• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Possible argument against the WTC "Freefallers?"

MortFurd

Master Poster
M
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
2,010
I am no expert in conspiracy theories, neither am I an engineer or a demolitions expert. It seems to me, though, that the folks claiming that the buildings were brought down by "controlled demolition" are missing something.

Aren't demolition charges rather noisy when they detonate?

There was a program on TV a couple of months ago about companies that do that kind of thing, and there were videos of several of their projects. Each time a building went down, there was a sequence of detonations that could be heard and seen. The videos were usually made from a safe distance, but the detonations were quite clearly audible - damned loud would be a good description.

I've seen several documentations about the WTC attacks, and there are at least a few videos made by people fleeing the collapse. One that I quite clearly remember was made by a guy who left the camera on and recording as he ran down the street to get away from the collapse. You can quite clearly hear him and other people running, as well as the impact of chunks from the building and the general rumble of the collapse besides. What you do not hear are detonations, neither in sequence nor individually. There's just the a view of the building, then a lot of screams along the lines of "Holy, Sh**. Run." Then the view changes as the guy runs off. He dropped the hand holding the camera, then pointed the camera behind him. You get a kind of "butt's eyeview" of the collapse as the guy is running away. Lots of noise and screams and rumbling, but no detonations at all.

Does anyone know if this has been discussed or pointed out to the "freefallers?" If not, does anyone know where to find videos (with sound) that could be used to make this argument?

I've seen the argument for demolition discussed here, and expounded on at great length here and here. This argument wouldn't be much use against the guy at BYU as he goes on at great length about thermite rather than explosives.
 
seems like anothe really good point to me. besides not seeing any compelling evidence of explosions (there are videos where some people "see" explosions going off but it was far from convincing to me) there has also been footage from angles that fairly clearly show that the towers actually fell much slower than "freefall" so the whole basis of the argument is on very shaky ground.
 
That would be a good argument in a world without super-nano-extra-CTthermate™, the explosive that explodes without exploding, cuts steel beams horizontally like a katana of plasma, pulverizes concrete (cores) without detonating like ordinary, mundane explosives, violently expel debris horizontally while attaching small rockets to them that ignite when their trajectory becomes vertical so that they will fall much quickly than freefall, etc., etc.
 
Alphaba said:
That would be a good argument in a world without super-nano-extra-CTthermate™, the explosive that explodes without exploding, cuts steel beams horizontally like a katana of plasma, pulverizes concrete (cores) without detonating like ordinary, mundane explosives, violently expel debris horizontally while attaching small rockets to them that ignite when their trajectory becomes vertical so that they will fall much quickly than freefall, etc., etc.
Click to expand...


:dl:

Well said. Especially Katana of Plasma...

-Andrew
 
MortFurd said:
I am no expert in conspiracy theories, neither am I an engineer or a demolitions expert. It seems to me, though, that the folks claiming that the buildings were brought down by "controlled demolition" are missing something.

Aren't demolition charges rather noisy when they detonate?
Click to expand...

Very. I have joked that the conspirators must have developed 'hushaboom' from the Rocky and Bullwinkle show. Most of them are too young to get the reference.
 
One more argument against free-fall (and since the CT'ers all love a good video)

Watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q=9-11+eyewitness&hl=en

Fast Forward to the 6:50 mark to watch the actual collapse of WTC Tower 1. As the collapse progresses, note the large chunk of building facade on the left side of the building as it falls. That is falling at "freefall" (or close to) speed. As such that makes the rest of the building falling and considerably LESS than freefall speed, doesn't it? Please also note that the collapse begins at the 6:57 mark. My estimate based on of when that facade piece hits the ground is at approx the 7:06 mark (9 secs). The building seems disappear into the dust cloud at approx 7:17 (20 secs).

As reference, calclations I've seen based on the height of the building place the "freefall" time from top to bottom at approx 8-9 secs +/-

All pretty good evidence against the freefall claim, at least for Tower 1.

-Joytown
 
The "explosions" that they're seeing are nothing more than air being forced out of the building as it collapses. It's the same as a sinking ship. As the ship goes down and water fills it the air remaining in the hull is forced out rather violently through hatches and vents etc. I've even read testimony by sailors who were physically blasted out of the ship by this rush of air. Since the WTC towers were already filled with smoke on many floors, even well below the impact points, when the structure began to collapse the air had to go somewhere so it blasted out through weakened windows as seen in a few videos.

We'll never convince the CT nutters that they are in error because their certainty has taken on religious qualities. All we can do is convince those with the capacity for rationality just how pathetically weak the Ct claims are.

Steven
 
Maybe not.

Foster Zygote said:
The "explosions" that they're seeing are nothing more than air being forced out of the building as it collapses. It's the same as a sinking ship. As the ship goes down and water fills it the air remaining in the hull is forced out rather violently through hatches and vents etc. I've even read testimony by sailors who were physically blasted out of the ship by this rush of air. Since the WTC towers were already filled with smoke on many floors, even well below the impact points, when the structure began to collapse the air had to go somewhere so it blasted out through weakened windows as seen in a few videos.

We'll never convince the CT nutters that they are in error because their certainty has taken on religious qualities. All we can do is convince those with the capacity for rationality just how pathetically weak the Ct claims are.

Steven
Click to expand...

After what I have seen I do not believe you are right, about that what if there was an explosive in the building?
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
After what I have seen I do not believe you are right, about that what if there was an explosive in the building?
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, do you have any experience in either Combat Engineering or Demolition? Just wondering, because it seem most of the people claming that tese are bombs & explosions have never set anything off bigger than an M-80 firecracker, yet they seem to know more than the real powder monkeys...
 
No just experience blowing thing up, for fun, and using thermite compounds.
Fire crackers not used in the oil fields of Kentucky they not go off under water to clean oil wells.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
No just experience blowing thing up, for fun, and using thermite compounds.
Fire crackers not used in the oil fields of Kentucky they not go off under water to clean oil wells.
Click to expand...

m-80's will go off underwater if you build them correctly.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
No just experience blowing thing up, for fun, and using thermite compounds.
Fire crackers not used in the oil fields of Kentucky they not go off under water to clean oil wells.
Click to expand...

You work with oil wells? OK, If I have a 1 3/8" diameter burn cut borehole 9' deep, how much Tovex 200 will I use for the charge?
 
Ravenwood said:
You work with oil wells? OK, If I have a 1 3/8" diameter burn cut borehole 9' deep, how much Tovex 200 will I use for the charge?
Click to expand...

There's your problem.

You're using an explosive charge when you should be using... A HERRING!!!

NI!
NI!
NI!
NI!
 
Ravenwood said:
Out of curiosity, do you have any experience in either Combat Engineering or Demolition? Just wondering, because it seem most of the people claming that tese are bombs & explosions have never set anything off bigger than an M-80 firecracker, yet they seem to know more than the real powder monkeys...
Click to expand...

When did I claim there were bombs in the building. I never said anything about bombs, man made explosives!
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
If you did not mean "bomb" when you said "about that what if there was an explosive in the building?" then what were you talking about?
Click to expand...

Something just discovered and not known before, the article by Henry Eagar
Maui News, will be out soon hopefully next Tuesday, but there is a new way to think about reactive metals the thermite puzzle has been solved.
There is a connection between all the buildings and the missing plane a the pentagon, I promised though that I would not give away the secret but I can leave clues.
It also gives incite to what happened at building 7, and it is also something that certain mice produce, but only a few of them.
However mice were not the cause of the building 7, collapse the generators produce it too.
What do all the Buildings, Generators, and mice have in common find that out and you find the secret that will be out in the article.
PS. there was also a video game with a hedge hog, that had a name similar to what you are looking for.

I promised I would not directly tell this on an open forum but I did not say I would not leave clues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom