Explosions in the Twin Towers

[kc440_]

I am providing a link to a video from youtube.com that shows ordinary people and fire fighters talking about explosions, a secondary device and detonations, This was as the buildings were coming down. Please watch it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B-uOFXsfskM&search=911%209/11%209-11%209%5C11%20september%2011th%20WTC%20world-trade-center%20terrorist%20terror%20hijack%20death%20kil l

kc440

[defaultdotxbe]

can you explain what is odd or strange about explosions in a 12-alarm fire?

[CptColumbo]

B-uOFXsfskM
If you want to post a youtube video you only need to bracket it with yt and /yt.
They are talking about explosions, but not explosives.

[WildCat]

Explosions ≠ explosives, and there was a lot of confusion at the time about bombs. People were panicking. No bombs were ever found, no "secondary devices" were found. Your video proves nothing.

Of course, troofers cherry picking news reports from the confusion immediately following the attacks is par for the course, isn't it?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Getting tired of explaining this to the tinfoilers.

THINGS...

EXPLODE...

INSIDE...

BURNING...

BUILDINGS.

Any questions?

[WildCat]

can you explain what is odd or strange about explosions in a 12-alarm fire?
Or in a 110 story building on the verge of complete structural failure...

[kc440_]

The firefighters said they heard detonations and that the building(s) came down like demolition. The firefighter illustrates this with his hands. Did you not see that part of the clip? He was an expert on fires, a firefighter and an eyewitness.

Let me put it this way. Osama bin Laden paid for the Islamics to hit the WTC in a way we'd never forget. So a plane flew into each tower. If he could pull this off, why not have bombs planted in the buildings to go off at a certain time?

I don't understand why you are afraid of bombs being there. They hijacked several airplanes, and they had explosives planted in the buildings. Are you saying the terrorists couldn't have done that? Why not? They did everything else to scare us and kill people.

kc440

[Dazed]

Not to mention those same terrorists definitely had explosives in those buildings in 1993.

However, a youtube video of eyewitness statements is about as far from empirical evidence as one can get.

[ImaginalDisc]

The firefighters said they heard detonations and that the building(s) came down like demolition. The firefighter illustrates this with his hands. Did you not see that part of the clip? He was an expert on fires, a firefighter and an eyewitness.

Let me put it this way. Osama bin Laden paid for the Islamics to hit the WTC in a way we'd never forget. So a plane flew into each tower. If he could pull this off, why not have bombs planted in the buildings to go off at a certain time?

Because flying planes into a tower involes hijacking planes. Planting sufficent explosives to destroy a pair of 110 story tall buildings is vastly more complex, difficult, and costly.

I don't understand why you are afraid of bombs being there.

No one's afraid of it being true, it simply isn't true. There is no evidence supporting your claim. They hijacked several airplanes, and they had explosives planted in the buildings. Are you saying the terrorists couldn't have done that? Why not? They did everything else to scare us and kill people.

kc440

Just because the terroists did X does not mean they did Y. X has evidence supporting it. Y is a cruel fiction you've concocted.

[defaultdotxbe]

there was no evidence of explosives found, doesnt matter who you think planted them

[firecoins]

explosions? Yeah, large fires in 110 story buildings caused by large airliners is going to be a silent affair.

[Dog Town]

Let me put it this way. Osama bin Laden paid for the Islamics to hit the WTC in a way we'd never forget. So a plane flew into each tower. If he could pull this off, why not have bombs planted in the buildings to go off at a certain time?

I thought that might be possible early on that day. There has never been any evidence to support it, however. So what was your point?

[Arus808]

The firefighters said they heard detonations and that the building(s) came down like demolition.

Heard detonations? No, you misquote many of them. They are quoted as saying they heard explosions. However, explosions can be caused by electrical units, the many computers found in a 110 story office building, electrical conduits, cleaning supplies found in a 110 story office building.

Heard does not mean there was any type of explosives.

The firefighter illustrates this with his hands. Did you not see that part of the clip? He was an expert on fires, a firefighter and an eyewitness.

I illustrate with my hands when I pop a balloon. Does that mean explosives were involved?

I illustrate with my hands when I describe how a volcano eriupts lava. Does that mena explosives were involved?

I illustrate with my hands when Im describing how a water fount is able to give us water to drink. Does that mean explosives were involved?

Let me put it this way. Osama bin Laden paid for the Islamics to hit the WTC in a way we'd never forget. So a plane flew into each tower. If he could pull this off, why not have bombs planted in the buildings to go off at a certain time?
Because it was a lot easier to hijack planes than it is to wire a building to explode.

I don't understand why you are afraid of bombs being there. They hijacked several airplanes, and they had explosives planted in the buildings.
Why hijack the planes then if there were bombs in the buildings?

Are you saying the terrorists couldn't have done that? Why not? They did everything else to scare us and kill people.

Yes the terrorists couldn't have done that. Because the time needed to plant said explosives would be on the length of nearly 4 months and the personnel needed would be over a 100 to do so working 24/7. YOud figure that of the thousands of people who work there morning, noon and night, in a building that is pretty much open 24/7, they'd had noticed someone using cutters to dig into the walls in order to plant said explosives.

[Josh Redstone]

The firefighters said they heard detonations and that the building(s) came down like demolition. The firefighter illustrates this with his hands. Did you not see that part of the clip? He was an expert on fires, a firefighter and an eyewitness.


Except the buildings did not come down like a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions do not make buildings collapse starting from a point high in the structure, and they certainly don't make buildings fall from the top down.


Let me put it this way. Osama bin Laden paid for the Islamics to hit the WTC in a way we'd never forget. So a plane flew into each tower. If he could pull this off, why not have bombs planted in the buildings to go off at a certain time?


The question is, after flying planes into buildings, why would you need to blow them up? Planes flying into two of the world's largest buildings in one of the biggest cities in the world is enough of a terrorist attack, I think. Why spend extra money and time to prepare them to be destroyed hours after the plane impacts when most of the people would have been evacuated?


I don't understand why you are afraid of bombs being there. They hijacked several airplanes, and they had explosives planted in the buildings.


Hijacked airplanes, yes. Planted explosives, no.


Are you saying the terrorists couldn't have done that?


I can't speak for everyone here, but, I am saying that.


Why not? They did everything else to scare us and kill people.


As it's been pointed out, it wouldn't have been necessary.
Also, the largest building to have been demolished in history took a demolition crew of 21 about 7 months in total to investigate the building for demolition, wire it, and blow it up - keep in mind that this was an empty building which was nowhere near the sheer size of WTC 1, 2 and 7. To have wired 1, 2 and 7 would have taken years, years of not getting caught I might add, plus the bombs and detonators would not have survived the plane crashes.
.....not to mention that if you make allegations of bombs bringing down the towers, the arguments for thermate are rendered meaningless.

[Dazed]

there was no evidence of explosives found, doesnt matter who you think planted them

To be fair, NIST said they specifically did not test for evidence of explosives.

That's not to say they would have if they did, but its important to note.

[kc440_]

there was no evidence of explosives found, doesnt matter who you think planted them

Guiliani had all the material of those 2 buildings sent to a dump. I think it was just clean up and rescue trapped people. They were looking for cadavers. Those buildings were so incinerated, no one could have found evidence of explosives. All the "evidence" was carted off by Guiliani. I trust the firefighter who was there and illustrated with gestures how the building fell. He is an expert.

kc440

[kc440_]

To be fair, NIST said they specifically did not test for evidence of explosives.

That's not to say they would have if they did, but its important to note.


Thank you, Dazed.
kc440 :rolleyes:

[defaultdotxbe]

Guiliani had all the material of those 2 buildings sent to a dump. I think it was just clean up and rescue trapped people. They were looking for cadavers. Those buildings were so incinerated, no one could have found evidence of explosives. All the "evidence" was carted off by Guiliani.
so now you implicate rudy in a coverup..this is where the explosives theory takes you

besides the stel was still examined, just not in-situ, of course that doesnt matter much when it comes to finding evidence of explosives

not all the floors were on fire, on those non-burning floors there would have been chemical traces of explosives, the remains of blasting caps, steel columns clearly cut by explosives, undetonated explosives, etc


I trust the firefighter who was there and illustrated with gestures how the building fell. He is an expert.

kc440
this is so dumb its almost not worth responding to

1: since when are hand gesture of how a building fell evicdence of what caused them to fall?

2: since when are firefighters experts on explosives demolitons?

[Josh Redstone]

Those buildings were so incinerated, no one could have found evidence of explosives.


But Dr. Jones' evidence for thermate somehow survived.......interesting....well, err, um, not really.....:rolleyes:

[kc440_]

Getting tired of explaining this to the tinfoilers.

THINGS...

EXPLODE...

INSIDE...

BURNING...

BUILDINGS.

Any questions?

But do they explode one floor at a time, systematically, from below the plane crash till all floors have been demolished?

kc440

[Dazed]

That's not what happened though.

Each floor didn't explode, it was crushed by the top of the building being dropped on it.

[PerryLogan]

Earth calling conspiracy guys!

The seismology clearly indicates there were no explosions on 9/11. The conspiracy guys just can't seem to get a handle on this:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

(I can't post websites yet, but you probably recognize the quotation from the PM debunking.)

[kc440_]

I thought that might be possible early on that day. There has never been any evidence to support it, however. So what was your point?

The point is people who do not see complicity in what happened that day, get frantic when there's talk of bombs exploding in the WTC. I didn't understand why. One member here said it would have taken years to install the explosives. I don't think so. Bombs were involved in my opinion. :rolleyes:

kc440

[T.A.M.]

Person 1:
- explosion, rumble, silt

Person 2:
- haevy duty explosion

Person 3:
- secondary explosions

Person 4 (audio only):
- Explosion blew

Person 5 (reporter):
- Huge explosion

Person 6:
- sounded like gunfire...bang bang bang, then 3 big explosions

Person 7 (Fire/police):
- sounded to me like a big explosion

Person 8:
- nothing relivant

Person 9:
- Big Explosion

Person 10:
- Big Explosion

Person 11 (audio only):
- a very loud blast, a explosion

Person 12 (news reporter audio)
- nothing relivant

Person 13 (audio only):
tower 1, we saw some kind of explosion, with dust coming out.

Person 14:
- Big Explosion

Person 15 (audio of news reporter):
- Cars turned over by the force of the explosion

Person 16 (fireman by himself):
- incredible force of wind and debris came up the stairs and knocked my hat off.

Group of Firemen talking:
- pop, pop, pop, they started popping out.
- I was as if they were detonated, as if they were planning to take down the building

Person 17 (another fireman):
- Thats when I got blow, the impact of the explosion, of what ever...

Person 18 (?fireman):
- nothing relivant to explosions

Person 19 (talking to pete jennings):
- nothing relivant to explosions

Governor Pataki and reporter:
- nothing relivant to explosions

Reporter, as tower comes down:
- huge explosion

Aaron Brown, after tower collapsed:
- there has just been a huge explosion.

Aaron brown, standing about 5 miles from the site:
- It looks like this huge mushroom cloud

All other comments:
- the building has collapsed.

Very last reporter (quoting chief of safety for NYFD):
- he recieved word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is anothe rbomb going off, he thinks that there were devices that were actually planted.




That is it....that is all there is to that video.

Alot of explosions, and one report, 2nd hand, of the POSSIBILITY of bombs planted, never confirmed, never mentioned again.

jeez

TAM

[Arus808]

The point is people who do not see complicity in what happened that day, get frantic when there's talk of bombs exploding in the WTC. I didn't understand why. One member here said it would have taken years to install the explosives. I don't think so. Bombs were involved in my opinion. :rolleyes:

kc440

then your opinion is based on nothing. facts seem to get in the way of those who have opinions about explosives.

[T.A.M.]

The point is people who do not see complicity in what happened that day, get frantic when there's talk of bombs exploding in the WTC. I didn't understand why. One member here said it would have taken years to install the explosives. I don't think so. Bombs were involved in my opinion. :rolleyes:

kc440

Actually, it was me, and I was quoting the top demolitions expert in the netherlands (I believe that was the country), Jowenko, who said that to bring down one of the towers, via controlled demolition, it would have taken a year or more, so for both and WTC7, you are talking years, of preparation in terms of installing the charges and rigging them up.

TAM

[TruthSeeker1234]

kc440 makes an excellent point. Yes, things like fire extinguishers can explode in a fire. But veteran firefighters know this, and would not be confused. The firefighters report being blown up the stairs and such. They report "huge" explosions.

This is certainly not inconsistant with explosives. People who parrot the canard of "no evidence" for controlled demolition are just wrong. There is a ton of evidence. For example, this:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/17_WTC2_tilt2.jpg

Can someone please explain this to me? Here we see the top 30 or so floors of WTC2 tilting over to the south. The north face is to the right in the picture. We see great clouds of smoke and dust being expelled from the north face. Since the top of the building is tipping away from the north face, what force is present to create this effect?

Also, notice that the top 10 or so floors have already broken. Why?

[defaultdotxbe]

why do firefighters simply describe explosions, why dont they emphasize that it was odd or unusual?

[T.A.M.]

kc440 makes an excellent point. Yes, things like fire extinguishers can explode in a fire. But veteran firefighters know this, and would not be confused. The firefighters report being blown up the stairs and such. They report "huge" explosions.

This is certainly not inconsistant with explosives. People who parrot the canard of "no evidence" for controlled demolition are just wrong. There is a ton of evidence. For example, this:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/17_WTC2_tilt2.jpg

Can someone please explain this to me? Here we see the top 30 or so floors of WTC2 tilting over to the south. The north face is to the right in the picture. We see great clouds of smoke and dust being expelled from the north face. Since the top of the building is tipping away from the north face, what force is present to create this effect?

Also, notice that the top 10 or so floors have already broken. Why?


I hope you have a bigger version of this 240x160 pixel picture, to be making those claims.

TAM

[CptColumbo]

BTW here is what happened to the debris.

Gb0xP_bTqS4

[stateofgrace]

Let me put it this way. Osama bin Laden paid for the Islamics to hit the WTC in a way we'd never forget. So a plane flew into each tower. If he could pull this off, why not have bombs planted in the buildings to go off at a certain time?


Let me put this back at you.

Would you?

You are planning the worst terrorist attack ever, using 19 individuals, trying to keep a low profile and operate "under the radar". Would you risk somebody, well not somebody, teams of explosives engineers going into the Towers beforehand? Working day and night, hoping nobody would get caught?

How risky and totally silly would that be?

The whole idea was the wake up America, to come totally out of the blue, against a country that was not prepared to deal with it. And you risk it all by involving lots and lots of people before hand. The more people you involve the greater the chance of being caught. Keep the groups small, keep low and don't draw attention to yourself. It clearly worked.

[T.A.M.]

what would you say if you threw an aeresol can into a fire, and then heard a loud bang....damn, the can just exploded.

[Dog Town]

what would you say if you threw an aeresol can into a fire, and then heard a loud bang....damn, the can just exploded.

I jump everytime! White shave foam best.

[CptColumbo]

kc440 makes an excellent point. Yes, things like fire extinguishers can explode in a fire. But veteran firefighters know this, and would not be confused. The firefighters report being blown up the stairs and such. They report "huge" explosions.

This is certainly not inconsistant with explosives. People who parrot the canard of "no evidence" for controlled demolition are just wrong. There is a ton of evidence. For example, this:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/17_WTC2_tilt2.jpg

Can someone please explain this to me? Here we see the top 30 or so floors of WTC2 tilting over to the south. The north face is to the right in the picture. We see great clouds of smoke and dust being expelled from the north face. Since the top of the building is tipping away from the north face, what force is present to create this effect?

Also, notice that the top 10 or so floors have already broken. Why?

I'm just guessing, but it might be because the structure was damaged more on the side facing away from the other tower. It then fell in the direction of least resistance.

[twinstead]

Also, notice that the top 10 or so floors have already broken. Why?

There are experts in the way structures fail who could explain it to you. I, nor YOU are an expert. You specifically tend to love to infer sinister doings for things you don't understand. Kind of like zenophobic paranoia. Zenonoia? Paraphobia?

Anyway, what do real experts say? What is the consensus of all the experts on how buildings fail world-wide?

And for God's sake why do you think they are lying?

[kc440_]

why do firefighters simply describe explosions, why dont they emphasize that it was odd or unusual?

You can hear the amazement in the firefighters' voices.

kc440

[T.A.M.]

I didn't haer amazement so much as surprise mixed with "I am lucky to be alive" excitement of living to tell the story.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

There are experts in the way structures fail who could explain it to you. I, nor YOU are an expert. You specifically tend to love to infer sinister doings for things you don't understand. Kind of like zenophobic paranoia. Zenonoia? Paraphobia?

Anyway, what do real experts say? What is the consensus of all the experts on how buildings fail world-wide?

And for God's sake why do you think they are lying?

The word you are looking for, my favorite word, is CONSPIRANOIA!

TAM

[Arus808]

You can hear the amazement in the firefighters' voices.

kc440

yes, i'd be amazed that 2 110 story building was just impacted by two airliners, and the carnage, confusion and the subsequent collapse of buildings that dominated a known skyline for years would come down killing nearly 3000 people.

[stateofgrace]

You can hear the amazement in the firefighters' voices.

kc440

Yes I'm sure the fire-fighters were amazed. After all it I'm sure it's not everyday they are called to attend to massive skyscrapers that have just had planes slammed into them, only to witness them collapsing.

Edit ...damm it arus, you beat me to it, I must learn to type faster.

[twinstead]

The word you are looking for, my favorite word, is CONSPIRANOIA!

TAM

Yea, now THAT just rolls off the tongue. I like it.

[kc440_]

I didn't haer amazement so much as surprise mixed with "I am lucky to be alive" excitement of living to tell the story.

TAM

You are right. Poor word choice on my part. And then one of them described demolition.

kc440

[Redtail]

So every Fire Fighter who was on the scene that day has gone on record saying bombs were in the building?

[hellaeon]

The firefighters said they heard detonations and that the building(s) came down like demolition. The firefighter illustrates this with his hands. Did you not see that part of the clip? He was an expert on fires, a firefighter and an eyewitness.

Let me put it this way. Osama bin Laden paid for the Islamics to hit the WTC in a way we'd never forget. So a plane flew into each tower. If he could pull this off, why not have bombs planted in the buildings to go off at a certain time?

I don't understand why you are afraid of bombs being there. They hijacked several airplanes, and they had explosives planted in the buildings. Are you saying the terrorists couldn't have done that? Why not? They did everything else to scare us and kill people.

kc440

There is NO evidence of malicious explosive devices from the 9/11 disaster. Yes its feasible the terrorists could have placed bombs in the towers. In fact it was a suspicion initially in the pandemonium. However upon investigation nothing of the sort was found. As SOT said, things explode in fires!!!! Please please PLEASE use some common sense before you jump to a conclusion.

[twinstead]

Kc440 have you thought to contact any of these firefighters and ask them if they suspect there were bombs in the buildings?

Sure, anything is possible. I realize you aren't specifically suggesting that they were planted by the Evil Government, that they could have been planted by terrorists, but there is no direct evidence other than the anecdotal explosions <> explosives you mention that any explosives existed.

You could suggest that Osama himself planted the bombs in the buildings to try to get us to admit there were bombs, and the theory would still be rejected due to a complete lack of evidence.

And I believe had there been that much explosives the evidence of it would be massive. Incontrovertibly massive.

[T.A.M.]

You are right. Poor word choice on my part. And then one of them described demolition.

kc440

yes, they discribed that the building came down as if they were planning to take down the building.

Man it got so dark, it was as if it suddenly became night.

Man I was so drunk, it was as if I had an bottle permanently attached to my lips.

Man, it was so hot, it was as if I was standing on the sun.

Get my drift

TAM

[hellaeon]

You are right. Poor word choice on my part. And then one of them described demolition.

kc440

Yes a heap did. Then investigation kicked in. Actual physical evidence of malicious exlosives = 0.

I cant believe you would bother contemplating the bomb theory. It has been destroyed. Blown up. Smashed.

Naturally during a terrorist strike during fear you would assume with explosions etc going around you that it may possibly be bombs going off, pre planted to aid in some massive destructive campaign. Its normal. Your thoughts are forgiven for being irrational. What is not normal is to continue with the theory fricken 5 years later that this happened on 9/11 when physical evidence shows this to be wrong.

5 years. 5 GOD DAMN YEARS and people still claim this crap. First year or two...yeah possibly. But 5 years now with a lot of the real story now told.

* slaps head *

[Arus808]

You are right. Poor word choice on my part. And then one of them described demolition.

kc440

again, you misquote. YOU might wanna try and RE-READ what they stated.
The firefighter in question described what looked like a demolition. looked like is not evidence of actual explosives.

[hellaeon]

An excellent and laymans way of explaining how this is not possible is shown in Mark Roberts new WTC7 CT critique.

[kevin]

Let me put it this way. Osama bin Laden paid for the Islamics to hit the WTC in a way we'd never forget. So a plane flew into each tower. If he could pull this off, why not have bombs planted in the buildings to go off at a certain time?

because when they tried it that way it was a huge failure. Remember 2/26/1993? Why try something that already failed?

[Josh Redstone]

The point is people who do not see complicity in what happened that day, get frantic when there's talk of bombs exploding in the WTC. I didn't understand why. One member here said it would have taken years to install the explosives. I don't think so. Bombs were involved in my opinion. :rolleyes:

kc440

No offense, but your own personal incredulity isn't the deciding factor in this debate. I will show you the math if you want to see how long it would have taken to wire those buildings.

Besides, TS1234's own picture which he posted contradicts the CD argument. Buildings which are demolished are not demolished from the top down, nor are the explosions begun in the upper-middle parts of the building.

[qarnos]

However, a youtube video of eyewitness statements is about as far from empirical evidence as one can get.

I think you are underestimating the CTists. Remember the rabbit cage WTC?

[Horatius]

Let me put it this way. Osama bin Laden paid for the Islamics to hit the WTC in a way we'd never forget. So a plane flew into each tower. If he could pull this off, why not have bombs planted in the buildings to go off at a certain time?
kc440

And if he had the resources to plant such bombs, why plant them in the same building he planned to hit with planes? His intent was to cause maximum terror, right? So image if, about noon on 9/11, when everyone and their dog is looking for the next hijacked plane, the Sears Tower was to suddenly just blow up. We'd have freaked even more than we did. No building anywhere would have been considered safe!


Now that's terror!

[CurtC]

Those buildings were so incinerated, no one could have found evidence of explosives. All the "evidence" was carted off by Guiliani.

[scratches head]

So... if the buildings were so incinerated that explosive residue could not be found, then why did they have to cart off the evidence? I'm confused - you CT guys need to get your stories coordinated.

[TheGrunion]

[scratches head]

So... if the buildings were so incinerated that explosive residue could not be found, then why did they have to cart off the evidence? I'm confused - you CT guys need to get your stories coordinated.

Hey, it takes a special kind of CT'er to make an assertion in one sentence and debunk himself in the next. :)

[Muckar-duva]

BTW here is what happened to the debris.

Gb0xP_bTqS4

Where on YouTube is this clip? I don't find it when I look.

[Gravy]

People, I hate to say it, but I've been reading a lot about this subject lately, and kc440 is right. Check this quote:

"At least nine upper stories were on fire and muffled explosions could be heard in the building." http://tinyurl.com/rded8


Oh, wait. That was about the Madrid Windsor Building fire.

Never mind. I got my quotes screwed up again.

Stay tuned, kc. In a few days I'll be publishing some facts to temper your fantasies.

[twinstead]

Oh, wait. That was about the Madrid Windsor Building fire.


Dude. Don't you know 'They' planted explosives in that building as well?

[Foolmewunz]

TS, let's put your earliest posts to rest, for once.
You didn't find anything in the Youtube that CptColombo posted here? How about a whole lot of debris much larger than what you maintain?

First question in OUR debate - answer it or go away:
Do you or do you not see debris (a lot of debris) that is considerably larger than macroscopic (your and Gordon Ross's assertion, not mine).

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1990459#post1990459

View the video and then answer. No smoke up the skirt, just answer the question.

And while you're at it, you might want to notice what a lot of our reactions are all about. (For anyone still having nightmares about 9/11, don't watch past the first couple of minutes because there's disturbing, though not graphic,footage of them bringing out remains.)

Everyone else.... save the video link. Every time he brings up "powderized", ask the same question.

CptColombo - Good Vid! I hadn't seen it before, so if it's old news, thanks for renewing.

[einsteen]

In the north tower it looks like the block already disintegrates during the fall. There is somewhere a pic around with some read lines to show that. The south tower toppling block is also something with a similar feature. If you consider point masses and a floor distance of 3.7 meter the initial falling block got about 0.86 seconds to hit the next floor and to increase its speed. It's a matter of counting frames in a video
to see what happens. Check this site, they conclude the block disintegrates even before it hits a major
part of the intact building.

http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/south-tower.htm

Without mentioning explosives I think this is really something to investigate and think about, you can wonder how much
initial momentum remains to be transferred, it's magical.

[CurtC]

Dude. Don't you know 'They' planted explosives in that building as well?
They had to, in order to build a plausible case that building fires can have explosions, in preparation for the WTC attacks. These NWO people think way ahead.

[twinstead]

Without mentioning explosives I think this is really something to investigate and think about, you can wonder how much
initial momentum remains to be transferred, it's magical.

Again, ad nauseam, experts in how buildings fail have studied the collapses frame by frame to learn what happened. Few, if ANY, have thought what happened is 'magical'.

The WTC collapses are studied in structural engineering classes all over the world. Perhaps you should ask some experts how what you think is magical could have happened, instead of posting incredulous musings on an internet forum. Perhaps in reality no investigation is necessary.

[Muckar-duva]

TS, let's put your earliest posts to rest, for once.
You didn't find anything in the Youtube that CptColombo posted here? How about a whole lot of debris much larger than what you maintain?

First question in OUR debate - answer it or go away:
Do you or do you not see debris (a lot of debris) that is considerably larger than macroscopic (your and Gordon Ross's assertion, not mine).

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1990459#post1990459

View the video and then answer. No smoke up the skirt, just answer the question.

And while you're at it, you might want to notice what a lot of our reactions are all about. (For anyone still having nightmares about 9/11, don't watch past the first couple of minutes because there's disturbing, though not graphic,footage of them bringing out remains.)

Everyone else.... save the video link. Every time he brings up "powderized", ask the same question.

CptColombo - Good Vid! I hadn't seen it before, so if it's old news, thanks for renewing.

I don't just want to save it, I want to be able to link to its YouTube location.

[einsteen]

Thanks TwinStead, sound like a good idea.

[Hellbound]

In the north tower it looks like the block already disintegrates during the fall. There is somewhere a pic around with some read lines to show that. The south tower toppling block is also something with a similar feature. If you consider point masses and a floor distance of 3.7 meter the initial falling block got about 0.86 seconds to hit the next floor and to increase its speed. It's a matter of counting frames in a video
to see what happens. Check this site, they conclude the block disintegrates even before it hits a major
part of the intact building.

http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/south-tower.htm

Without mentioning explosives I think this is really something to investigate and think about, you can wonder how much
initial momentum remains to be transferred, it's magical.

Oh Jebus.

CAN YOU GET A NEW FREAKING POINT ALREADY?!

That one's been debunked already several times, you troll.

Go read a high-school physiccs book. It,s obvious you lied about your "advanced plasma physics" degree, you cretin.

You're too afraid (or ignorant) to explain your argument in the face of the rebuttal I made elsewhere, but you simply slink away and repeat it in every other thread you can, hoping eventually someone will be ignorant enough of the physics to think you have a point?

Sheesh.

[einsteen]

I regret that I used the name Einsteen because I only have a M.Sc in theoretical physics. Mrs Judy Woods is a professor in mechanical engineering and if she says (I just saw that today after re-reading):

However, as we can observe, the building disintegrated from the top down and there was no block of material.

After being pulverized, the surface-area/mass is greatly increased and the air resistance becomes significant. I don't believe this pulverized material can contribute any momentum as it "hangs" in the air and floats down at a much-much slower rate than the "collapsing" floors.

then I don't have to shame myself because of Hunties big mouth, maybe only to use that name Einsteen, I've much cooler names on other forums.. I wish I could change it without signing up again

[pgwenthold]

again, you misquote. YOU might wanna try and RE-READ what they stated.
The firefighter in question described what looked like a demolition. looked like is not evidence of actual explosives.


More importantly, we have actual video of the buildings falling, and are able to judge for ourselves. In no way at all did the falling of WTC1 or WTC2 look anything like a demolition. The only thing similar is that buildings fell down. Other than that, there is no similarity.

This is so blatently obvious that CTists have admitted it, and therefore had to invoke the "it was a CD that was designed to not look like a CD" nonsense.

Thus, with no disrespect to the firefighters, who were talking from emotions after just seeing one of the most horrendous disasters of all time, they were mistaken in claiming that it looked like a demolition. I don't blame them. It was an emotional time. However, if you asked them now, with the benefit of video of both the towers falling AND actual controlled demolitions, if they think the falling tower looked like a demolition, would they agree? CTists can't even support that, so I don't think they would.

Short answer: what the firemen THOUGHT the collapse of the tower "looked like" at the time it happened is not very relevant. We have video. We know what it looked like. And we know it did NOT look like a CD.

[Hellbound]

I regret that I used the name Einsteen because I only have a M.Sc in theoretical physics. Mrs Judy Woods is a professor in mechanical engineering and if she says (I just saw that today after re-reading):

However, as we can observe, the building disintegrated from the top down and there was no block of material.

After being pulverized, the surface-area/mass is greatly increased and the air resistance becomes significant. I don't believe this pulverized material can contribute any momentum as it "hangs" in the air and floats down at a much-much slower rate than the "collapsing" floors.

then I don't have to shame myself because of Hunties big mouth, maybe only to use that name Einsteen, I've much cooler names on other forums.. I wish I could change it without signing up again

What she asserts is of no interest.

Where's the math? Where does she show that, because the upper part of the building was not a block, it's mass somehow ceases to exist, or ceases to impact the floors below? She's got a degree in engineering, right? So she must have done the math, right?

Or does she just assert these things without showing any proof or work, and expect people to believe them because she has a piece of paper?

Where does she show that conservation of mass and conservation of energy were not in effect that day?

Where does she show that the laws of physics suspended themselves long enough for her ridiculous assertions to be true?

Where does she show ANYTHING beyojnd conjecture and argument from ignorance?

If I'm wrong, prove it.

Of course you can't, you just make the same assertions, continually, without evidence.

Show me the PHYSICS that says the upper collapse could not have caused a global collapse, because the upper floors were not intact pieces. That's it. That will shut me up. ANd that's all that will shut me up. I'll tell you know, I will be looking for your posts in this forum, to call you out everytime you make this same, unsupported, ridiculous, debunked assertion.

So, if you want to shut my "big mouth", prove me wrong.

But you can't.

[Gravy]

Without mentioning explosives I think this is really something to investigate and think about, you can wonder how much
initial momentum remains to be transferred, it's magical.
You've used the term "magical" several times to describe the collapses. Please stop.

Here's a question for you, einsteen. (I asked TS1234 this, but I don't expect answer.) From what height would the top portion of the north or south tower have to be dropped on to the bottom, in order to initiate a global collapse?

[CptColumbo]

Where on YouTube is this clip? I don't find it when I look.

The whole show is called "Rise and Fall of an American Icon."

Many in the CT community rely very heavily on news reports from the day of the collapse. The imfamous CNN story on "no plane hit pentagon" reported by John McIntyre, for example. Journalism, however is not an exact science, especially in the modern day world of 24hr news channels and streaming video. I'm not saying they are lying, but there may be errors in the rush to be the first to report on a major story or development. I believe it was Phil Graham of the Washinton Post who said that "journalism is the first draft of history." In other words as more information comes in, the picture becomes clearer. If you honestly want to investigate an event you should rely on later reports, not the reports from the day of the event.

[firecoins]

why are there no surviving FDNY firefighters in the truth movement?

These are people who run into burning buildings. They are not easily scared and over three hundred died. Threatening them would not seem like a workable idea. Many surviving firefighters have quit so keeping their job can not influence them.

[einsteen]

1) Theoretically if you consider the upper block as an infinitely strong solid object that starts perfectly in the middle in a perfectly symmetrical homogeneous building it will fall through the whole building above a critical amount of energy, global collapse.

2) In a non symmetrical situation the infinitely strong solid object will fall a couple of stories, get angular momentum, behave chaotically (very sensitive to initial variables) and then leave the building at a certain point. No global collapse

3) If the upper block is not infinitely strong (as strong as the building or less) it will be destroyed in a higher rate, it will be one big mess of chaos (very sensitive to initial variables), finally all parts will be destroyed and also leave the building, maybe 20 stories are destroyed then. No global collapse.

4) If the upper block disintegrates at top, like in that posted URL there will be no global collapse.

If the upper block is intact and the building is intact and there is fire and damage due to plane impact and the tower stands for an hour the deformation of the steel frame will be a continues process, if there is an initial collapse it’s unlikely that everything breaks at the same time. The south tower looks more ‘natural’ than the north tower.

A global collapse requires a minimum amount of energy which means a minimum amount of distance to fall, that energy is linear with the height it falls. What I don’t understand is that it is such a discontinuous process; the block doesn’t hang at a wire, 3.7m above the building, that breaks by a candle flame, but you see a lot of strong intact steel, people standing, steel not popping out one-by one during that hour, but absolute silence in the structure for an hour. But then everything breaks at the same time, fact is that it happened of course, empirical observation, we see a kind of fire explosion and the building starts coming down. But once it comes down we can go to 3) and 4)

btw Mrs. Woods doesn't need to show math about that empirical observation, the assumptions are used as input and you have
to start with assumptions because the process is absolutely complex. mr Greening also makes assumptions. If you throw
an object in vacuum the centre of mass will follow a parabolic track, whether the object explodes or disintegrates doesn't
matter, the centre of mass still follows that traject, mass is conserved. But if you assume a collapse it is only the vertical
component of it on the area of the building that matters. I think mrs. Woods got a point if she observes this process and wonders
how much momentum contributes. I don't think this is an easy matter.

[defaultdotxbe]

Many in the CT community rely very heavily on news reports from the day of the collapse. The imfamous CNN story on "no plane hit pentagon" reported by John McIntyre, for example.
even this was quoted out of context, mcintyre was clarifying that a plane didnt crash near the pentagon, its crashed into the pentagon, of course CTers only quote the first part

[Hellbound]

1) Theoretically if you consider the upper block as an infinitely strong solid object that starts perfectly in the middle in a perfectly symmetrical homogeneous building it will fall through the whole building above a critical amount of energy, global collapse.

SUre, but this isn't realistic and isn't worht considering.

2) In a non symmetrical situation the infinitely strong solid object will fall a couple of stories, get angular momentum, behave chaotically (very sensitive to initial variables) and then leave the building at a certain point. No global collapse

Sure, possibly (depending on how much angular momentum is imparted), but again, this is not representative of reality in any way and doesn't matter.

3) If the upper block is not infinitely strong (as strong as the building or less) it will be destroyed in a higher rate, it will be one big mess of chaos (very sensitive to initial variables), finally all parts will be destroyed and also leave the building, maybe 20 stories are destroyed then. No global collapse.

Unsupported assertion. THis is not one of the "assumptions" to start with. This is specifically a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning, where you assume your conclusion. THis also ignores the fact that pieces of the upper block will not "leave the building", some will some won't. ALso, impacted floors from the lower section will collapse and fall into the building, adding to the falling mass. You'd have to show hoe the entirely of downward momentum and nergy would get transferred sideways. That's a LOT of acceleration to slow and stop all that mass....now you're talking about energy greater than the gravitational energy contained in the building (because it not only has to stop the falling material but also accelerate it to the side).

4) If the upper block disintegrates at top, like in that posted URL there will be no global collapse.

Not supported. You've shown no logical chain of reasoning, no physical laws, no mathematics on why this is the case. Again, in your ignorance, you simply assert that this is true with no support for it.

A global collapse requires a minimum amount of energy which means a minimum amount of distance to fall, that energy is linear with the height it falls. What I don’t understand is that it is such a discontinuous process; the block doesn’t hang at a wire, 3.7m above the building, that breaks by a candle flame, but you see a lot of strong intact steel, people standing, steel not popping out one-by one during that hour, but absolute silence in the structure for an hour. But then everything breaks at the same time, fact is that it happened of course, empirical observation, we see a kind of fire explosion and the building starts coming down. But once it comes down we can go to 3) and 4)

No. Peopel did hear sounds. The building was observed to bow outward on the damaged areas. Sure, if you ignore all the evidence it looks like it happened all at once. But that makes you intellectually dishonest.

btw Mrs. Woods doesn't need to show math about that empirical observation, the assumptions are used as input and you have
to start with assumptions because the process is absolutely complex. mr Greening also makes assumptions. If you throw
an object in vacuum the centre of mass will follow a parabolic track, whether the object explodes or disintegrates doesn't
matter, the centre of mass still follows that traject, mass is conserved. But if you assume a collapse it is only the vertical
component of it on the area of the building that matters. I think mrs. Woods got a point if she observes this process and wonders
how much momentum contributes. I don't think this is an easy matter.

Wrong again.

Mrs. Woods makes the assertion that there could not be a global collapse unless the upper block was a solid, indestructible object. Mrs. Woods does not, anywhere, explain why this is so or support her assertion in any fashion.

Also, we can get an estimate of how much material "left the building", in your words. It is a very small percentage of the total material. Such an observation essentially blows your entire theory out of the water. We know the upper block did not stay intact...yet pieces were not thrown out of the building. There's no evidence of explosives anywhere...no trace, no boom sounds, no indications that anyone could have or did plant explosives anywhere, no evidence of any explosion blast, etc, etc, etc. You simply make up all this stuff, blend it together, and assume it proves something. Making multiple assertions without evidence does not make any of them more likely. Look up ad hoc reasooning.

Now, when you can actually show the math and physics to tell why any of your nonsense posted as 3 and 4 have any resemblence to reality, then maybe you'd have something.

But you don't. Because you and Mrs. Woods (who, I should point out, thinks buildings should fall like trees...an assertion that would require the falling block to be indestructible) do not understand physics..or are too blinded by personal bias to apply it correctly, or are simply so caught up with your ego in the argument that lying is viewed as acceptible so long as it gets you the conclusion you reached before examingn the evidence.

So, got any evidence at all, beyond "I think it was like this"?

[einsteen]

1) is in fact Greening's model, but once the block hits the ground it is not infinitely strong and the 2nd stage of collapse occurs.

Indeed the other models cannot be proven, but as I said this is what I would expect using 'common sense', I don't state it as the truth, nobody can calculate such a complex model exactly, even numerical methods are very difficult.

[Hellbound]

1) is in fact Greening's model, but once the block hits the ground it is not infinitely strong and the 2nd stage of collapse occurs.

Indeed the other models cannot be proven, but as I said this is what I would expect using 'common sense', I don't state it as the truth, nobody can calculate such a complex model exactly, even numerical methods are very difficult.

But you have been stating it as proof.

You been continually talking about how it's unlikely that the building would have collapsed. IN your earlier post you clearly stated that the building could NOT have suffered a global collapse unles the upper block stayed in one piece...an assertion you have yet to back up with anything resembling evidence.

As usual, you post your assertions and, once you realize you've backed yourself into a corner, try to play the "wasn't meant as truth" and "I'm just asking questions" card.

Since you have no proof of your theory, whatsoever, or even any math or physics to show it as a possibility or likelihood, am I correct to assume that we'll no longer hear about it from you?

[Belz...]

But do they explode one floor at a time, systematically, from below the plane crash till all floors have been demolished?

kc440

I think you are using hyperbole, here. A few "puffs" here and there do not constitude anything "systematic".

One member here said it would have taken years to install the explosives.

Based on how much time it takes to rig smaller buildings, he was right.

I don't think so. Bombs were involved in my opinion.

Well, not in mine. Take that!

kc440 makes an excellent point. Yes, things like fire extinguishers can explode in a fire. But veteran firefighters know this, and would not be confused.

Who said they were confused ? They heard explosions, period.

Can someone please explain this to me? Here we see the top 30 or so floors of WTC2 tilting over to the south. The north face is to the right in the picture. We see great clouds of smoke and dust being expelled from the north face. Since the top of the building is tipping away from the north face, what force is present to create this effect?

Gravity.

[Belz...]

In the north tower it looks like the block already disintegrates during the fall. There is somewhere a pic around with some read lines to show that.

Yes, and that red line happens to be drawn over a cloud of smoke, making that determination impossible.

1) Theoretically if you consider the upper block as an infinitely strong solid object that starts perfectly in the middle in a perfectly symmetrical homogeneous building it will fall through the whole building above a critical amount of energy, global collapse.

2) In a non symmetrical situation the infinitely strong solid object will fall a couple of stories, get angular momentum, behave chaotically (very sensitive to initial variables) and then leave the building at a certain point. No global collapse

3) If the upper block is not infinitely strong (as strong as the building or less) it will be destroyed in a higher rate, it will be one big mess of chaos (very sensitive to initial variables), finally all parts will be destroyed and also leave the building, maybe 20 stories are destroyed then. No global collapse.

4) If the upper block disintegrates at top, like in that posted URL there will be no global collapse.

Oh please, please tell me where you got all this.

[Regnad Kcin]

The point is people who do not see complicity in what happened that day, get frantic when there's talk of bombs exploding in the WTC. I didn't understand why.People "get frantic?"

One member here said it would have taken years to install the explosives. I don't think so.You apparently have no inkling how large the Twin Towers were.

Bombs were involved in my opinion. :rolleyes:Please provide proof. Unsupported opinion is worthless.

[Regnad Kcin]

kc440 makes an excellent point. Yes, things like fire extinguishers can explode in a fire. But veteran firefighters know this, and would not be confused. The firefighters report being blown up the stairs and such. They report "huge" explosions.

This is certainly not inconsistant with explosives. People who parrot the canard of "no evidence" for controlled demolition are just wrong. There is a ton of evidence. For example, this:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/17_WTC2_tilt2.jpg

Can someone please explain this to me? Here we see the top 30 or so floors of WTC2 tilting over to the south. The north face is to the right in the picture. We see great clouds of smoke and dust being expelled from the north face. Since the top of the building is tipping away from the north face, what force is present to create this effect?

Also, notice that the top 10 or so floors have already broken. Why?There is so much wrong with the above post it's nearly a textbook example of wrong.

[cloudshipsrule]

In summary:

A relatively small number of people believe that the twin towers and WTC7 collapsed due to planted explosives. These same individuals continually refuse to acknowledge that actual calculations have been done which lend credence to the official explanation; I.E., that the buildings fell because two fuel-laden jet liners crashed into the twin towers.

No amount of empirical evidence will convince any of the conspiracy believers that controlled demolitions didn't take the buildings down.

Fortunately, it can be proven that the Earth is a spherical celestial body, otherwise these same individuals might be arguing that the Earth is flat on some lesser forum that this.

[Arus808]

Fortunately, it can be proven that the Earth is a spherical celestial body, otherwise these same individuals might be arguing that the Earth is flat on some lesser forum that this.

hey, that is the true for many of these troofers. When one tends to believe in one conspiracy theory so adamantly, they are probably inclined into believing other conpsiracy theories.

[Bell]

In summary:

A relatively small number of people believe that the twin towers and WTC7 collapsed due to planted explosives. These same individuals continually refuse to acknowledge that actual calculations have been done which lend credence to the official explanation; I.E., that the buildings fell because two fuel-laden jet liners crashed into the twin towers.

No amount of empirical evidence will convince any of the conspiracy believers that controlled demolitions didn't take the buildings down.

Fortunately, it can be proven that the Earth is a spherical celestial body, otherwise these same individuals might be arguing that the Earth is flat on some lesser forum that this.

:rolleyes:

One of the earthrise photos. The Flat Earth Society used these photos as evidence of a faked landing, since they show a spherical earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations

[defaultdotxbe]

:rolleyes:

One of the earthrise photos. The Flat Earth Society used these photos as evidence of a faked landing, since they show a spherical earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations
:boggled: :boggled: :boggled: :boggled: :boggled: :boggled:

[einsteen]

But you have been stating it as proof.

You been continually talking about how it's unlikely that the building would have collapsed. IN your earlier post you clearly stated that the building could NOT have suffered a global collapse unles the upper block stayed in one piece...an assertion you have yet to back up with anything resembling evidence.

As usual, you post your assertions and, once you realize you've backed yourself into a corner, try to play the "wasn't meant as truth" and "I'm just asking questions" card.

Since you have no proof of your theory, whatsoever, or even any math or physics to show it as a possibility or likelihood, am I correct to assume that we'll no longer hear about it from you?

What I've said before and am going to say again is that Greening's model is the most favourable model possible, it's an idealization. IN fact a mathematical model.
Using these assumptions (look again at Mrs Woods Model A and Mrs Woods Model B) he is able to calculate a collapse time.

A model should be based on empirical values. He uses the mass of the building, divides it in 110 point masses and calculates a collapse time based on some other assumptions, that is a correct calculation.

You don't have to be a genius to see that if you assume an other model that this will affect the collapse time. If that collapse time is a little bit higher than the measured collapse time the model cannot hold.
If you use a less theoretical model (mass lost, bla bla, empirical observed behaviour from movies, 911eyewitness etc) that will lead to a longer collapse time, you don't have to calculate it but it is possible to calculate it under different assumptions if you want.
Prof. Woods has good reasons to assume that not all momentum contributes to the downward collapse, empirical observations.

What does Greening say about his draft (as far as I know it is no official report, NIST estimated collapse times based on video observation and seismic evidence, that is correct of course)

The calculated times represent the minimum theoretical times of building collapse. (this refers to 11.6 and 12.8 seconds)

If NIST's official values are 9 and 11 (I don't know what the error margin is, if they said 9,0 it means the order of 0,1 ) how needs the model to be modified to get an even faster collapse ?

[T.A.M.]

Can we bring this thread back to its title, The explosions myth of the WTC collapse. Perhaps an admin could branch the "einsteen/Huntsman" discussion on the collapse physics elsewhere, so I dont have to make my brain hurt reading it...lol

TAM

[Hellbound]

If NIST's official values are 9 and 11 (I don't know what the error margin is, if they said 9,0 it means the order of 0,1 ) how needs the model to be modified to get an even faster collapse ?

NIST's times aren't 9 and 11. Problem solved.

ANd you went much further than the simple assumption that "not all momentum contributed to the downward collapse." No, you went much farther to state that "the building could not have fallen."

And unless you can show that enough mass was lost (i.e.-tossed out) to justify that incorrect assertion, then you are assuming your answer before starting.

ANd Mrs. Woods has NO basis for her observations beyond argument from ignorance. It looks like too much mass was lost, but where is here calculation?

You're wrong. Sorry. You still show a lack of understanding, and have still given no real basis for why the fact that some mass was lost means the building had to be CD. You also have given no explanation why there is zero evidence in any other aspect to point to CD.

If you find a man, dead, on the ground, with a highway overpass on top of him...under a place where the rused to be a highway overpass that is no longer there (and that looked a lot like the one on top of our hypothetical dead man), and you have 200 witnesses, and over 150 of them say "the overpass fell on him", you don't conclude he was shot just because the policeman on the scene has a gun.

Well, a rational person wouldn't. You and Mrs. Woods would.

[Hellbound]

Sorry TAM. I'm just tired of the tactics of both einsteen and TruthSeeker of having an argument trashed, then simply ignoring that and reposting the exact same argument on another thread as if nothing happened. It's Christophera-like.

[einsteen]

That is true Huntsman, I cannot physically understand the process. I'm able to reproduce Greening's first stage of collapse result (without excel) but only using his theoretical simplified model.

For a new model you need new observations, new estimatioins, new calculations and you get new results. Ever seen this Huntsman ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5gMAHnm0UA

Forgive me if I cannot explain it with my limited knowledge of physics, I can't

[T.A.M.]

Huntsman;

got no issue with you debating them, that is how we convince the fence sitters, just came in expecting to get into discussion about the "explosions" and saw a little derailment...just lookin to get the train back on the track...

peace

TAM

[Hellbound]

Einsteen:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65871

[Pardalis]

Forgive me if I cannot explain it with my limited knowledge of physics, I can't

Great, so don't fill in what you don't know with insane conspiracy theories. It's not about being gullible and believing whatever the government is saying, but it's about being humble enough to admit that you don't know everything, and maybe never will. Sure for many people these events are difficult to understand, but what we don't know can be explained by people with the proper expertise, like the people at the NIST, and there is absolutely no reason for anyone to think that they did anything else but an honest and rigourous analysis.

[Mancman]

For a new model you need new observations, new estimatioins, new calculations and you get new results. Ever seen this Huntsman ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5gMAHnm0UA

Forgive me if I cannot explain it with my limited knowledge of physics, I can't

Those trajectory arcs are hilariously bogus.

The debris at the edge of the collapse has fallen from the ~90th floor, not been launched out from the centre of the building.

[Hellbound]

Those trajectory arcs are hilariously bogus.

The debris at the edge of the collapse has fallen from the ~90th floor, not been launched out from the centre of the building.

Manc:

IN an effort to maintain topic integrity, I've moved this discussion with Einsteen, master of plasma, to a new thread on the forum:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65871

But thanks for backing up my point ;)

[Foolmewunz]

Bump for TS1234
I know this has been tried before, but like Huntsman, I'm tired of the hit-and-run assertion that keeps coming back.
So, I'm going back to your earliest contention - that we could not find a single shard of photographic evidence to show pieces of debris (other than steel) larger than a micron (IIRC).

Please respond to the question. In the video posted above by CptColombo, do you or do you not see:
Large pieces of non-steel debris at Ground Zero, on the ground.
Large pieces of non-steel debris being loaded into trucks at GZ.
Large pieces of non-steel debris on conveyor belts.
Considerable number of non-powderized person effects in the sorting bins at the recovery location.

It is there. It is visible. For someone who constantly uses words like "obviously", this is something that's obvious. Will you concede the point? The world awaits. Reference this post for more and for the link to the video:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1991424#post1991424

[kc440_]

Kc440 have you thought to contact any of these firefighters and ask them if they suspect there were bombs in the buildings?

And I believe had there been that much explosives the evidence of it would be massive. Incontrovertibly massive.

I went to a link last night that said many of those firefighters now have cancer. And I'm sure all the dogs on duty that day are long dead. It was suggested that small H-bombs could have been used or DUs. And that they were planted in the sub basements of the towers. It seems explosions were heard from the bottom of the building about 14- 17 seconds before the plane hit. This is from seismic graphs.

I remember seeing a man and a woman escaping from all the debris they were hit with. Their faces were red like a terrible sunburn. Someone suggested to me that they looked like that due to radiation.

kc440

[Dog Town]

And I'm sure all the dogs on duty that day are long dead

Call Randi for me then, I saw two on Oprah months ago.

[kc440_]

Hey, it takes a special kind of CT'er to make an assertion in one sentence and debunk himself in the next. :)

All those piles of powdery debris. I find it hard to believe that they were checking for bombs. They were too busy checking for people! I guess the need was to get the debris out of there and clean up, but it was still a crime scene. Once it was moved, nothing was or could be examined. I think that's the sad truth. :(

kc440

[kc440_]

Stay tuned, kc. In a few days I'll be publishing some facts to temper your fantasies.

ooooh, I'm thrilled...

kc440 :)

[kc440_]

WTC 7 to me was demolition. It added more dust that sent people running for their lives. There are videos of 7 going down. That looks like demolition without a doubt.

kc440

[Dog Town]

WTC 7 to me was demolition. It added more dust that sent people running for their lives. There are videos of 7 going down. That looks like demolition without a doubt.

kc440

Just like you are sure all the dogs are long dead?

[Bell]

WTC 7 to me was demolition. It added more dust that sent people running for their lives. There are videos of 7 going down. That looks like demolition without a doubt.

kc440

So your evidence is the fact that it looks like a CD to you? Better bring Silverstein to court now, your evidence is incriminating!

[WildCat]

I went to a link last night that said many of those firefighters now have cancer. And I'm sure all the dogs on duty that day are long dead. It was suggested that small H-bombs could have been used or DUs. And that they were planted in the sub basements of the towers. It seems explosions were heard from the bottom of the building about 14- 17 seconds before the plane hit. This is from seismic graphs.

I remember seeing a man and a woman escaping from all the debris they were hit with. Their faces were red like a terrible sunburn. Someone suggested to me that they looked like that due to radiation.

kc440
This is one of the most stupid, dimwitted, illogical, scat-for-brains, idiotic, mindless, hare-brained posts I have ever seen on the internet.

Someone suggested to me that you are actually a mentally challenged 15 year old. :rolleyes:

[kc440_]

Yes, there are bigger items in the debris. Were these objects examined for explosives? The video just shows the workers looking for bones or body parts.

kc440

[Dog Town]

First off, dogs that look for bodies, only do that. Why would they be checking for explosives right away, if at all?

[kookbreaker]

Yes, there are bigger items in the debris. Were these objects examined for explosives? The video just shows the workers looking for bones or body parts.

kc440

Explosives would have needed to been placed on steel columns. The effects of which would show on the steel after said charges were set off. These would be very, very different from the look of columns that were weakened from fire and gave out.

No such evidence has been found.

[kc440_]

Call Randi for me then, I saw two on Oprah months ago.

I'm so glad some of them are alive. I would have liked to see them. :eek:

kc440

[kc440_]

Just like you are sure all the dogs are long dead?

I love those dogs. :)

kc440

[twinstead]

Face it, Kc440. You seem like a relatively intelligent person. Can't you see that you simply can't declare something as complex as a building failure as a demolition just because it looks like one to you?

I remember seeing a man and a woman escaping from all the debris they were hit with. Their faces were red like a terrible sunburn. Someone suggested to me that they looked like that due to radiation.

You're kidding, right? Of course, heat is radiation, I suppose in one way this 'someone' is correct. But I get the impression that you, or he, are implying in that charming CT 'just asking questions' way that somehow something nuclear was involved.

You may not see it, but it is so obvious that you started with a conclusion, "Conspiracy", and are now searching for evidence, ANY little tidbit that might even hint, even if it is shown to be wrong, that your theory is correct.

People like you are anathema to real investigations.

Like my kids when they are bad, you should be grounded from any conclusions about the entire event.

[T.A.M.]

I went to a link last night that said many of those firefighters now have cancer. And I'm sure all the dogs on duty that day are long dead. It was suggested that small H-bombs could have been used or DUs. And that they were planted in the sub basements of the towers. It seems explosions were heard from the bottom of the building about 14- 17 seconds before the plane hit. This is from seismic graphs.

I remember seeing a man and a woman escaping from all the debris they were hit with. Their faces were red like a terrible sunburn. Someone suggested to me that they looked like that due to radiation.

kc440

ok, post the link kc440, I'd like to debunk...I mean analyze that crap...I mean evidence as well.

You truely have lost it havent you...H-bombs. Do you have any idea what you (or they) are talking about...minimum yield 100 KTonne...oh ya an explosion in the basement alright.

What I really want is to know who read this from the "seismic" data, given that the people who recorded it say this is not true, and given there were multiple seismic stations that were active that day, and none of them pick up what you are claiming...

please the link.

TAM

[kc440_]

Here's the link. I don't understand the politics on that website, but it's an intriguing theory about DUs, etc. I'm not sure if the site is anti-semitic or just sarcastic in its statements. I don't care.

http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/newversion/hb1.htm

kc440

[Comsat Angel]

I went to a link last night that said many of those firefighters now have cancer. And I'm sure all the dogs on duty that day are long dead. It was suggested that small H-bombs could have been used or DUs. And that they were planted in the sub basements of the towers. It seems explosions were heard from the bottom of the building about 14- 17 seconds before the plane hit. This is from seismic graphs.

I remember seeing a man and a woman escaping from all the debris they were hit with. Their faces were red like a terrible sunburn. Someone suggested to me that they looked like that due to radiation.

kc440

WoE!?

I'm not a scientist, nor an expert in nuclear weapons, but I do have a modicum of Common Sense. "small H-bombs"?!?! What kind of yield are you talking about for a "small" H bomb? One Megaton? Five hundred kilotons? Perhaps only a hundred and fifty kilotons (something of a benchmark in H-bomb yields). If The-Mysterious-They detonated small H-bombs at Ground Zero you'd be looking at undisputable, undeniable, verifiable proof of nuclear weapon usage. Of course, there wouldn't be much left of New York, let alone the Twin Towers if you go letting off "small" H-bombs within the city limits. Not only that, an H-bomb, of whatever yield, detonated at ground level would destroy the bottom floors of a structure first.

Ah what the heck, order me a pint of whatever that kc440's been drinking!

And what are "DU"'s? Please, please don't say this refers to Depleted Uranium.

[kc440_]

WoE!?
Ah what the heck, order me a pint of whatever that kc440's been drinking!

And what are "DU"'s? Please, please don't say this refers to Depleted Uranium.

OK, I won't say it. :D
kc440

[T.A.M.]

ok, I have seen some pretty lame, horrible CT sites, full of Shaite, but that one has got to be the worst site I have ever seen...

OMG....kc, get your info from somewhere else man...please.

TAM

[stateofgrace]

KC this is on the opening page in massive bold lettering.

All of them were Stealth Jew who killed thousands in WTC and Pentagon (http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/meanwhile_j.htm#BUSHS%20PERFECTLY%20JEWISH%20ADMIN ISTRATION). They indeed used Hydrogen bombs. Don't dare trust your stealth Jewish President. (http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/newversion/yudayasensou.e.htm)


What on earth made you go any further ?

[cloudshipsrule]

And I'm sure all the dogs on duty that day are long dead. It was suggested that small H-bombs could have been used or DUs. And that they were planted in the sub basements of the towers. It seems explosions were heard from the bottom of the building about 14- 17 seconds before the plane hit. This is from seismic graphs.

Stop and think about that for a second. What in hell did this mysterious explosions in the bottom of the building 14 to 17 seconds before the plane hit actually do?? The buildings didn't fall from them, did they? The planes hit, and the buildings didn't fall until over an hour later. What did these basement bombs do??

Or perhaps, could it be that the seismic data was read incorrectly, and the explosions from the basement were actually effects of the fuel-laden plane hitting the building, sending burning fuel and shockwaves down through the building? Doesn't that make more sense? If not, then I ask again. What did these basement explosions accomplish if they were planted and detonated before the planes ever hit, yet didn't result in the buildings collapsing until over an hour later??

You do realize that both buildings fell from the top down, starting right about (exactly) where the planes hit them, don't you?

[kc440_]

Just like you are sure all the dogs are long dead?

What evidence about the dogs proves 2 of them were on Oprah? They might be new dogs or lookalikes. They may be imposters Five years is a long time for a dog. A dog that size lives on average 10 years. You subject that dog to inhaling all that tainted debris, and he's still alive?

kc440

[WildCat]

What evidence about the dogs proves 2 of them were on Oprah? They might be new dogs or lookalikes. They may be imposters Five years is a long time for a dog. A dog that size lives on average 10 years. You subject that dog to inhaling all that tainted debris, and he's still alive?

kc440
Between that and the link you posted, I think you're yanking our chains. Nobody could be this stupid.

[Dog Town]

They might be new dogs or lookalikes. They may be imposters

How do you sleep at night?

[kc440_]

All of them were Stealth Jew who killed thousands in WTC and Pentagon (http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/meanwhile_j.htm#BUSHS%20PERFECTLY%20JEWISH%20ADMIN ISTRATION). They indeed used Hydrogen bombs. Don't dare trust your stealth Jewish President. (http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/newversion/yudayasensou.e.htm)


What on earth made you go any further ?

I wasn't sure whether they were accusing Jewish people or being sarcastic about the way people think about Jews.

kc440

[Dog Town]

I wasn't sure whether they were accusing Jewish people or being sarcastic about the way people think about Jews.

kc440

You should lose your questioning rights for two weeks!

[kc440_]

Between that and the link you posted, I think you're yanking our chains. Nobody could be this stupid.

When Lassie was on, they had several dogs playing her. Dogs that looked like one another. And the Lassies weren't even girl dogs!

kc440

[Dog Town]

When Lassie was on, they had several dogs playing her. Dogs that looked like one another. And the Lassies weren't even girl dogs!

kc440

So you can do research! What's the matter here?

[Gravy]

I went to a link last night that said many of those firefighters now have cancer. And I'm sure all the dogs on duty that day are long dead. It was suggested that small H-bombs could have been used or DUs. And that they were planted in the sub basements of the towers. It seems explosions were heard from the bottom of the building about 14- 17 seconds before the plane hit. This is from seismic graphs.

I remember seeing a man and a woman escaping from all the debris they were hit with. Their faces were red like a terrible sunburn. Someone suggested to me that they looked like that due to radiation.

kc440
Two days in a row. The two dumbest posts I've seen on these forums. First TS1234, now kc and his sunburn band.

This forum has a search function, kc. I suggest you use it to find out how wrong you are about each of your beliefs.

[Gravy]

Here's the link. I don't understand the politics on that website, but it's an intriguing theory about DUs, etc. I'm not sure if the site is anti-semitic or just sarcastic in its statements. I don't care.

http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/newversion/hb1.htm (http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/%7Eoyakodon/newversion/hb1.htm)

kc440
Okay, my guess is that kc's either a troll or is mentally ill like Christophera. No one in their right mind could take that site seriously. No one.