• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged David Chandler (ae911) sez "WTC7 was in free fall part of the time"

Tony Szamboti said:
It sounds like those like you who either can't imagine 911 was an inside job or are defending something are going to try and lean on specific words here as they can't deny it any other way.

Tailorability and Impulse Management are mentioned in the article and with an explosive that means it is controllable to get just the amount of fragmentation needed while minimizing noise.
Click to expand...

Well there's your problem right there Tony. You are using imagination instead of science and hard evidence to come to your flawed conclusion that 911 was an inside job. 9 years of pounding that square peg into a round hole. You have shown us nothing more than the results of a twoofer scavenger hunt to find SOMETHING that you can plug in plausibility for your conspiracy. Get over it Tony. You were wrong. There is no inside job conspiracy. It's all in your head. There is no hush-a-boom technology. I read the pdf, It is clear you misunderstand it. Which is kind of startling considering you are supposed to be an engineer. But there are incompetents in every field. Relegated to a cad station in the corner of an office to draw small parts that wont get them in over their head.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I would imagine you would like to see what was said at the annual ACS meeting in April 2001 http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf.
Click to expand...
Yes but they certainly wouldn't be able to survive the temperatures of an office fire. Hell its even debatable they wouldn't be able to survive just sitting on the steel column for any period of time. Its actually an example of the effects of thermodynamics. The smaller the particle the higher energy state they are in due to the fact that you have more molecules on the surface than you do in the core. Thus nanoparticles have a tendancy to clump together and form larger particles which in turn changes the characteristics of said particle.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
There are millions of people, including many professional technical people who don't believe WTC 7 came down due to fire and they aren't no planers. Your logic here is ridiculous.

As for thermite, it was nano-thermite found in the dust. I believe I have told you before that the American Chemical Society is quoted as saying nano-energetics are tailorable to produce just the amount of fragmentation needed while minimizing noise. ...
Click to expand...
"millions"??? Name them! Oops, one Jones or Gage pretty much sinks your ship of delusions in the sea of stupid.
There is a fringe group of paranoid biased people who don't believe WTC7 came down due to fire you call professional technical people; they have delusions.

The American Chemical Society did not mention minimizing noise. You posted no support for your delusions of CD with thermite. You have no clue what "energy release and impulse management" means as you make up lies to support your delusional CD scam.

There was no nano-thermite found at the WTC, there is zero thermite products found at the WTC.
 
NutCracker said:
...
Despite there being not a shred of evidence favour of 9/11 theories, we critical thinkers have no other means of denying these 9/11 theories but leaning on specific words. Let me be redundant: we don't need semantics to "deny" 9/11 theories, we have a rather powerful and legitimate way of denying 9/11 theories. That being the absence of even a single piece of evidence and the utter absence of a coherent case in favour of 9/11 theories
Click to expand...

There is not even a theory to begin with that any truther is able to spell out in concrete terms, complete with assumptions, let alone one that any other truthers could agree on.
 
technoextreme said:
Yes but they certainly wouldn't be able to survive the temperatures of an office fire.
Click to expand...

thats another point where the ventura debacle backfired. they applied a cup of something burning that ignited the superthermite van romero made. yet this **** survived the fires from the jets and the fires in 7? combine the fact that van romero showed that the truthers' hopes and dreams of a silent nanothermite demolition with this, it just demosntrates ventura's entire superduperthermite segment and the whole truther "hypothesis" as a whole is nothing but fail from start to finish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is really becoming no fun. On one thread, I have jammonius telling us over and over that videos of jets crashing in the WTC are evidence that no jets crashed into the WTC. Here, we have Tony Szamboti, who is supposed to be a college graduate, telling us there's proof thermite was used to destroy WTC 7. And he really seems to believe that playing the thermite card is saving him from being labelled just as nutty as a no-planer.

What's the point of JREF anymore? Hashing it out with the CIT? Is there some secret stash of Truther knowledge that proves it all? I'm waiting for it. because this is sure getting stupid.

Tony, get a grip on this. Thermite only sounds good to stupid people. The truth is, it's just as nutty as a no-planer. It may hurt, but someone has to let you know.
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
This is really becoming no fun. On one thread, I have jammonius telling us over and over that videos of jets crashing in the WTC are evidence that no jets crashed into the WTC. Here, we have Tony Szamboti, who is supposed to be a college graduate, telling us there's proof thermite was used to destroy WTC 7. And he really seems to believe that playing the thermite card is saving him from being labelled just as nutty as a no-planer.

What's the point of JREF anymore? Hashing it out with the CIT? Is there some secret stash of Truther knowledge that proves it all? I'm waiting for it. because this is sure getting stupid.

Tony, get a grip on this. Thermite only sounds good to stupid people. The truth is, it's just as nutty as a no-planer. It may hurt, but someone has to let you know.
Click to expand...

i have been feeling the same way. lately i have been considering that it arguing w the remnants of the TM is pointless and energies would be better used providing people who are on the fence or new to their kookery with information that shows it for the nonsense it is.
 
You got some good comparable controlled demolition links to point to?

What about the cutter charges argument on the corners of the building?

Have you verified any of these guys credentials?

Are you an engineer working in this field?
 
Resolver said:
You got some good comparable controlled demolition links to point to?

What about the cutter charges argument on the corners of the building?

Have you verified any of these guys credentials?

Are you an engineer working in this field?
Click to expand...

you can trump their credentials with only 2 or maybe 3 Debunkers from here.

just youtube some CD's and watch, and especially listen to the videos.
cutter charges are extremly loud.

Thermite is the better fantasy in this case.
 
Resolver said:
You got some good comparable controlled demolition links to point to?
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

What about the cutter charges argument on the corners of the building?
Click to expand...

He didn't establish they were coming out of the corners at all. He just stated it and asks to take his word for it. They're far too minor to be an explosive, as seen in the above video, and the video shows absolutely no evidence of a structural failure at that point. If there was a bomb or something similar on that location, you'd expect to be something visible on the steel where the puff came from, but there isn't.

Have you verified any of these guys credentials?
Click to expand...

David Charla... Chandler is a professor of mathematics and physics, not quite relevant in this "debate".

McHrozni
 
Mathematics amd Physics are naturally very relevant in this debate.

this demonstrates , also dont belive everything the so called debunkers tell you.
 
For me the funniest part of his presentation was where he pointed out the suspicious puff of smoke that didn't fall at the same rate as the upper part of the building.

Evidence of a cutter charge maybe?.....or perhaps just evidence that smoke doesn't fall at the same speed as steel and concrete.

:boggled:
 
McHrozni said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

McHrozni
Click to expand...


this one is local to me, since I was there to watch this one up close and personal. I was standing in the crowd (near the end) with my friend who worked at the Downtown First Hawaiian Bank Building (we were all wearing masks) - and like the comment on the video, some concrete landed near us, but they were teh size of someone's hand (at most)

and guess who did the implosion? -- its at the end

 
Resolver said:
You got some good comparable controlled demolition links to point to?

What about the cutter charges argument on the corners of the building?

Have you verified any of these guys credentials?

Are you an engineer working in this field?
Click to expand...

Are you?
 
^^ That's one thing i don't think I have heard in any of the videos of the collapses: loud piercing sounds from the 'explosives' that are evenly spaced in time. what is actually heard is a thud thud thud that gets faster and faster as the tower collapses.

regarding the original video, the puff clearly comes after the tower starts collapsing, so it cannot have been a structurally crippling event, but the structure itself failing because the rest of the structure is no longer supporting the top of the building that causes the dust to be pushed or flicked out.
 
As a qualified (by two separate commands) submarine conventional weapons handing supervisor (CWHS) I feel safe in pointing out that 1) Explosives don't react well to extreme shock and that 2) Explosives don't react well to high prolonged heat.

Both of those conditions (extreme shock and prolonged high heat) were observed by thousands of eyewitnesses, in hundreds of photographs and in at least 43 videos. :D

During my training I had to read through thousands of pages in at least a dozen manuals describing mishaps involving all types of conventional explosives and the results of those accidents and incidents. Every major accident involved shock and/or heat. There were a few incidents where shock and/or heat were involved but they were nowhere near 9/11 levels (weapons dropped a few feet, fires that affected the walls of bunkers/lockers and such) and no type of detonation (low order or high order) occurred.

These are the things I know for a fact. There is no wiggle room. There is absolutely nothing to contend. If any pre-planted explosives existed in any of the buildings they would've gone off long before the idiots who make that stupid claim say they did, either from the initial shock or the subsequent fires.

Before any wannabe explosive experts chime in... yes I'm aware that certain explosives can burn and not explode, the fault in that reasoning is that the burster/booster that actually makes the explosive detonate cannot survive the events seen on 9/11. They are much less stable than the compound that they are mated with.
 
DC said:
Mathematics amd Physics are naturally very relevant in this debate.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. So? He's teaching Jr.College kids, and there was this question:
Are you an engineer working in this field?

Mr. Charlatan is not, so I really don't see why he should be used as an authority in this matter.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
Yes, they are. So? He's teaching Jr.College kids, and there was this question:
Are you an engineer working in this field?

Mr. Charlatan is not, so I really don't see why he should be used as an authority in this matter.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

David Charla... Chandler is a professor of mathematics and physics, not quite relevant in this "debate".
Click to expand...

here you claimed Mathematics and Physics are not relevant to this debate, i say yes they are very relevant in this debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom