Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

[triforcharity]

Hmm, who's arrogant? That is probably distortion from the initial explosion

Well, if the plane hit that side, I might understand your argument, but as you caan see in the picture, it hit a completely different side.

BTW, that explosion knocked alot of cladding off, but it didn't burn/melt much of it. It was too quick.

[triforcharity]

The Windsor tower burned for 18-20 hours!!! As opposed to the couple of hours in the WTC. Windsor tower was still standing afterwards! It was suspected to be arson, if I was a conspiracy nut I'd say that the US Govt did it to tr and prove steel buildings can collpase form fire, but I won't because there's no proof.

No PROOF?? Someone, IDK whom, i'm lazy right now, posted quite a few instances.

Secondly, the Windsor fire was fought the ENTIRE time by firefighters. Do you know how long the firefighters fought the fires before the collapse of the first building?? I don't think we even sprayed a single drop IIRC.

[triforcharity]

Actually jet fuel is refined Kerosine. Airliners use "Jet A" kerosene and the military uses "JP 4" kerosene. Regardless, neither grade burns hot, or it would melt the inside of a jet engine.


HOLY SNIKEYS BATMAN!!! Did it ever cross you mind that the jet engine, I dunno, might be DESIGNED To withstand the heat and cooled in such a way to keep the heat DOWN?? I mean, really. You cannot possibly be THIS dumb on BASIC SCIENCE?!?!?!?!

[triforcharity]

Explosions were heard, and by the way only cutting charges are necessary to initiate the collapse more powerful explosives could be disguised by the sound of the collapse

Well, since I didn't hear any cutter charges going off, I am very certain there wasn't any more needed.

Oh, and why would you need more explosives in a building already falling??

Last but not least, why is it that these explosions that you claim to be there were NOT hear by ANY recording device that day??

[lapman]

Well, since I didn't hear any cutter charges going off, I am very certain there wasn't any more needed.

Oh, and why would you need more explosives in a building already falling??

Last but not least, why is it that these explosions that you claim to be there were NOT hear by ANY recording device that day??
STT thinks that all you need are firecrackers to cut the columns. The twoofer thinks that sirens, peoples voices, etc are louder than the 135+ decibel noise of RDX being set off. STT has conclusively shown that he hasn't a clue about anything dealing with 9/11 beyond what his CT gods tell him.

[triforcharity]

The collapse was too linear, i.e. it started at high speed immediately without time to gather enough mass, so the collapse should have been even slower. Also and this is a biggy, even symmetric collapse is impossible without controlled demolition as structural inequality is accumulative and would lead to uneven and partial collapse.
No modern building has ever collapsed evenly and symmetrically into it's footprint without controlled demolition EVER!!!!


You call this symetrical??
You call this "into its own footprint?


http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg

[lapman]

You call this symetrical??
You call this "into its own footprint?


http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg
I call that a red x. Inzide jorb!!!!!111111!!!1!1!eleventyone!!!!11!!!!

[triforcharity]

Jet fuel or kerosine, in an optimal fuel/air mix can reach temperatures of 1800 degrees, possibly higher which is no doubt what NatGeo referenced, after all in a jet engine the fuel/air mix would have to be optimised. In a 'dirty burn' or uncontrolled circumstances in a building with other standard materials it only burns to about 700F

They dumped it into a giant hole in the ground. There was no adjusting for air/fuel mixtures.

Also, can you please provide a source for this 700 deg. BS claim?? I know for a fact that it can burn much hotter than that. I am educated, you aparently are not.

[triforcharity]

right (I started my stopwatch) Any structural damage from impacts such as the masonry colliding that gouged holes in one side of WTC7,create inequality in the structural integrity, so any resistance would be uneven and collapse would occur more toward the points of weakness. Any such inequalities are accumulative and result in tearing forces which often lead to partial collapse. In order for symmetric collapse, every structural support must be removed simultaneously across each floor, for every floor, with localised random structural weaknesses this is impossible. I've yet to see or hear of a non-CD modern building that collapsed symmetrically and completely


But the NIST states that the collapse was not affected by the WTC falling on it.

[triforcharity]

Cutting charges would be sufficient. One doesn't need super duper scalar beam frequency-modulating pulse molecular disruptor emitters

Cutter charges make LOUD booms. I didn't hear any, and I was within eyesight of the entire building the entire day. Except for the 5 minutes or so that I ran for my life.

Now, can you explain to me HOW these cutter charges were not heard by anyone, or caught on ANY recording device?? You can't, because there were no cutter charges.

Lastly, can you please tell me how they (whomever planed these cutter charges) got into WTC 7 with huge Oxy-acetylene torches, cut into many core columns to pre-weaken them to allow the cutter charge to work??

[Seymour Butz]

Keep trying twoof.

ULTIMA1 had a day where he let off ~345 posts in one single day.

In order to reach this kind of heroic effort, you will be required to make multiple copy/paste, totally OT posts that do nothing to further your points.

Weak trolling.

I'll give him a 4/10.....

[triforcharity]

So you know exactly what a cutting charge sounds like? You've also heard it amidst the sirens, roaring fires, crowds yelling and screaming?

Sirenes are never going to come close to covering up a HE detonation.

Proof

http://www.makeitlouder.com/Decibel%20Level%20Chart.txt
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-decibel.htm

NFPA 1901 standard for automotive fire apparatus states that a siren must have no less than 110 db of sound output.


Sirens have an average of 120 Db.

205 Db for a 330 lbs of TNT. A relitively small amount.

No siren

[triforcharity]

I call that a red x. Inzide jorb!!!!!111111!!!1!1!eleventyone!!!!11!!!!

Sorry, its a HUGE high-res picture of GZ that is zoomable and panable. Its quite impressive.

Fixed it for you.

[sylvan8798]

actually it directly breaks the law of conservation of momentum as the resistance that the solid steel columns should provide is inconsistent with the speed of collapse. Not to mention the toppling top mass in the south tower should have been deflected off to the side.

Today's physics lesson: Force is defined as the change of momentum with time (F=dp/dt). If momentum is conserved, it means dp/dt= 0 =F. If there is a resistance force applied by the columns, then momentum will not be conserved, by definition. Conservation of momentum calculations for the tower collapses provide a lower bound on the time using the assumption that there is no resistance and that each new floor is added to the existing falling mass. They add about 2 seconds to the theoretical collapse time.

In effect what you have said above is "Momentum is not conserved because it is conserved." Clearly you are simply parroting crapola without understanding what it means. Keep trying.

[Grizzly Bear]

As often happens here, you are confusing air temp with steel temp.

Of which there is no engineering basis to assume a several hundred degree Celsius gradient at the interface between the steel and the air temperature adjacent to it. Direct exposure to fires will weaken the material as the temperatures increase, and with the fires visible on the exterior of the towers there is every bit of proof that significant areas of the structure were exposed in such a manner.

Even for this forum, there can be no finer example of the strawman argument.

What else are people supposed to assume? You criticize the NIST report as not standing to a particular standard while not elaborating on any opinions you otherwise have. You know how to dispel confusion, this isn't grade school -- nobody here should need to walk you through it. If you're going to levy criticism on NIST and disagree with other CT theories on it then make the point clear.

[tsig]

As often happens here, you are confusing air temp with steel temp.

So that's why when I put a turkey in an oven with an air temp of 350 degrees it never cooks!!

[Justin39640]

You call this symetrical??
You call this "into its own footprint?


http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg

bill should take a good look at this one
plenty of his "missing columns"

[paulheinze]

1. The Bazant-Model does not fit the seismic data of the collapse. There should be a phase 1 of crushing columns with spikes with constant amplitude (crush-down), followed by a large spike (the rubble/Zone B hitting the ground,BANG), and then a simliar constant-amplited spike sequence (crush-up).
In the seismic-data there is a crush-down phase but neither a BANG nor a crush-up.
Look at
NORTH TOWER Part2 - Ch09 on youtube by achimspok (not allowed to post links)
2. Both towers hat a kink just below the head truss, indicitating cut core columns.
3. The incredible precision of all three planes. All three planes managed to hit the target precisely out of difficult maneuvers. Especially Filght 175 hit the South Tower laterally perpendicular (wrongly stated by NIST) out while flying a curve and descending with a constant wind blowing.
See UA175 - the last 12 seconds on youtube by achimspok

[Dave Rogers]

The Bazant-Model does not fit the seismic data of the collapse. There should be a phase 1 of crushing columns with spikes with constant amplitude (crush-down), followed by a large spike (the rubble/Zone B hitting the ground,BANG), and then a simliar constant-amplited spike sequence (crush-up).
In the seismic-data there is a crush-down phase but neither a BANG nor a crush-up.
Look at
NORTH TOWER Part2 - Ch04 on youtube by achimspok (not allowed to post links)

If correct, that's probably pretty good evidence that the collapse progression was more complex than the Bazant model. The difficulty with more complex collapse models is that they can be very difficult to reduce to any sort of meaningful calculations, and so have to remain as rather handwaving verbal descriptions. However, the Bazant model is still informative as an existence theorem and a limiting case, hence an indication that collapse is energetically favourable whatever the detailed mechanism.

What appears to be a rather more accurate description of the collapse is that the rubble generated at the crush zone was largely funnelled by the perimeter columns so as to fall on the next floor down in turn, leading to at least three different collapse waves: leading was the floor collapse wave characterised by the trusses shearing off vertically from their seats, secondly the unsupported perimeter column trees peeling away under their own weight and separating at the bolted connections, and third and last the core columns which were seen to survive the main collapse by several seconds. The mere fact that the core column spires were seen after the collapse is proof that the simple crush-down / crush-up sequence couldn't have happened, because the remains of the upper blocks had already struck the ground when the spires were observed.

Given that there must have been at least these three processes taking place simultaneously, it's hardly surprising that the seismic record doesn't show the different collapse phases clearly.

Dave

[paulheinze]

If correct, that's probably pretty good evidence that the collapse progression was more complex than the Bazant model. The difficulty with more complex collapse models is that they can be very difficult to reduce to any sort of meaningful calculations, and so have to remain as rather handwaving verbal descriptions. However, the Bazant model is still informative as an existence theorem and a limiting case, hence an indication that collapse is energetically favourable whatever the detailed mechanism.
Correct. But it follows that the BZ-model is no proof that explosives were not involved. Assuming the TT were demolished, you can conclude that charges had only to be places at certain points to ensure the progression of the gravitiy driven collaspe. No 1000 t TNT required. In order to rule out explosives a detailed examination of the collapse sequence itself would be necessary. This is were NIST failed (deliberately).

[Newtons Bit]

Correct. But it follows that the BZ-model is no proof that explosives were not involved. Assuming the TT were demolished, you can conclude that charges had only to be places at certain points to ensure the progression of the gravitiy driven collaspe. No 1000 t TNT required. In order to rule out explosives a detailed examination of the collapse sequence itself would be necessary. This is were NIST failed (deliberately).

Or, you know, explosives weren't needed at all to cause the collapse.

[Dave Rogers]

Correct. But it follows that the BZ-model is no proof that explosives were not involved. Assuming the TT were demolished, you can conclude that charges had only to be places at certain points to ensure the progression of the gravitiy driven collaspe. No 1000 t TNT required. In order to rule out explosives a detailed examination of the collapse sequence itself would be necessary. This is were NIST failed (deliberately).

This thread is about proof that there was a conspiracy within the US concerning 9/11, not the failure of a specific model to prove that there was not. Bearing that in mind, the BZ model is proof, rather, that the minimum possible amount of explosives required to propagate collapse is indeed less than 1,000 tons, or whatever other figure you care to name; it is, in fact, zero. Therefore, the fact that the collapse progressed to the ground is not, in itself, evidence of anything beyond the conventionally accepted understanding of events on 9/11.

In order to rule out explosives, I suspect that a detailed examination of the collapse sequence would be quite useless. It is, of course, conceivable that additional means other than the impacts and fires were not used to initiate the collapse, but only to ensure that it continued to ground level; but such a scenario is quite obviously insane. Therefore, the key question is whether explosives, or other means, were used to initiate collapse.

We have clear audible evidence that explosives were not used to initiate collapse, as no sufficiently loud sound can be heard on the soundtracks of videos showing the initiation of the collapses. We have circumstantial evidence that thermite was not used to initiate the collapse, in that no such operation has ever been performed before or since, and no reasonable mechanism for such an operation has been proposed by anyone. We have further negative evidence that no engineering operation of the very large size needed to prepare buildings for demolition was observed to have taken place in any of the buildings. And we have a fully described and physically reasonable mechanism by which collapse initiation could have occurred due to fire and impact damage alone. In the absence of positive evidence, the presumption must be that no additional means other than the fire and impact damage were used to initiate collapse.

And, since NIST's brief was to investigate the causes of the collapse, rather than to increase the height of the already conclusive collection of evidence that explosives were not used to initiate the collapse, it seems at best inappropriate to accuse them of failure, much less of deliberate failure. Quite simply, exploding unfounded fantasies was never part of their brief, and it's a near-absurdity that the scope of the WTC7 report was increased to include the latter.

Dave

[paulheinze]

This thread is about proof that there was a conspiracy within the US concerning 9/11, not the failure of a specific model to prove that there was not. Bearing that in mind, the BZ model is proof, rather, that the minimum possible amount of explosives required to propagate collapse is indeed less than 1,000 tons, or whatever other figure you care to name; it is, in fact, zero
This is wrong reasoning. The BZ-paper describes a model under which a building collapses. Of course it is not the only possible model of building collapses. If the data does not fit to the model, a different collapse sequence than suggested by BZ has happened. As I pointed out before, the seismic data does not fit to the BZ model. It suggests building faliures not caused by rubble pile crushing down the building.

In order to rule out explosives, I suspect that a detailed examination of the collapse sequence would be quite useless.
This is obviously wrong.
The collapse is a result of the initation. Of course the result tells a lot about the cause. This is why we do autopsies to find the cause of death and do not limit our examination up to the point of death because people can die due to natural causes.

The collapse sequence gives a lot of data about the forces acting on the collapse. For example, we observe a kink on both Towers just on collapse initation on the 105 and the 106 floor just below the head trusses. These are strong indication of core column failures in the respective areas. These cannot be explained by a gravitational collapse.

We have clear audible evidence that explosives were not used to initiate collapse, as no sufficiently loud sound can be heard on the soundtracks of videos showing the initiation of the collapses. We have a lot of testimonies about explosion sounds.
What would sufficiently loud sounds of explosives mean? What would be the loudness you require? Take into account that core column explosion sounds would be shielded by the building.

We have further negative evidence that no engineering operation of the very large size needed to prepare buildings for demolition was observed to have taken place in any of the buildings. And we have a fully described and physically reasonable mechanism by which collapse initiation could have occurred due to fire and impact damage alone. In the absence of positive evidence, the presumption must be that no additional means other than the fire and impact damage were used to initiate collapse.
You contradict yourself. In a mainly gravity driven collapse a whole lot less amount of explosives would be needed than the amount you suggest.
Enginieering work was done in the elevator shafts. As pointed out by Kevin Ryan on the floors hit by the planes renovation of fireproofing was done.

[Crazytimes]

We have a lot of testimonies about explosion sounds.
What would sufficiently loud sounds of explosives mean? What would be the loudness you require? Take into account that core column explosion would be shielded by the building.


.

There have been a lot of you lately.

Notice how loud these are ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#1m10s

[R.Mackey]

We've discussed Bazant & Zhou to death. Remember it was written only two days after the collapse happened. It isn't, nor was it ever intended to be, an accurate reproduction of the collapse. Instead, it considers the most favorable collapse case, and shows that even that situation is all but guaranteed to collapse totally.

You're trying to use it for something it is not. The actual collapse initiation was quite a bit more complicated. The actual progression was not column-on-column, purely vertical square impacts, nor did it involve or destroy the entire structure. This is all academic to its purpose, which is to demonstrate that collapse arrest is simply not possible.

There's many more detailed discussions of the collapse initiation over at Gregory Urich's forums: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/portal.php These discussions include comments by Drs. Greening and Benson, who collaborated with Dr. Bazant in the followup BLBG paper. There are also a number of dedicated video watchers and amateur analysts there who have spent much more time characterizing the events immediately before and during collapse initiation.

Again, the paper is unchallenged with respect to its conclusion. Folks only get confused when they try to read more precision into the paper than is needed or warranted (usually in a misguided attempt to discredit the paper). NIST was also fully justified in applying its conclusion in the manner that it did.

P.S.:

You contradict yourself. In a mainly gravity driven collapse a whole lot less amount of explosives would be needed than the amount you suggest.
Enginieering work was done in the elevator shafts. As pointed out by Kevin Ryan on the floors hit by the planes renovation of fireproofing was done.

How much explosives? Show your work. And you need to research the comment by Kevin Ryan -- your summary above is not accurate.

[paulheinze]

There have been a lot of you lately.
This is really convincing. I hope for your sake that you have better arguments than this.

I think the comparison you make has a lot of flaws. The loudness depends on reaction speed of a certain explosive and the amount of speed. So comparing different videos of different explosion is not very helpful.
As I see the existence of loud explosion(-like) sounds is not denied even by supporters of the official theory. They just point out that there might be other reasons for explosives.
Your video has little value as argument.

[Dave Rogers]

This is wrong reasoning. The BZ-paper describes a model under which a building collapses. Of course it is not the only possible model of building collapses. If the data does not fit to the model, a different collapse sequence than suggested by BZ has happened. As I pointed out before, the seismic data does not fit to the BZ model.

OK up to there.

It suggests building faliures not caused by rubble pile crushing down the building.

But at this point your line of reasoning fails, because the BZ model is not the only possible model of building collapses caused by a rubble pile crushing down the building. Therefore, the poor fit to the BZ model has no bearing on the general class of rubble-pile-induced collapses.


The collapse sequence gives a lot of data about the forces acting on the collapse. For example, we observe a kink on both Towers just on collapse initation on the 105 and the 106 floor just below the head trusses. These are strong indication of core column failures in the respective areas. These cannot be explained by a gravitational collapse.

If this is your strongest piece of evidence, then please present it in detail, because this is what the thread is about. Can you provide pictures of the kink in question, and give your reasoning as to why it is inconsistent with the generally accepted sequence of events?

I'd also comment that you've gone back to analysis of the condition of the towers at collapse initiation rather than trying to deduce the initiation sequence from the later collapse dynamics. I still feel that the latter approach is pointless, notwithstanding your opinion that I'm wrong, because the collapse was a sufficiently chaotic process that backward extrapolation from the collapse details to the initiation is simply too difficult to yield significant results.

We have a lot of testimonies about explosion sounds.

These have been carefully quote-mined and presented out of context in order to give the false impression that explosives were involved in the collapses. In particular, testimonies about explosion sounds at the time of the aircraft impact are routinely presented as suggestive of explosive demolition. This is blatant dishonesty.

What would sufficiently loud sounds of explosives mean? What would be the loudness you require?

NIST estimated that a sufficiently large charge to destroy one core column of WTC7 would produce a sound in excess of 130dB within a half mile radius. This would be sufficient to cause temporary hearing loss in a large proportion of people in the immediate area.

Take into account that core column explosion would be shielded by the building.

Take into account that a 130dB blast would only sever one core column.

You contradict yourself. In a mainly gravitiy collapse a whole lot less amount of explosives would be needed that you suggest.

As you may note, I didn't specify any amount of explosives. What would require extensive engineering work is the proper placing of explosives. Explosive charges need to be placed in direct contact with steel members in order to sever them. This would require removal of drywall in areas visible to the public in order to gain access to the steelwork. No such work was observed.

Enginieering work was done in the elevator shafts and as pointed out by Kevin Ryan on the floors hit by the planes (renovation of fireproofing).

I'd like to see evidence of both. I wouldn't accept that the sky was blue if all I had was Kevin Ryan's word; he strikes me as a despicable liar.

Dave

[WildCat]

This is wrong reasoning. The BZ-paper describes a model under which a building collapses. Of course it is not the only possible model of building collapses. If the data does not fit to the model, a different collapse sequence than suggested by BZ has happened. As I pointed out before, the seismic data does not fit to the BZ model. It suggests building faliures not caused by rubble pile crushing down the building.
And you are a seismometer expert?


The collapse sequence gives a lot of data about the forces acting on the collapse. For example, we observe a kink on both Towers just on collapse initation on the 105 and the 106 floor just below the head trusses. These are strong indication of core column failures in the respective areas. These cannot be explained by a gravitational collapse.
And you've ruled out all the cut core columns from the airplane impact and the fire damage as the cause for this why exactly?

We have a lot of testimonies about explosion sounds.
What would sufficiently loud sounds of explosives mean? What would be the loudness you require? Take into account that core column explosion sounds would be shielded by the building.
We have no recorded explosive sounds. Sounds which are recorded in every explosive demolision ever ever. Even when recorded from inside a building with the windows closed and a helicopter flying nearby (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ). Explosives powerful enough to cut core columns would have been loud, very loud. In fact, the lack of loub BOOM sounds is why Jones invented his ridiculous thermite scenario.

You contradict yourself. In a mainly gravity driven collapse a whole lot less amount of explosives would be needed than the amount you suggest.
Yeah, that amount is zero.

Enginieering work was done in the elevator shafts. As pointed out by Kevin Ryan on the floors hit by the planes renovation of fireproofing was done.
Now that's just silly.

[R.Mackey]

I think the comparison you make has a lot of flaws. The loudness depends on reaction speed of a certain explosive and the amount of speed. So comparing different videos of different explosion is not very helpful.
As I see the existence of loud explosion(-like) sounds is not denied even by supporters of the official theory. They just point out that there might be other reasons for explosives.
Your video has little value as argument.

This is also incorrect. The loudness is only determined by the shape and magnitude of the pressure wave, and that pressure wave is the explosive force. No matter what kind of explosive you use, if it's capable of destroying a steel column, it has a minimum amplitude and thus a minumum loudness.

There's no escaping this point. NIST demonstrated in the WTC 7 report (NCSTAR1-9) that a minimum charge demolition explosive, applied to an already weakened support column of WTC 7, would be at least 130 dB SPL at 1 km distance. In other words, freaking loud. As loud as standing a few feet away from a high-powered rifle.

You can't just handwave this away. If you have a real solution to this problem, we'd all like to see it.

[Crazytimes]

This is really convincing. I hope for your sake that you have better arguments than this.

I think the comparison you make has a lot of flaws. The loudness depends on reaction speed of a certain explosive and the amount of speed. So comparing different videos of different explosion is not very helpful.
As I see the existence of loud explosion(-like) sounds is not denied even by supporters of the official theory. They just point out that there might be other reasons for explosives.
Your video has little value as argument.

Really ? So what kind of explosives were used ? Can you find me one video where there were these loud bangs close to the towers ? also, how did you watch a 45 minute video so quickly ?

[BigAl]

This is really convincing. I hope for your sake that you have better arguments than this.

I think the comparison you make has a lot of flaws. The loudness depends on reaction speed of a certain explosive and the amount of speed. So comparing different videos of different explosion is not very helpful.


To the extent that the above is true, there are no explosives that don't make a very loud and distinctive sound.


The 1993 bombing was comparable to 1,000 pounds of TNT. It did no damage to the structure of the tower it was placed in.

It was heard all over the 16 acre complex and up all the towers.

There was no comparable explosion on 9/11.

Your posts are remarkably fact free and unoriginal.

[ellindsey]

HOLY SNIKEYS BATMAN!!! Did it ever cross you mind that the jet engine, I dunno, might be DESIGNED To withstand the heat and cooled in such a way to keep the heat DOWN?? I mean, really. You cannot possibly be THIS dumb on BASIC SCIENCE?!?!?!?!

In fact, this is a major challenge in the design of jet engines. The flame generated by burning kerosene is too hot for any material in the engine to withstand. The combustion chambers are very carefully designed so that flame is suspended in the center of the combustor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustor) by the airflow, and then gradually blended with cooler air until the temperature is low enough to not melt the turbine blades. Even so the first turbine stages often have cooling channels inside the blades or boundary-layer gas injection or similar measures to survive. If kerosene was incapable of burning hot enough to melt or even soften steel, jet engine design would be much easier.

[Dave Rogers]

As I see the existence of loud explosion(-like) sounds is not denied even by supporters of the official theory. They just point out that there might be other reasons for explosives.

Your posts are getting more typical of the usual truther tactics as you go on, and this is a classic piece of misdirection that's been seen here many times. There is a very notable absence of sufficiently loud explosions at the time extremely loud explosions would have been necessarily audible if the collapse were caused by explosives.

Having addressed that irrelevant point, can you please continue with your positive evidence that there was a conspiracy surrounding 9/11? Your insistence that certain isolated items of evidence cannot disprove a conspiracy is of no value here; the overwhelming weight of evidence is that the attacks were planned and executed entirely by al-Qaeda, and the judgement of society, by its lack of concern over the issue, is that no further investigation into the identity of the perpetrators is warranted. If you want to change that state of affairs, only positive evidence will do; saying "You can't prove me wrong" will simply lead to people ignoring you.

Dave

[NutCracker]

[snip]

Hmm.. rather than arguing your opponents are wrong, which is all you and your colleague seem to be capable of, how about you finally start arguing how you Truthers are right?

NIST, Bazant and what have you, being wrong does not imply that 9/11 was an inside job: Logical Fallacies ... Non-Sequitur, False Dillema and all that.

Lay all the relevant evidence on the table, and I mean all evidence: including the evidence that might be inconvenient to your position, and build your case. Show us how the evidence leads to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.


Thank you.


I wait with bated breath.

[paulheinze]

This is also incorrect. The loudness is only determined by the shape and magnitude of the pressure wave, and that pressure wave is the explosive force. No matter what kind of explosive you use, if it's capable of destroying a steel column, it has a minimum amplitude and thus a minumum loudness.
You are right I meant the reaction speed and the resulting pressure wave.

[TruthersLie]

1. The Bazant-Model does not fit the seismic data of the collapse. There should be a phase 1 of crushing columns with spikes with constant amplitude (crush-down), followed by a large spike (the rubble/Zone B hitting the ground,BANG), and then a simliar constant-amplited spike sequence (crush-up).
In the seismic-data there is a crush-down phase but neither a BANG nor a crush-up.
Look at
NORTH TOWER Part2 - Ch09 on youtube by achimspok (not allowed to post links)


The seismic data do not support ANY type of controlled demoltions. Bazant model doesn't have to fit the seismic data as has already been explained to you. Bazant did NOT MODEL the full collapse. The Bazant model was designed to show that once the collapse initiated it was not going to stop. That is ALL the Bazant model was designed to show.


2. Both towers hat a kink just below the head truss, indicitating cut core columns.


Prove it. Provide any CD where the collapse starts half way up it, which shows buildings "kink."

While you are at it, show ANY CD which can collapse the buildign with silent explosives...


3. The incredible precision of all three planes. All three planes managed to hit the target precisely out of difficult maneuvers. Especially Filght 175 hit the South Tower laterally perpendicular (wrongly stated by NIST) out while flying a curve and descending with a constant wind blowing.
See UA175 - the last 12 seconds on youtube by achimspok
[/quote]

ROFLMAO. I love this... now it is the "flight school drop outs can't do that" claim.

ROFLMAO.

Try again.

so three strikes there. Thank you for playing.

[TruthersLie]

Correct. But it follows that the BZ-model is no proof that explosives were not involved. Assuming the TT were demolished, you can conclude that charges had only to be places at certain points to ensure the progression of the gravitiy driven collaspe. No 1000 t TNT required. In order to rule out explosives a detailed examination of the collapse sequence itself would be necessary. This is were NIST failed (deliberately).(emphasis mine)

PROVE IT.

PROVE that any type of CD can have explosives which would cut steel beams that would NOT be recorded by EVERY camera in a half mile.

PROVE that NIST deliberately FAILED to test for explosives.

[TruthersLie]

<snip>
The collapse sequence gives a lot of data about the forces acting on the collapse. For example, we observe a kink on both Towers just on collapse initation on the 105 and the 106 floor just below the head trusses. These are strong indication of core column failures in the respective areas. These cannot be explained by a gravitational collapse.


PROVE IT. provide an image/video which support this bs.


We have a lot of testimonies about explosion sounds.
What would sufficiently loud sounds of explosives mean? What would be the loudness you require? Take into account that core column explosion sounds would be shielded by the building.


Ah yes, the twoof datamining of the oral histories. I love this one. So you accept the oral histories of people hearing explosions right?

I adore eyewitnesses. Will you accept ALL of the eyewitness testimony from 9/11? Yes or no. I will then address your BS claim when you answer that question.


You contradict yourself. In a mainly gravity driven collapse a whole lot less amount of explosives would be needed than the amount you suggest.
Enginieering work was done in the elevator shafts. As pointed out by Kevin Ryan on the floors hit by the planes renovation of fireproofing was done.

I'll let the structural engineers and physicists completely destroy you on this one... but again you are taking the word of a KNOWN liar, someone who was fired for his lies, and was then so incompetent that he couldn't even file his paperwork on time? Really?

[TruthersLie]

<snip>
I think the comparison you make has a lot of flaws. The loudness depends on reaction speed of a certain explosive and the amount of speed. So comparing different videos of different explosion is not very helpful.


Then provide a single video of CD explosives going off where you can't hear them 1/2 a mile away. feel free. If you can tailor the explosive output for the sound, then it should be easy.

We will wait.


As I see the existence of loud explosion(-like) sounds is not denied even by supporters of the official theory. They just point out that there might be other reasons for explosives.
Your video has little value as argument.

Nice handwaving.

No people who support the common narrative realize that there are LOTS of things which EXPLODE in office fires. I can think of a list of at least 15 things which would be in the towers which would explode or sound like an explosion. Can you ELIMINATE ANY OF THEM? no you cannot.

But what I do know for a FACT is that any explosive capable of cutting through the steel beams of the towers or of wtc7 would have
1. a series of rapid fire concussive blasts which would be heard for a mile away
2. a series of rapid fire flashes running in a line up the building where the explosives were detonated
3. the building would collapse from the bottom going up, not in the middle (where the planes impacted)
4. any explosives at the point of impact would NOT have survived the impact.
5. Any explosives at the point of impact would NOT have been able to be remotely detonated due to the towers construction.
6. No images or video of any of the debris show ANY materials or damages associated with explosives.

try again twoofie.

[paulheinze]

(emphasis mine)

PROVE IT.

PROVE that any type of CD can have explosives which would cut steel beams that would NOT be recorded by EVERY camera in a half mile.

PROVE that NIST deliberately FAILED to test for explosives.
NIST deliberarely denied testing for explosives. It was not a forensic investigation. They looked for an explanation under the assumption that the collapse was caused by the jets and the fire.

[dtugg]

No loud bangs recorded proves, for a fact, that there were no explosives. Thus NIST would have been wasting their time testing for them.

[Mr. Skinny]

NIST deliberarely denied testing for explosives. It was not a forensic investigation. They looked for an explanation under the assumption that the collapse was caused by the jets and the fire.
Would you consider the possibility that since no evidence of explosives was found e.g. det cord, unexploded ordnance, strange looking metal failure, etc. that they had no real reason to consider explosives in the first place?

[Sam.I.Am]

NIST deliberarely denied testing for explosives. It was not a forensic investigation. They looked for an explanation under the assumption that the collapse was caused by the jets and the fire.

Don't forget to add nano termites, space beams and mini nukes...

[UNLoVedRebel]

NIST deliberarely denied testing for explosives. It was not a forensic investigation. They looked for an explanation under the assumption that the collapse was caused by the jets and the fire.

Hmm......I wonder how they came to that conclusion. Could it have been the countless videos that showed that the collapse was caused by the jets and the fire?

[Kermassa]

Don't forget to add nano termites, space beams and mini nukes...

Don't forget the volcano that caused the pyroclastic flow. :tinfoil

[triforcharity]

Correct. But it follows that the BZ-model is no proof that explosives were not involved. Assuming the TT were demolished, you can conclude that charges had only to be places at certain points to ensure the progression of the gravitiy driven collaspe. No 1000 t TNT required. In order to rule out explosives a detailed examination of the collapse sequence itself would be necessary. This is were NIST failed (deliberately).

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I PERSONALLY SAID THIS?!?!?! NO HUGE BOOMS!! Sorry sir, you are wrong again. I don't care WHAT you say or claim, there were NO BIG BOOMS heard that day. I was there, saw all 3 collapses, and never not once heard a boom.

[triforcharity]

We have a lot of testimonies about explosion sounds.
What would sufficiently loud sounds of explosives mean? What would be the loudness you require? Take into account that core column explosion sounds would be shielded by the building.



Paul,

I believe I have adressed you before, in another thread, and never recieved a response. Is it because there is no refuting what I have posted??

Anyway, I will do it again.

I don't give a damn how much building was in the way. There would have been NO WAY POSSIBLE to set off an explosive device such as RDX or C-4, or anything else with enough velocity to cut ANY size column, whithout EVERY SINGLE caamera and eyewitness hearing it. I believe I posted in the previous page that even a small amount of explosive would cause a sound level of around 200 db. Everyone, even people in NJ would have heard it.
It didn't happen, sorry sir. You arae wrong again.

BTW, a fire siren at 50' has a sound level rating of about 120 db.

[Mr. Skinny]

Paul,

I believe I have adressed you before, in another thread, and never recieved a response. Is it because there is no refuting what I have posted??

Anyway, I will do it again.

I don't give a damn how much building was in the way. There would have been NO WAY POSSIBLE to set off an explosive device such as RDX or C-4, or anything else with enough velocity to cut ANY size column, whithout EVERY SINGLE caamera and eyewitness hearing it. I believe I posted in the previous page that even a small amount of explosive would cause a sound level of around 200 db. Everyone, even people in NJ would have heard it.
It didn't happen, sorry sir. You arae wrong again.

BTW, a fire siren at 50' has a sound level rating of about 120 db.
It's also important to note that, as a rule of thumb, the perceived sound level will be doubled for every 5dB increase, so even a 130 dB SPL wouldn't be masked by a 120dB siren.


ETA: To be fair, I should also say that multiple noise sources tend to be somewhat synergistic. For example, two sirens next to each other, each producing 120 dB will produce a SPL reading slightly higher than 120 dB.

[TruthersLie]

NIST deliberarely denied testing for explosives. It was not a forensic investigation. They looked for an explanation under the assumption that the collapse was caused by the jets and the fire.

Where is your citation?
they explicitly state what the DEMOLITIONS EXPERTS say would be required for ANY CD that would sever the columns. It would be 130 DB at 1 kilometer for ONE COLUMN.

That is almost as loud as a JET ENGINE at take off.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#12m50s**

IT sounds like these.

ARE THERE ANY VIDEOS OR AUDIO of 9/11 which have a series of LOUD bangs? huh?

Provide one.

or provide a CD from anywhere in the world which uses explosives which isn't loud.

[triforcharity]

.

I think the comparison you make has a lot of flaws. The loudness depends on reaction speed of a certain explosive and the amount of speed. So comparing different videos of different explosion is not very helpful.
As I see the existence of loud explosion(-like) sounds is not denied even by supporters of the official theory. They just point out that there might be other reasons for explosives.
Your video has little value as argument.

You are correct with the first sentence, then you kinda take a dive bomb.

Here is the problems that I see with your conclusions.

#1- As i have posted already, the sound of even a small bomb will have a sound rating of about 200db. Even a small one. It would have been heard. PERIOD. No ifs, ands, or butts about it.

There are hundreds of things that go boom in a high rise. I will list a few here. BTW, all of this list arae things that were contained in the WTC.

Water heaters
Electrical transformer banks
televisions
computer monitors
electric motors
HVAC equipment


There arae most likely hundreds of other things. Now, would it be possible that ONE of these things that are VERIFIED to have been in the building MIGHT have caused an explosive sound?? I bet so. Would it be conclusive that ONLY a bomb can make explosive noises?? NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

The probability of it being one of the things that I have listed versus a bomb is staggering.

#3-You say that people heard explosions. You're wrong. People heard a noise that was very loud. NOT an explosion.

[TruthersLie]

NIST deliberarely denied testing for explosives. It was not a forensic investigation. They looked for an explanation under the assumption that the collapse was caused by the jets and the fire.

Do you know what else they didn't test for?
1. Pixie dust
2. Giant Lizard Poo
3. kryptonite
4. radiation
5. termites

now why didn't they test for them? Oh because there was no evidence that ANY of those brought down the towers/wtc7. The same way there is NO evidence that CD brought down the towers.

again and again, you make a claim against nist, so provide the citation which states they deliberately IGNORED evidence of CD.

[TruthersLie]

You are correct with the first sentence, then you kinda take a dive bomb.

Here is the problems that I see with your conclusions.

#1- As i have posted already, the sound of even a small bomb will have a sound rating of about 200db. Even a small one. It would have been heard. PERIOD. No ifs, ands, or butts about it.

There are hundreds of things that go boom in a high rise. I will list a few here. BTW, all of this list arae things that were contained in the WTC.

Water heaters
Electrical transformer banks
televisions
computer monitors
electric motors
HVAC equipment


There arae most likely hundreds of other things. Now, would it be possible that ONE of these things that are VERIFIED to have been in the building MIGHT have caused an explosive sound?? I bet so. Would it be conclusive that ONLY a bomb can make explosive noises?? NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

The probability of it being one of the things that I have listed versus a bomb is staggering.

#3-You say that people heard explosions. You're wrong. People heard a noise that was very loud. NOT an explosion.

Hey tri... here is my simple list w/out even trying to do research.
electric motors, monitors, plugged in and on electronics (from computers, tvs, printers), electrical circuit boards, electrical transformers, industrial cleaning supplies (lots of stuff goes boom there), and then we get to simple stuff, water mains, fire extinguishers, the air canisters in office chairs, falling equipment, falling bodies, copiers, oh and can't forget hairspray, water heaters, refridgerators and the list goes on and on and on.

And that isn't counting all of the datamined BS claims of explosions twoofs love to point to... lots of people saying LIKE an explosion, or using metaphors/figures of speach.

[triforcharity]

They also didn't look for a leaky faucet in New Orleans. I wonder why????:rolleyes:

[TruthersLie]

NIST deliberarely denied testing for explosives. It was not a forensic investigation. They looked for an explanation under the assumption that the collapse was caused by the jets and the fire.

Come on now twoof.

do you accept ALL of the eyewitness testimony from 9/11? Yes or no?

[triforcharity]

Hey tri... here is my simple list w/out even trying to do research.
electric motors, monitors, plugged in and on electronics (from computers, tvs, printers), electrical circuit boards, electrical transformers, industrial cleaning supplies (lots of stuff goes boom there), and then we get to simple stuff, water mains, fire extinguishers, the air canisters in office chairs, falling equipment, falling bodies, copiers, oh and can't forget hairspray, water heaters, refridgerators and the list goes on and on and on.

And that isn't counting all of the datamined BS claims of explosions twoofs love to point to... lots of people saying LIKE an explosion, or using metaphors/figures of speach.

Not that this has anything to do with 9/11 or anything, but....I was in a structure fire a few months back. Ended up searching the garage. About the
time I got in, I could see the seat of the fire was near the water heater. By the time I reached down for the nozzle, that SOB went off LIKE a gunshot!! Hot water and schrapnel EVERYWHERE. Couldn't believe it. Turns out the expansion valve seized up. Scared the **** right out of me and my rookie. Had to clean out the short after that one.

[triforcharity]

Trutherslie,

I am eagerly awaiting his answer. I will let you go first though. I am sure you have something much better.

[TruthersLie]

Tri.



did you ever see that mythbusters show on hairspray, fire extinguishers and a beer keg in a campfire?

I know dozens of women who have hairspray in their desks where I have worked... Office fires, hairspray canisters...

and I'm not saying anyone in the towers would have a KEG in their offices... but anything which holds compressed air... like soda fountains? would have gone off



I just love how ignorant most twoofs are... it isn't like we are asking them to learn structural engineeriing before talking to us... just basic things like what explodes in fire, what metals melt at under 1100C, what do the pictures show... simple stuff like that.

[Arus808]

NIST deliberarely denied testing for explosives.

they also didn't test for exotic space beams, Alien spat acid, Unicorns with rocket launchers, nuclear detonation, or someone wishing with a genie from a lamp to destroy the towers.

What's your point?

[TruthersLie]

You are right I meant the reaction speed and the resulting pressure wave.

Here is 1,000 lbs of high explosive.

LptXaQ4Wkjw

now you twoofs say there would be TONS of HE in the towers. Notice how far that was heard, how loud it was, and how they JUMPED.


And yet there are NO people jumping at explosions that loud... Oh I forgot you had super duper nano (it will clean your room, make your bed and cook breakfast too) thermite. (snicker)

ETA
850 lbs of dynamite
ynZxVErTovg

yet no one jumps in ANY of the videos of the collapse...

[paulheinze]

Come on now twoof.

do you accept ALL of the eyewitness testimony from 9/11? Yes or no?

Stop insulting me. I do not have a problem with you personally. I do not even know you. I suppose this is not what the james randi educational foundation is about.

The behaviour of some people here shows some signs of sectarianism. Fortunately there are some grown-ups here, too.

As to the kink of 105th floor of the north-tower:
NORTH TOWER part2 - Ch21 on youtube at 2:25

[triforcharity]

It was a simple yes or no question. Please do not change the subject. Thanks.

Yes or no.


Do you accept ALL of the eyewitness testimony from 9/11? Yes or no?

I will expand on it a little. If the answer is no, than why are some discredited??

[triforcharity]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTqY_dld08g&feature=related

Here is the video. Its in some other language though.

[paulheinze]

Here is 1,000 lbs of high explosive.

LptXaQ4Wkjw

now you twoofs say there would be TONS of HE in the towers. Notice how far that was heard, how loud it was, and how they JUMPED.


And yet there are NO people jumping at explosions that loud... Oh I forgot you had super duper nano (it will clean your room, make your bed and cook breakfast too) thermite. (snicker)

ETA
850 lbs of dynamite
ynZxVErTovg

yet no one jumps in ANY of the videos of the collapse...

I am not "you twoofs". I am sure you are bright enough to write my name. At least I hope so.

How do you derive from the videos the actual decibels in order to make a comparison? Do you know what sound compression, normalization,etc are? Would be interesting to see.

[paulheinze]

It was a simple yes or no question. Please do not change the subject. Thanks.

Yes or no.


Do you accept ALL of the eyewitness testimony from 9/11? Yes or no?

I will expand on it a little. If the answer is no, than why are some discredited??

As to eyewitness testimony it cannot be accepted blindly. As in any legal case you have to see whether it is hearsay or the witness has an interest in a certain outcome. If there is no substantial reason to doubt the witnesses testimony it has be accepted and taken into account.

For example the statement of Condoleeza Rize "noone envisioned of planes flying into buildings" is likely to be discarded. There were several forewarnings by different secret service, scenarios developed. It can be assumed she had in interested in exculpating herself.

Thanks for giving the link.

[BigAl]

As to eyewitness testimony it cannot be accepted blindly. As in any legal case you have to see whether it is hearsay or the witness has an interest in a certain outcome. If there is no substantial reason to doubt the witnesses testimony it has be accepted and taken into account.

Thanks for giving the link.

You left out the bit about reading all the eyewitnesses in their entirety and putting everything they say in the context of where and when they heard something and who else heard it at the same instant. You also have to consider all the physical evidence and video tape and after-the-fact scientific analysis.

Nothing heard by only one person or a few people in one location would be loud enough to be man-made demolition. Actually, no sound not heard by thousands of people would be man-made demolition.

Nothing heard prior to or after commencement of collapse would be man-made demolition.

[WildCat]

How do you derive from the videos the actual decibels in order to make a comparison?
You completely ignored thie video I lined to earlier, I'll embed it here to make it easier for you. Here's what a real CD sounds like, and it was recorded from inside another building several blocks away with a helicopter flying noisily close by, and still the explosives are the loudest sound in the video:
79sJ1bMR6VQ


Do you know what sound compression, normalization,etc are? Would be interesting to see.
Oh boy, are you going to educate us? We've been through all that before here. No way can you record sounds yet only record the quiet ones while leaving the loud ones off the recording. It can't be done.

[paulheinze]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTqY_dld08g&feature=related

Here is the video. Its in some other language though.

It is German.

[triforcharity]

I saw NO kink whatsoever. Sorry sir.

[Mr. Skinny]

I am not "you twoofs". I am sure you are bright enough to write my name. At least I hope so.
Yeah, I think TruthersLie is being kinda rough on you too. I think you seem pretty reasonable so far, even if you are bringing up some very old topics.

How do you derive from the videos the actual decibels in order to make a comparison? Do you know what sound compression, normalization,etc are? Would be interesting to see.
I'm willing to learn about these topics. Specifically, how they apply to the topic under discussion.

School is in session...

[WildCat]

It is German.
But then it changes to Hebrew! Jews!!!!1!!!!Inside jobby job!1!!!!!!1!!11!!

[paulheinze]

I saw NO kink whatsoever. Sorry sir.

I saw it.

[WildCat]

I saw NO kink whatsoever. Sorry sir.
Neither did I. You can't even see the roofline at 2:25, and a little later when you do it's obscured by smoke but certainly no obvious kink.

[triforcharity]

Thanks, now I understand why it didn't make any sense. Its in German.


Trutherslie,

He says no. Please feel free.

Now, Paul, here is what you are not understanding.

It doesn't matter if its 180 db, or 220 db. It WILL be heard over VERY LARGE AREA and WILL be recorded on EVERY SINGLE RECORDING DEVICE!!

I hate to bring it up, as it it the guys last words, and he is begging for someone to come save him, but there is an audio clip somewhere of a guy above the impact zone on a cell phone with 9-1-1 operators. You can hear the collapse begin before the phone cuts out. Wonder why THAT didn't record a huge boom, just a collapse.

[triforcharity]

Can you screen cap it then PM it to someone, even me, and I will post it?? Thanks. Please make sure to highlight the area. MS paint can do this.

[Thunder]

Truthers have no evidence. Only doubt, questions, suspicion, superstision, paranoia, and Youtube videos.

[triforcharity]

Nevermind, I see what he is talking about. Its at 2:22 not 2:25. I see what you are talking about. I cannot explain it, as that is not my area of expertise.

See Truthers, that is what you SHOULD do when you do NOT have working knowledge of a specific topic.

[WildCat]

I hate to bring it up, as it it the guys last words, and he is begging for someone to come save him, but there is an audio clip somewhere of a guy above the impact zone on a cell phone with 9-1-1 operators. You can hear the collapse begin before the phone cuts out. Wonder why THAT didn't record a huge boom, just a collapse.
Paul is hinting that he is about to reveal his theory of how compression and normalizing (a term I don't think he understands) somehow masks the loudest sounds from a recording.

Go ahead PPaul, don't be shy. Lay it on out there. You're just a few more posts away from being able to post your own links too.

[triforcharity]

I can't wait to heaar what he has to say about this. I wonder if he is also going to take into account low humidity and ambient air temperature,

[Sam.I.Am]

I saw no kink and I'm a big fan of all kinds of kinky stuff so I definitely would've noticed it had it been present.:D

[WildCat]

Nevermind, I see what he is talking about. Its at 2:22 not 2:25. I see what you are talking about. I cannot explain it, as that is not my area of expertise.

See Truthers, that is what you SHOULD do when you do NOT have working knowledge of a specific topic.
Here's a screen cap at the 2:22 mark. I don't see the kink.

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/wtc_222.jpg

Oops, sorry so big. I'll try again, cropping out some sky.

[TexasJack]

I love the Kinks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3gX47rHGg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo%2Egoogle%2Ecom%2Fvideosear ch%3Fq%3Dkinks%2Bwaterloo%2Bsunset%26hl%3Den%26emb %3D0%26aq%3D3%26oq%3Dkinks%2B&feature=player_embedded

But I don't see one either.

[triforcharity]

Look at the left side of the tower. Notice how it kinda leans towards the right of the picture?? I wouldn't call it a kink, more of a lean. But, it doesn't start anywhere near the 100th floor, much lower. Like around the area of the initial impact.

That is why I didn't see it at first. I was looking for a kink, not a lean. Or at least a woman with a whip....:D

[Sam.I.Am]

Look at the left side of the tower. Notice how it kinda leans towards the right of the picture?? I wouldn't call it a kink, more of a lean. But, it doesn't start anywhere near the 100th floor, much lower. Like around the area of the initial impact.

That is why I didn't see it at first. I was looking for a kink, not a lean. Or at least a woman with a whip....:D

That looks like an optical illusion caused by the smoke. I'm pretty sure that if there was a lean that early on NIST would've mentioned it, not to mention the fact that the north tower upper part rolled slightly to the south and not to the east as it initially fell.

[triforcharity]

I figured it had something to do with the camera angle, and the smoke, but I wouldn't comment on something I have no real education on.

Good point about the NIST. They certainly would have mentioned that in their report.

[A W Smith]

You are right I meant the reaction speed and the resulting pressure wave.

I am not "you twoofs". I am sure you are bright enough to write my name. At least I hope so.

How do you derive from the videos the actual decibels in order to make a comparison? Do you know what sound compression, normalization,etc are? Would be interesting to see.

As to eyewitness testimony it cannot be accepted blindly. As in any legal case you have to see whether it is hearsay or the witness has an interest in a certain outcome. If there is no substantial reason to doubt the witnesses testimony it has be accepted and taken into account.



Paul is hinting that he is about to reveal his theory of how compression and normalizing (a term I don't think he understands) somehow masks the loudest sounds from a recording.

Go ahead PPaul, don't be shy. Lay it on out there. You're just a few more posts away from being able to post your own links too.


Trutherslie,

He says no. Please feel free.

Now, Paul, here is what you are not understanding.

It doesn't matter if its 180 db, or 220 db. It WILL be heard over VERY LARGE AREA and WILL be recorded on EVERY SINGLE RECORDING DEVICE!!

I hate to bring it up, as it it the guys last words, and he is begging for someone to come save him, but there is an audio clip somewhere of a guy above the impact zone on a cell phone with 9-1-1 operators. You can hear the collapse begin before the phone cuts out. Wonder why THAT didn't record a huge boom, just a collapse.

And here is that Kevin Cosgrove audio. Go ahead Twoofs. Point out the CD explosions occurring during this phone call from Kevin Cosgrove who was IN the ***** building!! I have about lost my patience with the jackass members of the truth movement.
6pMcaNuO8gs

[Unsecured Coins]

you're not going to get an answer. this might as well be the end of this thread

[R.Mackey]

I figured it had something to do with the camera angle, and the smoke, but I wouldn't comment on something I have no real education on.

Good point about the NIST. They certainly would have mentioned that in their report.

Not picking on you specifically, but you guys are disappointing me. The "kink" is well known, and NIST did mention it in several places, notably Figures 6-19 through 21 of NCSTAR1-3.

The "kink" also has absolutely nothing to do with explosives. Since it apparently appeared early in the collapse, but distinctly after the onset, and the perimeter around the kink was fully intact, there's no way it can be related to even the wildest conspiracy theory. The smart money says it was caused by inertial forces as the upper block of WTC 2 became unrestrained, and in response to resistance felt at the bottom as the upper block descended through the lower floors. Perfectly ordinary, actually.

Remember, just because a Truther says it, doesn't mean that it's wrong. Arrogance does not teach.

Anyway, back to our newcomer paulheinze, I noted that you acknowledged one of my corrections but ignored the others, and your line of reasoning has not changed. I also noticed that this thread is for you as a supporter of the Truth Movement to present evidence, and like all others before you, you have not. Instead, you've simply repeated old Truther claims, all very tired ones. Don't waste your time, we've seen them all. Do you have any evidence?

[Sam.I.Am]

Not picking on you specifically, but you guys are disappointing me. The "kink" is well known, and NIST did mention it in several places, notably Figures 6-19 through 21 of NCSTAR1-3.

The "kink" also has absolutely nothing to do with explosives. Since it apparently appeared early in the collapse, but distinctly after the onset, and the perimeter around the kink was fully intact, there's no way it can be related to even the wildest conspiracy theory. The smart money says it was caused by inertial forces as the upper block of WTC 2 became unrestrained, and in response to resistance felt at the bottom as the upper block descended through the lower floors. Perfectly ordinary, actually.

Remember, just because a Truther says it, doesn't mean that it's wrong. Arrogance does not teach.

Anyway, back to our newcomer paulheinze, I noted that you acknowledged one of my corrections but ignored the others, and your line of reasoning has not changed. I also noticed that this thread is for you as a supporter of the Truth Movement to present evidence, and like all others before you, you have not. Instead, you've simply repeated old Truther claims, all very tired ones. Don't waste your time, we've seen them all. Do you have any evidence?

I think that you misunderstood what he was talking about. Not the kink as the top of the south tower fell (I did know about that). He's saying that there was a kink in the north tower (west side leaning east) while the south tower was still standing. I don't recall NIST ever addressing that claim. If they have then mea culpa on my part.

[R.Mackey]

I guess you could be right, but he mentioned the 105th floor, and the only "kink" there was in WTC 2, the South Tower (actually on 106, but that's close enough). I assumed he'd confused the two -- it's easy to do -- but that might have been a hasty assumption on my part.

NIST describes no kinks in WTC 1, and this is the first I've ever heard anyone even suggest them. I'd need more to conclude that such evidence even exists before discussing it.

ETA: Going back and reviewing, he's claimed kinks on both Towers with the same phenomenology. He's wrong. There's only one on WTC 2, nothing on WTC 1. I'm guessing he saw some hashed-together documentary that intermixed collapse footage without properly identifying what was what. The kink on WTC 2 was real, and is not sinister.

[triforcharity]

Not picking on you specifically, but you guys are disappointing me. The "kink" is well known, and NIST did mention it in several places, notably Figures 6-19 through 21 of NCSTAR1-3.


I stand corrected. Your correct sir, and I apologize for know knowing about this. I will certainly read more of that report tomorrow.

[Sam.I.Am]

I'm guessing he saw some hashed-together documentary that intermixed collapse footage without properly identifying what was what.

It was in German (Ich spreche kein Deutsch) so all I had to go on was the video times he mentioned in his post and the image that WildCat posted, not what it was saying.

Are you kidding me? Don't feel bad I'm sure your hero still cares for you.

Shush, the adults are talking. You see, adults talk to each other with respect until there is no valid reason for that respect. R. Mackey expressed dissapointment in what we said (which he later saw to be a misunderstanding and respectfully said so). Triforcharity essentially said that he didn't know something that someone else did and said he would learn more on the subject.

You then chimed in leading off with an insult and then piled a few more insults on for good measure. Mark my words, you are going to have to eat at the little kids table this upcoming turkey day. If you're good during the meal you can have dessert but no pumpkin pie, just plain lemon Jello.

[TruthersLie]

Stop insulting me. I do not have a problem with you personally. I do not even know you. I suppose this is not what the james randi educational foundation is about.

The behaviour of some people here shows some signs of sectarianism. Fortunately there are some grown-ups here, too.

As to the kink of 105th floor of the north-tower:
NORTH TOWER part2 - Ch21 on youtube at 2:25

Oh no twoofie.

You see, it is a form of endearment. You come here and do what ALL twoofies do.

you start with what you think is rock solid evidence (conservation of momentum, etc...) and get owned on it. Then you start handwaving and shift shift shifting while making claims with NO support.

I'm still waiting for your citation to show that NIST deliberately REFUSED to look for explosives or the other side WHY THEY SHOULD HAVE.

I'm still waiting for you to answer a simple yes or no question. Do you accept ALL of the eyewitness testimony (that you are trying to datamine from) about 9/11. Why won't you answer the simple question?

[TruthersLie]

As to eyewitness testimony it cannot be accepted blindly. As in any legal case you have to see whether it is hearsay or the witness has an interest in a certain outcome. If there is no substantial reason to doubt the witnesses testimony it has be accepted and taken into account.

For example the statement of Condoleeza Rize "noone envisioned of planes flying into buildings" is likely to be discarded. There were several forewarnings by different secret service, scenarios developed. It can be assumed she had in interested in exculpating herself.
Thanks for giving the link.

So then you will just datamine your quotes, but then handwave away all the rest of the eyewitnesses.

why are you so intellecutally bankrupt that you will not accept ALL of the testimony and only take datamined lines?

I'll FULLY accept ALL of the testimony from 9/11. Why won't you?


As for your bolded bit... provide the citation which shows that the USG KNEW the date, the location, or even the full extent of the plans from 9/11. There were rumblings all summer which were ignored. And the FBI had almost all of the information that had they been coordinating it would have allowed them to break it up. but they weren't.

[TruthersLie]

I am not "you twoofs". I am sure you are bright enough to write my name. At least I hope so.

How do you derive from the videos the actual decibels in order to make a comparison? Do you know what sound compression, normalization,etc are? Would be interesting to see.

ROFLMAO.
no sorry. That is too simple
PMSLMAO.

HOw do I derive from videos the actual dicebels? I don't need to, and neither does anyone else.

In the videos I posted, and the link to Gravy's fantastic World Trade Center not a controlled demolition you can see and HEAR what high explosives do.

850 lbs of TNT can be heard a mile and a half a way and it is SOOOOO loud they JUMP from the BANG, which we can hear on the video.

In Gravy's video (which I posted) you have people blocks away and they JUMP because you can HEAR the CD charges going off.

Find me ONE video from the morning of 9/11 which you can hear the CD charges going off. How about the one with the firemen at the tower when it starts collapsing? Or the one with the ABC reporter and the firemen? Or the inside of the tower when it started collapsing?

yfce_C8GzdE
nope, no series of LOUD BANGS that make folks jump...

How about these ones?
qLShZOvxVe4
nope, no series ofloud BANGS that make people jump...

(TRI, I"m sorry for this next one because I know what the trilling means)

How about this one?
CV0BVZG1j7E
nope, no seires of loud Bangs.... Just the rumble of the collapse.

[paulheinze]

Here is the picture of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQh9CcCjrrY

[paulheinze]

Oh no twoofie.

In this case I will not answer your questions or have any discussion with you. I would be wasting my time.

[Justin39640]

I love the Kinks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3gX47rHGg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo%2Egoogle%2Ecom%2Fvideosear ch%3Fq%3Dkinks%2Bwaterloo%2Bsunset%26hl%3Den%26emb %3D0%26aq%3D3%26oq%3Dkinks%2B&feature=player_embedded

But I don't see one either.

Lola Smith?

[WildCat]

Here is the picture of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQh9CcCjrrY
Paul, that's just smoke which looks more solid than it is because you're looking at a highly compresssed crap-quality video on youtube.

Now, what were you going to say about compression and normalizing? Do you even know what these terms mean and how they are applied?

[Justin39640]

Here is the picture of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQh9CcCjrrY

how do you know this is a kink and not just the outer wall beginning to break apart?

[Justin39640]

Paul, that's just smoke which looks more solid than it is because you're looking at a highly compresssed crap-quality video on youtube.

Now, what were you going to say about compression and normalizing? Do you even know what these terms mean and how they are applied?

that too
cameras play tricks
esp in crappy resolutions

david chandler has 2 brand new youtube embarrassments based on camera tricks and his inability to recognize them (rockets!!!! LMAO)

[Grizzly Bear]

how do you know this is a kink and not just the outer wall beginning to break apart?

The screen cap shows WTC2 for which there was a kink. This is a different angle (http://www.waarheid911.nl/wtc2collapse.jpg). It developed as the exterior of the top portion was beginning to break apart after the collapse onset. As mackey already mentioned though only WTC 2 had this feature, there were no such reports of this feature in WTC 1. NIST also briefly talks about it.

[WildCat]

how do you know this is a kink and not just the outer wall beginning to break apart?
I don't think the collapse had even started at this point. It looks liuke smoke to me. It's telling that rather than posting the actual video (which would show it's smoke) the truther decided to mislead by taking a screen capture of a highly compressed video and then made the claim that it's actually a kink in the tower.

Pretty much SOP for the liars and frauds who make up the "truth" movement.

[WildCat]

The screen cap shows WTC2 for which there was a kink. This is a different angle (http://www.waarheid911.nl/wtc2collapse.jpg). It developed as the exterior of the top portion was beginning to break apart after the collapse onset. As mackey already mentioned though only WTC 2 had this feature, there were no such reports of this feature in WTC 1. NIST also briefly talks about it.
I'm not sure that's what this shows though. But I could be mistaken, this screen capture is of such horrendous quality the towers look like a solid white block.

[triforcharity]

Trutherslie,

I don't mind you posting that video. Yes, that trilling noise is very heartbreaking, as it is indicating a firefighter who is not moving. That noise most likely saved many lives that morning. If we hadn't heard that noise, we wouldn't have been able to save any firefighters. So, its cool.

Paul,

Caan we please revisit this CD sounds again?? Why didn't THOUSANDS of people hear them?? Why didn't the videos that were shot on 9/11 catch them ontheir audio tracks?? Why didn't I hear them?? I was there, and didn't hear them.

[Justin39640]

I don't think the collapse had even started at this point. It looks liuke smoke to me. It's telling that rather than posting the actual video (which would show it's smoke) the truther decided to mislead by taking a screen capture of a highly compressed video and then made the claim that it's actually a kink in the tower.

Pretty much SOP for the liars and frauds who make up the "truth" movement.

i see in your other angle the kink he was talking about
hes talking from the left side of the building around the 105th floor not from the roof line down

now how can anybody look at that and think thats proof of a demo?
the building didnt collapse there and its already at quite an angle
at that point all bets are off (as far as staying true and not having kinks)

i also dont trust videos like the one paul posted cause its a video of stills

videos of stills from other videos are the most dishonest
its easier to misinterpret them or distort what they represent

[triforcharity]

I don't think the collapse had even started at this point. It looks liuke smoke to me. It's telling that rather than posting the actual video (which would show it's smoke) the truther decided to mislead by taking a screen capture of a highly compressed video and then made the claim that it's actually a kink in the tower.

Pretty much SOP for the liars and frauds who make up the "truth" movement.


I posted a link to it earlier. Plus, he has just been able to post links, so he is kinda innocent there. BUT, you are right, that is pretty much the MO of most truthers.

[sylvan8798]

What happened to SabreTruthTiger? He went to bed on Thursday and never came back...

[TexasJack]

What happened to SabreTruthTiger? He went to bed on Thursday and never came back...

I'm sure he's posted since then. ;)

[WildCat]

I posted a link to it earlier. Plus, he has just been able to post links, so he is kinda innocent there. BUT, you are right, that is pretty much the MO of most truthers.
No, this is from a separate video than the other one. And it's composed of still shots, not video.

[WildCat]

What happened to SabreTruthTiger? He went to bed on Thursday and never came back...
The NWO got to him of course. He was about to blow the cover off the whole thing!

[WildCat]

In this case I will not answer your questions or have any discussion with you. I would be wasting my time.

Paul, that's just smoke which looks more solid than it is because you're looking at a highly compresssed crap-quality video on youtube.

Now, what were you going to say about compression and normalizing? Do you even know what these terms mean and how they are applied?
Paul, you still there?

[TruthersLie]

In this case I will not answer your questions or have any discussion with you. I would be wasting my time.

Hahahahaha.

Run and hide twoofie. Run and hide.

You make BS claims, get called on them to provide citations and proof... and then you handwave it away.

Come on twoofie.

[triforcharity]

No, this is from a separate video than the other one. And it's composed of still shots, not video.


Gotcha. Thanks for that sir.

[TruthersLie]

In this case I will not answer your questions or have any discussion with you. I would be wasting my time.

Oh poor paully...

When you stop posting CRAP twoof stuff (which has been debunked repeatedly in numerous ways) I'll stop calling you twoofie.

How again do you have explosives when NO ONE heard them? Up to 100 tons of HE is what other twoofs say.

I have posted you to 850 lbs and 1000 lbs and they can be clearly heard over a mile away.. not only heard, but can cause the people to JUMP.

I have shown you 3 videos from the base of the towers with NO CD sounds.

where are they?

[TruthersLie]

In this case I will not answer your questions or have any discussion with you. I would be wasting my time.

Will you or will you not accept ALL of the testimony of the eyewitnesses to 9/11?

IF not, why?

I'm more than willing to accept ALL of the testimony.

[Justin39640]

Will you or will you not accept ALL of the testimony of the eyewitnesses to 9/11?

IF not, why?

I'm more than willing to accept ALL of the testimony.

i think releaseb... o... i mean paul blocked you lol

[R.Mackey]

Here is the picture of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQh9CcCjrrY


That's the south tower, WTC 2, not the north tower. Count the floors above the impact zone if you don't believe me. Damage on the corner is also a dead giveaway. And, if you look closely enough, you can see the North Tower still standing behind the "kinked" tower.

Looks like you were lied to by a Truther video. Not the first time that's happened.

ETA: Since some people seem to avoid actually reading the NIST report like vampires avoid garlic, I'll reproduce Figure 6-20 of NCSTAR1-3. This is the South Tower kink, annotated, seen from reverse angle.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_91934aa2b5fc0839c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17484)

[Justin39640]

That's the south tower, WTC 2, not the north tower. Count the floors above the impact zone if you don't believe me. Damage on the corner is also a dead giveaway. And, if you look closely enough, you can see the North Tower still standing behind the "kinked" tower.

Looks like you were lied to by a Truther video. Not the first time that's happened.

ETA: Since some people seem to avoid actually reading the NIST report like vampires avoid garlic, I'll reproduce Figure 6-20 of NCSTAR1-3. This is the South Tower kink, annotated, seen from reverse angle.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_91934aa2b5fc0839c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17484)

now seeing what is happening to the rest of the building at that point, would a kink like that be all that unexpected?

[R.Mackey]

Not unexpected at all. NIST explains the kink in WTC 2 as follows:

It was believed that this distortion was formed by the sideways shift of loads transmitted via the hat truss and rigid, beam-framed floors of floors 107 to 110... Examination of the right side of the image, after considerable image processing, shows that the NE corner of the building bent, but had no sharp discontinuity. Thus, the sharp kink had not propagated across the face of the building.

In other words, as the fire floors start to give way, the upper block rotates right as downward loads on the hat truss reach their maximum. The hat truss pulls inward on its outriggers, running to the perimeter, right as the perimeter tries to rotate outwards. That gives you flexure in the upper structure, causing the "kink." Not the least bit unexpected.

NIST has no comment on the kink in WTC 1, because there wasn't one. ;)

[HeyLeroy]

Please post your evidence for this.

Please post your evidence for this.

Please post your evidence for this.

Cutting charges alone would not, repeat NOT, be enough to sever the columns. The columns would need to be torch-cut almost all the way through in order for cutting charges to work properly.

Two thirds of the Towers' columns were around the outside of the buildings. Please explain how these were pre-weakened without anyone witnessing this.

Please explain how cutting charges could have been concealed on the outside of the Towers.

Please explain how miles of det-cord could have been concealed on the outside of the Towers.

Please post your evidence for this.

Please post your evidence for this.

I do. I haven't heard them in any of the recordings I've heard from 9/11/2001.

Can you provide a link to a recording where these explosions can be heard during the collapses of the Towers?

Indeed.

From the link you provided:

and

Oh, and

http://cdn.vidilife.com/image/2006/10/10/946639/1732168L.jpg

Bump for SabreTruthTiger.

[daws59]

Bump for SabreTruthTiger.
why?

[HeyLeroy]

I have questions for him/her, obviously. If you click on the little arrow after my name in the quote above, it'll take you to the original post.

[paulheinze]

That's the south tower, WTC 2, not the north tower. Count the floors above the impact zone if you don't believe me. Damage on the corner is also a dead giveaway. And, if you look closely enough, you can see the North Tower still standing behind the "kinked" tower.

Looks like you were lied to by a Truther video. Not the first time that's happened.

ETA: Since some people seem to avoid actually reading the NIST report like vampires avoid garlic, I'll reproduce Figure 6-20 of NCSTAR1-3. This is the South Tower kink, annotated, seen from reverse angle.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_91934aa2b5fc0839c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17484)

You are right. I just misunderstood the German voice. I listened to it again. He says it was the South Tower.

[HeyLeroy]

Hey, SabreTruthTiger, where'd you go? You left some questions unanswered:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5072921&postcount=1228

[HereticHulk]

Are NIST or the 9/11 commission in possession of any forensic or other physical evidence from the collapse that could be released if other parties requested them for independent verifications & testing?

[triforcharity]

Most likely, but highly doubtfull that they WOULD release them, and they are technically owned by Silverstein, and not the government.

IANAL, but I think that is what would happen. I could be wrong though.

[DGM]

Most likely, but highly doubtfull that they WOULD release them, and they are technically owned by Silverstein, and not the government.

IANAL, but I think that is what would happen. I could be wrong though.

Wouldn't that be the Port Authority for the towers? Just saying.

[triforcharity]

I thought Silverstein owned all of the WTC towers?? Didn't the PANYNJ turn over control to him?? I could be wrong.....

[Sam.I.Am]

He had a 99 year lease, the PA still owned the buildings and provided some services for them (such as security). Silverstein was more of a property manager who took over leasing and such.

[LashL]

I thought Silverstein owned all of the WTC towers?? Didn't the PANYNJ turn over control to him?? I could be wrong.....


As Sam.I.Am said, the PANYNJ owned the buildings (except for 7WTC). The PANYNJ also owns the land. Silverstein leased the 1, 2, 4 and 5 WTC buidlings from the PANYNJ, he owned the original 7WTC building, and owns the new 7WTC building.

[triforcharity]

I stand corrected.

[dafydd]

this is the second time on here where you guys just criticize spelling errors that mean nothing to avoid the issue being discussed. Says a lot.

The errors are always on the truther's side,and that says a lot about their mentality and intelligence.

[aggle-rithm]

He had a 99 year lease, the PA still owned the buildings and provided some services for them (such as security). Silverstein was more of a property manager who took over leasing and such.

Also, his lease specifically REQUIRED him to rebuild if the buildings were destroyed. Something to remember when questioning his zeal at trying to recover as much from the insurance companies as he could.

[aggle-rithm]

the PA still owned the buildings and provided some services for them (such as security).

But...I thought the Bush family was in charge of security!

I am SO disillusioned.