destruction of america

[IZRL]

31 minutes ago, MikeRL411 said:

The war of 1812 / The White House is white because the British burned it and we painted it white o cover the scorch marks / the civil war / the Indian wars / Attu and Kiska during WW2 / The shelling of the WestCoast by Japanese submarines in WW2 /  The incendiary balloons from Japan in WW2 / Shall I go on ?

 

This is why I said in "recent" times. All the people who experienced all that you listed passed before most of today's generation were even born. There is probably only a handful of people that were alive during WWII. 

 

So like I said we've been fortunate enough not to have seen death from the hands of another country on American soil.

 

So yes please go on?

 

32 minutes ago, paradime said:

You can also add 9\11 to that. 

The American gov attacking its own civilians doesn't count. 

[iceman510]

1 minute ago, IZRL said:

The American gov attacking its own civilians doesn't count. 

 

Come on, I'm sympatico with much of what you say, but please don't tell me you believe 9/11 was a US gov't job.  If so, the end game really didn't play out well.

[IZRL]

1 minute ago, iceman510 said:

Come on, I'm sympatico with much of what you say, but please don't tell me you believe 9/11 was a US gov't job.  If so, the end game really didn't play out well.

 

All I know is that what the gov was telling us happened that day.  was completely different than what the emergency response crews and civilians that were at ground zero that day were saying happened. There was a documentary on YouTube on the things that didn't add up about that day. But I think they deleted it years ago. If you were to watch it, I'm sure at minimum it would make you wonder. 

[datzenmike]

Sounds like a seed of doubt was planted back then..... has taken root and is bearing fruit.

[Jesse C.]

On 4/16/2024 at 5:45 PM, datzenmike said:

 

Glaciers exist because the snow that falls in the winter builds up and compresses into ice that flows down hill where it ebbs and flows while melting. I don't think any glacier ice is 10,000 years old from the last 'ice age'. Maybe on Greenland or Antarctica that has permanent ice.   . 

 

Glacier Bay today is the product of the Little Ice Age, a geologically recent glacial advance in northern regions. The Little Ice Age reached its maximum extent around 1750. Since then, the massive glacier that filled the bay has retreated 65 miles to the heads of its inlets.

[datzenmike]

Fastest moving glacier is 30 meters per day. Slowest is half a meter a year in central Greenland! On average about 250mm or 10" a day for most.

 

At 250mm a day it would have to be 576 miles long to have ice from 10,000 years ago. Greenland ice would have traveled only 3.15 miles in 10,000 years so there would be some ice age ice under it's glaciers.

[Jesse C.]

9 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

Fastest moving glacier is 30 meters per day. Slowest is half a meter a year in central Greenland! On average about 250mm or 10" a day for most.

 

At 250mm a day it would have to be 576 miles long to have ice from 10,000 years ago. Greenland ice would have traveled only 3.15 miles in 10,000 years so there would be some ice age ice under it's glaciers.

 

I am talking about Glacier Park, not Greenland. Ice receded, some remained and now it is finally going away. Greenland has always been mostly ice. 

[IZRL]

5 hours ago, iceman510 said:

Come on, I'm sympatico with much of what you say, but please don't tell me you believe 9/11 was a US gov't job.  If so, the end game really didn't play out well.

 

Neither of these documentaries are the ones that i said I watched back in like 2010. Video one is the closest to the one I'm talking about. But both videos are worth a watch. 

 

The second video below might be part 2 of the one I watched. The one I watched was definitely removed. 

 

I know some of you are gonna say bullshit (Mike 😆). But at least you'll be able to see the point I was trying to make.  What the gov was telling us did not coincide with what emergency crews and civilians who were at ground zero that day were saying.

 

 

Edited April 18 by IZRL

[datzenmike]

Even non experts have an opinion. This includes first responders' perceptions. The government's view has to take into account what the public needs to hear. (can't upset the masses) It also has to be swift and reassuring even if slightly or totally wrong at the start.

 

The design of the towers spelled their doom.

 

To pull off this destruction would require an army of conspirators and keeping a lid on it impossible. Though it's never been said even Bin Laden never foresaw them falling.

 

 

(it never ceases to amaze me what people choose to believe, me included) 

 

 

[Ooph!]

The simplest answer is usually correct, I remember reading when the blind Sheik tried to bring down the north tower they were trying to exploit a weakness in the design but the bombs actual placement wasn't close enough to the foundation where it needed to be. Could it be it was that same weakness that was used on 9-11.

 I know I know, George Bush planted thermite bombs to take it out and the moon landing was really in a Hollywood studio.

 Edit: that last sentence was sarcasm in case you didn't catch it

Edited April 18 by Ooph!

[datzenmike]

Except the tower fell from the top down.

 

The moon landing was directed by Stanley Kubrick on a sound stage in Area 51. Previously Kubrick had been lent special high tech cameras and processing not available outside the air force for filming 2001 and repaid them a favor.

[IZRL]

8 hours ago, datzenmike said:

Even non experts have an opinion. This includes first responders' perceptions. The government's view has to take into account what the public needs to hear. (can't upset the masses) It also has to be swift and reassuring even if slightly or totally wrong at the start.

 

Did you watch the entire video? How do you account for building 7?

[datzenmike]

What's there to explain? That lay people know without a doubt that explosives were used? That they are experts on engineering and structural collapse? I think they have been watching way too many building demolitions on You Tube

[paradime]

1 hour ago, datzenmike said:

Except the tower fell from the top down.

 

The moon landing was directed by Stanley Kubrick on a sound stage in Area 51. Previously Kubrick had been lent special high tech cameras and processing not available outside the air force for filming 2001 and repaid them a favor.

 

To be accurate, both towers collapsed from the impact level down. I'll admit that for over a decade, I believed it was an orchestrated Gov conspiracy because that's what I wanted to believe. I felt justified in my conclusion considering our entire government's inexplicable response to these events. I eventually realized this was a massive irrationalization. With the failure to cove up the fabrication of WMD to serve the military industry and big oil interest's open ended war in Iraq, how can I believe they could orchestrate and cover up something on the scale of 9/11? My mistrusting gov is and always has been in the corporations running Washington. Although we'll never know the whole truth about 9/11. My speculation fell apart when there are far more logical explanations to draw from. BTW CIA headquarters Building 7 was  prewired

with demo explosives for obvious security reasons. When it caught fire after being hit by large engine debris in direct line of impact, they took it down. 

 

 

 

As for your claim that Kubrick shot 2001 with special high tech cameras and processing lent to him from the USAF, there was no repayment necessary.

The stunning high definition came from Kubrick used Mitchell BFC 65mm cameras, with 65mm Super Panavision 70 Special Effects Lenses, and 65 mm Eastman 50T 5251 Negative Film Stock. 

[Dguy210]

1 hour ago, IZRL said:

 

Did you watch the entire video? How do you account for building 7?

 

Building 7 was structurally compromised by debris. I'll see if I can find the video explaining as it was very eye opening and had video from the opposite side of the building. 

 

Short form is those buildings were built structurally much like a balloon where the outside skin was critical to structural integrity, on the side of the building that you rarely see in video there is a large "tear" in the outer "skin" due to debris that significantly weakens it. In short balloon framing is a shit way to build buildings but was cheap at the time. Building 7 fell more due to shit structural design problems than anything else. 

[datzenmike]

Gives good interior spaces free of columns

[Dguy210]

3 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

Gives good interior spaces free of columns

 

It was cheap too and gave more office space for the cost of materials so more money.

 

The annoying thing is I've only ever seen that video on a smaller website that did a very nice and convincing analysis of the whole thing and I can't find the site. It had video from the opposite side and you can see how it is compromised quite clearly. 

 

Edited April 19 by Dguy210

[Dguy210]

SO just to throw a bit of fuel on the whole 9/11 fire here:

My opinion:

 

The government and others knew about the attack ahead of time and did not stop it. For various reasons. 

The buildings did fall as a direct result of the airplanes impacting them. 

I do not believe anything other than the planes were necessary, no controlled demolitions. 

The secondary reason for the collapse though was corners cut on the original construction and a poor design. 

 

This seems like the simplest and most reasonable explanation to me. But it is just my opinion.

 

Edited April 19 by Dguy210

[paradime]

The vid I posted echos your structural analysis, but its outer load baring I-beam floor construction wasn't shoddy. Its open interior space was cutting edge for its time. Only in hindsight did we learn it was a flawed design.

Edited April 19 by paradime

[datzenmike]

It's only flaw was not designing it to withstand a jet impact. WTF were the engineers thinking?

[bottomwatcher]

Well previous to all of this I remember the towers prior to 1995 dumped their shit directly into new york harbor. Build massive and worry about the fact that the infrastructure can't handle it later mentality. New York had 3 tug and barge units that loaded sewage and discharged it offshore.

.

[IZRL]

54 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

What's there to explain? That lay people know without a doubt that explosives were used? That they are experts on engineering and structural collapse? I think they have been watching way too many building demolitions on You Tube

 

Multiple engineers and expert demolition contractors have come out to say that the way building 7 went down and the cause that the government is giving for it coming down is impossible without explosives.

 

I'm sure you didn't watched the videos. But there are multiple experts who were interviewed about this in the video. 

 

Even with an untrained eye you can tell that building didn't go down do to fire.  I've watched building demolitions on TV over the years that didn't go down as cleanly/smoothly as building 7. Add to that the fact that there's been 100s of more serious and longer lasting fires in high rise buildings that have happened in the past. And this is the first building "in history" that has gone down. 

 

I bet, today is the first day you hear about building 7. Most people don't know there was a 3rd building that fell that day. I bet you also didn't know this little fact. They grounded all flights in America immediately after the attacks. Bet you didn't know that the only people that were allowed to fly during this time were the Binladens. The Bush's had the Binladens flown out of the US for their "safety". 

[IZRL]

22 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

It's only flaw was not designing it to withstand a jet impact. WTF were the engineers thinking?

I'm telling you. Watch the video. They interviewed one of the engineers of the twin towers. He says they engineered the buildings to withstand the impact of multiple 747s or something crazy like that. 

Edited April 19 by IZRL

[datzenmike]

And what would you need to make a building capable of withstanding a jet impact? A simulation? because you can't really build something and fly a jet into it to test it. Then you need a simulation of the simulation to see if it's possibly correct.  Engineers NEVER get things right the first time. ALL engineering principals are based on past failures often tragic. The Comet, the first commercial jet liner suffers a series of crashes and they find out about metal fatigue. The suspension bridge over the Tacoma Narrows begins swaying and shakes itself apart. The cause was aerodynamic loading. Anything that can be built can fall down, or fail in bizarre ways that are unforeseen. Engineer: Oh... didn't think of that. 

[IZRL]

Haaa, nevermind. If you believe that anybody who's not the gov or works for them, is full of shit or idiots. than we really can't have a discussion on this stuff. So the emergency crews and civilians that were there are all full of shit. All the engineers that have come out are also full of shit. The only legit engineers and scientist are those who are bought and paid for by the gov 👌. 

 

I guess if in 2020-24. People believe the government and Fauci are the only ones we should trust when it came to covid. I shouldn't be surprised about anything else.