The Most Interesting Work on the CT
Is being done by the no-planers. Don't get me wrong, they're the nuttiest of the nuts, but they are doing some fascinating stuff. Here's a detailed look at Flight 175, the second plane into the World Trade Center. It's a fascinating glimpse at the mind of a CTer.
In order to analyse the film and stills photography the exact camera position, aircraft position, aircraft attitude and sun position were reproduced in Flight Simulator to provide a visual reference image to judge the respective UA175 picture.
Because, you see, Microsoft Flight Simulator is reality, and the pictures have to be judged as to whether they fit reality. Simply amazing stuff!
posted by Pat @ 8:42 AM
80 comments
80 Comments:
Makes perfect sense. Kind of like the time I solved the Lindbergh baby kidnapping case using Grand Theft Auto.
That's an insane amount of work. That much I'll give credit for. Just saddens me to think of what this person would be capable of were they not so deluded.
Abby: Who did it?
I proved the Seahawks really won the Superbowl last year by simulating it in Madden 2006 on the X-Box.
Well said Chad.
That is a ridiculous amoubnt of "work".
My friends sister (who had a masters degree in something) suffered a psychotic break a few years back (before 9/11) and she had put together something alot like this. She had actually written and documented a 500+ page report about the people out to get her. Along with citations from books and websites (that had nothing to do with her, but if a site had her first name in it, Bamm, there was evidence).
The amount of work it took her was probably weeks.
I never got to read her rantings, but I'll bet they were saner than this no planes stuff.
You know, this would/will convince a lot of morons.
No, let's debunk the no-planers first. Much more fun!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hey smart guy (aka 911 Mysteries):
As far as the elevators are concerned, you're just wrong. Each tower had at least two that ran the height of the building. One for freight, one for tourists going to either the restaurant or the observation deck.
As for the warping columns, go here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
Page 110 and 112 of the PDF (62 and 64 of the actual report).
Then, when you're done with that, stop asking questions like you've actually researched anything regarding 9/11. Didn't think it was possible, but you're an embarassment even for the "truth" movement.
What. a. PSYCHO.
All that, merely to attampt to "debunk" what is plainly obvious in a few seconds of raw footage that the "truther" has no control over.
A+ for sheer time spent spinning and pleading for people to believe this steaming pile.
F minus for veracity of actual content.
Hate to burst your bubble MysteryMan, but even Willie Rodriguez said he smelled kerosene in the lower levels.
Keep up pal.
The fact is bud, bombs don't set people on fire. They rip them apart.
And your oxygen argument is laughable. Are you one of those people who believe the elevator shafts were hermetically sealed?
If I could cite a conversation with him at Ground Zero the Saturday before the anniversary, I would.
kerosene burns off nearly instantly. for it too last 80 floors of freefall is laughable.
Tell that to the people who were burned asshole. Be sure to laugh in their face when you do it.
The concept of fire travelling 80 floors is laughable ... i.e. absurd. I'm not laughing at the event.
So are you saying it did or did not happen?
As for the Empire State Building, just go to your local bookstore, find the Popular Mechanics book, flip to the middle where the pictures are.
It's right there.
They have a picture of a charred lobby from the ESB.
Perhaps you have an alternate theory as to how the lobby caught fire?
Full height shafts: there is a diagram on the second page of this pdf showing that there are indeed elevators going the full height of the towers. Also, you don't need fire to extend the entire distance from impact to landing; you only need fuel and a separate ignition source (pretty easy to find a spark if metal debris strikes metal elevator guide rails).
Hot spots in the debris: We can quibble about specific temperatures on specific floors, but we can all agree that the towers were still burning when they collapsed, correct? the burning items did not stop being hot simply because they fell, and all of a sudden they were under tons of debris. The sheer mass of the debris provided insulation that kept the heat from escaping, plus they added fuel to the fire. Also, I've seen pictures of very hot metal being pulled from site, but I haven't seen pictures of molten metal. Got any handy?
Horizontal trajectories (just some preliminary ideas, I haven't done all my homework here): as the exterior column assemblies were struck by the falling floors, they were still braced from below, but some momentum still transferred to them, giving them a horizontal vector. the falling floors took out the floor they were attached to before they "hinged" down, so they had a horizontal vector and gravity acting upon them.
911mysteries, did you know that the entire "molten metal" claim originated with that liar Christopher Bollyn? You just got conned by a Holocaust denier.
Even if there was "molten metal," that would be consistent with fire, not with demo explosions.
when I get a big mac, and I squish the top bun toward the bottom bun, what happens to the stuff in the middle. where does it go?
SIDEWAYS...HORIZONTALLY...lol
TAM
wrt bending of exterior columns, didn't markyx show us just such a thing in a pic over at JREF?
TAM
It goes without saying, that the only way I am believing anything you tell us that "Willie" said, is if you present it as a video of him saying it in front of the camera, with you asking him that very question on the video as well (you can hide your image if you like). Otherwise, let me tell you what "Willie" told me...
"kerosene burns off nearly instantly. for it too last 80 floors of freefall is laughable."
Sure, a five gallon can of kerosene would burn quickly, but 10,000 gallons? How about 20,000 gallons?
Horizontal trajectories. When the thousands of tons pushing down on the outer girders,they snapped at the bolted sections some the vertical motion then turned lateral and some of the 24' sections shot out like spears. There were one or 2 express elevatiors so it would be very easy for a liquid or vapor to sink as it is heaver than air. There are no benchmarks for these crashes so the whaks can make up any theory they want but it does not make it true. I wonder how many of these whak experts have done any crash investigation?
Official Story:
100's of qualified engineers
100's of Demolition Crew
100's of various other scientists
CT Quackery:
1 dental engineer
1 nutcase economist
1 aged civil engineer
1 religious zealot Physicist
4-5 computer programmer/software engineers who know shaite about what they speak
500+ hippie superleftwing arts/phillosophy/theology/history proffs.
30,000 teen moron hermits
3 arrogant 20 something idiots
ITS REALLY THAT SIMPLE!!!!
TAM
Debunking Controlled Demoltion If any one believes the CD theory, just read the PDF written by experts in the CD industry, after reading this and you still believe ther were brought down by CD then there is no hope for you. All you whakos, read this if you dare. All samasshole's questions are answered by someone who has been in the business for 20 years
One of the complaints that the 9-11 Deniers raise about the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC Towers and WTC7 is that the possibility of controlled demolition was not examined. So Brent Blanchard of Implosion World decided to rectify that with
a paper that demolishes the CD theory http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf
Much of it is material that we've gone over before. For example, that controlled demolition starts from the bottom, that the buildings did not collapse neatly into their own footprint, that the much-remarked "squibs" actually show compressed air being forced out of the building by the collapse, not by explosives. I did find this part interesting:
One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion was that the initianl failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended-duration "pancake" effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure creating a giant "mushroon" effect around its perimeter.
Lots of good solid information from experts in the CD industry.
There are well over 300 qualified experts in the relative fields that have proven all this whaks claims to be 100% bogus, every real scientific, engineering and architectural publication agrees with the current findings, only the unqualified whaks do not believe
FACT... Not a single Institute of Civil Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.
FACT...Not a single of Institute Structural Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.
FACT...Not a single Institute of Fire and Safety Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.
FACT...Not a single Institute of Demolition Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.
FACT...Not a single Institute of Architects on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.
FACT...Not a single Institute of Engineers in any field on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.
Nobody, not a single institute of engineers in the world agrees with the controlled demolition theory, Every single professional institute of Engineers from everywhere, including Russia, China, Germany, the rest of Europe, the entire planet agree with NIST.
They do not investigate the controlled demolition theory, because they all agree with the progressive collapse theory.
There could have been a few powerful bombs (military) that were easy to install because of the small number. If the bombs were protected suffiently, fire would not matter.
There could have been the USS Enterprise in orbit shooting photon torpedoes at the WTC. The point is you have absolutely no evidence to support your absurd ideas, whereas the accepted scenario fits perfectly, and has been accepted by all experts in their related fields. For you to theorize about "powerful bombs" just shows how desperate you are to prove the government did it.
but the equivalent for you would be : do you know the downward force required to shatter the cores (inner and outer) ?
First, there's no such thing as an outer core. They're called columns.
Second, when you think about shattering, you're picturing it wrong. The enterior (concrete and steel) columns didn't just shatter on impact, and the exterior (steel) beams didn't shatter at all. They bent and moved out of alignment. With so much force coming straight down, they either had to buckle in place, or move sideways. Now, picture hundreds of long vertical metal tubes connected by much weaker trusses in between, impacted by hundreds of tons of material. What's going to happen? Well, the steel columns will move away from eachother, causin their connecting beams to sheer off. Once tey become disconnected for a height of one floor or so, each column is now just one single piece of vertical metal supporting hundreds of tons of debris. It'll buckle and bend like a nail being driven into concrete. Now, repeat that proccess for the height of the building.
That's why you see so many curved, bent, and even rolled columns in the pictures of the debris. They didn't shatter, they just bent and sheared, adding their weight to the collapse.
- what's the energy required to pulverize the concrete?
- is graviational potential energy sufficient for this?
I guess you've never used a sledge hammer on concrete.
where does the energy for the high temp rubble come from?
1. Fire.
2. Friction.
3. Not sure exactly what to call it, but take a piece of thick wire some time, bend it in half, and then put your finger on the bend. Feel that heat? Now imagine how much is generated when a few thousand pieces of steel columns get bent that way.
assuming X (1-5) floors were completely destroyed and the upper portion came crashing down onto it, would that force suffice?
The short answer is yes. This is from the NIST FAQ.
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
where does the energy for the high temp rubble come from?
It seems to me that that 500,000 tones of falling building represents a lot of kinetic energy. When it stops falling when it hits the ground the law of conservation of energy says that energy has to go somewhere, so it gets turned into heat.
I would expect steel to bend first, before giving way.
You mean like this?
That reminds me of the time I tried an experiment of my own. After watching numerous videos found on YouTube and Google Video, I was convinced that what happend to the towers was not a result of fire or structural damage.
To prove this I made two tall hollow square tubes out of clay. These were to represent the towers. I then took my mechanical Bic pencil and poked many many holes in one face of each "tower". This was to simulate the damage done by the supposed planes.
My next step could be argued as overkill, but I placed each tower in a kiln. This was to simulate the fire. Now, we all know that clay is not as strong as steel, so I figured the raging inferno inside the oven would positively vaporize both of my clay structures.
Imagine my suprise when, upon removing them from the kiln, I found them to be hard as a rock!! The fire actually made the towers MORE stable!!! (I thought to myself, that they were almost like trees.)
This begged the question then: What brought the towers down? If the fire actually made the buildings stronger, some foriegn force must've been at work.
I took a hammer out and whacked the towers to simulate Bush whacking the towers with a hammer... Nothing. I shot at them with an AK-47 to simulate Israeli soldiers shooting at them with AK-47s... Still nothing!!
Finally, I went down to Ace Hardware and picked up some yellow cake. I made myself two mini-nuclear bombs and detonated each at the base of the towers (always wear protective goggles).
That was the one to do it, although not as I expected. It seems from my observations that the strength of the outer tube carried the force of the nuclear blast up vertically to the top of each tower whereby it proceeded to facilitate collapse at the areas weakened by my Bic, from the top down.
I have proceeded to post my findings on reputable websites known for hating this administration and have found them to be very well received for some reason.
This is concrete proof that the government story is a sham.
MysteryMan, did you ever comment on the photos that showed the exterior columns bowing inward? Some as much as 4-5 feet?
You had asked if that had happened and were provided with links and photographic evidence to see for yourself.
I must've missed your response.
All you hear from the CT mystryman and whaks are the same stupid questions. When hard proof is given to destroy their stupid theories, a they do is ignore it and come back with the same dumb questions yet never provide a shread of proof to back up what they say. What is even funnier is none of the whaks ever give one of their qualifiactions.
What were their qualifications again? You know, the qualifications that allow you to make assessments about what it takes for buildings to fall? What school granted you a degree in architectural engineering? What school educated you in civil engineering? What institution of higher education matriculated you with training in structural dynamics? C'mon A-hole-a, tell us so we can guage your credibility.
mystryman
Poor baby If you would address my points You would not be treated like the asshole you are. It is real simple
Back up what you say with hard facts of shut up.
Your stupid questions have been answered in great detail with hard facts by the folks here and their links and you are still in denial.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
BTW the hard proof has been backed up by hundereds of experts in the respestice fields and all your theories have been propagated by a bunch of whaks thay have no experience in the relative fields
Implosion World - more facts for conspiradroids to ignore...
This is a PDF file from the definitive voice in the demolition industry and what they think of the silly “controlled demolition” at the WTC theory Also titled: "Another smack in the head for the stupid people."
http://www.implosionworld.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
http://www.implosionworld.com/
http://www.protecservices.com/
Of coures your if you read anything like you say then you simply don't understand. If is difficult to repeat planes crashing into towers so you people always come up with crap like this to justify your position.
There are no benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline so every conspirisy expert can come out of the woodwork with silly theories and completly avoid the true facts and never give their qualifications to spew these theories, they just spew what ever theory that suits their agenda.
Every real expert who has studied the colapse says the same thing, only the unqualified whaks say otherwise but never back it up.
You still have not addressed anything, all you do is spout opinion and conjecture
Top 4 Arguments Against A 911 Conspiracy
1) Lack of concrete proof. CTers rely mostly on pointing out things that are (in their opinions) fishy about the official story - hense the nonsence about cell phones, passenger manifiests etc. What gets lost in this flurry of "holes" is that CTers have NO solid proof in favour of their theories.
2) Lack of expert endorsement. The fact that no structural engineers IN THE WHOLE WORLD agrees with the controlled demo theory should be a tip off that something doesn't add up for the CTers. Needing the likes of Fetzer, Jones and Wood to bolster their case is another.
3) Lack of whistleblowers. Clinton can't hide a blowjob, Bush can't hide WMD distortions (don't you think he would have planted some?) and the CIA leaks like a sieve. Yet NO 9/11 conspirators have spilled the beans. Hmmmm....
4) Conspiacy theories can't agree on anything! If the "truth" was as obvious as they claim it is then why can't CTers come to some agreement on what it is? They can't agree on what hit the Pentagon, what hit the WTC, what happened to flight 93, where the passengers are or whether the whole thing was pulled off by Arab mercenaries, Bush, or the Jews. In the mind of CTers this simply proves what freethinkers they are; when it fact it simply serves as a glowing example of just how messed up the theory is. They regularly accuse eachother of being "agents" for crying out loud!
I need numbers, not the statement form some report. What does "minimal resitance" mean? Obviously to state something liek this, they must have done SOME calculations? How many floors are necessary to initiate a collapse?
I provided a link to the official report. If you are too stupid to follow it then I cannot help you.
Has this EVER been observed before? When they do purposely demolish buildings has it been observed? Do you have any mathematical calucations to back up your statement? Simply stating it means nothing, without the numbers. Is there enough energy to increase the temp by one degree or 1500 degrees? You need something more substantial if you want me to beleive it.
I did not say that was the only source of the heat. There was also the fires, remember the fires? I have heard that fire also produces heat. You really are not too bright, are you?
BTW I have read everything from both sides since 911 and it does not take that long if you understand what you are reading
"Conspiacy theories can't agree on anything!"
Its tought to keep all that scattershot improvising and fantasizing on the same plane of existence.
Then again, when you look at the members of the Truther movement, you have your explanation.
AV there has never been proof of molten steel, that is just tommy rot, if there was molten metal it was some of the hundreds of tons of AL
LT
The whaks come from a different dimention not another plane of existence :)
These are the rules they follow
http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html
That is not molten steel and if you bother to read the whole link it is explained very well
Given that they are dealing with the mechanics of building collapse, one would imagine that having an "expert" in civil or structural engineering would be more relevant, but in fact, out of the 139,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the most prominent civil engineering organization in the country, not a single member has publicly joined the "Scholars" or endorsed their findings.
So the fires were hot enough to melt steel and lasted for days? Even after being covered up (smothered) with piles of rubbish?
What's your theory then MysteryMan? Thermite? Thermate? Super-dooper-ultra-top-secret NANO-thermite?
Sorry, but the debris helped insulate the fires. Oxygen still fed them, but the 6 stories of debris on top of them also kept much of the heat from escaping.
I agree that you can't tell from a picture what kind of metal it is, but if you contend that the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel or iron, then a logical explanation would be aluminum (which there was plenty of), which has a much lower melting point.
Again, this arguement always comes up from the CT crowd, but they have yet to give a coherent explanation as to WHY?
None of the things they suggest that brought down the towers would be able to create molten pools of metal either.
Very well put Chad but logic and reason will never sink in to the CT whaks.
With a couple hundred foot gash in the side, It is possible that the fire created its own wind and the severed the walls, allowed air to rush in acting like a bellows on a forge, thus increasing the heat substantialy
You're not helping your 'cause MM. Answer the questions.
The Paladian extraterrestrials were in on this too. They know that if all humanity is not soon brought under one world government, the onrushing AI singularity will spin out of control, and then the Galactic Watcher squadron charged with the preservation of the cosmic order of the heavens would have to step in and sterilize the planet. Then there would be no hominid slaves to dig the Anunnaki gold when the 12th planet approaches, and the Anunnaki atmosphere would breakdown and the sun would go supernova. The Paladians are working with the Bilderburgers and the Bushes and Bill Gates to create fake security emergencies that will justify mandatory universal chip implants and mind-control of the masses. Under the guise of TV camera traffic signal monitors, they are already installing death ray machines at most major intersections for the non-implant holdouts. Don't worry, the destiny of mankind is in good, but very deliberate, hands. To survive the coming rough transition to the Illuminati/Jesuit/Masonic/Gates governed age, however, you will need to report for chip implanting, biometric scanning, and taking the number of the beast.
It's simple; the Paladians replicated the 757 landing gear and beamed it into the Global Hawk that crashed into the Pentagon to lend authenticity to the deception. The actual 757 and all the passengers were beamed aboard the giant Paladian mother ship, where they have been placed into secure an comfortable stasis until the new world order is established. Almost nothing is as simple as it seems. Abandon the false logic of Occam's razor and live by Yomama's unshaved beard.
911 mysteries, I prefer to keep the debate on a civil level, as well. You sounded (to me, anyway) like you were willing to listen to reasoned arguments, as you actually verbally recognized evidence supporting the Progressive Collapse theory more than the Controlled Demolition hypothesis; it's amazing how many people who come through here won't do that. I do have to lend credence to the frustration of others, however, when you demand hard evidence without providing any yourself.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MM, you're obviously more interested in being condescending and have taken on a sarcastic tone which goes against your previous statements calling for civility and debate.
Well done. If only the truth movement had more people like you.
Oh wait....
9:44 AM
The three laws of government (and structural engineers)
As opposed to the three rules of 9/11 deniers?
1) THE JOOS DID IT!
2) YOU'RE A CIA SHILL!
3) If the Jews didn't do it and you're not a shill, refer to rules 1 and 2.
why should I be civil you douchebag when every comment you guys make is condescending in some way, moron
No particular reason. We already know you lack the cranial matter to form a coherent argument or conduct a logical and unbiased study of the material we present you with. If you want accompany your display of those shortcoming with profanity and ad-hominem attacks, it really won't make your position any worse.
It's nothing we haven't heard before numbnuts. Every one of those theories has been floated here before by morons just as convinced that they were right about their pet theory as you are about yours. The one thing you all have in common is that no matter how much evidence you're given you will not modify your beliefs, nor will you admit that any part of your CT is wrong.
It seems we're done here. Well done gents, this looser's been dismantled. Next!
All MM does is whine and still has provides no proof to back up his mindless babble. I wonder why that is?
http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/
ht
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr
LOL you get funnier every day trying to pretend you are holier than thou and yet still you have given no proof to back up anything all you do is fall back on the I am only asking questions excuse.
It is very simple even for you, I just won't let your lies go unchallenged, it only hurts my country
Mystery, you ever go down to Ground Zero on Saturdays?
You can't give proof so you ask another dumb question. This is a trademark of CT'ers
What were your qualifications again? You know, the qualifications that allow you to make assessments about what it takes for buildings to fall? What school granted you a degree in architectural engineering? What school educated you in civil engineering? What institution of higher education matriculated you with training in structural dynamics? C'mon, tell us so we can guage your credibility.
I can't give proof of CD because there was none
What CD really looks like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBw9v0xs_9k
give me an example of something you would consider proof of "CD"
Blast residue on the columns. Witnesses to workers opening the walls to the steel & installing charges prior to the attack. Demolition clean-up crews that saw what they would recognize as traces of explosives.
I can see why you have no degree's
and I answered you. But again, there was no CD so there was no evidence of CD, I think even you can understand.
The facts are on the side of truth
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/
Totalsceptic posted this on another thread, but I thought it deserved more attention for its profound yet simple logic:
FACT... Not a single Institute of Civil Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.
FACT...Not a single of Institute Structural Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.
FACT...Not a single Institute of Fire and Safety Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.
FACT...Not a single Institute of Demolition Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.
FACT...Not a single Institute of Architects on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.
FACT...Not a single Institute of Engineers in any field on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.
Why have you not answered me?
I don't deal in HYPOTHETICAL's
Among other things I have a report from a 20 year expert in CD who says you CD idiots are full of crap.
There are well over 300 qualified experts in the relative fields that have proven all this whaks claims to be 100% bogus, every real scientific, engineering and architectural publication agrees with the current findings, only the unqualified whaks do not believe
You still have not answered anything
The question was not hard, just nonsequiter.
You simply can't answer so all you do is tapdance and try and divert. This is typ of you whaks and is all you have. Well charlie it won't work
you have no rebuttle, just your opinion, excuse and no hard proof that will dubunk what I say
why is that?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
As I said, there was no CD, there for no evidence and you are still tapdancing
I'm usually there every Saturday. Come on down and see all your friends!
I once proved how the Titanic was actually blown up in a secret government / Mossad covert operation by blowing up a plastic model with a Black Cat firecracker in my bathtub. I mean, the ship broke in two, right? - there was no WAY a ship of that size, strength and structure could have "just broken" after "hitting an iceberg." I know what all the eyewitnesses and survivors say happened, but they're all in on the mission to cover up the REAL truth. The actual victims' families are still alive and well - spread out all over the world. The US government, under Republicans, won't let this information see the light of day, and have blocked my every attempt to look into the matter. I say we get the truthout.
That about sums up the loosers. More wheels coming off the bus daily, and they keep doubling down. There must be a new mental condition among these folks - I think I'll call it Severe Acute Leopoldism
LOl I thought it would make perfect sense to you, it makes as much sense as what you post
Thanks now when you get some hard evidence to back up your conspiricy theory's please post them
So, 911, you were just wondering what type of evidence would be needed TO prove a CD, right?
And, now, after the discussions, what is your stance? I've read through most of the comments. There are times when you appear to be just asking questions, and not blindly adhering to the "looser" theory, and other times when you seem like you are backing the "loosers" and demanding hard evidence from the official side.
So, which is it? I'm only curious myself, and I'm not bashing or namecalling.
{(1) most observations explained by both CD and Freefall]
100% false, only the whaks believe this
[(2) some observations like molten metal not fully explained by freefall. (I don't buy rust, friction)]
Never claimed
[(3) CD cannot be conclusively proved]
CD did not happen so it is irrevelent
[(4) I don't back CD per say, only say it is a possibility.]
It is only a possibility in the minds of the CT whaks
Do you think he will ever address the crucial paper by Brent Blanchard on the Implosion World
website at: www.implosionworld.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
This paper alone should end any credulity towards the demolition theory, though its points need more elaboration for a non-technical audience. The reason that I highlight this paper is because it is the only one to date written by an authority on controlled demolition, based on access to data not available to either the official account or the counter-orthodoxy. I consider this paper so important that I would recommend reading it
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change
"At 1000C iron burns as easily as wood." http://www.learning-org.com/01.09/0073.html
Iron smiths (Blacksmiths) modern and ancient are aware that glowing Iron Burns:
"With bellows blowing additional air through the fire, it can reach temperatures of about 3,000° Fahrenheit. Iron burns at 2,800°, however, so the smith has to be careful to not ruin his work! … The smith's fire contains too much oxygen to allow iron to melt; as it approaches its melting point the iron burns instead."
http://www.osv.org/cgi-bin/CreatePDF.php?/tour/index.php?L=12&PDF=Y
Also of note: Faraday's lectures and a demonstration of iron powder burning incandescent in air (and more brightly in pure oxygen): http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/1859Faraday-forces.html
http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm
For hundreds of years, Blacksmiths took advantage of this well-known property of sulfur dioxide by "welding" iron parts together over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron at its surface.
Sulfur Dioxide gas can be released by the burning of ANY ORGANIC substance, including wood, paper, flesh, fabrics, and especially plastics (carpets), and rubber (rubber is "vulcanized" by adding sulfur to it).
There was a 3 to 4 inch layer of concrete on the average floor, they were not designed to be self standing they were designed for lateral loads. With 50-100K tons crashing down on top of them, it woulsd be suprising if it did not pulverize
Contrary to what some conspiracy theorist say, the core walls were NOT concrete reinforced and all the girders were bolted together creating weakpoints.
In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 “primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.
Yeah according to Jones, 10 men making 4 trips should be enough to wire a two 110 story office buildings. I could do that over my lunch break.
Walls are ripped apart and knocked down, beams are cut, holes are bored, wires are run to detonators. Keep in mind, this is just the amount of time needed to emplace the explosives, not to prepare the building in the first place:
How did the hijackers hit the exact spot of the so called explosives
LOL most of the whaks are too stupid to get screwed like this guy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836
I know but to people who understand it is a given but the whaks will not understand LOL
So the fires were hot enough to melt steel and lasted for days? Even after being covered up (smothered) with piles of rubbish?
Here is a fire that has been burning for 40 years buried underground. And I have never seen any pictures of molten steeel at WTC. Provide a link or shut up. I am tired of debating morons.
You guys think you're superior
That is because people capible of rational thought *are* superior to those who are not.
I have to say something about the insults here - while I can't resist sometimes, and there's no doubt the CTers deserve it, it just isn't good PR. If you had a friend or family member who had seen Loose Change and was taken in by it, would you send them to a website where crude insults are thrown around constantly? I wouldn't.
Pepik:
You are right, of course. It still bothers me that I have decided to bring myself down to their level, but it is the only way to speak to these guys. They do not listen to reason, or to logic. They seem to have neither at their disposal at ANY time. I just make sure that my insults count, and are more wit and sarcasm than profanity.
TAM
(2) they are not interested in speaking with abusive people. for this reason, I would be less willing to have a debate with any of you guys, unless you agreed to stay away from the insults (that means throwing out haulocaust denier is a no-no) otherwise, we can go our merry (or not so merry) way and not speak to each other.
At this point there's nothing to be but abusive. We hear the same debunked points over and over again from you people and either you're willfully ignoring the facts in the case, or you come along like it's some new "information" we never heard before.
mysteries:
If I had been the one to start off being abusive and profane, I might be inclined to agree. For 10 weeks I tried to debate with these people, and all I got in return was "Your a wanker" or "Shut up government shill", among other, less tolerable insults. It was then I realized that is the only thing they respond to.
If you doubt me, go through my earlier posts, for the first two months I was discussing these issues. Most people can point to a post I made where I openly made the concious decision to fight fire with fire, as the other way was getting me nowhere.
As for them not wanting to hear what I have to say...(1) don't post an opinion on a blog or forum if you do not expect to have someone reply. (2) be courteous enough to listen to what they have to say.
Now if the CTers obeyed these simple, civilized rules, I would still be debating and discussing things with them in a civil, rational manner, but they never appply these rules. They do not want to hear what I or other Debunkers have to say, because it does not agree with the CT code/mantra/way. EOS.
TAM
Shawn
The CT'ers think that they have enough credibility so that real experts would debate them, but to the pros who do this for a living, I am sure they think it would be like debating Daffy Duck. I am sure they have better things to do with their time. They critisize the editor and chief who has nothing to do with the research, then they post their whaks qualifications but edit them so they appear to be more qualified than they actually are. J Wood is an example. They call her a mechanical engineer that does stress anaylsis but never say that her expertise is in dentistry, it goes on and on like that. I wonder what a Software Developer,Computer Scientist, Biologist Physician, Computer Programmer, Cellphone Engineer Webmaster & Editor know about building design or aircraft crashes and which ones have they investigated
Post a Comment
<< Home