• 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.

Explosions in the Twin Towers

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.
 
cloudshipsrule said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cloudshipsrule said:
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.
Click to expand...

: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.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations
 
Huntsman said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 ?
 
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
 
einsteen said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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
 
einsteen said:
Forgive me if I cannot explain it with my limited knowledge of physics, I can't
Click to expand...

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.
 
einsteen said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1991424#post1991424
 
twinstead said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom