No Explosives Here?

[funk de fino]

Why do you think most Americans have never even heard of WTC 7? It isnt bc the thing does not look like a planned implosion - that's exactly why they dont now of it. It was shown only on 9/11 and almost never again afterward. Why do you think that is? How can Americans be so uninformed about such a major aspect of such a major event?

Because it was not an important building. A plane did not hit it and no-one was killed.

It has been on TV many times since. Why do you make so many false claims?

 

[dtugg]

don't avionics GPS require a navigation beacon?

767/757s, I am pretty sure, do not (or did not) have GPS. They would have used handheld units. And I don't know what you mean by navigation beacon. You do know how GPS works, correct? That's a rhetorical question, it seems you have no idea.

regardless, u'r right I should not comment on such things, as do I not know much at all about the subject. I was asking out of speculation.

Well, it seems you shouldn't comment about anything concerning 9/11 because you do not know much at all about the subject.

-I guess you need to attack me personally, the reality is, it says more about you than anyone else.

I just call it as it is. It's not my fault that you are terminally ignorant.

It's a shame you could not as effectively debunk the central issues raised in the initial post.

Your OP was a bunch of nonsensical garbage and the parts that are semi-coherent have been destroyed many times over, including in this thread. You, like every other twoofer, just ignore everything that is inconvenient to your insane fantasy.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think Jone's work is important, I just do not see it as necessary to knowing that explosives were used on these buildings. The event itself is what screams explosives. Consider the case of WTC7, and then realize that even a single intact vertical column would have caused an asymmetrical collapse.

Jones' work is vital, seeing as how NIST cannot follow regulations and test for explosives. (something that would have shut up all of this)

How could a massive building that occupied an entire city block fall so quickly and symmetrically into a tidy rubble pile with large sections of the facade laying neatly (intact sections) on the pile without internal explosives? http://wtc7.net/rubblepile.html
Unfortunately, fire and gravity (and damage to the southeast) do not come close to being able to account for it/ We should look at the evidence and work from there with hypothesis that fit observed events.

If that were what you were doing, you might have a chance of getting somewhere. However, the problem you will always face is that the events that you're trying to explain didn't happen.

Because, quite simply, the collapse of WTC7 was asymmetric. Even the carefully chosen video that the truth movement likes to show, in which the building is visible only for the first third of the collapse, demonstrates very clearly that the support columns weren't severed simultaneously. The collapse of the east mechanical penthouse shows that the east side of the core collapsed first. The collapse of the screenwall and the west mechanical penthouse shows that the collapse progressed laterally across the core, and that the majority of the core columns had already failed before the perimeter columns failed. The kink in the south facade shows that the perimeter columns in the centre of the south face failed before the perimeter columns to either side of the south face. Thus, a video that shows, clearly and obviously, that the support columns failed in a well-defined and easily determined order does not, as the truth movement likes to pretend, prove that they all failed simultaneously; and since simultaneous failure of the columns is one of the arguments advanced in favour of CD, it should instantly be discarded by anyone honest. The video also shows some rotation of the building as it falls, though slight. Other videos show that the building rotated southwards as it fell, and this is backed up by the debris pile. Even your own comment, that there are sections of the facade lying across the rubble pile, is evidence for asymmetric collapse; the southward rotation of the building as it fell left the north facade covering the rubble pile.

So if the thing you're trying to explain never happened, and even the evidence you're trying to put forward that it did happen proves that it didn't, don't you think you should be reconsidering your explanation?

Dave

 

[atavisms]

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.

This being the case, you would think someone would have come up with some suitable explanations by now, but that has not occurred. (Except in the alternative theories postulated by people like Steven Jones, et al)

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.

from the sounds of it, it is something you've done a few times already. You should try and get out more.

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.

You did well defining atavism for yourself, now see if you can find out what is meant by 'trolling' online so you do not continue to misuse the term so badly. Im the one who started this thread and every comment has been on topic. ironically, your post fits the 'TROLL' criteria quite well. -
I have never posted on this or any online forum prior to this, and my concerns about 9/11 are about getting at the truth of what actually occurred and informing others of the facts as we know them.

Sorry I cannot agree that these massive buildings blowing themselves into millions of bits doesnt look like fire and gravity acting on them just to please you, and that puts you in such a tizzy you dont know what to do with yourself. You're another one who comes off with personal attacks instead of addressing issues. Try not replying and moving onto another thread if you have nothing constructive to add.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This being the case, you would think someone would have come up with some suitable explanations by now, but that has not occurred. (Except in the alternative theories postulated by people like Steven Jones, et al)

As I meant to point out in my last post, nobody outside the truth movement is terribly interested in explanations for things that didn't happen. Your problem is that you start from false premises, then try to deal with the fact that your conclusions contradict true premises by abandoning the true premises rather than the false ones.

Dave

 

[TokenMac]

This being the case, you would think someone would have come up with some suitable explanations by now, but that has not occurred. (Except in the alternative theories postulated by people like Steven Jones, et al)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140017
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/local_links.php?catid=18
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82689
http://wtc.nist.gov/
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=9/11+debunked

Homework time

 

[dtugg]

This being the case, you would think someone would have come up with some suitable explanations by now, but that has not occurred. (Except in the alternative theories postulated by people like Steven Jones, et al).

Yeah, nanothermite being used to set off magical, silent explosives makes a whole lot of sense.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Not at all. It is not that a boxcutter cannot be a scary weapon, (did not say that -Im sure it can kill someone easily if it slices an artery and they bleed out)..what I said was that I read somewhere that emergency training dictates that pilots immediately convey any trouble in a cockpit (radio or squawk 7500) and found it difficult to believe that not one person in four cockpits manged to get this off before the planes were taken over by "men armed with box cutters."

This kind of speculation is not something I generally do and did not mean to suggest that this is so indicative of anything in and of itself.. Just thatit seems rather unlikely is all.

So you disagree with that pond scum Dylan Avery and agree with me now that boxcutters are dangerous weapons. I'm saying you've been watching too many movies. You don't have to cut arteries to do bad stuff. Watch the video I posted. There's enough information on the Web for you to know how scary edged weapons can be. And if you're still not convinced, make your own knife fight videos.

So with 5 guys waving edged weapons in a confimed space and perhaps killing people, you're telling me you can't understand complete panic? Are you really saying this? Do you have any personal knowledge of this kind of violence to "speculate" from? Or are you just making stuff up based on crap you saw last night on HBO?

You don't have to "speculate". There is the word of experts on this matter that you can consult. Watch their videos. Write them. Join their clubs and learn how bad edged weapons are. You may find it hard to believe but that's because this kind of violence doesn't make it out to your daddy's house in the suburbs.

But don't go "speculating" to me about this crap. That's the same as saying you're making it.

 

[Hokulele]

don't avionics GPS require a navigation beacon? regardless, u'r right I should not comment on such things, as do I not know much at all about the subject. I was asking out of speculation.

No GPS system uses navigational beacons. None. They are all satellite based (as Reactor drone pointed out). Here is a decent tutorial on GPS and how it works.

http://www.trimble.com/gps/whatgps.shtml

 

[Jocce]

interesting - but you dont say how they might have found their targets so successfully (being so far away and at cruising altitude)

1. You see pretty far if you're high up.

2. If you don't, you use the instruments as you have been trained to do. Yeah, they did have training to fly commercial airliners.

 

[TruthersLie]

I cannot go point by point with you bc I don't have the time, and I am really not trying to convince you. Either the evidence does or it does not/If you've looked at all this material and still feel that no explosives were involved. All I can say is, I hope you're right.

handwave noted.

You say no CD but you do not offer any alternative explanations for all these well documented features.

don't need to, beyond the very simple 100 ton jets moving at 500 mph struck the buildings. They burned unfought for about an hour, and then collapsed because the fires weakened the steel and it buckled.

very simple very easy, and very accurate.

It is easy to say, 'Im not convinced' It's much tougher to offer anything in it's place. The grand majority of people can see there is way this was (after the planes) all accomplished as a result of fire and gravity bc that is what the mountain of evidence shows -has nothing to do with me.

Oh so you agree with a gravity diven collapse? Is that right? Way to come away from the dark side padowan

Regarding the selective breaking of glass hundreds of feet away, it's logical to assume that would depend on the positioning of and strength of the explosives and the glass.

WRONG. If there is enough explosives to blow through the columns, which would be LOUD ENOUGH for EVERYONE to hear it at over amile away, it would shatter EVERY window within 1000 meters of the detonation.

Look them up. Instead of holding on to your WRONG ideas, try to educate yourself.

Considering most of the contents and the concrete in the towers (1&2) was pulverized it is rather a moot to argue about glass hundreds of feet away.

WRONG again. Most of the contents and conrete were not pulverized. They were crushed and broken. Any explosives that are strong enough to "pulverize the contents" of the towers would EASILY SHATTER the glass for 1000's of meters.

Regarding how loud it was, read the 'Oral Histories' There is plenty of testimony there on how loud it was.. besides, the explosive nature of the towers (1&2) demise is not a matter of dispute.

Fully up for dispute. GO AND READ THE ORAL histories instead of handwaving them and dataminging them. FIND ONE which states (when you read the FULL QUOTE) that there were a series of rapid fire EXPLOSIONS in the towers.

Learn to figure out what a similie and metaphor are.

The 9/11 Comm was a "half-baked farce" not my words, but those of the editor of Fire Engineering Magazine.

Now go and look up EXACTLY what he was talking about and when. he was talking about it BEFORE it was set up. NOT AFTER it was finished. In fact AFTER it was finished he was extremely PLEASED. try again.

A few glaring problems with the report are it's ignoring of evidence (i.e Mineta and first responders), the changing of timelines, (Cheney's whereabouts) and not even a mention of WTC 7, Which is pretty astonishing surreal considering they were charged with compiling "fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11"

blah blah blah... you really should use the simple function of google. type in the claim and then type in DEBUNKED.

but I'll nail the easiest one out of the park. Ready? WTC7 was NOT part of the 9/11 commission report because it was not destroyed by the terrorists. 9/11 commission report was about the TERRORIST attacks (the direct ATTACKS. It was not part of the direct attacks, and was BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION.)

You really should try to do some basic research.

The report also stated that, "whomever funded the attacks it is of little significance" and on the 'put and call options' by saying that despite how suspicious these look on the surface that they were all purchased by a "single US institutional investor with no possible ties to al qaeda"
That's called putting the cart before the horse and is not the way investigations should operate.

ah yes... how much money did it cost to buy 20 airline tickets, pay for hotels, and buy 20 boxcutters, 20 4inch folding knives and maybe 20 things of pepper spray? What? Oh... not much.

But I agree on that point, I'd like the money trail followed back better... try again twoof.

 

[Jocce]

perhaps for some things,.,,but for this, a working knowledge of the facts, and simple common sense are enough for most people to grasp that these events could only have been achieved through the use of explosives. one does not need to be an engineer to realize this obvious implication.

Exactly. Who could even believe that airplanes could fly. Common sense would tell you that an object that heavy would just drop to the ground. Obviously, flying is just mass psychosis. Look up chemtrails, the answer is out there. Common sense, i tell you!

 

[TruthersLie]

alright, it wasnt thermite or explosive thermite, great...
what was it then?

The same thing as these


gravity driven collapses (and the towers were the same which were brought on by fire.)

It is rather amazing you keep holding on to your delusions... again if it was explosives, then provide proof of a SILENT explosive.

if the rumble was explosives, provide proof that thousands of tons of explosives sound like a rumble w/out ANY sudden sharp impact when they start detonating.

it should be easy.

I mean we have this from the oklahoma city bombing

NOTICE the brown circle? That is the extent of the DAMAGE from the BOMB. Notice it says that many buildings inside the circle were damaged or collapsed DUE TO THE BOMB.

Now to see what that bomb did to nearby windows.

Notice ALL OF THE WINDOWS ARE BROKEN in the background.

or

Please notice that ALL of the windows in ALL of the cars have been blown out.

shall we continue? If explosives were used on the towers or wtc7 ALL of the windows in the area would have been blown out.

ETA: Lets continue with the oklahoma city bombing for reference. Now we will move on to the injuries of people who were caught in the blast area.
http://www.ok.gov/health/documents/OKC_Bombing.pdf

Forty-nine percent of the study population suffered hearing injuries including ruptured eardrums, short-term or long-term hearing
loss, tinnitus, and equilibrium/balance problems.

Over HALF of the people in the blast radius had ruptured eardrums and massive hearing loss. Please point out the firefighters with ruptured eardrums and massive hearing loss from 9/11. I'll wait. OR anyone who is near the collapses.

 

[TruthersLie]

the point remains as valid, they did not test for explosives.

they also did not test for giant lizard poo, pixie dusts, pretzels, or salt water.

They didn't need to. As has been demonstrated to you REPEATEDLY.

1000lbs of explosives in 1993 didn't destroy a single column. It was so loud EVERYONE in the entire complex heard it (even at the TOP of the towers).

So that means there would have had to be more than 1000lbs of explosives going off... which would be louder and create overpressure.

Oklahoma city bombing blew out all of the glass within 500 meters of the explosion. Let me repeat ALL of the glass.

Yet we have buildings RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET with windows intact.

Any explosives capable of cutting the steel beams would have been over 160 DB (according to NIST and Brent Blanchard Cd expert), yet NO sound in that range, nor like CD explosions going off were heard, reported or caught on ANY video camera filming.... so it is now a silent explosive?

 

[TruthersLie]

perhaps for some things,.,,but for this, a working knowledge of the facts

which you don't have and have conveniently ignored. You do not understand CD, what is involved, what it sounds like or how it is done. Without that knowledge saying "it was CD" is BS and incredibly ignorant.

, and simple common sense are enough for most people to grasp that these events could only have been achieved through the use of explosives. one does not need to be an engineer to realize this obvious implication.

GREAT then please show us a silent explosive OR produce a video in which you can hear the CLEAR and unmistakable sound of CD explosions. It should be simple. Find one. Please.

Why do you think most Americans have never even heard of WTC 7? It isnt bc the thing does not look like a planned implosion

Yet again you LIE.
Please show me a planned implosion where parts of the building are imploded 8 seconds before there rest.
Please show me a planned implosion which uses silent explosives
Please show me a planned implosion which has the building twist and collapse hitting two buildings on either side of it, ONE ON THE FREAKING ROOF.

You really do need to look up what a "planned implosion" looks like.

 

[triforcharity]

My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about. The issues at hand are about what we do know.

I think Jone's work is important, I just do not see it as necessary to knowing that explosives were used on these buildings. The event itself is what screams explosives. Consider the case of WTC7, and then realize that even a single intact vertical column would have caused an asymmetrical collapse.

Jones' work is vital, seeing as how NIST cannot follow regulations and test for explosives. (something that would have shut up all of this)

WHy test for something that there is no evidence of?? That is like looking for whomever left their sink running in New Orleans.

What regulations are you speaking of?? Please say NFPA 921, I will tear that to shreds in 1 post.

How could a massive building that occupied an entire city block fall so quickly and symmetrically into a tidy rubble pile with large sections of the facade laying neatly (intact sections) on the pile without internal explosives? http://wtc7.net/rubblepile.html
Unfortunately, fire and gravity (and damage to the southeast) do not come close to being able to account for it/ We should look at the evidence and work from there with hypothesis that fit observed events.

Explain Fiterman Hall, explain Veasey St and Barclay St, and Greenwich ALL being blocked. Not quite the tidy pile you try to present.

Fiterman Hall

the Pile

Hummmm................... Not quite tidy as you claim.

 

[triforcharity]

the point i was trying to make is that one can get an 'expert' to say anything which is what your highlighted section points out, agreeing with me. (and why its a fallacy to appeal to authority)

re 'arguing from ignorance', If there is something incorrect about the facts I listed you might point it or them out, otherwise youve only spoken but not actually said anything meaningful to anyone else,.. but yourself.

That is not an appeal to authority, that is taking something out of context, and quotemining!! LOL!! He is still an authority on fire though.

Truthers say some of the DUMBEST ****!! Lol!!

 

[TruthersLie]

Exactly. Who could even believe that airplanes could fly. Common sense would tell you that an object that heavy would just drop to the ground. Obviously, flying is just mass psychosis. Look up chemtrails, the answer is out there. Common sense, i tell you!

and obviously anything made of steel will sink. Todays ships are not natural I say. They are very counter intuitive... who ever heard of steel floating.

ETA

 

[triforcharity]

Hi
The car was in a lower level garage? I know a number of the sub-level spaces remained perfectly intact. The point of the towers demise is how explosive it was, how they both behaved the same way, (despite the plane impacts being different) There is, quite simply, nothing natural looking about it.

Not quite lower, but yeah. Aand no, nothing in that tower remained "perfectly intact" at all. None of the floors were in pristine condition, not even the lowest level of the garage. Good try though.
That collapse looked absolutely natural to me. Given the fact that
A: There were no loud booms consistant with explosives
B:There WAS in fact HUGE fires over MANY floors.
C: A huge ******* plane crashed into them at ~500 MPH.
D: We couldn't put the fires out.

I am not 'trying to use' anything. That sounds like you have caught someone trying to deceive you but that could not be further from the truth.
That is a photo of the debris field of the towers. (if u'r referring to what Im thinking) That's all. Are you saying it was not explosive? or that the tower were not completely blown apart? Im sure you would answer, no in both cases.

Oh, yeah, you most certainly are trying to pull a fast one on me. Aparently you are new around here. No, it was not an EXPLOSIVE event. EXPLOSIVE is indictive of a BOMB. There were no bombs. The tower WAS smashed apart, not blown. At least not in the sense that you are using it.

I got there on 9/11/01 after the towers had already come down. and I have spoken to a few people who 'worked the pile' (firefighters & emt's among them) and a neighbor works for the PA and was down there regularly from 9/12 onwards, for a while - Why do you ask?

*Sniff Sniff* I smell some BS here. What street did you stand on. Be VERY caarefull, because I know what streets were blocked off, so don't try to BS me. Remember, I was there. I highly doubt you were.

Im not sure how you think these people got so badly blasted apart (for you to have personally removed 'hundreds of body parts' yourself confirms what the facts reveal, that people (and the towers themselves) were blown to bits. How could it all get so badly damaged from getting crushed by a gravity driven collapse of an intact structure. Wouldn't that just squash things down and not have blown them so violently (and forcefully) apart?

Um, when a huge ******* building falls on your head, what the **** do you think is going to happen??? Lol!! Nothing like a good old self-debunking!!

 

[triforcharity]

perhaps for some things,.,,but for this, a working knowledge of the facts, and simple common sense are enough for most people to grasp that these events could only have been achieved through the use of explosives. one does not need to be an engineer to realize this obvious implication.

Why do you think most Americans have never even heard of WTC 7? It isnt bc the thing does not look like a planned implosion - that's exactly why they dont now of it. It was shown only on 9/11 and almost never again afterward. Why do you think that is? How can Americans be so uninformed about such a major aspect of such a major event?

I would not even consider 7 to be a major event on that day. It was not attacked by terrorists, and there were no casualties. I consider 7 on about the same wavelength as say, Fiterman Hall. Maybe just a smidge higher.