BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
And from the first result in the google search:paimei01 said:
Do you know the difference between P and S waves? P waves involve distortion in the direction of wave movement (ie side ot side) and S waves involve distortion perpendicular (ie up and own). An explosion creates waves in all directions - eg. P and S waves. Something hitting the ground creates only S waves - ie. up and down.
Send me a link with what he believes. Here is James Fetzer speaking, it's a link from http://911scholars.org/
editor
hiraethified
Instead of posting up an endless succession of links, why don't you deliver your critique on the implosionworld research, citing credible, independent sources. Please explain - in as much detail as you like - why these leading experts in demolition are completely wrong and you are right.paimei01 said:
Can you do that, please? Or don't you want to find out the truth?
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Do some fucking proper research. Oh, and look up the word "credible" in a dictionary.paimei01 said:
Then fuck off.
editor
hiraethified
Here's a link for you - watch the fucking nutcase babble on about space beams here:paimei01 said:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=646337772656177512
ska invita
back on the other side
This seems to be the only possible reason why the buildings fell - it is pretty much agreed on all sides I think that fire could not have had this effect - the official report is struggling precisely with this point.editor said:
So what remains is that the building became so damaged by falling debris that the internal steel structure was damaged in such a way that it collapsed in such a way.
But this just hasnt been proven, or even demonstrated. Perhaps its possible - wtf do i know if its possible or not - its pretty complex stuff. I would imagine however that it would need to have got really fucked up to collapse in the symetrical fashion it did. That just hasnt been proven to me - no one, not even the US official preliminary report made that claim as yet.
As I said before there just isnt the evidence to prove it either way - doubts remain.
As for the seismic stuff - if thats true then that only adds to the confusion.
Im suprised how everyone on both sides is so confident that they know what happened - it is far from clear.
editor
hiraethified
OK, let's put it another way. Seeing as it would take - literally - thousands of explosives charges carefully placed next to stripped down beams to create a 'perfect demolition,' why do you think no one saw a thing?niksativa said:
The work would take a large crew of demolition experts months - assuming The Man could find any willing to betray their own countrymen and become part of a mass-murderous plot of course (and ne'er utter a squeak about it later).
And there there's the tricky task of setting explosives that would be designed to somehow survive the firestorm and structural collapse that followed the WTC collapse and then go off perfectly on cue.
And can someone offer a remotely sane reason why they'd set up a self exploding 'command center' right next to a building 'they' knew was about to be smashed to pieces by space beams/holographic planes/invisible missiles/invisible explosives (take your pic). Why would they wait until hours after the WTCs fell?
And this quaint notion that they'd have to be right on the scene like the villains in movies is beyond laughable beyond belief.
Space beams, that to achieve the effects that are claimed, would have had to have given everybody in Lower Manhatten radiation sickness. Any signs of that, no...editor said:
The only beam weapons capable of focusing such an intense beam in a small area such as that would be an X-ray laser, which requires a nuke to provide the power. An nuke explosions, that will be a no then... EMP? No....
Even this one is massive, requires a huge amount of energy and can't even look through paper!
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Dunn.html
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Dunn.html
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
guinnessdrinker said:
Hardly, my contribution to posts on 9/11 conspiracy threads could be counted on the fingers of two hands. Still, that's not the point - I just find it bizarre, amusing and slightly curious that so many people say the conspiracies are utterly ridiculous and non-sensical that they are easily debunked, yet still find the time to bang on about how utterly ridiculous and non-sensical they are.
Why?
and for the record i dont believe the conspiracy theories
Barking_Mad said:
Posting nonsense as reply to nonsense keeps me from focussing on Flue Misery. I can't do anything productive anyway... And I don't want to do what I should --> going to bed like a good child and patiently wait until it is over.
So I *must* be excused for contributing to conspiracy threads on a UK website. Definitely.
salaam.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
paimei01 said:
paimei - while I appreciate that you won't believe a word of the link I'm suggesting you read, this was written by ACTUAL experts on demolition:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Well Jazzzz thinks it 'boring' and 'not worth more than a paragraph or two to rebutt it's claims'
Funnily enough, that 'paragraph or two' haven't been forthcoming...
Funnily enough, that 'paragraph or two' haven't been forthcoming...
I talked about this in posts #224 and #233 MikeMcc.MikeMcc said:
This is exactly the point, and I've linked to the videos myself: no-one could possibly have predicted the collapse of WTC7, and still no-one has much of an idea why it came down even now, yet incredibly everyone was expecting it at the time, and the collapse even got announced on official wires before it happened. This is because people were told it was coming down. They wanted as little attention as possible attracted to the bizarre collapse so this meant getting all human interest stories out of the way, everyone evacuated.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
What a load of bollocks.
There was a severe fire burning, a massive chunk of one of the sides had been ripped off by falling debris from one of the towers, it's actually mentioned in the Protect report (that I don't believe for one second that you've read) that people who saw WTC7 thought it was going to come down, both fire service and others...
Your comment utterly ignores the stuff that both axon and Mike have posted - but then nothing unusual there really...
ska invita
back on the other side
Here's the bottom line of that document:aylee said:
-They're as stumped as anyone else...
They quote some passerby at length who said - "I could just tell it was going to collapse" - pointless quote.
They do provide some evidence for a lack of explosives - no seismic record and no witnesses of audible explosions. Fair enough. But they do not provide evidence that the building was damaged enough for it to collaspe in the way that it did. Yes it did take some damage - all are agreed on that - but they are right not to stick their neck out and say that this made the building collapse in the fashion that it did, becasue as yet there isnt conclusive evidence to suggest it was possible. This matches official US government reports to date.
The commment
is loaded speculation, especially considering they have gone out of their way not to hypothesize about how this may have happened. If there is a "possibility" then what was it? Nope, they wont give it - and quite right too.
They mention damage on the corner of the 18th to 20th floor - but it is agreed on all sides that this would not have been sufficient in and of itself to cause the building to collapse in the manner that it did.
I couldnt agree more - for now no one knows for sure.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
No, but they pretty clearly rule out CD don't they?
WouldBe
Dislicksick
How can anyone know exactly what hit the building? Without knowing what it was that hit it, what size it was, what it weighed and how it was constructed it is going to be nigh on impossible to do a computer model to work out how this affected the structural integrity of the building.niksativa said:
Apart from Jazzz.
The damage was from the 18th floor all the way to ground level. What about the dirty great big chunk taken out of one side of the building shown in editors photo?
I do not believe that WTC 7 was shot down with space beams and I did not give any link to something like that, James Fetzner does more harm than good with his story.
Looka around you at some steel buildings, and imagine them coming down like WTC 7 did ,even if you took a big piece of them out. No way buildings collapse like that, only in controled demolitions. But the reality is made by the mass media.
Those people who expected it to come down were experts , and the news appeared on BBC ?
Watch the answer from BBC here :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
The answer is full of contradictions : "nobody told us the building will fall" and "we chech our sources". What is with the video then ? In the video it's not just "we heard that..." but "WTC 7 collapsed" and they also give the reasons why.
Why do they try so hard to hide this story ? Look here, google, and BBC try to make the video go away, also BBC says they "lost the tapes from 9/11" , I do not believe that :
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/010307mediablacklists.htm
Looka around you at some steel buildings, and imagine them coming down like WTC 7 did ,even if you took a big piece of them out. No way buildings collapse like that, only in controled demolitions. But the reality is made by the mass media.
Those people who expected it to come down were experts , and the news appeared on BBC ?
Watch the answer from BBC here :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
The answer is full of contradictions : "nobody told us the building will fall" and "we chech our sources". What is with the video then ? In the video it's not just "we heard that..." but "WTC 7 collapsed" and they also give the reasons why.
Why do they try so hard to hide this story ? Look here, google, and BBC try to make the video go away, also BBC says they "lost the tapes from 9/11" , I do not believe that :
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/010307mediablacklists.htm
Similar threads
