Gravy's new document: "half-baked theory"

Gravy said:
Frikkin-A, why didn't I think of that? Why didn't I check debunking 911.com?

Aargh! Thanks, Kent1!

TS1234, I hope you're paying attention. This isn't going well for your side.
Click to expand...

If that was a squib(giggle), it must've been the longest single explosion in history, time wise. How do you explain that without rewriting phsics books, TS?

These are what squibs(giggle) look like......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&search=landmark tower
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The point about the mass quantities of conventional explosives required is well taken, a good point. Not an impossible point to resolve, but a good point. Some have specualted about fusion technology, and cited high tritium levels. Others have speculated about "high energy devices" which are theoretically possible and which the military may or may not have developed. These more exotic explosives would solve the "mass quantities" problem.
Click to expand...
So it sounds like you're acknowledging the problem, which is summarized as:

1. If the gravitational energy of the towers was to small, by a large factor, to cause the effects you see (your own assertion), then
2. The amount of explosives required to be much greater than the gravitational energy of the towers is the equivalent to one or two million pounds of C-4 per tower.

If you then acknowledge that a million pounds of C-4 in each tower is ludicrous, then the only known thing we have avalable are either nuclear bombs, or some science-fiction directed energy weapons, a la phasers or photon torpedoes of Star Trek. That's the corner you're painted into, there's no way of getting out of it without accepting that one of these three scenarios is possible:

1. A million pounds of C-4 per tower
2. Nuclear bombs
3. Fantasy weapons

That's it. Which of those three do you think has potential for being the correct explanation?
 
CurtC said:
1. A million pounds of C-4 per tower
2. Nuclear bombs
3. Fantasy weapons
That's it. Which of those three do you think has potential for being the correct explanation?
Click to expand...

That's the problem with most CTs. They almost always give themselves an 'out' like that. If something is impossible on its face, then it simply must have been accomplished by secret weapons, secret black ops commandos, or even reverse-engineered alien technology.

I think I'll play troothydude's strawman game and declare that he thinks the 'demolitions' were caused by super secret reverse-engineered alien technology weapons placed by black op commandos.
 
twinstead said:
That's the problem with most CTs. They almost always give themselves an 'out' like that. If something is impossible on its face, then it simply must have been accomplished by secret weapons, secret black ops commandos, or even reverse-engineered alien technology.

I think I'll play troothydude's strawman game and declare that he thinks the 'demolitions' were caused by super secret reverse-engineered alien technology weapons placed by black op commandos.
Click to expand...

[Old Gamer Mode]
Magna-pack Explosives!
[/Old Gamer Mode]
 
CurtC said:
So it sounds like you're acknowledging the problem, which is summarized as:

1. If the gravitational energy of the towers was to small, by a large factor, to cause the effects you see (your own assertion), then
Click to expand...

You should amend this to note they are effects that he CLAIMS occur

Of course, this nonsense about it all being pulverized into dust is just that
 
chipmunk stew said:
Wow! That's a conclusive demonstration.

debunking911 also has a great segment showing the building leaning to the south, near the bottom of this page:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Click to expand...

"Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking. With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance."

Is this right? I thought the pancaking of the floors was rejected by the NIST?
 
My understanding is that the pancaking explanation was rejected by NIST as the event responsible for collapse initiation. Instead, it was the sagging floor joists pulling the perimeter columns inward that initiated it.

Once it was initiated, the stuff avalanching down would likely have taken out the floors beneath the avalanche wave just before the perimeter walls got pushed out by the falling/tumbling debris. This is similar to a pancaking.

That's my impression, anyway. Note that this is about the Twin Towers, not WTC7.
 
CurtC said:
Once it was initiated, the stuff avalanching down would likely have taken out the floors beneath the avalanche wave just before the perimeter walls got pushed out by the falling/tumbling debris.
Click to expand...
And who came up with this idea? NIST?
 
Peephole said:
Is this right? I thought the pancaking of the floors was rejected by the NIST?
Click to expand...

Hi Peephole,

The "no pancaking" thing is just a difference in terms. I explained the actual NIST position in this post, hope it makes sense.

NIST is using precise language, too precise for most people. It'd be like me saying that an exploding gas tanker didn't detonate. Gasoline doesn't detonate, except under extremely rare circumstances; most of the time it deflagrates. But few people would understand the distinction without further explanation.

Sometimes scientists are too obscure for their own good. But on the other hand, the Troothers are so eager to pick up on any inconsistency, no matter how trivial or immediately retracted, that I appreciate NIST's attention to detail.
 
R.Mackey said:
Hi Peephole,

The "no pancaking" thing is just a difference in terms. I explained the actual NIST position in this post, hope it makes sense.

NIST is using precise language, too precise for most people. It'd be like me saying that an exploding gas tanker didn't detonate. Gasoline doesn't detonate, except under extremely rare circumstances; most of the time it deflagrates. But few people would understand the distinction without further explanation.

Sometimes scientists are too obscure for their own good. But on the other hand, the Troothers are so eager to pick up on any inconsistency, no matter how trivial or immediately retracted, that I appreciate NIST's attention to detail.
Click to expand...
I understand that what NIST is saying is that the collapse wasn't initiated by failing/pancaking floors but by the buckling of the exterior columns, leading to a progressive collapse.

But do they or someone else have any idea how this progressive collapse progressed?

Debunking 911 and CurtC seem to be saying that at least after the collapse initiation the building did sort of behave as in the pancake collapse theory (floors falling first, then the exterior columns failing).
 
If you look at the structure of the towers, and how they might behave if an avalanche of concrete and steel comes down on them, the weakest points were the attachment of the floor trusses at each end. Also, the floors offered a huge horizontal surface area to the avalanche for it to crash into. It seems that the floor trusses would have failed first, followed quickly by the perimeter columns (which no longer had lateral support) getting swept outwards, followed by the failure of the core columns.

That's what seems like would happen based on the structure, and it sure looks like that's what happened in the videos.
 
Sorry I've been so busy lately. I'll get back to all these lingering threads. Can anyone help me find the thread where we were playing "Hunt the Rubble". You guys sent me nice pictures of the rescue effort and "the meteorite". Can you please help me find those pictures again? Thanks.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Sorry I've been so busy lately. I'll get back to all these lingering threads. Can anyone help me find the thread where we were playing "Hunt the Rubble". You guys sent me nice pictures of the rescue effort and "the meteorite". Can you please help me find those pictures again? Thanks.
Click to expand...
We've done enough of your homework for you. Now you want us to repeat our efforts? Go away, you pathetic, lazy waste of time.
 
CurtC said:
If you look at the structure of the towers, and how they might behave if an avalanche of concrete and steel comes down on them, the weakest points were the attachment of the floor trusses at each end. Also, the floors offered a huge horizontal surface area to the avalanche for it to crash into. It seems that the floor trusses would have failed first, followed quickly by the perimeter columns (which no longer had lateral support) getting swept outwards, followed by the failure of the core columns.

That's what seems like would happen based on the structure, and it sure looks like that's what happened in the videos.
Click to expand...
Okay, thanks for explaining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom