn, you tottally ninja'd me on the Jenga thing. Damn you.
www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STU...
An article that goes point by point and specifically addresses the possibility of explosives being used to destroy the WTC.
I understand completely. The government made a plan to destroy the towers and blame it on terrorists. While they were getting everything ready to smash planes into some buildings, a small minority group who is opposed to such tactics sneaked into building 7 and planted demo charges so that the building would fall in precisely a way as to give the right-minded people in the country the evidence they would need to realize who was really behind the attack.
It had to be done that way or the Corporations and their puppet Shadow Government would have had everyone openly opposed to the plan assassinated by the alien assassins housed in Area 51.
See, now there is motivation that makes sense. It seems quite a stretch and is not well thought out becuase, in the end, they only incriminate themselves but I could see someone coming to decide on that course of action if the extreme conditions where true to them. It makes sense. It requiers insane things to be true but, if thoes insane things are actually true, then the actions follow some kind of reasonably comprehensible logic.
Hmmmm...a large orc presence, I predict this thread doesn't have much time remaining.
Well I guess I was wrong. Maybe they just decided that we're all hopeless and they shouldn't waste their time here :P
Hmmmm...a large orc presence, I predict this thread doesn't have much time remaining.
Well I guess I was wrong. Maybe they just decided that we're all hopeless and they shouldn't waste their time here :P
Maybe they retreated to get back-up.\/
As to the Protec article this is the reply that refutes it.
Edit: Basically the short of it is that the Protec article focuses on one specific chain of evidence and makes assumptions that the explosives were placed according to demolitions laws, and doesn't even touch on the fact that the video footage and pictures taken show that the collapse starts above the crash sites rather than at them. It goes on to explain that without cutting into the beams you would not get the 'implosion' effect. The fact that anyone doing this would not care whether they got the explosions exactly right, only that they would start near the top and go downward. The fact that people were told to stay in the WTC 1 and 2 and therefore many potential witnesses were 'dealt' with. Without witness testimony we can't know whether explosives were planted or not. Of course the report glosses over the Thermite trace evidence and other evidence found in vans of a company that was doing work at the towers around that time...
They were still an Implosion.
Setting up explosives -before- impact where the towers started to collapse, would be next to impossible. Which is something else your article doesn't address. Do you know how hot the buildings got anywhere near the impact zone? No explosive was going to surivive that and the impact of a friggin plane.
Here's your demolition work, for you. Look up the weight of a fully loaded 737. Now times that mass by it's velocity. Now add Fire to the mix.
The building wasn't going to withstand that.
And we've been over the thermite thing before, too. They didn't find thermite, they found stuff commonly found in thermite ... and also commonly found in buildings of that size. Oh yeah, and in large jetliners. So yeah, unless they can prove that there's no way that the 'thermite material' could have come from any source other than thermite, I simply can't buy that's that what it was. I mean, when a gigantic aluminum tube crashes into a building, burns to goo and is crushed after both impact and falling tens of stories under tons of concrete and steel, you're bound to find some aluminum at the scene, ya know? Instead of looking for the one in a million, why not do the sensible thing and look at the simplest answer?
And your article fails to mention that the buildings didn't actually Explode.
They were still an Implosion.
Setting up explosives -before- impact where the towers started to collapse, would be next to impossible. Which is something else your article doesn't address. Do you know how hot the buildings got anywhere near the impact zone? No explosive was going to surivive that and the impact of a friggin plane.
Here's your demolition work, for you. Look up the weight of a fully loaded 737. Now times that mass by it's velocity. Now add Fire to the mix.
The building wasn't going to withstand that.
yeah, they didn't explode... your right that mushroom cloud at the top wasn't an explosion and all that dust and debris that came out wasn't an explosion either... Its almost like you didn't read the link I posted. As far as the plane goes, the building was designed to withstand the impact of multiple plane hits. As well as the fact that the fires couldn't reach the temperature to melt the metal. The combination of the two doesn't explain anything. If the combination was what brought it down then it wouldn't have fallen in its footprint. It would have melted the metal which with the added uneven weight of the plane would have made the tower topple, not fall straight down. Also the uneven weight of the plane (which hit it to one side) would have caused the building to fall unevenly and would have made it tilt to one side. This is not the case. As to explosives. Thermite (thermate) is not a true explosive. It must reach massive temperatures or pressures to ignite. Usually this is accomplished with magnesium which burns at 4,000 degrees. It is then used to melt steel very fast. (check out the clip from "Burn Notice" where they use thermite to burn through a guys engine block). It would also explain the thermate chunks found in the debris as many of the thermate 'bombs' would not have exploded.
They were designed to withstand plane impacts, believe it or not. Just not a plane that big (as those were put into service after the towers were completed).
And we've been over the thermite thing before, too. They didn't find thermite, they found stuff commonly found in thermite ... and also commonly found in buildings of that size. Oh yeah, and in large jetliners. So yeah, unless they can prove that there's no way that the 'thermite material' could have come from any source other than thermite, I simply can't buy that's that what it was. I mean, when a gigantic aluminum tube crashes into a building, burns to goo and is crushed after both impact and falling tens of stories under tons of concrete and steel, you're bound to find some aluminum at the scene, ya know? Instead of looking for the one in a million, why not do the sensible thing and look at the simplest answer?
The found stuff that could only have come FROM thermite. The materials that made up what they found were present in the building, but not in nano-manufactured combinations that they found in the building. Basically they are trying to say that parts of the walls fused with other parts of the building in the exact manner that nano-manufactured thermate is AND that it didn't ignite in the fires that swept the building. This is inconsistent. If the fires were hot enough to melt the steel, it would have ignited this material (regardless of whether it was from thermite or some other source, it contained the material combinations of thermate and would have ignited and burned off). If you don't know thermite is made up of tiny particles of aluminum and something that is akin to super-rust. Nothing on the plane was made up of both these materials nano-manufactured as it would be very dangerous to have on a plane or in an office building.
Looking at the simplest answer is not always the best way. You have to look at the simplest answer that works with all of the available evidence. The abundant evidence that a short fire that could not have gotten to the temperatures needed to melt the steel, and that similar fires have happened and not melted steel at other fires that ran up to 10x as long as the WTC fires proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it could not have happened that way...
yeah, they didn't explode... your right that mushroom cloud at the top wasn't an explosion and all that dust and debris that came out wasn't an explosion either...
You don't need an explosion to get a mushroom-shaped cloud. A large amount of smoke and dust in the air with a large heat source beneath will create the mushroom shape via convection currents and Rayleigh–Taylor instability.
The found stuff that could only have come FROM thermite. The materials that made up what they found were present in the building, but not in nano-manufactured combinations that they found in the building. Basically they are trying to say that parts of the walls fused with other parts of the building in the exact manner that nano-manufactured thermate is AND that it didn't ignite in the fires that swept the building. This is inconsistent. If the fires were hot enough to melt the steel, it would have ignited this material (regardless of whether it was from thermite or some other source, it contained the material combinations of thermate and would have ignited and burned off). If you don't know thermite is made up of tiny particles of aluminum and something that is akin to super-rust. Nothing on the plane was made up of both these materials nano-manufactured as it would be very dangerous to have on a plane or in an office building.
"Nanomanufactured"? WTF are you talking about? You make thermite by mixing two everday metals together. You can do it in a bathtub with a shovel.
Looking at the simplest answer is not always the best way.
When the alternative to the simplest answer is a ridiculously complex paranoid fantasy then the simplest answer will most certainly suffice.
You have to look at the simplest answer that works with all of the available evidence. The abundant evidence that a short fire that could not have gotten to the temperatures needed to melt the steel, and that similar fires have happened and not melted steel at other fires that ran up to 10x as long as the WTC fires proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it could not have happened that way...
I do not think that means what you think it means.
"Nanomanufactured"? WTF are you talking about? You make thermite by mixing two everday metals together. You can do it in a bathtub with a shovel.
Nano-thermite is basically thermite where the ingredients are so finely powered that it is done on the nano scale. Because of this the residue that it leaves behind is the same as regular thermite.
By the way, the massive could of dust and debris came about because a hundred plus story building made of concrete - something that starts as a powder - pancaked itself into the ground as a result of the structure failing below the top and the top floors then falling onto the floors beneath and taking them with them.
I really don't think I'm insane in believing that the structure supporting the upper floors was weakened when a gigantic airplane crashed into it, caught everything on fire and added a ridiculous amount of weight for said structure to support. As a result, the floors above the hole and the ones the plane parts were resting on fell down into the undamaged floors - thus adding weight far out of spec for the floors to support - creating a cascading chain reaction of floors falling into floors and, as a result of the massive and ever increasing weight, turning a lot of the building to dust. I mean, that's honest to god the sanest explanation there is.
Since I already quoted the Blanchard article, and he's not the one I'm refuting, and just to save space, I am leaving Blanchard's comments out of my posts and only posting Hoffman's (the author of the article Lokiare linked to who is supposedly refuting Blanchard), although I will refer to Blanchard's comments when appropriate.
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Since the Towers' demolitions had to start from around the crash zones, the planners would not have been able to exploit the vast majority of each Tower's mass to aid the destruction. Thus they would have had to use much greater quantities of explosives than are typical in demolitions, exploding the Towers rather than imploding them.
So this author is saying that the demolitions were placed in an unoptimized position because that was where the crash zone was. So it the conspiracy now that a plane crashed into the building and then it was destroyed by demolition? That makes no sense. You're saying that either 1) People tooks hundreds of pounds of explosives into a damaged and burning building and rigged them to detonate OR 2) That people took hundreds of pounds of explosives into a building and rigged them to detonate and these explosives survived the initial impact and fires. Both cases require that this activity go completely undetected and that the explosives not be seen by anyone outside of the demolition crew. You also have to have an initiation system that is reliable, probably backed up by another just in case, and also remains completely undetected.
Multiple fallacies in Blanchard's assertions are explicated by the 9-11 Research demolition FAQ. Scenario A is absurd, and scenario B is based on the false assertion that the failures started "precisely the point where the respective planes struck." There are an infinite number of possible ways that the demolitions could have been designed, many of them easily compatible with the plane crashes. Blanchard makes the unscientific assertion that there is only one method of accomplishing the task.
Now the Demolitions FAQ linked from that page appears to address that, but not really. It mentions that RDX (I assume he's actually referring to plastic explosives, pure RDX is more sensitive and it is rarely used in that manner) could survive the shock, but fails to account for the fact that the blasting caps needed to detonate them are FAR more sensitive and cannot survive the same heat or shock. It also doesn’t address how they are initiated.
Blanchard's objections are answered by the 9-11 Research demolition FAQ, which describes demolition methods whose preparation would not have required physically accessing the perimeter columns, such as those using thermobaric devices installed only in the Towers' cores.
This guy obviously doesn't know much about explosives beyond what he sees on wikipedia. Thermobaric devices are great for killing people inside of building but a piss poor way to take down a structure. Their effectiveness against people is due to the slow pressure wave, which is exactly the opposite of what you need in this case. You need a high brisance explosive like TNT or C-4 to cut through supports.
Blanchard's assertion that "pre-burning" is necessary in any demolition is another example of his attempt to mislead the reader into believing that only one method of demolition is possible. Issues of safety and economy, such as minimizing dust production, are central factors in the design requirements of normal demolitions. Such issues would not necessarily constrain a demolition whose primary purpose was to annihilate a New York City icon in a shock-and-awe display. Thus, the need for the preparations described by Blanchard, such as "pre-burning," become moot: the desired outcome could be achieved through the use of greater quantities of explosives, which would obviate the need to place the charges directly against exterior columns.
He is actually right on this point, but I'm not sure that it helps his case. As he himself acknowledges, not doing a pre-burn means you need even more explosives to conduct the demolition, which further complicates the whole thing of keeping it secret and again reinforces that his ideas of thermobaric devices just aren't practical.
Note that Blanchard mentions only I-beam columns. Is he unaware that all of the Twin Towers' perimeter columns and all but the top stories of their core columns were box columns, not I-beam columns?
I haven't bothered looking up the details of the building to confirm this but this does nothing to prove that demolition was conduction.
The idea that the Towers were rigged for demolition after the plane crashes is ludicrous and not entertained by any serious researcher. Blanchard's use of this point is a straw-man argument.
Which leaves only the possibility that hundreds of pounds of explosives were smuggled into the building and rigged for detonation without detection, that the explosives themselves were not later detected, that the initiation system was not detected, that in fact multiple initiation systems (since one is not reliable enough to be counted on for this occasion) remained undetected, that the people involved in this (this isn't exactly a one man operation we're talking about) had no compunction about dropping the building on all the people still inside, and no documents have leaked out about this. But this is somehow totally plausible. Not to mention, I'm still waiting to hear how they set it off. What was the method of initiation?
Path of least resistance? Blanchard's attempt to turn the reality of the events -- that the destruction followed the path of most resistance -- on its head, is an example of his sleight-of-hand technique used throughout the article.
The fact that the destruction of each Towers proceeded straight down its vertical axes, systematically destroying 80 or 95 stories of cold, intact, steel structure, means, by definition, that the events followed the paths of most resistance. Blanchard avoids that fact by only addressing the debris falling outside of the Towers' footprints.
Not so. Straight down was in the path of least resistance. If it wasn't, even destroying those supports via demolition wouldn't have achieved that effect. This author seems to ignore that if the structure could not have gone straight down if all the supports snapped, it also could not have gone straight down if the reports were blown through.
There are several proofs of demolition implicit in this behavior, including:
- If there was "a lot of resistance" to rubble falling through the Towers (as there would have to be if the rubble was crushing the Towers without the aid of demolition) then that resistance should have slowed the descent of that rubble much more than air slowed the descent of rubble falling outside the Towers. However, as the visual records clearly show, the Towers disappeared inside of the exploding rubble clouds at about the same rate as the rubble clouds raced to the ground.
- The fact that both events became more symmetrical as they proceeded implies that they were engineered, since natural processes become less symmetric over time. This is especially obvious in the case of the South Tower, the rotation of whose top slowed as it disappeared into the rubble cloud.
Again, this behavior would have occurred either way. He also offers no proof that a natural building would not collapse this way. He simply states that natural processes become less symmetric over time, as if there is anything natural about a man-made structure designed in a specific manner collapsing after being damaged and subjected to a great deal of heat. Also, when you are talking about that amount of weight and pressure, I find it highly unlikely that the rubble inside the structure would significantly affect the falling of the building enough for it to be visible to the naked eye.
Blanchard's assertion about how tall office buildings would fall is contradicted by all available evidence. Except for the alleged cases of the WTC towers, no skyscraper of more than 40 stories has ever collapsed for any reason other than controlled demolition.
Well it's not as if every day we have buildings that are struck by airliners and subjected to hot burning fires for a prolonged period. Of course they don't fall all the time, they aren't supposed to! Since there is no basis of comparison, this statement proves nothing.
Unplanned collapses of smaller steel-framed high-rise buildings have only been caused by severe earthquakes, and in all documented cases either the collapses were limited to a few floors, or the buildings toppled.
Now he's talking about earthquakes, which is an entirely different phenomonen. In that case, the building is being shook from the base, as opposed to this occurring at the top. He's comparing apples and oranges. It's like saying that a volcano couldn't have done damaged building X because it was previously hit by a hurricane and was just fine.
If Blanchard's principle were real and could account for the symmetrical collapse of the Towers, we should have seen the buildings collapse downward, not explode outward.
Well the buildings did collapse downward. The explosion was caused by the sudden compression of air as the tower began to descent which created pressure, which sought the quickest way to escape. We call that a mechanical explosion. Mechanical because it relies on mechanical principles of force and not the application of high explosives. The cloud appeared symmetrical because air is distributed roughly symmetrically throughout the building, and as it tried to find escape, air would travel out the side it was closest to rather than traveling across the building to go out the other window. While there probably was some variation in it, the cloud was so large that small discrepencies would not be noticed by the naked eye. It's rather like how the theory of relativity works great when dealing with the universe on large scales, but when you zoom in to the subatomic level, quantum physics shows that there are in fact a great number of variations and inconsistencies, they just weren't visible or even relevant when you were looking at the bigger picture.
Here, Blanchard admits that the Towers mushroomed, with 95% of the debris falling outside the footprints. But that being the case invalidates the official account -- at least NIST's version of it -- in which the "tremendous energy of the falling building section" is supposed to have crushed the buildings from the crash zones down.
This doesn't invalidate anything. The buildings were crushed with debris being thrown outward. Note that this author also carefully changes the wording. He states that 95% of the debris fell outside of the footprint, which supposedly contradicted other accounts (of course if you are claiming that the other account was not accurate then how is this an issue to begin with?). However, Blanchard actually stated that 95% of the debris that was falling as the tower collapsed was being forced away from the tower and outside the footprint of the building (which is consistent with the idea of extreme pressure forcing air out of the sides of the building as it fell).
With the vast majority of rubble falling outside of the Tower, where is this alleged 'pile-driver'? The visual records show no evidence of the "falling building section" after the first three seconds of each event, only exploding clouds of dust and metal fragments.
Which really only reinforces what has already been stated. An explosion wouldn't push out tons of thick dark smoke like that, and certainly not continually, as that would require a multitude of explosions all in a chain (and I've heard no accounts of explosion after explosion after explosion taking place, which would again make the placing and initiation of the charges even more difficult). As for the alleged pile-driver, that was the building itself, not the light debris that was being thrown away. Once again, this author is attempting a subtle twist of words to make it appear that Blanchard said something he did not.
What video shows a "50-story tall section of the [North Tower] shearing away intact" and what aerial photos show "massive volumes of debris that impacted WTC 7"? As with the rest of the assertions that fill Blanchard's article, the reader is apparently expected to just take his word for it.
I can understand his concern if he hasn't seen these videos, but instead of outright dismissing them, why didn't he contact the author and ask for them? He's not even attempting to find the evidence. I can understand why he wouldn't want to search for them himself. A quick google hunt mostly turns up conspiracy theory sites which is the last place I'd expect to find video evidence debunking their claim. But if I'm that interested about something I'd ask the person who claims to have seen it.
The fact that the Towers exploded outward rather than imploded inward, is evidence for, not against, demolition. Implosion requires limiting the quantities of explosives used to avoid throwing debris outwards. The fact that debris was hurled from the Towers in all directions up to 500 feet is direct evidence of powerful explosives.
Well it is fair to expect that if someone was going to conduct a controlled demolition of a building that they would do it in a manner consistant with the way it has been done for years by professional. Also, debris being hurled is NOT direct evidence of powerful explosives, it is again the mechanical explosion effect caused by air pressure. You DO NOT need high explosives to get an explosion-like effect like that.
The fact that the Towers were shredded and pulverized to a far greater extent than is typical in controlled demolitions corroborates the conclusion that their demolition involved far greater quantities of explosives than typical demolitions.
Again, every time he points to more and more explosives, it becomes less credible due to the logistics involved in the transportation, setup, detonation, and concealment. Furthermore, what is his basis for saying that they are shredded and pulverized far more than in a typical operation? Is there a comparable event that he can show us for proof of this?
Blanchard's assertion that the jets of dust are a "natural and predictable effect of rapid structural collapse" is belied by the fact that such features have never been observed in a natural collapses, but are almost universally observed in controlled demolition.
Well that's a nice try, but the author already shot himself in the foot this time. He stated himself that other collapses to which he was comparing this to were NOT top-down collapses. Of course a building falling on its side doesn't look the same, that falls squarely in the "no ****" category. It is that top-down fall that generates the pressure which creates these plumes of smoke. and again, this smoke makes it less likely for it to be explosives, as high explosives would not continually generate large clouds of smoke such as what were witnessed there.
Blanchard's description has little relationship to the documented events. Steel assemblies catapulted outward hundreds of feet in all directions attest to events that were explosive, not gravity-driven. And rather than seeing air propelled through windows, we see exploding clouds of thoroughly pulverized concrete reaching about five times the width of the Towers before reaching the ground.
Actually his description has a strong grounding in documented events involving mechanical explosions. And once again, this author uses misleading wording by stating that the events were explosive, not gravity-driven, making it appear as if Blanchard suggests that gravity alone moves objects outward instead of down. Blanchard's claim was that this was caused by pressure. Gravity was the driving force behind the tower collapsing straight down but he makes it quite clear that it was pressure that drove air and debris outward. In fact this author is correct that this phenomenon is similar to an explosion, but all a blast wave is is pressure, which is why it bears so much similarity to when a mechanical explosion occurs.
Where is the "scientific documentation" that "failures of interior floor trusses were occurring slightly ahead of exterior columns?" Is Blanchard referring to FEMA's cartoon scenario of floor pancaking, which is explicitly disavowed by NIST's subsequent 'investigation'?
Well call me crazy, but I think it might be a safe guess that someone's cartoon drawing was an illustration of what the engineers had already worked out. The author seems to imply that someone just doodled a drawing and passed it up.
Also, it would help if he could link to the part of the report where one investigation contradicted another (which does sometimes happen and in and of itself is proof of nothing) because I'm already reading through this nonsense, any more and I think my head will explode from the stupidity.
If structural failures were not occurring where the "plumes" were visible, then what was causing the plumes? Didn't Blanchard just tell us that it was structural failures of pancaking floors?
It actually sounds to me like he was saying the initial failure in the building's structure, which caused the collapse, did not align with the locations of the plumes. I doubt that his talk of failure referred to any other point, since once the collapse began, the entire building "structurally failed" in a matter of seconds. This author seems to completely misunderstand that statement.
The accounts of sounds and sights of explosions at the onset of each Tower's destruction in these excerpts from the oral histories of emergency responders have a degree of corroboration and detail that undermines Blanchard's description of them as subjective and highly interpretive. These witnesses described the sounds as pops or explosions, not as the creaking, groaning, or tearing sounds one would expect if the events were initiated by structural failures such as columns buckling and floors collapsing.
Once again, the author ignores some important points. He sort of skates around the issue by saying lots of people heard these noises, a fact that was not disputed by Blanchard. However, Blanchard correctly points out that loud noises /= explosions and Hoffman (I finally looked back at the title to see the name of the refuting author) doesn't really address that. His only statement that he tries to use to back that up is that people heard loud pops, not creaks, groans, or tearing. Well there was probably a lot of creaking and groaning that wasn't heard outside of the building. With all the noise of people and emergency vehicles and such, not to mention the evacuation distance, most people wouldn't here anything unless it was very loud. There could have been plenty of creaking leading up to it that they never heard, and it's irrelevant anyway.
Hoffman, much like using Jenga physics to describe how a tower should collapse and not understanding basics mechanics of pressure, doesn't seem to grasp the amount of weight being dealt with here. This isn't a wooden house with and old floor that creaks when you step on it and eventually breaks. I've seen metal and other materials snap without groaning or making other noises first. That's what happens when you are dealing with powerful forces, such an a large amount of weight all being pulled down. You might hear absolutely nothing until the supports are overcome and all give out. And when that happens, with a structure and supports of that size, not to mention that at that same instant gravity is still pulling the now free-floating structure down and it smacks into the rest of the building, of course all of that is going to make loud, sharp, noises.
The eyewitness reports of the sights and sounds of explosions marking the onsets of each Tower's destruction are abundantly corroborated by the visual records of those events.
Again Hoffman ignores that explosions aren't the only way to generate these visual events.
Blanchard does not support his assertion that demolition charges would necessarily generate detectable ground vibrations. His assertion contrasts with this description of the Alladin Hotel demolition:
But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust ... the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide.
www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1999/Apr-11-Sun-1999/news/10963838.html
Except that Hoffman is pointing to a professional building demolition. He has repeatedly stated that the building was not destroyed in the typical fashion, and must have been destroyed using much greater amounts of high explosives and relying on the raw energy of those explosives rather than the normal setup and pre-burning. Therefore, why is he using this as proof of anything?
Clearly, a demolition's seismic signature, like its other aspects, is a function of its design. Staggering the detonation of hundreds of charges over time would minimize explosives-induced ground vibrations, which would probably be eclipsed in any case by the relief of strain as tens of thousands of tons of mass of the Towers' upper sections were severed from their bases, and by the much larger vibrations caused by rubble hitting the ground.
Wow! So part of the evidence is the apparent symmetrical fall, which was supposedly explosives because it looked like it all happened at once, but now he's claiming that there were hundreds of charges initiated separately! Which one is it? This further also complicates the setup of this because now in addition to the hundreds of pounds of explosives, you need initiators (probably 2 initiators) for all of these separate charges. Of which we still haven't heard how they were initiated.
This is false. Close examination of the seismographs form the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory shows that small signals start about ten seconds before the large signals.
The graphic on the right shows a 20-second excerpt from the seismograph that the observatory recorded for the South Tower's destruction. Note the onset of a signal well above baseline about one quarter of the way into the excerpt.
An explosion is a sudden and violent event. Yet we are now supposed to accept that there were explosions going on virtually undetected for 10 seconds before the tower's collapse? Sorry, I work with explosives all the time, I don't buy it. Furthermore, he doesn't state what the seismic disturbances show. Are the smaller ones perhaps from the tower collapsing while the larger one is the tower striking the ground? It might take a little more research to be sure, but it sounds much more plausible.
Not to mention he can't accept that supports could all fail causing the tower to collapse, but he will buy ten seconds of explosions with no outward visual indication of this (despite the fact that you'd have shattered windows and debris blowing outward) and then suddenly the tower all falls at once. How is that any more plausible? They both rely on the tower holding firm even as part of its structural support is eroded until finally it all collapses.
Blanchard's "compelling argument" combines an unsupported assertion (that charges would generate detectable seismic signals) with supposed evidence that the reader can't see (alleged seismic recordings possessed by Protec) while ignoring public evidence that arguably indicates explosives (seismic signals recorded at Palisades). Wrapping his hollow argument in the pretentious language of "detailed analysis" and the dictates of the "laws of physics" makes it no more compelling.
If anything, it is Hoffman who seems to be making hallow arguments. I like that the "dictates of the laws of physics makes it no more compelling". Yeah, I guess physics totally wouldn't apply here.
I don't see a lot of refutation in that article.
Since the Towers' demolitions had to start from around the crash zones, the planners would not have been able to exploit the vast majority of each Tower's mass to aid the destruction. Thus they would have had to use much greater quantities of explosives than are typical in demolitions, exploding the Towers rather than imploding them.
So this author is saying that the demolitions were placed in an unoptimized position because that was where the crash zone was. So it the conspiracy now that a plane crashed into the building and then it was destroyed by demolition? That makes no sense. You're saying that either 1) People tooks hundreds of pounds of explosives into a damaged and burning building and rigged them to detonate OR 2) That people took hundreds of pounds of explosives into a building and rigged them to detonate and these explosives survived the initial impact and fires. Both cases require that this activity go completely undetected and that the explosives not be seen by anyone outside of the demolition crew. You also have to have an initiation system that is reliable, probably backed up by another just in case, and also remains completely undetected.
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Since the Towers' demolitions had to start from around the crash zones, the planners would not have been able to exploit the vast majority of each Tower's mass to aid the destruction. Thus they would have had to use much greater quantities of explosives than are typical in demolitions, exploding the Towers rather than imploding them.
So this author is saying that the demolitions were placed in an unoptimized position because that was where the crash zone was. So it the conspiracy now that a plane crashed into the building and then it was destroyed by demolition? That makes no sense. You're saying that either 1) People tooks hundreds of pounds of explosives into a damaged and burning building and rigged them to detonate OR 2) That people took hundreds of pounds of explosives into a building and rigged them to detonate and these explosives survived the initial impact and fires. Both cases require that this activity go completely undetected and that the explosives not be seen by anyone outside of the demolition crew. You also have to have an initiation system that is reliable, probably backed up by another just in case, and also remains completely undetected.
Multiple fallacies in Blanchard's assertions are explicated by the 9-11 Research demolition FAQ. Scenario A is absurd, and scenario B is based on the false assertion that the failures started "precisely the point where the respective planes struck." There are an infinite number of possible ways that the demolitions could have been designed, many of them easily compatible with the plane crashes. Blanchard makes the unscientific assertion that there is only one method of accomplishing the task.
Now the Demolitions FAQ linked from that page appears to address that, but not really. It mentions that RDX (I assume he's actually referring to plastic explosives, pure RDX is more sensitive and it is rarely used in that manner) could survive the shock, but fails to account for the fact that the blasting caps needed to detonate them are FAR more sensitive and cannot survive the same heat or shock. It also doesn’t address how they are initiated.
Blanchard's objections are answered by the 9-11 Research demolition FAQ, which describes demolition methods whose preparation would not have required physically accessing the perimeter columns, such as those using thermobaric devices installed only in the Towers' cores.
This guy obviously doesn't know much about explosives beyond what he sees on wikipedia. Thermobaric devices are great for killing people inside of building but a piss poor way to take down a structure. Their effectiveness against people is due to the slow pressure wave, which is exactly the opposite of what you need in this case. You need a high brisance explosive like TNT or C-4 to cut through supports.
Blanchard's assertion that "pre-burning" is necessary in any demolition is another example of his attempt to mislead the reader into believing that only one method of demolition is possible. Issues of safety and economy, such as minimizing dust production, are central factors in the design requirements of normal demolitions. Such issues would not necessarily constrain a demolition whose primary purpose was to annihilate a New York City icon in a shock-and-awe display. Thus, the need for the preparations described by Blanchard, such as "pre-burning," become moot: the desired outcome could be achieved through the use of greater quantities of explosives, which would obviate the need to place the charges directly against exterior columns.
He is actually right on this point, but I'm not sure that it helps his case. As he himself acknowledges, not doing a pre-burn means you need even more explosives to conduct the demolition, which further complicates the whole thing of keeping it secret and again reinforces that his ideas of thermobaric devices just aren't practical.
Note that Blanchard mentions only I-beam columns. Is he unaware that all of the Twin Towers' perimeter columns and all but the top stories of their core columns were box columns, not I-beam columns?
I haven't bothered looking up the details of the building to confirm this but this does nothing to prove that demolition was conduction.
The idea that the Towers were rigged for demolition after the plane crashes is ludicrous and not entertained by any serious researcher. Blanchard's use of this point is a straw-man argument.
Which leaves only the possibility that hundreds of pounds of explosives were smuggled into the building and rigged for detonation without detection, that the explosives themselves were not later detected, that the initiation system was not detected, that in fact multiple initiation systems (since one is not reliable enough to be counted on for this occasion) remained undetected, that the people involved in this (this isn't exactly a one man operation we're talking about) had no compunction about dropping the building on all the people still inside, and no documents have leaked out about this. But this is somehow totally plausible. Not to mention, I'm still waiting to hear how they set it off. What was the method of initiation?
Path of least resistance? Blanchard's attempt to turn the reality of the events -- that the destruction followed the path of most resistance -- on its head, is an example of his sleight-of-hand technique used throughout the article.
The fact that the destruction of each Towers proceeded straight down its vertical axes, systematically destroying 80 or 95 stories of cold, intact, steel structure, means, by definition, that the events followed the paths of most resistance. Blanchard avoids that fact by only addressing the debris falling outside of the Towers' footprints.
Not so. Straight down was in the path of least resistance. If it wasn't, even destroying those supports via demolition wouldn't have achieved that effect. This author seems to ignore that if the structure could not have gone straight down if all the supports snapped, it also could not have gone straight down if the reports were blown through.
There are several proofs of demolition implicit in this behavior, including:
- If there was "a lot of resistance" to rubble falling through the Towers (as there would have to be if the rubble was crushing the Towers without the aid of demolition) then that resistance should have slowed the descent of that rubble much more than air slowed the descent of rubble falling outside the Towers. However, as the visual records clearly show, the Towers disappeared inside of the exploding rubble clouds at about the same rate as the rubble clouds raced to the ground.
- The fact that both events became more symmetrical as they proceeded implies that they were engineered, since natural processes become less symmetric over time. This is especially obvious in the case of the South Tower, the rotation of whose top slowed as it disappeared into the rubble cloud.
Again, this behavior would have occurred either way. He also offers no proof that a natural building would not collapse this way. He simply states that natural processes become less symmetric over time, as if there is anything natural about a man-made structure designed in a specific manner collapsing after being damaged and subjected to a great deal of heat. Also, when you are talking about that amount of weight and pressure, I find it highly unlikely that the rubble inside the structure would significantly affect the falling of the building enough for it to be visible to the naked eye.
Blanchard's assertion about how tall office buildings would fall is contradicted by all available evidence. Except for the alleged cases of the WTC towers, no skyscraper of more than 40 stories has ever collapsed for any reason other than controlled demolition.
Well it's not as if every day we have buildings that are struck by airliners and subjected to hot burning fires for a prolonged period. Of course they don't fall all the time, they aren't supposed to! Since there is no basis of comparison, this statement proves nothing.
Unplanned collapses of smaller steel-framed high-rise buildings have only been caused by severe earthquakes, and in all documented cases either the collapses were limited to a few floors, or the buildings toppled.
Now he's talking about earthquakes, which is an entirely different phenomonen. In that case, the building is being shook from the base, as opposed to this occurring at the top. He's comparing apples and oranges. It's like saying that a volcano couldn't have done damaged building X because it was previously hit by a hurricane and was just fine.
If Blanchard's principle were real and could account for the symmetrical collapse of the Towers, we should have seen the buildings collapse downward, not explode outward.
Well the buildings did collapse downward. The explosion was caused by the sudden compression of air as the tower began to descent which created pressure, which sought the quickest way to escape. We call that a mechanical explosion. Mechanical because it relies on mechanical principles of force and not the application of high explosives. The cloud appeared symmetrical because air is distributed roughly symmetrically throughout the building, and as it tried to find escape, air would travel out the side it was closest to rather than traveling across the building to go out the other window. While there probably was some variation in it, the cloud was so large that small discrepencies would not be noticed by the naked eye. It's rather like how the theory of relativity works great when dealing with the universe on large scales, but when you zoom in to the subatomic level, quantum physics shows that there are in fact a great number of variations and inconsistencies, they just weren't visible or even relevant when you were looking at the bigger picture.
Here, Blanchard admits that the Towers mushroomed, with 95% of the debris falling outside the footprints. But that being the case invalidates the official account -- at least NIST's version of it -- in which the "tremendous energy of the falling building section" is supposed to have crushed the buildings from the crash zones down.
This doesn't invalidate anything. The buildings were crushed with debris being thrown outward. Note that this author also carefully changes the wording. He states that 95% of the debris fell outside of the footprint, which supposedly contradicted other accounts (of course if you are claiming that the other account was not accurate then how is this an issue to begin with?). However, Blanchard actually stated that 95% of the debris that was falling as the tower collapsed was being forced away from the tower and outside the footprint of the building (which is consistent with the idea of extreme pressure forcing air out of the sides of the building as it fell).
With the vast majority of rubble falling outside of the Tower, where is this alleged 'pile-driver'? The visual records show no evidence of the "falling building section" after the first three seconds of each event, only exploding clouds of dust and metal fragments.
Which really only reinforces what has already been stated. An explosion wouldn't push out tons of thick dark smoke like that, and certainly not continually, as that would require a multitude of explosions all in a chain (and I've heard no accounts of explosion after explosion after explosion taking place, which would again make the placing and initiation of the charges even more difficult). As for the alleged pile-driver, that was the building itself, not the light debris that was being thrown away. Once again, this author is attempting a subtle twist of words to make it appear that Blanchard said something he did not.
What video shows a "50-story tall section of the [North Tower] shearing away intact" and what aerial photos show "massive volumes of debris that impacted WTC 7"? As with the rest of the assertions that fill Blanchard's article, the reader is apparently expected to just take his word for it.
I can understand his concern if he hasn't seen these videos, but instead of outright dismissing them, why didn't he contact the author and ask for them? He's not even attempting to find the evidence. I can understand why he wouldn't want to search for them himself. A quick google hunt mostly turns up conspiracy theory sites which is the last place I'd expect to find video evidence debunking their claim. But if I'm that interested about something I'd ask the person who claims to have seen it.
The fact that the Towers exploded outward rather than imploded inward, is evidence for, not against, demolition. Implosion requires limiting the quantities of explosives used to avoid throwing debris outwards. The fact that debris was hurled from the Towers in all directions up to 500 feet is direct evidence of powerful explosives.
Well it is fair to expect that if someone was going to conduct a controlled demolition of a building that they would do it in a manner consistant with the way it has been done for years by professional. Also, debris being hurled is NOT direct evidence of powerful explosives, it is again the mechanical explosion effect caused by air pressure. You DO NOT need high explosives to get an explosion-like effect like that.
The fact that the Towers were shredded and pulverized to a far greater extent than is typical in controlled demolitions corroborates the conclusion that their demolition involved far greater quantities of explosives than typical demolitions.
Again, every time he points to more and more explosives, it becomes less credible due to the logistics involved in the transportation, setup, detonation, and concealment. Furthermore, what is his basis for saying that they are shredded and pulverized far more than in a typical operation? Is there a comparable event that he can show us for proof of this?
Blanchard's assertion that the jets of dust are a "natural and predictable effect of rapid structural collapse" is belied by the fact that such features have never been observed in a natural collapses, but are almost universally observed in controlled demolition.
Well that's a nice try, but the author already shot himself in the foot this time. He stated himself that other collapses to which he was comparing this to were NOT top-down collapses. Of course a building falling on its side doesn't look the same, that falls squarely in the "no ****" category. It is that top-down fall that generates the pressure which creates these plumes of smoke. and again, this smoke makes it less likely for it to be explosives, as high explosives would not continually generate large clouds of smoke such as what were witnessed there.
Blanchard's description has little relationship to the documented events. Steel assemblies catapulted outward hundreds of feet in all directions attest to events that were explosive, not gravity-driven. And rather than seeing air propelled through windows, we see exploding clouds of thoroughly pulverized concrete reaching about five times the width of the Towers before reaching the ground.
Actually his description has a strong grounding in documented events involving mechanical explosions. And once again, this author uses misleading wording by stating that the events were explosive, not gravity-driven, making it appear as if Blanchard suggests that gravity alone moves objects outward instead of down. Blanchard's claim was that this was caused by pressure. Gravity was the driving force behind the tower collapsing straight down but he makes it quite clear that it was pressure that drove air and debris outward. In fact this author is correct that this phenomenon is similar to an explosion, but all a blast wave is is pressure, which is why it bears so much similarity to when a mechanical explosion occurs.
Where is the "scientific documentation" that "failures of interior floor trusses were occurring slightly ahead of exterior columns?" Is Blanchard referring to FEMA's cartoon scenario of floor pancaking, which is explicitly disavowed by NIST's subsequent 'investigation'?
Well call me crazy, but I think it might be a safe guess that someone's cartoon drawing was an illustration of what the engineers had already worked out. The author seems to imply that someone just doodled a drawing and passed it up.
Also, it would help if he could link to the part of the report where one investigation contradicted another (which does sometimes happen and in and of itself is proof of nothing) because I'm already reading through this nonsense, any more and I think my head will explode from the stupidity.
If structural failures were not occurring where the "plumes" were visible, then what was causing the plumes? Didn't Blanchard just tell us that it was structural failures of pancaking floors?
It actually sounds to me like he was saying the initial failure in the building's structure, which caused the collapse, did not align with the locations of the plumes. I doubt that his talk of failure referred to any other point, since once the collapse began, the entire building "structurally failed" in a matter of seconds. This author seems to completely misunderstand that statement.
The accounts of sounds and sights of explosions at the onset of each Tower's destruction in these excerpts from the oral histories of emergency responders have a degree of corroboration and detail that undermines Blanchard's description of them as subjective and highly interpretive. These witnesses described the sounds as pops or explosions, not as the creaking, groaning, or tearing sounds one would expect if the events were initiated by structural failures such as columns buckling and floors collapsing.
Once again, the author ignores some important points. He sort of skates around the issue by saying lots of people heard these noises, a fact that was not disputed by Blanchard. However, Blanchard correctly points out that loud noises /= explosions and Hoffman (I finally looked back at the title to see the name of the refuting author) doesn't really address that. His only statement that he tries to use to back that up is that people heard loud pops, not creaks, groans, or tearing. Well there was probably a lot of creaking and groaning that wasn't heard outside of the building. With all the noise of people and emergency vehicles and such, not to mention the evacuation distance, most people wouldn't here anything unless it was very loud. There could have been plenty of creaking leading up to it that they never heard, and it's irrelevant anyway.
Hoffman, much like using Jenga physics to describe how a tower should collapse and not understanding basics mechanics of pressure, doesn't seem to grasp the amount of weight being dealt with here. This isn't a wooden house with and old floor that creaks when you step on it and eventually breaks. I've seen metal and other materials snap without groaning or making other noises first. That's what happens when you are dealing with powerful forces, such an a large amount of weight all being pulled down. You might hear absolutely nothing until the supports are overcome and all give out. And when that happens, with a structure and supports of that size, not to mention that at that same instant gravity is still pulling the now free-floating structure down and it smacks into the rest of the building, of course all of that is going to make loud, sharp, noises.
The eyewitness reports of the sights and sounds of explosions marking the onsets of each Tower's destruction are abundantly corroborated by the visual records of those events.
Again Hoffman ignores that explosions aren't the only way to generate these visual events.
Blanchard does not support his assertion that demolition charges would necessarily generate detectable ground vibrations. His assertion contrasts with this description of the Alladin Hotel demolition:
But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust ... the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide.
www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1999/Apr-11-Sun-1999/news/10963838.html
Except that Hoffman is pointing to a professional building demolition. He has repeatedly stated that the building COULD NOT have been destroyed in the typical fashion, and must have been destroyed using much greater amounts of high explosives and relying on the raw energy of those explosives rather than the normal setup and pre-burning. Therefore, why is he using this as proof of anything?
Clearly, a demolition's seismic signature, like its other aspects, is a function of its design. Staggering the detonation of hundreds of charges over time would minimize explosives-induced ground vibrations, which would probably be eclipsed in any case by the relief of strain as tens of thousands of tons of mass of the Towers' upper sections were severed from their bases, and by the much larger vibrations caused by rubble hitting the ground.
Wow! So part of the evidence is the apparent symmetrical fall, which was supposedly explosives because it looked like it all happened at once, but now he's claiming that there were hundreds of charges initiated separately! Which one is it? This further also complicates the setup of this because now in addition to the hundreds of pounds of explosives, you need initiators (probably 2 initiators) for all of these separate charges. Of which we still haven't heard how they were initiated.
This is false. Close examination of the seismographs form the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory shows that small signals start about ten seconds before the large signals.
The graphic on the right shows a 20-second excerpt from the seismograph that the observatory recorded for the South Tower's destruction. Note the onset of a signal well above baseline about one quarter of the way into the excerpt.
An explosion is a sudden and violent event. Yet we are now supposed to accept that there were explosions going on virtually undetected for 10 seconds before the tower's collapse? Sorry, I work with explosives all the time, I don't buy it. Furthermore, he doesn't state what the seismic disturbances show. Are the smaller ones perhaps from the tower collapsing while the larger one is the tower striking the ground? It might take a little more research to be sure, but it sounds much more plausible.
Not to mention he can't accept that supports could all fail causing the tower to collapse, but he will buy ten seconds of explosions with no outward visual indication of this (despite the fact that you'd have shattered windows and debris blowing outward) and then suddenly the tower all falls at once. How is that any more plausible? They both rely on the tower holding firm even as part of its structural support is eroded until finally it all collapses.
Blanchard's "compelling argument" combines an unsupported assertion (that charges would generate detectable seismic signals) with supposed evidence that the reader can't see (alleged seismic recordings possessed by Protec) while ignoring public evidence that arguably indicates explosives (seismic signals recorded at Palisades). Wrapping his hollow argument in the pretentious language of "detailed analysis" and the dictates of the "laws of physics" makes it no more compelling.
If anything, it is Hoffman who seems to be making hallow arguments. I like that the "dictates of the laws of physics makes it no more compelling". Yeah, I guess physics totally wouldn't apply here.
Multiple fallacies in Blanchard's assertions are explicated by the 9-11 Research demolition FAQ. Scenario A is absurd, and scenario B is based on the false assertion that the failures started "precisely the point where the respective planes struck." There are an infinite number of possible ways that the demolitions could have been designed, many of them easily compatible with the plane crashes. Blanchard makes the unscientific assertion that there is only one method of accomplishing the task.
Now the Demolitions FAQ linked from that page appears to address that, but not really. It mentions that RDX (I assume he's actually referring to plastic explosives, pure RDX is more sensitive and it is rarely used in that manner) could survive the shock, but fails to account for the fact that the blasting caps needed to detonate them are FAR more sensitive and cannot survive the same heat or shock. It also doesn’t address how they are initiated.
Blanchard's objections are answered by the 9-11 Research demolition FAQ, which describes demolition methods whose preparation would not have required physically accessing the perimeter columns, such as those using thermobaric devices installed only in the Towers' cores.
This guy obviously doesn't know much about explosives beyond what he sees on wikipedia. Thermobaric devices are great for killing people inside of building but a piss poor way to take down a structure. Their effectiveness against people is due to the slow pressure wave, which is exactly the opposite of what you need in this case. You need a high brisance explosive like TNT or C-4 to cut through supports.
Blanchard's assertion that "pre-burning" is necessary in any demolition is another example of his attempt to mislead the reader into believing that only one method of demolition is possible. Issues of safety and economy, such as minimizing dust production, are central factors in the design requirements of normal demolitions. Such issues would not necessarily constrain a demolition whose primary purpose was to annihilate a New York City icon in a shock-and-awe display. Thus, the need for the preparations described by Blanchard, such as "pre-burning," become moot: the desired outcome could be achieved through the use of greater quantities of explosives, which would obviate the need to place the charges directly against exterior columns.
He is actually right on this point, but I'm not sure that it helps his case. As he himself acknowledges, not doing a pre-burn means you need even more explosives to conduct the demolition, which further complicates the whole thing of keeping it secret and again reinforces that his ideas of thermobaric devices just aren't practical.
The evidence that Protec apparently failed to come across includes satellite images showing temperatures above the melting point of aluminum on the surface of the rubble pile 5 days after the attack, and a number of eyewitness reports of molten metal in the rubble pile.
So now Hoffman is arguing that it was thermite or a similar compound. Well which is it? You spent all this time arguing that it was explosives, now you're saying something else entirely. I don't see any compelling reason why both would be involved.
Furthermore, his own evidence works against him. None of those images were taken on 9/11. Thermite burns relatively quickly. It would not still be active days later.
Here Blanchard transmutes witness statements about red-hot metal into statements about something burning. Surely he knows the difference. Obscuring the difference gives him an excuse to once again dismiss unwanted evidence out of hand rather than actually accounting for it.
Metals glow with a color determined by temperature regardless of their composition, so observations of red molten metal would indicate temperatures of above 1000ºF. Molten aluminum is ruled out because, given its low emissivitiy and melting point, it has a dull gray appearance. In a series of experiments Steven Jones showed to be thoroughly untennable explanations the orange-glowing material reported at Ground Zero and seen streeming from the South Tower consisted of aluminum and/or hydrocarbon composites.
Hoffman has proven nothing with this statement. Blanchard's statement still stands, since he does point out that much of what was said by workers regarding underground fires is conjecture. His video simply shows something hot (we can't tell what) streeming from an area where fires were burning.
Hoffman also relies mostly on eyewitness reports, which are notoriously unreliable, and someone might very well use the term "molten" to refer to something that is extremely hot but not actually melting. Not to mention that anything other than a direct quote from someone who supposedly saw is even less trustworthy since it is not firsthand (even play the telephone game). Even the quotes he places on the website such as this
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel 3
further reinforce that this is not thermite as it would have stopped burning long ago. The same page with that quote also acknowledges that fires were continuing for some time. Is it surprising that hot metal would be found when there are fires that are still going?
How many foremen did Blanchard's investigators speak with? Two? Three? Because Blanchard provides no details about this survey, his summary of its results is meaningless.
A valid point, certainly, but I'm still waiting for Hoffman to provide something better. In fact he was more than willing to post that previous quote which was not even from a firsthand witness despite lacking any similar information such as how many workers reported such a thing or even getting a direct quote from the workers in question.
Despite Blanchard's communications with Dr. Jones, he fails to accurately describe the evidence that Jones cites for the use of thermite. These include:
- Appendix C of FEMA's Building Performance Study, which arguably does show telltale signs of the "degenerative 'fingerprint'" of thermite and/or thermate, such as deep cavitation due to sulfidation and intergranular melting
- Microscopic analysis of dust samples with a known chain of possession
- Abundant potassium, manganese, and flourine in samples of previously molten metal from the WTC site -- elements not abundant in structural steel but constituents of polytetrafluoroethylene and potassium permanganate, accelerants used in aluminothermics
- Footage of the South Tower broadcast live on ABC News moments before its destruction, which shows a descending spout of orange material and a rising plume of gray smoke emanating from a point on the perimeter wall. Thermite reactions produce molten iron (as glowing orange liquid) and aluminum oxide (as gray smoke), matching the observed event like a hand in a glove.
Blanchard's rebuttal to suggestions that thermite was used amount to workability arguments addressed in the 9-11 Research demolition FAQ.
So he is more than willing to use the FEMA report's metallurgical analysis even though he himself uses terms like "arguably", so in other words far from conclusive. Yet he of course rejects FEMAs own analysis of what happened to the metal simply because it doesn't fit his theory.
Also, I must say it is not very surprising that particles that are found in thermite were found considering thermite is made from common materials. You can mix it up at home. But again, is Hoffman arguing that it was thermite or explosives? It seems to me that he’d rather argue against anything “official” regardless of what it says.
Blanchard's claim that the steel was properly examined, lacking any verification, stands as an empty assertion, and is contradicted by testimony to a hearing by the Committee on Science in the U.S. House of Representatives [cached].
Once again, wrong. Blanchard commented that the steel was not whisked away overseas to prevent examination. Nothing Hoffman has said or linked to has shown otherwise. All the link shows was that some debris was hauled away before examination due to initial confusion over which agency was in charge (something that is corroborated by other reports of what happened at the scene). The testimony states that although some debris was lost, they did manage to get some of it back. Yeah, mistakes happen, we all know that, but that doesn't disprove Blanchard's statement that there was no evidence of some conspiracy to hide evidence.
Most demolition jobsites are neither the site of a mass murder, nor of totally unprecedented alleged structural failures that contradict engineering history.
And because it was totally unprecedented, why should it be surprising that the workers would revert to a method that has been used before and is efficient?
The steel was placed under the control of a demolition company that obviously did not have an interest in examining it as evidence in a crime, and that company quickly shipped the steel off to China where it could be melted down, without examination by investigators, except for the few cases documented in Appendix D of FEMA's Building Performance Study.
This was already addressed by the congressional testimony that Hoffman linked to (I guess he expects that throwing up lots of links will impress people and they won’t actually read them). And is it unexpected that a demolition company (which seems like a natural agency to turn to when one needs to clear debris) wasn’t very interested and/or well versed in investigation and preservation/handling of evidence?
Blanchard's testimonial about his knowledge of the steel's chain of possession does nothing to answer charges that the steel was disposed of without proper forensic examination or that the disposal constituted a criminal destruction of evidence. Since Yannuzzi Demolition was contracted to recycle the steel (and allowed to purchase it for a low price) of course its employees wouldn't perceive a rush in its expeditious shipping to China.
The steel was apparently not examined for explosive residues, and the vast majority was recycled before the completion of FEMA's investigation, whose final Report called for "further research investigation and analysis" to understand collapses, whose exact causes, it stated, remained "unknown" at the time.
If they were taking away steel beams to hide explosive residue, they should have done the same with every other piece of debris and demolished all the neighboring buildings as well. There would have been residue all over the place, especially with the amounts that would need to be utilized under Hoffman’s theory.
Blanchard uses a red-herring claim to bracket his only discussion of claims of the controlled demolition of WTC 7. Silverstein's supposed admission that the building was demolished functions here as elsewhere to distract from the physical features of the building's collapse that indicate controlled demolition:
- Sudden onset
- Near free-fall speed of descent
- Streamers of dust emerging from the facade
- Totality, leaving no large assemblies intact
- Symmetry, falling in a precisely vertical fashion
Since none of these features has ever been observed in the natural collapse of a steel-framed building, and each is a signature characteristic of controlled demolition, each individually indicates controlled demolition. Taken together, they constitute an overwhelming inductive argument for controlled demolition.
Hoffman claims Blanchard is using a red-herring yet fails to identify what it is. Are we supposed to read his mind? The other items he lists have already been addressed, as they share many similarities with the complaints surrounding the other buildings. Contrary to his own beliefs, the evidence is far from overwhelming.
Here as elsewhere, Blanchard implies that only physical artifacts qualify as physical evidence. To the contrary, photographs and videos of the event are physical evidence, and they indicate demolition.
Photographs and evidence indicate that the building fell, not necessarily demolition. Furthermore, Hoffman falsely claims that Blanchard does not consider photographs and videos as evidence. In fact Blanchard cites videos and photographs as evidence supporting his cause (admittedly it would be nice if they were provided in the report). Blanchard does discount many amateur videos around the time of collapse, because as he points out, by that time everyone was evacuated from that area and unable to see the damaged side of the building. Therefore, all the amateur video is viewing the opposite side, which was not damaged.
No, to infer that a result was caused by a set of conditions, when the engineering history provides no support for that inference, runs counter to logic and common sense.
No steel-framed high-rise building has ever, before or since 9/11/01, totally collapsed due to any combination of conditions involving fire and structural damage, and there are several examples of similar buildings being ravaged by fires much more severe and long-lasting than those in the WTC towers. Logically, this should lead one to be highly skeptical of the official explanations, all of which are primarily fire theories.
Obviously Hoffman has never heard the phrase “there’s a first time for everything”. Second, it has already been stated that the buildings could likely have survived the damage or the fires, but not both. Therefore, linking to cases involving fires only (not to mention fires created under different conditions, I doubt many were started by burning jet fuel) is a false comparison. Show me a building of identical or near identical design subjected to the same conditions.
Defenders of the official story have failed to produce even a single example outside of 9/11/01 of a steel-framed high-rise building -- even one of faulty construction -- that has totally collapsed due to fires or a combination of structural damage and fires, Blanchard's vague assertion that "many steel structures have collapsed due to fire" notwithstanding.
These defenders are even harder pressed to find a precedent that would give credence to the idea that a collapse event could thoroughly shred a steel structure, pulverize most of the non-metallic contents, and leave a pile of rubble that smoked for months.
Well since Hoffman has no problem comparing buildings under different conditions with different designs, fair is fair… www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/30collapse...
fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire07/PDF/f07084...
The extensive visual record of the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 constitutes a body of physical evidence with tremendous redundancy supporting several independent proofs of controlled demolition.
The visual record proves nothing. You can say that something looks like an explosion all day long, that doesn’t mean there were any explosives there.
I have already documented how Blanchard unscientifically dismisses the evidence that has surfaced. Moreover, his statement implies a false equivalence between the "independent web investigations" and a supposed "media hubbub." To the extent that any such media hubbub has occurred at all:
- It began only years after 9/11/01, after major media corporations acknowledged losing substantial market share to small, Internet-based sources of news and commentary.
- It has used straw-man arguments and ad hominem attacks to smear and discredit 9/11 skeptics -- quite the opposite of using the massive financial resources at its disposal to help uncover and publicize the evidence of WTC explosives.
- Like Blanchard, it has dismissed or ignored the good evidence for official complicity in 9/11, while highlighting the most absurd arguments, all of which have long been debunked on 9-11 Research and its companion site, 911Review.com.
As noted in the conclusion to my critique of NIST's report, the destruction of all three WTC towers exhibited six physical features unique to controlled demolitions. Blanchard simply ignores this evidence and the many arguments for controlled demolition they support, baldly asserting that there is "[no] evidence for explosives use." Implicit in his denial is a confusion of evidence for the use of specific explosives with evidence for controlled demolition.
I’m still waiting to see the proof of unscientific dismissing of evidence. The fact that the media isn’t paying attention to your whining is not proof of you being right either.
The dedication and heroism of the Ground Zero workers has nothing to do with charges that those managing the crime scene undertook illegal and unethical suppression and destruction of evidence.
So the Ground Zero workers were participating in a cover up, yet many of them risked their lives, and some of them lost their lives, rescuing people from the building. That doesn’t add up. I’m not running into a building that I know is going to be brought down on my head.
The other possibility is that they weren’t told. Yet if they were participating in the suppression of evidence, there was no way they would not realize that something was going on, that there was some type of cover up. So now the explanation is that they all played along with a conspiracy that killed their friends and coworkers, not to mention all those civilians that they are sworn to protect. One thing about groups like military, police, and firefighters, is they are protective of their own. I think anyone that has dealt with those types of people will agree that they are far more likely to participate in a cover up that protects one of their own than they are to help the government cover up their murder.
Having failed to articulate, let alone answer, a single of the score of compelling arguments for the demolition of the WTC skyscrapers, Blanchard declares victory.
Hoffman’s refusal to acknowledge the evidence doesn’t negate its existence.
That's quite a wall. I'll admit I didn't read all of it. There didn't seem to be much point, since it would appear that the Shadow Government became concerned by all the truths Loki was revealing.
Well of course, why do you think I've been here all this time? We've been watching him ever since the PATRIOT Act was passed, waiting for the day when he would slip up and try to expose us to the D&D gamers (a very important voter demographic). Since our made-up facts could only fool the media and most of the population, including experts in various fields, but not him with his supreme intellect, we decided to resort to character assassination by making him sound crazy by using our mind control rays to plant ideas into his head and then waiting for him to post them. Now no one will believe him.
*cue evil laugh*
I knew it! The Shadow Government uses ORCs to remove the threat after it's undercover agents lay the groundwork.
You think the shadow government uses ORCS? The ORCS are the shadow government.
It is kind of a shame, though. All that work and loki and his double are gone.
Doesn't matter. Conspiracism is a form of faith and thus cannot be swayed or influenced by mere facts. Indeed facts that conflict with, or downright disprove, the conspiracist's beliefs serve only to fuel the mania, reinforcing the egocentric notion that everyone else is blind and only he is smart enough to know the real truth.
Sudden onset
Wut? So the planes didn't hit the buildings and then sit there - burning - for what was it? Hours? I'm, uhh, pretty sure the onset of the collapses was not anywhere near sudden. What a moron.
I was going to launch into an Essay about the strengths, and weaknesses of various kinds of Steel, aluminimum and other alloys.
Oh by the way, when the article said "all metal turns the same color at 1000 degrees" I all but fell out of my chair laughing. Do you know what one of the first things you're taught when it comes to welding and grinding? Colors of the metal when they get hot. Not even counting vastly different Elements, like AL and FE just within Steel there are -alot- of color variations.
Also, again the author of that article does a Classic 9/11 Tinfoil Theory, the steel was assumed to be molten before the towers collapsed. He assumes that Steel remains solid and strong apparently right up to it's melting point in which it magically turns to goo. This is a Cartoon understanding of physics and of metals. As I once pointed out earlier (which was pointedly ignored by Lokiare, just like it's ignored by all Tinfoilists) steel (and all metals in general) does not need to be anywhere near it's melting point in order for it to become compromised.
Given the very very fuel rich envrionment of the fires, it would have easily hit the mere 800 degrees required to cause Collapse. You do not even need all of the steel to become compromised, as a great many supports were already damaged and destroyed by initial impact. A little foam knocked off here and there, to heat the steel under it, or exposed would have been all that was required. Also, steel is a very conductive material (in the heat and electric sense), even parts of the steel that were never exposed directly to the fire would eventually become Compromised, by virtue of being attatched to pieces of steel that were directly exposed. This is why foam/insulation coverage is so very important with steel.
The Pancaking effect, is actually quite easy to understand, the floors are going to want to fall straight down, the reason for this is that is how the building is engineered, to be more or less 'vertical'. When a system collapses within the building it's going to want to follow the path it was built in. After the first few floors collasped, the 'slab of floor' would be more or less straight up rubble, falling ontop of floors, breaking the floors apart upon initial impact. This is what the real pancake effect is, not some Cartoon floor collaspes neatly stacking upon each other, like Tinfoilists try to paint it as.
This would also be aided, by the very steel the building was built with as well, as steel takes falls much better than concrete. The steel would spear, and puncture the concrete in various areas, compromising the structure further is it literally tears itself apart from the inside out. Each time the floor gives out it's falling at 9.8 Meters a second, until it accelerates to Terminal velocity. This is something else the Tinfoil Bearers either ignore or have a Cartoon Physics degree with. The building wouldn't 'stop' or 'stagger' at each floor. It would just keep going, down and down, continually accelerating, due to the floor below it not being able to withstand the mass of the objects above it X the velocity it is falling at.
Furthermore, it's quite clear the author has no conception of just how long it takes for a fairly heavy metal, like Iron/Steel to cool down unaided, in a location where heat is continually generated with no exposure to outside air. It can take -weeks- for steel to cool in the kind of debris piles that you'd find at 9/11. This is why Coal Mine Fires are so dangerous, because they can burn for Years. Infact the steel that was found in the rubble could actually be hotter than it had reached during the initital events, due to being constantly warmed and trapped under rubble.
One of the biggest worries during cleanup at 9/11 was that the cranes and etc, would fall into heat caused sinkholes by fires that burned 'underground' (Ie under the debris piles) which cleared away easily consumable debris while leaving much stronger debris behind ontop of it. These underground fires, would have been nearly continous (and they were, that's why firetrucks were hosing it for -days- after the collapse) in no small part to the already hot steel, which likely could have been even hotter. Wood, paper/fibrous material can spontaneously combust at a relatively cool 450 degrees. The steel in question would have been at or slightly over 800 degrees next to it. By the way false ceilings, office paper etc? Those are fibrous materials. That's not counting Higher Combustion Point material such as various plastics that would have been near the steel. Once these materials combust, it would generate more heat.
Eventually some of the steel would be indeed molten, due to being trapped in a very heat soaked environment, and if exposed to air suddenly could result in a backdraft. Which is why the area was absolutely drenched in water to try and cool the area enough that digging could be done somewhat safely. It is doubtful however that the steel was Molten as it came down. That more likely happened later.
Basically Naga, took the Explosives route for rebuttle.
Yeah, it was easier to focus on that since it was the entire point of Blanchard's article (which this is somehow supposed to refute) and it is my own area of expertise. I can tell you with absolute certainty that this guy Hoffman knows jack and **** about explosives. Besides, your previous posts seemed to touch on the structural and metallurgy aspects better than I could.
Its almost like you didn't read the article. The explosives were put into place before the act occurred, according to many of the demolition experts. Not having to worry about safety concerns they could have simply put up those emergency lights in stairwells and other out of the way places with access to the supports. There are many ways they could have done this. The one I mention would be the most inconspicuous. Simply placing suitcases and storage boxes in key locations would have been adequate. They survived the fires because the fires couldn't reach the 4,000 degrees needed to ignite the thermate. This is done by magnesium fuses in most cases or the equivalent. So far you haven't refuted anything, and that's even without me being an expert. The assumption that is holding you back is that this was meant to demolish the building according to traditional controlled demolition under law. They didn't have to worry about many of the laws and safety procedures that controlled demolitions have to follow, which makes it much easier and simpler to do.
It's almost like you didn't read what I wrote since I mentioned the possibility of them being placed before the planes hit. Anyway, you again show a complete lack of understanding of explosives.
-Minor quibble here, it's thermite, not thermate.
-Are you arguing thermite or explosives? Like Huffman you seem to just argue against whatever someone else is saying. Thermite is not an explosive. So which one was it?
-Thermite just isn't as effective as people seem to think. It will burn out pretty quickly. If you don't put it in contact with whatever you are trying to destroy, it probably won't destroy it. You also need some way to keep in in contact with the support while it burns. Therefore, just placing suitcases of thermite in the building won't cut it. BTW, that wouldn't likely work with explosives either since in order to cut steel you want the explosives in direct contact with whatever you are trying to destroy.
-I still have yet to hear a theory on how the thermite or the explosives were initiated. How did the detonators/initiators survive the impact and fire (remember, according to what you outline below there need to be hundreds of detonators on every floor of the building and they are all sensitive to shock and heat)? What was this uber-secret undetected yet totally reliable setup?
-The arguments have nothing to do with the law or what is legal. They have to do with basic physics, with the fact that the assertion of that what happened in the videos had to be explosives is completely false, and with the absurd improbabilities surrounding the use of explosives. The assumption that this was done illegally doesn't make the practical difficulties surrounding explosives magically disappear.
first off the evidence shows that it was an explosive called thermate which is used to create a super heated response in metal. Thermate does not detonate until it reaches a temperature of 4,000 degrees. A temperature that the fire could not possibly reach as is seen in many of the links I've already posted. The explosives could have easily been started on a timer, radio controlled, or any number of detonation methods. So far you haven't shown anything...
First off thermite is not an explosive. Secondly, what evidence? The fact that materials used to make thermite that were also present in the towers were found in the aftermath? As for initiation:
-Timer: Not likely. How would you know when they were supposed to go off? Wouldn't you want precise control over this type of operation? With all the moving parts involved, it would be easy for some sort of delay to occur.
-Radio: The distance and shielding created by the building itself would make this extremely unreliable. You could run an antenna out a window or something to get a proper signal, but you would have to do this for every charge and it would be greatly increase the chances of someone spotting it.
-Initiators are more sensitive than bulk explosives or thermite. They tend to be much more susceptible to shock and heat. How did they survive the impact and fire?
Or Thermate as the evidence shows. Thermate combined with another explosive could be used for any number of types of explosions. It is typically employed to cut supports and steel because it burns at such high temperatures.
Your "evidence" doesn't actually prove anything. And why would it be combined with an explosive? What purpose does that serve? In fact, doing so would be pretty much the opposite of what you would want since the explosion would scatter the thermite, making it ineffective. And again, the thermite would need to be in contact with the supports to cut through them. You would also need something to hold the thermite as it burned so that it didn't just flow away from the target as it melted.
The problem is as I noted upwards that putting 'supply or storage' boxes in key locations as well as installing 'equipment' would cover this. Again your premise relies on one thing: the perpetrators not being able to place the explosives. Which they could easily have done over the course of a few weeks to a month without raising any suspicion using standard boxes and crates or 'equipment'...
What proof is there of anything like this occurring? This would not be a one man operation. Many people would have to be involved. Every one of them would have to lack any compunction about murdering hundreds of innocent people, and none of them had a change of heart afterwards to expose this either. Not to mention, again your theory means the explosives (or is it thermite, you can't seem to make up your mind) would be farther away from the supports. Explosive strength decreases exponentially with distance. Thermite in boxes would spread out into a wide pool as it melted and then burn itself out. And why does no one have any knowledge of any kind of installation being conducted near these supports? And even if we accept that this is all within the vague realm of possibility despite being absurdly unlikely, how does that prove that this is what actually happened?
The explosives were detected and I explained how they would have been easily smuggled in as well as set up. As is proven with the evidence of un-expended Thermate, a single detonation system could have been used and failed on several of the explosives as well as the explosives set in the areas of the plane crashes not exploding. If you've seen the people that work in black-ops or corporate CEOs then you would know that these people are heartless and would have no compunction if they could get their agenda across or make billions of dollars (as the owner of the WTC did in his double claim for the 'terrorist' insurance policy he took out shortly before the attacks did). Just because you can't imagine a group of people that are capable of this does not mean they don't exist. The method of initiation could have been anything from a cell signal to a timer. Any one of them would have worked.
What explosives were detected? And again, thermite is not an explosive and the presence of common metals doesn't really prove anything. And again, we're not talking about a single block of C-4 or a single thermite grenade on each support. This is a sizable amount that was all smuggled in and installed without detection or anyone leaking any information. Oh and yes I've seen the people that work in black ops. Met some of them in person. Not the heartless hollywood stereotypes. You've been watching too many movies. Join us in the real world any time.
As for your theory that a single detonation system was used, so you're saying that one system was used for all the charges, which would require the rest of them to all be physically linked. A physical connection stretching between all of them across the building. Right, sure.
Your insurance motivation doesn't make sense either. If planes are already being crashed into the buildings, why do you need explosives? The building is already screwed. The extra cost of explosives and experts to employ them is decreasing your profit, not increasing it, not to mention exposing yourself to massive civil and criminal penalties. This isn't the typical "oh you embezzled money, bad" this is "congratulations on having all your assets confiscated to pay off these families and for your grand prize you win lethal injection".
The problem with this is that you would have seen an accordion effect. Each floor would have fallen a slight pause then the next floor. What is observed is near free-fall which could only have happened if the supports were destroyed in timed succession. No other scenario matches the video evidence...
The problem is that you are failing to account for the massive forces involved. The pause could easily have been so slight as to appear imperceptible to the human eye. If you have a robotic hand pushing forward as a steady pace and force while holding a knife and there was a piece of paper in front of it, the paper technically would slow the hand. However, the resistance offered by the paper would be so slight compared to the force being applied that you would never notice it as an observer. Also, Huffman himself mentions you can't see much of the collapse anyway due to the thick cloud of smoke.
Except that you can look up any number of videos on youtube that show that skyscrapers even when engulfed in flames for 8+ hours do not fall in this manner, let alone in the short time that the WTC towers fell. These three buildings are the only ones in recorded history to have fallen in this manner. I challenge you find my one other building that fell in this manner from anything other than a controlled demolition. As has been covered extensively the fires inside the building could not possibly have reached the temperature to melt the steel. Its even more compounded that the steel being conductive would have bled off the heat much like the heat sinks in your computer that bleed off heat away from your processor. Several of the links I've provided show the science behind this. Its simply not possible. Again if a structure falls according to excessive weight from above you would see an accordion effect. A slight pause as each floors supports gave way. This is not the case in the videos. The buildings fall at near free fall.
I already pointed out that this evidence proves nothing. You can point at anecdotal evidence all day, but it doesn't really show anything. Impact + heat. Not just fire. Show me other buildings that were hit by airplanes and burned and were of the same structural design. Otherwise this comparison proves nothing. This is no different than one video of "proof" where someone took a metal cage, cut a hole in it, lit a fire inside it, and put a concrete block on top of it. Somehow, that constituted proof of a conspiracy despite there being no real comparison between the structures or the forces involved.
You know the east coast shark attacks that were believed to have inspired the movie Jaws were also met with skepticism. Experts said that there were no verified occurrences of sharks killing humans, therefore those could not have been shark attacks. They ignored that conditions in the beaches had recently changed. The point is, just because something hasn't happened before is not evidence that it cannot happen.
The problem with your assertion is that many buildings have been recorded burning with intense heat for 8+ hours and they don't fall or they tip over at some half-way point. None of them do the free-fall that the WTC towers do.
You ignored my point and offered nothing to refute it. We lack any proper basis for comparison. Just because two buildings both burned doesn't mean that one offers an accurate model of the other.
Actually he's talking about fires, earthquakes, and other causes. This is because large buildings just don't fall down like that. They either collapse unevenly with a 'W' shaped accordion effect or they break in half and part of the building falls away from the footprint. This does not happen in the WTC cases.
And again you ignored my point. You can't compare apples and oranges just because they are both fruit. Fires, earthquakes, and "other causes" mean comparing completely different forces than were at work at WTC.
This almost sounds like a rational explanation until you realize the pressures involved would simply have blown out the windows long before the ceiling collapsed. The problem is the dust cloud was composed of more concrete than the building had in it unless it was so finely granulated as to have been caused by an explosion. Rather we would have seen chunks of concrete and a much smaller dust could. The videos have also been examined by specialists at AE911truth.com the dust cloud just does not hold up to scrutiny.
What are you talking about? The pressure was created by the ceiling collapse, so how would it have occured before the collapse? And how would you know how much concrete was in the dust cloud? Did anyone analyze it as the collapse was taking place? And this "so finely granulated that it must have been caused by an explosion" is garbage too. An explosion would create a lot more large chunks than it would finely granulated concrete. Contrary to hollywood, explosions don't disintegrate or vaporize anything. A small ball of styrofoam placed on a vehicle containing hundreds of pounds of explosives will still survive.
Yes, but your forgetting that without that debris present, the supports would have held and we would have seen half of the tower still standing. Which is not what happened. Also if the debris was being pushed outward we would have seen a less uniform fall some parts would have fell faster than others. We didn't see this, we saw a universal near free-fall collapse, equivalent to a controlled demolition.
Your logic doesn't work. I believe I already explained that the air would be pushed out roughly uniformly (not exactly, but with that amount of air and debris, the difference would be negligible to any observers). There is no reason that this fall works with a demolition but not with failed supports.
The problem is you keep jumping theories. Either the debris fell outside the footprint and was propelled there by your magical 'mechanical pressure' or it stayed on top of the building. So one or the other of your theories is wrong, which proves it could only have been a controlled demolition.
No, I haven't jumped theories at all. Did you even read what I wrote? First off, mechanical pressure isn't some magical theory. It's a proven and often observed phenomenon. It's the reason that propane tanks can explode despite the fact that propane is not a high explosive. There are many inventions that rely on such basic functions of pressure to function. Anyway, I don't have two theories, only one is presented. You are doing the same thing I just accused Huffman of, misrepresenting what I said in a manner that makes it appear as if I said something complete different and contradictory. Birds of a feather I guess. The most of the building continued straight down while air pressure pushes away light dust and debris. There's absolutely nothing contradictory about that. I like that you also ignore how I point out that an explosion (or thermite for that matter) would not generate that amount of smoke.
The problem is we've all seen the videos of the WTC towers falling and they just don't match up to what these people are saying. Actually if you go to his site he has requested the videos and even a list of their 'experts' and has been refused several times.
Blanchard already explained why the videos commonly seen on the internet didn't show what he described. And if Huffman requested these videos and was refused, why would that not be mentioned in his refutation? That's more compelling than any of the junk science he has put forth. It seems suspicious to me that he will jump to conclusions, make claims that just don't align with actual physics, and misrepresent someone else's words, but he would fail to mention something like that.
Except you are once again assuming that the people intending to kill hundreds of people are going to follow the rules and laws established safely and without harming anyone to demolish a building. This is completely illogical. They had little care as to how much devastation they were causing or going to cause. They simply did it in the most expedient method available with less controlled more powerful explosives. Again your trying to explain how concrete got pulverized to a fine particle state and then expelled by 'pressure' caused by the collapse. This is flat out impossible. The dust cloud would have been much much smaller if this was the case.
You obviously did not read what I wrote. Again, this is not operating under the assumption that you are complying with the law and have safety in mind. This is operating under the assumption that you are attempting a massive undertaking and therefore will conduct it in a manner that has already been proven time and time again. You also ignored how I explained that explosives are a less likely to be responsible for the cloud. And see above about finely granulated particles, which again are not evidence of explosives. But wait, I thought the evidence showed that thermite was used. So what's up with all this talk of explosives? It seems that you and Huffman are the ones trying to support two different theories at once.
As I've shown above it would have been exceedingly easy to smuggle explosives into the building in storage containers and 'equipment'. Your right though about the 'typical operation' no other building in history has fallen because of fire or other disaster that even comes close to how these fell. However there are several buildings that have fallen because of controlled demolitions that are nigh on identical.
You have shown that it is remotely possible, not that it is exceedingly easy. Especially since all it would take is one curious **** to blow the entire operation. And similarities /= same. In fact, you'll notice Blanchard agrees that there are some similarities in appearance and mentions that it is because controlled demolitions rely on the exact principle that experts claim was behind the WTC collapse. Oh and how is it that you refuse to accept any evidence or claims as to the practical difficulties in using explosives by saying that it was not conducted the same as a normal controlled demolition, yet you then turn around and use general similarities in appearance of the collapse as proof that it was done using explosives?
Well call me crazy, but I think it might be a safe guess that someone's cartoon drawing was an illustration of what the engineers had already worked out. The author seems to imply that someone just doodled a drawing and passed it up.
Also, it would help if he could link to the part of the report where one investigation contradicted another (which does sometimes happen and in and of itself is proof of nothing) because I'm already reading through this nonsense, any more and I think my head will explode from the stupidity.
At this point you lose credibility because you start throwing around 'my head will explode' and 'from the stupidity'. Its one thing to try to prove someone wrong, but when you get into name calling you begin to look like you can't refute the evidence at hand and therefore lose credibility. Its the same thing when I confront Michael Moore haters. I ask them why they think he's wrong. They come back with 'he's a fat America hater'. To me this does not address the facts that he brings to the table and makes them look like bigots...
Right, because I find this guy to be an idiot, for reasons that I already pointed out, I must be wrong. And because I would like a direct link to evidence he claims to have since otherwise I have to slog through pages of yet another report without even knowing what I'm looking for as this guy has already misrepresented the words of others, somehow that makes me wrong? In any case, I didn't have to through anything substantial in there because there was nothing substantial provided to refute. So let's get on and cut the "this is just like Michael Moore" crap.
The problem once again is that an accordion like effect would have happened and it would have been uneven. So even if what he's talking about is the initial failures, it doesn't have any bearing on the what happened afterwards except to be more in favor of the controlled demolition.
Again, no I already explained that this is possible without out your accordion effect. Anyway, under your theory not only did explosives take out the supports, but explosives had to have been used at EVERY SINGLE LEVEL OF THE BUILDING (since if your accordion theory was actually true, it would still happen if explosives merely triggered the collapse). Your explanations suddenly become more ridiculous when you picture stacks and stacks of mysterious supply boxes placed near critical supports scattered around each floor and then repeated on every single floor without anyone questioning this or getting the least bit curious.
Again you dismiss this out of hand with a little hand waving. It is not irrefutable evidence, however it contradicts other evidence presented. At the very least it leave both sides of this piece of the evidence suspect. Even without the explosion sounds there is plenty of evidence to justify an independent study by a neutral third party.
What evidence? What contradicts other evidence presented? The only evidence he presented in that statement is that some people thought that they might have heard explosions. And it's not that I dismissed it out of hand, I dismissed it because someone's interpretation of a sound if highly subjective. Having personal experience with explosives, I hear things all the times that people think sound like explosions but actually don't sound like them at all. Now if there was some other compelling piece of evidence to corroborate it, then I would say sure, let's examine that a little more. However, all we have is common materials that are expected to be found in the debris of that structure, a video that people subjectively think looks like an explosion, sounds that some people subjectively think looks like an explosion, and a far-fetched idea of how they could possibly have been planted and set off. None of that adds up to anything useful.
As for an independent study, by who? This study was done by an independent company, one with experience in the field of controlled demolitions and nothing to gain by making a false report. How many agencies need to investigate the same thing for it to be acceptable? And who would be acceptable? And when they come back and repeat the same facts that you already refuse to accept, then what? Who pays for it? How many tax dollars should be flushed down the toilet to cater to an outspoken minority who won't be satisfied with the results anyway?
Again, both sides on the sound issue is suspect and should be either independently verified or should be discounted as neither side can get conclusive evidence from peoples opinion. Now at a later date if they were to play back sounds of metal snapping and explosions and ask which the sounds sounded like we might be able to draw a conclusion...
That's still not proof. It's still completely subjective. Maybe if you only draw from people who have experience with explosives. Otherwise you are just playing a two loud sounds and asking people to make an expert judgment. Personally, I have been around a lot of explosions and those didn't sound like explosions to me.
Again we have video from the scene and can easily compare them with professionals and other events. This to me supersedes eye witness reports of nonprofessionals as they are doing something else (rescuing people or putting out fires). I'll stick with the professional evidence.
What professional evidence? All Huffman offered there was "I think this video really look like an explosion". That's not professional evidence, especially since he has already shown a complete lack of understanding of explosives and their effects.
Probably because its the best evidence available. Since no buildings were demolished by high yield explosives completely disregarding all safety rules and laws there is literally nothing to compare it to...
Actually there have been, although I don't know that there was any seismic data on them. But again, the point about this being done with complete disregard to normal safety, requiring excessive amounts of high explosives, and needing hundreds of pounds per floor of the building, all points to an increased likelihood that there would be a seismic signature.
Clearly, a demolition's seismic signature, like its other aspects, is a function of its design. Staggering the detonation of hundreds of charges over time would minimize explosives-induced ground vibrations, which would probably be eclipsed in any case by the relief of strain as tens of thousands of tons of mass of the Towers' upper sections were severed from their bases, and by the much larger vibrations caused by rubble hitting the ground.
Wow! So part of the evidence is the apparent symmetrical fall, which was supposedly explosives because it looked like it all happened at once, but now he's claiming that there were hundreds of charges initiated separately! Which one is it? This further also complicates the setup of this because now in addition to the hundreds of pounds of explosives, you need initiators (probably 2 initiators) for all of these separate charges. Of which we still haven't heard how they were initiated.
Its nice how you intentionally misrepresent the different viewpoints. Which further tarnishes your reputation for honest debate. In order to get a symmetrical fall you need to initiate each set of explosives half a second later on each floor that way that floor hits free-fall just as the floor above it is coming down. Again you come back to a false assumption. It would have been easy to have timers or cell signal initiation.
What did I misrepresent? He doesn't make it sound like he's talking about one floor going right after another. He sounds like he's talking about the individual charges on each floor. That requires an extremely high degree of coordination. You'll want dual initiators on each charge for reliability. Timers would have to all be set within fractions of a second from each other and all timers would have to be activated at the same time. Steel and concrete creates natural shielding that makes radio initiation more difficult, not to mention that again you are trying to initiate hundreds of charges within a second or two (but not simultaneously, that's a lot of buttons to press, or even more complex initiators to create the delays for you, and if someone mixes them up and puts them on the wrong charges or doesn't match each charge/detonator combo to the right floor, there's a lot of room for error there).
Then you increase this complexity exponentially since your theory requires hundreds of charges per floor of the building, so not only do the charges on a single floor have to be coordinated like this, but now every charge on every floor has to be coordinated like this and you have to coordinate the timing between floors as well. You handwave this as being really easy. I've worked on large demolition setups that didn't require anywhere near that level of precision and yet they are still complex and can easily be messed up. And more detonators mean more chances for the explosives to detonate prematurely when the planes hit or in the subsequent fire. And every single one of these detonated, there were no explosives left behind and found by investigators or work crews.
Once again you are making assumptions. One is that the building was not made to absorb seismic activity as it almost certainly was designed to do. The second is that the seismic reactions being rhythmic would match a near random fall of debris, sorry the world doesn't work that way.
I think you misunderstand. Why did no one hear a flurry of explosions taking place ten seconds prior to the collapse? Second, why would it take ten seconds for the first round to get the building falling, but yet once it starts moving hundreds of explosions are going off per second floor after floor just ahead of the collapse? And how much seismic activity can the building absorb? How does it work when the activity is coming from the building instead of the ground, which is actually what it was probably designed for? It sounds like you are the one making a lot of assumptions here.
The problem is not that the supports would fall. The problem is that the supports would all buckle simultaneously on every single level of the building. This is physically impossible. If this were what happened parts of the building would have fallen at different rates with a high probability of entire portions of the building remaining standing or falling over horizontally. Instead we see a near free fall of each floor without the accordion effect that should have happened.
Not physically impossible. If you paid attention to what Blanchard wrote, controlled demolitions rely on this phenomenon. The difference is that in a controlled demolition, the fall is started in a controlled manner and designed with safety in mind. It therefore stands to reason that the same sort of fall started under different circumstances would create a similar collapse. In other words, once the collapse is started, the physics of the collapse are the same in both cases. Therefore, if you can buy that it is possible for the supports on one floor to fail, the rest follows logically.
To illustrate it another way, you set up a bunch of dominoes in a line. On time, you push the first domino over and the rest fall in succession. The next time, you push the first domino over, and the rest fall in succession. The next time you shoot a marble into the first domino, the rest fall in succession, and then you scream that it was impossible because you didn't push that first domino like you normally did.
So let's recap. You haven't refuted anything. You haven't provided any real evidence to show that your theory is true. You haven't provided an plausible motive (particularly one that involves destroying a building after it has been hit by an airplane and set on fire). An independent investigation has already been done, yet you insist that you want an independent investigation. I think it's obvious that you don't want an investigation, you want someone to validate your preconceived ideas.
I don't see a lot of refutation in that article.
Since the Towers' demolitions had to start from around the crash zones, the planners would not have been able to exploit the vast majority of each Tower's mass to aid the destruction. Thus they would have had to use much greater quantities of explosives than are typical in demolitions, exploding the Towers rather than imploding them.
So this author is saying that the demolitions were placed in an unoptimized position because that was where the crash zone was. So it the conspiracy now that a plane crashed into the building and then it was destroyed by demolition? That makes no sense. You're saying that either 1) People tooks hundreds of pounds of explosives into a damaged and burning building and rigged them to detonate OR 2) That people took hundreds of pounds of explosives into a building and rigged them to detonate and these explosives survived the initial impact and fires. Both cases require that this activity go completely undetected and that the explosives not be seen by anyone outside of the demolition crew. You also have to have an initiation system that is reliable, probably backed up by another just in case, and also remains completely undetected.
Since the Towers' demolitions had to start from around the crash zones, the planners would not have been able to exploit the vast majority of each Tower's mass to aid the destruction. Thus they would have had to use much greater quantities of explosives than are typical in demolitions, exploding the Towers rather than imploding them.
So this author is saying that the demolitions were placed in an unoptimized position because that was where the crash zone was. So it the conspiracy now that a plane crashed into the building and then it was destroyed by demolition? That makes no sense. You're saying that either 1) People tooks hundreds of pounds of explosives into a damaged and burning building and rigged them to detonate OR 2) That people took hundreds of pounds of explosives into a building and rigged them to detonate and these explosives survived the initial impact and fires. Both cases require that this activity go completely undetected and that the explosives not be seen by anyone outside of the demolition crew. You also have to have an initiation system that is reliable, probably backed up by another just in case, and also remains completely undetected.
Multiple fallacies in Blanchard's assertions are explicated by the 9-11 Research demolition FAQ. Scenario A is absurd, and scenario B is based on the false assertion that the failures started "precisely the point where the respective planes struck." There are an infinite number of possible ways that the demolitions could have been designed, many of them easily compatible with the plane crashes. Blanchard makes the unscientific assertion that there is only one method of accomplishing the task.
Now the Demolitions FAQ linked from that page appears to address that, but not really. It mentions that RDX (I assume he's actually referring to plastic explosives, pure RDX is more sensitive and it is rarely used in that manner) could survive the shock, but fails to account for the fact that the blasting caps needed to detonate them are FAR more sensitive and cannot survive the same heat or shock. It also doesn’t address how they are initiated.
Blanchard's objections are answered by the 9-11 Research demolition FAQ, which describes demolition methods whose preparation would not have required physically accessing the perimeter columns, such as those using thermobaric devices installed only in the Towers' cores.
This guy obviously doesn't know much about explosives beyond what he sees on wikipedia. Thermobaric devices are great for killing people inside of building but a piss poor way to take down a structure. Their effectiveness against people is due to the slow pressure wave, which is exactly the opposite of what you need in this case. You need a high brisance explosive like TNT or C-4 to cut through supports.
Blanchard's assertion that "pre-burning" is necessary in any demolition is another example of his attempt to mislead the reader into believing that only one method of demolition is possible. Issues of safety and economy, such as minimizing dust production, are central factors in the design requirements of normal demolitions. Such issues would not necessarily constrain a demolition whose primary purpose was to annihilate a New York City icon in a shock-and-awe display. Thus, the need for the preparations described by Blanchard, such as "pre-burning," become moot: the desired outcome could be achieved through the use of greater quantities of explosives, which would obviate the need to place the charges directly against exterior columns.
He is actually right on this point, but I'm not sure that it helps his case. As he himself acknowledges, not doing a pre-burn means you need even more explosives to conduct the demolition, which further complicates the whole thing of keeping it secret and again reinforces that his ideas of thermobaric devices just aren't practical.
Note that Blanchard mentions only I-beam columns. Is he unaware that all of the Twin Towers' perimeter columns and all but the top stories of their core columns were box columns, not I-beam columns?
I haven't bothered looking up the details of the building to confirm this but this does nothing to prove that demolition was conduction.
The idea that the Towers were rigged for demolition after the plane crashes is ludicrous and not entertained by any serious researcher. Blanchard's use of this point is a straw-man argument.
Which leaves only the possibility that hundreds of pounds of explosives were smuggled into the building and rigged for detonation without detection, that the explosives themselves were not later detected, that the initiation system was not detected, that in fact multiple initiation systems (since one is not reliable enough to be counted on for this occasion) remained undetected, that the people involved in this (this isn't exactly a one man operation we're talking about) had no compunction about dropping the building on all the people still inside, and no documents have leaked out about this. But this is somehow totally plausible. Not to mention, I'm still waiting to hear how they set it off. What was the method of initiation?
Path of least resistance? Blanchard's attempt to turn the reality of the events -- that the destruction followed the path of most resistance -- on its head, is an example of his sleight-of-hand technique used throughout the article.
The fact that the destruction of each Towers proceeded straight down its vertical axes, systematically destroying 80 or 95 stories of cold, intact, steel structure, means, by definition, that the events followed the paths of most resistance. Blanchard avoids that fact by only addressing the debris falling outside of the Towers' footprints.
Not so. Straight down was in the path of least resistance. If it wasn't, even destroying those supports via demolition wouldn't have achieved that effect. This author seems to ignore that if the structure could not have gone straight down if all the supports snapped, it also could not have gone straight down if the reports were blown through.
There are several proofs of demolition implicit in this behavior, including:
- If there was "a lot of resistance" to rubble falling through the Towers (as there would have to be if the rubble was crushing the Towers without the aid of demolition) then that resistance should have slowed the descent of that rubble much more than air slowed the descent of rubble falling outside the Towers. However, as the visual records clearly show, the Towers disappeared inside of the exploding rubble clouds at about the same rate as the rubble clouds raced to the ground.
- The fact that both events became more symmetrical as they proceeded implies that they were engineered, since natural processes become less symmetric over time. This is especially obvious in the case of the South Tower, the rotation of whose top slowed as it disappeared into the rubble cloud.
Again, this behavior would have occurred either way. He also offers no proof that a natural building would not collapse this way. He simply states that natural processes become less symmetric over time, as if there is anything natural about a man-made structure designed in a specific manner collapsing after being damaged and subjected to a great deal of heat. Also, when you are talking about that amount of weight and pressure, I find it highly unlikely that the rubble inside the structure would significantly affect the falling of the building enough for it to be visible to the naked eye.
Blanchard's assertion about how tall office buildings would fall is contradicted by all available evidence. Except for the alleged cases of the WTC towers, no skyscraper of more than 40 stories has ever collapsed for any reason other than controlled demolition.
Well it's not as if every day we have buildings that are struck by airliners and subjected to hot burning fires for a prolonged period. Of course they don't fall all the time, they aren't supposed to! Since there is no basis of comparison, this statement proves nothing.
Unplanned collapses of smaller steel-framed high-rise buildings have only been caused by severe earthquakes, and in all documented cases either the collapses were limited to a few floors, or the buildings toppled.
Now he's talking about earthquakes, which is an entirely different phenomonen. In that case, the building is being shook from the base, as opposed to this occurring at the top. He's comparing apples and oranges. It's like saying that a volcano couldn't have done damaged building X because it was previously hit by a hurricane and was just fine.
If Blanchard's principle were real and could account for the symmetrical collapse of the Towers, we should have seen the buildings collapse downward, not explode outward.
Well the buildings did collapse downward. The explosion was caused by the sudden compression of air as the tower began to descent which created pressure, which sought the quickest way to escape. We call that a mechanical explosion. Mechanical because it relies on mechanical principles of force and not the application of high explosives. The cloud appeared symmetrical because air is distributed roughly symmetrically throughout the building, and as it tried to find escape, air would travel out the side it was closest to rather than traveling across the building to go out the other window. While there probably was some variation in it, the cloud was so large that small discrepencies would not be noticed by the naked eye. It's rather like how the theory of relativity works great when dealing with the universe on large scales, but when you zoom in to the subatomic level, quantum physics shows that there are in fact a great number of variations and inconsistencies, they just weren't visible or even relevant when you were looking at the bigger picture.
Here, Blanchard admits that the Towers mushroomed, with 95% of the debris falling outside the footprints. But that being the case invalidates the official account -- at least NIST's version of it -- in which the "tremendous energy of the falling building section" is supposed to have crushed the buildings from the crash zones down.
This doesn't invalidate anything. The buildings were crushed with debris being thrown outward. Note that this author also carefully changes the wording. He states that 95% of the debris fell outside of the footprint, which supposedly contradicted other accounts (of course if you are claiming that the other account was not accurate then how is this an issue to begin with?). However, Blanchard actually stated that 95% of the debris that was falling as the tower collapsed was being forced away from the tower and outside the footprint of the building (which is consistent with the idea of extreme pressure forcing air out of the sides of the building as it fell).
With the vast majority of rubble falling outside of the Tower, where is this alleged 'pile-driver'? The visual records show no evidence of the "falling building section" after the first three seconds of each event, only exploding clouds of dust and metal fragments.
Which really only reinforces what has already been stated. An explosion wouldn't push out tons of thick dark smoke like that, and certainly not continually, as that would require a multitude of explosions all in a chain (and I've heard no accounts of explosion after explosion after explosion taking place, which would again make the placing and initiation of the charges even more difficult). As for the alleged pile-driver, that was the building itself, not the light debris that was being thrown away. Once again, this author is attempting a subtle twist of words to make it appear that Blanchard said something he did not.
What video shows a "50-story tall section of the [North Tower] shearing away intact" and what aerial photos show "massive volumes of debris that impacted WTC 7"? As with the rest of the assertions that fill Blanchard's article, the reader is apparently expected to just take his word for it.
I can understand his concern if he hasn't seen these videos, but instead of outright dismissing them, why didn't he contact the author and ask for them? He's not even attempting to find the evidence. I can understand why he wouldn't want to search for them himself. A quick google hunt mostly turns up conspiracy theory sites which is the last place I'd expect to find video evidence debunking their claim. But if I'm that interested about something I'd ask the person who claims to have seen it.
The fact that the Towers exploded outward rather than imploded inward, is evidence for, not against, demolition. Implosion requires limiting the quantities of explosives used to avoid throwing debris outwards. The fact that debris was hurled from the Towers in all directions up to 500 feet is direct evidence of powerful explosives.
Well it is fair to expect that if someone was going to conduct a controlled demolition of a building that they would do it in a manner consistant with the way it has been done for years by professional. Also, debris being hurled is NOT direct evidence of powerful explosives, it is again the mechanical explosion effect caused by air pressure. You DO NOT need high explosives to get an explosion-like effect like that.
The fact that the Towers were shredded and pulverized to a far greater extent than is typical in controlled demolitions corroborates the conclusion that their demolition involved far greater quantities of explosives than typical demolitions.
Again, every time he points to more and more explosives, it becomes less credible due to the logistics involved in the transportation, setup, detonation, and concealment. Furthermore, what is his basis for saying that they are shredded and pulverized far more than in a typical operation? Is there a comparable event that he can show us for proof of this?
Blanchard's assertion that the jets of dust are a "natural and predictable effect of rapid structural collapse" is belied by the fact that such features have never been observed in a natural collapses, but are almost universally observed in controlled demolition.
Well that's a nice try, but the author already shot himself in the foot this time. He stated himself that other collapses to which he was comparing this to were NOT top-down collapses. Of course a building falling on its side doesn't look the same, that falls squarely in the "no ****" category. It is that top-down fall that generates the pressure which creates these plumes of smoke. and again, this smoke makes it less likely for it to be explosives, as high explosives would not continually generate large clouds of smoke such as what were witnessed there.
Blanchard's description has little relationship to the documented events. Steel assemblies catapulted outward hundreds of feet in all directions attest to events that were explosive, not gravity-driven. And rather than seeing air propelled through windows, we see exploding clouds of thoroughly pulverized concrete reaching about five times the width of the Towers before reaching the ground.
Actually his description has a strong grounding in documented events involving mechanical explosions. And once again, this author uses misleading wording by stating that the events were explosive, not gravity-driven, making it appear as if Blanchard suggests that gravity alone moves objects outward instead of down. Blanchard's claim was that this was caused by pressure. Gravity was the driving force behind the tower collapsing straight down but he makes it quite clear that it was pressure that drove air and debris outward. In fact this author is correct that this phenomenon is similar to an explosion, but all a blast wave is is pressure, which is why it bears so much similarity to when a mechanical explosion occurs.
Where is the "scientific documentation" that "failures of interior floor trusses were occurring slightly ahead of exterior columns?" Is Blanchard referring to FEMA's cartoon scenario of floor pancaking, which is explicitly disavowed by NIST's subsequent 'investigation'?
Well call me crazy, but I think it might be a safe guess that someone's cartoon drawing was an illustration of what the engineers had already worked out. The author seems to imply that someone just doodled a drawing and passed it up.
Also, it would help if he could link to the part of the report where one investigation contradicted another (which does sometimes happen and in and of itself is proof of nothing) because I'm already reading through this nonsense, any more and I think my head will explode from the stupidity.
If structural failures were not occurring where the "plumes" were visible, then what was causing the plumes? Didn't Blanchard just tell us that it was structural failures of pancaking floors?
It actually sounds to me like he was saying the initial failure in the building's structure, which caused the collapse, did not align with the locations of the plumes. I doubt that his talk of failure referred to any other point, since once the collapse began, the entire building "structurally failed" in a matter of seconds. This author seems to completely misunderstand that statement.
The accounts of sounds and sights of explosions at the onset of each Tower's destruction in these excerpts from the oral histories of emergency responders have a degree of corroboration and detail that undermines Blanchard's description of them as subjective and highly interpretive. These witnesses described the sounds as pops or explosions, not as the creaking, groaning, or tearing sounds one would expect if the events were initiated by structural failures such as columns buckling and floors collapsing.
Once again, the author ignores some important points. He sort of skates around the issue by saying lots of people heard these noises, a fact that was not disputed by Blanchard. However, Blanchard correctly points out that loud noises /= explosions and Hoffman (I finally looked back at the title to see the name of the refuting author) doesn't really address that. His only statement that he tries to use to back that up is that people heard loud pops, not creaks, groans, or tearing. Well there was probably a lot of creaking and groaning that wasn't heard outside of the building. With all the noise of people and emergency vehicles and such, not to mention the evacuation distance, most people wouldn't here anything unless it was very loud. There could ha
I wonder when it's going to get through his head, there's an expert in explosives, and demolotions (bone naga) telling him how it works in great detail, and someone who's very familiar with the various properties of steel, and differing steel alloys (me) telling him, how and why the buildings would have failed, without the aid of explosives, beyond a multiton aircraft, loaded with Jetfuel, smashing into a building at severl hundred miles an hour.
Also, as bone naga pointed out, just what the hell would you use for a safe triggering device that can survive Aircraft impacts and Jetfuel fires for several hours. That's not counting initial debris from the building itself either. Blasting caps? They are you know... explosive and prone to going boom in extreme heat.
Radios? The receivers are quite likely to simply melt under the heat loads. (which means when the building falls, at some point someone is going to find undetonated explosives during clean up. Guess what, wasn't found)
Electric triggers? Copper's melting point is much lower than steel's is and furthermore has the very same issues of the would be demo crew hoping that it simply isn't destroyed upon impact. Or that the batteries attatched to the devices (since it's quite unlikely to be hard wired to an independent generator somewhere as that adds greatly to the chances of the devices being spotted) don't simply explode? Here's a fun experiment for you to try, take some AA batteries, tape them to an exhaust pipe on say a lawnmower start the lawn mower and let it run. Batteries explode from the heat. Heat which is far far under the 800+ degrees that the interior of the towers near all that jetfuel would be, again leaving undetonated explosives. Lawnmower exhaust temps -at most- hit 400F. Less than half of what the fires in the towers hit.
Microchips? melted.
The detonating devices would have left plenty of unexploded charges.
Next he'll be telling us that the aircraft striking the towers are obviously photoshopped in.
Explain this, if you can.
It's actually a lenticular cloud photographed over the highway between Haleb and Damascus, Syria.
Well, this thread was originally about aliens...I think.
Explain this, if you can.
Neat cloud.
I
Neneohijat's actually a lenticular cloud photographed over the highway between Haleb and Damascus, Syri
Neat cloud.a.
Its almost like you didn't read the article. The explosives were put into place before the act occurred, according to many of the demolition experts. Not having to worry about safety concerns they could have simply put up those emergency lights in stairwells and other out of the way places with access to the supports. There are many ways they could have done this. The one I mention would be the most inconspicuous. Simply placing suitcases and storage boxes in key locations would have been adequate. They survived the fires because the fires couldn't reach the 4,000 degrees needed to ignite the thermate. This is done by magnesium fuses in most cases or the equivalent. So far you haven't refuted anything, and that's even without me being an expert. The assumption that is holding you back is that this was meant to demolish the building according to traditional controlled demolition under law. They didn't have to worry about many of the laws and safety procedures that controlled demolitions have to follow, which makes it much easier and simpler to do.
It's almost like you didn't read what I wrote since I mentioned the possibility of them being placed before the planes hit. Anyway, you again show a complete lack of understanding of explosives.
Your right I'm not an expert, however I defer to the various experts at AE911truth.com. They explain very well why the explanations of the 'experts' that were hired by the government are wrong. You mentioned that it would be impossible to place the explosives before the planes hit because of logistics, ignoring that they didn't have to follow the same safety procedures and invasive procedures as a legal controlled demolition. As I explained it in my previous post, it would have been way easier to simply place boxes of high yield explosives at key locations in the building over the course of a month or two.
-Minor quibble here, it's thermite, not thermate.
Actually it is Thermate which is a specific type of thermite. I thought you were an explosives expert? Also its referenced in the links I posted many times by experts...
-Are you arguing thermite or explosives? Like Huffman you seem to just argue against whatever someone else is saying. Thermite is not an explosive. So which one was it?
-Thermite just isn't as effective as people seem to think. It will burn out pretty quickly. If you don't put it in contact with whatever you are trying to destroy, it probably won't destroy it. You also need some way to keep in in contact with the support while it burns. Therefore, just placing suitcases of thermite in the building won't cut it. BTW, that wouldn't likely work with explosives either since in order to cut steel you want the explosives in direct contact with whatever you are trying to destroy.
Actually Thermate is an explosive, its basically Thermite mixed with explosive material. Your right straight thermite wouldn't work, but Thermate in sufficient amounts would work.
-I still have yet to hear a theory on how the thermite or the explosives were initiated. How did the detonators/initiators survive the impact and fire (remember, according to what you outline below there need to be hundreds of detonators on every floor of the building and they are all sensitive to shock and heat)? What was this uber-secret undetected yet totally reliable setup?
Looking up thermate detonators I came across several sites that have electric detonators. These detonators would not be affected by anything but direct fire. Since the fire was localized to the floors around the impact it would stand to reason that those Thermate bombs did not detonate, however the ones on the floors above and below did detonate. I thought you were an expert on explosives?
-The arguments have nothing to do with the law or what is legal. They have to do with basic physics, with the fact that the assertion of that what happened in the videos had to be explosives is completely false, and with the absurd improbabilities surrounding the use of explosives. The assumption that this was done illegally doesn't make the practical difficulties surrounding explosives magically disappear.
It does take away a lot of the excuses though, specifically the ones that state they must cut into the support beams to place the explosives, they had to use implosion explosives, etc...etc...
I've already explained how all of the difficulties you mentioned could easily be overcome. Here is an article talking about the vehicles found all around the area filled with explosives. As yet no one has put undeniable truth out about how it could not possibly be a controlled demolition. Every time someone comes up with a scenario it is refuted by experts in the field. I really don't think an independent investigation by 3rd party experts is too much at the very least it would stop some of the internet chatter about it. The fact that the majority of the 9/11 commission that was tasked to investigate it originally were tied to the various factions that were being investigated. Only a select few were allowed access to 'restricted' documents, strangely these were the people with the most solid ties. All we want is an independent investigation done by 3rd parties that are not tied to the government or the terrorists or the WTC owners. Why is that so hard?
first off the evidence shows that it was an explosive called thermate which is used to create a super heated response in metal. Thermate does not detonate until it reaches a temperature of 4,000 degrees. A temperature that the fire could not possibly reach as is seen in many of the links I've already posted. The explosives could have easily been started on a timer, radio controlled, or any number of detonation methods. So far you haven't shown anything...First off thermite is not an explosive. Secondly, what evidence? The fact that materials used to make thermite that were also present in the towers were found in the aftermath? As for initiation:
Thermate... See above...
The materials were found to be nano-manufactured. Something that can't be done in a fire. Go back and read the report. I linked it a while back. This just shows me that you are not even reading the links I post. Therefore you are not refuting anything, you are arguing from what I call the "can't possibly" perspective. You think 'It would be unthinkable that our government could be capable of this kind of action' and therefore you are dismissing evidence out of hand. At the very least read the reports, look at the evidence, then refute it directly...
-Timer: Not likely. How would you know when they were supposed to go off? Wouldn't you want precise control over this type of operation? With all the moving parts involved, it would be easy for some sort of delay to occur.
The buildings didn't collapse right at the time the planes hit. They probably had a rough timeline and set the timers to be some time after the expected hit.
-Radio: The distance and shielding created by the building itself would make this extremely unreliable. You could run an antenna out a window or something to get a proper signal, but you would have to do this for every charge and it would be greatly increase the chances of someone spotting it.
The problem with this is that buildings of this size have cell repeaters in them so people can use their cell phones inside the building. Its a very common practice. A combination Radio/Timer with a relay system would have been sufficient. A single radio could pick up the signal then send it around the building with the time to detonate. I just gave two ways that it could have happened.
-Initiators are more sensitive than bulk explosives or thermite. They tend to be much more susceptible to shock and heat. How did they survive the impact and fire?
Some detonators are sensitive. Military detonators and electronic detonators are not anywhere near as sensitive as you try to make them out. As I explained before the area that the plane hit probably did destroy the detonators which is why they found unexpended Thermate in the rubble. You keep throwing up straw-men.
Or Thermate as the evidence shows. Thermate combined with another explosive could be used for any number of types of explosions. It is typically employed to cut supports and steel because it burns at such high temperatures.Your "evidence" doesn't actually prove anything. And why would it be combined with an explosive? What purpose does that serve? In fact, doing so would be pretty much the opposite of what you would want since the explosion would scatter the thermite, making it ineffective. And again, the thermite would need to be in contact with the supports to cut through them. You would also need something to hold the thermite as it burned so that it didn't just flow away from the target as it melted.
Go read the Thermate link or do a little research. That's exactly what they do. They are like shaped explosives they propel the Thermite mixture in a specific direction cutting through anything in its path...
The problem is as I noted upwards that putting 'supply or storage' boxes in key locations as well as installing 'equipment' would cover this. Again your premise relies on one thing: the perpetrators not being able to place the explosives. Which they could easily have done over the course of a few weeks to a month without raising any suspicion using standard boxes and crates or 'equipment'...What proof is there of anything like this occurring? This would not be a one man operation. Many people would have to be involved. Every one of them would have to lack any compunction about murdering hundreds of innocent people, and none of them had a change of heart afterwards to expose this either. Not to mention, again your theory means the explosives (or is it thermite, you can't seem to make up your mind) would be farther away from the supports. Explosive strength decreases exponentially with distance. Thermite in boxes would spread out into a wide pool as it melted and then burn itself out. And why does no one have any knowledge of any kind of installation being conducted near these supports? And even if we accept that this is all within the vague realm of possibility despite being absurdly unlikely, how does that prove that this is what actually happened?
As I already explained it could have been carried out by a small number of people over a long period of time. If they were government stooges, radical extremist religious nuts, or corporate boot lickers beholden to the dollar they would not have any compunction. Likely they would leave the country, or be 'taken care of' afterwards. Moral compunctions and regret would be overshadowed by fear of reprisal if they weren't 'disappeared'. I'm sure there were all kinds of records of 'installation' done in the building, but they have since been covered in rubble and destroyed. If they used boxes and containers, then it wouldn't have been hard to place them near the supports especially knowing that the thermate would cut through walls to get to their target.
It doesn't prove exactly what happened, it does however disprove the 'official' story and is enough evidence to require an independent 3rd party investigation.
The explosives were detected and I explained how they would have been easily smuggled in as well as set up. As is proven with the evidence of un-expended Thermate, a single detonation system could have been used and failed on several of the explosives as well as the explosives set in the areas of the plane crashes not exploding. If you've seen the people that work in black-ops or corporate CEOs then you would know that these people are heartless and would have no compunction if they could get their agenda across or make billions of dollars (as the owner of the WTC did in his double claim for the 'terrorist' insurance policy he took out shortly before the attacks did). Just because you can't imagine a group of people that are capable of this does not mean they don't exist. The method of initiation could have been anything from a cell signal to a timer. Any one of them would have worked.What explosives were detected? And again, thermite is not an explosive and the presence of common metals doesn't really prove anything. And again, we're not talking about a single block of C-4 or a single thermite grenade on each support. This is a sizable amount that was all smuggled in and installed without detection or anyone leaking any information. Oh and yes I've seen the people that work in black ops. Met some of them in person. Not the heartless hollywood stereotypes. You've been watching too many movies. Join us in the real world any time.
Again read up on Thermate. Again nano-manufactured materials don't happen in nature. They were detected and they are exactly matched up to Thermate. for all we know maybe they had them on the plane. Its unlikely because of the amounts they found in the rubble though. What's more likely is that several floors worth didn't explode and were subsequently found in the rubble. If you know how compartmentalization works then you would know that the stooges wouldn't even know what they were doing. They would be told put this box of 'staples' right here, or put this 'coke machine' against this pillar. People that are taught not to ask question, usually don't...
You keep coming back to points that have already been explained and covered. Each time you come back to them I'll explain them again. You aren't going to win by going over old ground. If you'd care to refute facts this conversation might go somewhere. You keep bringing up vague "Can't Possibly" situations rather than the facts...
As for your theory that a single detonation system was used, so you're saying that one system was used for all the charges, which would require the rest of them to all be physically linked. A physical connection stretching between all of them across the building. Right, sure.
Nice straw-man there. No, again Radio and Cell don't require wires...
Your insurance motivation doesn't make sense either. If planes are already being crashed into the buildings, why do you need explosives? The building is already screwed. The extra cost of explosives and experts to employ them is decreasing your profit, not increasing it, not to mention exposing yourself to massive civil and criminal penalties. This isn't the typical "oh you embezzled money, bad" this is "congratulations on having all your assets confiscated to pay off these families and for your grand prize you win lethal injection".
Another straw-man. He got paid more because the buildings were completely destroyed. If it would have just been a couple of plane holes and fires on a few floors he would have got a lot less money. What I find funny is that he 'coincidentally' had a meeting at that exact time along with his board members at a military base. Whew, he was sure lucky not to be in the building at the time of the attacks, he dodged that bullet or should I say plane...
The problem with this is that you would have seen an accordion effect. Each floor would have fallen a slight pause then the next floor. What is observed is near free-fall which could only have happened if the supports were destroyed in timed succession. No other scenario matches the video evidence...
The problem is that you are failing to account for the massive forces involved. The pause could easily have been so slight as to appear imperceptible to the human eye. If you have a robotic hand pushing forward as a steady pace and force while holding a knife and there was a piece of paper in front of it, the paper technically would slow the hand. However, the resistance offered by the paper would be so slight compared to the force being applied that you would never notice it as an observer. Also, Huffman himself mentions you can't see much of the collapse anyway due to the thick cloud of smoke.
That's a possibility with the towers, but with building 7 its not. Building 7 literally falls from top to bottom, and doesn't accordion at all. It doesn't 'w' at all. All of the supports simultaneously give way on every floor. As I said before even discounting the accordion effect not being visible in the WTC 1 and 2, there would have been parts and sections that would have been left standing or have fallen outside the footprint. The outside walls being stronger than the inside walls alone would have made a shearing effect and had portions of the walls being pushed outwards. The evidence just does not fit the official story...
Except that you can look up any number of videos on youtube that show that skyscrapers even when engulfed in flames for 8+ hours do not fall in this manner, let alone in the short time that the WTC towers fell. These three buildings are the only ones in recorded history to have fallen in this manner. I challenge you find my one other building that fell in this manner from anything other than a controlled demolition. As has been covered extensively the fires inside the building could not possibly have reached the temperature to melt the steel. Its even more compounded that the steel being conductive would have bled off the heat much like the heat sinks in your computer that bleed off heat away from your processor. Several of the links I've provided show the science behind this. Its simply not possible. Again if a structure falls according to excessive weight from above you would see an accordion effect. A slight pause as each floors supports gave way. This is not the case in the videos. The buildings fall at near free fall.
I already pointed out that this evidence proves nothing. You can point at anecdotal evidence all day, but it doesn't really show anything. Impact + heat. Not just fire. Show me other buildings that were hit by airplanes and burned and were of the same structural design. Otherwise this comparison proves nothing. This is no different than one video of "proof" where someone took a metal cage, cut a hole in it, lit a fire inside it, and put a concrete block on top of it. Somehow, that constituted proof of a conspiracy despite there being no real comparison between the structures or the forces involved.
So no video or documentation that I asked for? Nice... So then you can't show a single building that fell in the same way due to fire and/or impact. That's the main problem with this argument. There is no precedent.
You know the east coast shark attacks that were believed to have inspired the movie Jaws were also met with skepticism. Experts said that there were no verified occurrences of sharks killing humans, therefore those could not have been shark attacks. They ignored that conditions in the beaches had recently changed. The point is, just because something hasn't happened before is not evidence that it cannot happen.
I agree with that, however when we have evidence that is counter to the 'official' story and a lot of 'coincidences' that don't add up. It starts to look bad. Really all we want is an investigation by independent 3rd parties that are not tied to any of the involved parties... I don't think it's too much to ask...
The problem with your assertion is that many buildings have been recorded burning with intense heat for 8+ hours and they don't fall or they tip over at some half-way point. None of them do the free-fall that the WTC towers do.You ignored my point and offered nothing to refute it. We lack any proper basis for comparison. Just because two buildings both burned doesn't mean that one offers an accurate model of the other.
Your right but the re-enactments they have since done prove again and again that the buildings would not fall in that manner...
Here's a video showing what would happen in a crash with a plane and a building. You'll notice that its not an even fall. Here's another video of an actual plane crash into a skyscraper. This building doesn't fall.
Actually he's talking about fires, earthquakes, and other causes. This is because large buildings just don't fall down like that. They either collapse unevenly with a 'W' shaped accordion effect or they break in half and part of the building falls away from the footprint. This does not happen in the WTC cases.And again you ignored my point. You can't compare apples and oranges just because they are both fruit. Fires, earthquakes, and "other causes" mean comparing completely different forces than were at work at WTC.
Except they claim that it was a fire. Check out some videos of buildings that are on fire and have been hit by planes. They are out there and they don't fall like the WTC buildings did.
This almost sounds like a rational explanation until you realize the pressures involved would simply have blown out the windows long before the ceiling collapsed. The problem is the dust cloud was composed of more concrete than the building had in it unless it was so finely granulated as to have been caused by an explosion. Rather we would have seen chunks of concrete and a much smaller dust could. The videos have also been examined by specialists at AE911truth.com the dust cloud just does not hold up to scrutiny.What are you talking about? The pressure was created by the ceiling collapse, so how would it have occured before the collapse? And how would you know how much concrete was in the dust cloud? Did anyone analyze it as the collapse was taking place? And this "so finely granulated that it must have been caused by an explosion" is garbage too. An explosion would create a lot more large chunks than it would finely granulated concrete. Contrary to hollywood, explosions don't disintegrate or vaporize anything. A small ball of styrofoam placed on a vehicle containing hundreds of pounds of explosives will still survive.
So in other words the windows would not be blown out before the dust was pushed 'magically' through the ceiling to form a mushroom cloud. What planet did you study physics on? There are videos to analyze. Several of the videos show a finely particulate dust cloud without large debris. Coming from the building. So what we are left with is a dust cloud that neither of us can adequately explain...
Yes, but your forgetting that without that debris present, the supports would have held and we would have seen half of the tower still standing. Which is not what happened. Also if the debris was being pushed outward we would have seen a less uniform fall some parts would have fell faster than others. We didn't see this, we saw a universal near free-fall collapse, equivalent to a controlled demolition.Your logic doesn't work. I believe I already explained that the air would be pushed out roughly uniformly (not exactly, but with that amount of air and debris, the difference would be negligible to any observers). There is no reason that this fall works with a demolition but not with failed supports.
You still haven't explained the even fall and how no parts of the building sloughed off and fell outside the footprint. It would have fallen in a strange pattern with parts sloughing off or chunks of it coming off and tipping over at angles. The evidence just does not fit a random occurrence. It does fit a controlled demolition...
The problem is you keep jumping theories. Either the debris fell outside the footprint and was propelled there by your magical 'mechanical pressure' or it stayed on top of the building. So one or the other of your theories is wrong, which proves it could only have been a controlled demolition.No, I haven't jumped theories at all. Did you even read what I wrote? First off, mechanical pressure isn't some magical theory. It's a proven and often observed phenomenon. It's the reason that propane tanks can explode despite the fact that propane is not a high explosive. There are many inventions that rely on such basic functions of pressure to function. Anyway, I don't have two theories, only one is presented. You are doing the same thing I just accused Huffman of, misrepresenting what I said in a manner that makes it appear as if I said something complete different and contradictory. Birds of a feather I guess. The most of the building continued straight down while air pressure pushes away light dust and debris. There's absolutely nothing contradictory about that. I like that you also ignore how I point out that an explosion (or thermite for that matter) would not generate that amount of smoke.
Maybe I misunderstood you when you said the debris fell outside the footprint of the building and when you said the weight of the debris caused the building to collapse. To me it seems those two are contradictory. Thermate would burn through anything that it came in contact with (questionably including titanium) the vaporization effect would be enough to generate the cloud.
The problem is we've all seen the videos of the WTC towers falling and they just don't match up to what these people are saying. Actually if you go to his site he has requested the videos and even a list of their 'experts' and has been refused several times.Blanchard already explained why the videos commonly seen on the internet didn't show what he described. And if Huffman requested these videos and was refused, why would that not be mentioned in his refutation? That's more compelling than any of the junk science he has put forth. It seems suspicious to me that he will jump to conclusions, make claims that just don't align with actual physics, and misrepresent someone else's words, but he would fail to mention something like that.
He was refused after he wrote that article. Why would he not make his videos public? they are either classified or they don't exist, or he's lying. Its a pretty simple situation. Except he does none of what you describe. Defamation doesn't work. Your going to have to show where he uses 'junk science' and how what he says doesn't align with 'actual physics'. He also doesn't misrepresent anyone else's words. Quote some of his statements and prove him wrong, something you haven't done yet...
Except you are once again assuming that the people intending to kill hundreds of people are going to follow the rules and laws established safely and without harming anyone to demolish a building. This is completely illogical. They had little care as to how much devastation they were causing or going to cause. They simply did it in the most expedient method available with less controlled more powerful explosives. Again your trying to explain how concrete got pulverized to a fine particle state and then expelled by 'pressure' caused by the collapse. This is flat out impossible. The dust cloud would have been much much smaller if this was the case.You obviously did not read what I wrote. Again, this is not operating under the assumption that you are complying with the law and have safety in mind. This is operating under the assumption that you are attempting a massive undertaking and therefore will conduct it in a manner that has already been proven time and time again. You also ignored how I explained that explosives are a less likely to be responsible for the cloud. And see above about finely granulated particles, which again are not evidence of explosives. But wait, I thought the evidence showed that thermite was used. So what's up with all this talk of explosives? It seems that you and Huffman are the ones trying to support two different theories at once.
Once again your entire premise is that THERMATE is not an explosive. Go do your research mist explosives expert and find out that it is in fact an explosive. Because Thermate is an explosive that entire paragraph does nothing more than show your ignorance about the subject matter at hand...
As I've shown above it would have been exceedingly easy to smuggle explosives into the building in storage containers and 'equipment'. Your right though about the 'typical operation' no other building in history has fallen because of fire or other disaster that even comes close to how these fell. However there are several buildings that have fallen because of controlled demolitions that are nigh on identical.You have shown that it is remotely possible, not that it is exceedingly easy. Especially since all it would take is one curious **** to blow the entire operation. And similarities /= same. In fact, you'll notice Blanchard agrees that there are some similarities in appearance and mentions that it is because controlled demolitions rely on the exact principle that experts claim was behind the WTC collapse. Oh and how is it that you refuse to accept any evidence or claims as to the practical difficulties in using explosives by saying that it was not conducted the same as a normal controlled demolition, yet you then turn around and use general similarities in appearance of the collapse as proof that it was done using explosives?
Except as I explained it could have been carried out by a small group of people over a longer period of time. Short of taking apart the 'equipment' or opening boxes that are stacked under piles of other boxes that were probably sealed to make it difficult to open easily and labeled to be some material that no one would need or use, no one would have been able to tell what was going on until too late. The fact that the majority of the witnesses were told to stay in the building and subsequently died. Means less of a chance of someone coming out later and saying "I saw a workmen putting up emergency lights on every floor on every support beam just before 9/11".
Even if we assume (contrary to evidence) that there were no explosives involved there are too many coincidences involved. It is unbelievable the kinds of things that happened that day could have happened if not coordinated and planned.
We are talking lightning striking you three times in succession chances here...
Well call me crazy, but I think it might be a safe guess that someone's cartoon drawing was an illustration of what the engineers had already worked out. The author seems to imply that someone just doodled a drawing and passed it up.
Also, it would help if he could link to the part of the report where one investigation contradicted another (which does sometimes happen and in and of itself is proof of nothing) because I'm already reading through this nonsense, any more and I think my head will explode from the stupidity.
At this point you lose credibility because you start throwing around 'my head will explode' and 'from the stupidity'. Its one thing to try to prove someone wrong, but when you get into name calling you begin to look like you can't refute the evidence at hand and therefore lose credibility. Its the same thing when I confront Michael Moore haters. I ask them why they think he's wrong. They come back with 'he's a fat America hater'. To me this does not address the facts that he brings to the table and makes them look like bigots...
Right, because I find this guy to be an idiot, for reasons that I already pointed out, I must be wrong. And because I would like a direct link to evidence he claims to have since otherwise I have to slog through pages of yet another report without even knowing what I'm looking for as this guy has already misrepresented the words of others, somehow that makes me wrong? In any case, I didn't have to through anything substantial in there because there was nothing substantial provided to refute. So let's get on and cut the "this is just like Michael Moore" crap.
Except he quotes the reports and using your search button on your browser would make it a triviality, but keep talking...
The problem once again is that an accordion like effect would have happened and it would have been uneven. So even if what he's talking about is the initial failures, it doesn't have any bearing on the what happened afterwards except to be more in favor of the controlled demolition.Again, no I already explained that this is possible without out your accordion effect. Anyway, under your theory not only did explosives take out the supports, but explosives had to have been used at EVERY SINGLE LEVEL OF THE BUILDING (since if your accordion theory was actually true, it would still happen if explosives merely triggered the collapse). Your explanations suddenly become more ridiculous when you picture stacks and stacks of mysterious supply boxes placed near critical supports scattered around each floor and then repeated on every single floor without anyone questioning this or getting the least bit curious.
I take it you've never worked in a large office environment. No one questions anything unless it directly affects them otherwise they are risking looking bad or making someone important mad...
Again you dismiss this out of hand with a little hand waving. It is not irrefutable evidence, however it contradicts other evidence presented. At the very least it leave both sides of this piece of the evidence suspect. Even without the explosion sounds there is plenty of evidence to justify an independent study by a neutral third party.What evidence? What contradicts other evidence presented? The only evidence he presented in that statement is that some people thought that they might have heard explosions. And it's not that I dismissed it out of hand, I dismissed it because someone's interpretation of a sound if highly subjective. Having personal experience with explosives, I hear things all the times that people think sound like explosions but actually don't sound like them at all. Now if there was some other compelling piece of evidence to corroborate it, then I would say sure, let's examine that a little more. However, all we have is common materials that are expected to be found in the debris of that structure, a video that people subjectively think looks like an explosion, sounds that some people subjectively think looks like an explosion, and a far-fetched idea of how they could possibly have been planted and set off. None of that adds up to anything useful.
How bout all of the recordings of the event. I'm sure someone could go through and test them. I haven't heard of either side doing this, yet...
As for an independent study, by who? This study was done by an independent company, one with experience in the field of controlled demolitions and nothing to gain by making a false report. How many agencies need to investigate the same thing for it to be acceptable? And who would be acceptable? And when they come back and repeat the same facts that you already refuse to accept, then what? Who pays for it? How many tax dollars should be flushed down the toilet to cater to an outspoken minority who won't be satisfied with the results anyway?
Actually the 9/11 commission was filled with individuals with conflicting interests. The families of the victims actually called them on it and got one of them kicked off the team. There were many more and the only people allowed to view sensitive documents were compromised by more than one allegiance.
If they parrot the facts that have been dis-proven already, then we know it wasn't an independent group. Actually I'm sure that all of these Truth groups would be willing to put up the money to do the investigation. Its a matter of getting the government approval at this point. If they have nothing to hide then why not allow an investigation?
Again, both sides on the sound issue is suspect and should be either independently verified or should be discounted as neither side can get conclusive evidence from peoples opinion. Now at a later date if they were to play back sounds of metal snapping and explosions and ask which the sounds sounded like we might be able to draw a conclusion...That's still not proof. It's still completely subjective. Maybe if you only draw from people who have experience with explosives. Otherwise you are just playing a two loud sounds and asking people to make an expert judgment. Personally, I have been around a lot of explosions and those didn't sound like explosions to me.
No you ask the witnesses that say it sounded like an explosive. You play both sounds to them and see if they can distinguish between the two. Then you can have a separate investigation where you play the actual sounds heard at the site to experts and find out if they are explosives or metal snapping. Which is weird because the only thing the two have in common is they are loud, they sound nothing alike...
Again we have video from the scene and can easily compare them with professionals and other events. This to me supersedes eye witness reports of nonprofessionals as they are doing something else (rescuing people or putting out fires). I'll stick with the professional evidence.What professional evidence? All Huffman offered there was "I think this video really look like an explosion". That's not professional evidence, especially since he has already shown a complete lack of understanding of explosives and their effects.
As I said before go back and research your Thermate again. There have been many explosives and demolition experts that have come forward and said that it looks like a controlled demolition. He's not saying he thought it looked like an explosion. He's saying the experts say it looks like an explosion...
I'm cutting this short because the post size is getting ludicrous. Most of it is just repeated anyway and easily disproved once you do a little research on Thermate...
Well, this thread was originally about aliens...I think.
Explain this, if you can.
Looks photoshopped to me because the sunlight is hitting it differently than the clouds in the background, of course I could be wrong, not a photography expert...
I see that once again he's ignored my post.
I wonder when it's going to get through his head, there's an expert in explosives, and demolotions (bone naga) telling him how it works in great detail, and someone who's very familiar with the various properties of steel, and differing steel alloys (me) telling him, how and why the buildings would have failed, without the aid of explosives, beyond a multiton aircraft, loaded with Jetfuel, smashing into a building at severl hundred miles an hour.
Also, as bone naga pointed out, just what the hell would you use for a safe triggering device that can survive Aircraft impacts and Jetfuel fires for several hours. That's not counting initial debris from the building itself either. Blasting caps? They are you know... explosive and prone to going boom in extreme heat.
Radios? The receivers are quite likely to simply melt under the heat loads. (which means when the building falls, at some point someone is going to find undetonated explosives during clean up. Guess what, wasn't found)
Electric triggers? Copper's melting point is much lower than steel's is and furthermore has the very same issues of the would be demo crew hoping that it simply isn't destroyed upon impact. Or that the batteries attatched to the devices (since it's quite unlikely to be hard wired to an independent generator somewhere as that adds greatly to the chances of the devices being spotted) don't simply explode? Here's a fun experiment for you to try, take some AA batteries, tape them to an exhaust pipe on say a lawnmower start the lawn mower and let it run. Batteries explode from the heat. Heat which is far far under the 800+ degrees that the interior of the towers near all that jetfuel would be, again leaving undetonated explosives. Lawnmower exhaust temps -at most- hit 400F. Less than half of what the fires in the towers hit.
Microchips? melted.
The detonating devices would have left plenty of unexploded charges.
Next he'll be telling us that the aircraft striking the towers are obviously photoshopped in.
Sorry I missed your post between bone_nagas wall of text double post and my 3 day temp-ban... you'll have to excuse me.
The problem is that metal that is fatigued through heat and stress doesn't collapse straight down, they bend in one direction or another. If this were the cause we would have seen the buildings tilt and pivot fall sideways. This is clearly not what happened...
Looks photoshopped to me because the sunlight is hitting it differently than the clouds in the background, of course I could be wrong…
You are.
The problem is that metal that is fatigued through heat and stress doesn't collapse straight down, they bend in one direction or another. If this were the cause we would have seen the buildings tilt and pivot fall sideways. This is clearly not what happened...
This is clearly not what happened? LOL. Yes, the small minority are the only ones that see things so jaded clearly.
Because the weight of the rest of the building would not have any impact on the direction the entirety of the building falling? Because one column falling left and an adjacent column falling right would not have a similar impact as to falling straight down? Because your scenario is the only way that it could happen?
Heat, weight. Steel won't just bend. It will also buckle. It will also collapse on itself, particularly if the middle is the weak point while the top and bottom remain more stable. By the way, there were also independant studies done (non-government funded) that do not come up with the conclusion of explosives.
This thread should be imploded.
Sorry I missed your post between bone_nagas wall of text double post and my 3 day temp-ban... you'll have to excuse me.
The problem is that metal that is fatigued through heat and stress doesn't collapse straight down, they bend in one direction or another. If this were the cause we would have seen the buildings tilt and pivot fall sideways. This is clearly not what happened...
Actually it would collapse straight down, the steel would fall in the direction it was bearing the load, or in the case of initial supports the area it was damaged in. (which would be inwards, causing the supports above the initially damaged ones above them to collapse 'straight down')
It greatly depends on where the steel was heated, and where the load is as to where it's going to bend. If the load is straight up and down, as the steel becomes compromised it's going to want to fold inwards on itself, especially when that is the path of least resistance. It's not going to want to collapse outwards like a Jenga game, because that isn't how the building is constructed. Each piece is hard reinforced into place to the point that whereever the first few supports go the building would then want to fall on itself.
The other large factor here is Concrete, which let's face it isn't nearly as strong as people like to believe it is. As many supports are compromised and begin shifting, the oh so breakable concrete is going to crack and crumble. It will want to go straight down, as most of the load bearing support is along the perimeter of the building. This also puts a release on the steel, which is now suddenly not bearing load. Unfortunately at that point the steel is going to "spring" and then fall as the movement hits the already compromised areas. Concrete does not exactly require alot of movement before it crumbles, especially over a Large Surface Area the larger the area, the more mechanical advantage is working against concrete wanting to stay in one piece. Movement at column A + B beyond designed parameters will cause elements of the floor to break apart, and then begin it's descent down through the building, becoming a big Hammer basically.
The steel 'springs' and then rips itself free of the support above it, and comes ripping on down at almost the same moment (just after) the the concrete shatters.
The thing is, that building -did- shift tremendously when a full sized Jetliner smashed into the building. There isn't a structure of any decent height in existence that wouldn't. Couple this with subesquent heat damage, and impact damage and you get the results that you would have.
The planes penetrated quite a ways into the buildings. It wasn't like they just stopped after making a big ole hole outside. Which would have compromised the entire floor, given the conditions.