If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

MicahJava said:

Collapse or Explosion? A Discussion of the WTC “Sounds of Explosions” Issue by Adam Taylor
Click to expand...

So as I suspected no video, let me know when you find one, you'll be the first.


Already answered.
Click to expand...

Your answer was laughably wrong, learn math.



ProBonoShill, what do you think was the cause of the percussive noise heard in the CBS footage and the Ashleigh Banfield footage? Was it floors partially collapsing or did a bunch of oil transformers decide to blow up at that moment?
Click to expand...

No idea, like I said it could have been many things, read and learn:

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm


One thing it wasn't for sure was the telltale successive explosions of a CD.

What do you think it was?
 
ProBonoShill said:
So as I suspected no video, let me know when you find one, you'll be the first.
Click to expand...

Collapse or Explosion? A Discussion of the WTC “Sounds of Explosions” Issue by Adam Taylor


Your answer was laughably wrong, learn math.
Click to expand...

Your question is laughable wrong considering that you expect everyone to believe that fire did all of the work.


No idea, like I said it could have been many things, read and learn:

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm


One thing it wasn't for sure was the telltale successive explosions of a CD.

What do you think it was?
Click to expand...

ProBonoShill, what do you think was the cause of the percussive noise heard in the CBS footage and the Ashleigh Banfield footage? Was it floors partially collapsing or did a bunch of oil transformers decide to blow up at that moment?
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
It would seem that only eight stories worth of demolition devices in the core would be enough to destroy seven. So, size doesn't really seem to be that much of an issue.
Click to expand...

It would seem eh? Why don't you explain it to us, show us the math and the amount required.

What about the other two, no explosives used there only in building 7?
 
MicahJava said:
Collapse or Explosion? A Discussion of the WTC “Sounds of Explosions” Issue by Adam Taylor
Click to expand...

??? That isn't a video. Do you not understand what a video is? There are hundreds if not thousands available, why can't you provide even one???



Your question is laughable wrong considering that you expect everyone to believe that fire did all of the work.
Click to expand...

So no math then? Good job! I'm sure that will help on your quest for a new investigation.



ProBonoShill, what do you think was the cause of the percussive noise heard in the CBS footage and the Ashleigh Banfield footage? Was it floors partially collapsing or did a bunch of oil transformers decide to blow up at that moment?
Click to expand...

Already answered, try reading for comprehension next time.

No what do you think it was?
 
ProBonoShill said:
It would seem eh? Why don't you explain it to us, show us the math and the amount required.

What about the other two, no explosives used there only in building 7?
Click to expand...

Seismic signals of explosions are not needed if the explosives are not directly connected to the ground, as is the case with that Las Vegas demo. Obviously, anybody with foreknowledge of the airplane attacks would know that they would crash pretty high up in the buildings. Either way, according to NIST, "Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Explosive devices designed to rip through solid steel are probably factored out. They are too loud and they leave obvious damage on the steel which was not noticed or seen in photographs.

As for "shrapnel", a while back I gave some examples of shrapnel injuries by WTC victims/survivors.
Click to expand...

There should have been shrapnel embedded in the steel.
You only have a few possible devices and no evidence of any.
 
MicahJava said:
Seismic signals of explosions are not needed if they are not directly connected to the ground, as is the case with that Las Vegas demo. Obviously, anybody with foreknowledge of the airplane attacks would know that they would crash pretty high up in the buildings. Either way, according to NIST, "Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."
Click to expand...

This is true... so what is the significance of the total collapse times for the two towers? What can you tell from the time it took them to go from static to totally collapsed?
 
FalseFlag said:
I am not an expert. I never said I never had any education in the field of physics.

Your statement is the apotheosis of the skeptic's modus operandi: they take a statement, and then twist it to have a meaning that suits their purpose.
Click to expand...
Your post show your level of physics education.

Everyone here can read.......
 
DGM said:
Your post show your level of physics education.

Everyone here can read.......
Click to expand...

Are you sure? I don't think you would post that if you had read the posts in this thread. I already passed the physics test. You don't get to use that argument anymore.

Just admit that you are a skeptic because you can't give up the fantasy that you fight so hard to cling to. That really is the root of the issue.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Seismic signals of explosions are not needed if the explosives are not directly connected to the ground, as is the case with that Las Vegas demo. Obviously, anybody with foreknowledge of the airplane attacks would know that they would crash pretty high up in the buildings. Either way, according to NIST, "Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."
Click to expand...

:confused:

What does that gibberish have to do with what I wrote?????

Please focus and answer the questions.

Try one at a time if it helps.

Do you think explosives were used to bring down the buildings?

How many pounds of explosives would it take to bring down WTC 1?

How many pounds of explosives would it take to bring down WTC 2?

How many pounds of explosives would it take to bring down WTC 7?

Show the math please. Once you calculate the amount of explosives required, tell us if they would register on a Seismic Recording device.

You do know readings were taken that day don't you?

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf

Why can't you produce a video with the successive loud bands of a CD when hundreds exist?

What do you think was responsible for the explosion Ashley Banfield heard? Do you think that mirrors a controlled demolition in any way?

I mean if you can't answer these simple questions, how do expect anyone to support a new investigation?

The lurkers are watching and waiting for you to impress them. Show them what you got!
 
FalseFlag said:
Are you sure? I don't think you would post that if you had read the posts in this thread. I already passed the physics test. You don't get to use that argument anymore.

Just admit that you are a skeptic because you can't give up the fantasy that you fight so hard to cling to. That really is the root of the issue.
Click to expand...

LOL You failed the physics tests badly and if I were you, I'd be hoping this thread and it's predecessor get buried deep in this sub forum never to be revived. Not understanding scale and simple gravity laws is excusable for an 8 year old, not a grown adult who purports to be studying the building collapses of 9/11.

Even the lurkers are embarrassed for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom