• 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.

Bazant was right!! Imagine that

Hornit

Scholar
H
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
96
Saw this today in my travels around the internet as I delve back into the twoofer fray over at Peak Oil.com.

I'm presently back at it after a self imposed hiatus. Seems some of the old crap has been found by some newbs and they are buying into it hook line and sinker.

This video is of a CD where they used an interesting technique. The building was prepped and rigged to have the center floors not exploded, but the columns pulled by hydraulics with cables. Check out what happens...

Gee looks very much like the WTC's doens't it? An excellent visual debunk of CD and how once the collpase begins it ain't gonna stop! And they did it on a much smaller building to boot!!!

Looks kind of like Free fall doesn't it.. ;) Apologize if this has been posted here already, have not seen it in my searches and recent reading here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE
 
Last edited:
I didn't watch the vid you posted, but it sounds like the Verinage technique of demolition. There was an amusing incident a few months ago when a truther posted one of these videos as some kind of proof of a WTC CD.... only to discover several posts later that he had totally debunked himself. Hilarious!

Anyone remember what thread that was?
 
Brainache said:
There was an amusing incident a few months ago when a truther posted one of these videos as some kind of proof of a WTC CD.... only to discover several posts later that he had totally debunked himself. Hilarious!

Anyone remember what thread that was?
Click to expand...

All of them :D

This is a video of the Balzac. I'm really not sure if this a verinage or not? I don't think it is, but it was so long ago. I predict the next poster will know for sure (Where's my million bucks?)
 
Obviously faked for the following reasons:

  1. No sounds of clapping hands in between levels being destroyed
  2. No one yelling "Klunkity klunk" as each floor is destroyed
  3. It clearly fell into it's own footprint except where it didn't
  4. People seem to have been "forewarned" about the collapse
  5. There is a complete lack of energy beams coming from space
  6. The camera shots failed to show the other building that overflew this one at the moment of the fake collapse
  7. Only thermite/thermate/nanothermite/pseudothermite/Oggeyboogy matter can do this and none are evident in the shots
  8. Cardboard boxes show us that the top should have just tipped over and detached
  9. Block A cannot collapse through Block B!
You are all so gullible you Sheeple! :p

Threads 3body was talking about:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152216
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152382
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148426
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
All of them :D

This is a video of the Balzac. I'm really not sure if this a verinage or not? I don't think it is, but it was so long ago. I predict the next poster will know for sure (Where's my million bucks?)
Click to expand...

Yup. Classic verinage.
 
Travis said:
Obviously faked for the following reasons:

  1. No sounds of clapping hands in between levels being destroyed
  2. No one yelling "Klunkity klunk" as each floor is destroyed
  3. It clearly fell into it's own footprint except where it didn't
  4. People seem to have been "forewarned" about the collapse
  5. There is a complete lack of energy beams coming from space
  6. The camera shots failed to show the other building that overflew this one at the moment of the fake collapse
  7. Only thermite/thermate/nanothermite/pseudothermite/Oggeyboogy matter can do this and none are evident in the shots
  8. Cardboard boxes show us that the top should have just tipped over and detached
  9. Block A cannot collapse through Block B!
Click to expand...
Don't forget the pyroclastic flow!
 
[twoof]So, you admit it was a controlled demolition! No wonder shills like you are asking everyone to look for wires and blasting caps. The NWO did a demolition on those buildings without them![/twoof]
 
angrysoba said:
[twoof]So, you admit it was a controlled demolition! No wonder shills like you are asking everyone to look for wires and blasting caps. The NWO did a demolition on those buildings without them![/twoof]
Click to expand...

Don't laugh. That's pretty much bardamu's position.
 
Are you using a CD to show that WTC7 wasn't a CD? You seem to be saying "Here is a CD which looks like what we saw on 9/11 and this proves what we saw on 911 wasn't a CD." (I'm not a troofer I'm just confused by what you are trying to demonstrate here.)
 
Mobertermy said:
Are you using a CD to show that WTC7 wasn't a CD? You seem to be saying "Here is a CD which looks like what we saw on 9/11 and this proves what we saw on 911 wasn't a CD." (I'm not a troofer I'm just confused by what you are trying to demonstrate here.)
Click to expand...

To put it simply, this demolition doesnt involve explosives yet curiously exhibits all the same indicators of a demolition that Gage says is impossible without explosives.
 
Mobertermy said:
Are you using a CD to show that WTC7 wasn't a CD? You seem to be saying "Here is a CD which looks like what we saw on 9/11 and this proves what we saw on 911 wasn't a CD." (I'm not a troofer I'm just confused by what you are trying to demonstrate here.)
Click to expand...

There's a technical point here that many Troofers deny that a building can crush itself as it would "defy the laws of physics" for the top of the building to continue falling through a structure that would theoretically resist. They say only explosives can do that and yet there is a demolition technique demonstrated here showing not only that it is possible but that is predicated on the very idea it is possible. At least that's how I understand it.

I remember having an argument with someone about this who refused to believe the energy necessary to destroy the building was there, saying that the falling top part should have decelerated abruptly and, as far as I could understand his point come to rest about halfway down.
 
Mobertermy said:
Are you using a CD to show that WTC7 wasn't a CD? You seem to be saying "Here is a CD which looks like what we saw on 9/11 and this proves what we saw on 911 wasn't a CD." (I'm not a troofer I'm just confused by what you are trying to demonstrate here.)
Click to expand...

Err.. the argument is not at the level of comparing events. That's twoof, err, "logic."

The "squibs" are supposed to be evidence of the use of explosives. The verinage technique does not use explosives yet exhibits these "squibs." Since the tecniique itself, pulling supporting structural members away, does not produce "squibs" it must be concluded that squibs are a feature of a collapsing building.
 
Travis said:
Obviously faked for the following reasons:

  1. No sounds of clapping hands in between levels being destroyed
  2. No one yelling "Klunkity klunk" as each floor is destroyed
  3. It clearly fell into it's own footprint except where it didn't
  4. People seem to have been "forewarned" about the collapse
  5. There is a complete lack of energy beams coming from space
  6. The camera shots failed to show the other building that overflew this one at the moment of the fake collapse
  7. Only thermite/thermate/nanothermite/pseudothermite/Oggeyboogy matter can do this and none are evident in the shots
  8. Cardboard boxes show us that the top should have just tipped over and detached
  9. Block A cannot collapse through Block B!
Click to expand...

You also forgot the obvious: this had never happened before, so it obviously couldn't have happened this time!
 
angrysoba said:
I've heard "klunkety klunk" and clapping hands mentioned a couple of times now. What does it refer to?
Click to expand...

It comes from truther filmmaker Sophia Shafquat/Sophia Smallstorm's 2006 film '9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction'. It involves her fallacious argument that the time it would take for each floor to collapse is equal to the time it takes to say 'Clunkety Clunk'.
This infamous idiocy is a classic truther fail.

'1A. [Prof. Steven Jones]
You would expect the tower to absorb the shock but not just fail completely, and certainly not in less than 15 seconds as we observe.

1B. [Sofia Shafquat] That's basically free-fall speed. I have a hypothetical demonstration. A collapse is clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, floor by floor.
Say that 110 times, and a major Republican tried this, he took his watch with the second hand and he said clunkety clunk 110 times, it took him over 3 minutes.'

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/08/history-channel-911-conspiracies-fact.html
 
This technique is still a controlled demolition though. I don't see how its disproving anything the troofers say about buildings only collapsing symmetrically by CD. You haven't proved Bazant was right. Bazant said that 911 occured without CD. The building you show occured with CD. Don't worry this doesn't mean 911 was an inside job, but this by no means shows "bazant was right."

This doesn't look like a steel building either.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
It comes from truther filmmaker Sophia Shafquat/Sophia Smallstorm's 2006 film '9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction'. It involves her fallacious argument that the time it would take for each floor to collapse is equal to the time it takes to say 'Clunkety Clunk'.
This infamous idiocy is a classic truther fail.

'1A. [Prof. Steven Jones]
You would expect the tower to absorb the shock but not just fail completely, and certainly not in less than 15 seconds as we observe.

1B. [Sofia Shafquat] That's basically free-fall speed. I have a hypothetical demonstration. A collapse is clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, floor by floor.
Say that 110 times, and a major Republican tried this, he took his watch with the second hand and he said clunkety clunk 110 times, it took him over 3 minutes.'

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/08/history-channel-911-conspiracies-fact.html
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll take a look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom