Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#2221    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:56 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 21 May 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

After more than 11 years, where is the evidence?
In your world, there is no evidence because that is what you believe, but in the real world, there is plenty of evidence pointing to the possibility. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't actually change anything, even after 11 years.

View Postskyeagle409, on 21 May 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

The investigative reporters with major news agencies didn't uncover explosive evidence either.
What a silly comment and of course, it highlights the lack of confidence that you have in the official story that you'll spout any ole crap to justify your shaky beliefs. lol

Do investigative reporters of major news agencies have access to the site to uncover explosive evidence?? :blink: Are investigative reporters of major news agencies trained or have the experience of uncovering evidence of explosives?

There all rhetorical questions of course and of course, you'll ignore it but I think you will find the answer is a resounding "No!". Making you statement both stupid, irrelevant and pointless.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2222    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:59 AM

View PostStundie, on 22 May 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

In your world, there is no evidence because that is what you believe,...

In the world of reality there is no evidence supporting 911 truthers. :no: This is reality.



Quote

Do investigative reporters of major news agencies have access to the site to uncover explosive evidence?? :blink: Are investigative reporters of major news agencies trained or have the experience of uncovering evidence of explosives?

They know where the credible sources on explosives are located.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 May 2013 - 08:08 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2223    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:36 AM

View PostStundie, on 21 May 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:

Now are you going to explain how these net force come into play with your theory of how an upper block and a cushion of debris which on one side is soft and fluffy guiding the upper portions downward in a floaty manner, while on the other side, is like a jack hammer pounding the lower much stronger block into oblivion?
I haven't the time today to go into detail, so I'll just ask you this:
If you're happy with the middle block having a greater force on the bottom than the top in the simple example, why can't you accept that the same applies to the debris layer, which is just the middle block compressed?

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#2224    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:58 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 22 May 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

I haven't the time today to go into detail, so I'll just ask you this:
If you're happy with the middle block having a greater force on the bottom than the top in the simple example, why can't you accept that the same applies to the debris layer, which is just the middle block compressed?
You are arguing something which I for the life of me can't fathom out as I am not arguing or have never suggested that the middle block or debris didn't have a greater force on the bottom than the top. lol

Unless you are suggesting in our simple example, that if we have 2 blocks, that the smaller upper block wouldn't have enough energy to overcome the lower block. But if we use 3 blocks, the 3rd block being a small amount of crushed and compressed debris at the top of the lower block, that the top block would magically have enough energy to overcome the lower block?

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2225    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:03 AM

View PostStundie, on 22 May 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

Unless you are suggesting in our simple example, that if we have 2 blocks, that the smaller upper block wouldn't have enough energy to overcome the lower block. But if we use 3 blocks, the 3rd block being a small amount of crushed and compressed debris at the top of the lower block, that the top block would magically have enough energy to overcome the lower block?

You have failed to understand the laws of physics. so let's try it again. What technique is used in the Verinage demolition process? In other words, what does the upper block do to the lower block?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2226    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:05 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 May 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

In the world of reality there is no evidence supporting 911 truthers. :no: This is reality.

The reality is a youtube video which shows a computer simulation which looks nothing like the actual collapse.

I think I'll stick with a more real version of reality than a faith based one...lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 May 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

They know where the credible sources on explosives are located.
Again, rather than accept it was a dumb comment to expect investigative journalist of major news corps to uncover explosives, you then suggest that they know where credible sources on explosives are located. What does that even mean? lol They have lots of credible sources on many different subjects, making you point again stupid, irrelevant and pointless again. :rolleyes:

Basically, more stupidity, backed up by more stupidity. lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2227    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:16 AM

View PostStundie, on 22 May 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

The reality is a youtube video which shows a computer simulation which looks nothing like the actual collapse.

It is right on the money and considering that firefighters noticed the structure of WTC7 was buckling and failing due to fire, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of WTC7, especially in light of the fact that no explosions were heard as WTC7 collapsed, and if  you don't believe me, review this video and you will not hear explosions as WTC7 collapses.



To sum that up, no explosives of any kind were responsible for the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 nor WTC7. So once again, until you provide evidence of explosives, you have no case.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 May 2013 - 09:19 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2228    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:21 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 21 May 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

Hahaha!  That's a good one, Stundie, "facts and evidence".  
I'm glad you got the irony of my statement which I borrowed from your friend Skyeagle. lol

Oh wait a minute, you missed the irony..Oh noes!! lol

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 21 May 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

You sure have an odd definition of 'confirms' if you are offering up the opinion of this 'journeyman' (snicker) 'operating engineer' who has 'helped' (lol) in the planning of demolitions and 'often' (LOL!) works for a demolition company, who also apparently moonlights as a psychologist who we can trust to correctly ascertain what people 'fear' (Bwaahahaha!) the most.  
Its not my definition...lol I totally understand that both the experts Sky and I have posted are the professional opinions of these people. Not facts or evidence which Sky is always claiming that is all he posts. lol

Yet I didn't hear you complaining or pointing out to Skyeagle when he was using an odd definition of the word 'confirms' when he is offering up the opinion of Blanchard who works for a documentation company on demolitions, who we can trust to correctly ascertain that there were no explosives.

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 21 May 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

What incredibly high standards you do have for who qualifies as an expert....
Don't blame me for the standards set by Skyeagle, but at least I am trying to raise it by providing the professional opinions of people who have first hand experience of demolition a building.

Like this guy...

Dennis A Thompson (Commercial Blaster's License, Calif., General Lic: No. 2158 (Rtrd), Eureka, CA)
Having participated in many blasting operations in the past, from less than 1 lb. to many thousands of lbs. I have cut steel and concrete with explosives and I know how well explosives work. I believe now as I did when I first saw the event live on TV the day it happened, that the WTC collapse was due to Controlled Detonation.

Or the professional musings of this guy...
Tim Erney A & P. A.S. Aviation Maintenance Technology. Licensed A & P mechanic. U.S. Army Reserve, Combat Engineer, Specialized in Demolitions.
"In the Army Reserves I was trained in demolitions so I know what it takes to bring down a building in a controlled symmetrical fashion and what it looks like when it happens. As an aircraft mechanic, my knowledge of the properties of fuels, specifically Jet fuel (or highly refined kerosene), brings the conclusion that fires couldn't be hot enough to cause symmetrical structural collapse. Based on what I know, looking at it from various disciplines, it's obvious that all three WTC buildings collapsed due to pre-planned, well placed, precisely timed controlled demolitions."

No facts or evidence, just professional opinions to counter the ones which Skyeagle has fooled himself into thinking is facts and evidence.

Thanks for pointing it out, although I'm sure you never intended too...lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2229    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:24 AM

View PostStundie, on 22 May 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

I'm glad you got the irony of my statement which I borrowed from your friend Skyeagle.

He is right on the money, and to prove that fact , where is your evidence of explosives?

Quote

Yet I didn't hear you complaining or pointing out to Skyeagle when he was using an odd definition of the word 'confirms' when he is offering up the opinion of Blanchard who works for a documentation company on demolitions, who we can trust to correctly ascertain that there were no explosives.

Brent Blanchard, one to the top demolition experts in the world, and his company, document demolition implosions around the world, which placed them in a perfect position to determine whether demolition implosions occurred at ground zero during the 911 attacks, and yet, they found no evidence that explosives were used and to further add, clean-up crews found no evidence of explosives within the ground zero rubble either.

No evidence, no case.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 May 2013 - 09:30 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2230    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:29 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 May 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

Well, what is happening here and remember, no explosive is used during this demolition process.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image
The middle is being pulled out and the upper and lower block of similar size collide and the energy is dissipated through both blocks which is enough to enable the collapse the structure.

Now Skyeagle, tell us what would have happened if they had pulled out the floors much higher up??  lol Don't worry I don't expect an answer because we all know what it is and again, it makes your argument, pointless, irrelevant and again full of stupid. lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2231    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:34 AM

View PostStundie, on 22 May 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

The middle is being pulled out and the upper and lower block of similar size collide and the energy is dissipated through both blocks which is enough to enable the collapse the structure.

Now Skyeagle, tell us what would have happened if they had pulled out the floors much higher up??

The same occurrence, since nothing would have changed.

This video will also provide the answer and notice that no explosions are heard as the WTC building collapses..



Simple laws of physic at work, you understand.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 May 2013 - 09:35 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2232    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:42 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 May 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

The same occurrence, since nothing would have changed.
So why do they do it in the middle if it makes no difference? lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 May 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

Simple laws of physic at work, you understand.
So simple that you think if they cut it higher up, nothing would have changed. lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2233    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:49 AM

View PostStundie, on 22 May 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

So why do they do it in the middle if it makes no difference?


Why go all the way to the top? The same principal applies.

Posted Image

This is the way it happened.

Quote


Collapse of the North Tower

After the South Tower collapsed, NYPD helicopters relayed information about the deteriorating conditions of the North Tower. At 10:20 am, the NYPD aviation unit reported that "the top of the tower might be leaning," and a minute later reported that the North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south". At 10:28 am, the aviation unit reported that "the roof is going to come down very shortly." The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 am, after burning for 102 minutes.


The Collapse of the South Tower

    The fires continued to burn, occupants trapped in the upper floors of the South Tower provided information about conditions to 9-1-1 dispatchers. At 9:37 am, an occupant on the 105th floor of the South Tower reported that floors beneath him "in the 90-something floor" had collapsed. The New York City Police Department aviation unit also relayed information about the deteriorating condition of the buildings to police commanders.

At 9:52 am, the NYPD aviation unit reported over the radio that "large pieces may be falling from the top of WTC 2. Large pieces are hanging up there".With the warnings, the NYPD issued orders for its officers to evacuate. During the emergency response, there was minimal communication between the NYPD and the
New York City Fire Department (FDNY), and overwhelmed 9-1-1 dispatchers did not pass along information to FDNY commanders on-scene. At 9:59 am, the South Tower collapsed, 56 minutes after being struck.


Fires

  The light construction and hollow nature of the structures allowed the jet fuel to penetrate far inside the towers, igniting many large fires simultaneously over a wide area of the impacted floors. The fuel from the planes burned at most for a few minutes, but the contents of the buildings burned over the next hour or hour and a half.[17] It has been suggested that the fires might not have been as centrally positioned, nor as intense, had traditionally heavy high-rise construction been standing in the way of the aircraft.

Debris and fuel would likely have remained mostly outside the buildings or concentrated in more peripheral areas away from the building cores, which would then not have become unique failure points. In this scenario, the towers might have stood far longer, perhaps indefinitely. The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above


Posted Image

The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions

One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

http://sydney.edu.au...civil/wtc.shtml

Nothing there about explosives bringing down the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 May 2013 - 10:32 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2234    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,518 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 22 May 2013 - 01:37 PM

View PostStundie, on 22 May 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

You are arguing something which I for the life of me can't fathom out as I am not arguing or have never suggested that the middle block or debris didn't have a greater force on the bottom than the top. lol

Here's what you said on May 16th, Stundie:

Quote

Why is the force of the upper block less than the force on the lower block?? Surely if the lower block resists the debris and then the upper blocks collides through the cushion of debris, then the energy is still transfered equally. Meaning that the lower block of the upper portion are likely to break before the upper floors of the lower block.

That sure sounds like you're suggesting what you are now saying you haven't.  So how can the energy transfer possibly be equal when you now admit that the forces on the upper and lower parts of the middle block, which means by necessity the forces on the upper and lower block themselves, are not equal?  Isn't that a direct contradiction?

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#2235    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 22 May 2013 - 10:42 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 22 May 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

I haven't the time today to go into detail, so I'll just ask you this:
If you're happy with the middle block having a greater force on the bottom than the top in the simple example, why can't you accept that the same applies to the debris layer, which is just the middle block compressed?

Because you are taking a static example which shows the obvious – that different force/load exists at different levels of a building, which the building is designed to hold up of course – and applying it to a dynamic ‘crush’ situation which is entirely different again.  In this case the lowermost level of debris isn’t necessarily moving downward until the moment the upper block exerts force on that structure and therefore suffers an equal and opposite force.  In other words, the debris isn’t falling within the tower footprint, it is driven down by momentum of the upper block and this is the specific force which overloads the lower structure.  If the upper block provides the force to overload the lower structure then the upper block sustains an equal and opposite force.

All your talk is further trumped by the three physical observations here which show the upper block deteriorated.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users