Originally Posted by SR1419
Really? What qualifies you to say that 110 should rightly be reduced to 5 in such an event? Who are you?
Really? What qualifies you to say that 110 should rightly be reduced to 5 in such an event? Who are you?
Thanks
Ahh yes, quickly resort to cynical semantics and ad hom attacks...FAIL.
Please show me where I said YOU said that...
Who are YOU to say it wasn't a pile one would expect?
You whined and whinged for a picture of this large rubble pile...it was provided and you -typically- ignored it.
This analysis puts forth a decent argument:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM
Last edited by SR1419; April 8th, 2012 at 01:09 PM.
lee has a 24 hour ban for impoliteness.
You're clueless?
Why don't you stop complaining and show me the evidence for your claims?
Where you said it? Why don't you read what you wrote? You join in, saying you find it interesting that people say that debris falling outside the footprint - a subject being discussed - is proof of explosives. It's what is known as implying something. Implicit rather than explicit, why else would you bring it up here if you weren't implying that was what I was saying?
Anyway - out of an eleven floor tower, like the one in all these controlled demolition videos Mick keeps posting in order to somehow back his claim that the wtc wasn't a controlled demolition, you know the ones, how high is the pile of rubble? Use floors as a measure.
Who am I to say it wasn't a pile one would expect? I'm very much qualified to say. You?
I whined and whinged, did I? Takes one to know one, eh?
..this large rubble pile...you say? Large compared to what? How can you tell it's so large? It's a section of a photograph which shows nothing of value in this argument. I ignored it because it's not worth commenting on - Mick knows full well what he's doing showing that picture and it fools some people, but not all. Which camp are you in? That pile is a pile that's been collected and piled by machinery and you can't see all of it, how does that help any consideration of the issue? Your comment shows you don't even know what you're looking at, so how can you make these observations and expect them to have any weight? Really.
Last edited by lee h oswald; April 10th, 2012 at 12:38 PM.
911 nut physics eh? Nothing but the best in unimpeachable information....I wonder what this website's angle is and how much the sad pricks that run it get paid?
What's wrong, can't speak for yourself?
Furthermore, you assert explosions. Measure the velocity (speed and direction) of significant objects in the videos and demonstrate using more than hand waving that they were being propelled by explosive force as opposed to falling away from a collapsing structure. The photo and videos are consistent with a progressive collapse having begun with a significant failure in one or a couple adjacent floors. Assertions of explosions and heaps of molten metal need better evidence than you have so far provided. There is a significant rubble pile described in the link provided.
http://dart2.arc.nasa.gov/Deployment...ER050_JPG.html
http://dart2.arc.nasa.gov/Deployment...ER049_JPG.html
http://dart2.arc.nasa.gov/Deployment...ER023_JPG.html
This is a nutter site about “beam weapons” but it is a nice collection of photos for scale none the less.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/d...WarsBeam4.html
Last edited by Mick; April 10th, 2012 at 01:00 PM. Reason: fixed links
And you assert 'accident'. Golly, isn't it lucky they both went down just like a controlled demolition - what are the odds? Let's not mention wtc 7 eh? Who would a thunk it? And all on the same day! Man we were lucky. How blatant does it need to be before you can see what's in front of you?
Why don't you prove explosives weren't used with some funky calculation? You presumably are at one with the claim that all these Verinage controlled demolitions look the same as the towers collapses? It seems to be the consensus here. You know, why don't you just answer the question: why didn't they even test for explosives?
Assertions of explosions and heaps of molten metal need better evidence than you, you say? You're right, they do need better evidence. How about the hundreds of documented eyewitness accounts from police, public, firefighters, first responders....all telling us of bombs, further explosions, etc ad nauseam. Where have you been? Just do a search for yourself. As for molten metal, more of the same - it's not a secret you know. And you say 'assertions'? No, it's called hard evidence.
No it is not lucky - they collapsed just exactly as physics would have them collapse.
Luck had nothing to do with it.
Given your propensity for telling everyone else to bring the evidence, why are you still here with none of your own?
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Hard evidence of what exactly? Are you saying there is hard evidence of explosions?
Do you think explosions caused the destruction of the towers?
Funny Lee...what are you "implying" here...
Can you proof of that statement? Where is your evidence?
It is by any rational definition a large pile.
Actually- there were NO "eyewitness" accounts of a bomb. Lots of people heard loud noises and perhaps explosions that sounded like what they thought was a "bomb"- and given the context of the moment it is easy to understand why they thought that. That does not mean it was a bomb- just that it sounded like that. Explosions and loud reports could have been from many things from combustible materials in the building - oxygen tanks etc..to falling elevators to compressed air shooting out near the speed of sound as the building collapsed.
...but there were no eyewitness accounts of bombs that I am aware of.
Last edited by Mick; April 11th, 2012 at 10:31 AM. Reason: merge
From an earlier link somewhere else...
The end of the controlled demolition theory.
Among the things you should take away from this video:
- The collapse starts at 0:14 and ends roughly at 0:27, which means it fell in about 13 seconds. At freefall speed it would have taken 9.2 seconds.
- The camera happens to be zoomed right in on the exact point of structural collapse at the exact time it occurred, and you can clearly see the beams slowly give way, twisting inward. In an explosion, they would have moved suddenly away.
- As the camera zooms back out, you can clearly see beams and concrete being thrown the entire width of the building away from it, and continuing to travel outward as the collapse proceeds; obviously it didn't fall into its own footprint.
- The collapse begins at the point of the fire, so a demolition would either have required explosives to have been placed at exactly that point beforehand and to have survived the impact and fire without being destroyed, or they would need to have been planted ahead of time with nobody noticing.
http://www.howtonotsuck.com/viewarticle.php?id=63
End Of...
Last edited by Mick; April 12th, 2012 at 12:05 PM. Reason: quote to ex tags
Oh, and what's your evidence? The 9/11 Commission Reprt and some corrupt people at NIST, Popular Mechanics, FEMA - what exactly?
Your evidence is a joke.
If hundreds of eyewitness accounts of explosions is not hard evidence then those courts you no doubt think are the bollocks are getting it badly wrong on that one. Get real and stop blowing smoke.
Do I think? Yes, I do.
I'm implying that the towers' destruction was an explosive event. What's funny about that?
Actually, I'm wrong, I'm not implying it, I said it a while back, it's pretty explicit actually. Go find that quote
Why don't you ask Mick if I'm right? Maybe that'll settle you down a bit, eh?
You really need to think about what you say before you say it.
Do I really need to go and find the proof of this for you? Aren't you able to do it yourself? You really are not aware of much of what you might not like to hear, are you? You really need to expand your research and your mind. If anyone was paying you to do this, you'd be sacked.
Last edited by Mick; April 11th, 2012 at 10:30 AM. Reason: merge
Oh Socrates...I really am LOL!From an earlier link somewhere else...
The end of the controlled demolition theory.
http://www.howtonotsuck.com/viewarticle.php?id=63
End Of...
Loads of people said they heard 'loud noises' eh? LOL again. The more I read the more I don't know whether to laugh or cry - I'm laughing at the mo and it's hard to type
Actually? You are wrong. Do you want to go and find that out for yourself, or shall I show you in front of everybody else that you're wrong?
Last edited by Mick; April 11th, 2012 at 10:30 AM. Reason: merge
It might be worth actually listening to what some real explosions sound like, and what real controlled explosive demolitions look like:
Most of which recorded from half a mile or more away.
Also see audio from a progressive collapse with no explosives.
Then compare with audio of the WTC collapses, recorded from similar distances.
And lee, if you are not going to be polite, then I'd appreciate it if you take your arguments elsewhere. Please avoid personal attacks.
You said that in reference to a steel beam "bouncing" and thus falling outside the footprint of the collapse....
and then you say in reference to the very same beam...
classic.
Yes, you do. For once you need to actually back up your claim with actual evidence. I am happy to be proven wrong. In all my research (admittedly it has been several years since I looked in 9/11 at length) I never came across anyone claiming to have SEEN a bomb go off.
Is it possible an "explosion" could something else other than a bomb?
Can you explain why the analysis of the rubble pile put forth on the link provided is flawed...just insulting the author and accusing them of being paid doesn't make for a compelling argument.
Among the things you should take away from this video:
- The collapse starts at 0:14 and ends roughly at 0:27, which means it fell in about 13 seconds. At freefall speed it would have taken 9.2 seconds.
- The camera happens to be zoomed right in on the exact point of structural collapse at the exact time it occurred, and you can clearly see the beams slowly give way, twisting inward. In an explosion, they would have moved suddenly away.
- As the camera zooms back out, you can clearly see beams and concrete being thrown the entire width of the building away from it, and continuing to travel outward as the collapse proceeds; obviously it didn't fall into its own footprint.
- The collapse begins at the point of the fire, so a demolition would either have required explosives to have been placed at exactly that point beforehand and to have survived the impact and fire without being destroyed, or they would need to have been planted ahead of time with nobody noticing.
You ARE going to have to explain away the observations (and events) evidenced in this video HarveyOswald.
Well?
Explosives ?
You will have to offer an apology for your trolling and leave with your tail between your legs Lee...
Here you are:
Off you go, or - OFF you go. Get it?
I made a little compilation focussing on the sounds of tall building being collapsed with explosives:
Also noteworthy in the above (and getting back to the orinal point) is that they look nothing like a progressive collapse, unlike the WTC.
A mixture of molten aluminum from the airplanes fuselage and water from the broken sprinkler system may have caused a large explosion that initiated or amplified the collapses. Even small amounts would cause a proportionate explosion.
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-scien...says-scientist
Seems to me there are no explanations which completely explain what happened on that DAY. . . All is speculation. . . Probability of the events happening as described by NIST and conspiracy advocates are just as unlikely. . . The truth will never be known. . . I have studied accidents, deaths, etc as part of my job. . . Many times there are no satisfactory explanations. . . CIS, NCIS, etc is often fantasy for consumption by the masses. . . .this is the same thing. . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
I'd disagree that "all is speculation". We know a lot of facts. We know that planes flew into the buildings at about 500 mph. We know what they weighed. We know what they were made of. We know how much fuel they had on board. We know what the buildings were made of, and what their construction was. We know there were fires. We know the buildings collapsed. Very few people disagree about these facts.
Funny is it?
So which is it? NO "eyewitness" accounts or no eyewitness accounts...that I am aware of?
Here's a couple of eyewitnesses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYlEVCpG_0
But they're just firemen, just evacuated from one of the towers, just saying what they witnessed. Obviously they are traumatised; they don't know what they're saying. What would they know?
Read up here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...radeCenter.pdf
Excerpt/overview:
The Body of Evidence
According to Jim Dwyer of the New York Times, the FDNY oral histories were
“originally gathered on the order of Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner on Sept. 11,
who said he wanted to preserve those accounts before they became reshaped by a collective
memory.”[2] The oral histories constitute about 12,000 pages of testimony by 503 FDNY
firefighters, emergency medical technicians and paramedics collected from early October, 2001
to late January, 2002. Mr. Von Essen’s prophetic act has given us a remarkably rich body of
narrative material.
And another:
Initially, the city of New York refused to release this material, but after a lawsuit by the
New York Times and some of the 9/11 victims’ families the city was ordered to release them.
The New York Times then posted them on its internet site, where they have been available (with
some deletions) to the public since August, 2005.[3]
As we learn from the oral histories themselves, the interviews took place in various
FDNY offices and were conducted by a variety of FDNY officers. Sometimes only the
interviewer and the interviewee were present, while at other times additional persons were
present. Locations, dates, times, and names of those present are all meticulously recorded.
It is impossible to tell simply by reading the recorded interviews if the atmosphere in
which the interviews were conducted was coercive in any way, but I have found no evidence of
this. In many cases the interviewer simply asks the interviewee to recount what he or she
experienced on 9/11. Thereafter, some interviewers intervene frequently with questions, while
others are largely silent. Interventions typically seek to establish details of times and locations, of
the actions of various chiefs and firefighters, and of the progress of operations. Interviewers
usually do not show any special interest in the topics central to my concerns—the collapses of
the Towers and the use or non-use of explosions in these collapses--but their curiosity and
attention are sometimes crucial to the eliciting of critical information.[4] There are very few
cases where the interviewer may be said to have “led” the witness toward the explosion
option.[5]
I sincerely hope this opens a new avenue of research.
Last edited by Mick; April 12th, 2012 at 11:37 AM. Reason: ex tags
So why was there no recorded audio that sounded like demolition charges?
http://metabunk.org/threads/364-9-11...ull=1#post8126
You know, a large chunk of building falling several hundred feet can sound pretty loud upon impact.
The actual recorded audio seems perfectly consistent with an incredibly large progressive collapse.
I read through all of that years ago...
Actually- there were no "eyewitnesses"- they did not see bombs go off...they heard explosions and experienced debris.
You are assuming and/or implying that because there were "explosions" that it was a bomb.
Is it possible that there were explosions and loud reports caused by things other than a "bomb"?
For example- What would the result be if an damaged elevator dropped 50 floors to the ground? or if a broken gas line exploded? Or if any of the numerous combustible materials in a modern day office building...er...combusted?
What would you expect to hear as a 100+ floor building begins to collapse?
In my previous research I have read through the FD oral reports...no one reported seeing a bomb go off.
Hearing an explosion or a "loud bang" is not the same thing
Read through the selected quotes in the 9/11 journal- not a one says they saw a bomb...they all heard explosions and loud noises.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...s_full_01.html
Last edited by SR1419; April 12th, 2012 at 12:13 PM.
Pretty much.
My problem is with those who claim to know. And perhaps by coincidence sing from the same hymn book as all versions 'official'. Scientific method is claimed but it is neglected, for example, that NIST effectively falsified its own report into wtc7 within the report itself. They held a press conference to herald their findings in place of offering the report for peer review. That has not happened. NIST tells the world that the answer to why wtc7 collapsed is now understood; the results are in our computer. Try making an foia and see how far you get with that. We are to take it on trust from NIST that the results of their tests were conclusive in their finding that, effectively, normal office fires caused the building to collapse? This behaviour is demonstrably unscientific yet claiming the opposite; something not right there; call it intuition.
I expect you're right that the truth will not be known. But knowing the truth is possible, it does exist somewhere, with the cooperation of those involved and the simple telling of the truth such as it is. And now I'm back from Wonderland and: That won't happen, so the next best thing might be a good detective. I'd welcome that. Access to all the evidence; no holds barred; no-one above the law; after all the misery US foreign policy- a euphemism if ever there was - 're'action to 911 has caused around the world - we might do our best to get to the closest approximation of the truth as we can and bring those responsible to book. That process has not been carried out. Why on earth not?
Many times there are no satisfactory explanations - I agree. I suppose my point is that there is a satifactory explanation for this out there somewhere, the truth (or near as damn approximation after rigorous work); we just haven't found it yet.
Shall we call them ear witnesses? The semantics are epic, but poor. You shouldn't ask for a raise just now.
Many people were shooting video with audio at the time. Nothing that's definitively an explosion can be heard, and certainly nothing like the demolition explosions.
I hope I'm not being impolite when I say you're talking out of your arse. The semantics are epic, but poor. I wouldn't ask for a raise just now.
For example- What would the result be if an damaged elevator dropped 50 floors to the ground? or if a broken gas line exploded? Or if any of the numerous combustible materials in a modern day office building...er...combusted?
If an elevator dropped fifty floors it would be damaged pretty badly. The question might be: did it win the race to the ground with the rest of the building? I mean, what are you trying to impart? What would the result be if any of the numerous combustible materials in a modern day office building...er...combusted? Well, there'd be a fire.
No, I agree, you're right. No-one said they 'saw a bomb'. How would one know? Would it have 'bomb' written on it?
Last edited by lee h oswald; April 12th, 2012 at 01:27 PM.
You are missing or intentionally avoiding the point.
You claimed there was proof of bombs going off in the "eyewitness" accounts...
The only proof you provided was that they heard loud noises that sounded like explosions...
Like so many important issues of the day . . . the unknowns are critical . . . until an impartial investigation is accomplished with access to all data, motives, national security restrictions removed . . . noting will be resolved . . . I feel completely comfortable in the belief that we don't know the truth . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
No, you've made up the point. I'm struggling to find where I said I had proof of anything. Please indicate where I said that. Eviidence is not necessarily proof, perhaps you should know. If you were in a court of law, right about now the judge would be putting you out the door. explosion: a. A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the ...etc explosive: Relating to or having the nature of an explosion. 2. Tending to explode. n. 1. A substance, especially a prepared chemical, that explodes or causes explosion...etc It transpires the most likely cause of an explosion might well be explosives - who would a thunk it? Look, you don't have to be Einstein, Hercules Poiroit, Sherlock Holmes and Philip Marlowe all rolled into one to see that something isn't adding up.... Answer me one question, please: why were tests for explosives not made or addressed by FEMA, NIST - anyone? Why not?
Last edited by Mick; April 13th, 2012 at 12:34 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks