Horizontal Ejections and Squibs

[WildCat]

Using the actual mechanism of the walls leaning outward, little or no gravitational energy is required, since the walls were obviously not designed to stand for hundreds of feet without lateral bracing. They will topple over by themselves. If a 500ft high piece falls out, debris will land 500ft away. Just like that.

However, for explosives to launch these columns directly outward as you imply, requires ridiculous amounts of explosives.

It's so bloody simple. How can you fail to grasp this? Do you need a diagram?

It's simple except for truthers apparently, who require basically a truck bomb on every floor.

 

[beachnut]

I bet you think your pretty smart don't you beach nut? Yeah a fire has a lot of energy, but quantity of energy is not everything. You have to deal with quality and transformations of energy.

Would you like to explain how heat from fire can transform it's energy into flying steal beams? Explain any relation at all between this energy from the fire and the flying steel collumns. See what you can come up with.

You have Alex Jones, you have hate. That is all you need. Alex Jones = stupidity

Try to understand gravity alone, 100 TONS of TNT. 200,000 pounds of TNT. Both towers over 200 TONS of TNT.

That is the energy doing everything you see and you make up fantasy. Not real good engineering, but gravity can be understood at a grade school level.

Gravity. You no respect for gravity. Or levers, and gravity. Go get help from a professor, and hope he does not lower your grade to F. Or, you could covert him to the terror storm coming. Is Alex Jones have a roid rage? His brain seems damaged, can you damage your brain from too many steroids? You like his video for real dumb white guys, good for you, Alex is pure anti-intellectual, it fits with your truth movement apologist stand.

You love hearsay, and fantasy. "squibs", at least some of the 0.00087 percent of all engineers are with you on that fantasy. Go get em ..
I expect, as long as you are not some super biased neoNAZI, your education will take over and displace your "common sense" flawed by your prejudice from youth.

Now you have presented this evidence to the FBI, right? Action! Take it

On the ligher side, we have a physics expert who has insight into your plight!

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein

Your work here is based on flawed assumptions, F, incorrect calculations, F, falling for pure propaganda videos, F, and overall if this was your Masters defense of your thesis, F.

papasmurf,

here is a prepaid cell phone. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming an engineer. (paper chase, 1973)

Sorry, I just had to repeat these two, they are my current favorite for those who are failing to use their professional skill in a practical manner and the failure to use logic and reason to make decisions; you use biased ideas based on junk . Einstein, and some humor from a movie about gaining knowledge, and using sound judgment.

How much explosives do you need to beat the energy from gravity in the WTC towers?

 

[GregHouseMD]

I have a question that I am not sure has been asked.

Can you be absolutely sure the videos you are relying on are unedited, un doctored, true representations of the buildings collapsing?

I know this is only my third post to this site but I'm a college grad who is over 50.

This isn't my first rodeo and without knowing to a certainty that "Photoshop" wasn't involved, it doesn't matter what your theory is.

 

[WildCat]

Can you be absolutely sure the videos you are relying on are unedited, un doctored, true representations of the buildings collapsing?

You do realize it was broadcast on live TV don't you? It was kind of a big story that day.

 

[GregHouseMD]

You do realize it was broadcast on live TV don't you? It was kind of a big story that day.

Yes, I do think I saw something about it.

But are the videos on You Tube the same ones they showed on TV? Has anyone used some of the readily available CGI technology to tweak them before posting them to YouTube?

Has anyone verified the videos referenced are what was fimed as it happened without anything being added to them?

That was my question, not whether the videos existed.

I thought my question was pretty clear, what part of it did you not understand Wildcat?

By the way, I'm old enough to say that I saw Ruby shoot Oswald on TV the day it happened. Of course no one has any doubts about that, do they?

 

[Hokulele]

I have a question that I am not sure has been asked.

Can you be absolutely sure the videos you are relying on are unedited, un doctored, true representations of the buildings collapsing?

I know this is only my third post to this site but I'm a college grad who is over 50.

This isn't my first rodeo and without knowing to a certainty that "Photoshop" wasn't involved, it doesn't matter what your theory is.

Before everyone here starts to make assumptions, who is this post addressed to?

 

[WildCat]

But are the videos on You Tube the same ones they showed on TV? Has anyone used some of the readily available CGI technology to tweak them before posting them to YouTube?

I've seen these videos many times prior to youtube's existence. They were shot by vrespected news sources, as well as amateurs with their camcorders. I have no reason at all to think there was manipulation, and in fact such manipulation would be about as close to impossible as can be.

Has anyone verified the videos referenced are what was fimed as it happened without anything being added to them?

I'm sure the studios and private people still have the original footage.

That was my question, not whether the videos existed.

I thought my question was pretty clear, what part of it did you not understand Wildcat?

My spider-senses tell me you're drifting into Ace Baker/Judy Wood territory here...

By the way, I'm old enough to say that I saw Ruby shoot Oswald on TV the day it happened. Of course no one has any doubts about that, do they?

