No Explosives Here?

Cl1mh4224rd said:
Ironically, this may explain why the 9/11 Truth Movement is so small...
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. Suitable according to who; you?
Click to expand...

The collapse of WTC7 is not possible without explosives. Even in light of the official story, it was the only collapse of its kind in history, and therefore demanding extensive and careful study. You probably do not work in office buildings so how effectively they remain standing doesn't concern you I guess.

911T is 'small?? Try Massive! with thousands of groups worldwide, There are engineers 911 groups, firemen's groups, independents like Hoffman and Ryan and so so many people (see 911blogger), podcasts, blogs, video sites, Try google and you will see how wrong you are. There are 'truthers' on every corner of the planet! bc the evidence leaves you little choice in the matter. Most of them will never get involved in activism or even publicly dissenting the OCT as I do. (that will change with time)

Based on my own informal surveys, most people (who've looked at the evidence carefully) agree with me.. many do not act bc they feel powerless, are too busy etc. I know bc I ask. Despite this, I believe 9/11 Truth will continue to grow over time because the evidence is so damning. I can think of quite a few people (myself incl) who were not doubters or questioners of the official conspiracy theory (OCT) and after really seeing and laying out the facts, and doing a little research on their own, believe otherwise today.

More research will be conducted,more people will come out, and when you are told what to think by the talking heads on your TV screens then you will nod your heads in accord, and realize you were so wrong on this issue all that time. Not one 'debunker' has explained so much as the bloody squibs, for goodness sakes!
 
Reactor drone said:
Bolded some parts of that for you.You might want to look for "were" and "was",they tend to be more reliable.
Click to expand...

yeah well if you take a paper based on theoretical postulating of potential possibilities of aluminothermic pyrotechnics it is always going to be in that language; that is the language of speculation (aka, what helps further truth and science)

Like this piece from Kevin Ryan you may wish to read,, full of investigative speculation using, 'could' and 'can' and 'have' and 'did.'

Demolition access to the World Trade Center towers: Part one - Tenantshttp://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090713033854249

Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part Two - Security http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090813150853871
 
I have a few more questions.

The present invention is effective to serve as a method and an apparatus which can prevent a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like, and can demolish concrete at a high efficiency
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems like this method emphasizes the ability to NOT have debris ejected and to NOT make loud noises. But from what I've read of your arguments you seem to hold that there was one loud, 15 second roar during the building collapses and that debris was shooting out large distances.

It is late and I may have no read the article you linked us to clearly, so I hope you could help in answering these questions.
 
atavisms said:
hi johnny,

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_fallacy

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.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist's_fallacy
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.
Click to expand...
I would love to see a video showing that, but I don't think you have one.

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?
Click to expand...
1. Some body parts were "squashed" in exactly the why you described.

2. I would love to see how you figure "each could support many times the weight of the entire tower" (with math, show your work).

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?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
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?
Click to expand...
Your right if some guy claims that he knows 9/11 was an inside job because he was there I would tell him to shove it.

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.
Click to expand...
SHOVE IT!:D
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.
Click to expand...
NIST has been there and done that
NIST said:
4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?
No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.
Click to expand...
And before you type one word in response to this read Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1.


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
Click to expand...
Can't open that link from where I'm at so I'll get back to it later.


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.
Click to expand...
It would be just fantastic if we could get some numbers, sources, and examples for all the stuff above.
 
atavisms said:
911T is 'small?? Try Massive! with thousands of groups worldwide, There are engineers 911 groups, firemen's groups, independents like Hoffman and Ryan and so so many people (see 911blogger), podcasts, blogs, video sites, Try google and you will see how wrong you are. There are 'truthers' on every corner of the planet! bc the evidence leaves you little choice in the matter. Most of them will never get involved in activism or even publicly dissenting the OCT as I do. (that will change with time)

Based on my own informal surveys, most people (who've looked at the evidence carefully) agree with me.. many do not act bc they feel powerless, are too busy etc. I know bc I ask. Despite this, I believe 9/11 Truth will continue to grow over time because the evidence is so damning. I can think of quite a few people (myself incl) who were not doubters or questioners of the official conspiracy theory (OCT) and after really seeing and laying out the facts, and doing a little research on their own, believe otherwise today.
Click to expand...

You might want to check out this thread, where I address just this problem. Yes, yes, 911T is amssive, but you can't get more than a couple of dozen people to a demo. It's so huge and mainstream that no one wants to support it in public. It's the biggest crime this century, but there are more people at the BBQ I went to last night than at the biggest rally 911T has ever had. Yes sir, it's big alright.
 
Last edited:
Bump for ata...

Notice what EXPLOSIONS look like.. now compare it with WTC. Please note the broken glass in all of the buildings and in the cars. Now compare with the photos shown from ground zero and the video I posted.

TruthersLie said:
The same thing as these


gravity driven collapses (and the towers were the same which were brought on by fire.)

It is rather amazing you keep holding on to your delusions... again if it was explosives, then provide proof of a SILENT explosive.

if the rumble was explosives, provide proof that thousands of tons of explosives sound like a rumble w/out ANY sudden sharp impact when they start detonating.

it should be easy.

I mean we have this from the oklahoma city bombing
710px-Timothy_McVeigh%27s_movements_during_Oklahoma_City_bombing.svg.png
NOTICE the brown circle? That is the extent of the DAMAGE from the BOMB. Notice it says that many buildings inside the circle were damaged or collapsed DUE TO THE BOMB.

Now to see what that bomb did to nearby windows.
3415_oklahoma-city-bombing-1_04700300.jpg
Notice ALL OF THE WINDOWS ARE BROKEN in the background.

or
Ok_city_bombing.jpg

Please notice that ALL of the windows in ALL of the cars have been blown out.

shall we continue? If explosives were used on the towers or wtc7 ALL of the windows in the area would have been blown out.

ETA: Lets continue with the oklahoma city bombing for reference. Now we will move on to the injuries of people who were caught in the blast area.
http://www.ok.gov/health/documents/OKC_Bombing.pdf


Over HALF of the people in the blast radius had ruptured eardrums and massive hearing loss. Please point out the firefighters with ruptured eardrums and massive hearing loss from 9/11. I'll wait. OR anyone who is near the collapses.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bump for Ata
Now lets look at a better video of a ROAR of a collapse.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=6201659

What do you HEAR? Oh a long loud ROAR from the collapse. What explosives were used here?

how about this collapse?


Oh looky look twoof. There is a ROAR when it collapses... what thousands of tons of explosives were used in this collapse? Oh none.

doh..

and here

but it is a small roar...

you really should go back to school twoof and you really should actually try to do some basic research socky.
 
Last edited:
atavisms said:
hi johnny,

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

Great. Then it should be no trouble for you to produce other witnesses to these factual events.

You were not the only person to see these buildings collapse. There were thousands of people in Lower Manhattan that day.

Where are the other witnesses who will corroborate what you saw?
 
Last edited:
Nobody has explained the "squibs"? What an incredibly stupid statement. Next thing you know he'll be telling us the "official story" has no evidence to support it. Jesus.
 
Squibs again?

Richard Gage said:
We will strike the controversial WTC7 squibs (in the upper right corner) from the online PPT and upcoming DVD update. I agree with the analysis - particularly the impossible "stationary explosions". ((Damn - I thought these were the real deal!)). I think what's happening is that the windows break - and right in time with the shockwave traveling up the front face! And the smoke inside is under pressure and "poofs out" - making them appear like explosions. The 2 stationary "poofs" would be due to the already damaged windows/panels which emerged prior to the collapse - although I can't understand why the smoke wouldn't be "billowing" up and out of the damaged opening more than it is.
Click to expand...
Source

Is there anyone less informed than a Truther?
 
atavisms said:
....
independents like Hoffman ....
Click to expand...

We were discussing Hoffman a while back. You left that discussion just as it became clear Hoffman hadn't a leg to stand on. Now good ol' Jimmy is back as a reliable source?
Oh dear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom