Fire, steel, and 911.

28th Kingdom said:
Now, look back at my theory of the lower floors...where I state the illusion of collapsing floors created by a downward sequence of planted explosives firing off. So, basically what I'm saying is that the top floors are a mass of steel and such that is actually falling to the earth via the force of gravity...and that the lower floors...aren't actually falling at all...they are blowing up one by one top to bottom is a very neat and ordered downward progression. So that's how they (the lower floors) could definitely appear to move downward a lot quicker than the actual falling mass of upper floors.
Click to expand...
Thanks for explaining it more clearly, and proving even more clearly that you are assuming CD in order to prove CD (circular logic).

In other words, you aren't looking at the video objectively. You want to see those lower floors exploding from charges, so that is what you see.

You then cite your opinion of what you see as evidence of controlled demolition.

A controlled demolition, by the way, that would take, no doubt, weeks or months to set up, would require many men and tons of explosives, would have to be highly redundant as no one could predict the exact floor of greatest impact damage, and would have to have charges that survived the impact/fires as well.

Very illogical.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Have you done any independent research...or do you blindly adhere to the garbage that the NIST feeds you? You know garbage theories...that have no actual bases in reality. No physical evidence...just some entangled words...strewn together, which can probably be interpreted in many different ways...why haven't they taken the time to create a visual simulation or animation so that we can actually see what the heck they're talking about. That would help things a lot. But, I guess they're too afraid of that...since it would look utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You can use the same.

Have you done any research on your own. So far you have presented the same very old hearsay out of context junk and you refuse to go a step further and find out what it really means, or why first statements by newscasters do not count as facts. (I would not present anything with Alex Jones in it, if you are trying to make people look at 9/11 differently)

If you did any real researcher you would not be here presenting the fluff of CT happy videos you have.

Plus why are you back, are there two of you sharing this log in, cause the other 28th left for good; he said bye.

Which 28th are you, the one that left; or a new one?
 
28th Kingdom said:
Have you done any independent research...or do you blindly adhere to the garbage that the NIST feeds you? You know garbage theories...that have no actual bases in reality. No physical evidence...just some entangled words...strewn together, which can probably be interpreted in many different ways...why haven't they taken the time to create a visual simulation or animation so that we can actually see what the heck they're talking about. That would help things a lot. But, I guess they're too afraid of that...since it would look utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I think this is a generational thing. I expect 28th is under 30 y.o. and grew up on video games, and therefore believes that all logic, science, and truth are based on visual stimuli.

Actually, 28th, some of us took physics, even before calculators were all that prevalent, much less computers, much less youtube. We actually learned physical principles from experimentation in the lab, from the heritage passed on from physicists in the past, and from our own reasoning skills. Hmm, what a concept.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Have you done any independent research...or do you blindly adhere to the garbage that the NIST feeds you? You know garbage theories...that have no actual bases in reality. No physical evidence...just some entangled words...strewn together, which can probably be interpreted in many different ways...why haven't they taken the time to create a visual simulation or animation so that we can actually see what the heck they're talking about. That would help things a lot. But, I guess they're too afraid of that...since it would look utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
My emphasis.

This is just too laughable. NIST has the physical evidence sir. You, on the other hand, are a you tube-oligist. One of you is credible, the other is blowing wind out his ass.

Yaaaay NIST!
 
28th Kingdom said:
Have you done any independent research...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have. I'm a NYCer and an eyewitness (no, not on TV, with my own eyes) to the plane hit on the south tower. My brother-in-law was (now retired) an FDNY firefighter who was at ground zero everyday from 9/11 until all the fires were put out. His brothers are NYPD who were also there everyday. My ex is a nurse who was there the first week too. None of these people or those they worked with in those first days/weeks has told me anything that goes against the generally accepted story.

So again, what research have YOU done besides Google and Youtube?
 
Last edited:
Trigood said:
Thanks for explaining it more clearly, and proving even more clearly that you are assuming CD in order to prove CD (circular logic).

In other words, you aren't looking at the video objectively. You want to see those lower floors exploding from charges, so that is what you see.

You then cite your opinion of what you see as evidence of controlled demolition.

A controlled demolition, by the way, that would take, no doubt, weeks or months to set up, would require many men and tons of explosives, would have to be highly redundant as no one could predict the exact floor of greatest impact damage, and would have to have charges that survived the impact/fires as well.

Very illogical.
Click to expand...

Who can explain to him that the PE (potential energy) in the WTC towers was equal in each tower to 248 tons of TNT.

This is why falling masses of steel, each floor was 5,000 tons, destroy stuff and looks like (look like) an exploding building.

The videos never show explosions, just falling building destroying. You need to freeze frame to fake an explosion look. But the real time video make you see just falling building destroying itself.

How can you make someone understand the building destroyed itself when it fell?
 
"In other words, you aren't looking at the video objectively. You want to see those lower floors exploding from charges, so that is what you see."

Actually, no...I don't want to see them, but what do you want me to do...just blind myself to the most logical explanation for what is happening?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u_k217RkUo

Right around 43-45 seconds into this...watch at first the toppling upper floors....keep replying back those few seconds of initial collapse....back to back to back....then focus on the lower floors right below the black hole....and watch it back to back to back....than watch the upper and lower at the same time...it's really compelling stuff. Those lower floors, are exploding not collapsing.
 
You have read thousands of pages?

NIST has lots of junk you can misquote and use as CT junk.

Fire testing the steel, the floor structure, the fireproofing; etc. What exactly would 28th call out from NIST as being wrong, or bad stuff?

What does 28th say about steel and fire? (he is still posting video junk/fluff)
 
28th Kingdom said:
"In other words, you aren't looking at the video objectively. You want to see those lower floors exploding from charges, so that is what you see."

Actually, no...I don't want to see them, but what do you want me to do...just blind myself to the most logical explanation for what is happening?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u_k217RkUo

Right around 43-45 seconds into this...watch at first the toppling upper floors....keep replying back those few seconds of initial collapse....back to back to back....then focus on the lower floors right below the black hole....and watch it back to back to back....than watch the upper and lower at the same time...it's really compelling stuff. Those lower floors, are exploding not collapsing.
Click to expand...

I have to say, I love how you just posted another you tube link.......
The most logical?

Please apply Occam's razor to *your* theory here, and enlighten us all as to how it is the most "logical" explanation!
 
28th Kingdom said:
"In other words, you aren't looking at the video objectively. You want to see those lower floors exploding from charges, so that is what you see."

Actually, no...I don't want to see them, but what do you want me to do...just blind myself to the most logical explanation for what is happening?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u_k217RkUo

Right around 43-45 seconds into this...watch at first the toppling upper floors....keep replying back those few seconds of initial collapse....back to back to back....then focus on the lower floors right below the black hole....and watch it back to back to back....than watch the upper and lower at the same time...it's really compelling stuff. Those lower floors, are exploding not collapsing.
Click to expand...
No, I see the floors immediately below the black hole of the impact being demolished by the floors right above them (carrying over 100 megatons of weight) collapsing on top of them. I think most things would disintegrate and spew outward if acted upon by 100 megatons of weight.

You are clearly interpreting what you see in a perverse fashion.

I, frankly, do not want to watch this video anymore. I have seen it hundreds of times, and it always is the same. It represents the death of hundreds of people (do you understand that?) and I don't like what happens to my nightmares when I watch it over and over.

I think I'm about done, therefore, debating what happens in the initial seconds of collapse with you. No matter what I say, it won't convince you that you don't see what you want to see. Have a good life, denying science, the goodness of humanity, and the heroism of the regular folk that day. I truly hope you realize someday what a fool you've made of yourself on this message board, but I am about done with you.
 
gumboot said:
28 Kingdom,

I understand you have some trouble working your way through the NIST report. To make things easier for you, I have created a simplified series of diagrams that display the progression of the WTC collapses.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10153457c3b098ae34.jpg

1 - Here we have a tower, fully intact. Note the floor trusses, exterior columns, and core columns.

2 - This is just after impact. Red indicates fire, and grey smoke. Notice how the fire spreads rapidly across the impact zone.

3 - The fire spreads rapidly through the upper floors. Notice localised floor collapses, as documented by 9-1-1 calls from people trapped inside. By this stage the fire is causing floor trusses inside the impact zone to sag (well documented) and this in turn is pulling in the exterior columns (also well documented).

4 - Things are really bad now. The bowing of the exterior columns has reached critical point, and the exterior columns have failed, collapsing inwards. The floor trusses, with nothing holding them at the exterior, fall downwards.

5 - The core in the impact zone was weakened by impact and fires - as per testimony from victims and the NYPD aviation unit. With the exterior columns now failed, the core in the impact zone is trying to hold the entire weight of the upper floors. Meanwhile the failed exterior columns and floor trusses are falling onto lower floors, which in turn are stripped from their mounts by the force of impact.

6 - The core is unable to hold the weight of the building, so, unsurprisingly, it fails in the impact zone. The upper floors smash down into the carnage left as the floor trusses continue to fall through more floors. As the top falls inside the exterior columns it pushes them outwards.

7 - The more intact core below the impact zone offers more resistance, and the upper floors begin to disintegrate under the enormous colision forces. Exterior columns shear away from the structure and peel outwards, crashing into neighbouring buildings. The floors and their contents continue downwards, forcing debris through windows.

8 - By now the smoke is obscuring much of the building. The upper floors have all but disintegrated. The floors are crashing down still, and the exterior columns continue to sheer away and fall to earth. The only part of the structure still intact is the lower core, though it has suffered damage.

9 - The majority of the collapse has finished, and the last of the debris falls into a large pile. Only the core remains standing, though it is severly damaged.

10 - The core is unable to support itself in its devastated state, and it too fails.

11 - The tower has completely collapsed, leaving nothing but a large pile of debris. Note the buried fires, which will continue to burn amidst the fuel-rich rubble for weeks.

Any questions?

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
Nominated! Great post, Gumboot: clear, logical, and well-illustrated with graphics.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Have you done any independent research...or do you blindly adhere to the garbage that the NIST feeds you? You know garbage theories...that have no actual bases in reality. No physical evidence...just some entangled words...strewn together, which can probably be interpreted in many different ways...why haven't they taken the time to create a visual simulation or animation so that we can actually see what the heck they're talking about. That would help things a lot. But, I guess they're too afraid of that...since it would look utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...

So you acknowledge that you can't understand what NIST is saying, but somehow, you still think you're smart enough to dismiss their entire body of work?

What kind of arrogance does it take for someone to come to such a conclusion?

If you were to read something about relativity, would you dismiss Albert Einstein as a crank, just because it's hard to understand?

Why do you expect the analysis of one of the most complicated collapses in history to be simple? It's not simple, it just isn't.

There's a reason the analysis was done by NIST, and not some high school science club.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Yea, I'm really the one who owes you an apology. Maybe you should go back and see some of the things you have called me.

You know...some of you just keep inventing crap...it's bizarre. Please tell you how the explosions on the floor 8, floor 10 and floor 13 would cause a building to start collapsing over 60 stories higher? Um, no...first, you tell me where I said this, than I might actually defend it.

And, that's classic doublethink...please don't be a droid. You just questioned the firemens' first hand accounts...and then said, no I'm not questioning their accounts. I'm not gonna continue to reply to such nonsense as this, so please people... start making better replies, and points...by seriously addressing the evidence I have presented. No, you haven't debunked this stuff...so don't delude yourself into thinking you have.
Click to expand...

Did you not say this ?

And, you did hear those firefighter recordings where they say explosions are going off on floors 8, floors 10 floors 13...I hate to break the news to you, but there wasn't even any fire down there, babe. We're talking about 60+ stories below the crash point.
Click to expand...

I have never questioned the firemens accounts at all. i have never even suggested they did not hear explosions. It i abudently clear there were things inside the Towers that explosde, since they were on fire.

Now are you going to explain the explosions on the floors you named and what relationship they had on the collapse of the Towers or are you simply going to continue to be childish and silly ?

What serious evidence are you talking about by the way, your youtube videos ?

Please don´t delude yourself that you are actually acheiving anything by your posts neither, oh actually you are, but I´m sure you are totally unaware of what exactly.
 
stateofgrace said:
Now are you going to explain the explosions on the floors you named and what relationship they had on the collapse of the Towers or are you simply going to continue to be childish and silly ?
Click to expand...

Can I put five bucks on "childish and silly" to win?
 
________________|...uses valid arguments..|...uses invalid arguments........|
________________--------------------------------------------------------------------
science training.....|...scientists, experts……|...Steven Jones, Judy Wood.....|
________________--------------------------------------------------------------------
no science training..|.....normal people.......|..........28th Kingdom….............|
________________--------------------------------------------------------------------


...saw this on a different forum and basturdized it to suit this thread.
 
28th Kingdom said:
I'll do you one better...here's actual audio recordings of the firefighters inside the buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKdvl--1Dt0
Click to expand...



That's actually a fireman saying someone ELSE told them there was an explosion on 7-8 (floor 78).

Now this could be one of four things:

1 - WTC2, in which case 78 is in the impact zone

or

2 - WTC1, in which case the explosion could easily be jet fuel in the elevator shafts

or

3 - The eyewitness the firemen is quoting was mistaken

or

4 - the fireman was mistaken in their quote from the eye witness

The other "reports of secondary explosion" mentioned in that piece are the collapses themselves (you do realise that on the day both FDNY and the media referred to the collapses as a "secondary explosion" right?)

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom