• 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.

Look at this collapse

So, is that what you're saying, Docker?

Are you saying that the collapse which we see in real time on the video was caused by silent explosions?

And are you saying that these explosions caused the same sort of debris patterns which would be expected from a collapse?

Is that what you're saying?
 
Docker will you withdraw your claim that flesh and wood are hydrocarbons?

-Gumboot

ETA. While we're at it, I believe you also said paper was a hydrocarbon...
 
Docker said:
They couldn't take it down piece by piece. They wanted something to look like a devastating collapse.

So tell me why would it take a year to place charges?
Click to expand...

That is very interesting, who are they?

So why would it take a year?

I think you can find a few experts in the CD field, where will you start?
 
beachnut said:
That is very interesting, who are they?

So why would it take a year?

I think you can find a few experts in the CD field, where will you start?
Click to expand...

You can't back your claim can you. Well done for making up such rubbish.
 
gumboot said:
Docker will you withdraw your claim that flesh and wood are hydrocarbons?

-Gumboot

ETA. While we're at it, I believe you also said paper was a hydrocarbon...
Click to expand...

he can not, he has not the ability to retract, he is just posting
 
Look at this collapse:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=WTC&hl=en


Posted on LC on 10/19. Five days later it has two responses. Not surprising.


I must admit. I'm a little confused.

How did explosives make the building buckle inward like that?

Also, where were the loud booms and squibs associated with building demolitions?

Also, when the aircraft pierced the tower, certainly all explosives on the affected floors would have been rendered useless. Why, then, does the collapse start exactly where the planes hit the buildings?
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
Docker will you withdraw your claim that flesh and wood are hydrocarbons?

-Gumboot

ETA. While we're at it, I believe you also said paper was a hydrocarbon...
Click to expand...
I would not hold my breath on that one Gumboot, paper and wood are a cellulose sugar, not a carbohydrate, lower energy value more heat retained and produced, do to soot formation than Hydrocarbons.
 
Docker said:
You can't back your claim can you. Well done for making up such rubbish.
Click to expand...

You are the one who can not back up your claims! Tell me how long it takes to set up the WTC for CD mister expert of CT stuff?

Simple, what is your source, I told you my source, but who are yours?

You have zero source or CD knowledge so it would take a year until you can post proof that it will not.

I have CD expert on tape saying it takes a year!

When you have yours, I stated my expert, you can post his name and his estimate. When will you be back?

other than that you have zip

Who are they that wanted the WTC down as you stated? They?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
true, my point was more than it was a carbohydrate, not a hydrocarbon, i didnt know the formula offhand


isnt CH2O formaldehyde? but i believe almsot any carbohydrate can be expresses as C(x)H2O(y) (a hydrate of carbon)
Click to expand...

technically (officially R-CHO is any aldehyde and H-CHO is formaldehyde specifically.) but CH20 is the generalized form (also may be written as
(C) x (H2O)y ) - it is what is repeated over and over in very long chains to produce l.c. carbohydrates and sugars (carbohydrates).
 
Docker, when can we expect you to abandon this thread to start another one with a pretty picture in the first post?
 
Mince said:
Look at this collapse:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=WTC&hl=en
Click to expand...

Another film in real time from the site.

In this view also, the building buckles inward, rather than exploding outward.

In this view also, there are no loud booms, only the low rumble of the collapse.

The man heard shouting says "the whole building collapsed", not "the whole building exploded."

There is no upward plume.

So I ask again....

Is this what you're saying, Docker?

Are you saying that the collapse which we see in real time on the video was caused by silent explosions?

And are you saying that these explosions caused the same sort of debris patterns which would be expected from a collapse?

Is that what you're saying?
 
beachnut said:
You are the one who can not back up your claims! Tell me how long it takes to set up the WTC for CD mister expert of CT stuff?

Simple, what is your source, I told you my source, but who are yours?

You have zero source or CD knowledge so it would take a year until you can post proof that it will not.

I have CD expert on tape saying it takes a year!

When you have yours, I stated my expert, you can post his name and his estimate. When will you be back?

other than that you have zip

Who are they that wanted the WTC down as you stated? They?
Click to expand...

I made no assertions regarding time to rig the building. You said it would take a year. Show your source or retract your statement
 
Docker said:
I made no assertions regarding time to rig the building. You said it would take a year. Show your source or retract your statement
Click to expand...
From the world record in controlled demolition:
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
Click to expand...

That was a 23 story vacant steel structure. One tower was 5 times that height (120 days). Tack on the second tower, you're lookin' at 240 days. Factor in the fact that the crew wouldn't have free reign and would need to take time to make sure any and all charges they placed wouldn't be noticed for the next 7 months, we'll tack on a highly conservative 50 days cumulative extra time.

So now we're sitting 290 and oh poop! Forgot about building 7....
 
Didn't the demo expert from that debunking special say "it would take a year", also, when asked about the time to set up a CD? It was in another language, if I remember correctly, with subtitles.
 
Docker said:
I made no assertions regarding time to rig the building. You said it would take a year. Show your source or retract your statement
Click to expand...

it takes a year, as I posted and I told you my source you are just too bad of a researcher to find the data or are you?

Are you not able to think and collect real facts?

it takes a year and you are not able to figure out a better estimate are you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom