No Explosives Here?

atavisms said:
.....<snipped>

Sorry I cannot agree that these massive buildings blowing themselves into millions of bits doesnt look like fire and gravity acting on them just to please you, and that puts you in such a tizzy you dont know what to do with yourself. You're another one who comes off with personal attacks instead of addressing issues. Try not replying and moving onto another thread if you have nothing constructive to add.
Click to expand...

The problem is, you are not educated on certain aspects of fire.

Here goes. You ready. Real simple.

FIRE + STRUCTURAL DAMAGE + NO FIREFIGHTING = HUGE PROBLEMS = COLLAPSE!!


See, this is your problem. Fire has been the demise of many buildings. Just because you don't understand HOW this could happen, doesn't mean that it CAN'T.

You should try reading more. It really would be beneficial.
 
I'm starting to feel sorry for the guy. It must be tough hoping that 911 Truth will make you that hero that high school never let you be. He can't seem to say a single thing without someone bashing him to pieces.
 
Last edited:
atavisms said:
My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about.
Click to expand...
Yes, great sig and stundie material, but it's much more.

In one clear and concise statment atavisms has summerized the mindset and mentality of a huge segment of the "truth" movement. Breaking it down:

atavisms said:
My opinion is not uninformed...
Click to expand...
This means he believes he has an informed opinion, yet...
atavisms said:
...there are just many things I have no clue about.
Click to expand...
admits his ignorance.

The perfect storm of arrogance and ignorance.
 
DavidJames said:
Yes, great sig and stundie material, but it's much more.

In one clear and concise statment atavisms has summerized the mindset and mentality of a huge segment of the "truth" movement. Breaking it down:

This means he believes he has an informed opinion, yet...
admits his ignorance.

The perfect storm of arrogance and ignorance.
Click to expand...

And I got the nomination. :D
 
atavisms said:
alright, it wasnt thermite or explosive thermite, great...

what was it then?
Click to expand...
  1. Impact damage from 400+ MPH jets hitting the structure, severing many connections and transferring loads to other load bearing elements of the structure.
  2. Those already stressed load bearing elements facing loads in directions they're not designed to handle.
  3. Those already stressed load bearing elements facing increasing weakening from raging fires across several different floors.
  4. Those elements eventually failing, some from reaching a critical temperature and losing the ability to bear the load they're receiving, others from the sudden imposition of load that was previously being handled by the recently heat failed elements.
  5. The "upper section" (i.e. the floors above the fire and impact zones) no longer having structural elements below them to hold them up, thus falling onto the first intact floor below the fire and impact damage zones.
  6. Most of the falling debris impacting not the vertical columns (the structural elements providing vertical support), but insteand hitting the floors themselves, which are not designed to bear the weight of the upper floors. Understand: They can bear some weight - I think someone here calculated them to be able to support the weight of what, 10 or 11 floors if they weren't actually moving - but not the weight that ultimately hit them, and certainly not that mass accelerating due to gravity. Also understand: It's the columns that "hold things up" (i.e. bear vertical loads). The floors are there to "hold things together" (i.e. horizontally support the columns). So most of the mass ends up transferring its influence from the columns - elements in the intact towers specifically used to handle vertical loads - to the floors - elements never intended to handle any vertical load other than their own weight plus the weight of the office interiors.
  7. A repeat of step 6 over and over again as it moves downward: The accreting, accelerating mass continuing to mostly hit floors (again, not designed for vertical stresses) and severing them from columns (elements not designed to stand upright without the floors bracing them). This doesn't stop because the mass is growing - it's gathering floors on the way down - and accelerating - because the resistance of each floor is insufficient to slow it down significantly.
No explosives required for this scenario. And it fits all the evidence. Whereas there is no remaining evidence for explosives, whether conventional or exotic. There was insufficient sound pressure levels, as demonstrated by both the unbroken glass in the surrounding area as well as a lack of characteristic trauma being inflicted on people, and there is zero evidence left on the recovered steel structures themselves. QED.
 
atavisms said:
perhaps for some things,.,,but for this, a working knowledge of the facts, and simple common sense are enough for most people to grasp that these events could only have been achieved through the use of explosives. one does not need to be an engineer to realize this obvious implication.

?
Click to expand...

Fact:

19 hijackers flew planes into buildings. The buidings collapsed due to damage and fire, spewing debris everywhere. The debris caused fires in Bldg. 7 that went unfought causing the bldg to fall.

Common sense.
 
TruthersLie said:
and obviously anything made of steel will sink. Todays ships are not natural I say. They are very counter intuitive... who ever heard of steel floating.

ETA
Click to expand...

A guy told be the other day that he could heat dirt and get something out of it that had different properties than dirt. That looks like alchemy to me.
Now my commun since tellsme that if you heat dirt all you're gonna get is hot dirt. So you can keep believing in that "steel" I'll stick with god given wood for my buildings.
 
Spektator said:
Heck, in World War I the U.S. built several concrete ships. What made them think of that?
Click to expand...

I remember once explaining to my mother that concrete barges on the Thames floated because they were hollow. She rationalised this by convincing herself that the air inside them was what made them float. My father then showed his capacity for evil, by pointing out to her that if all the air was pumped out, they'd float even better...

Dave
 
Jocce said:
Exactly. Who could even believe that airplanes could fly. Common sense would tell you that an object that heavy would just drop to the ground. Obviously, flying is just mass psychosis. Look up chemtrails, the answer is out there. Common sense, i tell you!
Click to expand...


There have been times when I've driven past Logan Airport in Boston where I'd swear that the one or more of the jets on approach were flying much too slow to stay airborne. In fact they sometimes appear almost motionless in the sky. As far as I can see there are at least three possibilities to explain this observation:

1. The laws of physics have been temporarily broken

2. The jets have been clandestinely outfitted with VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing, like a Harrier Jump Jet) technology

3. I'm really bad at gauging the airspeed of jets

Three guesses as to which of these possibilities is the most likely?:rolleyes:

atavisms: in this sense at least, I sympathize with you. I too have seen things that "just don't look right" and/or things that don't behave as I'd expect them to. I "know what I saw" when I viewed those seemingly stationary aircraft in the sky, but I was drawing a false conclusion due to my lack of well, expertise on the subject. If I had been driving with say, an airport ground crewman when I saw those jets, he would probably just shrug and say "doesn't look odd to me and you'd agree if you had seen as many planes land as I have". Now, in a situation such as this, what would be the reasonable conclusion to draw?

1. The Crewman's training and experience afford him a more accurate judgement of the phenomena in question than I possess? Therefore I should take him at his word unless I have a compelling reason to doubt him?

2. The Crewman has been bribed, threatened or is under orders to hush up the top secret VTOL enhancements of all the world's commercial jetliners and I am the only person in the world bright enough to have not been taken in?

I sincerely look forward to your thoughtful and reasoned reply to my post.
 
Last edited:
atavisms said:
one does not need to be an engineer to realize this obvious implication.
Click to expand...


Ironically, this may explain why the 9/11 Truth Movement is so small...

How can Americans be so uninformed about such a major aspect of such a major event?
Click to expand...


All things considered, the collapse of WTC7 was only significant to structural engineers, the folks on the ground in NYC, the owner(s) and tenants, and conspiracy theorists.

atavisms said:
This being the case, you would think someone would have come up with some suitable explanations by now, but that has not occurred.
Click to expand...


Suitable according to who; you?
 
Bump for atavism.

So now that I have shown you what EXPLOSIVES look like (you know oklahoma city bombing) and what ground zero looked like, do you see the differences?

Come on twoofie, don't run and hide... not after you are posting in other threads. Was it explosives???
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Suitable according to who; you?
Click to expand...

This is something that will always amaze me about truthers: it appears that they believe if the explanations given to them aren't suitable in their mind it must mean it's simply not suitable to anybody. The only thing worse than arguments from personal incredulity are arrogant arguments from personal incredulity.
 
johnny karate said:
Thousands of people witnessed what you claim is "so obvious". Where are these "many such witnesses" who will corroborate your claims that explosives were used to destroy the WTC buildings?
Click to expand...

hi johnny,

My claims? They are not my claims; they are the facts.

And the corroboration you speak of is seen overwhelmingly in people's opinions (once they've seen the facts and attain a working knowledge of them and some of the irreconcilable anomalies,, it becomes the inevitable conclusion. It is also seen in multitudes of national and international 911T forums, groups, orgs, blogs, podcasts, WAC, ae911truth.org, 911truth.org, history commons, etc etc/ Many of us who were there on 9/11 believe it.

You think the squibs were really compressed air from collapsing floors above? Watch the collapse videos you will soon see this is completely impossible. They are not only synchronous (timed) and appearing simultaneously on multiple faces of the building, they are well below where the tower is breaking up.

Afterwards, the streets around the towers (and debris fields) were just littered with body parts, 20k were recovered, not squashed in between piles of collapsed floors at the bottom having been crushed from above with a 'pile driver,' but scattered for blocks and blasted apart into small fragments. Pulverized concrete and the cores of each completely shattered and blasted apart (each could support many times the weight of the entire tower) and all those intact columns after the plane strikes, they just exploded?

Relative to the size of the buildings the plane impact were small and high up top; 90-95th floor in the case of the North Tower (I think it was).
Where do you reckon the cores went and by what energy would they do so?
How does such asymmetrical damage (planes) cause such symmetrical destruction?

When you ask where "they" are. You mean everyone should drop what they are doing and become like alex jones and luke rudkowski? etc. Why do you even need others to tell what what to think, is there something wrong with your own eyes?

I was there. and my neighbor works for the PA and told me the horror stories of working down there in the weeks that followed.(some guy on this thread posted that he worked the pile for weeks and had personally removed "hundreds of body parts" See the dna report, how the forensic analysis at Freshkills was conducted, the rapid disposal of the structural steel, residual heat, melted steel, fema,etc, etc.

If you still feel that you must wait for popular opinion (herd) to agree (like in the emperor wears no clothes) then that is okay too. It would be more interesting if you could address even a single topic head on; i'/e squibs, and debunk it.

There are all kinds of of high-tech explosives that defy conventional thinking on the matter, including some designed to make 'less noise' while destroying 'concrete structures.' (others can be painted on etc)
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5532449/description.html

Both of the towers destruction's were explosive. When many thousands of charges are going off simultaneously over a prolonged period (15 secs) it sounds just like the towers did; a prolonged roar. That is perhaps why people tend not to think of them as explosions. The systematic destruction was, most likely, acheived using a combination of explosives and methods in conjunction. The fact that explosives were used is a deduced logically and one is forced to accept this by implication of knowing what occurred.
 
Ata,

Do you see how you did not answer Johnny's question?

Also, that patent really dwells on the fact that it is used in demolishing concrete structures. Do you know how it is used with taking down steel-framed structures? Can you direct me to an article that can explain how this patented apparatus works with respect to steel-framed structures?

Also, I have noticed that you are no longer describing the buildings as being reduced to a fine powder. Does that mean that you accept the visual evidence produced by other posters on this forum AND Dr Jones's assertion which I quoted to you earlier?

If that is the case, how does that affect your claims and arguments suggesting that the towers were brought down by CD? What must you revise in order to account for that aspect of your argument that is incorrect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom