Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[A W Smith]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc2impact.jpg

Good point. Well done.
However, you don't know what was in that fireball and debris.

The plane and the people in it were traveling at 590 mph. The fuselage did not disintegrate on contact. It broke up as it passed thru the the tower. The remains of the plane and people, along with everything the fuselage took out, were still traveling away from the Bankers Trust building as the fire ball erupted. It is very unlikely that the remains of the people in the fuselage were blown back out thru the hole where the plane had entered.

There were 700 bone fragments on top of Bankers Trust. Thousands of fragments would have to be ejected backwards for this to occur.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9828/stowerfireballzn1.jpg

Well done,,,, demonstrating nothing more than an argument from incredulity logical fallacy. I have bolded all your assumptions. It is clear from the photo that debris is being ejected out of the south face of the tower. theres no way around this Chris. an explosion is clearly occurring within the tower for all to see. the explosive fireball of thousands of gallons of jet fuel are propelling fragments of human bodies in all directions. Holding your hands over your eyes will not make it go away.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Christopher7, please, explain us why a plane hitting a steel and concrete structure couldn't have any influence on it.

If I may add...

How could a plane weighing ~124,000kg traveling at ~237 meters per second (average from the FEMA report) not have an impact? Utilizing basic Newtonian physics, we can get a ballpark idea of the kind of energy we are talking about:

[latex]$${E_k} = {1 \over 2}m{v^2}$$
[/latex]

[latex]$${E_k} = {{(1.24 \times {{10}^5}) \times {{237}^2}} \over 2}$$

[/latex]

so

[latex]$${E_k} = 6.96 \times {10^9}joules$$
[/latex]

Almost 7 billion joules...dude...that is a **** load...I mean boatload of energy. How can that not have an effect on a structure?

 

[Macgyver1968]

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc2impact.jpg[/qimg]

Good point. Well done.
However, you don't know what was in that fireball and debris.

The plane and the people in it were traveling at 590 mph. The fuselage did not disintegrate on contact. It broke up as it passed thru the the tower. The remains of the plane and people, along with everything the fuselage took out, were still traveling away from the Bankers Trust building as the fire ball erupted. It is very unlikely that the remains of the people in the fuselage were blown back out thru the hole where the plane had entered.

There were 700 bone fragments on top of Bankers Trust. Thousands of fragments would have to be ejected backwards for this to occur.

[qimg]http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9828/stowerfireballzn1.jpg[/qimg]

So from what I understand you are saying. The plane's impact could not have been responsible for the bone fragments found on the top of the building. I'm assuming then that you are saying that the explosive charges responsible for initiating the collapse were the cause of these bone fragments being on the tops of these buildings...right?

Just curious..then why don't we see explosions ejecting material at the initiation of the collapse?

 

[Christopher7]

Read my whole post, champ.

No firefighters ever "suggested" what they experienced on 9/11 was indicative of a controlled demolition.

They merely used terms like "bomb" and "explosive" as a point of reference in describing what they experienced.

How explicit do they have to get before you will admit that they are, at very least, "suggesting" the collapse was indicative of a controlled demolition?

This doesn't qualify?
"It looked like it was a timed explosion"
or this?
"It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings."
or this?
"Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode."
or
"It was if they had detonated, [unintelligible] they planned to take down a building."

Seriously,if a NY firefighter came right out and said it was a CD, what would happen to him? Would he get Dixie Chicked? You betcha! You, and a lot of notable TV personalities would be calling him a loon or worse.

 

[Macgyver1968]

"It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings."

Is it just me..or does this sentence make no sense? Be nice to know who said it and it what context.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

How explicit do they have to get before you will admit that they are, at very least, "suggesting" the collapse was indicative of a controlled demolition?

This doesn't qualify?
"It looked like it was a timed explosion"
or this?
"It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings."
or this?
"Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode."
or
"It was if they had detonated, [unintelligible] they planned to take down a building."

The terms simile and metaphor don't exist in your vocabulary do they? Arguably I could ask the same of redibis, who -- as intelligent as I believe he is -- doesn't seem to have those in his either.

Seriously,if a NY firefighter came right out and

said it was a CD, what would happen to him? Would he get Dixie Chicked? You betcha! You, and a lot of notable TV personalities would be calling him a loon or worse.

The surviving firefighters who went inside the towers knowing the risks also lost more than 300 of their own. Public ridicule would be the last thing they'd be worrying about if they firmly believed that those 300 personnel were murdered and sought appropriate justice.

 

[A W Smith]

"It looked"

"it seemed"

"it was as if"

Chris, those are examples of a Simile

 

[HyJinX]

You may need to be a little more clear. To C7 a simile means this

 

[Christopher7]

So from what I understand you are saying. The plane's impact could not have been responsible for the bone fragments found on the top of the building.

It is extremely unlikely.

I'm assuming then that you are saying that the explosive charges responsible for initiating the collapse were the cause of these bone fragments being on the tops of these buildings...right?

Yes

Just curious..then why don't we see explosions ejecting material at the initiation of the collapse?

I guess you missed this:
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander] .. there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.


Materials shot out at the very top before the collapse began!

Hello? That could only be accomplished with explosives!

Together with all the other reports of explosions you have strong evidence of controlled demolition.

"They might have just been using similes." or "Explosions are not always explosives." are just tired excuses you use to refuse to change you position.

Can you admit that Chief Cruthers and the other firefighters could be describing a controlled demolition?

 

[A W Smith]

Chris, they were on the ground looking up. Very difficult to see vertical movement on the top 20 floors of a quarter mile high building obscured by smoke from the street or staging area.. Camera footage disproves that there was any "explosion" preceding collapse.

Can you admit that Chief Cruthers and the other firefighters could be describing a controlled demolition?

None have come forward to claim controlled demolition, So no, they are NOT describing CD.

 

[HyJinX]

It is extremely unlikely.

Yes

I guess you missed this:
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander] .. there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.


Materials shot out at the very top before the collapse began!

Hello? That could only be accomplished with explosives!

Together with all the other reports of explosions you have strong evidence of controlled demolition.

"They might have just been using similes." or "Explosions are not always explosives." are just tired excuses you use to refuse to change you position.

Can you admit that Chief Cruthers and the other firefighters could be describing a controlled demolition?

Without evidence of a CD you're simply out of luck. Eyewitnesses are often mistaken and what seems like something particular is often not. If you can provide physical evidence that coincides with eyewitnesses...then you'd have something to consider. Similies just don't cut it. Provide some physical evidence or just let it go.

My mother experienced a horrific tornado when she was a kid. She said that it sounded like a freight train as it rolled down her street. It wasn't a train...it was, indeed, a tornado. The physical evidence proved it was a tornado and not a freight train.

Without evidence...your CD theory is simply a freight train. Sorry. That's the way the world works.

Dig in. Prove your theory and the ears of the world will bend toward you.

 

[lapman]

I guess you missed this:
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander] .. there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.

False. He is talking about where the collapse started. I guess you have no idea what happens when 420,000 cubic feet of air is suddenly compressed.

Materials shot out at the very top before the collapse began!

That is a lie.

Hello? That could only be accomplished with explosives!

Another lie. This goes way beyond just being mistaken. You cannot even come close to finding anything close to finding a CD that looks or sounds like the WTC collapses.

Together with all the other reports of explosions you have strong evidence of controlled demolition.

100% false. The audio record of the event completely contradicts CD. You lose.

"They might have just been using similes." or "Explosions are not always explosives." are just tired excuses you use to refuse to change you position.

Can you admit that Chief Cruthers and the other firefighters could be describing a controlled demolition?

The audio record of tihe collapses completely blows away the CD theory. Explosives are not silent and are not only heard by the human ear. I have twice given you 3 examples of a real CDs. You have yet to provide anything close to sounding like them in a WTC video or testimony. As usual, you come up short. But thanks for playing.

 

[Christopher7]

"It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings."

Is it just me..or does this sentence make no sense? Be nice to know who said it and it what context.

That's because you're not from NY.
Translation:
"It seemed like on television when they blow up buildings."

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

 

[dtugg]

So another simile. Cool. Thanks.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The irony is so thick I could cut it like a knife through butter...

 

[lapman]

"It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings."

That's because you're not from NY.
Translation:
"It seemed like on television when they blow up buildings."

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Key word, LIKE. Rich was just describing what he saw, not what was actually happening. Did you really expect him and the other to say, "It collapsed just like all the other 110 story building we have seen?"

 

[HyJinX]

"It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings."

That's because you're not from NY.
Translation:
"It seemed like on television when they blow up buildings."

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Not sure why you're not understanding that this is a similie! Keep posting it...as it only helps to deteriorate your theory. Go ahead...post it again.

 

[Gravy]

Unless there is anyone who thinks that Christopher7, who has been behaving this way here since 2006, is going to be swayed now, please, please, just stop this.

For anyone new to these issues, I created a video, WTC Not a Demolition, which shows how absurd those claims are from an audiovisual standpoint. There's an index with direct links to the different video segments here.

The video begins with Evan Fairbanks' closeup of the beginning of the south tower collapse. The east wall continues to buckle inward – as it had visibly been doing within 18 minutes of impact – and finally fails.

There are no detonations initiating the collapse, which is why Richard Gage ran from my challenge to demonstrate them in this clip, and retreated under his silent thermate rock (er, what about that exploding supernanothermate in the paint chips, Richard?). Remember, Gage, like Christopher7, claims that numerous witnesses actually saw and heard the detonation of high explosives preceding the collapses. Yet no one can show when these happened.

There are several videos of each WTC skyscraper's collapse, with comparisons to the effects produced by small amounts of high explosives used in demolitions.

There's nothing new here. Please do not make the same arguments repeatedly with someone who is incapable of facing reality.

 

[Christopher7]

they were on the ground looking up. Very difficult to see vertical movement on the top 20 floors of a quarter mile high building obscured by smoke from the street or staging area.. Camera footage disproves that there was any "explosion" preceding collapse

You're just looking for a way to deny their testimony. You don't know how well they could see the top of the towers but you are implying that Chief Cruthers isn't being truthful, that he didn't really see materials ejected at the very top before the collapse began because he didn't have a good vantage point. Talk about a lack of respect.

Camera footage? which tower? from what angle? So what?
You don't know where he was standing or what he could see so don't try to discredit the Chief, or the others.
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander] is highly qualified and can recognize explosions when he sees them. The other firefighters were also qualified to recognize explosions and were honestly stating what they saw.
You are NOT qualified to second guess them or doubt their word.

None have come forward to claim controlled demolition, So no, they are NOT describing CD.

That's just another excuse to dismiss what they said.
You don't know whether or not they have tried to speak out and been rebuffed?

 

[ref]

Maybe we could get back to topic already.

I noticed, that AE911Truth has inserted a new Obama quote on their frontpage.

"We will restore science to its rightful place..."
- Barack Obama, President of the United State of America

Oh, the irony.

Speaking of AE911Truth, has anyone else noticed, that they are getting almost zero new "A&E" members these days? Since December, they have added about 6 new members, having a total of 572 as we speak. Remember, their September 2008 goal was 1000 members, now their new September 2009 goal is 1000 members. Which will also fail.