WTCs1,2 Visual Facts for What Happened, Audio/Visual Facts for What Didn't Happen

[BasqueArch]

(It Doesn't Matter Whether a One-Way Crush Down Is Possible, Or Whether the Floors Braced the Core)

Regarding WTCs1,2 Audio/Visual Facts
Hypotheses that contradict the visual facts are wrong.
Not all hypotheses that agree with the visual facts are right.
Restated: Where in conflict, the visual facts trump all hypotheses. You can argue about causes, but you can’t argue with facts.

“I pass with relief from the tossing sea of cause and theory to the firm ground of result and fact.” -Churchill

Visual Facts For What Happened: ONE. Perimeter columns gradually buckled and collapsed at the failed floors. TWO. Floor slabs subsequently collapsed inside the perimeter and core columns. THREE. Perimeter and core columns, not crushed nor exploded, subsequently toppled to the ground.

Audio/Visual Facts For What Didn’t Happen: ONE. No expected CD loud detonation sounds. TWO. No evidence for expected explosives/thermite damage to columns or spandrel plates. Evidence of large sections of connected, unexploded, unshattered toppled core and perimeter columns. THREE. CD explosives-ejected perimeter columns should have outdistanced the dust cloud behind them, they did not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visual Facts For What Happened:

ONE. Perimeter columns gradually buckled and collapsed at the failed floors.
The following visual evidence proves initial failure began with perimeter columns progressively buckling then collapsing. No explosives expulsion of structure. No CD loud detonation sounds.
(1) Pictures of progressive buckling WTC2 columns.
http://911stories.googlepages.com/ST1.jpg/ST1-full.jpg
(2) Video of WTC2 progressively buckling exterior columns then collapse from Trinity Church. No explosives expulsion of structure. No CD loud detonation sounds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8dX3foxozQ&feature=PlayList&p=7E8E71E897565F18&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=65
(3) Video of closeup collapsing WTC2 corner. No explosives expulsion of structure. No CD loud detonation sounds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR24kKaToio
(4) Closeup WTC1 collapse, no explosives expulsion of structure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGCFDoMmuA

TWO. Floor slabs subsequently collapsed inside the perimeter and core columns.
(1) Large sections of still attached exterior walls not crushed, nor explosively fragmented in little pieces, lying on ground. Peeled over, toppled in large sections. Floors failed first then column assemblies toppled. Columns not crushed or CD'd.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/columns.jpg
(2) WTC1 video of surviving core columns (roughly 60 stories at WTC1, 40 stories at WTC2). Floors swept past columns. Core columns not crushed, not exploded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5hBHOmK4MQ&feature=PlayList&p=20E3BC26DAA6F07F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=6
(3) WTC1 core exposed as floors collapse first, then columns. Core columns should have been CD'd at this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8wR9PQSPc&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI
(4) Pancaking floors overpressure expels dust and debris out of windows. No crushing of columns as floors collapse inside past the columns. Overpressure plumes continuously steady, not explosively large and then diminishing. If plumes were explosions, columns would have been ejected at the same time, but they remain in place until exterior columns topple.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2yKp39khqI&NR=1

THREE. Perimeter and core columns, not crushed nor exploded, subsequently toppled to the ground.
"The way the towers were really brought down was a series of 3-story controlled demolitions. Around 25 to 30 controlled demolitions every three stories.” -Tony Szamboti on Kevin Barrett's radio show, 10/30/07

The following visual facts prove that after the floors pancaked past, the perimeter columns (36 foot long, 10 foot wide ,three column, three story bolted at base plates ) and core columns toppled.
(1) Pictures of large connected sections of exterior columns, not exploded, spandrels undamaged.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/columns.jpg
(2) WTC columns impaled in Bankers Trust building; no damage to WTC columns or spandrels from explosives. Columns toppled.
http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/normal_BTflyingcolumns.jpg
(3) Falling dust clouds, perimeter column sections are seen upright, not crushed, not exploded - then toppling. First video at 36 - 39 seconds, second video at 14 - 17 seconds, lower right offcenter . These videos show a number of critical facts. The top columns/floors block fell without loading/crushing the perimeter columns directly below. The floors first collapsed past the perimeter columns,the columns remained standing. The columns were not explosively expelled. The columns toppled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEAq6Qw-1zE&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGCFDoMmuA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Audio/Visual Facts For What Didn’t Happen:

ONE - No expected CD loud detonation sounds
(1) Inside WTC1 lobby as WTC2 collapses 100 feet away. No CD loud detonation sounds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NzSxSUb0Kk&feature=PlayList&p=03FA6AF9F9B0AAD3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=40
(2) Victim taped call to 911 , 5 minutes before and during collapse of WTC2. No explosives sound.

TWO. No evidence for expected explosives/thermite damage to columns or spandrel plates. Evidence of large sections of connected, unexploded, unshattered toppled core and perimeter columns.
For explosives/thermite to have been used in the CD of the exterior columns, only two hidden places were available: (1)The plenum space between the lay-in ceiling tile directly under the floor trusses and the floor deck above. Explosive/thermite charges would be visible within this plenum, and (2) the hand access holes at the base/head locations of the columns.
(1) Picture of floors and spandrel plate at this location. Note access construction holes for bolting ends of columns.
http://www.911hoax.com/911Blogger_1-4_perimeter-column.jpg
(2) The hand access holes provided at the head and base of each 36 foot column to install the columns four connecting bolts. Picture of holes at 6 feet above the floor below, 36 feet oc. Placement of explosives/thermite inside of columns.
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/pjs501/wtcpanelbolts.jpg
http://images.quickblogcast.com/81199-71081/2_7_exterior_wall.jpg
(3) WTC2 columns impaled in Bankers Trust building; no CD damage to WTC2 columns bases or spandrels from explosives/thermite. Columns toppled.
http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/normal_BTflyingcolumns.jpg
(4) Picture of large whole, unshattered columns assemblies from WTC1 wall toppled at Winter Garden. Columns assemblies topped.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/columns.jpg
(5) From the two pictures above we conclude the following:
No evidence of explosives/thermite damage/decapitation above the column ends, undamaged ends with bolt holes visible. No explosives damage to spandrel plates. Large sections of toppled attached column assemblies prove column assemblies not shattered by CD into small pieces, three stories tall.

THREE. CD explosives-ejected perimeter columns should have outdistanced the dust cloud behind them, they did not.
“Niels Harrit: “We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.”
Russia Today: “When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean?”
Niels Harrit: “Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!”
http://www.russiatoday.com/Best_Videos/2009-07-09/Did_nano-thermite_take_down_the_WTC.html/print
(1) Since we know from the above visual evidence that explosives/thermite were not placed inside the columns at the hand access holes or near the spandrel plates, the purported explosives could only have been placed in the ceiling lay-in tile plenum offset from the face of the columns a sufficient distance (and still discoverable) and with the necessarily large enough quantity of explosives to have explosively propelled the columns horizontally hundreds of feet.
“ Girders [sic] from the North Tower of the World Trade Center weighing about four tons each were found in the Winter Garden 600 feet away after the towers collapsed. How fast must they have been thrown to land that far away … The girders [sic] were blown out … by explosive charges that were set in the building ahead of time. … You might try pondering how four ton girders [sic] ended up 600 feet from the base of the World Trade Center.” – David Chandler video below.
Here is the answer - large sections of attached, toppled column assemblies at Winter Garden that David Chandler claims below were exploded 600 feet distant are seen instead wholly attached and toppled onto the ground reaching the Winter Garden.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/columns.jpg
(2) Proximity and relative height of WTC1 to WTC7 (in picture directly to the left of WTC1) and Winter Garden.(in picture directly below WTC1)
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc1heli.jpg
(3) From this video of WTC1 stop it two seconds after failure (at 33sec). The plumes on the right side are about 60 feet from the building. Stop the video two seconds later (at 35 sec). The plumes are about 120 feet from the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVDaAufKnLc
(4) David Chandler calculates that at this failed floor WTC1 (96th floor), the explosive velocity of the columns propelled 600 feet horizontally onto the Winter Garden would be about 50 mph. At two seconds after failure, this would put the exploded columns at 73 fps x 2 seconds = 146 feet away from the building, outdistancing the dust plume (60 feet) and should have been visible in the video. They are not. At four seconds after failure, this would put the exploded columns at 73 fps x 4 seconds = 292 feet away from the building, outdistancing the dust plume (120 feet) and should have been visible in videos. They are not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang
(5) Since the expelled columns ahead of the dust plume are not visible, the columns could not have reached 600 feet by the use of large explosive charges in the ceiling plenum, or elsewhere for that matter, they reached 600 feet by toppling, David Chandler, Tony Szamboti, et al CTs are wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4
"If you don't like these conclusions you can reject the theories, but you can't reject the facts." -David Chandler.

Conclusion:
All the visual facts confirm the gravity collapse of the Towers.
All the visual facts refute the use of explosives/thermite in the collapse of the Towers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't reason someone out of something he was never reasoned into. - Swift

[newton3376]

Some of the links seem to be either broken or removed.....

[alienentity]

Way to go! Just had a brief look at this, but I think it's very valuable.

Two opposable digits up!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704a85a3dca6f8c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17269)

[MikeW]

Good work, but you've copied and pasted a link, so it's using the abbreviated version in a couple of places: "http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/al...ingcolumns.jpg"

[BasqueArch]

Good work, but you've copied and pasted a link, so it's using the abbreviated version in a couple of places: "http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/al...ingcolumns.jpg"

Thanks Mike and Newton. I found 4 broken links, will revise tomorrow and ask moderator to change them.

[newton3376]

Thanks Mike and Newton. I found 4 broken links, will revise tomorrow and ask moderator to change them.

I forgot to add....

Good work!

[bio]

When is an explosive loud enough to be caused by explosives?

Many people witnessed explosions, and I wonder, how you can exclude, that they were caused by explosives.

[TruthersLie]

When is an explosive loud enough to be caused by explosives?

Many people witnessed explosions, and I wonder, how you can exclude, that they were caused by explosives.

Just so Gravy won't have to school you
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#12m50s**

thank you for playing.

as for the eyewitnesses datamined quotes.... are you going to try to play that cannard? Please do. pretty please.

[bill smith]

Just so Gravy won't have to school you
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#12m50s**

thank you for playing.

as for the eyewitnesses datamined quotes.... are you going to try to play that cannard? Please do. pretty please.

That's the first time I watched one of Gravy's videos.Very well made I must say.

[alienentity]

That's the first time I watched one of Gravy's videos.Very well made I must say.

There's a first time for everything. Try thinking, for a change. You might find it enlightening.

[bill smith]

There's a first time for everything. Try thinking, for a change. You might find it enlightening.

Not quite as well made as your videos AE but lose. What software do you use ?

[alienentity]

When is an explosive loud enough to be caused by explosives?

Many people witnessed explosions, and I wonder, how you can exclude, that they were caused by explosives.

When it's like this:

79sJ1bMR6VQ

and not like this:

O-WZpXiEKAo

And this is what real squibs look like. Hard to miss really...



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/304704a85ebeb5622c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17277)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/304704a85ebf6dd642.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17278)

[Dave Rogers]

When is an explosive loud enough to be caused by explosives?

Calm down, and try to type more slowly. You mean "when is an explosion more likely...".

Many people witnessed explosions, and I wonder, how you can exclude, that they were caused by explosives.

We can exclude the possibility of explosives having initiated the collapse because there was no sufficiently loud explosion immediately before initiation.

We can exclude the possibility of explosives on the perimeter columns having propagated the collapse because no explosions were seen as the perimeter columns collapsed.

We can exclude the possibility of explosives on the core columns having propagated the collapse because the core columns survived the collapse of the floors and the perimeter columns for a few seconds.

We can exclude the possibility of explosives in the floor trusses having propagated the collapse because this would have led to large sections of the perimeter columns toppling intact, rather than breaking into three-storey sections at the bolt connections.

Therefore, while we may not be able to rule out explosives, we can rule out the possibility that explosives were in any way responsible for the collapses.

Dave

[bio]

(...)

We can exclude the possibility of explosives having initiated the collapse because there was no sufficiently loud explosion immediately before initiation.

What is sufficiently?

We can exclude the possibility of explosives on the perimeter columns having propagated the collapse because no explosions were seen as the perimeter columns collapsed.

We can exclude the possibility of explosives on the core columns having propagated the collapse because core columns survived the collapse of the floors and the perimeter columns for a few seconds.

as I am informed, not all core columns survived the collapse a few seconds. The stronger, outer core columns failed.

(...)

Dave

my respond stands under your text in red.

[UNLoVedRebel]

When is an explosive loud enough to be caused by explosives?

Many people witnessed explosions, and I wonder, how you can exclude, that they were caused by explosives.

That's not the proper question to ask. The proper question to ask is: "How loud would an explosion have to be to cut a steel cut box column?" There's only a few explosives in the world that could cut a steel column (after it's been "pre-burned"). RDX, HMX are the most commonly used explosives--a little more powerful than TNT. For simplicity, let's assume TNT.
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/dB.jpg

Watch how even RDX can't cut a steel piece unless it is properly shaped.

LudNqf56AFo&feature=channel_page

[bio]

That's not the proper question to ask. The proper question to ask is: "How loud would an explosion have to be to cut a steel cut box column?" There's only a few explosives in the world that could cut a steel column (after it's been "pre-burned"). RDX, HMX are the most commonly used explosives--a little more powerful than TNT. For simplicity, let's assume TNT.
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/dB.jpg

Watch how even RDX can't cut a steel piece unless it is properly shaped.

LudNqf56AFo&feature=channel_page


There are no other explosives? Nano-Thermite?

[UNLoVedRebel]

There are no other explosives? Nano-Thermite?
Nope. Not in reality.

[Dave Rogers]

my respond stands under your text in red.

Sufficiently = 120dB or greater - assume 130dB to destroy a single core column, assume a possible 10dB damping (which is more than has ever been achieved). This is close to the threshold for permanent hearing damage. Nothing within a few orders of magnitude of this intensity was heard. This is not a subtle point; it's as much in question as whether there's an elephant on your keyboard. It would be impossible to miss.

Core columns: "As I am informed"? Check your sources, then you'll have something to talk about. Based on the absence of sufficiently loud explosions, it's moot anyway.

Dave

[alienentity]

There are no other explosives? Nano-Thermite?

Have you been keeping up with the latest bleating of Niels Harrit? It doesn't appear that way.

He is now hypothesizing tons and tons of conventional explosives as well as nanothermite.

And Steven Jones is also openly speculating that the nanothermite might only have been used to initiate conventional explosive charges.

Even THEY are backing off nanothermite as the magic bullet.....

You really ought to keep more in the loop with your mentors.

ps Nice job ignoring all the evidence against your myths. Classic denial.

[alienentity]

bio - you continue to dance around the issues, kind of like a fly looking for a place to land on a hot skillet - if you ever do decide to stop fluttering about, it's game over for you.

Nanothermite, as proposed by Jones et al. has not actually been tested by them. They are merely extrapolating from some papers presented at research conferences, but haven't actually obtained any legitimate samples.
What they're doing is fancy speculation and wishful thinking.

But let's say, just for argument's sake, that we have some nanothermite, and we create a shaped demolition charge with it. (this has never been documented, btw) When it explodes, with great force, do you suppose it makes a sound similar to conventional explosives? Remember it's supposed to have even greater energy release than conventionals......

Turning to WTC7, where column 79 failed first, directly below the East Mechanical Penthouse: Truthers love to claim that this was done by explosive CD. OK, then just as the column was destroyed by a cutting charge, there would have been an enormous explosion - this is not negotiable, it is based on the actual requirements.
How do we know this? Well, the professional demolition industry HAS to know these things, that's their job. It was this industry and this expertise that was consulted by NIST to determine the necessary conditions.

By comparison,have you, even once, seen a demolitions expert as one of the authors of a paper by Jones, Harrit, Kevin Ryan, David Chandler, Richard Gage, Jim Fetzer, Frank Legge, or anyone else?

They avoid such experts like the plague, since they know already that these people are not going to play along with these vague theories - people like yourself can be easily persuaded by such charlatans however, since you also share a common mistrust of people who actually know what they're talking about.

Competent analysis requires a large detonation producing a sound pressure of 130db for building 7. Go look at the videos above, and try to find a giant explosion like that immediately preceding the PH collapse.
It isn't there. Explosives were categorically NOT used. It's not possible given the absence of detonation sounds.

CD is a failed theory here.

[Heiwa]

(It Doesn't Matter Whether a One-Way Crush Down Is Possible, Or Whether the Floors Braced the Core)

Conclusion:
All the visual facts confirm the gravity collapse of the Towers.
All the visual facts refute the use of explosives/thermite in the collapse of the Towers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't reason someone out of something he was never reasoned into. - Swift

I have a question: What on earth is a gravity collapse?

I have an observation: If you drop an object on another object, one result is a big BANG (unless the objects are cotton or similar).

[stateofgrace]

I have a question: What on earth is a gravity collapse?

I have an observation: If you drop an object on another object, one result is a big BANG (unless the objects are cotton or similar).

I have a question for you, what happens when the weight of thirteen floors falls on one suspended floor ?

I also have an observation, you continue to post off topic, when are you going to post on topic, address the OP and stop derailing threads ?

[alienentity]

<snip>

I have an observation: If you drop an object on another object, one result is a big BANG (unless the objects are cotton or similar).

Gotcha! In a classic controlled demolition (you can find them on youtube) the loud explosions are immediately preceding the collapse/implosion. Very easy (even for a marine architect) to hear, and quite unique.

But as the building then implodes, there are no more loud explosions, just rumbling sounds. That's the difference - When the bottom of part C is dropped onto the top of part A, there is no big BANG! It is clearly just a gravitational collapse sequence, without explosives.
When the floor system of A collides with the floor system of the next floor (part of C!) it carries more than enough momentum to destroy that floor, which then destroys the next floor, using gravity to do the work!!

Controlled demolitions also rely on gravity to do most of the work. That's why we know that none of the WTC buildings were destroyed by that method, because of the lack of demolition explosions just before the collapse initiation.

[Heiwa]

Gotcha! In a classic controlled demolition (you can find them on youtube) the loud explosions are immediately preceding the collapse/implosion. Very easy (even for a marine architect) to hear, and quite unique.

But as the building then implodes, there are no more loud explosions, just rumbling sounds. That's the difference -

Just 'rumbling sound' when you rip steel elements apart??

I agree that in classic controlled demolition you start with EXPLOSIVES down below, BANG, BANG, BANG, etc, and WTC 1 was clearly not such an event. WTC 1 is supposed to be a one-way crush down by gravity - upper part crushing down lower part producing a rumbling sound - by gravity only! Unheard of and never seen before/after 911. Actually physically impossible as shown in other threads at JREF and on the Internet. And it seems a lot of people incl. NYFD staff heard BANG, BANG, BANGS when WTC 1 and 2 were destroyed.

[alienentity]

Just 'rumbling sound' when you rip steel elements apart??

I agree that in classic controlled demolition you start with EXPLOSIVES down below, BANG, BANG, BANG, etc, and WTC 1 was clearly not such an event. WTC 1 is supposed to be a one-way crush down by gravity - upper part crushing down lower part producing a rumbling sound - by gravity only! Unheard of and never seen before/after 911. Actually physically impossible as shown in other threads at JREF and on the Internet. And it seems a lot of people incl. NYFD staff heard BANG, BANG, BANGS when WTC 1 and 2 were destroyed.

WTC 1 isn't 'supposed' to be anything at all. It was just a plane impact/fire induced collapse, due to circumstances that you correctly state have never been seen before or since.

You seem surprised that a unique event wouldn't be like anything else. Well, duh. No other 110 story steelframe buildings had ever been hit by giant jets traveling at over 400 mph.

Clearly it wasn't physically impossible for the collapse to happen due to those circumstances, because it actually happened right in front of the world, without explosive demolition.

And yes, there were loud sounds, but as you can hear on the audio, no explosive detonations consistent with controlled demolition.

Only the most hardcore paranoiacs and dissemblers insist that it was controlled demolition. Everyone else accepts reality the way it is, and has moved on already.

[alienentity]

You know what's impossible Heiwa? Trying to deny a causal relationship between plane impacts, fires and the collapses.

Stick to marine architecture and you'll be fine. You're way out of your depth with this subject.

[BigAl]

Just 'rumbling sound' when you rip steel elements apart??

Essentially no structural steel was "ripped apart". What broke, broke at the joints, many of which were bolts. . The " pop pop pop" reported by many witnesses is consistant with rows of bolts giving way.

I agree that in classic controlled demolition you start with EXPLOSIVES down below, BANG, BANG, BANG, etc, and WTC 1 was clearly not such an event. WTC 1 is supposed to be a one-way crush down by gravity - upper part crushing down lower part producing a rumbling sound - by gravity only! Unheard of and never seen before/after 911.

I suppose Truth sites are not big on quoting architect Bob Shelton who was on the 56th floor on the morning of 9/11. He heard the same noises you cherry-pick yet he knew he was hearing a building in the process of collapsing.

On the 56th floor, an architect believes the building was failing
structurally. Architect Bob Shelton had his foot in a cast; he'd broken it falling off a curb two weeks ago. He heard the explosion of the first plane hitting the north tower from his 56th-floor office in the south tower. As he made his way down the stairwell, his building came under attack as well. "You could hear the building cracking. It sounded like when you have a bunch of spaghetti, and you break it in half to boil it." Shelton knew that what he was hearing was bad. "It was structural failure," Shelton says. "Once a building like that is off center, that's it."

http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande


So what? WTC was unlike any other structure in the world.


In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when comparred to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

Page 310, Report From Ground Zero;

http://snurl.com/j54ud [books_google_com]

Who is Vincent Dunn?
http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn

[Justin39640]

Just 'rumbling sound' when you rip steel elements apart??

I agree that in classic controlled demolition you start with EXPLOSIVES down below, BANG, BANG, BANG, etc, and WTC 1 was clearly not such an event. WTC 1 is supposed to be a one-way crush down by gravity - upper part crushing down lower part producing a rumbling sound - by gravity only! Unheard of and never seen before/after 911. Actually physically impossible as shown in other threads at JREF and on the Internet. And it seems a lot of people incl. NYFD staff heard BANG, BANG, BANGS when WTC 1 and 2 were destroyed.

again you dont understand "new yorker" and our use of similes
he was describing what he saw not what he heard
the "booms" he said were for emphasis along with his hand gestures (again english is very tough when youre listening to new yorkers decimate the language, as i do on a daily basis)

and its FDNY, please get it right

[BasqueArch]

Just 'rumbling sound' when you rip steel elements apart??

I agree that in classic controlled demolition you start with EXPLOSIVES down below, BANG, BANG, BANG, etc, and WTC 1 was clearly not such an event. WTC 1 is supposed to be a one-way crush down by gravity - upper part crushing down lower part producing a rumbling sound - by gravity only! Unheard of and never seen before/after 911. Actually physically impossible as shown in other threads at JREF and on the Internet. And it seems a lot of people incl. NYFD staff heard BANG, BANG, BANGS when WTC 1 and 2 were destroyed.

Out of all the visual/audio facts provided, this is all that you can come up with? That one opinion can disprove all the many facts?

Is this the best you got?

It doesn't matter if a one-way crush down is possible or not, whether the floors braced the core columns or not, whether the fire temperatures were hot enough, whether ...

Your hypothesis is contradicted by the visual facts and is therefore wrong.
You still don't understand , the visual facts prove your hypothesis wrong.
And again -No amount of exclamation points disprove the visual facts.
Yet understanding you remain -You cannot argue away the visual facts by what you believe is possible or impossible.
One more time - you're arguing that your hypothesis is true and the contradicting audio/visual facts false.

Because you cannot read good and have inadequate comprehension:

Abstract:
(from OP)
Regarding WTCs1,2 Audio/Visual Facts

Hypotheses that contradict the visual facts are wrong.
Not all hypotheses that agree with the visual facts are right.
Restated: Where in conflict, the visual facts trump all hypotheses. You can argue about causes, but you can’t argue with facts.

“I pass with relief from the tossing sea of cause and theory to the firm ground of result and fact.” -Churchill

Visual Facts For What Happened: ONE. Perimeter columns gradually buckled and collapsed at the failed floors. TWO. Floor slabs subsequently collapsed inside the perimeter and core columns. THREE. Perimeter and core columns, not crushed nor exploded, subsequently toppled to the ground.

Audio/Visual Facts For What Didn’t Happen: ONE. No expected CD loud detonation sounds. TWO. No evidence for expected explosives/thermite damage to columns or spandrel plates. Evidence of large sections of connected, unexploded, unshattered toppled core and perimeter columns. THREE. CD explosives-ejected perimeter columns should have outdistanced the dust cloud behind them, they did not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't reason someone out of something he was never reasoned into. - Swift

The audio/visual facts are sufficient to know what happened , what didn't happen and are indisputable. The mechanism and explanation for the causes are more complex, can be disputed, but cannot trump the visual facts.
The above OP facts stand and your contrary opinion is false and worthless.

[stateofgrace]

Just 'rumbling sound' when you rip steel elements apart??

I agree that in classic controlled demolition you start with EXPLOSIVES down below, BANG, BANG, BANG, etc, and WTC 1 was clearly not such an event. WTC 1 is supposed to be a one-way crush down by gravity - upper part crushing down lower part producing a rumbling sound - by gravity only! Unheard of and never seen before/after 911. Actually physically impossible as shown in other threads at JREF and on the Internet. And it seems a lot of people incl. NYFD staff heard BANG, BANG, BANGS when WTC 1 and 2 were destroyed.

If I was a gullible fool I would take you at your word and not bother reading the fire fighters statements. But since I am not a gullible fool I have read their statements and not one of them supports your insane theories. Not one fire-fighter who was there has stepped forward in support of your CD theory.

I find it sad that you resort to such pathetic and transparent cherry picking of those that were there to try and support your position. A position that as been shown to be impossibly false right from the start. I can only guess that you are so desperate for attention now, that any means justify the ends. And this is the sum total of your contribution to the understanding of the events of Sept 11th, zero. Your only contribution is to drive your own agenda forward, disregard all engineering principles and pour scorn on those who make an effort to understand this dreadful event or even take the time to show you where you are mistaken.

I could go on, but I will not, as I have no desire to give you the smug satisfaction of getting me suspended or even banned for calling you what you are. If you are the sum total of the efforts of the truth movement, if you are deemed one of the critical thinkers of this movement then it is little wonder you have achieved zero in almost eight years.

Sorry for the derail and apologies BasqueArch, this will be my last reply to this member in this thread.

[BasqueArch]

Here are the 4 fixed broken links from the OP :


TWO. No evidence for expected explosives/thermite damage to columns or spandrel plates. Evidence of large sections of connected, unexploded, unshattered toppled core and perimeter columns.
For explosives/thermite to have been used in the CD of the exterior columns, only two hidden places were available: (1)The plenum space between the lay-in ceiling tile directly under the floor trusses and the floor deck above. Explosive/thermite charges would be visible within this plenum, and (2) the hand access holes at the base/head locations of the columns.
(1) Picture of floors and spandrel plate at this location. Note access construction holes for bolting ends of columns.
http://www.911hoax.com/911Blogger_1-4_perimeter-column.jpg
(2) The hand access holes provided at the head and base of each 36 foot column to install the columns four connecting bolts. Picture of holes at 6 feet above the floor below, 36 feet oc. Placement of explosives/thermite inside of columns.
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/pjs501/wtcpanelbolts.jpg
http://images.quickblogcast.com/81199-71081/2_7_exterior_wall.jpg
(3) WTC2 columns impaled in Bankers Trust building; no CD damage to WTC2 columns bases or spandrels from explosives/thermite. Columns toppled.
http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/normal_BTflyingcolumns.jpg[/QUOTE]

[BasqueArch]

Stateofgrace, no derail at all, my exact opinions. Thank you for saving me the typing.

[atavisms]

Conclusion:
All the visual facts confirm the gravity collapse of the Towers.
All the visual facts refute the use of explosives/thermite in the collapse of the Towers.

In your dreams maybe.
None of that explains the facts at the scene.
Gravity didnt blew up the contents of the towers 800 feet radially and pulverize the contents so thoroughly that of the roughly 2600 people in the towers, 1100 are completely unaccounted for. (and then this 'gravity' left the basements intact. uhuh.


GRAVITY AT WORK:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174ab58ab15b041.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17614)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abd5befe8ed2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17675)

[atavisms]

Not one fire-fighter who was there has stepped forward in support of your CD theory.



It's not her (or his) theory. It is simply the best fitting hypothesis to explain observed events and it (CD) is supported by a mountain of highly compelling evidence. (obviously dismissed or not encountered by you)

Most damning of course is the fact that the towers were completely shredded in a cacophony of powerful explosions over a 15 - 17 second period. Apparently this kept most people from thinking it was an explosion/
In fact it was many thousands of explosions. (*not all, there is an overwhelming amount of witness testimony of explosions)

and WTC7 fell into its footprint. Neatly

The explosions are clear as day in many videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toUdpeI04pM


Not one fire-fighter who was there has stepped forward in support of your CD theory.


wrong again, http://firefightersfor911truth.org


It is one thing to demonize and dismiss people with a few sharp but simple words. It is more difficult to explain the facts as we know them and put forth a hypothesis that makes sense. That is what we are hoping for.

Gravity aint it!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174ab58ab15b041.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17614)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abd5befe8ed2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17675)

[stateofgrace]

wrong again, http://firefightersfor911truth.org

It is one thing to demonize and dismiss people with a few sharp but simple words. It is more difficult to explain the facts as we know them and put forth a hypothesis that makes sense. That is what we are hoping for.



WRONG. Read what I wrote.

Not one fire-fighter who was there has stepped forward in support of your CD theory.


The person that runs the site you just linked was not there. Where are the fire fighter who were there that support you ?
Not those who's statements you cherry pick but actual fire fighters who were there and support the CD theory.

ETA .There was a thread about this site not so long ago and what real fire fighters thought about it, I would link it but sorry I can't find it just now.

[GlennB]

and WTC7 fell into its footprint. Neatly



Then why did it smash into neighbouring buildings?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/verizondamagedetail.jpg

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc30wbroadwaydamagefroju6.jpg

[atavisms]

Not one fire-fighter who was there has stepped forward in support of your CD theory.


how would you know that? Ive spoken to many NYC firefighters, and I can assure you you're dead wrong! But why would you believe me You don't believe your own eyes.

here's a clip shows u'r wrong
In fact, controlled demolition was many people's first reaction./ (especially w/re WTC7) What you want them to join infowars? ("Come out")
Please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow

even a cursory look at the Oral Histories show many examples of people thinking explosives were involved at the time.
Others that say explosives, and then qualify it afterwords
(i.e. I thought there were explosions going off but was later 'proven' it was a collapse) -he never offers what the 'proof' is. (the official story)
Explosives is what the evidence shows.


"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. I went inside and told everybody that the other building or there was an explosion occurring up
there and I said I think we have another major explosion..."

"As I just got in under the entrance there, I got just a little ways back and it was just like -- you hear the noise, a boom, and then a blast of air."

"we started to hear the second roar. That was the north tower now coming down. I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building."

There are 117 others like this in the group of 500 interviews.



"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth—persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
—John F. Kennedy

"Those who have suggested 9/11 was an inside job have a much stronger case than those who are trying to support the official narrative of the 19 hijackers."
- Professor Graeme MacQueen
Founding Director, Centre for Peace Studies
McMaster University

[atavisms]

Then why did it smash into neighbouring buildings?

it didn't.
What building exactly do you think it smashed into?
It sat between the Post Office and Verizon -where the shiny new one stands today.

http://wtc7.net/videos.html

http://wtc7.net/rubblepile.html

best.

[Scott Sommers]

WRONG. Read what I wrote.
The person that runs the site you just linked was not there. Where are the fire fighter who were there that support you ?
Not those who's statements you cherry pick but actual fire fighters who were there and support the CD theory.

ETA .There was a thread about this site not so long ago and what real fire fighters thought about it, I would link it but sorry I can't find it just now.

But it's more than this. If it's all so obvious, why is still a pack of anonymous folk from the 911 skeptics community posting on this? The evidence for thermite is so intriguing? Then why haven't the thermite experts from Texas Tech's Combustion Lab taken over the call from Steve and Alex Jones (no relationship)? Why are our JREFF friends still anonymous nobodies instead of the leading authorities on the demolition of large buildings? Why is it that 911 Truth demonstrations only attract a couple of dozen people, at best? Why is that there are no major personalities - political, or otherwise - except the well-known fornicator Charlie Sheen, who publically support 911 skepticism?

It's really pretty straight forward. Things are the way they're supposed to be. Neo and Morpheus were characters in a movie. Kids off the street do not know more about building demolition than people who do it for a living. Scientists with doctorates understand complex chemical reactions better than Youtube videos. People who think the world is run differently belong to labelled categories. Some of them are witches. Some of them are astrologers. Others are better described by names banned on the JREFF.

[Scott Sommers]

how would you know that? Ive spoken to many NYC firefighters, and I can assure you you're dead wrong! But why would you believe me You don't believe your own eyes.

here's a clip shows u'r wrong
In fact, controlled demolition was many people's first reaction./ (especially w/re WTC7) What you want them to join infowars? ("Come out")
Please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow

even a cursory look at the Oral Histories show many examples of people thinking explosives were involved at the time.
Others that say explosives, and then qualify it afterwords
(i.e. I thought there were explosions going off but was later 'proven' it was a collapse) -he never offers what the 'proof' is. (the official story)
Explosives is what the evidence shows.


"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. I went inside and told everybody that the other building or there was an explosion occurring up
there and I said I think we have another major explosion..."

"As I just got in under the entrance there, I got just a little ways back and it was just like -- you hear the noise, a boom, and then a blast of air."

"we started to hear the second roar. That was the north tower now coming down. I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building."

There are 117 others like this in the group of 500 interviews.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth—persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
—John F. Kennedy

"Those who have suggested 9/11 was an inside job have a much stronger case than those who are trying to support the official narrative of the 19 hijackers."
- Professor Graeme MacQueen
Founding Director, Centre for Peace Studies
McMaster University

This is de ja vu I've heard all this before. These are all very, very, very old arguments. I'm sorry, but I personally am not going to take time from the rest of my life to deal with all of them. I would rather eat soap than do that. It is interesting though, that Professor MacQueen, whom you cite as having something meaningful to say, no longer speaks about 911. This might be because, as a profesor of religious studies, he has absolutley no technical or scientific experience at all. I also once posted a great quote of his where he states that firefighters have shown no interest at all in theories of controlled demolition on 911. I posted it up here already, so you can find it for yourself.

Why do you think that tired old arguments about how 'experts' really do believe in controlled demolition would fly here?

[Reactor drone]

it didn't.
What building exactly do you think it smashed into?
It sat between the Post Office and Verizon -where the shiny new one stands today.


http://wtc7.net/rubblepile.html

best.

Take a look at that picture.See the big chunk that's missing from the roof of the building at the bottom of the photo?

That would be one of the buildings it hit.

[GlennB]

it didn't.
What building exactly do you think it smashed into?


Ummm.. I just posted 2 photos of 30 W.Broadway (Fiterman Hall) and the Verizon after being hit by WTC7 and you claim it didn't ?
What, are they photoshopped?

[stateofgrace]

how would you know that? Ive spoken to many NYC firefighters, and I can assure you you're dead wrong! But why would you believe me You don't believe your own eyes.

<snip> inane rambling <snip>


I know and you know that not a single fire fighter that was there on that dreadful day supports your silly CD theory. I know and so do you that all you have is cherry picking of statements that you twist in order to support your evidence free rubbish. I know also that you will not offer up a shred of evidence to back up your claim that you have spoken to fire fighters let alone that they agree with you. How do I know this? Because guys like you have been spouting the same rubbish for years now and guess what? Guys like you will continue to buy into it and wonder why guys like me don't buy into it.

Want to know what else I know? I know that no matter what anybody says to you here or anywhere you will still buy into this rubbish, you will continue to accuse innocent people of mass murder, all the while looking for ways to excuse those that committed this wicked act. I also now I have better things to do with my time than address your evidence free claims, as do many others, but I guess you already figured this out too.

[kookbreaker]

how would you know that? Ive spoken to many NYC firefighters, and I can assure you you're dead wrong!

I can assure you that you are lying about this. You have not spoken to a single FDNY firefighter who was there, you just hid in your basement and cherry picked quotes from the usual CT sites and convinced yourself that it was the same as talking to firefighters.

Trouble for you is: a) We have members here who have actually talked with lots and lots of members of the FDNY. b) Heck, we even have a member who was with the FDNY on that day.

I would advise you to retract this lie or be prepared to support it with more than some CT website junk.

[TruthersLie]

There are no other explosives? Nano-Thermite?

provide a citation, a video or anything showing that thermite, thermate or nanothermite can explode through steel columns w/out making a sound.

now we move into the realm of "they have tech we can't possibly imagine." Otherwise known as the Magic fallacy.

Oh there are LOTS of other explosives... but none work ast good as RDX, HE, or TNT.

Of course 1000 lbs of TNT could be heard a mile away, and even the schrapnel created could be heard a mile away.

60lbs of HE going off at a bridge demolitions caused everyone watching from 1000 feet away to jump hard from the explosions...

Please show us another explosive which can cut steel beams anywhere near the size of the beams of the towers. I'll wait for it.

[TruthersLie]

how would you know that? Ive spoken to many NYC firefighters, and I can assure you you're dead wrong! But why would you believe me You don't believe your own eyes.

Oral History datamining


Oh poor twoof. It would really help if you actually READ FOR COMPRHENSION on ALL of those datamined quotes. Go back and read them in their full context. NONE of them support your bs ideas. (try it, feel free)

There are NO videos of a rapid fires series of concussive blasts right before ANY of the buildings fell.

And I can't believe you tried to pass off the firemen at the phone booth.. which was taken at 1030ish after the first tower collapsed. It is rather amazing.

Now lets do real science, ok?
first we form a hypothesis: The collapses were controlled demoltions.
now we examine the data. Did the buildings fall down? yes. Were there explosions? Not right before the buildings collapsed. But yes there were some explosions after the collapse of the towers, but HOURS before the collapse of wtc7.

Ok. If explosives then
1. we should find dozens of videos of the collapse where we can hear them. do we? No. Not one of right before the collapse has explosions you can hear.
2. debris. There should be literally miles of det cord, blasting caps, etc. Was any recovered? no.
3. Lets look at the explosions. Before we can claim it is ANYTHING, we need to eliminate any possible confounds. Can we? how many things explode in fires and building collapses? I can think of over 20 things which explode in fires, and all of them are present in the towers. Can we eliminate ANY of them? No we cannot. Therefore we cannot claim there were explosives.
4. Any explosives capable of throwing items weighing tons hunrdreds of feet would have shattered every window in manhattan. Were any windows within 500 meters of the collapse (not struck by debris) shattered? No.
5. Was there any debris that had consistent damage with explosives? NO.

therefore with some certainy we can say there were no explosives used in the towers. None of this even gets into the logistics, the improbability, the survivability of explosives in huge office fires, or the rest. This is just a straight examination of the evidence.

[TruthersLie]

it didn't.
What building exactly do you think it smashed into?
It sat between the Post Office and Verizon -where the shiny new one stands today.

http://wtc7.net/videos.html

http://wtc7.net/rubblepile.html

best.

PMSLMAO.

5 minutes of research.
How much damage was done to the verizion building on one side? And how much was done to fitermann hall on the other side.

It fell and hit both of those buildings twoof. It helped do 1.2 BILLION in damage to the verizion building, and the collapse, damage and subsequent water damage and mold ment that fiterman hall has to be demolished.

How does a "textbook" implosion manage to hit two adjacent buildings twoof? Including hitting one of them FROM THE ROOF?????

[triforcharity]

Ata,

I HIGHLY doubt that you have spoken to any FDNY firefighters about the CD bs of 9/11, because they would have immediatly dismissed you from their presence with a few choice words.

This one comes to mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFf-buObxl8

Thanks for playing, have a nice day.


BTW, the ONE name of the FDNY firefighter on that BS petition is an admin guy who retired 15 years ago.

[triforcharity]

It really gets to the point of me getting myself in trouble when I hear some jackass say that FDNY believes that there were bombs in the building, yet you don't see thousands of FDNY members shouting inside job from the rooftops. It implies that we are such moral cowards that we wouldn't stand up for the 343 firefighters, many whom I know, that died that fatefull morning.

They don't understand the bond that firefighters have. They just cannot grasp the concept that it you mess with one, you mess with the whole bunch.

In the movie "Chuck and Larry" the end of the movie is quite telling. If this were real, you would have had about the same response from FDNY. From captains, to LTs, to just probies coming to the aid of another.

We put our lives in each others' hands every time we leave that house. I trust them with my life, and will lay my life down if need be for any one of them. ANY. That is what we do. We put ours on the line, to save anothers'.


I know Bible versuses are kinda forbidden here, but here is one I find very telling.

"Greater love has no man, than to lay down his life for a friend."

[WildCat]

how would you know that? Ive spoken to many NYC firefighters, and I can assure you you're dead wrong!
Name one FDNY firefighter who is a truther.

[ElMondoHummus]

Ive spoken to many NYC firefighters, and I can assure you you're dead wrong!

Proof?

[ElMondoHummus]

Then why did it smash into neighbouring buildings?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/verizondamagedetail.jpg

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc30wbroadwaydamagefroju6.jpg

it didn't.
What building exactly do you think it smashed into?
It sat between the Post Office and Verizon -where the shiny new one stands today.

http://wtc7.net/videos.html

http://wtc7.net/rubblepile.html

best.

Ummm.. I just posted 2 photos of 30 W.Broadway (Fiterman Hall) and the Verizon after being hit by WTC7 and you claim it didn't ?
What, are they photoshopped?

Bump. Large portions of tower 7 did indeed impact buildings in the surrounding area, most notably ones that were actually across the street. This is not in question.

[AJM8125]

it didn't.
What building exactly do you think it smashed into?
It sat between the Post Office and Verizon -where the shiny new one stands today.

http://wtc7.net/videos.html

http://wtc7.net/rubblepile.html

best.

The east (Washington Street) side of the building was damaged from about the 9th floor down, primarily due to the impact of debris sliding out from the base of WTC 7 (Figures 7-6, 7-7, and 7-8).

The southern half of the west facade and most of the south facade were severely damaged or destroyed. The south face of the building suffered structural damage in the exterior bay from impact by large debris from WTC 7 (Figure 7-13). There was no damage to the east and north faces of the building, and no fire in the building, even though there was a substantial fire in WTC 7.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch7.htm


Next. :cool:

[willhaven]

The 911research site is *********** amazing.

Great thread too. Either there were explosion sounds or there were no explosions.

There were no explosion sounds preceding the collapses.

Case closed.

[AJM8125]

The 911research site is *********** amazing.

Yup, even though it's technically a truther site it proves that if you dig through enough garbage you do come accross a gem on occasion.

[Justin39640]

When is an explosive loud enough to be caused by explosives?

Many people witnessed explosions, and I wonder, how you can exclude, that they were caused by explosives.

cause no one in jersey city or brooklyn heard em
there were no demolitions
get over it

[Grizzly Bear]

There are 117 others like this in the group of 500 interviews.
Of course we can never rely on you folks to give us the entire quotes (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1236120&postcount=20). Why won't people believe you? Why won't people buy your story that firefighters support your insane ideas? Because you guys have a nice reputation of hacking and slashing every little thing that contradicts your agenda. For every quote you give I can find the full context with a quick search. Don't try this crap, I have a low tolerance for quote miners.



<snipped quotes>
Great here's my own quote. Sadly I don't have much style so you'll have to live with it:

"If your truth is well established then there should be no need to ever modify testimony to make it fit better. The moment you begin to tweak it because it's not flashy enough or strong enough your credibility should be called into question."

[Unsecured Coins]

it didn't.
What building exactly do you think it smashed into?
It sat between the Post Office and Verizon -where the shiny new one stands today.

http://wtc7.net/videos.html

http://wtc7.net/rubblepile.html

best.

Can I stundie this before anyone else does? Saying 7 fell into it's own footprint is just silly. HeyLeroy has a brilliant picture that shows a guy who foolishly pahked his cah in the street and came back out to find WTC 7 all over it.

[AJM8125]

Can I stundie this before anyone else does? Saying 7 fell into it's own footprint is just silly. HeyLeroy has a brilliant picture that shows a guy who foolishly pahked his cah in the street and came back out to find WTC 7 all over it.

Yeah, three buildings have just collapsed and lookit how neat and clean everything is. No dust, no cars, no debris and no fires. Why, I thought it would've looked something like this. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LOC_unattributed_Ground_Zero_photos,_Septembe r_11,_2001_-_item_064.jpg)

That's the corner of Barclay & Greenwich, NYC on September 11th 2001 by the way.

[Unsecured Coins]

unpossible! that's just unpossible!

[Mancman]

In your dreams maybe.
None of that explains the facts at the scene.
Gravity didnt blew up the contents of the towers 800 feet radially and pulverize the contents so thoroughly that of the roughly 2600 people in the towers, 1100 are completely unaccounted for. (and then this 'gravity' left the basements intact. uhuh.



Basements intact?

Wrong twoof.

Before the WTC towers collapsed on September 11, the diaphragm wall was supported by a series of horizontal slabs which made up basement floors.

These slabs were destroyed when the twin towers collapsed, and at the moment the wreckage is preventing the wall from falling in instead, said Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers partner George J Tamaro.

http://www.nce.co.uk/engineers-act-to-avoid-foundations-collapse/815150.article


Why did you just tell a blatant lie? Did you think you could get away with lying?

[WildCat]

Why did you just tell a blatant lie? Did you think you could get away with lying?
I don't think he was lying. I think he thinks that if it was a gravity-driven collapse it should have continued to the center of the earth. But because it was therm*te it didn't.

I'm sure that makes perfect sense to truthers.

[atavisms]

Some of the links seem to be either broken or removed.....

that is what happens when people re-post again and again pages of links without checking what their doing.

If there was a simple explanation (fire, gravity) he could say that.
But what occurred and what remained is clearly documented and cannot be attributed to fire & gravity.

60 & 102min fires in high in towers 1&2

and WTC7 I will not even mention bc if you cannot see that is an implosion then you belong in that childrens story, The Emperor Wears No Clothes.

Why we would assume WTC7 is anything else if it fell in a manner consistent with implosion? Simply Bc we cannot imagine how they got the explosives into such secure buildings? Because our government employees are telling us it isn't Not a very compelling reason.

Just consider that the first investigation into these events were funded with 600k - the structural steel was disposed of, the so called 9/11 'commission very reluctantly (and completely biased and skewed) started, what was it, over 400 days later? compare that to Pearl Harbor, within a week.

Http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fpha%2Fpha%2Frob erts%2Froberts.html&ei=DQS_SqabBMHT8AbB47ieAQ&usg=AFQjCNHdtDTJc-RiovKFm8oW4o_FlD0xCg

[WildCat]

atavisms, name one single FDNY firefighter active on 9/11 who supports the truth movement.

Just 1.

Can you do that?

[GlennB]

and WTC7 I will not even mention bc ....

You already have and you got it wrong.
You claimed WTC7 fell neatly into its own footprint and didn't hit neighbouring buildings.
When this error was pointed out you promptly started to ignore that entire issue. Tidy it up please by recognising your mistake.

p.s. we sometimes find long, thin, bronze-coloured creatures in our garden that look very much like snakes. They aren't. Experts will tell you they're lizards. But it's "obvious" to me that they're snakes :rolleyes:

[beachnut]

...
But what occurred and what remained is clearly documented and cannot be attributed to fire & gravity. ...
Why do you tell lies? What occurred and is clearly documented was a gravity collapse due to impacts and fires. I am not sure why you need to tell lies but you clearly have zero engineering skills or knowledge of physics. But don't believe me, I am only a heavy jet pilot since 1976 and an engineer since 1974. Go ask an engineer who is not in 911 truth movement spreading delusions you googled.

It is ironic you spew the lies of 911 truth without a bit of skepticism.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home you failed to do your homework; 8 years and total failure on 911

The truth is you can't google you way to 911 truth. You really have to seek out experts who are neutral.

[TruthersLie]

that is what happens when people re-post again and again pages of links without checking what their doing.

If there was a simple explanation (fire, gravity) he could say that.
But what occurred and what remained is clearly documented and cannot be attributed to fire & gravity.

60 & 102min fires in high in towers 1&2


GREAT. Then PROVE IT. You know, provide the citations, math and engineering which contradicts EVERYTHING NIST SAYS. I mean there are hundreds of thousands of structural engineers all over the world. If NIST is wrong like you claim, please point me towards any of the peer reviewed engineering journal IN THE WORLD with articles which state they are wrong. I mean if it is soooo simple to figure out, there should be dozens of (if not HUNDREDS of) articles saying so. Provide one. In any language. I'll take korean, arabic, russian, chinese... just one.


and WTC7 I will not even mention bc if you cannot see that is an implosion then you belong in that childrens story, The Emperor Wears No Clothes.

You say you won't mention it but then do? amazing.

Why we would assume WTC7 is anything else if it fell in a manner consistent with implosion?


You keep saying those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

You say they are consistent with implosion. Ok.
Where are the Cd blasts going off? that is very consistent with an implosion?
How does a building hit 2 adjacent buildings, ONE ON THE ROOF, if it is consistent with an implosion? Huh?


Simply Bc we cannot imagine how they got the explosives into such secure buildings? Because our government employees are telling us it isn't Not a very compelling reason.

Strawman. Never said it. There are about a DOZEN REASONS it couldn't happen.
First how do you implode a building in a CD w/out massive explosions that would be on EVERY video from a mile around?
Second, can you show thermite cutting horizontally or obliquely through steel beams? Nat geo tried and failed, Truthburn was a massive failure. Please show us thermite cutting horizontally or obliquely through steel beams.
Third. Logistics and Time make it impossible. I have worked in CD. We did a 30 story office building. It took 2 10 man teams working 16 hours a day over 4 MONTHS to rig the building. How many people would be necessary for WTC7? You have to rip off all of the interior to get to the support columns, and no one noticed? You have miles of det cord running through the buildign, and no one noticed?
Fourth- we could go on and on... but I'm done for now.

Just consider that the first investigation into these events were funded with 600k -

truther LIE. PROVE IT.


the structural steel was disposed of

After being examined by structural engineers. Look it up twoof. or better yet, PROVE IT

the so called 9/11 'commission very reluctantly (and completely biased and skewed) started, what was it, over 400 days later? compare that to Pearl Harbor, within a week.

Was tht the only investigation twoof? How many investigations were run about 9/11? Do you know? (almost a dozen all together) And FEMA, NIST, NTSB, FBI and others were there on 9/12 and started investigating immediately.

[Crazytimes]

atavisms, I have a question for you. Can you tell me how the government made sure that one of the two towers did damage to WTC7 ? How did they know and make sure it would hit 7 ?

I ask because in your fantasy land they would have had to load this building (WTC7) up with those super secret explosives that make no noise beforehand. What would have been the reason for 7 to collapse if it wasnt hit by the other towers and started the fire ? See where I am going with this ?

Also, what was the point of bringing 7 down or it even being part of the whole event ?

[TruthersLie]

atavisms, I have a question for you. Can you tell me how the government made sure that one of the two towers did damage to WTC7 ? How did they know and make sure it would hit 7 ?

I ask because in your fantasy land they would have had to load this building (WTC7) up with those super secret explosives that make no noise beforehand. What would have been the reason for 7 to collapse if it wasnt hit by the other towers and started the fire ? See where I am going with this ?

Also, what was the point of bringing 7 down or it even being part of the whole event ?

bYzIbOYaSy8
Point #6 i think addresses this.

[leftysergeant]

Unheard of and never seen before/after 911. Actually physically impossible as shown in other threads at JREF and on the Internet.

Not shownm to the ratrional peeople to have been proven, especially not here on JREF. Take that line of crap back to the threads on which we were discussing the Balzac-Vitry and similar demolitions where we were already laughing at it.

And it seems a lot of people incl. NYFD staff heard BANG, BANG, BANGS when WTC 1 and 2 were destroyed.

Interestingly, most of the "BANG BANG BANG!" noises came throug heating and air condition pipes and the subway tunnels.

[Crazytimes]

bYzIbOYaSy8
Point #6 i think addresses this.

Well, that makes sense. Thanks !!

[A W Smith]

logical fallacies hyper linked.

that is what happens when people re-post again and again pages of links without checking what their doing.

If there was a simple explanation (fire, gravity) he could say that.
But what occurred and what remained is clearly documented and cannot be attributed to fire & gravity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_fallacy)

60 & 102min fires in high in towers 1&2

and WTC7 I will not even mention bc if you cannot see that is an implosion then you belong in that childrens story, The Emperor Wears No Clothes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_fallacy)

Why we would assume WTC7 is anything else if it fell in a manner consistent with implosion? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) Simply Bc we cannot imagine how they got the explosives into such secure buildings? Because our government employees are telling us it isn't Not a very compelling reason. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)