Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm unsure how being a combat photographer qualifies him to expound upon diplomatic history, but out of respect for his service, I'll simply say that I think he's wrong ... I much prefer agreeable disagreement, myself.

Combat photographer during World War 2, when he was a young man, who later became a distinguished journalist.  The book was written more than five decades after the war ended.  While he was serving in the military during the war, he believed the official line about the unprovoked sneak attack.  Then more than 50 years of research later, his opinion had changed.

That still doesn't render him qualified as an authority on the topic. How varied was his research? How original was it? How much has been verified? How many interviews has he conducted, and with whom? What peer-reviewed articles has he published? Those are the things that make a person an authority; those, or perhaps personal experience in the event under discussion -- but even the latter is only a very limited sort of authority.
 

FDR ... and his Administration understood that a Japanese attack would not have justified a war against Germany, which is what they really wanted.

Funny, because war against Germany is exactly what happened, isn't it.  As a history buff, surely you know that Germany had a three-way pact with Italy and Japan, that if one of the three were attacked, the other two would would come to the defense?  Or maybe that is also just a part of the conspiracy theory?

You're wrong.  While they did have a Tripartite pact, it didn't require them all to go to war unconditionally, as you yourself noted (see emphasis above).  It required them to go to war if one of them was attacked by "another, unnamed" country.  Indeed, the Japanese specifically cited this clause when they remained neutral versus Russia after Operation Barbarossa; their line of reasoning was that Germany had not been attacked.  This example happened only six months prior to Pearl Harbor. FDR and others had no reason to believe that Germany would not treat Japan exactly the same, i,e. maintain neutrality.  The fact that Hitler declared war on the US on 11 Dec was a windfall for those who wanted war with Germany.  

This answer of yours belies a shallow understanding of the treaty at hand. Japan wasn't attacked; Germany had no obligation to throw into the effort.  Both Shirer and Toland go into depth as to why Hitler made such a mystifyingly stupid decision when he wasn't obligated to do so.

Sorry, but you'll need to start another thread if you want to "show" that you've proven your point.

From what I have seen of the open mindedness of most members of this forum, I think not.  Let's just leave it as another point we disagree on.

But do tell us this.  As a history buff, (if you are still a history buff), what is your take on the Reichstag fire in 1933 and Goering's "proof" it was the evil doings of the commies?  Have you ever heard of the Lavon Affair?  What about the Manchurian Incident?  Are these nothing but false flag conspiracy theories and the ravings of lunatics?  Or maybe these never happened?  What say you, Mr. History Buff?[/quote]

What those have to do with this topic doesn't strike me as terribly relevant, but I'll humor you and answer, if you promise to quit throwing up dust trying to obscure the conversation. The Reichstag fire was likely the result of a NaZi conspiracy to inculpate Jews as a group and fan the hatred against them; it wasn't the "commies", I don't think. The Lavon Affair doesn't seem very connected to Pearl Harbor.  Could you explain the relevance?  Are you arguing that the Jews blew up the Arizona and then pinned it on the Japanese? (See, cheap sarcasm is no answer, now is it?)

If by "the Manchurian Incident" you mean the Japanese bombing the Marco Polo Bridge in order to provide themselves a pretext to install the pupet government of Manchukuo, yes, I'm aware of it.

If the point of these questions is to convince me that false-flag attacks occur, then don't waste your time any further; I know for a fact that they do. If the point of these questions is that Pearl Harbor was a flase-flag attack, I think you're probably a little beyond the bounds of reality, even moreso than this WTC silliness. If your point is that 9/11 was a flase-flag attack, then you need to provide evidence.  Your  inability to do so even after forty-plus pages bodes ill for your wish to convince others.

[stromboli]

This is the Popular Mechanics report on debunking the conspiracy theorists posted on here previously;
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... re/4278927

This is the National Institute Standards and Technology's report on the WTC building collapse
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ ... eports.cfm

This is the NIST's report on the Bldg. 7 collapse
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ ... s_wtc7.cfm

Now, understand this: regardless of whatever conspiracy theories you can cook up, THIS IS THE FINAL AND ACCEPTED WORD OF WHAT HAPPENED. GOT THAT? It does not matter what you piss out or conjure up, this is it.
So will you kindly

SHUT THE FUCK UP?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

This needs a tick tock the game is locked, no one else can play.  If they do we'll take their shoe and beat them till they're black and blue.  =D>

[Sargon The Grape]

Well as long as this thread is continuing to spiral downhill, I'll just leave this here:

[youtube:2p71m3bd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AYujWCCHRk[/youtube:2p71m3bd]

[Brian37]

This is the Popular Mechanics report on debunking the conspiracy theorists posted on here previously;
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... re/4278927

This is the National Institute Standards and Technology's report on the WTC building collapse
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ ... eports.cfm

This is the NIST's report on the Bldg. 7 collapse
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ ... s_wtc7.cfm

Now, understand this: regardless of whatever conspiracy theories you can cook up, THIS IS THE FINAL AND ACCEPTED WORD OF WHAT HAPPENED. GOT THAT? It does not matter what you piss out or conjure up, this is it.
So will you kindly

SHUT THE FUCK UP?

Obama is responsible for the sinking of the Titanic. Get a fucking clue! :Hangman:

[Jason78]

Obama keeps hiding my keys too

[Brian37]

Obama keeps hiding my keys too

Black people do that you know.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Obama made me run out of cigarettes earlier.  He came by and said, Gimme a square!

[The Skeletal Atheist]

I was walking down the street one day and Obama came right up and kicked me in the nuts. As he ran away laughing he said  "nobody will ever believe you!".

Another time I was at the bar just drinking my beer and guess who sat right beside me: Barack fucking Obama. He grabbed my beer and poured it onto my pants. Then he learned in and whispered to me "nobody will ever believe you!".

To think, I voted for the guy.

[Brian37]

Obama made me run out of cigarettes earlier.  He came by and said, Gimme a square!

Never fuck with anyone's smokes! It is actually worse to have them and nothing to light them with.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So long as he wasn't the asshole who canceled Seinfeld, I'm cool with Obama.

[AtheistMoFo]

@stromboli:

Lol watch your own video. You might notice the demolitions start at the bottom and not the top. The charges are rigged to go off sequentially from bottom to the top. The reason for the failure is the break in the sequence. You are basically claiming that a highly organized gang of conspirators managed to blow up a building in reverse order and in basically perfect sequence without stringing miles of control wires to sequential detonators? Wow, good job.

To repeat what I have already said but none of you OCT'ers seem to understand, controlled demolition starts from the bottom more often than not, but there is nothing unusual about starting from the top or even from the middle.  The "miles of wires" claim will be addressed later in this post, if you care to remain in the loop.

            [center:vnt3bc68]= = = = =[/center:vnt3bc68]


@Moralnihilist:

Thats the bullshit "evidence" you have? Wow Gee I guess I was wrong all along, I mean a know nothing pissant who received no fucking training in the art of demolition said it has to be demolition and he has a youtube video! That has to count for waaaaaay more than my 5 years of training and experience with demolitions, my being there for several months prior to and the day of and the other 27 other EOD's with a combined 100+ years experience. I mean he has a YOUTUBE video. How can I compete with that level of "proof".

Danny Jowenko owned a demolition company.  He said it was controlled demolition.  (As mentioned earlier.)  Unfortunately he died in a car crash a few years ago.

And by the way, you hungry yet? Because I sure would bet that a bullet would fill your empty headed ass up.

You wouldn't happen to have been in Netherlands around the time Jowenko died, would you?  You know, in most forums they ban people for making death threats.  But you seem to be safe here.  From what I have gathered, the only grounds for being bannished from this forum is to express a dissenting opinion.  But we shall see.

            [center:vnt3bc68]= = = = =[/center:vnt3bc68]

@The Skeletal Atheist:

Ahem: thermite residue = elemental iron and aluminum oxide. Aluminum plane + steel (carbon + iron) structure building = iron and aluminum. It's not hard to see how this would be present when an aluminum plane slams into a steel structure.

Yes yes, I know you're talking about building 7, but a plane slamming into a building (or anything for that matter) would produce a lot of particulate matter spread out over a large area. I addressed this point much earlier in this sprawling thread, so it's appropriate that I bring it up again.

Aluminium planes smashing into the towers, yes that would be admissible evidence.  But you would have to show that aluminium airplane bodies could produce the same residue as that of thermite.  

BTW, in cases of arson that involves criminal activity, testing for the presence of explosives including thermite is a REQUIREMENT, not a suggestion, and yet no such tests were performed.  Does that not strike you as odd?

            [center:vnt3bc68]= = = = =[/center:vnt3bc68]

@Moralnihilist:

The funny thing about EOD offices is that there is the latest and greatest of bomb detection equipment, thermite(your explosive of choice) was one of the many things that is picked up by said equipment its success rate is 99.999%...
Those chemical makeups are detected 100% by the EOD equipment...

Right.  And the Walls of Troy were 100% effective, too, until they were penetrated.  Ditto for the FIPS 140-2 Level 2 security I mentioned earlier.  And a 99.999% success rate sort of depends on being tested, does it not?  At the WTC disaster, show me the results of the tests.

We know U.S. weapons technology is always years (or decades) ahead of information that is made public.  We have known for years satellites have the capability of reading vehicle number plates. But it had been kept secret for years until we knew.  By now, satellites probably have the ability to pick up on the difference between a natural blonde and a bleached blonde for all we know, and it won't be revealed to the public until many years down the road.  Just because something is 99.999%, or even what you refer to as 100% failsafe (and I use the term "failsafe" with a bit of irony), it is your arrogance in believing your defences are impregnable that make them so vulnerable.

Now, again for the sake of argument, lets say that you get lucky and NONE of this is detected by anybody or any of the equipment. Now then you have to contend with the damage to the building from falling debris from tower 1. This damaged the lower 1/3 to 2/3(depending on the report) of the building. This would have damaged the chain and would have to be fixed on the fly, something that is quite difficult to do in controlled situations and virtually impossible to do in a chaotic environment like that building was. All of this while there were people being evacuated from the building, firefighters, and police swarming to assist the injured, and NONE of this rigging being noticed.

See my comment above about 100% failsafe, and think BlueTooth.  We the Joe Public type consumers can purchase various BlueTooth devices for pocket money.  What do the U.S. weapons makers have up their sleeve that won't be revealed to Joe Public for another decade or two?  You really do not need miles and miles of cables.  And reprogramming the timing sequence?  Have you ever heard of a device known as "the computer"?  A computer can do a lot more than just download porn and upload ad hominem attacks you know.  Or didn't you?

Notice this entire dispute so far I have taken the EOD factor out of the equation. The EOD factor simply adds another layer of difficulty to the equation. And makes it even less likely to have occurred.

Good job.  And note that I am refraining from any accusation of dereliction of duty on your part in this post.  Hey, shit happens, right?  And people who are not high enough up on the food chain get fed through the meat grinder and turned into scapegoats.  Fact of life.  Deal with it.  There is technology in existencey you have never heard of, regardless your security clearance level.
(My guess is that there might even be technology that Obama does not have security level to know.  But that is only conjecture on my part, so don't even bother ask for proof because it is only conjecture.)

            [center:vnt3bc68]= = = = =[/center:vnt3bc68]

@Hakurei Reimu:

Secondly, you say they all buckled simultaneously? How "simultaneous" is that, because that statement is based on the fact that the roof appeared to fall as one unit from a quarter mile away. That can mean that individual members could have failed such that they got no further than a half foot before its neighbors did, which case the difference in failure times can be as much as a tenth of a second, which is certainly sufficient time for the stress from those broken members to be transferred to their neighbors and cause them to fall.

Your theory, and I stress the word "theory", relies on the assumption that the entire WTC 7 building was engulfed in fire similar to

the Windsor Building for instance, for the entire 7 hours.  It was not.  (By the way, the Windsor fire raged for 18 hours but the Windsor Bldg did not collapse, not that it is proof of anything, just incidental.)

So tell us again how many and which floors had uncontrollable fires raging?  Photos would be a great help, by the way...

By "simultaneous" I mean close enough in time for the building to fall straight down at freefall acceleration.  How many times do I fucking have to say it.  And by the way, next time you get confused, just take another look at the title of this thread.  And thank you in advance for posting some photos/videos taken close up at less than quarter mile away showing that individual members did fail at different times, if you think it would prove anything significant.  But if you are going to make the claim, back it up.  Otherwise it is bullshit, or so I have been told.

            [center:vnt3bc68]= = = = =[/center:vnt3bc68]

@stromboli:

You keep citing the opinions of "experts" including known conspiracy theorists to protest your case, and keep ignoring the obvious arguments. I don't care how many experts view videos and cite opinions, you have completely overlooked what the people who made the determination of what brought the buildings down concluded.

(Not sure whom your comments are addressed to, but I will jump in anyway):
Ah, yes, commrade Stromboli.  And you keep citing the opinions of "people who made the determination" and ignoring the obvious arguments.  So what is you point?  (if you have one)

[Johan]

The stupid is strong in this one.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

The new official last person to acknowledge mofo wins thread.  =D>

[stromboli]

And like I said, all of your theories and observations do not change the fact that the official explanation by the NIST disproves your shit, regardless of what your claims are. Game, set, match, pinhead.