No, why don't you start a thread in a more appropriate section if you wish to discuss that.

 

[GregHouseMD]

Before everyone here starts to make assumptions, who is this post addressed to?

Anyone who is reading the thread. If you support the OP's position or not.

The OP makes claims based on the evidense presented in videos posted to YouTube.

I am offering an opinion that the videos are not proof of anything unless you can be sure that they are undoctored.

 

[Hokulele]

Anyone who is reading the thread. If you support the OP's position or not.

Whoops, you edited while I was responding, but if you are addressing the videos in the OP, there have been videos examined here for provenance. Some pass inspection, some do not. One is particular is notorious for having sounds of explosions dubbed in.

The OP makes claims based on the evidense presented in videos posted to YouTube.

I am offering an opinion that the videos are not proof of anything unless you can be sure that they are undoctored.

This is kind of what I thought. WildCat is probably over-reacting a bit as we have had several people here claiming that CGI was used in the "official" videos (Ace Baker being the most vocal). He may think you are promoting a similar theory.

My general position is that the videos are helpful, but more as supporting evidence rather than any kind of clincher. There is plenty of other physical evidence that points towards what happened that morning.

There is also an astounding lack of physical evidence for things such as explosives in the towers.

 

[GregHouseMD]

I've seen these videos many times prior to youtube's existence. They were shot by vrespected news sources, as well as amateurs with their camcorders. I have no reason at all to think there was manipulation, and in fact such manipulation would be about as close to impossible as can be.

Have you been to the movies lately?

And the people who shot the video have nothing to do with the videos posted to Youtube, they could have been doctored anytime after the fact.

If Walter Cronkite himself filmed the collaspe and several years later someone added in puffs of smoke, who filmed it would be immaterial, it was still tainted evidence.

I'm sure the studios and private people still have the original footage.

Maybe, get copies and compare them to what is being presented here as evidence otherwise it's unknown material

My spider-senses tell me you're drifting into Ace Baker/Judy Wood territory here...

My comment was no worse than you asking me if I had seen them on TV the day it happened.

No, why don't you start a thread in a more appropriate section if you wish to discuss that.

So you can make smart aleck remarks and no one else can?

You do realize it was broadcast on live TV don't you? It was kind of a big story that day.

 

[GregHouseMD]

Whoops, you edited while I was responding, but if you are addressing the videos in the OP, there have been videos examined here for provenance. Some pass inspection, some do not. One is particular is notorious for having sounds of explosions dubbed in.




This is kind of what I thought. WildCat is probably over-reacting a bit as we have had several people here claiming that CGI was used in the "official" videos (Ace Baker being the most vocal). He may think you are promoting a similar theory.

My general position is that the videos are helpful, but more as supporting evidence rather than any kind of clincher. There is plenty of other physical evidence that points towards what happened that morning.

There is also an astounding lack of physical evidence for things such as explosives in the towers.

I believe that 9/11 was the date of an attack on the USA by extremists from outside the USA. There is a posibility that some of what we have been told is not the whole truth but I in no way think there is any validity to the "inside job" theory.

My post was meant to offer an opinon that just because it's on YouTube (or anywhere on the internet) it's not rock solid evidence of anything.

 

[theprestige]

I am offering an opinion that the videos are not proof of anything unless you can be sure that they are undoctored.

Strictly speaking they're not "proof" of anything. It's very difficult to prove things. It is, however, much easier to make rational conclusions based on the available evidence.

For example, the videos are evidence that is consistent with a particular theory of what happened. They don't prove that the theory is correct. They just support that theory.

The videos are also consistent with certain theories about their provenance.

If someone wanted to argue that the videos supported their theory, they would have to show that the videos were reaonsably consistent with their theory. If they wanted to argue that the videos had a particular provenance, they would have to show that the videos were consistent with that theory of their provenance.

And of course it's impossible to prove a negative. You can't prove that the videos were not doctored by some uknown means, and it's unreasonable to demand such a proof. What you can do is show that the videos are inconsistent with some known means of video doctoring. But if someone is proposing a theory of doctoring by known means, then they properly have the responsibility to show that the videos are consistent with that known means of doctoring. If they refuse to show such a thing, or attempt and fail, then their claim of such a thing can be discarded without any further discussion. Nobody is obligated to show that the videos are not consistent with such a thing.

 

[pomeroo]

More like the floors were blown off their connections. Look at how what you call the core just crumbles to the ground. You can see them topple over because they were cut from underneath, as we can see in pictures of the aftermath.

If they weren't crushed in the collapse wave, there should have been a sizeable chunk of the core left intact. Instead we have a few pieces of the core that topple over after the collapse of the rest of the structure. This does nothing to discredit the demolition theory. Like i said, it would have been unlikely that they placed explosives onevery collumn, they put the explosives on major columns and made the explosions large enough to damage other collumns.

Your argument that it would take 700 kg of tnt to launch a projectile horizontally...

How does this support your argument and not mine? ...

You admit that it happened, and say nothing caused it.... Geeze well if it takes that much energy to throw the beam then how the hell did the beam get thrown????????????????????????????????????????

LAME.

Your imaginary conspiracy decided to plant huge amounts of explosives on precisely the floors hit by the planes. Remarkable foresight, I'd say. You are tired of hearing about those darned demolition experts who reject the fantasist moonshine, but they reject it for good reasons. The seismic data show no secondary explosions and on all videos the buildings obviously collapse from the impact floors. Why you loons keep flogging this very dead horse is a mystery. There were no explosives in the Towers.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I believe that 9/11 was the date of an attack on the USA by extremists from outside the USA. There is a posibility that some of what we have been told is not the whole truth but I in no way think there is any validity to the "inside job" theory.

My post was meant to offer an opinon that just because it's on YouTube (or anywhere on the internet) it's not rock solid evidence of anything.

I think we can all agree with that. Hokulele makes a great point about support rather than being "a clincher". But, I think I'd be less trustful about YouTube videos not because of any potential for image manipulation, but more for the facts that:

1. They're mostly terrible resolution-wise, and it's hard to distinguish details.
2. We don't know the cameras and lenses involved, so it's hard to be accurate about distances and color fidelity, let alone sound fidelity.

The various videos on the 'net are good enough to show the broad details, but too many people push their analysis beyond the ability of the videos to support the conclusion. I'm specifically thinking of a past thread dealing with the color of flowing material from one of the towers, and relating that to temperatures. That was a ridiculous analysis.

Anyway, I'd be skeptical of claims made from studying video that are not presented with supporting evidence having nothing whatsoever to do with the video. And I'm not thrilled by conclusions drawn from video analysis alone. In that respect, I can readily agree with you, even though it's for different reasons.

 

[papasmurf]

You win everyone. Gravity wins.

Congratulations, I am gone now. I won't be back for a long time... perhaps never.

 

[pomeroo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gud2ay4I9Mw

This is not a video of a "progressive collapse".

This is a building getting blown to bits. Trust your eyes people. Not lame explanations from experts that you don't even understand. They just "sound" good to you.

Ask your self whaet caused all those steel collumns to just disappear so quickly. Watch and keep watching. Look at the dust cloud and teh debris getting shot outward. Watch as the piledriving force gets obliterated, yt the building still continues to progressively collapse at lightning speed. As you watch the floors of the building get turned to dust and blasted outward, ask yourself what is driving the force of the collapse. As mass from the top section is lost, you would expect the collapse to slow down. There is no reason for the collapse to progress to completion.

I would love you to show me a progressive collapse even remotely close to this. Remotely. It never happens.

The building that could take multiple 707 impacts turns to dust, yet we are supposed to believe this is completely understandable.

What is wrong with you people?

The bolded part says it all. Sorry, kid, you're no engineering student. No one with any technical knowledge could be that obtuse. We all get the idea that as the upper part collapses, it GAINS mass. Really. It has to. Sorry.

Unfortunately for your fantasy, no steel turned to dust. There was a lot of dust from crushed gypsum. You know absolutely nothing about demolition and you have no intention of learning anything.

Indeed, what is wrong with you people?

 

[beachnut]

I believe that 9/11 was the date of an attack on the USA by extremists from outside the USA. There is a posibility that some of what we have been told is not the whole truth but I in no way think there is any validity to the "inside job" theory.

My post was meant to offer an opinon that just because it's on YouTube (or anywhere on the internet) it's not rock solid evidence of anything.

There have been altered videos, extra sound to make up lies.
You are right, even though there was air ejected out of the WTC (a fact), someone can alter the air ejection to make it have the dynamic of an explosion instead of air escaping the building as it falls.

You are right, with out calculations and proof it is not doctored, the video alone is crap. If you have not had time to check, there are no calculations to show the air ejections are anything more than air being expelled by the collapse. Just like all building falling the air is expelled.

 

[WildCat]

My comment was no worse than you asking me if I had seen them on TV the day it happened.

Sorry Greg, after the recent influx of "Truth Movement ca. 2005" here lately I mistook your meaning.

So you can make smart aleck remarks and no one else can?

Oh, everyone can make smart aleck remarks... and they do.

 

[WildCat]

You win everyone. Gravity wins.

Congratulations, I am gone now. I won't be back for a long time... perhaps never.

Translation: "I can't believe you poopyheads trust only in physics, facts and evidence and ignore completely my uneducated speculative opinion involving a truck bomb on every floor".

Don't worry papasmurf, I hear PfffT is looking for new members! Maybe you should check out the mini-nuke theory one of their "FDR experts" is working on, it's right up your alley!

 

[bynmdsue]

You win everyone. Gravity wins.

Congratulations, I am gone now. I won't be back for a long time... perhaps never.

Noooooo! Please don't go papasmurf! This was easily one of the funniest threads I've read in a long time.

>sniff<

Well,there's always Turbofan...