| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:49 am Post subject: WTC Exotic Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense |
 |
|
WTC Exotic Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense
Did you know... Every building destroyed on 9/11 had a WTC prefix?
This included all the World Trade Center buildings:
WTC 1 (North Tower) - Completely Destroyed. "Collapsed" straight down at freefall speed with puffs of smoke shooting out the sides and the concrete pulverized to powder.
WTC 2 (South Tower) - Completely Destroyed. Upper floors tipped over and entire building "collapsed" at freefall speed with puffs of smoke shooting out the sides and the concrete pulverized to powder.
WTC 3 - Huge Chunk "Missing". Where did this section go?
WTC 4 - Destroyed. What happened here? Notice the toasted car.
WTC 5 - Peculiar "Round Holes". What made these?
WTC 6 - Several "Missing" Pieces. What did this?
WTC 7 - Completely Destroyed. Collapsed straight down at freefall speed with puffs of smoke shooting out the side and the concrete pulverized to powder.
Watch these videos of controlled demolitions. Notice any similarities to the WTC? Freefall collapse? Puffs of smoke? Pulverization of concrete to powder?
Contrary to what many believe, the government-sponsored NIST report did not analyze the actual collapses. NIST admits this themselves in footnote 13 at the bottom of page 82 in their final report. (Scroll to page 132 in the downloadable version from NIST's website.)
"The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable."
So here we have the NIST report stating that they did not analyze the actual collapses, but instead considered collapse inevitable. How could NIST claim inevitability when it never happened before?
NIST's failure to analyze the collapses explains their non-analysis of freefall speed with puffs of smoke coming out the sides and the concrete pulverized to powder!
Now let's take a look at Drs Judy Wood/Morgan Reynolds' "Star Wars Beam Weapon" paper. Contrary to Steven Jones "thermate", the Star Wars Beam Weapon theory takes into account ALL of the evidence. (A new paper "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis" by Wood/Reynolds details the many mistakes Jones has made.) Anyone having even the tiniest bit of scientific reasoning skills should know that a hypothesis is only valid if it accounts for ALL of the evidence!! I encourage all to carefully look through her papers and try to understand the information she reveals.
For instance, she says the towers did not collapse, but were blown up from the top down with a high-energy exotic weapon. Here are three examples of Massive Energy Releases:
1. Mount St Helens - Erupting Volcano
2. Nevada Desert - Nuclear Blast
3. WTC - High Energy Demolition? or Standard CD? or Impact Damage/Fires?
NINE PIECES OF EVIDENCE FOR SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ON 9/11:
1. Seismic readings too low to account for two 500,000 ton towers. Dr Wood claims the lower 20 floors may have collapsed in a regular controlled demolition. This would account for the seismic readings, the existing debris, and the eyewitness testimony of explosions. (On Dec 14, 2006, a NIST scientist said "...the collapse of the towers were not of any magnitude that was seismically significant...". See Wood's "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis" for mp3 links.)
2. Concrete pulverized to powder in a way that cannot be accounted in a standard controlled demolition. (i.e. more than 50% of samples under 100 microns) pic one, pic two, pic three
3. Steel spire turns to dust and trickles down in news videos. pic
4. Photographs of Ground Zero lacking enough concrete and steel to account for two 110 story towers. pic
5. Toasted cars over half a mile from Ground Zero. pic one, pic two, pic three
6. Large sections of buildings "vanish". Round holes in WTC 5 roof pic; Large vertical chunks "missing" from WTC 3 pic and WTC 6 pic
7. Downtown Manhattan not flooded. If one million tons of towers collapsed on the slurry wall / bathtub at freefall speed, it would have broken through and flooded New York. pic
8. All airplanes ordered to land about fifteen minutes before the South Tower is destroyed. Right after the North Tower goes, government allows military aircraft back up. pic
9. Evidence for existence of Space-based weapons. (Let's remember, the government is always at least 15-20 years ahead in technology from where they publicly admit.) site one, site two, site three
That's just a small sampling!! Take a look at Dr Wood's Star Wars Beam Weapon paper for much more.
So, ask yourself... what can explain ALL the anomalies listed above?
Dr Judy Wood is not the only scientist speaking up about exotic weaponry at the WTC:
Dr Jeff King, MD, former M.I.T. Electrical Engineer, was one of the first to speak up about controlled demolitions at the WTC. The previous link is from 2004, but much evidence has come out since. Listen to this MP3 from Webster Griffin Tarpley's March 2006 radio show, where he discusses exotic weaponry in more detail. See here for more analysis by King.
Also, Charles Pegelow, a Structural Engineer, has come forward. He was interviewed on James Fetzer's radio show on November 30th, 2006 and MP3s of this show are here: hour 1, hour 2.
As prominent conservative Paul Craig Roberts says: "How could government complicity be kept a secret? It can be kept a secret, because so many Americans are scientifically ignorant and emotionally weak. They are incapable of realizing the contradiction in the government’s claim that the WTC buildings “pancaked” at free fall speed, and they are emotionally incapable of confronting the evil of the Bush regime."
Last edited by CB_Brooklyn on Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallious wrote: |
The other evidence presented in the paper could (and has) be called in as defence for any number of theories that are far more likely than bean weapons. |
That's true, but we still need to look at all the information and form a hypothesis that can account for all the evidence. We can't just take each piece, and form a hypothesis based on that one piece alone (or even a few pieces.) IOW, if a theory accounts for most, but not all, of the evidence, then it cannot be valid. I'm not saying beam weapons are proven fact, but I can't think of anything else that would account for all the information. What, if not a directed energy weapon (i.e. beam, directed energy, microwave), could explain all the information? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to just add my perspective on;
| Quote: | | 3. Steel spire turns to dust and trickles down in news videos. pic |
In the first post of this thread.
I do not see the spire 'turning to dust'.
The building is collapsing, there is considerable smoke and dust rising and hanging in the air. The spire begins to descend and as it does so, its sharp ouitline is diminished and softened by smoke/dust and it merely appears to dissolve.
The spire then drops completely from view leaving a very rough cloud of particles (smoke/dust) in its ex-footprint. To see it 'dissolve' is an optical illusion, no smoke AND mirrors, just smoke.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Busker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 374
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:22 am Post subject: Re: WTC Exotic Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense |
|
|
If this was a beam weapon then, shouldn't there be 'toasted' people near these vehicles as well? Toasted pets, toasted trees, toasted rubbish bins?
What would only affect vehicles and allow people to runaway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:10 am Post subject: Re: WTC Exotic Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | For instance, she says the towers did not collapse, but were blown up from the top down with a high-energy exotic weapon. Here are three examples of Massive Energy Releases:
1. Mount St Helens - Erupting Volcano
2. Nevada Desert - Nuclear Blast
3. WTC - High Energy Demolition? or Standard CD? or Impact Damage/Fires? |
As I demonstrated, what i've seen of controled demolition, including the demolition of WTC 7 has very similar dust clouds to the WTC 1 and 2 demolitions. However, the towers were destroyed from the top downward, so naturaly took orders of magnitude more explosive. The result is a comparable type, but considerably greater quantity of dust.
| Quote: | NINE PIECES OF EVIDENCE FOR SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ON 9/11:
1. Seismic readings too low to account for two 500,000 ton towers. Dr Wood claims the lower 20 floors may have collapsed in a regular controlled demolition. This would account for the seismic readings, the existing debris, and the eyewitness testimony of explosions. (On Dec 14, 2006, a NIST scientist said "...the collapse of the towers were not of any magnitude that was seismically significant...". See Wood's "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis" for mp3 links.) |
This can (and has) be accounted for by controled demolition charges or thermate in the towers basement, severing the structures connection to the bed rock. This is a logical step for the perps to take right at the start of the operation to substantialy diminish the shockwaves from later explosions, and a standard CD method for removing the majority of support to the towers structure. This is backed up by numerious eye and ear witnesses including William Rodriguez who heard explosives in the basement long before the towers fell.
| Quote: | | 2. Concrete pulverized to powder in a way that cannot be accounted in a standard controlled demolition. (i.e. more than 50% of samples under 100 microns) pic one, pic two, pic three |
The twin towers were not a standard controlled demolition. So, unfortunately the statement does not mean anything. Watever the weapon was, it all comes down to the fundementals of energy release, large enough explosions (as seen and heard on the day) are perfectly capable of this kind of vaporisation.
| Quote: | | 3. Steel spire turns to dust and trickles down in news videos. pic |
telecasterisation has dealt with this and I agree.
| Quote: | | 4. Photographs of Ground Zero lacking enough concrete and steel to account for two 110 story towers. pic |
Indeed, but again that doesn't indicate a beam weapon. It does confirm that massive quantities were vaporised somehow, but we knew that already.
Skeptics are still waiting for sources of these images. The cars have clearly been moved from their original locations, does the report author note this?
Many of the cars in this pictures are not just burned, but have also been partially crushed.
Until a particular vehicle has been identified as being well out of the way of falling debris and other burning vehicles then the most likely solution is the simplest. Some cars were hit with falling debris, their fuel ignited and surrounding vehicles were also caught in the blaze.
| Quote: | | 6. Large sections of buildings "vanish". Round holes in WTC 5 roof pic; Large vertical chunks "missing" from WTC 3 pic and WTC 6 pic |
In your picture of building 6 you can see the remaining side of one of the towers still standing, barely meters away. I wonder what damage you'd expect to see with the vast bulk of the building landing on top of B6? Pictures from inside these 'holes' show no signs of heat weaponry or vaporisation, however there are huge columns from the tower and lots of downward bent metal and floors.
Again, the logical and most likely explanation (given the ample evidence) is that this damage was caused by the thousands of tonnes of structural steel of the twin towers falling on the surrounding buildings and tub.
| Quote: | | 7. Downtown Manhattan not flooded. If one million tons of towers collapsed on the slurry wall / bathtub at freefall speed, it would have broken through and flooded New York. pic |
Actually the PATH tunnels did flood, over 3,000 gallons of water had to be pumped out. Either way this has been debunked many times, the bathtub was built so the WTC's could be firmly anchored to the bedrock. Downtown Manhattan is well above the water line and the only thing that would have flooded was the already doomed WTC complex basements.
Severing of bedrock connections, and vaporisation of much of the towers bulk meant explosion and impact shockwaves were minimal. Explosives can do this kind of damage, therefore this is not a point in favor of beam weapons, just explosive demolition.
| Quote: | | 8. All airplanes ordered to land about fifteen minutes before the South Tower is destroyed. Right after the North Tower goes, government allows military aircraft back up. pic |
Indeed, except only a fraction actually did land and of those still flying none (that i'm aware of) reported any anomalies with radar or plane functions. Not to mention the helicopters swarming around the towers even while they collapsed. If some EMP effect is inferred here (which I assume it is), then there would certainly have been power cuts in downtown manhattan.
| Quote: | | 9. Evidence for existence of Space-based weapons. (Let's remember, the government is always at least 15-20 years ahead in technology from where they publicly admit.) site one, site two, site three |
This is all marvellous, but proving someone has a pistol, does not make them a machine gun toting murderer because they 'could own one'. In fact, it clears them of wrong-doing because they don't own the murder weapon.
Please, I hope you see the trap here.
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Garcon Warrior
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 93
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree with Tele here there is no split second time shown with the photos to give us an idea of how close the images were taken. It basically shows the building collapsing and the inprint still there rather than anything to do with a beam weapon. If you had shown me photos of the top of the mast disappeared and the rest still there, then the next frame more gone and the bottom of the mast still there it would have been much better for your case. What tower are those picture taken from? I ask this because if you are suggesting it is the spire from the north tower it looks nothing like it. The photos look more like when the building collapses there is some of the building still up and then collapses a few seconds later. The mast on the north tower is clearly seen in video footage collapsing with the tower and not disappearing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:18 am Post subject: Re: WTC Exotic Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense |
|
|
Fallious, your analysis is extremely faulty. Below, I will explain how.
| Fallious wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | For instance, she says the towers did not collapse, but were blown up from the top down with a high-energy exotic weapon. Here are three examples of Massive Energy Releases:
1. Mount St Helens - Erupting Volcano
2. Nevada Desert - Nuclear Blast
3. WTC - High Energy Demolition? or Standard CD? or Impact Damage/Fires? |
As I demonstrated, what i've seen of controled demolition, including the demolition of WTC 7 has very similar dust clouds to the WTC 1 and 2 demolitions. However, the towers were destroyed from the top downward, so naturaly took orders of magnitude more explosive. The result is a comparable type, but considerably greater quantity of dust. |
Okay, above you are admitting that a lot of energy was used for WTC 1 and 2. Also let's not forget that all the office equipment, computers, etc was pulverized to powder too.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | NINE PIECES OF EVIDENCE FOR SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ON 9/11:
1. Seismic readings too low to account for two 500,000 ton towers. Dr Wood claims the lower 20 floors may have collapsed in a regular controlled demolition. This would account for the seismic readings, the existing debris, and the eyewitness testimony of explosions. (On Dec 14, 2006, a NIST scientist said "...the collapse of the towers were not of any magnitude that was seismically significant...". See Wood's "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis" for mp3 links.) |
This can (and has) be accounted for by controled demolition charges or thermate in the towers basement, severing the structures connection to the bed rock. This is a logical step for the perps to take right at the start of the operation to substantialy diminish the shockwaves from later explosions, and a standard CD method for removing the majority of support to the towers structure. This is backed up by numerious eye and ear witnesses including William Rodriguez who heard explosives in the basement long before the towers fell. |
What you said above in no way explains why the seismic reading was too low.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | 2. Concrete pulverized to powder in a way that cannot be accounted in a standard controlled demolition. (i.e. more than 50% of samples under 100 microns) pic one, pic two, pic three |
The twin towers were not a standard controlled demolition. So, unfortunately the statement does not mean anything. Watever the weapon was, it all comes down to the fundementals of energy release, large enough explosions (as seen and heard on the day) are perfectly capable of this kind of vaporisation. |
Okay, above you admit the Twin Towers were not a standard controlled demolition. And of course, large enough explosions could do it. Basically you agree with what I said.
Note: the statement is relevant as many people still believe the fire collapse nonsense.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | 3. Steel spire turns to dust and trickles down in news videos. pic |
telecasterisation has dealt with this and I agree. |
That does not account for the picture above from 911Eyewitness. Therefore your analysis is wrong.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | 4. Photographs of Ground Zero lacking enough concrete and steel to account for two 110 story towers. pic |
Indeed, but again that doesn't indicate a beam weapon. It does confirm that massive quantities were vaporised somehow, but we knew that already. |
Are you insinuating that I ever said point # 4 above indicates a beam weapon? We do both agree that the steel was vaporized some how.
| Quote: |
Skeptics are still waiting for sources of these images. The cars have clearly been moved from their original locations, does the report author note this?
Many of the cars in this pictures are not just burned, but have also been partially crushed.
Until a particular vehicle has been identified as being well out of the way of falling debris and other burning vehicles then the most likely solution is the simplest. Some cars were hit with falling debris, their fuel ignited and surrounding vehicles were also caught in the blaze. |
Sources for the pictures will be released when the paper is finished. Your analysis above cannot account for all the anomalies in the toasted cars. i.e. rubber tires missing while the steel belt is still wrapped around the wheel.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | 6. Large sections of buildings "vanish". Round holes in WTC 5 roof pic; Large vertical chunks "missing" from WTC 3 pic and WTC 6 pic |
In your picture of building 6 you can see the remaining side of one of the towers still standing, barely meters away. I wonder what damage you'd expect to see with the vast bulk of the building landing on top of B6? Pictures from inside these 'holes' show no signs of heat weaponry or vaporisation, however there are huge columns from the tower and lots of downward bent metal and floors.
Again, the logical and most likely explanation (given the ample evidence) is that this damage was caused by the thousands of tonnes of structural steel of the twin towers falling on the surrounding buildings and tub. |
When one building collapses on another, both buildings will not disintegrate. So where did it go?
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | 7. Downtown Manhattan not flooded. If one million tons of towers collapsed on the slurry wall / bathtub at freefall speed, it would have broken through and flooded New York. pic |
Actually the PATH tunnels did flood, over 3,000 gallons of water had to be pumped out. Either way this has been debunked many times, the bathtub was built so the WTC's could be firmly anchored to the bedrock. Downtown Manhattan is well above the water line and the only thing that would have flooded was the already doomed WTC complex basements.
Severing of bedrock connections, and vaporisation of much of the towers bulk meant explosion and impact shockwaves were minimal. Explosives can do this kind of damage, therefore this is not a point in favor of beam weapons, just explosive demolition. |
you are picking and choosing just to suit your own needs, and it is faulty. If one million tons of towers collapsed on the slurry wall / bathtub at freefall speed, it would have broken through and flooded New York.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | 8. All airplanes ordered to land about fifteen minutes before the South Tower is destroyed. Right after the North Tower goes, government allows military aircraft back up. pic |
Indeed, except only a fraction actually did land and of those still flying none (that i'm aware of) reported any anomalies with radar or plane functions. Not to mention the helicopters swarming around the towers even while they collapsed. If some EMP effect is inferred here (which I assume it is), then there would certainly have been power cuts in downtown manhattan. |
You are not putting it in context with the other information. Your analysis is faulty.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | 9. Evidence for existence of Space-based weapons. (Let's remember, the government is always at least 15-20 years ahead in technology from where they publicly admit.) site one, site two, site three |
This is all marvellous, but proving someone has a pistol, does not make them a machine gun toting murderer because they 'could own one'. In fact, it clears them of wrong-doing because they don't own the murder weapon. |
What???
| Quote: |
Please, I hope you see the trap here. |
Please, I hope you're talking to yourself 
Let's take a look at your own analysis:
You deny videos showing steel being vaporized, yet you admit the steel was somehow vaporized. Okay, what vaporized the steel?
You do not explain the low seismic readings
You do not explain round holes in WTC 5
You do not explain the missing chunk in WTC 3
You make the assumption that I claim that just one of points would indicate a beam weapon. This is not true, and it's faulty logic. When looking at ALL of the points I brought up, a beam weapon sure sounds plausible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:58 am Post subject: Re: WTC Exotic Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense |
|
|
Ok. Well this clearly isn't worth the effort, for your sake, but perhaps other people will benefit.
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | Fallious, your analysis is extremely faulty. Below, I will explain how.
| Fallious wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | For instance, she says the towers did not collapse, but were blown up from the top down with a high-energy exotic weapon. Here are three examples of Massive Energy Releases:
1. Mount St Helens - Erupting Volcano
2. Nevada Desert - Nuclear Blast
3. WTC - High Energy Demolition? or Standard CD? or Impact Damage/Fires? |
As I demonstrated, what I've seen of controlled demolition, including the demolition of WTC 7 has very similar dust clouds to the WTC 1 and 2 demolitions. However, the towers were destroyed from the top downward, so naturally took orders of magnitude more explosive. The result is a comparable type, but considerably greater quantity of dust. |
Okay, above you are admitting that a lot of energy was used for WTC 1 and 2. Also let's not forget that all the office equipment, computers, etc was pulverized to powder too. |
You haven't refuted my point here. The dust clouds of WTC 1,2 and 7 are exactly alike and easily comparable to other controlled demolitions.
Also please note that there's plenty of evidence of office equipment that was not pulverised. Rescue workers reported finding office equipment smashed into pieces small enough that could be held in their palm. Typical of crushing and explosive damage - Not heated vaporization.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | NINE PIECES OF EVIDENCE FOR SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ON 9/11:
1. Seismic readings too low to account for two 500,000 ton towers. Dr Wood claims the lower 20 floors may have collapsed in a regular controlled demolition. This would account for the seismic readings, the existing debris, and the eyewitness testimony of explosions. (On Dec 14, 2006, a NIST scientist said "...the collapse of the towers were not of any magnitude that was seismically significant...". See Wood's "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis" for mp3 links.) |
This can (and has) be accounted for by controlled demolition charges or thermate in the towers basement, severing the structures connection to the bed rock. This is a logical step for the perps to take right at the start of the operation to substantially diminish the shockwaves from later explosions, and a standard CD method for removing the majority of support to the towers structure. This is backed up by numerous eye and ear witnesses including William Rodriguez who heard explosives in the basement long before the towers fell. |
What you said above in no way explains why the seismic reading was too low. |
Actually, I'm sorry to say it accounts exactly for it. As any seismologist will tell you, their equipment measures vibrations in the bedrock. There is a huge difference in shockwave readings, depending on how close the origin was to the bedrock. The WTC's were 'wired' right into the bedrock, so seismologists would expect very high and clear readings from them, but those connections were broken at the start of the operation, so the explosions in the towers did not register. The vaporisation of the towers core (by explosives) eliminated perhaps 50% of it's bulk so the vibration of landing debris was also significantly less than they expected to see.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | | 2. Concrete pulverized to powder in a way that cannot be accounted in a standard controlled demolition. (i.e. more than 50% of samples under 100 microns) pic one, pic two, pic three |
The twin towers were not a standard controlled demolition. So, unfortunately the statement does not mean anything. Watever the weapon was, it all comes down to the fundementals of energy release, large enough explosions (as seen and heard on the day) are perfectly capable of this kind of vaporisation. |
Okay, above you admit the Twin Towers were not a standard controlled demolition. And of course, large enough explosions could do it. Basically you agree with what I said. |
Indeed, and you conceded my point that large enough explosions are also capable of this kind of vaporisation. Which raises the question: How is this evidence of space based weaponry?
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | | 3. Steel spire turns to dust and trickles down in news videos. pic |
telecasterisation has dealt with this and I agree. |
That does not account for the picture above from 911Eyewitness. Therefore your analysis is wrong. |
And we say it does. Therefore your analysis is wrong. 
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | | 4. Photographs of Ground Zero lacking enough concrete and steel to account for two 110 story towers. pic |
Indeed, but again that doesn't indicate a beam weapon. It does confirm that massive quantities were vaporised somehow, but we knew that already. |
Are you insinuating that I ever said point # 4 above indicates a beam weapon? We do both agree that the steel was vaporized some how. |
Well it was one of your points listed under the heading "NINE PIECES OF EVIDENCE FOR SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ON 9/11:". So yes, i'm assuming you are talking about Beam Weapons.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Sceptics are still waiting for sources of these images. The cars have clearly been moved from their original locations, does the report author note this?
Many of the cars in this pictures are not just burned, but have also been partially crushed.
Until a particular vehicle has been identified as being well out of the way of falling debris and other burning vehicles then the most likely solution is the simplest. Some cars were hit with falling debris, their fuel ignited and surrounding vehicles were also caught in the blaze. |
Sources for the pictures will be released when the paper is finished. Your analysis above cannot account for all the anomalies in the toasted cars. i.e. rubber tires missing while the steel belt is still wrapped around the wheel. |
Fire accounts for all the anomalies. Unless you are suggesting that fire itself was following different laws of physics on 9/11?
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | | 6. Large sections of buildings "vanish". Round holes in WTC 5 roof pic; Large vertical chunks "missing" from WTC 3 pic and WTC 6 pic |
In your picture of building 6 you can see the remaining side of one of the towers still standing, barely meters away. I wonder what damage you'd expect to see with the vast bulk of the building landing on top of B6? Pictures from inside these 'holes' show no signs of heat weaponry or vaporisation, however there are huge columns from the tower and lots of downward bent metal and floors.
Again, the logical and most likely explanation (given the ample evidence) is that this damage was caused by the thousands of tonnes of structural steel of the twin towers falling on the surrounding buildings and tub. |
When one building collapses on another, both buildings will not disintegrate. So where did it go? |
Thats your most ludicrous point yet. No weight analysis? No structural investigation? just: 'Buildings falling on other buildings don't break stuff'. Good one.
I'm sorry to say you can't have it both ways. Thousands of tonnes of exo-columns rained down on ground zero, including the surrounding WTC's. The columns are documented and photographed inside the destroyed buildings. If a beam weapon was responsible for the damage, then a teleporter must be responsible for putting the columns in there.
Personally. I'd just rely on gravity.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | | 7. Downtown Manhattan not flooded. If one million tons of towers collapsed on the slurry wall / bathtub at freefall speed, it would have broken through and flooded New York. pic |
Actually the PATH tunnels did flood, over 3,000 gallons of water had to be pumped out. Either way this has been debunked many times, the bathtub was built so the WTC's could be firmly anchored to the bedrock. Downtown Manhattan is well above the water line and the only thing that would have flooded was the already doomed WTC complex basements.
Severing of bedrock connections, and vaporisation of much of the towers bulk meant explosion and impact shockwaves were minimal. Explosives can do this kind of damage, therefore this is not a point in favor of beam weapons, just explosive demolition. |
you are picking and choosing just to suit your own needs, and it is faulty. If one million tons of towers collapsed on the slurry wall / bathtub at freefall speed, it would have broken through and flooded New York. |
Not saying it wouldn't have broken the slury wall. Just saying the actual water level of the river, comes up to about the sixth floor of the bathtub. It physically couldn't flood south Manhattan. People wouldn't even know that it HAD flooded because it would all be under the concrete of the streets above.
The only reason to maintain the slurry wall integrity was so the PATH tunnels wouldn't flood, but they did. Oh well.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | | 8. All airplanes ordered to land about fifteen minutes before the South Tower is destroyed. Right after the North Tower goes, government allows military aircraft back up. pic |
Indeed, except only a fraction actually did land and of those still flying none (that i'm aware of) reported any anomalies with radar or plane functions. Not to mention the helicopters swarming around the towers even while they collapsed. If some EMP effect is inferred here (which I assume it is), then there would certainly have been power cuts in downtown manhattan. |
You are not putting it in context with the other information. Your analysis is faulty. |
Please explain?
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | | 9. Evidence for existence of Space-based weapons. (Let's remember, the government is always at least 15-20 years ahead in technology from where they publicly admit.) site one, site two, site three |
This is all marvellous, but proving someone has a pistol, does not make them a machine gun toting murderer because they 'could own one'. In fact, it clears them of wrong-doing because they don't own the murder weapon. |
What??? |
What i'm saying is: You are trying to infer the government has a beam weapon capable of vaporising millions of tonnes of steel and concrete - by demonstrating weapons which direct a pinprick of intense heat at a target, or irritate the nerves of a human.
That kind of logic also sounds like this: "Johny here has a 9mm pistol, so he must also have a chain gun."
| Quote: |
You deny videos showing steel being vaporized, yet you admit the steel was somehow vaporized. Okay, what vaporized the steel? |
Explosions.
| Quote: | | You do not explain the low seismic readings |
You need to read up on how seismic data is collected.
| Quote: | | You do not explain round holes in WTC 5 |
Thousands of tonnes of falling exo-column steel, found in the holes themselves.
| Quote: | | You do not explain the missing chunk in WTC 3[/list] |
See above.
| Quote: | | You make the assumption that I claim that just one of points would indicate a beam weapon. This is not true, and it's faulty logic. When looking at ALL of the points I brought up, a beam weapon sure sounds plausible. |
No. It doesn't, because all the evidence you provide for beam weapons have far more logical and provable catalysts.
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: Re: WTC Exotic Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense |
|
|
| Fallious wrote: | Ok. Well this clearly isn't worth the effort, for your sake, but perhaps other people will benefit.
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | Fallious, your analysis is extremely faulty. Below, I will explain how.
| Fallious wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | For instance, she says the towers did not collapse, but were blown up from the top down with a high-energy exotic weapon. Here are three examples of Massive Energy Releases:
1. Mount St Helens - Erupting Volcano
2. Nevada Desert - Nuclear Blast
3. WTC - High Energy Demolition? or Standard CD? or Impact Damage/Fires? |
As I demonstrated, what I've seen of controlled demolition, including the demolition of WTC 7 has very similar dust clouds to the WTC 1 and 2 demolitions. However, the towers were destroyed from the top downward, so naturally took orders of magnitude more explosive. The result is a comparable type, but considerably greater quantity of dust. |
Okay, above you are admitting that a lot of energy was used for WTC 1 and 2. Also let's not forget that all the office equipment, computers, etc was pulverized to powder too. |
You haven't refuted my point here. The dust clouds of WTC 1,2 and 7 are exactly alike and easily comparable to other controlled demolitions.
Also please note that there's plenty of evidence of office equipment that was not pulverised. Rescue workers reported finding office equipment smashed into pieces small enough that could be held in their palm. Typical of crushing and explosive damage - Not heated vaporization. |
The dust clouds in WTC 1 and 2 look nothing like a regular demolition. The cauliflower shape, for example, is not seen in other standard demolitions, but is clearly seen in erupting volcanoes and nuclear blasts.
The vast majority of office equipment was pulverized.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | NINE PIECES OF EVIDENCE FOR SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ON 9/11:
1. Seismic readings too low to account for two 500,000 ton towers. Dr Wood claims the lower 20 floors may have collapsed in a regular controlled demolition. This would account for the seismic readings, the existing debris, and the eyewitness testimony of explosions. (On Dec 14, 2006, a NIST scientist said "...the collapse of the towers were not of any magnitude that was seismically significant...". See Wood's "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis" for mp3 links.) |
This can (and has) be accounted for by controlled demolition charges or thermate in the towers basement, severing the structures connection to the bed rock. This is a logical step for the perps to take right at the start of the operation to substantially diminish the shockwaves from later explosions, and a standard CD method for removing the majority of support to the towers structure. This is backed up by numerous eye and ear witnesses including William Rodriguez who heard explosives in the basement long before the towers fell. |
What you said above in no way explains why the seismic reading was too low. |
Actually, I'm sorry to say it accounts exactly for it. As any seismologist will tell you, their equipment measures vibrations in the bedrock. There is a huge difference in shockwave readings, depending on how close the origin was to the bedrock. The WTC's were 'wired' right into the bedrock, so seismologists would expect very high and clear readings from them, but those connections were broken at the start of the operation, so the explosions in the towers did not register. The vaporisation of the towers core (by explosives) eliminated perhaps 50% of it's bulk so the vibration of landing debris was also significantly less than they expected to see. |
This I will check into.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | | 2. Concrete pulverized to powder in a way that cannot be accounted in a standard controlled demolition. (i.e. more than 50% of samples under 100 microns) pic one, pic two, pic three |
The twin towers were not a standard controlled demolition. So, unfortunately the statement does not mean anything. Watever the weapon was, it all comes down to the fundementals of energy release, large enough explosions (as seen and heard on the day) are perfectly capable of this kind of vaporisation. |
Okay, above you admit the Twin Towers were not a standard controlled demolition. And of course, large enough explosions could do it. Basically you agree with what I said. |
Indeed, and you conceded my point that large enough explosions are also capable of this kind of vaporisation. Which raises the question: How is this evidence of space based weaponry? |
You need to put ALL the information into context, instead of focusing on each little point.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | | 3. Steel spire turns to dust and trickles down in news videos. pic |
telecasterisation has dealt with this and I agree. |
That does not account for the picture above from 911Eyewitness. Therefore your analysis is wrong. |
And we say it does. Therefore your analysis is wrong. |
If you can't tell that the steel turned to dust in this photo, then perhaps a new pair of glasses might help
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | | 4. Photographs of Ground Zero lacking enough concrete and steel to account for two 110 story towers. pic |
Indeed, but again that doesn't indicate a beam weapon. It does confirm that massive quantities were vaporised somehow, but we knew that already. |
Are you insinuating that I ever said point # 4 above indicates a beam weapon? We do both agree that the steel was vaporized some how. |
Well it was one of your points listed under the heading "NINE PIECES OF EVIDENCE FOR SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ON 9/11:". So yes, i'm assuming you are talking about Beam Weapons. |
This is an example of your faulty logic I never said that point # 4 indicates a beam weapon. I said all nine points put together indicate a beam weapon. That's a big difference, and you need to understand that difference.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Sceptics are still waiting for sources of these images. The cars have clearly been moved from their original locations, does the report author note this?
Many of the cars in this pictures are not just burned, but have also been partially crushed.
Until a particular vehicle has been identified as being well out of the way of falling debris and other burning vehicles then the most likely solution is the simplest. Some cars were hit with falling debris, their fuel ignited and surrounding vehicles were also caught in the blaze. |
Sources for the pictures will be released when the paper is finished. Your analysis above cannot account for all the anomalies in the toasted cars. i.e. rubber tires missing while the steel belt is still wrapped around the wheel. |
Fire accounts for all the anomalies. Unless you are suggesting that fire itself was following different laws of physics on 9/11? |
If fire burnt a rubber tire off the wheel, there would've been black residue. There is none. It looks as if the rubber was never there in the first place. Fire cannot account for that. Fire cannot account for most of the anomalies of those toasted cars. If you disagree then explain in detail, using the pictures here.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | | 6. Large sections of buildings "vanish". Round holes in WTC 5 roof pic; Large vertical chunks "missing" from WTC 3 pic and WTC 6 pic |
In your picture of building 6 you can see the remaining side of one of the towers still standing, barely meters away. I wonder what damage you'd expect to see with the vast bulk of the building landing on top of B6? Pictures from inside these 'holes' show no signs of heat weaponry or vaporisation, however there are huge columns from the tower and lots of downward bent metal and floors.
Again, the logical and most likely explanation (given the ample evidence) is that this damage was caused by the thousands of tonnes of structural steel of the twin towers falling on the surrounding buildings and tub. |
When one building collapses on another, both buildings will not disintegrate. So where did it go? |
Thats your most ludicrous point yet. No weight analysis? No structural investigation? just: 'Buildings falling on other buildings don't break stuff'. Good one.
I'm sorry to say you can't have it both ways. Thousands of tonnes of exo-columns rained down on ground zero, including the surrounding WTC's. The columns are documented and photographed inside the destroyed buildings. If a beam weapon was responsible for the damage, then a teleporter must be responsible for putting the columns in there.
Personally. I'd just rely on gravity.
|
I believe you're projecting your own inability to address the actual physics onto me. There are no photographs showing enough steel to account for that. You may want to believe there is, since that's your only defense. Gravity is not going to pulverize steel! Let's use some common sense here. And your use of the words "ludicrous" and "teleporter" show your unwillingness to look at this seriously and from a neutral point of view.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | | 7. Downtown Manhattan not flooded. If one million tons of towers collapsed on the slurry wall / bathtub at freefall speed, it would have broken through and flooded New York. pic |
Actually the PATH tunnels did flood, over 3,000 gallons of water had to be pumped out. Either way this has been debunked many times, the bathtub was built so the WTC's could be firmly anchored to the bedrock. Downtown Manhattan is well above the water line and the only thing that would have flooded was the already doomed WTC complex basements.
Severing of bedrock connections, and vaporisation of much of the towers bulk meant explosion and impact shockwaves were minimal. Explosives can do this kind of damage, therefore this is not a point in favor of beam weapons, just explosive demolition. |
you are picking and choosing just to suit your own needs, and it is faulty. If one million tons of towers collapsed on the slurry wall / bathtub at freefall speed, it would have broken through and flooded New York. |
Not saying it wouldn't have broken the slury wall. Just saying the actual water level of the river, comes up to about the sixth floor of the bathtub. It physically couldn't flood south Manhattan. People wouldn't even know that it HAD flooded because it would all be under the concrete of the streets above.
The only reason to maintain the slurry wall integrity was so the PATH tunnels wouldn't flood, but they did. Oh well. |
I will check into this.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | | 8. All airplanes ordered to land about fifteen minutes before the South Tower is destroyed. Right after the North Tower goes, government allows military aircraft back up. pic |
Indeed, except only a fraction actually did land and of those still flying none (that i'm aware of) reported any anomalies with radar or plane functions. Not to mention the helicopters swarming around the towers even while they collapsed. If some EMP effect is inferred here (which I assume it is), then there would certainly have been power cuts in downtown manhattan. |
You are not putting it in context with the other information. Your analysis is faulty. |
Please explain? |
The airplanes being ordered to land does not mean anything all by itself. It must be put together will all the other points in context.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: | | 9. Evidence for existence of Space-based weapons. (Let's remember, the government is always at least 15-20 years ahead in technology from where they publicly admit.) site one, site two, site three |
This is all marvellous, but proving someone has a pistol, does not make them a machine gun toting murderer because they 'could own one'. In fact, it clears them of wrong-doing because they don't own the murder weapon. |
What??? |
What i'm saying is: You are trying to infer the government has a beam weapon capable of vaporising millions of tonnes of steel and concrete - by demonstrating weapons which direct a pinprick of intense heat at a target, or irritate the nerves of a human.
