Whoops, by your own metrics that means the 30 story building that collapsed in Belem, Brazil earlier this year was brought down by explosive controlled demolition!! Stop the presses! Another inside job false flag terror op!!!
Bombs? Uh, no. I don't see CD here. I don't hear it. When I watched Richard Gage's video in 2007 I thought "maybe" for a month or so. More research brought me back to me first impression.
Oh my Gawd! A Train!!! I'm shutting down all 20 of my YouTube videos right now!! These eyewitnesses have given me the proof I've always needed!! A train brought down the towers!!
When I was in high school that rumor of Beatle Paul McCartney being dead was circulating around. I helped edit the school paper and I wrote an article "proving" that in fact Ringo Starr was dead. And you know, I was able to collect as much evidence of Ringo's death as the Paul is Dead people were able to conjure up about Paul's death. It taught me something right away: the incredible ability of the human mind to justify any belief.
But you know, there were train tracks right under the WTC Towers.... and reports of fires and explosions in the basement and lower floors... and I have just calculated that a train loaded with nanothermites could generate 69 bajillion joules of energy (I should know I'm a theologian)... and those things on top of the rail cars that take in coal or grains or whatever... it would be easy to reverse their direction and have them shoot stuff UP the elevator shafts... and these eyewitness reports are undeniable... hmmm....
I have a suggestion for all here, and anywhere, pertaining to 911 discussions. When referring to what happened to the three WTC buildings the term collapse, by itself, is nonsensical.
I will be replacing "collapse" with "destruction" when discussing what happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.
Thanks for ignoring the many cogent rebuttals to your false claim that every 'explosion' = explosive controlled demolition.
Your confirmation bias is so strong, you can't even use the word 'collapse'?
Sorry if most of us decline to follow your indoctrination techniques. This is nearly as bad as Judy Wood refusing to call dust swirls at people's feet 'dust', but instead 'fuming'.
Or refusing to admit the towers even collapsed, insisting that they 'went poof'.
You're right in her ballpark, dude. Congratulations??
When I was in high school that rumor of Beatle Paul McCartney being dead was circulating around. I helped edit the school paper and I wrote an article "proving" that in fact Ringo Starr was dead. And you know, I was able to collect as much evidence of Ringo's death as the Paul is Dead people were able to conjure up about Paul's death. It taught me something right away: the incredible ability of the human mind to justify any belief.
When I was in H.S. had a philosophy class taught by an ex priest. He took Bible quotes (out of context) and justified everything from rape and murder to incest. It taught me to look closely at sources and claims.
Thanks for ignoring the many cogent rebuttals to your false claim that every 'explosion' = explosive controlled demolition.
Your confirmation bias is so strong, you can't even use the word 'collapse'?
Sorry if most of us decline to follow your indoctrination techniques. This is nearly as bad as Judy Wood refusing to call dust swirls at people's feet 'dust', but instead 'fuming'.
Or refusing to admit the towers even collapsed, insisting that they 'went poof'.
You're right in her ballpark, dude. Congratulations??
thanks for the nonsense tangent.hoisting me on my own petard.
Fyi
i have a suggestion for all here, and anywhere, pertaining to 911 discussions. When referring to what happened to the three wtc buildings the term collapse, by itself, is nonsensical too much reality.
I will be replacing "collapse" with "destruction" when discussing what happened to wtc 1, wtc 2, and wtc 7. to protect my religious beliefs
I have a suggestion for all here, and anywhere, pertaining to 911 discussions. When referring to what happened to the three WTC buildings the term collapse, by itself, is nonsensical.
I will be replacing "collapse" with "destruction" when discussing what happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.
I think that's a great idea. Because "collapse" makes it sound like that was all that happened to them, as if they just fell down for some mysterious reason, but "destruction" more clearly includes all the destruction that happened when the planes collided and when fires burned out of control.
"Discombobulation" is a good word too. Actually even better than "destruction" because the buildings were discombobulated well before they collapsed or were destroyed. In fact the airplane impacts and uncontrolled fires discombobulated them pretty thoroughly. And then when they collapsed they got even more discombobulated.
I have a suggestion for all here, and anywhere, pertaining to 911 discussions. When referring to what happened to the three WTC buildings the term collapse, by itself, is nonsensical.
Why, So that you can pretend they exploded rather than just collapsed and fell apart because of fire? What I hear is someone trying to move some goalposts....
I will be replacing "collapse" with "destruction" when discussing what happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.
It would be helpful if you could show us videos of real detonations of explosives in office buildings (or similar). Maybe from real CDs?
If you look, for example, at the Landmark Tower implosion in Fort Worth, texas:
You will notice that the explosions (which happen before the collapse begins - don't ever forget that!) show more as bright flashes of light, and very little by way of squibs.
Major ejections of dust clouds happen only after collapse has begun, and explosions have seized.
To me, it looks in both cases very much like the dust ejections are not causes by explosives, but by the collapse itself, as the volume of the building gets greatly reduced and air is forced out of collapsing floors at high speed.
Or here is the Aladdin implosion in Vegas:
Starting at about 1:00, you see lots of flashes, but hardly any dust. A women comments that: "Look at all the flashes!".
Significant dust ejections only after the last charges have detonated, and as the building is already collapsing.
Once again, it appears like explosives can be seen by the flashes, and gravitational collapse by the displaced air which carries lots of dust.
Or here is the Everglades Hotel:
From the beginning, at 0:10, you hear lots and lots of BANGs of explosive charges - but no dust puffs!
At 0:18, collapse begins visibly, and only after that, around 0:19, do you see the first dust ejections.
Again, it seems very much like dust ejections are a result of the collapse, not of the explosives.
Oh, Clayton, have you ever seen buildings demolished by a technique called "Verinage"? It doesn't use explosives at all.
Two videos that show verinage demolitions:
Lo and behold: We see high-speed lateral ejections of dust in both videos - yet we KNOW for a fact that no explosives were involved!
That sounds familiar. If those components were "hurled" with actual explosives, the speed would have been much greater. Ron Craig (explosives) expert explained this concept pretty well as he destroyed Richard Gage's claims about "squibs." Here's one link - I'm not sure if the whole thing is online, you could google around a little for it. This was on Richard Syrett's radio show.
Tell you what... you can use the word "destruction" and I'll use the word "collapse." We'll treat them as synonyms, recognizing that both words have different connotations. I believe "collapse" describes better what happened, you believe "destruction" because of our respective biases. We won't correct each other, you do your thing I do mine.
As for the personal nastiness Marokkaan, I'll let LashL and the other blog watchdogs take care of that. I won't confront you any more and I won't confront my friends... unless you personally attack me or get really egregiously vicious or insensitive. I'll let embarrassing go from now on. Tri and others can say whatever they want about you and you can say whatever you want about them... you guys can take care of yourselves just fine.
As an aside, I was in a room full of 250 9/11 Truth people debating Richard Gage live. If I had called him crazy or a fraud or a liar everyone would have turned against me big time.
Anyway, it's entertaining sometimes, people on this thread sometimes say things my superego won't let me say anyway so believe me I'm not so holy either. (How many times have I said to myself, this controlled demolition theory is friggin' INSANE!!! and then write a respectful reply??) So have at it, I'll enjoy the show and participate as a debater and try to stay out of the personal nastiness unless I just can't resist it.
Oh and one other thing... the idea that trains brought down the towers is funny as hell and there is a lesson in it. It's good to toss a little humor into the mix every once in awhile. Have a great weekend all and I'll try to just kick back and have fun in our rough little playground here!
Huh? The upper floors of what? What do you mean by "disappear" - mass turning into - what? - nothing?
How did this reply answer the questions I asked:
"it seems very much like dust ejections are a result of the collapse, not of the explosives. Do you see that too, Clayton Moore? "
and
"Lo and behold: We see high-speed lateral ejections of dust in both [Verinage] videos - yet we KNOW for a fact that no explosives were involved! Care to explain what that means, Clayton Moore?"
Ah so you believe things disappear if you can no longer see them. Interestingly finding this is not the case is one of the major development stages babies go through......its why they find peekaboo so fascinating.
So how do you "disappear" the mass of a floor? This should be entertaining
Just a reminder that, even in the Verinage, the ejections weren't really "high speed," not like with explosives. Black powder explodes at like 1,300 ft/sec (1,000 miles per hour), where earlier Gamolon mentioned 68 mph for the ejecta.
More exotic explosives have an even greater velocity. C-4 is more than 25,000 feet per second (~17,000 mph). I don't think that our resident analysts of "observables" ever found anything moving that fast, as they pored over the video.
Understood. Looking at the thread title, Dick Gage argued that the ejections were powered by explosives, so I wanted to highlight the order of magnitude difference in speed that exists from automobile-like speed (of ejections observed @ WTC and with Verinage) to black powder to C-4. Explosives explode. At high speed. By definition. That's why we hear the "boom" when they go off. Something that will be lost on the truthy folks here, but I thought Mr. Mohr could benefit from my pointing this out.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
