No Explosives Here?

[atavisms]

You really haven't thought this through have you?

'never is a person so telling of himself as in his judgment of another'
-la rochefoucauld

 

[Justin39640]

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.

hmm
firewood will hold my ax up
yet when i strike the wood it splits in one shot

hmmmmmmm

 

[Sam.I.Am]

You need to learn how the core was designed and supported and how long they lasted after the collapse initiation.

 

[T.A.M.]

'never is a person so telling of himself, as in the amount of stupid bullcrap he believes in.'

- la TAMfoucauld

 

[beachnut]

'never is a person so telling of himself as in his judgment of another'
-la rochefoucauld

Never is a person so telling of his lack of evidence on 911 when he posts delusions and presents hearsay, lies and failed opinions as evidence. - lalaladedahtruth

Where is your proof of silent explosives? Blast effects?

 

[KJC]

Again he brings up the radius of the debris as proof of explosives?

What kind of explosives can propell steel outwards without any shockwaves breaking windows or any booms being heard for miles around?

Suggest a device that can do this, or go away.

P.S. Demolitions don't fall at free fall speed. Not that this proves anything since the towers did not collapse at free fall either.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Demolition charges launching steel panels weighing several tons over 600 feet... I hear this from Richard Gage a lot. What technology is being implied that has such power to deliver the explosive impulse required to send this mass so far without so much as making a sound? That doesn't create a single case of blast injury, shrapnel injury, or reports of hearing loss? That doesn't send shatter a single window nearby?

The conspiratoids are priceless!

ETA: DAMMIT KJC you stole my question! D:
*spites*
ETA2 image removed... and

 

[Hokulele]

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 potential energy of the building. You may also want to note that the entire columns did not have to be destroyed at once, but section by section. This reduces the amount of energy needed at any one point in time.

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

The top portions only apply to collapse initiation (i.e., the first intact floor). As the collapse progresses, you add the energy available from the entire building above the collapse front to destroy the lower portions. You are making the same mistake Heiwa makes repeatedly. The top portion does not need to act upon the entire lower portion of the building.

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.

Ah, so even though a gravity-driven collapse seems unlikely to you, that does not mean it is not so. Got it.

 

[KJC]

ETA: DAMMIT KJC you stole my question! D:

We could repeat the same question a million times. I don't think I've seen a truther actually directly answer this question. They normally respond with a red herring of some sort.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

We could repeat the same question a million times. I don't think I've seen a truther actually directly answer this question. They normally respond with a red herring of some sort.

Gage always responds with teh nano-termites... the suspense of atavisms theory is killing me!

ETA you know what never mind... I read a few posts up... the lunacy is just as I feared.... he really does think a paint coat launched perimeter columns like rockets... Not a single face palm can ever express the eminence of such wooo.

 

[beachnut]

... The lightest part of the building, the tops?
...
Belief should be base don one thing, available evidence.

Please tell me exactly how much weight one floor of the WTC can hold before failing?
Please tell me how much the tops of the lightest part of the WTC were above the impact zone?
Gee, what does one floor weigh?
Got some numbers to go with your moronic delusion?
Or is this tripe off the top of your head? The lightest part?


Next the easy part; where is your evidence? Why are you unable to back up your delusions with evidence? You super nano-evidence? Too small to see?

 

[Mr.D]

Yes, Thanks for that.
Unfortunately, that is what we are stuck with (the postulating of theoretical hypotheses in an effort to explain observed events) until we have a actual investigation.
What's a 'real' investigation?
One that is independent, with subpoena power.
One that takes into account actual events and testimony is a good place to begin.

So who were the NIST investigators dependant on and how?
Whose testimony needs to be subject to subpoena? (and what's so magical about subpoena power with regards to the WTC collapses anyway?)
Which "actual" events were ignored by NIST?
Whose "actual" testimony was ignored by NIST?


And here's one I'd really like answered. What would you do if you got sworn testimony from one of the many people whose quotes were cherry-picked for "bomb"-similies, and that person explained that they were using a metaphor?

 

[Carlos]

But that highly redundant 110 steel reinforced office towers hit 15 storeys from the roof (N Tower) cannot pulverize themselves in 16 seconds

Speculation.

evaporating almost 40% of it's occupants and strewing it's pulverized

Strawman.

and steel remains in a 800 foot radial pattern is

It doesn't happen in real controlled demolition.

I believe,, the issue at hand.
(the towers 'burned' for roughly 60 and 100 minutes) and then exploded...
boom boom boom boom boom.. all the way down (basements intact!)

Can you hear any BOOM?

WTC 7's textbook implosion in 7 seconds (free fall speed = explosives)

Fallacy.

(who cares if its slightly faster of slower) It the speed and symmetry that can only mean explosives.

Strawman.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html) which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward

Irrelevent. Explanation fails due to lack of residual effects left on the recovered structural elements. Those elements showed zero signs of having been severed via explosives or incendiaries. Failure modes were clearly mechanical strain. See NCSTAR 1-3C; note complete absence of any residual effects consistent with this proposal.

Why Weren't Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?
Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the Towers' tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to the building's exterior, as apparently happened in the South Tower. However, this probably wasn't an issue because, in contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high ignition temperature -- above 2200ºC. Thus, thermitic incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics.

Again, irrelevent. See above.

How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?
The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.

*from - http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Irrelevant, again for the reasons mentioned above, as well as the fact that it merely presumes that access to critical connection points - which has been showed to be where the structural steel components separated - is possible without significant displacement of interior components. The components recovered and described in NCSTAR 1-3C showed no signs of having being severed at any points other than connection points, and showed zero signs of having been severed by anything other than sheer mechanical force. Due to that, access to any point of the structural steel is insufficient; access to those connective points are required. And in many areas, that would require significant removal of interior structures to gain access; as an example, consider the gusset plates connecting the floor trusses to the columns. Those don't appear to be easily accessible.

 

[Puggy]

What kind of explosives can propell steel outwards without any shockwaves breaking windows or any booms being heard for miles around?

I get the "explosives that propelled debris horizontally and that proves explosives (or thermonuclear nukes <lol>)" bit, quite a lot from truthers.

I've been thinking of a simple explanation for the visual evidence they always present (see the top part of the opening post picture,) I thought that maybe the simple experiment of dropping a ball on top of another would be similar.

http://www.sciencemadesimple.co.uk/page74g.html

What do You guys think?

 

[atavisms]

Do you know how to use the search function here? Each and every one of your claims has been answered extensively. You’re not bothering to take the step to do a search does not bring any greater validity to these claims.



You have the chance to "learn all your life", but you have to make the effort yourself, nobody can do it for you. Press the search button.

Woof!

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.

 

[LashL]

In law, facts are called 'facts' because they can be verified by either side in a case.

This is not accurate. In law, facts are what the judge or jury find to be facts.

That is all.

 

[Justin39640]

The kind of 'debunking' done for 9/11 on JREF, ('the red/gray chips are in fact paint' oh ok! that explains it)

sooo
mystery exotic weapons grade explosives with no explosive properties makes more sense than several hundred thousand tons of steel painted with red primer?

makes perfect sense

 

[Pardalis]

Ive read them

Of course, but you weren't going by the name atavisms back then right?

What was it? Homeland Insurgency? Docker? Lucus?

 

[SpitfireIX]

This is not accurate. In law, facts are what the judge or jury find to be facts.

That is all.