-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Official story: why believe it?
- Thread starter lisabob2
- Start date
You may think they "look like" explosives, but please understand that I'm in no way convinced by such a flimsy, inexpert analysis. Although I am troubled by your inability to accept other explanations, even if you're unwilling to pick a favorite. Simply put, you're in no position to pass judgment.
And what would be the purpose of having explosives set above the impact zone?
It's not really hard to imagine that there was some kind of air movement and pressure inside the top section as it was falling down, unless you really want there to be something wrong.
Maybe an equivalent of crush up but for air.
Last edited:
I am in no more position than you. duh.
And, I have the ability to accept other explanations as being possibilities. My above posts demonstrate such.
I am troubled by your inability to see why some people might think these "look like" explosives. Not "are" explosives, but "looks like" explosives.
Is it hard to imagine that they "look like" explosives?
That doesn't really mean anything now does it? Answering a question by asking a dumb question is called an "evasion".
Last edited:
Read more carefully, friend. I can see why people might think they look like explosives. Particularly if those people know little about explosives, have little experience seeing them in the past, and are only concerned with appearance instead of other effects, e.g. sound and shock.
You can think they look like explosives. That doesn't bother me. It's just that it also doesn't convince me. That observation has no value in any serious discussion.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Why does this remind me of the person who stated that one of the dust clouds "looks like" Satan?
Because they do not! And I for one am not surprised 9/11 truth misleads other to believe in the stupid ideas; (lack of knowledge and experience).
BTW, I think Cherepanov is nuts.
Last edited:
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
But they don't really look that much like explosions.
Explosions typically generate a flash of light, a loud bang, and a blast wave which normally pushes out a lot of shrapnel at high velocity away from the origin of the explosion.
The first thing that pops into my mind when I think of a genuine explosion is the time on Mythbusters when they blew up the cement mixer truck. Now that was an explosion.
Last edited:
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Many witnesses claimed that they heard the sounds of a locomotive. I guess we should investigate the building being brought down by trains too.
Hey, squibs "look" like explosions to someone with no expertise, and it sounded like trains to some people with no expertise. Put 2+2 together....
Hey, squibs "look" like explosions to someone with no expertise, and it sounded like trains to some people with no expertise. Put 2+2 together....
Chuck Guiteau
Graduate Poster
LisaBob, in regards to your hypothesis, I would appreciate if you could clarify a few things for me.
1. Why would anyone use squibs for a controlled demolition?
Squibs are small low velocity charges used primarily on movies sets and in pyrotechnic displays. They would be completely ineffective as breaching or cutting charges. They wouldn’t even be particularly effective as initiating charges, especially when standard initiators are both readily available and imminently more reliable.
2. Why was no one killed or injured by flying glass outside the small radius of the collapse?
Flying shards of glass are extremely dangerous and can travel thousands of feet if propelled at the velocities generated by high explosives; this is why the glass is removed from buildings undergoing real CD’s and special effects teams use “candy” glass. The amount of explosives necessary to sever the support columns on each floor of 1WTC or 2WTC would have been more than sufficient to send the relatively dense glass a considerable distance, but no broken shards of glass have been reported outside the aforementioned radius even though the building contained huge amounts and it would be impossible to hide.
3. Why was there no detritus of a controlled shoot found? Not one shock tube, not one copper backing plate, not one UX detonator, even though the reports clearly indicate that investigators intimately familiar with this detritus from multiple State, City, and Federal agencies were on site for an extended period of time (weeks).
4. Why are the “squibs” completely out of sequence for a controlled shoot?
Secondary charges are used to assist in initiating a collapse by weakening support structures immediately after the primary shot on the ground (or basement) floor. Yet in the WTC footage they precede the collapsing portion of the structure by only one (or a few) floors at a time as it travels downward. This would serve no more purpose than fixing a free spinning propeller to the hood of your car in an effort to make the car go faster.
Additionally, the WTC collapse of both 1WTC and 2WTC began at approximately the level of the impact zones; there does not appear to have even been a primary shot.
5. How were the charges set in the first place?
A CD is a very labor-intensive operation. Support structures must be weakened and charges set and tamped (where a space in the structure to be breached is made for the explosive then covered with filler). The laws of physics do not change according the convenience of those attempting to employ them. Standard breaching formulas dictate that roughly 3 times as much explosive must be used on an untamped charge. This means that without weakening the support columns, boring, setting and properly tamping the charges, it would have required a staggeringly large amount of explosive to get the job done. So much so that the noise from each floor alone would have been louder than a 2,000 lb "Daisy Cutter" munition, which can be heard for miles, not to mention that fragments of concrete, steel, and other dense building materials would have been projected over an extremely wide radius ( thousands of feet) instead of the relatively small one (several hundred feet) that actually was left.
1. Why would anyone use squibs for a controlled demolition?
Squibs are small low velocity charges used primarily on movies sets and in pyrotechnic displays. They would be completely ineffective as breaching or cutting charges. They wouldn’t even be particularly effective as initiating charges, especially when standard initiators are both readily available and imminently more reliable.
2. Why was no one killed or injured by flying glass outside the small radius of the collapse?
Flying shards of glass are extremely dangerous and can travel thousands of feet if propelled at the velocities generated by high explosives; this is why the glass is removed from buildings undergoing real CD’s and special effects teams use “candy” glass. The amount of explosives necessary to sever the support columns on each floor of 1WTC or 2WTC would have been more than sufficient to send the relatively dense glass a considerable distance, but no broken shards of glass have been reported outside the aforementioned radius even though the building contained huge amounts and it would be impossible to hide.
3. Why was there no detritus of a controlled shoot found? Not one shock tube, not one copper backing plate, not one UX detonator, even though the reports clearly indicate that investigators intimately familiar with this detritus from multiple State, City, and Federal agencies were on site for an extended period of time (weeks).
4. Why are the “squibs” completely out of sequence for a controlled shoot?
Secondary charges are used to assist in initiating a collapse by weakening support structures immediately after the primary shot on the ground (or basement) floor. Yet in the WTC footage they precede the collapsing portion of the structure by only one (or a few) floors at a time as it travels downward. This would serve no more purpose than fixing a free spinning propeller to the hood of your car in an effort to make the car go faster.
Additionally, the WTC collapse of both 1WTC and 2WTC began at approximately the level of the impact zones; there does not appear to have even been a primary shot.
5. How were the charges set in the first place?
A CD is a very labor-intensive operation. Support structures must be weakened and charges set and tamped (where a space in the structure to be breached is made for the explosive then covered with filler). The laws of physics do not change according the convenience of those attempting to employ them. Standard breaching formulas dictate that roughly 3 times as much explosive must be used on an untamped charge. This means that without weakening the support columns, boring, setting and properly tamping the charges, it would have required a staggeringly large amount of explosive to get the job done. So much so that the noise from each floor alone would have been louder than a 2,000 lb "Daisy Cutter" munition, which can be heard for miles, not to mention that fragments of concrete, steel, and other dense building materials would have been projected over an extremely wide radius ( thousands of feet) instead of the relatively small one (several hundred feet) that actually was left.
Point #1: squibs are seen in C.D.'s if you watched the videos that I linked to you can see what squibs look like in a C.D. They are not used in a C.D. they are a result of the explosions used in a C.D. You can also see what air pressure does in the building collapses.
#2: As a matter of fact people were killed outside of twin Towers.
#3: who knows for sure what was found, and there are other ways to explode things other than traditional C.D. methods. wireless detonators for one.
#4: squibs might not look like a normal C.D. because it wasn't ,pretty simple. The collapse looks exactly like something weakened the steel columns below impact areas, as in other C.D.'s you see the top fall first even though inside it's the supports being destroyed below that causes it
#5: Not knowing how something was done does not make it untrue. Again trying to compare a normal C.D. to the collapses of the 3 WTC buildings is just wasting time, it wasn't a normal C.D. it was something never done before and unique.
not the air, it's the steel's strength somehow disappearing and giving about the same resistance as air
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf
have you read this yet?
"Mark Roberts, for example, has set forth a detailed collection of collapse
warnings, many of which are drawn from the oral histories of the New York Fire
Department, [2] and has tried to use these to support his hypothesis of a natural
collapse.[3] Ryan Mackey has used this material in a similar fashion.[4] Since I find
Mackey’s reasoning more clear than Roberts’ I will take him in this paper as
representative of this position."
Read it, I think it is always good to see other educated people's view of the same subject
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Lisabob2:
I never thought I'd agree with you. All educated people should read that new paper. You do know this is a death sentence for the journal, right?
looks like explosions from C.D. sounds like explosions. Caused explosion like results.
No of course it isn't explosions, it gotta be something else, why? no good reason just because if it were explsosions it would ruin my pet theory.
want some examples of scientific responce's to questionable thinking?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/JBennettOpenLettertoDrJones.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ReplytoStephenPhillipsbyStevenJones.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/PalastApologizestoDrJones.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/RossResponsetoAnonymous.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/SonicBoomExplanation3.pdf
I have read it, and your idea of "death sentence" is curious. It shows how insufficent Mackey's "evidence" is. When you look at the oral histories with a a predetermined idea this article shows how wrong you can be.
I believe this articles is a great example at the differences in logic being used.
I find MacQueen makes much more sense.