AE911Truth Watch

[Minadin]

[FONT=&quot]Stacy Loizeaux:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion."[/FONT]

What Stacy is describing here is how they started to use the term "implosion" as a figurative way to describe the collapse of the building. They don't mean it literally. They don't define the word, either. The word "implosion" dates from the 1870's. By the way, you can find her entire interview with Nova here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

If you read the transcript there she'll say things like:

Well, the explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity.

 

[JamesB]

This is Stundie material. Gage 1:16 through, on the beginning of the collapse of one of the towers.

"The gravitational potential hasn't even developed and there is smoke coming out almost everywhere"

Uhh, I am no architect, and it has been a while since I took physics in college, but doesn't a tall building always have gravitational potential, no developing needed?

 

[~enigma~]

This is Stundie material. Gage 1:16 through, on the beginning of the collapse of one of the towers.

"The gravitational potential hasn't even developed and there is smoke coming out almost everywhere"

Uhh, I am no architect, and it has been a while since I took physics in college, but doesn't a tall building always have gravitational potential, no developing needed?

Tall building...short building...jungle gym...there was potential energy in each and every bolt.

ETA - Unless he proposes a construction method where no work whatsoever is required.

 

[JamesB]

Another bizarre statement, from 1:36

"The security was changed out 6 weeks prior to 9/11 to a company called Securacom. Their contract ended on either September 10th or 11th, I mean that is the way it was written, only for 6 weeks. Who is on the board of directors of Securacom? Marvin Bush, Wirt Walker III a Bush cousin. These individuals need to be asked some very tough questions."

So is Gage going to show us this contract that he seems to have such an intimate knowledge of?

 

[boloboffin]

I think I posted this here somewhere, but he invokes Fat Osama at the end of his speech. "Google 'fatty Osama'!"

What a tool.

 

[~enigma~]

Any ideas on why I can view every video on GV EXCEPT those from ae911truth.org?

 

[boloboffin]

I don't know, enigma. I cleared my cache and I'm still able to view the videos.

 

[~enigma~]

I don't know, enigma. I cleared my cache and I'm still able to view the videos.

It appears to be cleared up at the moment. Maybe it is a GV glitch cause when I tried again I was given a message that the video is no longer available. 2 min later it worked....go figure

 

[Christopher7]

What Stacy is describing here is how they started to use the term "implosion" as a figurative way to describe the collapse of the building. They don't mean it literally.

Tell that to these guys:
[FONT=&quot]http://www.implosionworld.com[/FONT]

 

[JamesB]

1:55 in Gage states that thermate would not cause clean cuts like an acetylene torch. Wait a minute, haven't they for the last two years been claiming that that photo of a clean angle cut was a signature of the use of thermate?

No consistent logic required with these guys.

 

[peteweaver]

As of today, the number of days that have gone by since Richard Gage admitted that his squib claim was false, without removing it from his website: 40

In the meantime, AE911Truth has completely erased his old slideshow. Two days ago, they updated the front page to remove the sample slide of the old slideshow and replaced it with a sample slide from the new slideshow.

Both slides were the collapse hypothesis slide for 7 World Trade. Both slides continue to display the squibs argument. The slide is so small that the type is illegible, but there are clearly still 10 points under the Characteristics of Controlled Demolition section of the slide. This is slide 24 in his new Powerpoint, and it is reproduced here:

http://ae911truth.info/img/NSlide024.jpg

40 days after Gage admitted the speciousness of the 7 World Trade squib argument, he continues to show no sign of removing this argument from his site. Indeed, he shows every sign of continuing to promote an known false argument.

Some ammendments for the flawed chart presented by Boloboffin:
NO sounds of explosions were heard, and there were no flashes of bombs detonating.

Fire and explosives should not be on the same billing, explosives are flammable, and have a habit of detonating in fierce fire.

WTC7's collapse initiated with the upper penthouse which fell into the building and wrecked what was left of its innards.

Intense fire burned for seven hours before WTC7 collapsed, and after collapse its contents continued burning until no further fire were possible.

Fire triangle: Fuel Heat Air.

Performance of structural steel in fire is determined by the effect of load and by the effect of heat; WTC 7 Load distribution was VERY WIDE.

Loss of structural integrity was noted by firefighters

Firefighters had to be pulled out.

No molten steel was found under WTC 7 or any of the other towers due to the fact that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, and explosives don't melt steel either, they blast with intense pressure.

ZERO evidence of explosive demolitions.

 

[Minadin]

Tell that to these guys:
http://www.implosionworld.com

Yeah, I don't actually have to do that. They're experts and they know exactly what they are about. In fact, that's probably why Stacy says in the same interview: (same exact response in fact as your initial quote)

It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.

They're using the term to describe what they are doing. Metaphorically. It's a figure of speech.

 

[Christopher7]

Yeah, I don't actually have to do that. They're experts and they know exactly what they are about.

They named their site "Implosion World" and have videos of building implosions because the word implosion has become synonymous with a controlled demolition that causes a building to fall in on itself.

FEMA recognized that WTC 7 imploded.
Danny Jowenko said:
I: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
J: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

Why do you persist in denying that implosion, has become nomenclature for a controlled demolition that causes a building to fall in on itself?

 

[LashL]

1:55 in Gage states that thermate would not cause clean cuts like an acetylene torch. Wait a minute, haven't they for the last two years been claiming that that photo of a clean angle cut was a signature of the use of thermate?

Indeed.

No consistent logic required with these guys.

Consistency and logic are anathema to twoofers. Employing either one would cause their heads to explode.

 

[Christopher7]

1:55 in Gage states that thermate would not cause clean cuts like an acetylene torch. Wait a minute, haven't they for the last two years been claiming that that photo of a clean angle cut was a signature of the use of thermate?

You nitpick and babble about the precise meanings of words and ignore the point.

This column was cut at a 45[FONT=&quot]° angle.
This is consistent with CD, it is NOT consistent with cutting a column manually as it requires more cutting than a straight cut.

[/FONT]

 

[Magenta]

This column was cut at a 45[FONT=&quot]° angle.
This is consistent with CD, it is NOT consistent with cutting a column manually as it requires more cutting than a straight cut.

[qimg]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8391/pic879706ic1qe7.jpg[/qimg]

[/FONT]

You can't think of any other reason it was cut on an angle?

 

[boloboffin]

That column was cut by an torch during cleanup.

It was cut at an angle because the workers were directing the fall of the beam. How many times do you have to be shown the picture of the worker cutting the beam at an angle at Ground Zero? It came from the same collection of cleanup pictures as that angle-cut beam, Christopher7.

 

[Minadin]

They named their site "Implosion World" and have videos of building implosions because the word implosion has become synonymous with a controlled demolition that causes a building to fall in on itself.

FEMA recognized that WTC 7 imploded.
Danny Jowenko said:
I: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
J: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

Why do you persist in denying that implosion, has become nomenclature for a controlled demolition that causes a building to fall in on itself?

My point is that they are using the word (implosion) to figuratively describe what they are doing (removing key supports in the building) to achieve their goal (building collapses upon itself due to gravity). They use the word to describe the overall effect. Essentially any situation that meets their primary condition (the removal of key supports in the building) will have the same effect (building collapses upon itself due to gravity) and will look very similar. Some people might use that same sort of figurative language to describe the event.

You can't rely solely on visual data here. Many of the conditions would be the same, since the main condition and driving cause of the collapse is the same in both cases. But what's the cause of that condition (the removal of key supports)? In the case of the videos you see on the Implosion World website, it's explosive charges cutting those key supports. In the case of WTC7, it's failure due to fire and prior impact damage from the collapse of WTC1. What's the difference? Detonations of explosive charges make extremely loud, percussive noises. (some of the charges CDI likes to use explode at 17,000 fps / 11,500 mph) Fire, by comparison, is relatively quiet.

 

[JamesB]

Ack, now he is talking about the oil pipelines we are currently building across Afghanistan. Geez, this guy is still stuck on Loose Change V2.0

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Tell that to these guys:
[FONT=&quot]http://www.implosionworld.com[/FONT]

yes, tell it to them
http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk2.html

you say WTC7 fell mostly into its own foothprint, an imploded building falls entirely within its own footprint so it doesnt damage neighboring buildings (which WTC7 did, quite badly too)