How were demolition blasts concealed from the public?

[Evilgiraffe]

It's not entirely clear what DC's trying to prove.
It almost looks as though he's just here to troll.

 

[DC]

Which word don't you understand? I'm not going to play semantic games with you just because you're in denial about what those videos demonstrate.



That doesn't really help your case. You're trying to find examples of controlled demolitions that aren't loud and distinctive.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

 

[johnny karate]

Your concession is noted. Feel free to run away from this thread now.

 

[lapman]

what does, pretty loud mean?

and i found much louder ones

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=VFJ-YFuxM7o&feature=related

with nice big squibs

Wow, so the best you can do to find a "silent" CD is one that the sound of the explosives was replaced by a music track. Not very good for your case. Oh, and Johnny, in the failed demo, they were trying to topple the structure. However, the unblasted supports could not handle the extra weight. Kinda like what happened with WTC 7 when 1 of the 3 main supports failed or in the towers when many of the columns failed.

 

[mrbaracuda]

I'm sad to see no twoofer's taken on my post!

 

[lapman]

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Thank you for conclusively proving our point by posting the last portion of the collapse that is completely devoid of any explosive sequence that is in the other videos. So you have now proved beyond a shadow of doubt that WTC 7 was not a CD.

 

[DC]

Wow, so the best you can do to find a "silent" CD is one that the sound of the explosives was replaced by a music track. Not very good for your case. Oh, and Johnny, in the failed demo, they were trying to topple the structure. However, the unblasted supports could not handle the extra weight. Kinda like what happened with WTC 7 when 1 of the 3 main supports failed or in the towers when many of the columns failed.

you should have watched the complete video.

wich columns exactly initiated the WTC7 collapse according to you?

 

[lapman]

you should have watched the complete video.

wich columns exactly initiated the WTC7 collapse according to you?

I have watched the complete video. You hear the building collapse and then a relative silence. No explosive sequence at all. The support below the east penthouse is what collapsed. That's obvious by the east penthouse collapsing into the building. Now, can you provide proof that the remaining supports would have been able to support the added weight, especially after being exposed to heat for 7 hours?

 

[1337m4n]

NOVA: I understand your demolition of the Landmark Hotel served as a backdrop for the movie, "Mars Attack." Do you do a lot of movie work?

 

[1337m4n]

It's not entirely clear what DC's trying to prove.
It almost looks as though he's just here to troll.

I could be mistaken, but it almost looks like he's agreeing with me.

Not that there's anything wrong with that (after all I was trying to be persuasive). I just find it unusual.

 

[DC]

I have watched the complete video. You hear the building collapse and then a relative silence. No explosive sequence at all. The support below the east penthouse is what collapsed. That's obvious by the east penthouse collapsing into the building. Now, can you provide proof that the remaining supports would have been able to support the added weight, especially after being exposed to heat for 7 hours?

wich colums did support that penthouse? and on what floor the gave away?

 

[johnny karate]

wich colums did support that penthouse? and on what floor the gave away?

FYI: Just because you ask an average person a technical question that they might not have the expertise or knowledge to answer, doesn't automatically render your version of events correct.

You still have to provide evidence of your own, which you struggled to do in this thread, failed to do so, and then simply ignored and deflected the issue by asking nonsensical questions.

And how is that Youtube search going? Find a "silent" controlled demolition yet? No? Well, keep at it. I'm sure it's out there.

 

[gumboot]

 

[Slayhamlet]

DC, you're terrible at this.

First of all, that first video you linked? It was a failed controlled demolition. It failed because all of the charges did not go off. And the one charge that did go off was still very loud and distinctive.

Your second video also featured two very loud and distinctive detonation charges that were heard and recorded from a considerable distance.

Keep searching Youtube, sparky. I'm sure something will turn up.

The second video was also poorly recorded. The volume was so low you can only faintly hear the people yelling right next to the camera.

 

[theauthor]

FYI: Just because you ask an average person a technical question that they might not have the expertise or knowledge to answer, doesn't automatically render your version of events correct.

You still have to provide evidence of your own, which you struggled to do in this thread, failed to do so, and then simply ignored and deflected the issue by asking nonsensical questions.

And how is that Youtube search going? Find a "silent" controlled demolition yet? No? Well, keep at it. I'm sure it's out there.

The controlled demolition of building 6 was pretty quiet.

 

[gumboot]

The controlled demolition of building 6 was pretty quiet.

Building 6 was pulled down with cables, as were all buildings in the WTC complex. The demolition contractor (Controlled Demolition Inc.) ruled out using explosives because the buildings were so badly damaged and because they didn't want to rupture the slurry wall.

 

[DarkMagician]

The controlled demolition of building 6 was pretty quiet.

That's because, as has been noted, that building was demolished by attaching and pulling cables. Unless you want to argue one or more of the buildings that fell that day were pulled down by this method instead, this is not helping your argument.

If you want to argue that at least one of WTC 1, 2, or 7 were taken down by cables, you're going to have more problems.

 

[e^n]

wich colums did support that penthouse? and on what floor the gave away?

The East Mechanical Penthouse was supported by columns #76-81. NISTs preliminary theory proposes a failure of column #79 at or below floor 15. The exact location of the failure is unknown but may be more accurately determined in NISTs final report.

edit:

the buildings were so badly damaged

It should be noted this was for the safety of those setting charges, rather than technical difficulty. Regardless it's entirely plausible that cables were in fact an easier proposition than setting charges.

 

[LastChild]

How are all the witnesses to explosions on 9/11 still concealed from the duh duh duh bunkas?

Maybe it's all the sand in the duh bunkas ears they get when they bury their heads?

 

[e^n]

How are all the witnesses to explosions on 9/11 still concealed from the duh duh duh bunkas?

Maybe it's all the sand in the duh bunkas ears they get when they bury their heads?

It would appear you are committing suicide by moderator action. It is a pity that even the more vocal and eloquent of the truth movement eventually resort to such petty insults.

I will not be sad to see you go. RedIbis is a much more interesting personality.