Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

Java Man said:
Yup, that still doesn't rule out that you were trying to pull a nonsense argument against the usage of explosives.
Click to expand...

Yes, out of all the things I listed under the evidence against (or lack of evidence for) the use of explosives in the collapse of the WTCs, I was technically incorrect when I made the claim about "no series of explosions".

I should have stated that that was evidence against a controlled demolition.

it was far from nonsensical, but rather was perhaps too general, for the particular argument.

Ok...that is out of the way, do a high five, and now...

Evidence of explosive use in the WTC collapses...Go!

TAM:)
 
jaydeehess said:
9 or 10 structures destroyed and apprx 3000 dead, more death and destruction in the USA than that caused by any other man made disaster and he talks about the supposed conspirators limiting damage!
Click to expand...

Well imagine the same scenario, but the buildings fall sideways along Manhattan. How many dead then? Damage in USD?
 
Anders Lindman said:
But if my theory is correct, that no demolition charges were used, couldn't the explosives in the basements have been planted very deep underground? These massive explosions were there to emulate a severe earthquake, which means that they could have been planted even BELOW the basements of the towers. Or, as Sarah Palin said: "Drill, baby drill."
Click to expand...
(PLACE INCREDULOUS LAUGHTER HERE)

if it could have been done that way,it would have needed many more tons of HE.
also do the bad guys have their own sandhogs to do the excavation?
who and how were those many tons of He transported?
where is the massive crater that would be a dead giveaway of the use of said explosives?
 
daws59 said:
thanks!
Click to expand...

Here are more links on blast injuries

Click to expand...


Explosions and Blast injuries - A Primer for Clinicians
http://www.cdc.gov/masstrauma/preparedness/primer.pdf

Blast Injuries
http://www.rph.wa.gov.au/anaesth/downloads/Blast Injuries (Mr S. Rao).pdf


This is a good description of injuries due to blast. Unfortunately, it's PowerPoint. Not everyone can view it.
www.southbaydrc.org/users/blast.ppt

subscription required. Can someone look at it for me? http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMra042083


Page 42
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&...vWHuBzK9oNpUvH40rLZTZYQio#v=onepage&q&f=false

===========================================

http://archsurg.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/140/11/1068

Results The major cause of morbidity for the September 11, 2001, patients was smoke inhalation (30.0%); followed closely by chemical conjunctivitis and corneal abrasions (16%); lacerations, abrasions, and soft-tissue injuries (15.5%); isolated orthopedic complaints (12%); and psychiatric complaints (10%). Multiple-trauma patients were 3% of the patients seen. There were 5 fatalities at Saint Vincent’s Hospital.

=========================================


Blast injuries traditionally are divided into 4 categories: primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary (or miscellaneous) injuries. A patient may be injured by more than one of these mechanisms.1,2

* A primary blast injury is caused solely by the direct effect of blast overpressure on tissue. Air is easily compressible, unlike water. As a result, a primary blast injury almost always affects air-filled structures such as the lung, ear, and gastrointestinal (GI) tract.
* A secondary blast injury is caused by flying objects that strike people.
* A tertiary blast injury is a feature of high-energy explosions. This type of injury occurs when people fly through the air and strike other objects.
* Miscellaneous or quaternary blast injuries encompass all other injuries caused by explosions, such as burns, crush injuries, and toxic inhalations. For example, the crash of two jet airplanes into the World Trade Center only created a relatively low-order pressure wave, but the resulting fire and building collapse killed thousands.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/822587-overview
[/QUOTE]
 
ergo said:
Sure. Which is why I'm saying that we can't really tell at this point, especially if information is being suppressed. Right? Why is it that it's up to citizens and "truther" sites to record and maintain this information? Why isn't it in the NIST report? Or the 9/11 Commission Report?
Click to expand...
you are assuming that information is being suppressed. where is the credible proof of suppression?
 
T.A.M. said:
Evidence of explosive use in the WTC collapses...Go!
Click to expand...

Ok, I believe that before we jump into the "evidence". It would be best to analyse the need for explosive use in the WTC collapses. Don't you think? To look at the purpose for its presence.
 
Java Man said:
Ok, I believe that before we jump into the "evidence". It would be best to analyse the need for explosive use in the WTC collapses. Don't you think? To look at the purpose for its presence.
Click to expand...

There was no need for explosives. Which is why we are asking for evidence of such.
 
Java Man said:
Ok, I believe that before we jump into the "evidence". It would be best to analyse the need for explosive use in the WTC collapses. Don't you think? To look at the purpose for its presence.
Click to expand...

No need to start a new thread. There's one right here.
 
DGM said:
I am a builder. I have worked on tall buildings for 30 years. Over this time I have noticed that a large amount of bird "crap" accumulates on top of these buildings. Over the years this amounts to a large amount of weight. I believe this was a factor in the collapse of all three buildings on 9/11. Why did NIST not account for the accumulation of bird "crap" in their calculations.
Click to expand...

I don't know, but a "bird crap" theory sounds like it would be in about the same league as "the tops of two buildings crushed down through the rest of their buildings within seconds of free fall" theory.
 
carlitos said:
The really sad thing is that the quotes beachnut posted referred to bodies hitting the ground. I can't imagine what that must have been like when they realized what it was.
Click to expand...

Still haven't seen any evidence that this is what was producing the exploding sounds for the people that beachnut quoted.
 
ergo said:
No, "explosion" means "the act or an instance of exploding".

"To explode" means "to blow up" or "to burst or to cause to burst violently and noisily".
Click to expand...

please see my previous youtube links to transformers, aerosol cans, and oxygen canisters EXPLODING.

And yes, the technical definition of the word may be "The act or instance of exploding", however, its common use can be to describe any loud noise. Other words used for these noises would be Boom...Bang....Blam...Kapow...

TAM:D
 
Java Man said:
Ok, I believe that before we jump into the "evidence". It would be best to analyse the need for explosive use in the WTC collapses. Don't you think? To look at the purpose for its presence.
Click to expand...

SO what do you think? was there a need for explosives? To prove there wasn't you must provide something capable both in terms of the material used to replace the explosive for bringing down the towers, and the DELIVERY SYSTEM. Both must EXIST, not in theory, but in reality...

AND GO....

TAM:)
 
ergo said:
Still haven't seen any evidence that this is what was producing the exploding sounds for the people that beachnut quoted.
Click to expand...
People jumping, bodies hitting the ground, I proved you don't do research. Bodies hitting the ground, the people who said the quotes bodies hitting the ground. You can't do research to figure out anything! You fell for lies and you don't' have a clue how to comprehend reality.

You have no idea how to do simple reality based research and you prove it at every moronic statement you make on 911.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
People jumping, bodies hitting the ground, I proved you don't do research. Bodies hitting the ground, the people who said the quotes said dead people and you can't do research to figure out anything! You fell for lies and you don't' have a clue how to comprehend reality.
Click to expand...

In other words, you made it up. Are you deliberately misrepresenting the testimony of people who were actually there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom