141 replies to this topic

[Q24]

Dougal, on 14 June 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

There's plenty to debunk however on a theory of it being an explosive charge.

That's what W Tell is waiting for, but so far it's not happening... do you have anything besides Superman?

[Mr Right Wing]

W Tell, on 07 June 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

Another one I'm not sure of. Has anyone else seen this footage?

It happens around the one minute mark, but they replay it several times at the end.

]

There wont be a fair investigation of 9/11 until Bush and Blair are well gone.

It doesnt matter if 95% of the US believe the Twin Towers were brought down with demolition charges. This guy or whatever it was left at high speed after being blown out of the window from high pressure. It may well be explsoive charges knocking out pillars inside to prepare it for demolition.

Lots of witnesses reported explosions like bombs were going off.

[SPETSNAZ95]

I think this is just the floor collasping into the next level which blew the windows out with debris

[Chrlzs]

Q24, on 14 June 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

That's what W Tell is waiting for, but so far it's not happening...

That would be in your exceptionally educated and unbiased opinion?  
That would be as proven by all the facts you have posted.. oh wait..
That would be to support the claim of.. oh wait..
You haven't posted any facts, nor have you made a claim - so what is your claim?

Quote

...do you have anything besides Superman?

Oh, how droll!  It's good to see such serious posting, to counter all the non-serious stuff..

Quote

I don't think it due to a floor falling in

Well that's gotta be good enough for ANYONE!!  Funny though, WTell thought it might make 'since'.

Quote

- this could not occur at such an isolated point

No, of course it couldn't, because.. oh wait - again, content free posting..

Quote

apparently below the fire zone

Apparently?  You're very good at this sort of debating..  Apparent to WHO?  Based on what?  How far would it need to be?  (see below)

Quote

and neither are the core and perimeter truss connections likely to fail simultaneously giving the piston action required to generate the pressure

What the heck are you on about?  A local section of suspended ceiling could do it easily!  You do know how things can be set up in office buildings?  How air pressure can be funneled into a small area and thereby given quite high velocities?  That has very little do with simultaneous truss collapses, although I'm sure the technical words makes you sound like you know your stuff..

Frankly, these are just more examples of a complete inability to think through all the possibilities, and a tunnel-vision-driven desire to manufacture 'evidence' to further your conspiracy (it doesn't deserve the term 'theory', nor is it evidence of anything)..

Quote

- no, not a floor failure.

I see you didn't like the idea it could be ceiling (or wall) panels - so you just change it to a 'floor failure' and hope no-one notices - yet another card from under the deck..  Those sort of tactics are simply deceitful.

Quote

What other suggestions have we?  Hmm cleaning substances   

Why the embarrassed face?  Lack of understanding and experience again?  Haven't you ever seen what will happen when a simple, single bottle of methylated spirits has leaked and vaporised in a room, and then an ignition source is introduced?  I'd suggest you don't try this at home, or you'll be going through a window..

Some folks here need to get out more, and stop pretending they have real world knowledge or experience when all they do is sit on their behinds and pretend to be experts.  Crikey, even watching a few episodes of Mythbusters will show you the power of a relatively small amount of a vaporised volatile..


Let me be frank - this is a tiny fragment of video that doesn't show anything particularly 'identifiable' - the 'man' could simply be a bit of curtain material for all we know.  There is insufficient information to make any determination whatsoever about what caused that 'blowout'.  You can dance around and handwave, but without a lot more information, this is a worthless thread full of baseless claims and innuendo.

Interestingly enough, there COULD be information out there that would help to make a useful analysis possible.  And so here's a challenge to WTell and Q24.

Tell us - what sort of information would be needed to make a useful analysis of this footage?  I've given a few hints - but without further help, YOU tell us the rest.  Show us your expertise.

And if you ARE claiming that you already have enough information - Where are the numbers? QUANTIFY your claims.  Eg, to pick just one, tell us how close (and to what) that area would need to be for a ceiling/wall/floor collapse, and all of the assumptions you used to come to that conclusion.  Then tell us how close it actually is.

So tell us what you would need for a real analysis.  (Don't make me do it - that will just be embarrassing...!  I'll give you a few days..)  Now's your big chance - prove you aren't pretenders flailing your arms around and pulling claims from nowhere.

Edited by Chrlzs, 14 June 2012 - 01:14 PM.

[Q24]

Mr Right Wing, on 14 June 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Lots of witnesses reported explosions like bombs were going off.

Yes, so frequent and unusual were the explosions in a fire scenario that on the morning of 9/11 the FDNY and police officials actually worked to the theory that secondary devices were planted in the buildings.

A limited selection of the explosion reports are here.

[Q24]

Chrlzs, on 14 June 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

That would be in your exceptionally educated and unbiased opinion?  
That would be as proven by all the facts you have posted.. oh wait..
That would be to support the claim of.. oh wait..
You haven't posted any facts, nor have you made a claim - so what is your claim?

The claim is that the observation could be explained due to an explosive charge.

That would be on the basis no one has 'debunked' that the explosion could be an explosive charge.

Now I'll try to pick out the substance from amongst the innuendo of your post...

Chrlzs, on 14 June 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

No, of course it couldn't, because.. oh wait - again, content free posting..

This comment was in response to my suggestion that the isolated ejection could not be caused by a floor failure.  To further explain - the floor system was a row of trusses interlinked through bridging trusses and a metal decking (poured with concrete). It is impossible for a single truss, or even a few, to collapse in isolation. Due to nature of the construction, any failure/collapse of a floor system must be widespread; a largescale event. Rather than a single location, the debris would be expected to exit multiple locations... unless that was the only open window in vicinity over the two levels.

Chrlzs, on 14 June 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Apparently?  You're very good at this sort of debating..  Apparent to WHO?  Based on what?  How far would it need to be?  (see below)

This comment was in response to my suggestion that the explosive ejection occurred below the fire zone.  I thought this apparent as no smoke is coming from the ejection level, only higher up... indicating where the fires were. There is no reason for the floor system to fail below the fire zone.

Chrlzs, on 14 June 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

What the heck are you on about?  A local section of suspended ceiling could do it easily!  You do know how things can be set up in office buildings?  How air pressure can be funneled into a small area and thereby given quite high velocities?  That has very little do with simultaneous truss collapses, although I'm sure the technical words makes you sound like you know your stuff..

I was simply pointing out that should one side of the truss fail, rather than both internal and external connections simultaneously, then it's not going to produce much of a pressure build up.

Chrlzs, on 14 June 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Frankly, these are just more examples of a complete inability to think through all the possibilities, and a tunnel-vision-driven desire to manufacture 'evidence' to further your conspiracy (it doesn't deserve the term 'theory', nor is it evidence of anything)..

Not at all, I've thought it through and above are three very good reasons the observed ejection does not fit a floor failure. Incidentally, the floor failure is your theory, which does not stand up to the scrutiny I've provided.

So no, not a floor failure.

Chrlzs, on 14 June 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

I see you didn't like the idea it could be ceiling (or wall) panels - so you just change it to a 'floor failure' and hope no-one notices - yet another card from under the deck..  Those sort of tactics are simply deceitful.

Perhaps I missed you mention ceiling or wall panels earlier?

It would have to be a mighty large and heavy ceiling or wall panel to produce that pressure. And the same as above - why should it fail below the apparent fire zone and only in an isolated area?

Chrlzs, on 14 June 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Haven't you ever seen what will happen when a simple, single bottle of methylated spirits has leaked and vaporised in a room, and then an ignition source is introduced?  

A single bottle in an open plan office? More flash-bang than a focussed pressure wave. I don't see any flash in the footage, so, if this occurred, it must have been some distance inside the building. Could the pressure wave of a vapor explosion be focussed and powerful enough to travel to the exterior, producing the isolated expulsion observed?

And again below the apparent fire zone.

Though it's a better suggestion than a floor failure.

At least then we would agree the ejection appears due to some form of explosion.

Chrlzs, on 14 June 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

There is insufficient information to make any determination whatsoever about what caused that 'blowout'.

It was never meant to be the most damning of evidence, just something to consider along with the rest.

W Tell stated he was not sure of the cause.
I put forward, could it be an explosive charge?
Yes we are theorising/discussing the observation.

It is you drawing absolutes about what it was not... based on insufficient information.

I discarded the floor failure theory for the legitimate reasons given above.
The same of ceiling or wall panels.
I find methylated spirits, discussed above, a poor answer next to a dedicated charge of greater pressure.

In contrast, you have provided no legitimate reason for writing off an explosive charge, which does indeed fit the observation.

[Mr Right Wing]

Q24, on 14 June 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Yes, so frequent and unusual were the explosions in a fire scenario that on the morning of 9/11 the FDNY and police officials actually worked to the theory that secondary devices were planted in the buildings.

A limited selection of the explosion reports are here.

Mossad agents were arrested in New York on Brooklyn bridge for having a van full of explosives on the morning of 9/11 but the police were forced to let them go. There are other reports of vans with explosives in them too and Middle Eastern men acting suspiciously around the city. All were missing from the offical report.

I think the US discovered the 9/11 plot and decided to make it a success with the help of Israeli special forces.

[Q24]

Mr Right Wing, on 14 June 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Mossad agents were arrested in New York on Brooklyn bridge for having a van full of explosives on the morning of 9/11 but the police were forced to let them go. There are other reports of vans with explosives in them too and Middle Eastern men acting suspiciously around the city. All were missing from the offical report.

I think the US discovered the 9/11 plot and decided to make it a success with the help of Israeli special forces.

Didn't anyone tell you that was all 'investigated' and found to be 'A-ok'?  

Though seriously, I should point out that when searched no explosives were found in the van.  It seems that a police sniffer dog reacted as though detecting explosives which brought about the incorrect reports... or perhaps the presence of explosives was covered up.  At the least, this suggests to me that explosives were at some point transported in the van.

Lucky for us that dogs don't do cover-ups  

[Sky Scanner]

Q24, on 14 June 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

This comment was in response to my suggestion that the explosive ejection occurred below the fire zone.  I thought this apparent as no smoke is coming from the ejection level, only higher up... indicating where the fires were. There is no reason for the floor system to fail below the fire zone.

I think if there was a significant gap between the explosion and the smoke then you'd have a point, but there isn't a significant gap, only one floor, then twisted and broken windows above that.....as smoke rises and there appears to be no broken windows on the explosion floor (in view of the camera anyway) then it's obvious that it will only be visible where we see it visible on the vid.

If you was approaching a burning high rise you would never assume the smoke is a sign of where the fire starts...the initial training of checking for cold doors before entering has it's roots in the fact the two can't be assumed from sight alone when viewing a building from the outside.

[DBunker]

Mr Right Wing, on 14 June 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

I think the US discovered the 9/11 plot and decided to make it a success with the help of Israeli special forces.

I think that Chuck Norris would kick Bigfoots butt all over the Bermuda triangle.

[MID]

W Tell, on 13 June 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

How does mispelling a word detract from a conversation.



"We'd". Really "We'd"? Dud honostly....

Yes, really.

"We'd", a legitimate English contraction, meaning "we would".

I'm sorry, but it's "Dude", not "Dud".

The "E" at the end changes the meaning and the pronunciation.
The phrase would've been better rendered as follows:

"HONESTLY,  DUDE"  

USED IN A SENTENCE:

Honestly, Dude, when your attempting to attack people's intelligence, spelling all the words in your attack statement properly will at least get you started without making yourself look silly.

[DONTEATUS]

Here ! Here ! Mid well put. The CT`s are hunting in a vast void of lack.

[MID]

DONTEATUS, on 14 June 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

Here ! Here ! Mid well put. The CT`s are hunting in a vast void of lack.

YEP, I agree.

And thank you, Sir!

[Chrlzs]

Q24, on 14 June 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

The claim is that the observation could be explained due to an explosive charge.

O Rly?  It could also have been from a nuclear explosion some kilometres away..  Yes, that's silly, isn't it - but there's just as much evidence for that, and I've provided just as much support for it, as you have for your 'claims'.  None.

Now I'll try to pick out the substance from amongst the innuendo of your post...  

Oh dang, there isn't any.  It's ALL:

Quote

my suggestion...
would be expected...
I thought this apparent...
I was simply pointing out...
it's not going to produce much...
I've thought it through...
does not stand up to the scrutiny I've provided...
It would have to be...
the apparent fire zone...
it's a better suggestion...

Now, dear reader, you will notice the modus operandi - the same handwaving, the same lack of *anything* to back up all these statements that we are expected to accept.  And did you notice that Q24 simply chopped off the challenge and refused to address it?  He doesn't want to be seen as backing down, but he clearly has NO INTENTION of discussing what he (or WTell) would need to do to make any sort of 'case' out of this.

And of course he took the opportunity to make a whole pile of new claims and assertions, all completely unsupported.

Then there's this classic, which should give you an idea of Q24's methods, and/or his research abilities:

Quote

Perhaps I missed you mention ceiling or wall panels earlier?

Yes, perhaps you did, when I said this:

Quote

{Quoting ChrLz}
..it is most likely to be from a collapsing ceiling segment.

Do you need a direct link, Q24?

Now how many folks think that he just missed that?  How many think that this is what he does all the time in his efforts to score points hoping that people won't check his 'work'?

And as just ONE example of his repetitive attempts to mislead, there's this:

Quote

why should it fail below the apparent fire zone and only in an isolated area?

As readers will note, I already asked him to support this claim, and he failed to do so - yet here it is being repeated as if nothing was queried.

Quote

I don't see any flash in the footage, so, if this occurred, it must have been some distance inside the building.

As I thought, he has never seen the explosion of something like metho which has virtually no visible flame, so this lack of knowledge gives him the right to move such an event so far away he can handwave it magically into the bin..?  Seriously, this is just pitiful.

Quote

It was never meant to be the most damning of evidence, just something to consider along with the rest.

Translation:  Yes, I have nothing, but I'll add it to my huge list of evidence for a conspiracy, anyway.  Who needs quality when you can have quantity?

I think we can see why it's such a large list...

[skyeagle409]

I did not see any evidence of an explosion and it seems to me that is a piece of fabric, not a person.