No Explosives Here?

JohnG said:
Assuming you mean embedding a YouTube video directly into a post, there are several good tutorials in the Help section (the drop down menu is in the upper right hand corner of this page) on how to do these sorts of things. The thing is, some YouTube videos do not allow embedding, so sometimes the format you provided is the only way to go.

Here is your link embedded:



You take that string of numbers and letters following the equals sign in your URL and enclose them with open and close 'yt' brackets, like this, only without the spaces:

[ yt ]c0fPL4f3Eqc[ /yt ]

You can also see how it was done by hitting the "Quote" button of a post containing the special feature you are interested in to see the behind the scenes formatting code.
Click to expand...



TruthersLie said:
<off topic>

scott. In order to embed a youtube video you use the and your video shows up </off topic>" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>
Click to expand...
 
Hey Ata.

Since you say it was explosives, can you explain something to me?

WTC9-13.jpg


Why are there ANY intact windows in the buildings RIGHT next to the collapsed towers? I mean if they were explosives, it would have thrown thousands of pieces of shrapnel everywhere... Yet there are windows that are fully intact in this image. If it was explosives, there should be NO GLASS in ANY of the windows.

How do you have EXPLOSIVES blow up the towers, yet not shatter ALL of these windows?
 
TruthersLie said:
How do you have EXPLOSIVES blow up the towers, yet not shatter ALL of these windows?
Click to expand...

This has already been pointed out to him. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have had any impact on his thinking. Either that, or he's starting to read up on thermite now ;). But yes, I also pointed out Winter Garden:
picture.php


... as well as the Verizon building:
picture.php


I'm not holding my breath for any response. Besides, the point has been made.
 
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...


Well, if JREF is so flawed, it's members so unable to produce compelling evidence that is to your liking, then why the hell are you here wasting your time, and ours? Nothing any debunker could ever say to you would ever change your opinion of anything, so why don't you just leave?
 
Quad4_72 said:
That means someone is trying to get a thread to go back to the top of a list when it is getting too far down and people forget about it. In some cases, a thread gets bumped for posters who intentionally ignore their own thread because they are getting owned and can no longer argue their point rationally.
Click to expand...

Ah, thank you very much. :)
 
AdinDraco said:
Ah, thank you very much. :)
Click to expand...

adin.

and atavism is the latest name of some sock... member who is trying to pass off "explosions" brought down the towers.

so

bump for atavism is just a bump to raise the thread to the top so that atavism will reply to the questions asked of him.
 
GlennB said:
Amen. Similar to the 'Stanley knife' in the UK and the preferred weapon for a generation of extreme British football hooligans, the sort who would happily inflict very serious injury, or worse.
Click to expand...

It is the weapon of choice of the neds of Glasgow, the city with the highest murder rate in Europe.
 
TruthersLie said:
Why are there ANY intact windows in the buildings RIGHT next to the collapsed towers? I mean if they were explosives, it would have thrown thousands of pieces of shrapnel everywhere... Yet there are windows that are fully intact in this image. If it was explosives, there should be NO GLASS in ANY of the windows.
Click to expand...

More importantly, there should ne more windows broken higher up the buildings. If you look at a full-length shot of any building wioth damaged windows, you will see that the broken windows are all BELOW the upper margins of the dust left on the buildings by the dust cloud formed when the debris plume hit the ground.
 
atavisms said:
To me it is almost incomprehensible how every human being with an IQ above room temperature cannot clearly grasp (from simple common sense) that these must have been explosive events. It shows the power of suggestion, nationalism and incredulity. Bc they cannot begin to imagine how such a thing could even be accomplished and almost logically, that there would be no reason to even do such a thing.
Click to expand...
This is just comedy gold.

The reason of course was, TWO WARS WE GOT RIGHT INTO! CONTINUAL PERPETUAL WAR! No different than Vietnam; Islam terror is the latest bogeyman -easy to demonize bc they dont speak English, are a different culture etc (like Vietnam) These "hajis, ragheaded sandng'rs" etc)

All kinds of PERFECTLY innocent people, slaughtered, punished, and way too many tortured to death. This means nothing to you sit at home pontificating and it was not your mom or daughter. Just beyond disgraceful! just as Vietnam was!
Click to expand...
Nothing personal, but my my my.
 
What's this I hear that Dr Jones is now saying that the "therm?te" was used to set off tons of explosives? Did I miss hear this or has he gone more nuts?
 
Tons? Really? Wow...I'd love to live in "Truther World". Bombs don't make noise. Farts don't stink. Eddie Murphy is still funny, and Rosie O'donnell is like, totally hot and not gay. :)
 
I'm getting the impression that atavisms has no idea what he is talking about, and his doubts about 911 are based strictly on personal incredulity and ideology, but maybe that's just me.
 
DGM said:
What's this I hear that Dr Jones is now saying that the "therm?te" was used to set off tons of explosives? Did I miss hear this or has he gone more nuts?
Click to expand...

Steven Jones said:
During the discussion, I briefly expressed my hypothesis that nanothermite served as an igniting agent, as in the “super-thermite matches” described in our paper, to ignite more conventional explosives such as C4 or HMX, in the destruction of the WTC buildings.
Click to expand...


http://www.911blogger.com/node/20094

The quoted sentence appears a bit after the embedded images.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20094

The quoted sentence appears a bit after the embedded images.
Click to expand...

So...
He first comes up with the Thermite theory to explain why there were no sounds of explosives heard all over Manhattan and Jersey and no evidence whatsoever for any kind of conventional explosives in the towers. Then people point out to him how Thermite doesn't work as a way to demolish big buildings.

So now he says the Thermite was just there to set off the explosives...
:hypnodisk:bunpan:hypnodisk
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The evidence for controlled demolition just isn't coming in, and you've been unable to demonstrate any valid engineering justification to contradict the combined role of fire and impact in collapse initiation. You may not be satisfied nor able to accept it. But the controlled demolition argument is a pile of horse manure.
Click to expand...

I cannot go point by point with you bc I don't have the time, and I am really not trying to convince you. Either the evidence does or it does not/If you've looked at all this material and still feel that no explosives were involved. All I can say is, I hope you're right.

You say no CD but you do not offer any alternative explanations for all these well documented features. It is easy to say, 'Im not convinced' It's much tougher to offer anything in it's place. The grand majority of people can see there is way this was (after the planes) all accomplished as a result of fire and gravity bc that is what the mountain of evidence shows -has nothing to do with me.

Regarding the selective breaking of glass hundreds of feet away, it's logical to assume that would depend on the positioning of and strength of the explosives and the glass. Considering most of the contents and the concrete in the towers (1&2) was pulverized it is rather a moot to argue about glass hundreds of feet away.

Regarding how loud it was, read the 'Oral Histories' There is plenty of testimony there on how loud it was.. besides, the explosive nature of the towers (1&2) demise is not a matter of dispute.

The 9/11 Comm was a "half-baked farce" not my words, but those of the editor of Fire Engineering Magazine. A few glaring problems with the report are it's ignoring of evidence (i.e Mineta and first responders), the changing of timelines, (Cheney's whereabouts) and not even a mention of WTC 7, Which is pretty astonishing surreal considering they were charged with compiling "fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11"
The report also stated that, "whomever funded the attacks it is of little significance" and on the 'put and call options' by saying that despite how suspicious these look on the surface that they were all purchased by a "single US institutional investor with no possible ties to al qaeda"
That's called putting the cart before the horse and is not the way investigations should operate.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
"These are things that could keep any intelligent person dismissive of the possibility forever.."

Do you really think everyone is as inept in their job as you'd like to make it out? I'm sure you are kept dismissive at your profession, but for the most part people in the know are pretty wise. Your presumption is that everyone doesn't give a s$!t about what they do. People actually do care. They aren't as dismissive as like you'd like to think.
Click to expand...

by 'dismissive' I meant incredulous and the rest of the statement had nothing to do with how you interpreted it.
 
TokenMac said:
You have said many times that you don't have or understand all the facts, and you have also said your theory is based on your un-informed opinion.
Which is why this projection on to me is very confusing.
...or "I don't care what Jones has to say, because I looked at it". How close am I?
Click to expand...

My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about. The issues at hand are about what we do know.

I think Jone's work is important, I just do not see it as necessary to knowing that explosives were used on these buildings. The event itself is what screams explosives. Consider the case of WTC7, and then realize that even a single intact vertical column would have caused an asymmetrical collapse.

Jones' work is vital, seeing as how NIST cannot follow regulations and test for explosives. (something that would have shut up all of this)

How could a massive building that occupied an entire city block fall so quickly and symmetrically into a tidy rubble pile with large sections of the facade laying neatly (intact sections) on the pile without internal explosives? http://wtc7.net/rubblepile.html
Unfortunately, fire and gravity (and damage to the southeast) do not come close to being able to account for it/ We should look at the evidence and work from there with hypothesis that fit observed events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom