No Explosives Here?

atavisms said:
actually I think that was Jim Hoffman's own early research which he abandoned for more compelling lines of inquiry.
Click to expand...

From here :

However, the size of this sink is critically dependent on the fineness of the concrete powder, and on mechanical characteristics of the lightweight concrete thought to have been used in the towers. Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.

Which seems to be the most recent version of his 'paper' (v 3.1).
So, no, the particle size was not Hoffman's original work but was taken from Lioy et al. Hoffman has either misled or misunderstood. Lioy's figures cannot be applied to the total non-metallic content of the towers for reasons already given to you.

Hoffman then goes on to calculate the energy required to expand the dust clouds by the vaporisation of water, but there wasn't enough water in the towers (by a long way). He hit a brick wall and gave up that line of research in 2003. It was based on faulty premises.

atavisms said:
In the paper he calculates the energy sinks required, based on the size and expansion rates of the massive dust clouds (which are so well documented) When he calculated the gravitational potential of the building and compared it to the sink required expand the clouds, it was off by a factor of like 10. (I believe)
Click to expand...

See above.
While you're here (and if you're reading v 3.1 of Hoffman's paper) you might like to explain why thousands of people in the street were not scalded to death by the steam from this vast boiling cloud.

And please provide this 'so well documented' data on the size, density and composition of the clouds that you mention. Hoffman failed, perhaps you can do better?

atavisms said:
I am not sure why you would think a highly redundant structure would turn it self to dust in midair, but there you are
Click to expand...

Because it didn't. A huge amount of macrospcopic non-metallic debris remained at GZ.

Are you aware that your hero Hoffman subsequently postulated the installation of 900,000 remotely controlled explosive ceiling tiles at WTC? He's barking mad. This is the type you have hitched your wagon to.
 
Last edited:
Ata, you've ignored this four times now that its been quoted. You've answered posts that CAME after the many times this has been quoted. THIS is to you. why are you ignoring this?



johnny karate said:
Please provide a list of witnesses and on-site investigators who believe explosives were used to bring down any of the WTC buidlings on 9/11.
Click to expand...


AGAIN guys, until the troll/fraud answers this request, please do not enage him.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Nice quote-mine, here's another:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
- Winston Churchill


I'm glad you respect Winston Churchill, I strongly reccomend that you study him. He saw World War 2, the Cold War and 9/11 and the war against Islamic extremism coming long before anyone else.
Click to expand...

Ooowwww that has GOT to hurt. Getting ripped a new ass by winston churchill... I mean DAMN.
 
Last edited:
atavisms said:
blah blah blah, handwave noted[/url]
Click to expand...


If it is explosives, then provide any one of the dozens of videos that would have captured their sounds going off.

Still waiting. Do some basic research. 1000lbs of TNT is heard a MILE away and they can hear the scrapnel... where is the video from 9/11 where they can hear it?
 
atavisms said:
Im sure they can.

But that highly redundant 110 steel reinforced office towers hit 15 storeys from the roof (N Tower) cannot pulverize themselves in 16 seconds, evaporating almost 40% of it's occupants and strewing it's pulverized and steel remains in a 800 foot radial pattern is, I believe,, the issue at hand.
(the towers 'burned' for roughly 60 and 100 minutes) and then exploded...
Click to expand...

I bolded and italicized the words you may want to go and look up

boom boom boom boom boom.. all the way down (basements intact!)
Click to expand...

GREAT. PROVE IT. Just one video.. I'm not asking you to teach the worlds children to read... just provide one video.

WTC 7's textbook implosion in 7 seconds (free fall speed = explosives)
(who cares if its slightly faster of slower) It the speed and symmetry that can only mean explosives.
Click to expand...
Again, which textbook?
7 seconds? Try again, it took over 18 seconds since the collapse was initiated when the east mechanical penthouse collapsed.
freefall does not equal explosives. (you should really try to do some basic research), and it wasn't at freefall.
Symmetry? HOw does a building which hits the ROOF of the building across the street fall with symmetry? How does a building which has one whole side of it collapse 8 seconds before the rest fall with symmetry? how does a building which develops a noticable kink fall with symmetry?

Griffin, making perfect sense, writes of WTC 7:

""When we combine the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 immediately appears to be a controlled demolition, (http://wtc7.net/videos.html) with the twofold fact that all prior collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have been produced by explosives, and that the collapse of WTC 7 has many features in common with planned implosions, the view that it was a planned implosion should be the natural assumption. The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.

However the fact that the conspiracy theory being supported by this wild, scientifically and historically baseless speculation is the government's own is, for some reason, thought to justify turning things upside down. In this topsy-turvy framework, those whose theory is consistent with science, the empirical facts, and all historical precedent are ridiculed as nutty conspiracy theorists while those who articulate wildly speculative theory, which contradicts all prior experience, several laws of science, and numerous empirical facts, are considered the sober, sensible thinkers, whose pronouncements can be trusted without examination.""
(Debunking 9/11 Debunking 120p)
Click to expand...
I love this. What is griffin's degree in? What is his experience in? I'll see your griffin and raise you a NASA scientist.
http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

it is rather amazing that in 180 some odd pages Griffin has over 150 factual errors. wowsers scooby.
 
atavisms said:
bc of how they were designed. And how they were damaged and destroyed.
The cores could hold up several times the weight of the buildings and they were just shredded! Where do you reckon all that energy came from?

The lightest part of the building, the tops?
You see a pile driver in the videos?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html

Just because a thing seems highly unlikely to us does not mean it is not so.
Belief should be base don one thing, available evidence.
Click to expand...

You are SOOOOO RIGHT.

Please provide said evidnece.
You claim there are explosions. Provide proof of explosions. One video would suffice. A rapid fire series of concussive blasts would be great.

NO? Ok. Then provide images of the debris showing det cord, blasting caps, or other required and necessary parts?

NO? Ok. The provide a person who saw anyone wiring the buildings?

No? Ok. Then provide a whistleblower who was part of it?

no? Ok. The prove that thermite can EXPLODE and throw debris 500 feet, w/out being so loud everyone has heard it?

no? Can you even prove that thermite can cut horizontally or obliquely through a steel beam?

How about ANY PROOF?
 
atavisms said:
Hi Woof

Ive read them, Thank You/ More than I care to think about bc by now I can see right through most of them and it's just sad and defeating bc what i wish more than anything is for you to be correct. If I was less informed something like Popular Mechanics would be compelling, as it is, its a (criminal) joke.

It is a shame that you cannot yourself, being so certain of these facts, paraphrase any of this compelling debunking info on even a single of the various points I raised in my initial post. That's okay it is not like I was expecting that at this point.

The kind of 'debunking' done for 9/11 on JREF, ('the red/gray chips are in fact paint' oh ok! that explains it) Popular Mechanics, NGC, 911myths, 911debunking, etc etc are not compelling bc they DO NOT explain the facts.

They fail to address others, makes liberal use of straw men, and simply ignore or dismisses evidence! (i.e molten metal) If you find that compelling,,..well there you go. What can I say. I am trying to explain the facts as we know them not fit into some comfortable little niche.
Click to expand...

Atavisms,please list your engineering qualifications here.
 
atavisms said:
'never is a person so telling of himself as in his judgment of another'
-la rochefoucauld
Click to expand...
So you don't want to address the questions? OK, dodge noted. Although if you bother to think about it, an "independent investigation with subpoena power" is a pipe dream. Think, who serves (and enforces) your subpoenas if its "independent"? Independent of what?
 
TruthersLie said:
If it is explosives, then provide any one of the dozens of videos that would have captured their sounds going off.

Still waiting. Do some basic research. 1000lbs of TNT is heard a MILE away and they can hear the scrapnel... where is the video from 9/11 where they can hear it?
Click to expand...
20 miles away at least. When I was a kid we had a summer house in Indiana, 5 miles or so from a place called Kingsbury. Kingsbury is now a wildlife area, but from 1941-1959 it was an ordnance plant. As late as the mid-1970s they were still disposing of surplus ordnance there by blowing it up, and you could hear it loud and clear from our house miles away. And none of those explosions was anywhere near 1,000 tons. Probably not even 1 ton.

To this day large areas of it are off-limits because of the potential for unexploded ordnance. When I was little we used to drive through it to look at the deer and play in the bomb shelters which weren't sealed off. In recent years I've only gone there to use the shooting range, which is free to use and never crowded. :)
 
619745a54bbe44f13.gif

Hey atavisms, I see you've posted in the "pot potency" thread today.

Why are you ignoring these questions?

Arus808 said:
Ata, you've ignored this four times now that its been quoted. You've answered posts that CAME after the many times this has been quoted. THIS is to you. why are you ignoring this?

johnny karate said:
Please provide a list of witnesses and on-site investigators who believe explosives were used to bring down any of the WTC buidlings on 9/11.
Click to expand...

AGAIN guys, until the troll/fraud answers this request, please do not enage him.
Click to expand...

HeyLeroy said:
atavisms:

Here's is a link to two questions you've evaded. Why?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5141970&postcount=105
Click to expand...

knife fight colobus said:
atavisms, please address my question, brah.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom