Momentum Transfer in WTC

[apathoid]

Kent claimed

Please, you appear to be arguing from incredulity. Can you explain what you see that makes you think that there are debris falling where that flash occurs? I see none, plus it is well above the impact zone. What you claim has no basis in either logic or observation.

Quit projecting. Noone here is arguing from incredulity except yourself. You dont even know the definition, so dont accuse people of it.

Kent, there are no debris at all in that area. None.

...and can you please give us the name of the opthamologist who gave you your x-ray vision.

[Class]

Hey Truthseeker, any explanation as to why these supposed explosive charges failed to produce any sound that is consistent with a controlled demolition?

[apathoid]

Truthseeker1234, have you seen this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

In the real world, explosive charges are accompanied by really loud "BOOMs". This is what a demo looks and sounds like. Enjoy.

ETA: also note how no flashes are apparent as the building is on it's way down.

[Kent1]

Paradalis persisted

The purpose would be to continue to demolish and destroy still-intact parts of the structure, as explained by Ross.

Why bother doing that. LOL!!

[Pardalis]

Truthseeker, why would the buildings need to be even more destroyed than they would have been anyways by their fall?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Kent you are avoiding. Yes, photos can have more detail, but if it was not taken at the moment the flashes were occuring, is useless for this study. Also, the time dimension is important here too.

I can appreciate the obvious fear that all of you OCT's are demonstrating. Please, watch the video I linked. There are clear flashes, there is no debris falling there, at all. The fact that you have all resorted to name calling is very telling. I will not do that. I will stick to the science.

Allow me some time and I will create a gif that can be posted here directly.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Pardalis asked a fair question Truthseeker, why would the buildings need to be even more destroyed than they would have been anyways by their fall?

1) No building near that size or strength had ever been demolished before, so the requirements were uncertain. Better to use too much than too little.

2) It was being exploded from the top down, whereas standard demolitions are from the bottom up. Bottom up makes better use of gravity to destroy intact structure.

[Pardalis]

Of course! It all makes sense to me now... sweet logic.

[apathoid]

Kent you are avoiding. Yes, photos can have more detail, but if it was not taken at the moment the flashes were occuring, is useless for this study. Also, the time dimension is important here too.

I can appreciate the obvious fear that all of you OCT's are demonstrating. Please, watch the video I linked. There are clear flashes, there is no debris falling there, at all. The fact that you have all resorted to name calling is very telling. I will not do that.

Allow me some time and I will create a gif that can be posted here directly.

Are you even reading the responses? We've seen the video and acknowledge the flashes...however, we dont think they are from explosives. Now answer our follow-up questions please.

I will stick to the science.

We are nearly 300 posts into this thread and I still havent seen any science from you. Pictures and video do not equal science..

[Kent1]

Kent you are avoiding. Yes, photos can have more detail, but if it was not taken at the moment the flashes were occuring, is useless for this study. Also, the time dimension is important here too.

I can appreciate the obvious fear that all of you OCT's are demonstrating. Please, watch the video I linked. There are clear flashes, there is no debris falling there, at all. The fact that you have all resorted to name calling is very telling. I will not do that. I will stick to the science.

Allow me some time and I will create a gif that can be posted here directly.

I'm not avoiding at all. I clearly have been dealing with about every post you had. In fact you have been avoiding most of mine. I see the "flashes" but you believe they are bombs. I don't and I point to other videos and photos to show you details of the falling debris. It looks like material being pushed out.

The best thing for you to do would be to come back with a much cleaner video. Or detailed photo of the area.

[apathoid]

Pardalis asked a fair question

1) No building near that size or strength had ever been demolished before, so the requirements were uncertain. Better to use too much than too little.

2) It was being exploded from the top down, whereas standard demolitions are from the bottom up. Bottom up makes better use of gravity to destroy intact structure.

Any explanation for the lack of the audible booms?

[rwguinn]

Kent you are avoiding. Yes, photos can have more detail, but if it was not taken at the moment the flashes were occuring, is useless for this study. Also, the time dimension is important here too.

I can appreciate the obvious fear that all of you OCT's are demonstrating. Please, watch the video I linked. There are clear flashes, there is no debris falling there, at all. The fact that you have all resorted to name calling is very telling. I will not do that. I will stick to the science pseudoscience.

......
(my bolding-and correcting)
If you had demonstrated any capability in that regard, you might have more credibility



but not much..

[TruthSeeker1234]

Kent, you are avoiding the video I linked, one of the one Ross relied on. you claim that you believe it is reflections off of aluminum, I hear you. The problem is, there is evidentally no debris of any kind anywhere near the flash. What is observed in another video, or another picture says nothing about this one.

Observation is a key part of science. Theory must account for observation. Theroy that ignores relevant observation is bad science.

I suppose Kent's hypothesis is that pieces of aluminum cladding popped off the facade, reflected sunlight at the camera, then went invisible before another frame of video had been shot. Also, the reflection just happened to assume a horizontal "flame" shape.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Paradalis persisted

The purpose would be to continue to demolish and destroy still-intact parts of the structure, as explained by Ross.

Why then did we not observe seperate and distinct collapse events occurring ahead of the main wave of collapse?

[Kent1]

Kent, you are avoiding the video I linked, one of the one Ross relied on. you claim that you believe it is reflections off of aluminum, I hear you. The problem is, there is evidentally no debris of any kind anywhere near the flash. What is observed in another video, or another picture says nothing about this one.

Observation is a key part of science. Theory must account for observation. Theroy that ignores relevant observation is bad science.

I suppose Kent's hypothesis is that pieces of aluminum cladding popped off the facade, reflected sunlight at the camera, then went invisible before another frame of video had been shot. Also, the reflection just happened to assume a horizontal "flame" shape.
Again IM not avoiding the video. Just not giving the answers you would like to hear.
Again that's why I posted this video which matches up with the "Core"destruction" video.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem7/911.wtc.1.demolition.north.03.avi
This one has "disappearing" debris also.
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-4.avi
But basicly yes, could be the smoke obscured it.

The other flash that hangs there a little longer (closer to the back of the building) could be some flame coming out.
Again hard to tell. But note its happening as the building is just starting to collapse, pushing out materical.
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

[apathoid]

Kent, you are avoiding the video I linked, one of the one Ross relied on. you claim that you believe it is reflections off of aluminum, I hear you. The problem is, there is evidentally no debris of any kind anywhere near the flash. What is observed in another video, or another picture says nothing about this one.

Observation is a key part of science. Theory must account for observation. Theroy that ignores relevant observation is bad science.

I suppose Kent's hypothesis is that pieces of aluminum cladding popped off the facade, reflected sunlight at the camera, then went invisible before another frame of video had been shot. Also, the reflection just happened to assume a horizontal "flame" shape.

Not attempting to answer questions about anomalies with your observation/theory is bad science too.

1. Where. Are. The. Booms?
2. Even you admit there that they serve no purpose, so why were the charges detonated in such an illogical manner?
3. Can you cite just one example of a CD that relies on firing off (quiet)charges after the building is 2/3 of the way to the ground?

Science time. Please answer..

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I can appreciate the obvious fear that all of you OCT's are demonstrating.

Knock off the the haughty rhetoric, it's arrogant and condescending.

[Gravy]

Paradalis persisted

The purpose would be to continue to demolish and destroy still-intact parts of the structure, as explained by Ross.
So how much of a Twin Tower would need to fall on its lower portion to lead to progressive collapse? 1/2? 3/4? Let's say you took out two connected floors: how many stories (if any, in your calculation) would need to be above those two floors to accomplish global collapse of one of the towers?

[Loss Leader]

Here is your answer. Please read this. I concur with this study, as it proceeds scientifically, trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html



Wow! That is ... just ... wow.

Okay, so we finally have Truthseeker's hypothesis as to the colapse of the towers. Now, we can move on to question two and it is for all the points: Do you realize what you are asking us to believe?

Because you're asking us to believe a lot. You're asking us to believe:

1. That the government decided to win public support for a war against Islam through a false flag operation.

2. That the government studied possible targets and discarded any government buildings, monuments, military facilities, naval vessels or anything else that they could completely control.

3. That the government chose a civilian target in the most populous city in America.

4. That the government chose to execute the plan the day after a national holiday, ensuring thousands more casualties than if the plan had gone forward twenty-four hours earlier.

5. That the government studied how best to bring down the towers but no witness to such an engineering/demolition study has ever come forward.

6. That the government's plan for controlled demolition was unlike any other controlled demolition in engineering history, proceeding from near-the-top to the ground instead of from the ground up.

7. That, despite the fact that the 1993 WTC bombing was carried out from the ground and despite the fact that ground-up demolitions are better understood by experts, the government chose not to simulate a ground-floor bombing but an airplane strike.

8. That the government planted explosives in the Word Trade Center but no single witness has ever come forward to claim any part in the attack.

9. That the government made 45 degree cuts in crucial support structures before September 11 but with no apparant fear that this would cause any instability in the building until they were ready on 9/11.

10. That four passenger jets took off on 9/11 with 19 terrorists onboard, that their names were on the manifests, that airport personnel remembered them, that ground controlers heard speaking over radios, and that passengers called loved ones and described but that all of this was Not the cause of the collapse of the towers.

11. That two 767s hit the towers in exactly the right spots to correspond with the government's plan for a close-to-the-top-down controlled demolition either making the terrorist patsies the luckiest unwitting co-conspirators in history or showing that air force pilots can barrel in to a building at 400 mph at exactly the right altitude even though the pilot who struck tower one did so while turning.

12. That the government's plan which went so perfectly in execution got so botched up when Iraq, the country the government wanted to invade, turned out to be the one country none of the terrorists were from and the one country that never gave a cent to their terrorist organizations.

13. That all of this was accomplished without one single witness feeling guilt or remorse or admitting to anyone his involvement whereas the patsy, Osama Bin Laden, proudly proclaims his involvement whenever he gets the chance.

Did I miss anything?

[TruthSeeker1234]

1. Where. Are. The. Booms?
2. Even you admit there that they serve no purpose, so why were the charges detonated in such an illogical manner?
3. Can you cite just one example of a CD that relies on firing off (quiet)charges after the building is 2/3 of the way to the ground?

Science time. Please answer..

1. First, we have a litany of firefighters and others in the buildings reporting that they saw, heard, felt, and were seriously injured by explosions. Some videos, such as the one I linked, do not have sound on them. Others do, but recall that sound takes about 6 seconds to travel a mile, so we would have to account for the delay. Plus, sound is significantly attenuated by distance, especially the high frequencies. If you will link to a video that has an audio track that you think ought to have "booms" on it, but does not, I'll look, listen and answer from there.

2. I already answered the question about why charges continue during the collapses, as does Ross.

3. No. WTC 1 , 2 was special for the reasons stated (very big, very strong, top down). WTC7 was much more of a standard controlled demolition. We haven't even gotten into that one yet. Can of worms.

[twinstead]

Did I miss anything?

LOL nope, that about covers it.

[twinstead]

Truthseeker, you realize there is quite a lot of evidence and eye witnesses that contridict your theory, right?

[gumboot]

Others do, but recall that sound takes about 6 seconds to travel a mile, so we would have to account for the delay. Plus, sound is significantly attenuated by distance, especially the high frequencies. If you will link to a video that has an audio track that you think ought to have "booms" on it, but does not, I'll look, listen and answer from there.


I'm sorry, but there are countless vidoes taken from DIRECTLY beneath the towers throughout the morning, even from INSIDE the buildings, including during the collapses.

Not one of these videos captures explosions. Not one.

-Andrew

[twinstead]

If you will link to a video that has an audio track that you think ought to have "booms" on it, but does not, I'll look, listen and answer from there.

NO. Burdon of proof transfer attempt noted and deflected. If YOU will link to a video that has an audio track that HAS booms on it that we think shouldn't, then WE'LL look and listen.

[ghost707]

Hmmm... I am watching another documentary on 9/11 and there is footage of the aftermath of the towers...and there are large chunks of concrete all over the place.....so much for your "theory" truthseeker.

Do CT's have even a rudimentary grasp of kinetic energy?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Kent, or anyone. Can you please explain what you see that allows you to believe that the flashes in the video I linked are reflections from debris? I see no debris of any kind. This certainly appears to be arguing from incredulity, as in "I just can't believe there would be explosions, so it can't be true, regardless of what we observe".

I am aware that you guys believe the flashes have innocuous explanations. I want to know what you see, in the video I linked, that allows for this opinion.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Hmmm... I am watching another documentary on 9/11 and there is footage of the aftermath of the towers...and there are large chunks of concrete all over the place.....so much for your "theory" truthseeker.


Great, link it and then we'll estimate how much is there, and what percentage of the total that represents. That would be science.

[apathoid]

1. First, we have a litany of firefighters and others in the buildings reporting that they saw, heard, felt, and were seriously injured by explosions. Some videos, such as the one I linked, do not have sound on them. Others do, but recall that sound takes about 6 seconds to travel a mile, so we would have to account for the delay. Plus, sound is significantly attenuated by distance, especially the high frequencies. If you will link to a video that has an audio track that you think ought to have "booms" on it, but does not, I'll look, listen and answer from there.

2. I already answered the question about why charges continue during the collapses, as does Ross.

3. No. WTC 1 , 2 was special for the reasons stated (very big, very strong, top down). WTC7 was much more of a standard controlled demolition. We haven't even gotten into that one yet. Can of worms.

1. So all these firefighters are on record as saying they were explosives?
Yes/no.
Noone here has ever disputed that there were explosions in the Towers. However, as gumboot pointed out there are no videos which capture the boom booms. Why?
2. Your answer defies all logic, common sense and as well as the entire history of building demolition.
3. See 2.

Again, in case you missed it, this is what a demo sounds like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

[ghost707]

Great, link it and then we'll estimate how much is there, and what percentage of the total that represents. That would be science.

It's on the History Channel right now.

And you should have already done the math on your own before you started this thread Killtown.....I mean truthseeker.

[twinstead]

Kent, or anyone. Can you please explain what you see that allows you to believe that the flashes in the video I linked are reflections from debris? I see no debris of any kind. This certainly appears to be arguing from incredulity, as in "I just can't believe there would be explosions, so it can't be true, regardless of what we observe".

I am aware that you guys believe the flashes have innocuous explanations. I want to know what you see, in the video I linked, that allows for this opinion.

Bad. YOU think every flash you see has a nefarious explanation. YOU have the burden of proof. Prove that what you see can have NO other explanation other than CD. Prove you have the expertise and qualifications to interpret what you see enough to claim foul.

You are just some dude on the internet looking at videos and making some pretty wild claims, and accusing people of some pretty heinous crimes. One would think you would really want to be sure.

[rwguinn]

Knock off the the haughty rhetoric, it's arrogant and condescending.

And wrong

[WildCat]

It's on the History Channel right now.

And you should have already done the math on your own before you started this thread Killtown.....I mean truthseeker.
It's not Killtown. Killtown can still post here, he wasn't banned or even suspended.

[ghost707]

Wow! That is ... just ... wow.

Okay, so we finally have Truthseeker's hypothesis as to the colapse of the towers. Now, we can move on to question two and it is for all the points: Do you realize what you are asking us to believe?

Because you're asking us to believe a lot. You're asking us to believe:

1. That the government decided to win public support for a war against Islam through a false flag operation.

2. That the government studied possible targets and discarded any government buildings, monuments, military facilities, naval vessels or anything else that they could completely control.

3. That the government chose a civilian target in the most populous city in America.

4. That the government chose to execute the plan the day after a national holiday, ensuring thousands more casualties than if the plan had gone forward twenty-four hours earlier.

5. That the government studied how best to bring down the towers but no witness to such an engineering/demolition study has ever come forward.

6. That the government's plan for controlled demolition was unlike any other controlled demolition in engineering history, proceeding from near-the-top to the ground instead of from the ground up.

7. That, despite the fact that the 1993 WTC bombing was carried out from the ground and despite the fact that ground-up demolitions are better understood by experts, the government chose not to simulate a ground-floor bombing but an airplane strike.

8. That the government planted explosives in the Word Trade Center but no single witness has ever come forward to claim any part in the attack.

9. That the government made 45 degree cuts in crucial support structures before September 11 but with no apparant fear that this would cause any instability in the building until they were ready on 9/11.

10. That four passenger jets took off on 9/11 with 19 terrorists onboard, that their names were on the manifests, that airport personnel remembered them, that ground controlers heard speaking over radios, and that passengers called loved ones and described but that all of this was Not the cause of the collapse of the towers.

11. That two 767s hit the towers in exactly the right spots to correspond with the government's plan for a close-to-the-top-down controlled demolition either making the terrorist patsies the luckiest unwitting co-conspirators in history or showing that air force pilots can barrel in to a building at 400 mph at exactly the right altitude even though the pilot who struck tower one did so while turning.

12. That the government's plan which went so perfectly in execution got so botched up when Iraq, the country the government wanted to invade, turned out to be the one country none of the terrorists were from and the one country that never gave a cent to their terrorist organizations.

13. That all of this was accomplished without one single witness feeling guilt or remorse or admitting to anyone his involvement whereas the patsy, Osama Bin Laden, proudly proclaims his involvement whenever he gets the chance.

Did I miss anything?


Excellent post Loss Leader.

The present administration can't even conduct covert overseas wiretapping without the whole world knowing about it, yet according to CT's we are supposed to believe that they arranged the destruction of the both World Trade towers involving hundreds if not thousands of people to pull it off.

[WildCat]

The present administration can't even conduct covert overseas wiretapping without the whole world knowing about it, yet according to CT's we are supposed to believe that they arranged the destruction of the both World Trade towers involving hundreds if not thousands of people to pull it off.

That's just a smoke screen to distract from the heinous crimes of 9/11!

[Kent1]

This is becoming like a Christophera thread.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Kent, please tell me what you observe that allows you to believe that the flashes in the video I linked are reflections off of aluminum. THere is no debris visible. Please don't avoid. Please explain. i have asked many times and you are dodging.

[apathoid]

Kent, please tell me what you observe that allows you to believe that the flashes in the video I linked are reflections off of aluminum. THere is no debris visible. Please don't avoid. Please explain. i have asked many times and you are dodging.

He isn't equipped with x-ray vision like you are; therefore he cannot see that there is no debris in that voluminous cloud of dust and smoke. Also, if there is no debris in the area of the explosives, then how is the explosive charge being suspended in mid-air like that?

Perhaps you've finally found Christopheras invisicrete TM explosives?

[Loss Leader]

Kent, please tell me what you observe that allows you to believe that the flashes in the video I linked are reflections off of aluminum. THere is no debris visible. Please don't avoid. Please explain. i have asked many times and you are dodging.


Truthseeker, you are the one dodging, among other things, my last post. Are you aware that you are asking us to believe the thirteen points I listed?

[gumboot]

Okay so I've just had a look at truth's video...

Before I proceed I'd like to briefly outline my meagre crudentials. I don't consider myself an "expert" by a long shot. However I do consider myself more capable of photographic/video interpretation than probably 90% of the population.

I have a BPSA from Unitec Institute of Technology
Auckland, NZ

My Major was Film and Television, and my specialisations were Production and Cinematography.

It is the Cinematography specialisation I am focusing on here.

An important part of the course was photographic interpretation. For example, a common exercise was to be given a scene from a film. From the few collaborating shots (or sometimes, from a single shot) we would have to draw set plans and lighting plans, as well as determine any gripping arrangement (a camera crane, dolly, etc)

This would then be compared to actual plans of the actual set and lighting plan used for that actual scene.

In the process of these exercises, and many others, we learned about determining 3 dimensional space, the nature of different lenses, how easily images and deceive, and obviously, a great deal about how light behaves (the nature of light is the fundamental discipline of cinematography)

First, a number of things. The bright flash (which lasts a single frame and is no larger than a single pixel) occurs after collapse initiation.

It also occurs in the midst of some sort of failure at that point in the building - Truth's assertion that there is no debris there until AFTER the flash is false.

Lastly, the flash is far from unique. In fact, throughout the entire duration of the video similar flashes can be seen occuring all over the place - in other parts of the building, on the smoke cloud itself, and on tower 2.

I propose two most likely explanations:

1) Sunlight reflecting of something metallic in appearance
2) Digital drop-outs on the video tape

So what is a drop-out?

Until recently, all digital video cameras recorded material on magnetic tape. On well used tapes, or on cheaper consumer tapes, the magnetic particles on the tape literally "drop-out" - falling off the tape. This creates "spots" in the image, which usually appear as white dots.

-Andrew

[Kent1]

Kent, please tell me what you observe that allows you to believe that the flashes in the video I linked are reflections off of aluminum. THere is no debris visible. Please don't avoid. Please explain. i have asked many times and you are dodging.
Does anyone else here think I haven't answered TruthSeeker1234 time and time again?
If I haven't would some please tell me.


Let's try something...do you see debris here flashing?
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem7/911.wtc.1.demolition.north.03.avi

Would you agree it happens at the same time as this video from gordons site?
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv

[apathoid]

Does anyone else here think I haven't answered TruthSeeker1234 time and time again?
If I haven't would some please tell me.


Let's try something...do you see debris here flashing?
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem7/911.wtc.1.demolition.north.03.avi

Would you agree it happens at the same time as this video from gordons site?
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/d...pirefinish.wmv

Actually, I do see it at the very top of the dust cloud in the first video. Its debris reflecting light.

[Lisa Simpson]

I saw a bunch of sparkly dots. I thought it was debris, too.

[Kent1]

I saw a bunch of sparkly dots. I thought it was debris, too.

Its in the smoke/debris clouds of both collapses also.

[R.Mackey]

No, Kent, you and others have done just fine.

Unfortunately, given the utterly un-scientific nature of the NIST study, and the fact that NIST did not even study the collapses themselves, only the pre-collapse, I am not willing to accept the alleged conclusions of that authority.

"TruthSeeker," obviously an ironic name, I took umbrage earlier when you accused me of being "unscientific," earlier in this thread and without basis. In light of the above, I guess you just use the term strangely. In fact, it now appears you were paying me a compliment.

Boy, I'm sure glad I spent the day at the target range instead of monitoring this dead-end thread.

For those of you going to Ground Zero tomorrow, be safe, live free, and keep it respectful and intelligent. Honor the victims by making this a better country.

[Lisa Simpson]

Its in the smoke/debris clouds of both collapses also.

Yes, I saw that. Looks like debris to me.

[twinstead]

I'm watching right now the documentary filmed by the French brothers. Both collapses were filmed at close quarters as they happened.

A slow rumble. But, where are the booms? Where is the controlled demolition? Where are the CD flashes and explosions?

They're not there because it wasn't a CD.

[Loss Leader]

Until recently, all digital video cameras recorded material on magnetic tape. On well used tapes, or on cheaper consumer tapes, the magnetic particles on the tape literally "drop-out" - falling off the tape. This creates "spots" in the image, which usually appear as white dots.


Gumboot - On cheaper tapes, the first few inches of the tape sometimes didn't have any magnetic coating at all. Anything that you tried to record on that first part was lost. What was that first part of the tape called?

[apathoid]

Its in the smoke/debris clouds of both collapses also.

:solved2

What say you "Truth"seeker?

[Kent1]

:solved2

What say you "Truth"seeker?
He will continue to focus on the other video here
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi
I'm guessing and continue to claim that I'm avoiding him rather than read my posts.

[apathoid]

He will continue to focus on the other video here
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi
I'm guessing and continue to claim that I'm avoiding him rather than read my posts.

Whats odd about this video? I didnt see anything other than a slow whitish jet of smoke/debris coming out of an area a few floors below where the collapse started. Is there something else I was supposed to see?

[Lisa Simpson]

Maybe the same little sparklies, as the building collapses?

ETA: I saw a sparkly, about a quarter of the way up the building, just before it falls.

[Kent1]

Whats odd about this video? I didnt see anything other than a slow whitish jet of smoke/debris coming out of an area a few floors below where the collapse started. Is there something else I was supposed to see?


I tried to explain that. No your supposed to see bombs.
I also tried to explain that photos also show much more detail. I also suggested he should get a photo or better video.

Look at all of the white dots here
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/wtc-southtower.jpg

I'll come back later.

[apathoid]

I tried to explain that. No your supposed to see bombs.
I also tried to explain that photos also show much more detail. I also suggested he should get a photo or better video.

Look at all of the white dots here
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/wtc-southtower.jpg

Gosh, thats some picture. How did that photographer avoid getting killed by falling debris? I'm sure "truth"seeker will claim the photo is evidence of Thermite, however. :rolleyes:

[Loss Leader]

Look at all of the white dots here
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/wtc-southtower.jpg


Great picture. Are you aware that the site hosting the picture is home to a grade A certified nutball?

[WildCat]

Gosh, thats some picture. How did that photographer avoid getting killed by falling debris? I'm sure "truth"seeker will claim the photo is evidence of Thermite, however. :rolleyes:
And it also has not been pulverized into powder before falling...

[WildCat]

Gumboot - On cheaper tapes, the first few inches of the tape sometimes didn't have any magnetic coating at all. Anything that you tried to record on that first part was lost. What was that first part of the tape called?
I believe that would be the leader.

[Loss Leader]

I believe that would be the leader.

The loss leader to be exact.

I am such a dork.

[Gravy]

PLease watch this video, it is the one that Ross talks about and analyzes.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

Video is helpful here as opposed to photos, because the duration of flash is important. The above link is a nice quality. There is absolutely no falling debris of any kind where the flash on the corner occurs. I am very curious to see to what length you guys will go to deny was is seen in this video. There are several other explosions evident, but let's comment on the one that occurs about halfway up the near corner.
Ah, you're on the south tower "flashes." My very first debunking. It sure takes me back. So, Truthseeker, what do those bright spots tell you?

[gumboot]

Gumboot - On cheaper tapes, the first few inches of the tape sometimes didn't have any magnetic coating at all. Anything that you tried to record on that first part was lost. What was that first part of the tape called?


Just out of curiosity, what's the purpose of this question?

I'm aware of quite a few names for it. "Leader" would be one (the name originates from the transparent celluloid that perpetually runs through a film processing machine at a lab, which the film stock is attached to).

In post-production it's usually referred to as "roll-back". We seldom referred to it directly because you always lay down bars and tone and 30" of black before you record anything anyway. So the beginning of the tape was usually just called "bars and tone" or "black". Modern tape recorders and playback machines spool through the leader automatically anyway, so you can't record onto it.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Gosh, thats some picture. How did that photographer avoid getting killed by falling debris? I'm sure "truth"seeker will claim the photo is evidence of Thermite, however. :rolleyes:


I could be mistaken, but I believe that photographer was killed on 9/11. Their camera was recovered, and the photos developed, however.

It is an incredible photograph. Note all the fine particles of debris - clear sign of a very fast shutter speed. You don't normally see that in video footage because the exposure time for each frame is too long, thus tiny particles like that just blur into the sky and vanish.

Using a very high electronic shutter speed (on a video camera) or a narrow shutter angle (on a film camera) captures sharper details like small pieces of dirt and debris, and produces the distinct "strobing" effect that was used most distinctly in works like "Saving Private Ryan", "Band of Brothers", "Gladiator", and "Black Hawk Down".

-Andrew

[Loss Leader]

Just out of curiosity, what's the purpose of this question?

It's just how I chose my screen name, is all.:blush:

[apathoid]

I could be mistaken, but I believe that photographer was killed on 9/11. Their camera was recovered, and the photos developed, however.

It is an incredible photograph. Note all the fine particles of debris - clear sign of a very fast shutter speed. You don't normally see that in video footage because the exposure time for each frame is too long, thus tiny particles like that just blur into the sky and vanish.

Using a very high electronic shutter speed (on a video camera) or a narrow shutter angle (on a film camera) captures sharper details like small pieces of dirt and debris, and produces the distinct "strobing" effect that was used most distinctly in works like "Saving Private Ryan", "Band of Brothers", "Gladiator", and "Black Hawk Down".

-Andrew

It really burns me up that a CT site is hosting that photo if the photographer gave his life taking it. :mad:

[TruthSeeker1234]

You OCT's sure can't answer direct questions, can you?

We can talk about this picture too, if you like

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/wtc-southtower.jpg

It's very interesting. In this picture, the "white dots" do appear to be pieces of debris, unlike in the video I linked, where large flashes appear and disappear suddenly in the exact place where the structure breaks.

But this picture of WTC2 is quite revealing for another reason. The top of the tower is falling away from the right side. Yet large clouds of dust and smoke are exiting and growing on the right side. What is the explanation for this? Pressure from above? Can't be. The top is falling the other way, increasing pressure on the opposite side, but relieving pressure (if anything) on this side.

[David Wong]

Here is your answer. Please read this. I concur with this study, as it proceeds scientifically, trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

Waaaait a second. That guy is posting the pics of workers standing around "Angle cut" beams to support his theory for those supports being cut at a 45-degree angle as part of a controlled demolition.

No way those could have been cut by the workers who were there cutting on the wreckage, (http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/anglecut.jpg) right?

http://www.jod911.com/evidence.pdf

[TruthSeeker1234]

those angle cuts are a whole subject. I suspect they were cut as part of the demolition, based on the slag, and that these types of cuts are typical in demolitions. However, there certainly were welders at GZ cutting up steel, and we don't know for sure when the picture was taken.

[Loss Leader]

But this picture of WTC2 is quite revealing for another reason. The top of the tower is falling away from the right side. Yet large clouds of dust and smoke are exiting and growing on the right side. What is the explanation for this? Pressure from above? Can't be. The top is falling the other way, increasing pressure on the opposite side, but relieving pressure (if anything) on this side.


Even I, with NO engineering background, can answer this one. The top of the tower is not falling away from the right side. Once again, you are looking at a two-dimensional picture and imagining that it is giving you more information than it really is.

As we know, tower two fell entirely within its own footprint. Heck, the "footprint" argument has been a centerpiece of CTist nonsense for years. So, the top of tower two can't be falling over to the left.

In fact, the top of tower two is being pulled inwards, towards the core. Oh, it's leaning left, alright. But it's actually doing so entirely within the tower's footprint as the collapse of the core brings it in and down. So there is no "release" of pressure on the right side. Pressure is still equal on all sides of the tower. And it's quite a lot of pressure blowing drywall and paper all the hell over the place.

And please, please, please stop making engineering pronouncements based on pictures. It's just that ... well ... you're not very good.

[CurtC]

It's just how I chose my screen name, is all.:blush:
I've always heard of the non-magnetic first part of a tape being called the "leader."

The term "loss leader" is a common term, but means something completely different. At least in my experience.

[apathoid]

....{good stuff}.....

And please, please, please stop making engineering pronouncements based on pictures. It's just that ... well ... you're not very good.

..and not very scientific either.

[apathoid]

those angle cuts are a whole subject. I suspect they were cut as part of the demolition, based on the slag, and that these types of cuts are typical in demolitions. However, there certainly were welders at GZ cutting up steel, and we don't know for sure when the picture was taken.

{bolding mine}

"Truth"seeker, you should know better - this isnt the Loose Change forum. Noone here is going to believe you without evidence.

a.) So can you explain how Thermite can make a perfectly straight 45 degree cut like that?? I mean really explain it, or point me to someone who can.

b.) Can you explain how the 45 degree cut is typical of a demolition?

c.) Can you point me to any CD in the history of the business that used Thermite, so that (b.) is actually possible.

[TruthSeeker1234]

loss said As we know, tower two fell entirely within its own footprint.

Absolutley false. A very large percentage of both twin towers landed way outside the footprint. Steel and aluminum and concrete dust were projected hundreds of feet in all directions. Please, look at the evidence.

Loss thinks the top of the south tower is not tipping over. This is a great example of the ridiculous lenths people will go to protect the world view. Denying the plainly obvious. Frightening. Anybody else agree with Loss?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Apathoid, I can get to this, but I'm going to wait and see if any of you brave souls can attempt answering my questions for a change. Stop avoiding guys, there is plenty I have raised. Answer up.


a.) So can you explain how Thermite can make a perfectly straight 45 degree cut like that?? I mean really explain it, or point me to someone who can.

b.) Can you explain how the 45 degree cut is typical of a demolition?

c.) Can you point me to any CD in the history of the business that used Thermite, so that (b.) is actually possible.

a - Yes, a patented device made for cutting steel with thermite. Jones.
b - Yes, 45 degree cuts insure that the column falls, horizontal cuts might just stall.
c - Thermite is not used in standard controlled demolitions, you are correct.

[WildCat]

a - Yes, a patented device made for cutting steel with thermite. Jones.
b - Yes, 45 degree cuts insure that the column falls, horizontal cuts might just stall.
c - Thermite is not used in standard controlled demolitions, you are correct.
So how many of those "patented devices" were found in the rubble? How large are those devices? Have they ever been manufactured? How would they be attached to the columns w/o anyone noticing? How were they brought into the building? Has Jones ever used said device to cut a column? If so, what was the result? How much thermite would be necessary for the job? How was it ignited?

Just a few of the questions that come to mind...

[WildCat]

BTW Truthseeker, have you calculated yet how much explosives would be needed to pulverize 110 40,000 sq. ft. floors of 4" thick concrete?

[apathoid]

Apathoid, I can get to this, but I'm going to wait and see if any of you brave souls can attempt answering my questions for a change. Stop avoiding guys, there is plenty I have raised. Answer up.

a - Yes, a patented device made for cutting steel with thermite. Jones.
b - Yes, 45 degree cuts insure that the column falls, horizontal cuts might just stall.
c - Thermite is not used in standard controlled demolitions, you are correct.

You've been given answers. That you cannot accept them is your problem, not ours.

a. I have looked but cannot find it. I know that Jones thinks Thermite can cut sideways(90 degrees), but not 45. Thats not even possible unless gravity is taken out of the picture.
b. Okay, but you said its typical - I want proof, not speculation and rationalizing.
c. Again, you need to prove that a single building in history was demo'ed with Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermite/Nano Thermite in order to say: Yes, 45 degree cuts insure that the column falls, horizontal cuts might just stall. - and - and that these types of cuts are typical in demolitions.

Get it?

[WildCat]

Even I, with NO engineering background, can answer this one. The top of the tower is not falling away from the right side. Once again, you are looking at a two-dimensional picture and imagining that it is giving you more information than it really is.
It did fall away - it fell towards the side w/ the plane damage first but once it did so it overwhelmed the structure below and the progressive collapse initiated. And the collapse damaged buildings for blocks around - hardly in its own footprint.

[David Wong]

BTW Truthseeker, have you calculated yet how much explosives would be needed to pulverize 110 40,000 sq. ft. floors of 4" thick concrete?

Or why you would use that much explosive when a much smaller amount could have cut down the supports and let gravity do its thing? Why put in enough to pulverize the concrete? That's an enormous amount of wasted energy.

[gumboot]

Loss thinks the top of the south tower is not tipping over. This is a great example of the ridiculous lenths people will go to protect the world view. Denying the plainly obvious. Frightening. Anybody else agree with Loss?


I also have told you it is not tipping over. As video evidence shows, the top of the building ROTATED AS IT FELL.

-Andrew

[WildCat]

Or why you would use that much explosive when a much smaller amount could have cut down the supports and let gravity do its thing? Why put in enough to pulverize the concrete? That's an enormous amount of wasted energy.
Why? Because we can!! (maniacal laughter)

[apathoid]

Or why you would use that much explosive when a much smaller amount could have cut down the supports and let gravity do its thing? Why put in enough to pulverize the concrete? That's an enormous amount of wasted energy.

Thats very much like logic. CTers arent equipped with it, if they were - they wouldn't be CTists !

He needs pictures that show every piece of rubble from the WTC. Thats TS' brand of logic..

[TruthSeeker1234]

Somebody again asked BTW Truthseeker, have you calculated yet how much explosives would be needed to pulverize 110 40,000 sq. ft. floors of 4" thick concrete?

So I repeated that, according to the (ill) logic of NIST, it would require very little explosive. All that would be needed, according to NIST, would be enough to sever a majority of the columns on one floor. This would initiate local collapse


Then global collapse ensued.

[David Wong]

Somebody again asked

So I repeated that, according to the (ill) logic of NIST, it would require very little explosive. All that would be needed, according to NIST, would be enough to sever a majority of the columns on one floor. This would initiate local collapse


Then global collapse ensued.

Wait, are you saying it would take very little or it wouldn't? I can't figure out your meaning. If they're using "ill" logic go say it would take very little, are you saying it would take very much?

[WildCat]

Somebody again asked

So I repeated that, according to the (ill) logic of NIST, it would require very little explosive. All that would be needed, according to NIST, would be enough to sever a majority of the columns on one floor. This would initiate local collapse


Then global collapse ensued.
It has nothing to do w/ NIST. This is your claim - that the floors were pulverized not by impacting w/ the building and the ground but because of explosives.

So how much were used?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Or why you would use that much explosive when a much smaller amount could have cut down the supports and let gravity do its thing? Why put in enough to pulverize the concrete? That's an enormous amount of wasted energy.

asked and answered

[apathoid]

Somebody again asked

So I repeated that, according to the (ill) logic of NIST, it would require very little explosive. All that would be needed, according to NIST, would be enough to sever a majority of the columns on one floor. This would initiate local collapse


Then global collapse ensued.

:hb:

We've been through this already. Its YOUR contention that all the concrete was dun' blowed up. Tell us how much C4 it takes to do that.

[gumboot]

So I repeated that, according to the (ill) logic of NIST, it would require very little explosive. All that would be needed, according to NIST, would be enough to sever a majority of the columns on one floor. This would initiate local collapse


I believe NISt concluded, had the columns merely been severed, collapsed would not have occured at all.

You're just outright lying now.

-Andrew

[David Wong]

asked and answered

Irrelevant.

[apathoid]

asked and answered

I must've missed it....care to summarize?

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'll spell this out. Pay attention. Last time. You guys have two irreconcilable positions.

1) You claim that local collapse at the 98th floor leads to the destruction we observe.
2) you claim that some impossible-to-plant amount of explosives would be needed to lead to the destruction we observe.

if (1) is true, then (2) is false. If (1) is true, then all that is needed is to break the vertical columns on floor 98, and gravity will do the rest.

if (1) is false, then you are a CT!

[apathoid]

I'll spell this out. Pay attention. Last time. You guys have two irreconcilable positions.

1) You claim that local collapse at the 98th floor leads to the destruction we observe.
2) you claim that some impossible-to-plant amount of explosives would be needed to lead to the destruction we observe.

if (1) is true, then (2) is false. If (1) is true, then all that is needed is to break the vertical columns on floor 98, and gravity will do the rest.

if (1) is false, then you are a CT!

:confused:

[WildCat]

I'll spell this out. Pay attention. Last time. You guys have two irreconcilable positions.

1) You claim that local collapse at the 98th floor leads to the destruction we observe.
2) you claim that some impossible-to-plant amount of explosives would be needed to lead to the destruction we observe.

if (1) is true, then (2) is false. If (1) is true, then all that is needed is to break the vertical columns on floor 98, and gravity will do the rest.

if (1) is false, then you are a CT!
Are you really this thick? You claim that explosives pulverized 110 40,000 sq. ft. floors of 4" thick concrete. Show how much explosives would be necessary.

We claim that the mass of the towers plus gravity is more than sufficient to account for the damage done. No explosives were used.

[David Wong]

Okay, so he agrees that it would be impossible to put enough explosives in the towers to pulverize 99% of the concrete.

He disagrees that a mere collapse could have caused the damage he observes.

So... what does that leave us? Some kind of Quantum particle reversal device? A subsonic wave plasma atomizer? Nanobots?

[apathoid]

Are you really this thick? You claim that explosives pulverized 110 40,000 sq. ft. floors of 4" thick concrete. Show how much explosives would be necessary.


Thats 3.14 million cubic feet of concrete!!! :eye-poppi

[David Wong]

Thats 3.14 million cubic feet of concrete!!! :eye-poppi

But only 99% of it was pulverized.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'll spell this out. Pay attention. Last time (really). Read carefully and think. You guys have two irreconcilable positions.

1) You claim that local collapse at the 98th floor leads to the destruction we observe.
2) you claim that some impossible-to-plant amount of explosives would be needed to lead to the destruction we observe.

if (1) is true, then (2) is false. If (1) is true, then having the vertical columns fail at one floor, whether by fires, impact damage, explosive, cutting torches, rust, machine guns, a wrecking ball, thermite, hurricane, magic, or anything else, will result in a global collapse and the destruction of the tower that we all observed. Is that clear?

if (1) is false, then you are a CT! I say (1) is false. So does Gordon Ross.

[Dog Town]

So... what does that leave us? Some kind of Quantum particle reversal device? A subsonic wave plasma atomizer? Nanobots?

Sshhh!

[David Wong]

Oh, I see your confusion. We differ in what we "observe." We don't agree that 99% pulverization of the concrete is observed... or even possible by any means ever invented by man.

If I've misrepresented the view here, please correct me.

[gumboot]

I'll spell this out. Pay attention. Last time. You guys have two irreconcilable positions.

1) You claim that local collapse at the 98th floor leads to the destruction we observe.
2) you claim that some impossible-to-plant amount of explosives would be needed to lead to the destruction we observe.

if (1) is true, then (2) is false. If (1) is true, then all that is needed is to break the vertical columns on floor 98, and gravity will do the rest.

if (1) is false, then you are a CT!


Actually I believe we're talking local collapse at the 94th to 98th floors (for the North Tower).

The reason large numbers of explosive would be required is because severed columns did not cause collapse - the floor sagging pulled the entire exterior wall inwards and the walls failed.

Explosive do not cause floors to sag and pull exterior walls inwards, thus would need to cause collapse a very different way.

-Andrew

[apathoid]

I'll spell this out. Pay attention. Last time (really). Read carefully and think. You guys have two irreconcilable positions.

1) You claim that local collapse at the 98th floor leads to the destruction we observe.
2) you claim that some impossible-to-plant amount of explosives would be needed to lead to the destruction we observe.

if (1) is true, then (2) is false. If (1) is true, then having the vertical columns fail at one floor, whether by fires, impact damage, explosive, cutting torches, rust, machine guns, a wrecking ball, thermite, hurricane, magic, or anything else, will result in a global collapse and the destruction of the tower that we all observed. Is that clear?

if (1) is false, then you are a CT! I say (1) is false. So does Gordon Ross.

This is really getting silly. Even if it was a CD, the explosives would be used on columns, not floor slabs. Any 99% pulverization would be mostly from gravity. If you clicked the Landmark Tower implosion video I linked for you (twice) - you'd see that.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Guys, you need to understand what NIST is saying. It doesn't matter whether is was the 98th floor or floors 94-98. NIST says that a local collapse occured. There was no damage below the impact and fires. All of that structure was in perfect shape. They say that a local collapse causes the upper part to fall down, and that the dynamic load is too much for the structure below, so it fails, and this progresses all the way down.

Thus, if a local failure brought on by impact damage and fires will cause this to occur, then so would local failure brought about by any other means, including explosives.

Therefore, if you believe that local failure leads to global failure and the observed pulverization (whatever percentage), then it would not take a lot of explosives to bring about these observations. All that would be needed is enough explosives to imitate the damage done by the jet impacts and fires.

How is this logic escaping you guys? Mackey, you around? I know you can follow this

[R.Mackey]

How is this logic escaping you guys? Mackey, you around? I know you can follow this
What, you're asking for my help now? Give me a break. Make your case yourself. Make it good, too, or I'll be there to tear it down.

[WildCat]

Guys, you need to understand what NIST is saying. It doesn't matter whether is was the 98th floor or floors 94-98. NIST says that a local collapse occured. There was no damage below the impact and fires. All of that structure was in perfect shape. They say that a local collapse causes the upper part to fall down, and that the dynamic load is too much for the structure below, so it fails, and this progresses all the way down.

Thus, if a local failure brought on by impact damage and fires will cause this to occur, then so would local failure brought about by any other means, including explosives.

Therefore, if you believe that local failure leads to global failure and the observed pulverization (whatever percentage), then it would not take a lot of explosives to bring about these observations. All that would be needed is enough explosives to imitate the damage done by the jet impacts and fires.

How is this logic escaping you guys? Mackey, you around? I know you can follow this
Finally we're getting somewhere!

But you are claiming that the concrete pulverized not because of impacts w/ the building and ground, but because of explosives. And these explosives turned the concrete to powder before they impacted anything.

Now all that is missing is for you to calculate the amount of explosives needed.

[David Wong]

I'll spell this out. Pay attention. Last time (really). Read carefully and think. You guys have two irreconcilable positions.

1) You claim that local collapse at the 98th floor leads to the destruction we observe.
2) you claim that some impossible-to-plant amount of explosives would be needed to lead to the destruction we observe.

if (1) is true, then (2) is false. If (1) is true, then having the vertical columns fail at one floor, whether by fires, impact damage, explosive, cutting torches, rust, machine guns, a wrecking ball, thermite, hurricane, magic, or anything else, will result in a global collapse and the destruction of the tower that we all observed. Is that clear?

if (1) is false, then you are a CT! I say (1) is false. So does Gordon Ross.


I think you've just misread the thread.

1. You contend that 99% of the concrete was turned to powder. You say only explosives could have done this.

2. We contend that nowhere near 99% of the concrete was turned into powder, that the materials behaved pretty much as the experts expected from a collapse due to the kind of failure caused by, say, planes hitting them, and that it would take an impossible amount of explosives to cause what you say happened above.

That's all. Sorry you misunderstood.

[Dog Town]

All that would be needed is enough explosives to imitate the damage done by the jet impacts and fires.

You would know this in advance, how?

[David Wong]

So these threads don't really end, do they?

[apathoid]

Guys, you need to understand what NIST is saying. It doesn't matter whether is was the 98th floor or floors 94-98. NIST says that a local collapse occured. There was no damage below the impact and fires. All of that structure was in perfect shape. They say that a local collapse causes the upper part to fall down, and that the dynamic load is too much for the structure below, so it fails, and this progresses all the way down.

Thus, if a local failure brought on by impact damage and fires will cause this to occur, then so would local failure brought about by any other means, including explosives.

Therefore, if you believe that local failure leads to global failure and the observed pulverization (whatever percentage), then it would not take a lot of explosives to bring about these observations. All that would be needed is enough explosives to imitate the damage done by the jet impacts and fires.

How is this logic escaping you guys? Mackey, you around? I know you can follow this

Either you are deliberately being obtuse, knowing your whole premise for this thread is indefensible, or you aren't very bright. Which is it?

In short, your contention is this:

100 micron particles/99% pulverization=CD=explosives.

We've asked you how much explosives is required to account for 99% pulverization of concrete.

You've thrown out a fallacy thats so stupid it doesnt even have a name - basically arguing from the opposing POV and not your own.

[Dog Town]

So these threads don't really end, do they?

Nope. Think of it as whack a mole. They just keep coming. Great work by the way!

[CurtC]

You guys have two irreconcilable positions.

1) You claim that local collapse at the 98th floor leads to the destruction we observe.
2) you claim that some impossible-to-plant amount of explosives would be needed to lead to the destruction we observe.
For #1, I think you're referring to NIST, and how they studied the collapse initiation, but didn't study the collapse. That's because once the top floors of the building began falling down, there is no way that they could stop. You have a building segment 14 floors high crashing down on one floor (the one below the failure point). Then you have 15 floors worth of building crashing down on the next floor down. Even though some of that material would be ejected to the side, and some of the materials were pulverized into dust, there still is way more than enough to gain mass, and therefore gain destructive potential, in the avalanche that's headed downwards. Do you seriously expect that, say at floor 67, with 43 floors worth of building coming down at high speed, that the single floor 67 is supposed to stop that? And if not 67, then which? The answer is that no single floors could stop it, therefore none did.

About your #2 assertion, we are saying that gravity alone is a much much much larger energy source than any reasonable amount of explosives. You're claiming that gravity wasn't enough to cause the pulverization that happened? Some nuts have said that the gravitational potential energy is too small by a factor of 10 to do the job. The trouble is, the calculations are fairly easy to do to show that nine times as much energy as the buildings' GPE would require around a million pounds of C4! Do you think that a million pounds of C4 was planted in each tower?

[Foolmewunz]

So these threads don't really end, do they?

It depends, .....

Category A. Sometimes a lightweight will sTROLL over from the LC boards, get his/her butt handed back with serious bite marks and disappear.

Category B. Then you get the seriously impaired, like Christophera. He ain't going no where! He wouldn't know if he was proved wrong or proved right. He's just the Energizer Bunny.

Category C. And then, of course, there are the morally impaired - Killtown being the best example, who will keep coming back after dashing home to LC for a little R&R and snappy bon mots. These are the folk heroes of the Nutbar movement. "Wow, KT just really trashed that Gravy guy, again."

Category D. Seagull Posters (Childlike Empress, say no more.) They zoom in, make a whole lot of noise, drop loads of crap all over the place, then zoom out again.

What I think happens is that the Loosers sit around in their tin hats in the NWO/Illuminati-proof bunker and discuss recent arrivals to LC and decide who to send out as their latest stalking-horse-cum-guineau-pig. "Whoa, dude, this Trootseeker, like he knows how to read and write and like, uh, what you call it?... Punktuate? He even sounds sinetific with all that stuff about observing! I mean, wow,.. I can't follow him half the time but I'll bet he he can handle those eggheads over at JREF."

[Sword_Of_Truth]

2) you claim that some impossible-to-plant amount of explosives would be needed to lead to the destruction we observe.

WRONG!

We claim that a plane load of jet fuel delivered at 500 miles per hour is necessary to start the fires wich destroyed the WTC towers.

YOU claim that an impossible-to-plant amount of explosives brought the towers down.

[gumboot]

All that would be needed is enough explosives to imitate the damage done by the jet impacts and fires.



Yup. Which would be a butt-load of explosives.

(By the way, if eyewitness testimonies are to be believed the floors below impact were not all "perfectly intact")

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Do you seriously expect that, say at floor 67, with 43 floors worth of building coming down at high speed, that the single floor 67 is supposed to stop that? And if not 67, then which?



Floor 37. I know, from a secret documentary, that floor 37 was specifically designed as a special elite ninja-floor, capable of stopping a pancake collapse. Since Floor 37 collapsed, clearly it was a CD.

-Andrew

[apathoid]

YOU claim that an impossible-to-plant amount of explosives brought the towers down.
Yes and I have a difficult time believeing that "truth"seeker doesn't know what his claims are, while we do.

To bring everyone up to speed, basically this is what he argued:

"truth"seeker1234: 99% pulverization. No way a global collapse could cause that. Mustve been explosives.
JREF: Okay, so how much explosives would be needed to account for what is observed?
"truth"seeker1234: NIST says explosives on one floor could theoretically cause collapse, so not much explosives.
JREF: So gravity caused the concrete pulverization then and not explosives? I thought you said 99% pulverization was caused by explosives?
"truth"seeker1234: You guys just dont get it.
JREF: :confused:

[TruthSeeker1234]

Guys, I didn't say that 99% percent of the concrete was turned to powder. I started out with the number 50%, at one point I said, in passing, that it was "more like" 99%", and that i was being generous. I do not know exactly what percentage of the non-metallic mass was rendered into fine powder, but it was a lot. If sufficient photographic data exist, it could be estimated.

I think this thread is an excellent example of the debate. You guys won't answer questions. Like Kent. I repeatedly asked him his observational basis for thinking that the flashes were reflections, pointing out that no debris is falling near them. No answer. Just Kent saying "I belive ..."

Then there is Mackey, who believes that the cross bracing was removed from the core structures, yet offers no evidence.

Now, the present matter. No one will attempt to refute the contradiction I have pointed out with NIST and OCT.

[R.Mackey]

Guys, I didn't say that 99% percent of the concrete was turned to powder. I started out with the number 50%, at one point I said, in passing, that it was "more like" 99%", and that i was being generous. I do not know exactly what percentage of the non-metallic mass was rendered into fine powder, but it was a lot. If sufficient photographic data exist, it could be estimated.
Liar. Are these not your words?

Still waiting for any evidence of any significant macroscopic objects at ground zero, apart from steel. I think 50% dissociation is generous. More like 99% of the non-metallic mass was pulverized.

Then there is Mackey, who believes that the cross bracing was removed from the core structures, yet offers no evidence.
Liar. I don't believe one way or the other, and I need provide no evidence. Here's what I said:


It appears you are in such a hurry to "discredit" me that you've lost track of whom you're speaking to.

I have "asked you to believe" nothing. I asked you to show me that there was additional cross-bracing that neither I, Ross, nor Greening knew about. If you can do that, please do. So far what you've shown me is a terrible picture that may or may not represent temporary bracing during construction. It may also represent bracing well down in the structure that is irrelevant for purposes of collapse initiation.

I don't know what your picture represents. I'm asking you. Seems you don't know either, though you think you do.

And you lose the debate yet again. Why not go for the all-time futility streak?

[TruthSeeker1234]

This is farcical. Yes, a lot of explosives must have been used. Steven Jones, after consulting a demolition guy, said it would be on the order of 2000 lbs. But it would certainly depend on what type(s) and we don't know that yet. I don't know much about superthermites, but I understand they deliver a lot of energy per weight unit relative to RDX. There is evidence for sol-gels being used, according to Jones, because of the DPP in the dust.

Now, can anybody refute the logic I have offered.

But, before anyone gets into the logistics of planting this stuff, you have to resolve the contradiction I have raised.

If local collapse leads to global collapse, then explosives were only needed at one level of the tower.

[apathoid]

Guys, I didn't say that 99% percent of the concrete was turned to powder. I started out with the number 50%, at one point I said, in passing, that it was "more like" 99%", and that i was being generous. I do not know exactly what percentage of the non-metallic mass was rendered into fine powder, but it was a lot. If sufficient photographic data exist, it could be estimated.

I think this thread is an excellent example of the debate. You guys won't answer questions. Like Kent. I repeatedly asked him his observational basis for thinking that the flashes were reflections, pointing out that no debris is falling near them. No answer. Just Kent saying "I belive ..."

Then there is Mackey, who believes that the cross bracing was removed from the core structures, yet offers no evidence.

Now, the present matter. No one will attempt to refute the contradiction I have pointed out with NIST and OCT.
Which best descibes your theory?

- Local explosives(on 1 or 2 floors) initiating collapse. Gravity does the rest.
- Explosives throughout the building, in fact, enough to turn most of the concrete to fine powder.
- Other(explain)

300 posts into this thread and you have not offered your theory.

[Dog Town]

If local collapse leads to global collapse, then explosives were only needed at one level of the tower.

Again, how would you know where, to put them? If this were true, you would have to cover your a** quite a bit. No way this works, to many variables! Bah!

[apathoid]

Now, can anybody refute the logic I have offered.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/99024504f61c3b197.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1423)

If local collapse leads to global collapse, then explosives were only needed at one level of the tower.

(slams head into computer screen)

Is this your theory, or not?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey, I posted two pictures, not one. I also linked you to a nice article, with pictures, that discusses the core structure and its cross bracing.

It is here

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

here is evidence of cross bracing
http://nomoregames.net/911/trouble_with_jones/core_2.jpg
http://nomoregames.net/911/trouble_with_jones/9-11-Picture5.jpg
here's a nice one from gz, note the cross bracing
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, I posted two pictures, not one. I also linked you to a nice article, with pictures, that discusses the core structure and its cross bracing.

How about you stop posting pictures, and just answer my questions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1910290#post1910290).

[Dog Town]

At least it doesn't mention 3 in rebar on 4 foot centers. I can smell it though.

edit: damn it it's in the picture, Doh!

[TruthSeeker1234]

apathoid wondered Which best descibes your theory?

- Local explosives(on 1 or 2 floors) initiating collapse. Gravity does the rest.
- Explosives throughout the building, in fact, enough to turn most of the concrete to fine powder.
- Other(explain)

300 posts into this thread and you have not offered your theory.

Man, long ago I linked you to Ross' paper called "How the Towers Were Demolishes" and said that it fit with what i think. Also, in the post right above your last one, I answered.

The answer to your quote above is that there were explosives throughout the building. Not every floor, as explained by Ross. Read his paper. He goes through it, and I agree with it.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

Again, don't complain, this was hundreds of posts ago.

Local collapse leading to global collapse? In the twin towers?? Ha, absurd, I say. But NIST says so. And so do you OCTs.

[Kent1]

[QUOTE=TruthSeeker1234;1911712]Guys, I didn't say that 99% percent of the concrete was turned to powder. I started out with the number 50%, at one point I said, in passing, that it was "more like" 99%", and that i was being generous. I do not know exactly what percentage of the non-metallic mass was rendered into fine powder, but it was a lot. If sufficient photographic data exist, it could be estimated.

I think this thread is an excellent example of the debate. You guys won't answer questions. Like Kent. I repeatedly asked him his observational basis for thinking that the flashes were reflections, pointing out that no debris is falling near them. No answer. Just Kent saying "I belive ..."


Why are you so dishonest.:confused:
I thought I have explained myself
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1911129&postcount=265
Now do you still believe this is bombs or debris?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1911274&postcount=290

But I can answer again, likely it is materical being pushed out especailly considering it occurs during the begining of the collapse. (Could be flame on that one.) But no you really can't make out the debris very well, that's why I recommend a better video or photo.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey, your questions are best answered with pictures. I could say anything. But the pictures show cross bracing. How about not dodging my question anymore. Question:

Where is your evidence that the core structures were not cross braced?

If the cores were not cross braced, what is all that cross bracing evident in the picture above from GZ?

[apathoid]

apathoid wondered

Local collapse leading to global collapse? In the twin towers?? Ha, absurd, I say. But NIST says so. And so do you OCTs.

Okay. Now, what in the hell were you going on about between posts 330 and 349. We asked you(or more correctly - told you) how much explosives would be required to blow 3 million cubic feet of concrete to smithereens, and you havent answered(refer to posts 330 and 349).
Now that youve cleared up where you stand on local -> global collapse, You cant use the local collapse in your explanation.

So. Do you think Jones estimate of 2000 lbs of explosives is enough to blow up 3 million cubic feet on concrete while cutting the core/perimeter columns(and desks, furniture, carpet, moniters, computers, humans)?

[gumboot]

Thats 3.14 million cubic feet of concrete!!! :eye-poppi

It's interesting to get info like this...

In comparing the WTC dust cloud to the ash clouds from the 1995-96 Ruapehu eruptions it becomes clear the volume of actual particles in the WTC dust clouds is most likely very small.

Now, of course, the volume of the material in the Ruapehu eruptions was far greater - about 60 million cubic metres over 13 months. But individual eruptions give volumes much closer to the 80,000 cubic metres of WTC concrete. And yet the "clouds" from these individual eruptions quite literally dwarf the WTC collapse clouds. We are talking about pillars of ash that rose as high as 12 km into the sky.

-Andrew

[TruthSeeker1234]

Kent, I'm not being dishonest. I asked what observations you make that allow you to think that the flashes are reflections. I know that, theoretically, shiney material can reflect sunlight. But I do not observe any debris, at all, in the area. The flash is large. The debris would have to be as large. It could not disappear.

Again, what do you observe that allows your position? Without an observation, you are arguing from incredulity.

Maybe someone else could take a crack at this one.

In this video

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

There are flashes evident. Focus on the one that occurs on the corner, about halfway up between the damage zone and the top. I do not observe any falling debris of any kind in this area. Do you? Kent has stated that he "believes" that the flash is the reflection of sunlight off of falling debris. Do you agree, or what is your explanation?

Any of you brave souls want to go on record on this one? What is the flash?

[Gravy]

You OCT's sure can't answer direct questions, can you?
It's very interesting. In this picture, the "white dots" do appear to be pieces of debris, unlike in the video I linked, where large flashes appear and disappear suddenly in the exact place where the structure breaks.

What demolitions genius planted explosives on floor 108, Truthseeker?
What high explosives have a blast duration of 1.75 seconds?

[LashL]

Anyone who cites Christophera photos of proof of anything, as "truthseeker" did above, is probably certifiable on that basis alone.

That aside, surely I am not the only one to notice that while "truthseeker" purports to be interested in science, he hasn't actually advanced any. All he has offered thusfar is photographs and videos and his own uneducated opinions about them, while distorting what others have said.

My guess is that he has no scientific knowledge whatsoever and that his only expertise is in googling conspiracy theories and convincing himself that they *must* be true because some other tinhatters told him so.

[Kent1]

Kent, I'm not being dishonest. I asked what observations you make that allow you to think that the flashes are reflections. I know that, theoretically, shiney material can reflect sunlight. But I do not observe any debris, at all, in the area. The flash is large. The debris would have to be as large. It could not disappear.

Again, what do you observe that allows your position? Without an observation, you are arguing from incredulity.

Maybe someone else could take a crack at this one.

In this video

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

There are flashes evident. Focus on the one that occurs on the corner, about halfway up between the damage zone and the top. I do not observe any falling debris of any kind in this area. Do you? Kent has stated that he "believes" that the flash is the reflection of sunlight off of falling debris. Do you agree, or what is your explanation?

Any of you brave souls want to go on record on this one? What is the flash?

Funny how you continue to avoid that video I keep posting.
Yes I see that video as I stated I believe the debris could be obscured in the smoke. In fact it looks like it is falling a little bit now that I look at it again. Although its hard to tell. Again I mentioned this before.

[TruthSeeker1234]

So. Do you think Jones estimate of 2000 lbs of explosives is enough to blow up 3 million cubic feet on concrete while cutting the core/perimeter columns(and desks, furniture, carpet, moniters, computers, humans)?

I don't know. Maybe it would 4000 lbs. Maybe 8000. What's your point?

While you're mulling that, I'll try again to spoon feed you my point, again, about the illogic in NIST.

If you are trying to contend that the observations require more explosives than could possibly be planted, you are clearly refuting your own postiion. If your position is that local collapse can lead to global collapse, then only small amounts of explosives are required. Or, put another way, if you insist that large amounts of explosives are required, then you are refuting NIST.

[TruthSeeker1234]

In fact it looks like it is falling a little bit now that I look at it again.

It looks like what is falling?

[Kent1]

Whoops double post

[TruthSeeker1234]

Kent, what about the video you posted?

[Kent1]

Kent, what about the video you posted?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1911274&postcount=290

[Kent1]

It looks like what is falling?

The white dot that fades.

[TruthSeeker1234]

But hey why not show me a better video of the area? Then we can clear it up.

That's ignoring the evidence in front of you, Kent. If you send another video with the flashes in it, we'll look at that too. I don't have another one. My goodness you are being evasive. Is there another video you know of that you would like to bring out?

Anyone else want to embarrass themselves and claim to see falling debris around the south tower flash?

Mackey, what's your take on this? More name calling and shouting? Are you still figuring out how the cross bracing got onto the core structure in the rubble after the construction guys removed it 30 years ago?

[Gravy]

It's interesting to get info like this...

In comparing the WTC dust cloud to the ash clouds from the 1995-96 Ruapehu eruptions it becomes clear the volume of actual particles in the WTC dust clouds is most likely very small.

Now, of course, the volume of the material in the Ruapehu eruptions was far greater - about 60 million cubic metres over 13 months. But individual eruptions give volumes much closer to the 80,000 cubic metres of WTC concrete. And yet the "clouds" from these individual eruptions quite literally dwarf the WTC collapse clouds. We are talking about pillars of ash that rose as high as 12 km into the sky.

-Andrew
Don't forget the pyroclastic flows that came from the towers. Remember all those people on the ground being burned and suffocated by 500c gas?

Oh, wait, that was Pompeii.

[apathoid]

That's ignoring the evidence in front of you, Kent. If you send another video with the flashes in it, we'll look at that too.

Okay, its clear that you arent reading Kents posts. He just posted a link to a second video that shows the flashes.

....and what were you saying earlier about repeatability??

[Gravy]

That's ignoring the evidence in front of you, Kent. If you send another video with the flashes in it, we'll look at that too. I don't have another one. My goodness you are being evasive. Is there another video you know of that you would like to bring out?

Anyone else want to embarrass themselves and claim to see falling debris around the south tower flash?

Mackey, what's your take on this? More name calling and shouting? Are you still figuring out how the cross bracing got onto the core structure in the rubble after the construction guys removed it 30 years ago?
What demolitions whiz planted explosoves on the 108th floor, Truth? What do you suppose the goal was?
Please name the explosives that have a blast duration of 1.75 seconds.

[Kent1]

That's ignoring the evidence in front of you, Kent. If you send another video with the flashes in it, we'll look at that too. I don't have another one. My goodness you are being evasive. Is there another video you know of that you would like to bring out?

Anyone else want to embarrass themselves and claim to see falling debris around the south tower flash?

Mackey, what's your take on this? More name calling and shouting? Are you still figuring out how the cross bracing got onto the core structure in the rubble after the construction guys removed it 30 years ago?

I'm sure they are a whole group of people here that would be glad to "embarrass themselves".

Again note he avoided the other video.

Let's try something...do you see debris here flashing?
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem7...n.north.03.avi

Would you agree it happens at the same time as this video from gordons site?
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/d...pirefinish.wmv

[gumboot]

There are flashes evident. Focus on the one that occurs on the corner, about halfway up between the damage zone and the top. I do not observe any falling debris of any kind in this area. Do you?


Yes, I do. The corner disintegrates just as the light appears. And the flash of light is tiny - probably only a few pixels on the CCD.

I gave my opinion on the video (including my "crudentials") and you completely ignored it.

-Andrew

[apathoid]

I'm sure they are a whole group of people here that would be glad to "embarrass themselves".

Again note he avoided the other video.


Lisa Simson and myself have already embaressed ourselves...I'm willing to do so again.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Oh, we already talked about that other video. Yes, in that one there are many pieces of shiney debris that reflect light. They do not look anything like the flash on the corner of the tower in the other video. In this one, the pieces of debris do not disappear when they stop reflecting so much light. You can still see them.

[Gravy]

What demolitions whiz planted explosoves on the 108th floor, Truth? What do you suppose the goal was?
Please name the explosives that have a blast duration of 1.75 seconds.
I guess TruthSeeker has no answer. Oh, well. Perhaps you can give your childish, ignorant, myopic obsessions a rest on 9/11, Truth. Deal with reality for a day. That's not asking too much, is it?

Good night, and have a peaceful 9/11.

[Kent1]

Oh, we already talked about that other video. Yes, in that one there are many pieces of shiney debris that reflect light. They do not look anything like the flash on the corner of the tower in the other video. In this one, the pieces of debris do not disappear when they stop reflecting so much light. You can still see them.
That's funny cause I see all kinds of disappearing
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem7/911.wtc.1.demolition.north.03.avi

But again did you guys note, he still didn't answer the question.
Do you see debris here flashing?
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem7/911.wtc.1.demolition.north.03.avi

Would you agree it happens at the same time as this video from gordons site?
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv

[Foolmewunz]

Anyone who cites Christophera photos of proof of anything, as "truthseeker" did above, is probably certifiable on that basis alone.

That aside, surely I am not the only one to notice that while "truthseeker" purports to be interested in science, he hasn't actually advanced any. All he has offered thusfar is photographs and videos and his own uneducated opinions about them, while distorting what others have said.

My guess is that he has no scientific knowledge whatsoever and that his only expertise is in googling conspiracy theories and convincing himself that they *must* be true because some other tinhatters told him so.

My goodness, Lash! You mean this isn't pure science?:D :D

Kent, I'm not being dishonest. I asked what observations you make that allow you to think that the flashes are reflections. I know that, theoretically, shiney material can reflect sunlight. But I do not observe any debris, at all, in the area. The flash is large. The debris would have to be as large. It could not disappear.

Again, what do you observe that allows your position? Without an observation, you are arguing from incredulity.

Bolding and italics mine.

Observations! Say no more. Troofspeaker read somewhere that scientists have to observe things to prove their theories. He didn't, unfortunately, read that scientists observe things in controlled environments in the real world, not on some pimply kid's website.

The Shiny(not shiney, yutz!) Material Can Reflect Sunlight Theorem. I believe Hawking covered this beautifully in his 1986 classic, "Oooh, Look Mommy I see big bwight lights..." Of course, there's a counter to Hawking's theory offered by the USAF - those could be weather balloons.

Arguing from Incredulity. We had a guy here a while back who used to use "ad hom" with the same frequency and also had no clue as to what his pet expression meant.

This has been pseudo-science from the first post. It is now heading into Christophera territory, .... rapidly.

Truthseeker, why is it that when we observe, it's unaccepted conjecture? When you observe, it's factual evidence? When we point out the absence of scientific facts or request you to refer to some, you say that observation is more important. But then again, our observations aren't important. YOUR observations are. Do you begin to see a pattern? You are seriously deluded that you are having an intelligent debate, here. You are blowing smoke up our kilts and offering nothing in return. "I can see but you can't" is not an argument, it's a wussy kindergarten recess temper tantrum.

[Foolmewunz]

I guess TruthSeeker has no answer. Oh, well. Perhaps you can give your childish, ignorant, myopic obsessions a rest on 9/11, Truth. Deal with reality for a day. That's not asking too much, is it?

Good night, and have a peaceful 9/11.

Actually, I have a nice idea. We're all friends here, right? Truth, why don't you drop down to Ground Zero today? (I'm in Asia, so it's well into the 11th already...) I'm sure Gravy and R. Mackey and the lads and lasses would like to meet a serious scholar up close. :D

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, what's your take on this? More name calling and shouting? Are you still figuring out how the cross bracing got onto the core structure in the rubble after the construction guys removed it 30 years ago?
Funny how he's asking for my help yet again.

TruthSeeker, it's now September 11th where I live. I'm taking a 24-hour break from this lunacy, as respect for the fallen demands it be simply ignored and left in peace.

That should be plenty of time for you to find where I've "name called" and "shouted." I will be back, and you had better have answers... or lose your credibility. Ta!

[Kent1]

Funny how he's asking for my help yet again.

TruthSeeker, it's now September 11th where I live. I'm taking a 24-hour break from this lunacy, as respect for the fallen demands it be simply ignored and left in peace.

That should be plenty of time for you to find where I've "name called" and "shouted." I will be back, and you had better have answers... or lose your credibility. Ta!

It's 9/11. This is my last post until the 12th. See ya then.
Nuff said.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Its 911 here too. I spent the last half hour looking at the videos linked by Kent. Some of the "flashes" are debris. They drift and fall, they turn and appear dark against the white smoke. Other flashes are flashes. They are horizontal, they are sharp and sudden, they disappear, and importantly, they do not move.

Also noticed was the stong horizontal and even upwards direction of the the ejected masses, with much smoke trailing behind. Bore a strong resemblance to this picture.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/wtc/nuke1.jpg


I'll be around guys. This is educational. I've answered a lot, it's been a long day. Not sure when I can get back, am going to speak tomorrow.

See if there is anything I haven't answered to anyone's satiisfaction, and I'll give another go as time permits.

[apathoid]

I don't know. Maybe it would 4000 lbs. Maybe 8000. What's your point?

While you're mulling that, I'll try again to spoon feed you my point, again, about the illogic in NIST.

If you are trying to contend that the observations require more explosives than could possibly be planted, you are clearly refuting your own postiion. If your position is that local collapse can lead to global collapse, then only small amounts of explosives are required. Or, put another way, if you insist that large amounts of explosives are required, then you are refuting NIST.
{bolding mine}

Now, I see the point you were attempting to make a couple pages ago. It's quite illogical and frankly, stupifying - probably the reason noone understood it(we are debunking ourselves?!?!).

Dude, we aren't trying to refute ourselves - we are refuting YOUR theory. Gee whiz :rolleyes:

[twinstead]

Truthseeker, why is it that when we observe, it's unaccepted conjecture? When you observe, it's factual evidence? When we point out the absence of scientific facts or request you to refer to some, you say that observation is more important. But then again, our observations aren't important. YOUR observations are. Do you begin to see a pattern? You are seriously deluded that you are having an intelligent debate, here. You are blowing smoke up our kilts and offering nothing in return. "I can see but you can't" is not an argument, it's a wussy kindergarten recess temper tantrum.

You've hit upon a major difference between REAL investigation and the kind of biased wannabe investigation that truthseeker and his ilk makes. Only things that support his position are valid. Only things that HE observes exist. Conjecture and rumor are added to the 'evidence' pile with as much weight as any piece of real evidence, then arrogantly shoved down our throats like we are blind, brainwashed idiots. If only we could just look at one more picture, we would finally 'get' it.

People like that skip their merry way, la di, la da, around forums like this like it is some kind of video game. It disgusts me.

[Belz...]

twinstead clarified
The red lines do not move. They demonstrate that the roofline moves down about 6 stories, while the 98th floor and below does not move.

Again, they demonstrate NOTHING, because you can't see through the smoke.

I can appreciate that many of you are falling back on an appeal to authority.

Get your fallacies straight, seeker. You're not appealing to authority when using real experts in the relevant fields to support your point.

Here is your answer. Please read this. I concur with this study, as it proceeds scientifically, trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations.

It doesn't proceed scientifically. All it does is speculate. There are no numbers, no quote from knowledgeable people, etc.

OK. As you all know, Dr. Jones has shown quite convincingly that there were pools of molten iron at ground zero.

What, no steel ? Where does that iron come from ?

Lash entertains with a false dichotomy

Well, at least you got that one right.

Pardalis, flashes happen before and during the collapse. It is a whole complicated series of events. Read Ross' papers, the subject of this thread.

Saying it's complicated doesn't mean your pet theory is correct. Setting off explosives during a demo would be risky, indeed. What if your timing was slightly off ?

Video is helpful here as opposed to photos, because the duration of flash is important.

How so ?

[WildCat]

I don't know much about superthermites, but I understand they deliver a lot of energy per weight unit relative to RDX. There is evidence for sol-gels being used, according to Jones, because of the DPP in the dust.
You and Jones are both 100% wrong. Thermite in any form is not an explosive, but an incendiary. Nowhere even close to the energy of RDX.

[Belz...]

I can appreciate the obvious fear that all of you OCT's are demonstrating.

Again, you're not a truth seeker at all. You're a preacher.

1) No building near that size or strength had ever been demolished before, so the requirements were uncertain. Better to use too much than too little.

Speculation.

2) It was being exploded from the top down, whereas standard demolitions are from the bottom up. Bottom up makes better use of gravity to destroy intact structure.

Speculation.

Kent, you are avoiding the video I linked, one of the one Ross relied on. you claim that you believe it is reflections off of aluminum, I hear you. The problem is, there is evidentally no debris of any kind anywhere near the flash.

Unless they're less than one pixel wide.

Observation is a key part of science. Theory must account for observation. Theroy that ignores relevant observation is bad science.

Is that what you think science is ?

1. First, we have a litany of firefighters and others in the buildings reporting that they saw, heard, felt, and were seriously injured by explosions.

DURING the collapse, bucko. Explosions an hour before destruction do not count. Can you think of a reason why ?

2. I already answered the question about why charges continue during the collapses, as does Ross.

So you are comfortable with an illogical answer ?

This certainly appears to be arguing from incredulity, as in "I just can't believe there would be explosions, so it can't be true, regardless of what we observe".

The problem is we're not sure WHAT we're seeing, as opposed to you, who, like the stereotypical religious fundamentalist, can afford certainty in the form of utter ignorance.

Great, link it and then we'll estimate how much is there, and what percentage of the total that represents. That would be science.

No, it would be guesswork.

It's very interesting. In this picture, the "white dots" do appear to be pieces of debris, unlike in the video I linked, where large flashes appear and disappear suddenly in the exact place where the structure breaks.

Yeah, well the resolution is much better. Notice how small those pieces are.

What is the explanation for this? Pressure from above? Can't be.

Why, seeker, that sounds remarkably like an argument from incredulity.

[Belz...]

Loss thinks the top of the south tower is not tipping over. This is a great example of the ridiculous lenths people will go to protect the world view. Denying the plainly obvious. Frightening. Anybody else agree with Loss?

No. Much debris fell outside the "footprint", but that doesn't tell us anything about a controlled demolition.

Yes, the top of the tower tilted, but it didn't tip. Once the other side of it failed, it stopped tilting and went straight down.

c - Thermite is not used in standard controlled demolitions, you are correct.

Since it burns DOWNwards, I don't why it'd be used at all.

So I repeated that, according to the (ill) logic of NIST, it would require very little explosive.

Then I see you haven't read my response. You can't have it both ways, saying that NIST is wrong, and when asked about YOUR theory you quote NIST.

2) you claim that some impossible-to-plant amount of explosives would be needed to lead to the destruction we observe.

No, that would be you.

[Loss Leader]

You've thrown out a fallacy thats so stupid it doesn't even have a name - basically arguing from the opposing POV and not your own.

No, it has a name. It's a form of the fallacy of equivocation (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/equivocation.html). He's using the word "collapse" in two different ways in a single sentence. It's a rookie mistake, but then he is a rookie.

BTW, I just watched 9/11 coverage in real time on CNN.Com. It was difficult to do but it reminded me that we are not dealing with some theoretical exercise. Thousands of people were murdered. Every moment one spends playing the conspiracy game and not concentrating on the real causes of their deaths only dishonors their memory.

[Belz...]

Therefore, if you believe that local failure leads to global failure and the observed pulverization (whatever percentage), then it would not take a lot of explosives to bring about these observations.

You are wrong. Explosives don't carry as much destructive force as 30 storeys coming down.

Guys, I didn't say that 99% percent of the concrete was turned to powder. I started out with the number 50%, at one point I said, in passing, that it was "more like" 99%", and that i was being generous. I do not know exactly what percentage of the non-metallic mass was rendered into fine powder, but it was a lot. If sufficient photographic data exist, it could be estimated.

No, it couldn't. You can't make that sort of estimate with pictures. I've said this before.

This is farcical. Yes, a lot of explosives must have been used.

A million pounds is not "a lot". It's ludicrous.

I don't know much about superthermites, but I understand they deliver a lot of energy per weight unit relative to RDX.

Thermite burns DOWN. What part of DOWN don't you understand ? How can you cut vertical columns with something that goes DOWN ?

If local collapse leads to global collapse, then explosives were only needed at one level of the tower.[/QUOTE]

If that's the case then they aren't needed at all because of, oh, the two 767s that crashed into them.

here is evidence of cross bracing

No, that's still the temporary stuff. And I notice you used Christophera's badly pixelated picture. Could you point to the cross-bracing in that one, please ?

Again, what do you observe that allows your position? Without an observation, you are arguing from incredulity.

A tad better than arguing from ignorance, wouldn't you agree ?

If you are trying to contend that the observations require more explosives than could possibly be planted, you are clearly refuting your own postiion.

Again, you're overestimating explosives and underestimating gravity and the other forces involved (hint : 767s)

That's ignoring the evidence in front of you, Kent. If you send another video with the flashes in it, we'll look at that too. I don't have another one. My goodness you are being evasive.

You don't have much experience with video, do you ? He's asking for other videos so we can confirm those flashes from other angles.

[Belz...]

See if there is anything I haven't answered to anyone's satiisfaction, and I'll give another go as time permits.

Don't ignore my points, this time.

[CurtC]

If local collapse leads to global collapse, then explosives were only needed at one level of the tower.
Actually, I will go along with this statement. If explosives were planted to cause the top 14 floors of one of these towers to drop down onto the floor below, global collapse would be inevitable. It would also look a lot like what we see.

But you're not claiming that - you seem to be claiming that this resulting global collapse would not be sufficient to pulverize as much non-metallic material as we see being pulverized, therefore much more explosives were needed. Let's call this claim "T."

Our refutation of this claim is that if the gravitational potential energy (GPE) of just the falling building is not enough, it would take on the order of a million pounds of C4 be significantly greater than the building's GPE. Since there seem to be very few people kooky enough to believe that a million pounds of high explosives could have been used, your claim, claim "T," has been refuted.

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, I will go along with this statement. If explosives were planted to cause the top 14 floors of one of these towers to drop down onto the floor below, global collapse would be inevitable. It would also look a lot like what we see.

But you're not claiming that - you seem to be claiming that this resulting global collapse would not be sufficient to pulverize as much non-metallic material as we see being pulverized, therefore much more explosives were needed. Let's call this claim "T."

Our refutation of this claim is that if the gravitational potential energy (GPE) of just the falling building is not enough, it would take on the order of a million pounds of C4 be significantly greater than the building's GPE. Since there seem to be very few people kooky enough to believe that a million pounds of high explosives could have been used, your claim, claim "T," has been refuted.
The pulverized concrete and wall board, and other material, are a complete red herring. Why are we wasting our time with this? The transmission of dynamic load through out the weakened structure, and the serial dynamic loads can be modeled, but NIST didn't do it because their aim is to look at better building and structural methods for the future.

There has got to be some college professor somewhere who can assign to some of his grad students the modeling of the dynamic loads on each floor below the failed floors, and the serial effects.

What I am curious about is whether or not many lower floors, below say 40-50 50, didn't fail early due to the rapid serial transmission of massive impact loads, a vertical sheer load on a lot of attach points, bolts, and welds, throughout the structure. These shear loads would sever, not bend, the connections between the upright and horizontal members. At what point would load absorbtion lead to failure as and initiate a lower floor collapse in parallel after X number of floors above them collapsed one at a time.

Back to "just blow a few floors" theory.

This plan presumes that both aircraft were aimed at specific, but different by about 10 floors of separation, floors on each tower. The aircraft impact is aimed at providing a smoke screen, a cover up to the single floor demolition that was intended to trigger the collapse, top down, of the 12 or 20 story building section (the top of either tower) above undamaged floors. Also to trigger emotional outrage at rag heads, which I have been harboring since about the summer of 1979. (Teheran)

This destructive scheme would require analysis done during mission planning such that the detonation, by remote or by clock timer, is synchronized to the time-on-target aircraft attack, + XX minutes, and was rigged such that the trigger device would be protected from the initial impact damage/shock at > 90% confidence. Subsequent collateral effects, fires for example, could be assumed with a reasonale fuel load on any aircraft, and the plethora of combustible office materials in any office.

The next rational step is having more than one floor riggedto ensure (redundancy is part of any sound plan) that if one floor's rig was damaged or a pilot slightly missed the target floor (see the turning impact at WTC 2) a few other floors would still be available to be triggered, and thus the global collapse triggered. This all assumes away the seismic evidence against explosions.

Thus, none of the three-five floors that were initially hit, and thus explicitly targeted to be hit, could be rigged without risking the integrity of the explosive demolition. This raises the question: why not hit both towers at about floor 80-90, to ensure a 20+ story pile driver as the active destructive mechanism? You want it to work, you stack the odds for success in your favor.

Why the assymetrical destruction pattern? Well, silly me, to fool people into thinking amateurs pulled this off! :rolleyes: Muahahahahahaha!!!!

How many floors actually had to be rigged? Probably 4-6 per building, each begining a floor or two below the planned impact floor. How to dispose of the evidence of charges not detonated, the redundant charges? Rigging for such a task in floors below burning floors would not necessarily burn, so there might be considerable explosive left over for forensic analysis.

Where did it all go? Right, "plants" in the forensic analysis teams, all of whom cleverly secret away all traces of explosives found during rubble clean up.

No inadvertent explosions of c4 (or what have you) during rubble clean up? ?? ?? ??

What trigger mechanism, and what fusing would be needed? How would it be implanted without notice? How many months and weeks of various "maintenance workers" to slowly and methodically place these charges in corner offices, where big wigs worked?

Most of these witnesses would be presumed casualties: since dead men tell no tales, they'd not be available later for testimony, eh? :( Oh wait, not everyone who works in every office was at work that day, eh? So, all the folks on floors rigged, below burning floors, who were either out of town, or were able to get out . . . they report no odd maintenance activity? They are all in on it? What?

Of all the conspiracy theories available, this would have a hope in hell of standing up (still requires suspension of disbelief on the rigging phase) in terms of the "aiding and abetting the weakening of the structure by impact, fire, and fire proofing coating" with a little nudge from some C4 or other suitable demolition material.

Seismic record still not answered, of course.

OK, I can come up with this off the top of my head in about 15 minutes. How is it that any CT advocate doesn't approach this with similarly rational analysis? Is it due to the overwhelming emotion involved in the CT position?

Look at how much more complicated their theories are than a simple, cold hearted analysis by someone whose profession included thinking about how to kill people and blow things up.

I am still at a loss to explain WTC 7 in this "plan," other than a planning assumption that enough junk would fall on all and sundry nearby buildings to ensure the kind of damage needed to initiate collapse, or permit Mister SilverSatan to appeal to the Port Authority when all the other rubble had cleared to demolish a bulding too far gone to be salvaged. He could go either way.

*scratches head*

Going into the mind of CT is a strange thing.

I'd rather drink a toast in honor of my fallen comrades at the Pentagon.

*raises a glass of Kentucky Boubon*

DR

[Loss Leader]

This plan presumes that both aircraft were aimed at specific, but different by about 10 floors of separation, floors on each tower. The aircraft impact is aimed at providing a smoke screen, a cover up to the single floor demolition that was intended to trigger the collapse, top down, of the 12 or 20 story building section (the top of either tower) above undamaged floors.

I made many of these same points earlier in the thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1911170#post1911170). Truthseeker ignored them and he will ignore you. Why? Because reality takes all the fun out of his stupid, stupid argument.

[Regnad Kcin]

This is farcical...Indeed. But not in the way you mean, I'll wager.

[kevin]

What I am curious about is whether or not many lower floors, below say 40-50 50, didn't fail early due to the rapid serial transmission of massive impact loads, a vertical sheer load on a lot of attach points, bolts, and welds, throughout the structure. These shear loads would sever, not bend, the connections between the upright and horizontal members. At what point would load absorbtion lead to failure as and initiate a lower floor collapse in parallel after X number of floors above them collapsed one at a time.


I believe NIST covers this indirectly. When some of the interior columns were severed at impact enough of the load was transferred via the hat truss to exterior columns that not all the interior columns had to take up the weight. There were enough exterior columns to take up the additional load pretty easily.

Interestingly, when the floor joists started to sag the bolts still didn't give out, instead they pulled on both the interior and exterior columns (causing bowing).

[Loss Leader]

Forget it. He's gone. He realized that he was outclassed in any argument on this thread so he moved on to insulting both the victims of 9/11 and the Holocaust. After he's done with his personal attacks there, I suspect he'll disappear back to the LC forums and tell everyone how he gave us the what-for.

[CptColumbo]

Here's an interesting photo of WTC 2 that shows the exterior steel columns on the east side. If you draw a line from the top to bottom you will notice inward bowing of the vertical columns, especially in the center of the photo. What does that suggest?

[Architect]

What I am curious about is whether or not many lower floors, below say 40-50 50, didn't fail early due to the rapid serial transmission of massive impact loads, a vertical sheer load on a lot of attach points, bolts, and welds, throughout the structure. These shear loads would sever, not bend, the connections between the upright and horizontal members. At what point would load absorbtion lead to failure as and initiate a lower floor collapse in parallel after X number of floors above them collapsed one at a time.




1. You'd have to calculate the loads

2. On the outer frame the staggered, linked loadbearing panels would effectively spread point loadings away to a certain extent, such that the failure mechanism you talk about would be localised.

3. Ditto the core frame's cross-bracing and horizontal members.

[pomeroo]

Dr. Frank Greening's new paper on the pulverization of concrete at the WTC appears today on 9/11 Conspiracy Smasher.

[beachnut]

I do not know why this was moved to "conspiracy theories" from "science and mathematics". I am not interested in any conspiracy theories on this thread. I am only interested in the science and math.

Thanks

because Ross's paper is in error as seen by proof on 9/11.

funny when you write a paper that says there is 10 percent more energy needed to bring down the WTC and you were off by 30 percent!

WTC fell and that proves Ross's paper is in error!

Do you always pick the wrong horse?

Sorry but you failed to study Ross's paper, and if you check his work you can see the errors. Study some math and science. I recommend about 4 years study before you embarrass yourself with such shoddy research again.

[TruthSeeker1234]

1. You'd have to calculate the loads

2. On the outer frame the staggered, linked loadbearing panels would effectively spread point loadings away to a certain extent, such that the failure mechanism you talk about would be localised.

3. Ditto the core frame's cross-bracing and horizontal members.

I too thought the core section was cross-braced. All the pictures show it. I thought it had its own flooring system. According to JREF consensus, including RMAckey, the core structure was not cross-braced, and only got lateral support from the floor assemblies.

[stateofgrace]

I too thought the core section was cross-braced. All the pictures show it. I thought it had its own flooring system. According to JREF consensus, including RMAckey, the core structure was not cross-braced, and only got lateral support from the floor assemblies.

BS do you actually understand what cross bracing is ?

Let me give you a clue.

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/50928273/Cross_Brace.jpg

[beachnut]

Consider Gordon Ross' paper:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
(remove space after h)

Frank Greening's attempted criticism:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_2_Greening.pdf
(remove space after h)
and Ross' reply to Greening:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_3_RossReply.pdf
(remove space after h)

NIST, of course, did not attempt to do any calculations showing the possibility that the upper part of a damaged tower could cause the phenomenon we observe in the videos (i.e. the shredding of the steel and near total-pulverization of all other matter into fine powder).

Thus it appears that, at present, Ross is the last word on the subject.

Can anyone provide a refutation of Ross? I am not interested in the planes, or the fires. I am only interested in seeing calculations that show the possibility that the upper part of a skyscraper can crush the lower part, and itself, under the force of gravity.

.


Yes Ross is only short 10 percent of the energy required to make the global collapse start.

He was off. I would show you the math but you have zero ability to comprehend math and physics.

You must be a LC guy lost, thinking you are on the LC forum.

So Ross was proven wrong because the WTC tower did fail and fall.

funny, not much need for math, and in your case you have made that a science

Were you even alive 5 years ago?