Horizontal Ejections and Squibs

[WildCat]

Your argument that it would take 700 kg of tnt to launch a projectile horizontally...

How does this support your argument and not mine? ...
Because it is absolutely insane to think there was this much explosive per column. And in your model it would be an order of magnitude more needed, since you require a single large bomb in the center of each floor to blow out perimeter columns, some more than 100 feet away!

You don't see how absolutely ludicrous that is?

Meanwhile, we have an incredible amount of energy being released in the collapse... :rolleyes:

[papasmurf]

How about addressing the amount of explosives needed papasmurf? The math has already been done for you.

How about not repeating the same straw man attack that every debunker whines about from a broken record...

A lot of explosives were needed. "Workers" carried them up the elevators in those giant crates on wheels, then did what they needed to do.

LAME.

[WildCat]

How about not repeating the same straw man attack that every debunker whines about from a broken record...
Another truther who doesn't know what a strawman is! Bombs are your idea, support it.

A lot of explosives were needed.
How much?

"Workers" carried them up the elevators in those giant crates on wheels, then did what they needed to do.
Ridiculous, calculate your explosives needs and you'll see why.

LAME.
Why were no explosions from your unbelievable massive bombs heard again?

[papasmurf]

Fire just from the jet fuel, NOT counting the large office fires, was the heat energy of 315 TONS of TNT. That is 630,000 pounds of TNT in the form of heat energy! Darn, beats 700 kg of TNT.

Now gravity! Towers fell and just the energy due to gravity was OVER 100 TONS of TNT.

100 TONS of TNT is greater than 700 kg of TNT.

Next time try some phsics, or math, or something more than hearsay and false ideas.


I bet you think your pretty smart don't you beach nut? Yeah a fire has a lot of energy, but quantity of energy is not everything. You have to deal with quality and transformations of energy.

Would you like to explain how heat from fire can transform it's energy into flying steal beams? Explain any relation at all between this energy from the fire and the flying steel collumns. See what you can come up with.

[Mancman]

More like the floors were blown off their connections. Look at how what you call the core just crumbles to the ground. You can see them topple over because they were cut from underneath, as we can see in pictures of the aftermath.

If they weren't crushed in the collapse wave, there should have been a sizeable chunk of the core left intact. Instead we have a few pieces of the core that topple over after the collapse of the rest of the structure. This does nothing to discredit the demolition theory. Like i said, it would have been unlikely that they placed explosives onevery collumn, they put the explosives on major columns and made the explosions large enough to damage other collumns.

Your argument that it would take 700 kg of tnt to launch a projectile horizontally...

How does this support your argument and not mine? ...

You admit that it happened, and say nothing caused it.... Geeze well if it takes that much energy to throw the beam then how the hell did the beam get thrown????????????????????????????????????????

LAME.

No they were not 'cut from underneath'. If the top of a wall section is leaning outward, a lean of only a few degrees will simply snap the bolts further down. Explosives are totally unnecessary.

Yes, it would take 700kg to acclerate one column to 30m/s. Explosives are therefore a laughable theory.

Where did I say nothing caused it? The cause is obvious and I explained it to you. Once the floors are ripped away, the walls have no lateral bracing, and are then expected to fall to one side. Since the inner side of these walls contains thousands of tons of moving debris, we expect them to fall outward and away from the building. This is exactly what we see happen in the videos, and in the debris. It's excrutiatingly simple. You are making an issue out of precisely nothing.

[Pardalis]

The building that could take multiple 707 impacts turns to dust, yet we are supposed to believe this is completely understandable.

And yet they chose to go ahead with it, and execute this one-of-a-kind, never-attempted-before unconventional super-duper controlled demolition in plain sight of millions of people.

And somehow only a select few found out the trooth.

What is wrong with you people?

Rationality, logic, evidence and the scientific method, these sorts of things.

[papasmurf]

Why were no explosions from your unbelievable massive bombs heard again?

There were.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVtVVkmUIQU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMUbbLYycVo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdc0OsLN_nU&feature=related

[papasmurf]

.

Yes, it would take 700kg to acclerate one column to 30m/s. Explosives are therefore a laughable theory.


Now just hold it right there!

30 m/s eh?

What was able to impart this energy to the beams then? Hmmmm...

Where did this energy come from?

How did the gravitational energy impart this kinetic energy to the beams as you probably are trying to suggest. to make it shoot out at 30 m/s, as you suggest...

[Mancman]

How did the gravitational energy impart this kinetic energy to the beams as you probably are trying to suggest. to make it shoot out at 30 m/s, as you suggest...

Using the actual mechanism of the walls leaning outward, little or no gravitational energy is required, since the walls were obviously not designed to stand for hundreds of feet without lateral bracing. They will topple over by themselves. If a 500ft high piece falls out, debris will land 500ft away. Just like that.

However, for explosives to launch these columns directly outward as you imply, requires ridiculous amounts of explosives.

It's so bloody simple. How can you fail to grasp this? Do you need a diagram?

[WildCat]

There were.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVtVVkmUIQU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMUbbLYycVo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdc0OsLN_nU&feature=related
Not even close. Not a single explosion in those videos, and you require over 100!

[WildCat]

Using the actual mechanism of the walls leaning outward, little or no gravitational energy is required, since the walls were obviously not designed to stand for hundreds of feet without lateral bracing. They will topple over by themselves. If a 500ft high piece falls out, debris will land 500ft away. Just like that.

However, for explosives to launch these columns directly outward as you imply, requires ridiculous amounts of explosives.

It's so bloody simple. How can you fail to grasp this? Do you need a diagram?
It's simple except for truthers apparently, who require basically a truck bomb on every floor.

[beachnut]

I bet you think your pretty smart don't you beach nut? Yeah a fire has a lot of energy, but quantity of energy is not everything. You have to deal with quality and transformations of energy.

Would you like to explain how heat from fire can transform it's energy into flying steal beams? Explain any relation at all between this energy from the fire and the flying steel collumns. See what you can come up with.
You have Alex Jones, you have hate. That is all you need. Alex Jones = stupidity

Try to understand gravity alone, 100 TONS of TNT. 200,000 pounds of TNT. Both towers over 200 TONS of TNT.

That is the energy doing everything you see and you make up fantasy. Not real good engineering, but gravity can be understood at a grade school level.

Gravity. You no respect for gravity. Or levers, and gravity. Go get help from a professor, and hope he does not lower your grade to F. Or, you could covert him to the terror storm coming. Is Alex Jones have a roid rage? His brain seems damaged, can you damage your brain from too many steroids? You like his video for real dumb white guys, good for you, Alex is pure anti-intellectual, it fits with your truth movement apologist stand.

You love hearsay, and fantasy. "squibs", at least some of the 0.00087 percent of all engineers are with you on that fantasy. Go get em ..
I expect, as long as you are not some super biased neoNAZI, your education will take over and displace your "common sense" flawed by your prejudice from youth.

Now you have presented this evidence to the FBI, right? Action! Take it

On the ligher side, we have a physics expert who has insight into your plight!
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein

Your work here is based on flawed assumptions, F, incorrect calculations, F, falling for pure propaganda videos, F, and overall if this was your Masters defense of your thesis, F.

papasmurf, http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/cellphone.jpg here is a prepaid cell phone. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming an engineer. (paper chase, 1973)

Sorry, I just had to repeat these two, they are my current favorite for those who are failing to use their professional skill in a practical manner and the failure to use logic and reason to make decisions; you use biased ideas based on junk . Einstein, and some humor from a movie about gaining knowledge, and using sound judgment.

How much explosives do you need to beat the energy from gravity in the WTC towers?

[GregHouseMD]

I have a question that I am not sure has been asked.

Can you be absolutely sure the videos you are relying on are unedited, un doctored, true representations of the buildings collapsing?

I know this is only my third post to this site but I'm a college grad who is over 50.

This isn't my first rodeo and without knowing to a certainty that "Photoshop" wasn't involved, it doesn't matter what your theory is.

[WildCat]

Can you be absolutely sure the videos you are relying on are unedited, un doctored, true representations of the buildings collapsing?
You do realize it was broadcast on live TV don't you? It was kind of a big story that day.

[GregHouseMD]

You do realize it was broadcast on live TV don't you? It was kind of a big story that day.

Yes, I do think I saw something about it.

But are the videos on You Tube the same ones they showed on TV? Has anyone used some of the readily available CGI technology to tweak them before posting them to YouTube?

Has anyone verified the videos referenced are what was fimed as it happened without anything being added to them?

That was my question, not whether the videos existed.

I thought my question was pretty clear, what part of it did you not understand Wildcat?

By the way, I'm old enough to say that I saw Ruby shoot Oswald on TV the day it happened. Of course no one has any doubts about that, do they?

[Hokulele]

I have a question that I am not sure has been asked.

Can you be absolutely sure the videos you are relying on are unedited, un doctored, true representations of the buildings collapsing?

I know this is only my third post to this site but I'm a college grad who is over 50.

This isn't my first rodeo and without knowing to a certainty that "Photoshop" wasn't involved, it doesn't matter what your theory is.


Before everyone here starts to make assumptions, who is this post addressed to?

[WildCat]

But are the videos on You Tube the same ones they showed on TV? Has anyone used some of the readily available CGI technology to tweak them before posting them to YouTube?
I've seen these videos many times prior to youtube's existence. They were shot by vrespected news sources, as well as amateurs with their camcorders. I have no reason at all to think there was manipulation, and in fact such manipulation would be about as close to impossible as can be.

Has anyone verified the videos referenced are what was fimed as it happened without anything being added to them?
I'm sure the studios and private people still have the original footage.

That was my question, not whether the videos existed.

I thought my question was pretty clear, what part of it did you not understand Wildcat?
My spider-senses tell me you're drifting into Ace Baker/Judy Wood territory here...

By the way, I'm old enough to say that I saw Ruby shoot Oswald on TV the day it happened. Of course no one has any doubts about that, do they?
No, why don't you start a thread in a more appropriate section if you wish to discuss that.

[GregHouseMD]

Before everyone here starts to make assumptions, who is this post addressed to?

Anyone who is reading the thread. If you support the OP's position or not.

The OP makes claims based on the evidense presented in videos posted to YouTube.

I am offering an opinion that the videos are not proof of anything unless you can be sure that they are undoctored.

[Hokulele]

Anyone who is reading the thread. If you support the OP's position or not.


Whoops, you edited while I was responding, but if you are addressing the videos in the OP, there have been videos examined here for provenance. Some pass inspection, some do not. One is particular is notorious for having sounds of explosions dubbed in.

The OP makes claims based on the evidense presented in videos posted to YouTube.

I am offering an opinion that the videos are not proof of anything unless you can be sure that they are undoctored.


This is kind of what I thought. WildCat is probably over-reacting a bit as we have had several people here claiming that CGI was used in the "official" videos (Ace Baker being the most vocal). He may think you are promoting a similar theory.

My general position is that the videos are helpful, but more as supporting evidence rather than any kind of clincher. There is plenty of other physical evidence that points towards what happened that morning.

There is also an astounding lack of physical evidence for things such as explosives in the towers.

[GregHouseMD]

I've seen these videos many times prior to youtube's existence. They were shot by vrespected news sources, as well as amateurs with their camcorders. I have no reason at all to think there was manipulation, and in fact such manipulation would be about as close to impossible as can be.

Have you been to the movies lately?

And the people who shot the video have nothing to do with the videos posted to Youtube, they could have been doctored anytime after the fact.

If Walter Cronkite himself filmed the collaspe and several years later someone added in puffs of smoke, who filmed it would be immaterial, it was still tainted evidence.

I'm sure the studios and private people still have the original footage.

Maybe, get copies and compare them to what is being presented here as evidence otherwise it's unknown material


My spider-senses tell me you're drifting into Ace Baker/Judy Wood territory here...

My comment was no worse than you asking me if I had seen them on TV the day it happened.

No, why don't you start a thread in a more appropriate section if you wish to discuss that.


So you can make smart aleck remarks and no one else can?

You do realize it was broadcast on live TV don't you? It was kind of a big story that day.

[GregHouseMD]

Whoops, you edited while I was responding, but if you are addressing the videos in the OP, there have been videos examined here for provenance. Some pass inspection, some do not. One is particular is notorious for having sounds of explosions dubbed in.




This is kind of what I thought. WildCat is probably over-reacting a bit as we have had several people here claiming that CGI was used in the "official" videos (Ace Baker being the most vocal). He may think you are promoting a similar theory.

My general position is that the videos are helpful, but more as supporting evidence rather than any kind of clincher. There is plenty of other physical evidence that points towards what happened that morning.

There is also an astounding lack of physical evidence for things such as explosives in the towers.

I believe that 9/11 was the date of an attack on the USA by extremists from outside the USA. There is a posibility that some of what we have been told is not the whole truth but I in no way think there is any validity to the "inside job" theory.

My post was meant to offer an opinon that just because it's on YouTube (or anywhere on the internet) it's not rock solid evidence of anything.

[theprestige]

I am offering an opinion that the videos are not proof of anything unless you can be sure that they are undoctored.
Strictly speaking they're not "proof" of anything. It's very difficult to prove things. It is, however, much easier to make rational conclusions based on the available evidence.

For example, the videos are evidence that is consistent with a particular theory of what happened. They don't prove that the theory is correct. They just support that theory.

The videos are also consistent with certain theories about their provenance.

If someone wanted to argue that the videos supported their theory, they would have to show that the videos were reaonsably consistent with their theory. If they wanted to argue that the videos had a particular provenance, they would have to show that the videos were consistent with that theory of their provenance.

And of course it's impossible to prove a negative. You can't prove that the videos were not doctored by some uknown means, and it's unreasonable to demand such a proof. What you can do is show that the videos are inconsistent with some known means of video doctoring. But if someone is proposing a theory of doctoring by known means, then they properly have the responsibility to show that the videos are consistent with that known means of doctoring. If they refuse to show such a thing, or attempt and fail, then their claim of such a thing can be discarded without any further discussion. Nobody is obligated to show that the videos are not consistent with such a thing.

[pomeroo]

More like the floors were blown off their connections. Look at how what you call the core just crumbles to the ground. You can see them topple over because they were cut from underneath, as we can see in pictures of the aftermath.

If they weren't crushed in the collapse wave, there should have been a sizeable chunk of the core left intact. Instead we have a few pieces of the core that topple over after the collapse of the rest of the structure. This does nothing to discredit the demolition theory. Like i said, it would have been unlikely that they placed explosives onevery collumn, they put the explosives on major columns and made the explosions large enough to damage other collumns.

Your argument that it would take 700 kg of tnt to launch a projectile horizontally...

How does this support your argument and not mine? ...

You admit that it happened, and say nothing caused it.... Geeze well if it takes that much energy to throw the beam then how the hell did the beam get thrown????????????????????????????????????????

LAME.


Your imaginary conspiracy decided to plant huge amounts of explosives on precisely the floors hit by the planes. Remarkable foresight, I'd say. You are tired of hearing about those darned demolition experts who reject the fantasist moonshine, but they reject it for good reasons. The seismic data show no secondary explosions and on all videos the buildings obviously collapse from the impact floors. Why you loons keep flogging this very dead horse is a mystery. There were no explosives in the Towers.

[ElMondoHummus]

I believe that 9/11 was the date of an attack on the USA by extremists from outside the USA. There is a posibility that some of what we have been told is not the whole truth but I in no way think there is any validity to the "inside job" theory.

My post was meant to offer an opinon that just because it's on YouTube (or anywhere on the internet) it's not rock solid evidence of anything.

I think we can all agree with that. Hokulele makes a great point about support rather than being "a clincher". But, I think I'd be less trustful about YouTube videos not because of any potential for image manipulation, but more for the facts that:

They're mostly terrible resolution-wise, and it's hard to distinguish details.
We don't know the cameras and lenses involved, so it's hard to be accurate about distances and color fidelity, let alone sound fidelity.
The various videos on the 'net are good enough to show the broad details, but too many people push their analysis beyond the ability of the videos to support the conclusion. I'm specifically thinking of a past thread dealing with the color of flowing material from one of the towers, and relating that to temperatures. That was a ridiculous analysis.

Anyway, I'd be skeptical of claims made from studying video that are not presented with supporting evidence having nothing whatsoever to do with the video. And I'm not thrilled by conclusions drawn from video analysis alone. In that respect, I can readily agree with you, even though it's for different reasons.

[papasmurf]

You win everyone. Gravity wins.

Congratulations, I am gone now. I won't be back for a long time... perhaps never.

[pomeroo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gud2ay4I9Mw

This is not a video of a "progressive collapse".

This is a building getting blown to bits. Trust your eyes people. Not lame explanations from experts that you don't even understand. They just "sound" good to you.

Ask your self whaet caused all those steel collumns to just disappear so quickly. Watch and keep watching. Look at the dust cloud and teh debris getting shot outward. Watch as the piledriving force gets obliterated, yt the building still continues to progressively collapse at lightning speed. As you watch the floors of the building get turned to dust and blasted outward, ask yourself what is driving the force of the collapse. As mass from the top section is lost, you would expect the collapse to slow down. There is no reason for the collapse to progress to completion.

I would love you to show me a progressive collapse even remotely close to this. Remotely. It never happens.

The building that could take multiple 707 impacts turns to dust, yet we are supposed to believe this is completely understandable.

What is wrong with you people?


The bolded part says it all. Sorry, kid, you're no engineering student. No one with any technical knowledge could be that obtuse. We all get the idea that as the upper part collapses, it GAINS mass. Really. It has to. Sorry.

Unfortunately for your fantasy, no steel turned to dust. There was a lot of dust from crushed gypsum. You know absolutely nothing about demolition and you have no intention of learning anything.

Indeed, what is wrong with you people?

[beachnut]

I believe that 9/11 was the date of an attack on the USA by extremists from outside the USA. There is a posibility that some of what we have been told is not the whole truth but I in no way think there is any validity to the "inside job" theory.

My post was meant to offer an opinon that just because it's on YouTube (or anywhere on the internet) it's not rock solid evidence of anything.
There have been altered videos, extra sound to make up lies.
You are right, even though there was air ejected out of the WTC (a fact), someone can alter the air ejection to make it have the dynamic of an explosion instead of air escaping the building as it falls.

You are right, with out calculations and proof it is not doctored, the video alone is crap. If you have not had time to check, there are no calculations to show the air ejections are anything more than air being expelled by the collapse. Just like all building falling the air is expelled.

[WildCat]

My comment was no worse than you asking me if I had seen them on TV the day it happened.
Sorry Greg, after the recent influx of "Truth Movement ca. 2005" here lately I mistook your meaning. :blush:

So you can make smart aleck remarks and no one else can?
Oh, everyone can make smart aleck remarks... and they do.

[WildCat]

You win everyone. Gravity wins.

Congratulations, I am gone now. I won't be back for a long time... perhaps never.
Translation: "I can't believe you poopyheads trust only in physics, facts and evidence and ignore completely my uneducated speculative opinion involving a truck bomb on every floor".

Don't worry papasmurf, I hear PfffT is looking for new members! Maybe you should check out the mini-nuke theory one of their "FDR experts" is working on, it's right up your alley!

[bynmdsue]

You win everyone. Gravity wins.

Congratulations, I am gone now. I won't be back for a long time... perhaps never.


Noooooo! Please don't go papasmurf! This was easily one of the funniest threads I've read in a long time.

>sniff<

Well,there's always Turbofan...

[pomeroo]

Translation: "I can't believe you poopyheads trust only in physics, facts and evidence and ignore completely my uneducated speculative opinion involving a truck bomb on every floor".

Don't worry papasmurf, I hear PfffT is looking for new members! Maybe you should check out the mini-nuke theory one of their "FDR experts" is working on, it's right up your alley!


You'll admit that his claim about the top part of the collapse losing mass as it successively adds floors was an inspiration. Not every conspiracy liar is capable of such creativity. Even the comical dunce Heiwa would argue that the collapse simply stops because...because...well, BECAUSE! He could never have made the conceptual leap to theorizing that the mass diminishes as it grows.

[JimBenArm]

Ya know, those squibs look remarkably like the air venting out of a diving submaine's ballast tanks. Maybe the towers didn't collapse, but submerged?

[Hokulele]

Ya know, those squibs look remarkably like the air venting out of a diving submaine's ballast tanks. Maybe the towers didn't collapse, but submerged?


*Bap*

[pomeroo]

Ya know, those squibs look remarkably like the air venting out of a diving submaine's ballast tanks. Maybe the towers didn't collapse, but submerged?


Hey! Judy Wood keeps talking about a bathtub. The plot thickens.

[JimBenArm]

*Bap*
Hey, that's gonna leave a mark!

[GregHouseMD]

Sorry Greg, after the recent influx of "Truth Movement ca. 2005" here lately I mistook your meaning. :blush:


Oh, everyone can make smart aleck remarks... and they do.

No problem Wildcat, I'm new to this playground and you guys have WAAAYYY more "different" people here than the other forums I've been spending time at.

I thought poker people were extreme but WOW!

Look for more posts and plenty of smart offs in the future.

[Alferd_Packer]

You win everyone. Gravity wins.

Congratulations, I am gone now. I won't be back for a long time... perhaps never.


Yet Another Grand Exit

[applecorped]

You win everyone. Gravity wins.

Congratulations, I am gone now. I won't be back for a long time... perhaps never.

What did we win?

[Myriad]

You win everyone. Gravity wins.


Gravity always wins. Eventually.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Corsair 115]

Gravity always wins. Eventually.As Zapp Brannigan once famously said, "You win again, gravity!"

[johnny karate]

You win everyone. Gravity wins.

Congratulations, I am gone now. I won't be back for a long time... perhaps never.

Well, that's a shame.

Because you just about had me convinced...

[pomeroo]

What did we win?


Uh, a date with Judy?

[~enigma~]

The building that could take multiple 707 impacts turns to dust, yet we are supposed to believe this is completely understandable.

What is wrong with you people?
Considering that the debris removed from ground zero was 3.2 billion pounds, that means your dust idea is entirely wrong. What is wrong with you people?

[~enigma~]

You win everyone. Gravity wins.

Congratulations, I am gone now. I won't be back for a long time... perhaps never.
Bye-bye :)

[fitzgibbon]

Please allow me to express my admiration for the forbearance shown here by the regulars trying to beat some high-school-level physics understanding into an apparently unreceptive truther noggin. I just can't fathom such willing obtuseness on their parts. Maybe they were ignored as children.....oh....wait a sec......:)

[bio]

Yes, the towers caught on fire and gravity took over. NOTHING ELSE happened to them that day which could possibly have weakened the structure. :rolleyes:

the experts in the demolition industry will not like to hear that - it would make them jobless. God thanks for them nobody takes seriously the explanations of NIST.

[beachnut]

the experts in the demolition industry will not like to hear that - it would make them jobless. God thanks for them nobody takes seriously the explanations of NIST.
Another false/faulty statement. This faulty logic is indicative of your failure to understand 9/11 issues, like most true movement members.

You forgot the why, missed the fact the CD industry uses gravity as the major energy source to bring down the building, fail to realize explosives are used to guide the fall.

The major energy release in CD is due to gravity. It saves money.

The biggest energy source on 9/11; (estimates not exact, except the impacts are very close, fire is low, and collapse is close but may be low estimate)
FIRE, over 800 TONS of TNT = heat energy
Collapse, over 200 TONS of TNT = kinetic energy
Impacts, 1300 to 2093 pounds of TNT

In CD the explosive used are usually much less than the impacts on 9/11 alone. The WTC and many larger buildings would not be brought down with CD for various reasons, they are dismantled.

[bio]

Another false/faulty statement. This faulty logic is indicative of your failure to understand 9/11 issues, like most true movement members.

You forgot the why, missed the fact the CD industry uses gravity as the major energy source to bring down the building, fail to realize explosives are used to guide the fall.

The major energy release in CD is due to gravity. It saves money.

The biggest energy source on 9/11; (estimates not exact, except the impacts are very close, fire is low, and collapse is close but may be low estimate)
FIRE, over 800 TONS of TNT = heat energy
Collapse, over 200 TONS of TNT = kinetic energy
Impacts, 1300 to 2093 pounds of TNT

In CD the explosive used are usually much less than the impacts on 9/11 alone. The WTC and many larger buildings would not be brought down with CD for various reasons, they are dismantled.

yes - let the upper section (1/5) fall down on the section below (4/5) and you need no TNT anymore. I comes down just by gravity.

[DC]

watch Zero, the interview with the survivor from WTC, how they descibe the fires, wich was not an inferno, or the explosions they kept hearing all the time etc :)

[funk de fino]

watch Zero, the interview with the survivor from WTC, how they descibe the fires, wich was not an inferno, or the explosions they kept hearing all the time etc :)

You are a bare faced liar. Those fires were huge in those towers and also very very hot.

You really are scraping the barrel now in your attempt to claim tweeters ignoramus comedy crown.

[DC]

You are a bare faced liar. Those fires were huge in those towers and also very very hot.

You really are scraping the barrel now in your attempt to claim tweeters ignoramus comedy crown.

dont worry, your Clown crown is save :) you are unbeatable in that.

are you calling Brian Clark a liar? he was above impactpoint of the south tower, and walked past the impact zone. he also describes the explosions they heard etc.

but oc he must be a liar ad a fraud :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_3-nvctLF8

[chillzero]

Keep it civil please, people.

[Mancman]

yes - let the upper section (1/5) fall down on the section below (4/5) and you need no TNT anymore. I comes down just by gravity.

But you'd have little control over where debris landed, and could end up killing spectators and destroying or damaging nearby buildings, resulting in severe jail time for yourself and bankruptcy for your demolition firm. Notice the phrase 'controlled demolition'.

Why do you keep posting this garbage? You know how stupid it is.

[funk de fino]

dont worry, your Clown crown is save :) you are unbeatable in that.

are you calling Brian Clark a liar? he was above impactpoint of the south tower, and walked past the impact zone. he also describes the explosions they heard etc.

but oc he must be a liar ad a fraud :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_3-nvctLF8

Waste of time posting videos mate. They are blocked for me here. Try using real evidence.

What floor is he talking about?

http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html

That'll be 77 then?

Those fires were huge. There is video and photographic evidence of them. Anyone who says they were not infernos or not hot is a liar. You are incorrectly using Brian Clarks evidence to try and make it look like I am calling him a liar. We can see who is being dishonest here DC.

Why did all those people jump DC?

[DC]

Waste of time posting videos mate. They are blocked for me here. Try using real evidence.

What floor is he talking about?

http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html

That'll be 77 then?

Those fires were huge. There is video and photographic evidence of them. Anyone who says they were not infernos or not hot is a liar. You are incorrectly using Brian Clarks evidence to try and make it look like I am calling him a liar. We can see who is being dishonest here DC.

Why did all those people jump DC?

im not your mate, really not lol.

try to watch the video when they release you, or maybe when you make good progress they allow you to watch videos, who knows.

but any way, at what time did they jump?

[funk de fino]

im not your mate, really not lol.

try to watch the video when they release you, or maybe when you make good progress they allow you to watch videos, who knows.

but any way, at what time did they jump?

Where is floor 77? That video did not twist Brians testimony did it? Why would it be an inferno on floor 77?

The people jumped because there was no escape from the inferno that you claimed did not exist. You have been caught lying.

What do you mean by "release me"? If it is yet another smart mouth insult I will report you. You have just reached the top of the hypocrite charts after claiming in another thread that it is the debunkers who are reduced to namecalling and insults.

[DC]

Where is floor 77? That video did not twist Brians testimony did it? Why would it be an inferno on floor 77?

The people jumped because there was no escape from the inferno that you claimed did not exist. You have been caught lying.

What do you mean by "release me"? If it is yet another smart mouth insult I will report you. You have just reached the top of the hypocrite charts after claiming in another thread that it is the debunkers who are reduced to namecalling and insults.

did i say floor 77?
and when did they jump? time? how long after impact?

and about insulting, i just try to fit to the new JREF standards.
i didnt insult you. :) but i wish you good progress anyway :)
get well soon.

[funk de fino]

did i say floor 77?

No, but Brian Clark did.

and when did they jump? time? how long after impact?

When the inferno got too hot to stand. You know the inferno you claimed did not exist. You know, when you lied?

and about insulting, i just try to fit to the new JREF standards.
i didnt insult you. :) but i wish you good progress anyway :)
get well soon.

You just did again. Hypocrite. You cannot answer the facts so you brush it off with smart mouth comments and insults when you are caught lying.

[Drudgewire]

So you can make smart aleck remarks and no one else can?


I hope not. Otherwise my post count would be like 12. :o

[DC]

No, but Brian Clark did.



When the inferno got too hot to stand. You know the inferno you claimed did not exist. You know, when you lied?



You just did again. Hypocrite. You cannot answer the facts so you brush it off with smart mouth comments and insults when you are caught lying.

so you dont know when they jumped :) okey, just say you dont know then :)
for once try to be honest. no i dont really expect that from you :D

[funk de fino]

so you dont know when they jumped :) okey, just say you dont know then :)
for once try to be honest. no i dont really expect that from you :D

I just told you. When the fires got too hot. If you do not understand the answer just ask and I will spell it out for you.

I take it you have conceded that Brian Clark meant floor 77 and that you tried to spin his story into something to support your lies? Quite embarassing eh?

[Mancman]

so you dont know when they jumped :) okey, just say you dont know then :)
for once try to be honest. no i dont really expect that from you :D


NIST report has a long list of people observed falling/jumping from WTC1. First record is 8:51, and it continues until 20 seconds before collapse. I'm at a loss as to how these figures help your insane claims.

[Slayhamlet]

More "only small fires" idiocy? How tiresome.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wp_wtc29.jpg

[Mancman]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10252462f1fb5349c7.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10252460ac0c35d142.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/102524891bcad7b1f3.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10252475858a245abf.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/102524891bcadd18d5.jpg

Nope. No fires there.

[ElMondoHummus]

Ya know, those squibs look remarkably like the air venting out of a diving submaine's ballast tanks. Maybe the towers didn't collapse, but submerged?

:confused:

Howdayou know? Were you looking out the window? Or did'ja keep the hatch open or somephin'??

;):D

[Grizzly Bear]

More "only small fires" idiocy? How tiresome.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wp_wtc29.jpg



Apparently scale doesn't apply to these people. That picture shows fire all the way across the building face. That 200 feet!!!
Obviously there wasn't 50 stories on fire, but the area that was burning was easy the size of a standard building... Many high rise structures in my area don't exceed 30 stories in height... transplant a fire in the size seen at the WTC and it would dwarf the standard high rise building

I'm getting my tin foil hat repellent...

[DC]

dark red flames and dark grey/black smoke :)

but where is the inferno?

and why is De Fino lieng about Brian Clark?

tztztz

[funk de fino]

dark red flames and dark grey/black smoke :)

but where is the inferno?

and why is De Fino lieng about Brian Clark?

tztztz

You are the one lying and you cannot even spell it. Quite ironic actually.

Brian was speaking about Floor 77.

Some of the firewall, or maybe it had come from ceilings, I don't know, had blown in on the stairs. Sheets were lying, or leaning on angle up against the railing. So we had to move those. Some were lying on the stairs. Water seemed to be dribbling out somewhere, I don't know where, and making the stairs wet. And it was running sometimes on this drywall that was lying flat on the stairs making it like a slide. So we had to be very careful. We were holding onto the railing, hand-over-hand, kind of going down those slippery areas because we were standing on slippery drywall.

Somewhere around the 77th floor, the stairway walls were cracked, and you could look through the cracks and see flames. They were just quietly licking up, not a roaring inferno. And there was some smoke there, but again I think the stairs were pressurized, pushing the air out so we had less smoke in the stairway than you might imagine.

The floors above him were engulfed in an inferno and the pictures here and the firefighters testimonies prove it. You have been caught telling porkies pal.

Huge fires, some of the biggest office fires of all time. Up to around 1000 deg C. Raging infernos. You said there were none, you lied.

inferno
Noun
pl -nos
1. an intense raging fire
2. a place or situation resembling hell, because it is crowded and noisy
3. the inferno hell [Late Latin infernus hell

[ElMondoHummus]

but where is the inferno?


That is set forth in NCSTAR 1-5 and 1-5A. Flight 11's impact on WTC 1 scattered fuel from the 94th to the 97th floors; Flight 175's impact on WTC 2 centered on the 81st floor. Resultant fires were observed in WTC 1 on three of the four faces of the tower (the north, east, and south faces)1. NIST notes that fires were seen on the east face of the 94th floor and the west side of the 96th floor.1

Observations of WTC 2 shows fireballs expanding from both the 82nd and 79th floor. "Intense visible burning regions"2 were noted "on the south and east faces near the southeast corner of the 82nd floor"2. At any rate, you get the idea of what information is there. You can see it yourself in NCSTAR 1-5 and 1-5A (http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm).

-----
1NCSTAR 1-5A Chap 1-8, pg. lii
2NCSTAR 1-5A Chap 1-8, pg. lvii

[~enigma~]

I thought this thread was about "horizontal ejections and squibs"? Guess I was wrong...

[bio]

But you'd have little control over where debris landed, and could end up killing spectators and destroying or damaging nearby buildings, resulting in severe jail time for yourself and bankruptcy for your demolition firm. Notice the phrase 'controlled demolition'.

Why do you keep posting this garbage? You know how stupid it is.

You let the upper section (1/5) fall down on the section below (4/5). Then you need the TNT just to control, where the debris lands?
Interesting new, innovative demolition idea.

[bio]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10252462f1fb5349c7.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10252460ac0c35d142.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/102524891bcad7b1f3.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10252475858a245abf.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/102524891bcadd18d5.jpg

Nope. No fires there.

if the fires were so hot, why didnt the perimeter columns melt or just begin to turn red?

[Grizzly Bear]

You let the upper section (1/5) fall down on the section below (4/5). Then you need the TNT just to control, where the debris lands?
Interesting new, innovative demolition idea.

Bio... stop looking at the towers as monolithic blocks... they were not... They Were an assembly of small pieces working as a system.

As a system they work successfully, individually components can fail. When you get that concept we'll discuss. But Trying to think of the collapse as 1/5 of a tower vs 4/5 of a tower is flat out irrelevant, and wrong.

[bio]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_core_large.jpg

They Were an assembly of small pieces working as a system?

Do not hotlink images from other sites.

[Grizzly Bear]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_core_large.jpg

They Were an assembly of small pieces working as a system?

Thankyou for stretching the page on my 20-inch screen... :p

And relative to the entire 110-story structure YES they were small parts.... 36 foot sections vs the collective 1300 ft height

Do you enjoy taking things literally? Here out of courtesy I will restate the quote so it no longer confuses you:

"Bio... stop looking at the towers as monolithic blocks... they were not... They Were an assembly of smaller pieces (relative to the building's size) working as a system."

Happy?

[Newtons Bit]

if the fires were so hot, why didnt the perimeter columns melt or just begin to turn red?

The perimeter columns failed when the fire heated said columns to roughly 600C. They didn't have an oppurtunity to get hotter.

[JimBenArm]

:confused:

Howdayou know? Were you looking out the window? Or did'ja keep the hatch open or somephin'??

;):D
Screen doors.

[Corsair 115]

dark red flames and dark grey/black smoke :)

but where is the inferno?I don't know which is funnier—DC's ridiculously ludicrous statement, or DC expecting us to take his ridiculously ludicrous statement seriously...

[Mancman]

You let the upper section (1/5) fall down on the section below (4/5). Then you need the TNT just to control, where the debris lands?
Interesting new, innovative demolition idea.

At no point do you even approach anything resembling a rational thought.

You need the TNT in both parts. The bottom section of the WTC had no TNT or any explosive or substance to cut columns so the walls fell outward and crushed buildings flat.

[bio]

The perimeter columns failed when the fire heated said columns to roughly 600C. They didn't have an oppurtunity to get hotter.

Do have any photo- or video-evidence of melting perimeter columns during the fires (before collapse)?

If the fires were so hot (as you say), why the perimeter columns did not melt away?

[Hokulele]

Do have any photo- or video-evidence of melting perimeter columns?


A column has to melt before it can fail?

[bio]

A column has to melt before it can fail?

you cannot bring any evidences of melting perimeter columns, because they disappeared before?:o

[Hokulele]

you cannot bring any evidences of melting perimeter columns, because they disappeared before?:o


No, unless by "disappeared" you mean "fell to the ground due to massive structural failures on a higher floor." Why do you think they should have melted?

[funk de fino]

you cannot bring any evidences of melting perimeter columns, because they disappeared before?:o

Stop being obtusse, no-one is saying there is melting columns apart from you.

They weakened, then they failed. There is photo and video evidence of this.

[bio]

Stop being obtusse, no-one is saying there is melting columns apart from you.

They weakened, then they failed. There is photo and video evidence of this.

what - you have no evidences?

why?

There must have been melting perimeter columns, if the fire were so hot (1000 degree C) to heat up the steel-core-columns over 600 C.

[Hokulele]

There must have been melting perimeter columns, if the fire were so hot (1000 degree C) to heat up the steel-core-columns over 600 C.


Why do you believe this?

[funk de fino]

what - you have no evidences?

why?

There must have been melting perimeter columns, if the fire were so hot (1000 degree C) to heat up the steel-core-columns over 600 C.

Incorrect. No-one is claimng the columns melted. Only you.

1000 deg C would not melt the columns and even if it did they would fail before they melted.

Not too good at this are you?

[bio]

Incorrect. No-one is claimng the columns melted. Only you.

1000 deg C would not melt the columns and even if it did they would fail before they melted.

Not too good at this are you?

where did I write that? Strawman?
I am talking about perimeter columns, which stood in and close to the hell-fire and not melted. Is my point so difficult to understand?

[Hokulele]

where did I write that? Strawman?
I am talking about perimeter columns, which stood in and close to the hell-fire and not melted. Is my point so difficult to understand?


Why do you think it matters whether or not they melted?

[funk de fino]

where did I write that? Strawman?
I am talking about perimeter columns, which stood in and close to the hell-fire and not melted. Is my point so difficult to understand?

What temp was the fire?

What temp does steel melt at?

Why would the perimeter columns melt?

Would they fail before they melt?

Do you think the fire was hotter near the center of the building or at the edge where the perimeter columns were?

[Hokulele]

I swear I am invisible.

[funk de fino]

This is quickly turning into the dumbest, most backward argument I have seen from a truther for a long time.

[chillzero]

This thread will be put on moderated status the next time I have to remind you to stay on topic. Not melting columns... ejections and 'squibs'.

[Newtons Bit]

Chillzero: I think we could use a split.

[JimBenArm]

Chillzero: I think we could use a split.
Maybe a banana split? Mmmmm. Banana.

[chillzero]

Thank you bio.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120023

Now... back to topic, please. :)

[Drudgewire]

Thank you bio.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120023

Now... back to topic, please. :)


Neither thread offers bananas. :(

[pomeroo]

Do have any photo- or video-evidence of melting perimeter columns during the fires (before collapse)?

If the fires were so hot (as you say), why the perimeter columns did not melt away?

Removed inappropriate remarks

Your membership agreement calls for you to be civil and polite. Attack the argument, and not the person making the argument.

[WildCat]

Bumping for papasmurf since he's back. I'm still interested in seeing his calculations of the amount of explosives required.

[1337m4n]

1:32 - 1:37 of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arOgJp4QOxw) gives the answer. Notice, it looks nothing like the ejections seen at WTC. Take note fantasy idea Truthers, that is what a REAL explosive ejection looks like. The tiny little things at WTC are not real explosive ejections, only in Truthers' overactive imaginations.