Mind Control...Don't believe it? Then it's working

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/08/2006 12:36:03 AM · #101

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
Bad example. Take 4 cans, make a rectgangle. Stack four cans on top of those. Repeat about 100 times. put a cereal box on top. crush one of the bottom four cans in place. The cereal box will be very close if not on top of the base.

I doubt it -- I'd expect it to end up about twenty to forty can-heights off to one side.

Maybe we can try this with towers of dominos, or building blocks. Is there a practical difference between removing (snatching out) one of the suppert elements and "crushing it in place?"

Yes. Removing it creates an instant void while crushing it in place leads to a slower creation of a void which will affect how everything falls, but probably not too much.

Also, since the cans wouldn't crush and thus they'd roll off the pile all over the room, you'd probably want to use wine glasses.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/08/2006 12:40:55 AM · #102

Originally posted by karmat:

jenga blocks. use jenga blocks.

Or these ...

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/08/2006 01:06:17 AM · #103

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by amber:
I posted lots of evidence - did you read the links I gave at all?

No, you posted a lot of questions you can't answer.

I'll take that as a no then;)

First of all the majority were rhetorical.

Secondly, you assume I can't answer, I can. Have I got the time to? No!
If you can't be bothered to read the links and debate the information they contain, then I can't be bothered answering your question.

I will say this though, it would be really naive to believe that conspiracies cannot happen because someone would spill the beans, or tell others etc. Just because you cannot conceive of how it could happen does not mean it cannot happen.

As I sit typing this I am some 5 weeks living under MARTIAL LAW. A group of military men conspired and staged a military coup ousting the democratically elected Prime minister. It happened late one Tuesday night and took everyone by surprise when the tanks moved into Bangkok Using your logic that's impossible - someone must have been part of the planning and told someone etc. Real life works a little differently to our preconceived notions

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 01:07:28.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

11/08/2006 01:11:14 AM · #104

Originally posted by amber:

I will say this though, it would be really naive to believe that conspiracies cannot happen because someone would spill the beans, or tell others etc. Just because you cannot conceive of how it could happen does not mean it cannot happen.

The president can't even get some afternoon delight in the oval office without it getting out...

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/08/2006 05:58:40 AM · #105

Well with the Dems taking back the house I suppose the mind controlling still needs tweaks and those rigged Diebold machines apparently not rigged enough. Looks like Bush and company are back to their old failed ways yet somehow they still manage to display amazing ability to keep their earth shattering secrets under wraps for all these decades no less. Quite amazing actually.

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 06:00:26.

11/08/2006 08:35:34 AM · #106

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by amber:
I will say this though, it would be really naive to believe that conspiracies cannot happen because someone would spill the beans, or tell others etc. Just because you cannot conceive of how it could happen does not mean it cannot happen.

The president can't even get some afternoon delight in the oval office without it getting out...

Just curious...How many people posting in this thread have watched the documentary The Conspiracy of Silence that I posted in the first thread; or have studied any of the other child sex scandals investigated by Ted Gunderson?

How many people are still asking how Hitler was able bring an entire nation on board with mass genocide? How many (besides the obvious) are aware that the US secretly imported Hitler's Third Reich scientists; despite the fact that it was against US law to allow Nazis into this country, and despite the fact that 3/4 of them had been deemed to be "ardent Nazis".

I'm not going to give a history lesson on well-know information. Anyone with the ability to use a search engine can learn all about how these Nazi sympathizers were mined to start our space program, our mind control program and more.

Perhaps, they had merely pretended to be Nazis in order to live? Perhaps they had been blackmailed due to some diabolical secret. Well, it's no secret that they didn't stand up to Hitler and it's no secret that they came here and shaped the very way we live today! According to these absurd assumptions that it's impossible to pull off such a grand scheme as 9-11, all of these men would have been killed for standing up to Hitler when they realized how evil he was.

Edit: spelling

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 09:46:56.

RonB

11/08/2006 08:42:13 AM · #107

Originally posted by amber:

Just because you cannot conceive of how it could happen does not mean it cannot happen.

You mean like a building collapsing into its own footprint - without it having to be accomplished by a controlled demolition?

FireBird

11/08/2006 08:52:42 AM · #108

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by amber:
Just because you cannot conceive of how it could happen does not mean it cannot happen.

You mean like a building collapsing into its own footprint - without it having to be accomplished by a controlled demolition?

Controlled demolition isn't as hard as you think. hehheheh
All you need is just a little help in the right place.

11/08/2006 08:54:35 AM · #109

Originally posted by RonB:

At freefall speed, nonetheless. I'm still waiting for the Discovery Channel documentary disclosing how many more skyscrapers are so dangerously built. This new science is HUGE and we need to get the answers ASAP!

I recently watched news footage of the baseball player's plane having crashed into a building; as well as the subsequent fire being extinguished. I sincerely expected the entire area to be cordoned off in anticipation of this building coming down. Remarkably the NY authorities didn't seem concerned about this very real possibility. The residents were allowed to return very quickly. I got pounded for bringing this up. Can't win.

11/08/2006 09:06:23 AM · #110

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

I'm still waiting for the Discovery Channel documentary disclosing how many more skyscrapers are so dangerously built. This new science is HUGE and we need to get the answers ASAP!

If you consider not being able to survive a high speed collision with a 767 full of fuel as dangerously built, then probably just about every building in the world is dangerously built.

If you have any data from buildings that have survived such collisions, please share.

11/08/2006 09:29:05 AM · #111

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:
I'm still waiting for the Discovery Channel documentary disclosing how many more skyscrapers are so dangerously built. This new science is HUGE and we need to get the answers ASAP!

If you consider not being able to survive a high speed collision with a 767 full of fuel as dangerously built, then probably just about every building in the world is dangerously built.

If you have any data from buildings that have survived such collisions, please share.

Which 767 hit WTC building 7? And how many other NYC buildings are so poorly built? Who is studying the differences in construction between building 7 and buildings 5 & 6? Please send me any links about this. I'm in construction, and these things interest me.

Edit: spelling

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 09:46:42.

11/08/2006 09:51:30 AM · #112

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Still nada on the links?

'

11.15.2004

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resiliance of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001. "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, died on 9/11/2001 in the World Trade Center attack.

Architects that designed New York's World Trade Center Towers expressed shock on September 11th that the 110-story landmarks in Lower Manhattan collapsed after each tower was struck by a hijacked passenger jetliner according to MedServ News.

Lee Robertson, the WTC project's structural engineer, addressed the problem of terrorism on high-rises at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany, one week prior to 9/11, according to Chicago engineer Joseph Burns.

Burns said Robertson told the conference, "I designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it."

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 09:52:08.

RonB

11/08/2006 10:27:14 AM · #113

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

I recently watched news footage of the baseball player's plane having crashed into a building; as well as the subsequent fire being extinguished. I sincerely expected the entire area to be cordoned off in anticipation of this building coming down. Remarkably the NY authorities didn't seem concerned about this very real possibility. The residents were allowed to return very quickly. I got pounded for bringing this up. Can't win.

There are huge differences in the two events. For one, the airplane being piloted by the baseball player was not traveling at over 500 miles an hour - it was doing around 110. Second, it was nowhere near the size of a 767. Third, it was not carrying anything close to 10,000 gallons of jet fuel - the maximum capacity of the Cirrus SR20 is a modest 81 gallons of Avgas. Fourth, the apartment was a reinforced concrete structure with a brick facade, not at all like the glass faced WTC. And lastly, and the likely reason the authorities did not anticipate a collapse of the building, the small plane never actually entered the interior of the building - it bounced off the building and fell to the street below.

11/08/2006 10:37:14 AM · #114

But Ron..no plane hit WTC 7 yet it collapsed into it's own footprint.

11/08/2006 10:54:51 AM · #115

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:
I recently watched news footage of the baseball player's plane having crashed into a building; as well as the subsequent fire being extinguished. I sincerely expected the entire area to be cordoned off in anticipation of this building coming down. Remarkably the NY authorities didn't seem concerned about this very real possibility. The residents were allowed to return very quickly. I got pounded for bringing this up. Can't win.

There are huge differences in the two events. For one, the airplane being piloted by the baseball player was not traveling at over 500 miles an hour - it was doing around 110. Second, it was nowhere near the size of a 767. Third, it was not carrying anything close to 10,000 gallons of jet fuel - the maximum capacity of the Cirrus SR20 is a modest 81 gallons of Avgas. Fourth, the apartment was a reinforced concrete structure with a brick facade, not at all like the glass faced WTC. And lastly, and the likely reason the authorities did not anticipate a collapse of the building, the small plane never actually entered the interior of the building - it bounced off the building and fell to the street below.

I know you must think I'm mentally impaired; but please help me along with this. Which 767 hit WTC 7? Why were we told that it was damaged by fire caused by falling debris? Why did it fall after the fires were, essentially extinquished? How did it differ from the other, closer buildings that were almost completely destroyed by fire, yet had to be demolished later?

Here's my logic (twisted as I'm sure you assume it is):
Prior 9-11 no steel and concrete building had ever collapsed after being on fire for a few hours. In fact, many buildings have been known to burn for days and remain standing.

Prior to 9-11 skyscrapers were not known to collapse into their own footprints. In fact, demolition companies (including the one that came in to clean up the mess) make a fortune for their ability to bring a building down and pile it nicely into it's basement.

Prior to 9-11 resistance was known to slow the speed of a falling object.

Based on the new science we have learned that a building can burn for a short period of time, and even though, assymmetrically damaged, will fall directly into it's footprint at the same speed of a building in which resistance has been removed by explosive charges.

Where do the experts weigh in on how much we have learned about pyrotechnics and engineering? Perhaps there's a less expensive way to bring down buildings, cleanly. Since we, obviously cannot predict what will bring down a tall building...shouldn't we be taking more precautions to protect the public in these events?

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 10:56:01.

11/08/2006 11:05:35 AM · #116

Originally posted by amber:

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:
I'm still waiting for the Discovery Channel documentary disclosing how many more skyscrapers are so dangerously built. This new science is HUGE and we need to get the answers ASAP!

If you consider not being able to survive a high speed collision with a 767 full of fuel as dangerously built, then probably just about every building in the world is dangerously built.

If you have any data from buildings that have survived such collisions, please share.

Still nada on the links?

'

11.15.2004

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resiliance of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001. "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, died on 9/11/2001 in the World Trade Center attack.

Architects that designed New York's World Trade Center Towers expressed shock on September 11th that the 110-story landmarks in Lower Manhattan collapsed after each tower was struck by a hijacked passenger jetliner according to MedServ News.

Lee Robertson, the WTC project's structural engineer, addressed the problem of terrorism on high-rises at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany, one week prior to 9/11, according to Chicago engineer Joseph Burns.

Burns said Robertson told the conference, "I designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it."

Still Nada on the links?

from the NIST link I posted: //wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

---------
Q: If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

A: As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that â��â�¦ such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.â�¦â��

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

11/08/2006 11:06:23 AM · #117

Originally posted by amber:

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by amber:
I posted lots of evidence - did you read the links I gave at all?

No, you posted a lot of questions you can't answer.

I'll take that as a no then;)

First of all the majority were rhetorical.

Secondly, you assume I can't answer, I can. Have I got the time to? No!
If you can't be bothered to read the links and debate the information they contain, then I can't be bothered answering your question.

I will say this though, it would be really naive to believe that conspiracies cannot happen because someone would spill the beans, or tell others etc. Just because you cannot conceive of how it could happen does not mean it cannot happen.

I read some of your propaganda that is easily refuted by the sites I posted that scientifically explain how the towers fell. I take it you didn't read those?

Still waiting for one shred of evidence other then unanswered questions (most of which the NIST have already answered anyway but you say you can answer so I assume you are smarter then the failure analysis engineers at the NIST?).

Here is my evidence that the damage caused by the 767 crashing into the two towers alone could have caused all the damage. FYI this is my own words, not a cut and paste from someoneâ��s propaganda:

First an interesting fact I found: in most controlled demolitions they only put dynamite on a few floors then they allow gravity to do the rest. Thus a plane destroying supports on a few floors could foreseeable have the same effect as TNT destroying supports on a few floors in a controlled implosion. That should easily explain how the towers falling into their own footprint could be very possible, but Iâ��ll explain how this would work and how it would actually be the most likely result further down.

As for building 7, after the two towers fell building 7 was probably hit by a lot of debris and with that much weight falling so close the foundation would have had to of received vibration equivalent to an earthquake as well (I thought I remember hearing windows were broken blocks away?). Add fire into the equation and it's pretty easy to see that supports may have been damaged or broken in building 7 which could have led to the building collapsing. I have not looked at all the evidence so Iâ��m only going to say these things â��couldâ�� have possibly destroyed supports. If you have evidence that after the towers fell all the supports in building 7 were functional, Iâ��d like to see it.

So how does loss of or damage to supports lead to the building collapsing and why should it fall into itâ��s own footprint? A building is designed with supports that hold up each floor. When a support breaks the load is transferred to other supports. After enough supports had been destroyed in the building, the existing supports were holding more weight then capable. Note that the existing supports that are now holding more weight then intended may have also been weakened by shock, vibration, fire and damage as well. Rather then explain strengths of materials and fatigue Iâ��ll use a simple analogy. Lets say you are strong enough to hold 20 pounds up over your head all day and this is your job. Someone calls in sick now you have to hold up 40 pounds. You will be able to hold it up for awhile, but after a period of time your muscles will no longer be able to hold it up and you will fail. This is called fatigue. Fatigue in a person is basically the same as fatigue in metals and concrete. A support that is carrying more weight then intended will fail over time as micro cracks become larger due to stress and vibration. So, debris, a seismic event and fire that has gone un-fought have weakened and destroyed the supports in building 7 and 767â��s full of fuel along with the resulting fire has destroyed and weakened supports in the towers. The supports that still stand eventually fail from fatigue and/or continued weakening from the fires. The loads previously held up by the supports are pulled by earth's gravitational pull (always straight down), into the next floor. This creates a dynamic instantaneous load that overwhelms the supports on the floor below. Note, a dynamic load can be exponentially higher then actual weight of the item. Example, say you weigh 120 pounds. You can jump on a scale and create an instantaneous load of over 1000 pounds if you jump from high enough. Concrete and steel falling from the floor above would have about 10 feet of freefall before hitting the next floor and applying that instant load on the supports of that floor. This instantaneous load causes the floor to crash down on the next floor which causes starts the chain reaction of the building falling straight down in itâ��s footprint.

Another example (similar to Generals experiment): prop up a cereal box on four cans, but with one on each corner to simulates supports in a building with open space ( I must have been tired to have missed this last night). Remove one can. If the other three cans canâ��t hold up the box I bet the cereal boxâ��s unsupported corner falls straight down, the other supports will topple over and the debris will all be pretty much in the original foot print unless a can rolls away.

So yes, I can easily see how the damage was caused. Thus I do not need to make up conspiracy theories with no evidence on how it MAY have been caused. Is it possible 9/11 was a big conspiracy? Sure, itâ��s possible. Itâ��s also possible that Iâ��ll win the lottery tonight (someone has to win and I bought a ticket?) and that the republican party is actually aliens from another planet preparing to take over earth (how else can you explain their behaivior?). However, without any evidence Iâ��m not going to assume, so I will not quit my job and will not run to the hills to hide from the republicans (Aliens) and will not try to convince my friends that Iâ��m going to win the lottery and republicans are aliens trying to take over the planet.

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 11:09:30.

11/08/2006 11:13:34 AM · #118

Daryl,

How long do you estimate it would take the weight from the falling structure to overcome the resistance of each floor?

11/08/2006 11:42:06 AM · #119

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

I know you must think I'm mentally impaired

Yes

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Why were we told that it was damaged by fire caused by falling debris? Why did it fall after the fires were, essentially extinquished? How did it differ from the other, closer buildings that were almost completely destroyed by fire, yet had to be demolished later?

I thought the fires in building 7 were not extinguished? Am I wrong? Good questionsthoguh. Read the NIST reports they explain what happened.

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Here's my logic (twisted as I'm sure you assume it is):
Prior 9-11 no steel and concrete building had ever collapsed after being on fire for a few hours. In fact, many buildings have been known to burn for days and remain standing.

Damage from debris from two of the tallest buildings in the world falling + Fire + Seismic event (towers falling)+ Poor design had not really been tested before. Now we know.

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Prior to 9-11 skyscrapers were not known to collapse into their own footprints. In fact, demolition companies (including the one that came in to clean up the mess) make a fortune for their ability to bring a building down and pile it nicely into it's basement.

Check the photos from the Oklahoma city bombing. I know the whole building did not collapse, but note how almost all the damage sits in the footprint. Demolition companies get paid nicely to contain the debris (by removing glass and setting up barriers)to prevent damage to other buildings, insure safety and salvage items of value from the building (like copper wiring).

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Prior to 9-11 resistance was known to slow the speed of a falling object.

Based on the new science we have learned that a building can burn for a short period of time, and even though, assymmetrically damaged, will fall directly into it's footprint at the same speed of a building in which resistance has been removed by explosive charges.

Known fact, demolition companies use as little explosives as possible when imploding a building and usually only have explosives on a few floors. As previously stated, the dynamic load created by the floors collapsing does a nice job of bringing down the other floors. Thus the towers should have fallen at the same speed as a controlled implosion.

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Where do the experts weigh in on how much we have learned about pyrotechnics and engineering? Perhaps there's a less expensive way to bring down buildings, cleanly.

The human life lost (pilot) and the 767 (about $100 million) is more costly then a demolition team. And as previously stated, they are paid more to make sure it falls safely. Me and a couple buddies with enough TNT could demolish a building into the foot print for a case of beer but we canâ��t guarantee safety and we canâ��t guarantee we wonâ��t also destroy the buildings around it.

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Since we, obviously cannot predict what will bring down a tall building...shouldn't we be taking more precautions to protect the public in these events?

Yes, everyone avoid all tall buildings!

11/08/2006 11:48:37 AM · #120

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Daryl,

How long do you estimate it would take the weight from the falling structure to overcome the resistance of each floor?

Fractions of a second for each floor.

As stated, the instantaneuos dynamic load from the weight of all the higher up floors falling from the height of the floor above (10-12 feet) would be astonishing. It crushs all the supports in the blink of an eye. Also as stated demo crews onlt put explosives on a few floors.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/08/2006 12:57:12 PM · #121

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Daryl.

We could argue the NIST report all day; but I've got gardening to do.

I've read the conspiracy theories (many of which don't make a bit of sense, to me), I've read the official explanations (which are also theories, BTW) and much of the discussion from both sides.

We both know that there is a never-ending debate over the events of 9-11 and it will not be resolved in this thread. There are so many discrepancies and suspicious activities to follow up on, that one could spend their entire life studying the event (and I'm sure many will).

What it comes down to is your belief set vs. mine and it's pretty clear that neither is going to budge. Regardless of who took the buildings down (or how) I am still convinced that mind control plays a part in the 9-11 story. I think that, as time passes, new information will continue to emerge and the whole picture will become clear.

Honestly, I'm more interested in how satanic ritual abuse of children is considered a matter of national security; and why we should allow a government that protects this practice to mandate mental screening of it's citizens.

Notice that I did not say "Republican". I don't think the people who support this are true Republicans or Democrats. Evil is the only word I can think to describe them and I'm not sure it's considered an official party, yet.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

11/08/2006 01:11:33 PM · #122

I did think it was very chilling when the towers came down to hear the sound almost like a railroad when each floor fell on the floor below. It was one of those moments where if you knew what it was, you knew that in the next 20 seconds many lives would be lost.

That's all on retrospection, I wasn't there, but still, very eerie.