That kind of logic also sounds like this: "Johny here has a 9mm pistol, so he must also have a chain gun." |
The US government has been planning on space weapons for decades, all the way back to Reagan. And it does account for all the evidence.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
You deny videos showing steel being vaporized, yet you admit the steel was somehow vaporized. Okay, what vaporized the steel? |
Explosions. |
Where were the explosives put? What types was it? How did they get there? A space based weapon can more easily explain this and all the points I've raised. Note that I said ALL the points.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | You do not explain the low seismic readings |
You need to read up on how seismic data is collected.
| Quote: | | You do not explain round holes in WTC 5 |
Thousands of tonnes of falling exo-column steel, found in the holes themselves. |
Please show photos of this. Also explain where all the building material went.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | You do not explain the missing chunk in WTC 3[/list] |
See above. |
Sorry, but round holes AND toasted cars with missing rubber AND all the other points are more easily explained by a space based weapon. A space based weapon can satisfy all those points.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | You make the assumption that I claim that just one of points would indicate a beam weapon. This is not true, and it's faulty logic. When looking at ALL of the points I brought up, a beam weapon sure sounds plausible. |
No. It doesn't, because all the evidence you provide for beam weapons have far more logical and provable catalysts. |
Your inability to address and explain certain issues show you to be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| added a bunch of stuff to top post. Check it out! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fallious wrote
| Quote: | | If some EMP effect is inferred here (which I assume it is), then there would certainly have been power cuts in downtown manhattan |
.
There was
| Quote: | | Power, telephone, and gas were cut off in much of Lower Manhattan. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
Your point about the massively larger explosive power required to produce the WTC1/2 demolitions is moot. The simplest practical method of demolition will have been used. Since the 'inside job' is almost certainly a US/Israeli joint production, access to nuclear is a given. If they had micros that would do the job how much easier to install than truckloads of thermate etc?
Only contentious points regarding the use of micronukes are
1) Do they exist (I think the evidence for this is overwhelming)
2) Could the radiation from same be controlled/suppressed? (Well, what do you think? - you have seen links to MRM devices I presume?)
While I think a minimum of one per tower, it would not astonish me to find that very small tactical micronukes are common ordnance among those in the know.
The toasted cars provenance I think will check out. Especially the ones on fire with firemen, dark smoke, and WTC landmarks! I thought about a heat flash possibly igniting pertol and deisel, and that subsequenctly causing plastic etc fires under the bonnets of vehicles, but what we saw in some case was metal melting and fusing. Beyond anything but thermite and radiation I think you will agree. Thermite would surely have affected paper as well? (Was it you or another who postulated aerosolised nanothermate? That struck me as being well dodgy!)
Consider how iron is melted in a foundry - by induction of current. Consider now a high frequency high energy EMP pulse in the microwave region. Too high to oscillate water etc (that's in the 2-3MHz region) - more like 100-1000Mz. This EMP wave would be conducted by metal. Fast AC currents would heat the metal up by induction.
Just a crude model of what may be happening - a synthesis of shape charges, microwave tamping and a knowledge of AC current heating.
I would like to read this but it is a subscriber site...
| Quote: | [PDF] Review of research on high power microwave weaponsFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
microwave bomb, which can be driven by conventional. munitions or by nuclear explosion. Currently the conventional. munitions driven method draws attention. ...
ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/10688/33745/01606492.pdf?arnumber=1606492 - Similar pages |
Consider
A normal EMP pulse is more or less in the audio bandwidth (below the microwave range - more radio). Usually from a nuke these are arial blasts and knock out electronics over a wide footprint. However, no-where have I seen reference to what would happen up close to an EMP nuke. Would the EM radiation be enough to sublimate steel perhaps? Remember, this radiation power varies as a square of the distance. On fact, shape the charge to radiate in a tight cone, and all thru the tower you could push an EMP thousands of times more powerful than that experienced on the ground from an arial burst. Now, if you use a nuclear powered microwave bomb E = hv comes into play. ie 100 Mz radiation of same amplitude as 1Khz would be 100,000 times as energetic. Couple that with proximity effect and I think you may have your sublimating steel and boot-melting ground for 100 days or so.
dB
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's say a pure hydrogen device was used. This would produce fast neutrons. Prof Jones says the neutron capture would result in radioactive isotopes all over the place. I would like to have a model of what actually happens when fast neutrons meet steel and concrete. They will pass thru the first layers until their energy is reduced by collisions to about 1/100th of initial energy (ie velocity since mass is constant) when capture is possible.
The reason I propose a microwave or similar EMP bomb is because no isotopes are formed during irradiation. Also because microwaves are preferentially absorbed by heated steel. The cutting charges would also give access points for the EMP to get into the steel structure. Hence, though the cone of radiation could originate in the basement, absorption could be preferentially where fires were set.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
