Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

BigAl said:
The English dictionary, 300 hours of video and a million witnesses.
Click to expand...

The English dictionary discusses 9/11 explosions? Which videos are you referring to, and which witnesses? Thanks.
 
So, so far we have two "debunker" claims here that remain unsupported:

1) that "there were no eyewitnesses reports of noises consistent in timing, loudness or brisance with man-made demolition."

and

2) that "nobody heard anything like 1993 in 2001."
 
ergo said:
So, so far we have two "debunker" claims here that remain unsupported:

1) that "there were no eyewitnesses reports of noises consistent in timing, loudness or brisance with man-made demolition."

and

2) that "nobody heard anything like 1993 in 2001."
Click to expand...
This is the place you insert the video that proves them wrong. These explosives were caught on video, right?

Step it up!
 
The video evidence for explosives has been well-documented. I understand "debunkers" don't agree with it, so I'm not going to re-present something that you already have your mind made up about.

I have already linked to and excerpted from eyewitness testimonials regarding explosions and what those sounded like to some of those witnesses.

What evidence have "debunkers" provided? Zero.

Step it up.
 
ergo said:
The video evidence for explosives has been well-documented. I understand "debunkers" don't agree with it, so I'm not going to re-present something that you already have your mind made up about.

I have already linked to and excerpted from eyewitness testimonials regarding explosions and what those sounded like to some of those witnesses.

What evidence have "debunkers" provided? Zero.

Step it up.
Click to expand...

There were eyewitnesses that heard trains at GZ. Does that mean that trains brought down the WTC?

Now, lets stop beating around the bush. No explosions were heard that would have come from explosives capable of cutting the core columns. They would have produced a sound so loud, it would have been heard in Hoboken. If you have proof of this explosion (Somewhere in the 130+ decibel range) please present it. We're waiting. There should be HUNDREDS of videos.


We'll wait.....
 
ergo said:
So, so far we have two "debunker" claims here that remain unsupported:

1) that "there were no eyewitnesses reports of noises consistent in timing, loudness or brisance with man-made demolition."

and

2) that "nobody heard anything like 1993 in 2001."
Click to expand...

How exactly does one prove one of these?
 
triforcharity said:
No explosions were heard that would have come from explosives capable of cutting the core columns. They would have produced a sound so loud, it would have been heard in Hoboken.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, you simply haven't proven this.
 
ergo said:
How exactly can one make those statements?
Click to expand...

Well since it is well known how man made demolitions work in a CD and since none of the witnesses describe this and how none of the videos capture it, then one can make the assessment that they were not present.

Then since no one describes the sound of explosions like in 1993, as many of these witnesses would have been present for both and since this sound is not captured on any video, one can then make the assessment that there was no explosion like in 1993.

Now, just provide a video that has explosions like a CD or one as loud as 1993, and then you will debunk that claim.
 
ergo said:
I'm sorry, you simply haven't proven this.
Click to expand...

I live 2 miles from where a fireworks show is carried out weekly during the summer. I can hear those "explosions" clear as day for about a 1/2 hour. GZ to Hoboken is about 2.5 miles max. There is no excuse for your magic explosives.

ergo said:
I'm sorry, you simply haven't proven this.
Click to expand...

Only in the world of 9/11 Truth is it reasonable to expect someone to show evidence of something not existing.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
I'm sorry, you simply haven't proven this.
Click to expand...

Executive summary: Detonated high explosives don't sound like anything but high explosives. Nothing like is on any of the 7,000 clips, 75 hours of video from 180 sources of WTC video.

SOUND:

All objects moving in air, impart energy and therfore, transmit an energy to the air. This energy generates SOUND waves, and sometimes SHOCK waves, and very rarely, HYPERSONIC (shaped charge) and PLASMA waves.

It is very easy for a human, or even a dog to recognize the sound of a loved ones voice, as opposed to confusing it with a cricket, or a jet. This is elemental signature or class identification. A more subtle signature identification would be noticing a loved one is just starting to get a cold or sore throat. The widespead use of spectrum analysis and F.F.T. analyzers has simplified the generic parameters and descriptions of classes of objects, but still the human mind and ear are extremely adept at this.

The size, shape, velocity, temperature, frequency and harmonic content of the object determines its "signature" and somewhat, its identity or object class. This treatise focuses on using sound pressure for data aquisition although it could also be possible to use heat, temperature changes, atmospheric density changes, or mushroom cloud height velocities to estimate the energy of a bomb, however pressure is quite convinient parameter.

One should note it is not really in the capacity for a human being to truly comprehend the violence and power involved with even an "ordinary" bomb exposion. The velocity of a shock wave itself can be quite high, Mach 28 and the thickness (actually thinness) of the shock front itself is is small 10 exp-7 inches, yields a transitional envoironmental time differential approching the speed of light!!! Furthermore, typically one sees the results of a bomb explosion not the transition moment of microscopic small time when the shock wave actually passes over. If it were possible to slow time about 100,000,000 times only then could one begin to approach the understanding of the truly incomprehensible environment inside the actual shock wave itself.

http://www.makeitlouder.com/document_bombshockwaveestimation.html
Click to expand...
 
Disbelief said:
Well since it is well known how man made demolitions work in a CD and since none of the witnesses describe this and how none of the videos capture it, then one can make the assessment that they were not present.
Click to expand...

I have already provided testimonies of eyewitnesses describing the sounds of the explosions as "pop-pop-pops" and "boom boom booms".

Then since no one describes the sound of explosions like in 1993,
Click to expand...

Which is evidenced where? If you're going cite Big Al's sources, please excerpt or cite the relevant text from those reports.

as many of these witnesses would have been present for both and since this sound is not captured on any video, one can then make the assessment that there was no explosion like in 1993.
Click to expand...

Except that many of the building workers compared the explosions exactly to those of 1993.

Now, just provide a video that has explosions like a CD or one as loud as 1993, and then you will debunk that claim.
Click to expand...

Again, please review the eyewitness accounts. Most people assumed the booms they heard were in fact bombs, because they had 1993 as a precedent.
 
ergo said:
I have already provided testimonies of eyewitnesses describing the sounds of the explosions as "pop-pop-pops" and "boom boom booms".
Demolition explosions don't pop pop pop.

Nothing not recorded simultaneously on many of the estimated 180 video sources is loud enough to be demolition explosions.

Any noise reported by only one person is loud enough to be demolition explosives,
Click to expand...


Again, please review the eyewitness accounts. Most people assumed the booms they heard were in fact bombs, because they had 1993 as a precedent.
Click to expand...

"Like" is a simile.
 
ergo said:
Except that many of the building workers compared the explosions exactly to those of 1993.
Click to expand...

Really? Cite your source.

ergo said:
Again, please review the eyewitness accounts. Most people assumed the booms they heard were in fact bombs, because they had 1993 as a precedent.
Click to expand...

Cite your source.

The ones that I have seen, compared the plane impact to the 1993 bombing. Not the collapse itself. Nothing after that either.

But, feel free to cite your source.
 
ergo said:
1) that "there were no eyewitnesses reports of noises consistent in timing, loudness or brisance with man-made demolition."
Click to expand...

The fuel explosions in the basement were obviously not HE. Only the ignorant continue to claim that they were. Those of us who have worked with or had to sit and watch the detonation of TONS UPON TONS of HE know that it was not. Those of us who have worked around jet fuel or fought fires in jet fuel or other highly flammable Class B fuels know damned well that the basement blasts were the deflagration of Class B fuels in a backdraught.

I have witnessed both backdraught and HE explosions.

I would rather be close enbough to a back draught to get burned than to stand close enough to an HE blast to be hit by a moving wall.

You aint got the chops to lecture me or about ten others on this page on the difference between the two.

2) that "nobody heard anything like 1993 in 2001."
Click to expand...

The 1993 blast was heard for blocks in any direction. Ashle Banfield didn't hear a thing until people started screaming about the dust coming down the street at them from WTC 7.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom