No Explosives Here?

[Scott Sommers]

As a weapon in a confined space they are deadly.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks a sword would be a better weapon in a confined space doesn't know anything about combat. I still haven't figured out how to post the Youtube inserts, but for anyone with any doubt about what works best in confined spaces - and that means you, atavisms - check out this video from people who know more than youl ever will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc

 

[tsig]

Atavism
-noun
1. Biology.
a. the reappearance in an individual of characteristics of some remote ancestor that have been absent in intervening generations.
b. an individual embodying such a reversion.
2. reversion to an earlier type; throwback.

I know full well why atavism's posts smack of familiarity (nice user-name *wink) and I have no doubt that most of the folks here know why as well. And it isn't just the fact that the 'truth movement' hasn't had any new talking points in, literally, years. But I'll be damned if I'm going to dig through the banned posters database and try to match syntax. It just isn't worth it. History has shown again and again that they'll simply re-register a different sock and more-or-less pick up where they left off so what's the point?

But what does still bother me somewhat is the otherwise bright people here who just can't seem to resist an obvious troll.

Must have some billy goat in their background.

 

[tsig]

Exactly. Anyone who thinks a sword would be a better weapon in a confined space doesn't know anything about combat. I still haven't figured out how to post the Youtube inserts, but for anyone with any doubt about what works best in confined spaces - and that means you, atavisms - check out this video from people who know more than youl ever will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc

Has Atavism cut and run?

 

[WildCat]

Something to notice. A series of rapid fire explosions. one right after the next
(from 20 to 23 second mark)

are they clear and distinct explosions? Yes. But those are military bombs.

Actually that's sound effects dubbed in later. Gun cameras do not record sounds.

 

[BigAl]

That is true, I agree. def not std CD.
(WTC 7 is much closer in that regard)

What you can say about 1&2 for certain is that it was extremely energetic.
and the towers were designed to support themselves many times over.
What they cannot do is simply explode to smithereens bc the of the lightest (compared to the entire thing) bits at the top crushing all the way down on them through gravity!
lol! it's just completely counter-intuitive, imo.

Support themselves is exactly what they were so well 'over-designed' to do.

After the planes hit, the weight simply shifted to other beams in this 'highly redundant structure' (-paraphrase of Thomas Eager mit)

Does Eager think that anything but impact and fire caused the WTC towers to collapse? No. I doubt that you have actually read what he wrote.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html​

 

[GlennB]

I guess you're implying that this was the sort of dangerous situation a pilot should be able to handle, being threatened with something as pathetic as a 'box cutter'. Dylan Avery made the same point in one of his interviews.

I don't know what kind of person you are. I've trained martial arts and combat sports for most of my adult life. I've studied knife fighting with the Dog Brothers. No threat intended, but my guess is that I could take you apart like a dead chicken. Edged weapons are bad news. You're going to get cut.

I'd like to see you take on someone - anyone - armed with a box cutter. Get someone to send me the video after they've finished cleaning you off the walls and I'll make sure it gets posted. A better idea would be to just stop this stupidity about how 'box cutters' aren't scary as Hell.

Amen. Similar to the 'Stanley knife' in the UK and the preferred weapon for a generation of extreme British football hooligans, the sort who would happily inflict very serious injury, or worse.

What I haven't seen mentioned is the effect - on the pilots - of a box-cutter being held at the throat of a member of the cabin crew (I may have missed it) . Combined with pre 9/11 standard procedure for hijackings .....

 

[Justin39640]

Just simply ignore the reality huh?
Doesn't matter that all this stuff was pulverized, and most of it sent outside the tower in an 800 foot radial pattern!

so the debris field to you looked like a 1600 foot diameter donut?

hmmmm

 

[Justin39640]

Exactly. Anyone who thinks a sword would be a better weapon in a confined space doesn't know anything about combat. I still haven't figured out how to post the Youtube inserts, but for anyone with any doubt about what works best in confined spaces - and that means you, atavisms - check out this video from people who know more than youl ever will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc

i think 5 guys carrying katanas on board might have raised an eyebrow or two

 

[Longfellow]

Must have some billy goat in their background.

Jackass is more likely.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Atavism
-noun
1. Biology.
a. the reappearance in an individual of characteristics of some remote ancestor that have been absent in intervening generations.
b. an individual embodying such a reversion.
2. reversion to an earlier type; throwback.

I know full well why atavism's posts smack of familiarity (nice user-name *wink) and I have no doubt that most of the folks here know why as well. And it isn't just the fact that the 'truth movement' hasn't had any new talking points in, literally, years. But I'll be damned if I'm going to dig through the banned posters database and try to match syntax. It just isn't worth it. History has shown again and again that they'll simply re-register a different sock and more-or-less pick up where they left off so what's the point?

But what does still bother me somewhat is the otherwise bright people here who just can't seem to resist an obvious troll.

This is how we know he lied about having friends who died in the attack.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Exactly. Anyone who thinks a sword would be a better weapon in a confined space doesn't know anything about combat. I still haven't figured out how to post the Youtube inserts, but for anyone with any doubt about what works best in confined spaces - and that means you, atavisms - check out this video from people who know more than youl ever will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc

Quote this post to reveal the sooper seekrit code.

ETA: For atavisms: Why are you ignoring these questions: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5144035&postcount=199?

 

[JohnG]

Exactly. Anyone who thinks a sword would be a better weapon in a confined space doesn't know anything about combat. I still haven't figured out how to post the Youtube inserts, but for anyone with any doubt about what works best in confined spaces - and that means you, atavisms - check out this video from people who know more than youl ever will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc

Assuming you mean embedding a YouTube video directly into a post, there are several good tutorials in the Help section (the drop down menu is in the upper right hand corner of this page) on how to do these sorts of things. The thing is, some YouTube videos do not allow embedding, so sometimes the format you provided is the only way to go.

Here is your link embedded:



You take that string of numbers and letters following the equals sign in your URL and enclose them with open and close 'yt' brackets, like this, only without the spaces:

[ yt ]c0fPL4f3Eqc[ /yt ]

You can also see how it was done by hitting the "Quote" button of a post containing the special feature you are interested in to see the behind the scenes formatting code.

 

[Macgyver1968]

[epicfail] Truthers [/epicfail]

Hey! It works!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

'appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy, as in, makes no sense from a logical perspective.

This has been pointed out to you before, but "appeal to authority" isn't necessarily a logical fallacy.

All the planes went through the same scenario: they obtained cruising height, the transponders failed, they were steered to their targets, which were then hit with uncanny precision.

Uncanny precision? Are you forgetting about Flight 93? Or are you implying that the empty field was actually a target?

Now ask yourself. You are 30k over Ohio and have just taken over a commercial airliner with 3 other guys, u'v have never flown a jetliner, u'r young, and scared, and now your job is to find and hit the twin towers.

Wow... You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

All you have is a compass for direction.

No idea at all...

This story besmirches, not just common sense, but the names of those brave professional pilots, (2 or 3 of whom were "tough Vietnam vets"), and flight crews who would have all died many times before handing over their jetliner over to terrorist scum.

Incorrect. Standard policy prior to 9/11, as I'm sure you're well aware, was to do what the hijackers tell you to do, because the assumption (based on all previous hijackings) was that you'd merely be forced to land in a different country and negotiate. At which point, the authorities take over.

The flt 93 story makes no sense either bc the debris field was spread over many miles and the people extremely blasted apart, yet the claim is that the plane hit ground intact

Actually, being inside of a metal tube as it collapses, shreds, and then blows apart would probably do a significant amount of damage to a human body. The alternative, considering a possible shootdown, would be relatively intact bodies that were sucked out of the plane, slowed by air resistance, and with little to no interaction with the high-velocity debris of the plane.

People were on the scene immediately.

Define "immediately".

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Define "immediately".

There is a really bad taste joke there, but I'm not gonna make it.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Assuming you mean embedding a YouTube video directly into a post, there are several good tutorials in the Help section (the drop down menu is in the upper right hand corner of this page) on how to do these sorts of things. The thing is, some YouTube videos do not allow embedding, so sometimes the format you provided is the only way to go.

Here is your link embedded:



You take that string of numbers and letters following the equals sign in your URL and enclose them with open and close 'yt' brackets, like this, only without the spaces:

[ yt ]c0fPL4f3Eqc[ /yt ]

You can also see how it was done by hitting the "Quote" button of a post containing the special feature you are interested in to see the behind the scenes formatting code.

Thank you.

 

[fourtoe]

I do not disagree with, or even have the wherewithal to, or care really, in terms of my own certainty on the matter, about Jones. I think he is great for what he is doing but if you are going to distill one point out of my initial post it should be that no authority required here.

I'm not sure if I understand your response. You agree with Dr Jones about how it is a false premise to say that the buildings essentially became fine powder?

But it doesn't matter?

Are you going to stop saying that the buildings became a fine powder in your future arguments?

In fact, given the point I pointed out and the dozens of other points others have made about your OP, how are you going to go about revising your assertions?

Which of the parts of your argument that ppl on this forum have shown to be flawed, are you no longer going to include in future debates about this topic?

 

[leftysergeant]

Here's a basic fact for CD theorists.

CD breaks concrete into pieces that can be picked up and moved. This requires minimal explosives, yet will still blow out windows for hundreds of yards.

The amount of explosives it would take to pulverize the floor slabs would have taken out most of the windows in Hoboken.

 

[TruthersLie]

Exactly. Anyone who thinks a sword would be a better weapon in a confined space doesn't know anything about combat. I still haven't figured out how to post the Youtube inserts, but for anyone with any doubt about what works best in confined spaces - and that means you, atavisms - check out this video from people who know more than youl ever will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc

<off topic>

scott. In order to embed a youtube video you use the and your video shows up </off topic>" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

 

[TruthersLie]

of course since socky... I mean atavism has said that flight 93 had a huge debris pattern it must have been shot down...

how about psa 1771? A flight that was flown into the ground by a suicidal person.. what does it look like?




oh I forgot... [ct]it was a dry run... they were testing their capabilities and refining their control. [/ct]