141 replies to this topic

[W Tell]

MID, on 14 June 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

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.

Dud. You still haven't brought anything to the conversation. Grammer Nazis "hide my chap".

[W Tell]

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

]

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.

I agree.

And for "whatever it was" that flew out the window, did you notice how quick it was to label it as something flimsy and light?

[MID]

W Tell, on 14 June 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

Dud. You still haven't brought anything to the conversation. Grammer Nazis "hide my chap".

OK.
It seems your contributions will remain in a  deteriorated state.

[W Tell]

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?

To be honost, you haven't posted any facts yet. We should be able to agree there was an explosian before the collapse.(unless of course someone can show this video as a fake... then it's conversation over.) You have made some claims, to your credit. Except for the floor/ceiling collapse.. which does't have a lot of merit based upon the volume of floor/ceiling that needs to come down at once to produce that kind expultion of presure. I haven't discounted it though.

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

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

Now who's being droll...

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

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

Yes. I would like to hear more about what you have to say on the subject. But be certain and for sure.. you shouldn't use me as an excuse to bolster your argument.

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..

Whether it was from a floor/ceiling collapse, or an explsion, the thing I find odd is that it came out of one window. I'll add this, only for something to think about, but a floor collapse does not direct the pressure. But exhaust from a directed bomb would.

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)..

I don't expect you to understand, but their are two stories to this same book. You, of course have read and believe the governments version. On the other side of the coin, are the CT group. When given it's due, the ones thinking through all of the possibilities are the CT group. Not the ones spouting the dogma given them. But something tells me this is lost on you.

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.

I can't believe I have to tell you this. (sigh) In a building like that..one mans floor is another mans ceiling.

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

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..

As has already been said, a small localized flash/bang. Nothing that would produse that much energy.

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

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..

Don't know you. You don't know me. Don't cheapen the conversation by blaming lack of real world experance. Disgusting tactic.

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

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.

Agreed on your first statement. It's much easier to say this blast was enough to throw some drapes out of a window. It's a whole nother beast to say it blew a man out of the window. I'm not sure how much pressure came out of that window, but it was "signifacant". Is that much obvious?

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

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.

You're wanting to say something. Might as well just spit it out.

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

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.

I'd ask the same of you. How much of the
floor/ceiling collapsed at once to displce that much air through one window?

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

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.

NO. You seem to have something on your mind. Let's hear and judge "it" on it's virtue. I'm not fond of this kind of discussion. I post first so you can disassemble it. You either have an opinion and post it, or you don't. Mine's obvious by now. If what you have to say is you're opinion, fine. It's taken .... with a grain of salt, of course. And contemplated. But if all you want to do is attack a differing opinion (or viewpoint) that gets posted first than I wont play along. I'd rather your argument stand on it's own merits. Not a tit for tat.

[W Tell]

MID, on 15 June 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

OK.
It seems your contributions will remain in a  deteriorated state.

Weed agree on that dud.

[W Tell]

unit, on 14 June 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

W Tell, you don't seem to get the message? ..everyone just wants the 911 event to 'go away', it didn't happen.. you know what i mean? get with the program.

cave dwellers with box cutters masterminded it and outfoxed the mightiest nation on earth.

jesus dude, didn't that pristine hijacker passport floating down from the impact spell it out for you?

case closed.

..and we got saddam, right? ..and gadaffi

now line up for your food stamps, bar-code and vaccinations like a good sheep already, the kardashians are on at 8:00, be there or be square

I didn't get the memo.
There seems to be enough volunteres to deliver the message though.:0

[W Tell]

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

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...




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.




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 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.




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.




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?




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.




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.

  

As much as I'd like to back you up for a change, your posts need none of that.:0

[psyche101]

W Tell, on 11 June 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

Don't think I'm not being honost. I didn't bring this in as evidence in an already established thread. I want to know what people think about this footage. If it's debunked, then here's the place to do so.

Even if it was just air, it had to build up some how. It's not air pressure from the collapse, that comes later. It's an explosion of something isn't it?

Mr Tell

I Do not post in here usually because I find it maddening how people are trying to get known murderers of the hook on a political agenda. Now, with that out of the way.

Have you ever been in a high Rise Building? If so, have you ever opened the door to the stair fire escape? If not, I suggest you give it a go, it will be difficult to open. Each floor has air conditioning, and that creates pressure in the closed space. Pressurisation fans are used to equalise the pressure in the fire escapes so that in the event of a fire you can actually open the door to the fire escape. This is known as buoyancy force. Humidity is also affected by the pressures. It is conceivable that with the building deteriorating that some fans cut out, and the pressures became unequal, and could possibly cause said apparent explosion.

That dark object could be a person, in fact it vaguely looks like a person in sitting position being thrown out, but then again it could be a curtain or even a coat stand. The clip is simply not clear enough to come to a definite conclusion, more information is required.

Edited by psyche101, 15 June 2012 - 05:48 AM.

[Q24]

Hi Chrizs,

Thank you for your last post - there is nothing constructive to respond to that has not been said in my previous post, the on topic substance of which you did not address, in the main opting for the silly ("nuclear explosion some kilometers away") and personal accusations - not the way I'd like to take the thread.  And it certainly has not been refuted that the ejection could have been caused by an explosive charge.  Anyhow, there was just this I thought deserved a quick response: -

Chrlzs, on 14 June 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

And did you notice that Q24 simply chopped off the challenge and refused to address it?

As W Tell said, if you have information or a suggestion you'd like to bring into the discussion then please do so.  That would be better than asking us to guess what you are thinking.  Personally I don't believe there is any further information that could resolve this issue, e.g. it is not possible to quantify the pressure of the expulsion in a meaningful way.

[Chrlzs]

Q24, on 15 June 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

... there is nothing constructive to respond to that has not been said in my previous post

Well, there's a surprise..

Quote

the on topic substance of which you did not address

That's because there was no substance, just handwaving.

Quote

it certainly has not been refuted that the ejection could have been caused by an explosive charge.

Neither has my nuclear device idea been refuted...  Q24, you're still not quite getting the point, are you?

Quote

As W Tell said, if you have information or a suggestion you'd like to bring into the discussion then please do so...

OK, I shall.  And remember, neither YOU or WTell did any of what will now follow.

First up, let me try to explain this to you gently - feel free to dispute any of the following, but do so in a logical step by step fashion. (No editing out bits you don't like..)

WTell opened this thread with a video.  His intent was (and still is) somewhat uncertain, but he seems to suggest that there was an explosion (of the incendiary type, methinks), and a person ejected by that.

Are we agreed so far?  If not do clarify..

You've now joined in, with the seeming intent of suggesting that this is 'evidence' - but you are being a little vague as to what you think it is evidence of, other than again, suggesting a deliberately placed explosive device.  But more to the point, you haven't shown us anything even remotely looking like an analysis, merely a whole pile of opinions and assumptions providing no support for any of them, and immediate (again unsupported) dismissal of any other possible causes.

Agreed?  If not, now's the time to clarify - feel free, in your next post, to clarify specifically what this is evidence for, and why.  Also feel free to add in anything that is in any way 'analytical'...  As an example - how did you identify this as a person?

Quote

Personally I don't believe there is any further information that could resolve this issue

Aha!  We are now getting closer to an admission...

Anway, I shall pause at this point and await any clarification or further analysis...  And THEN, I shall be happy to point out in great detail why this video is USELESS, and that any attempt by an armchair expert to make it fit their fantasies is just another fantasy.  I TRUST you are not one of those armchair experts.. but that then begs the question - why aren't YOU (and/or WTell) - as the promoters of the claim - bearing your responsibility to support the claim (not heard of 'burden of proof')? It's NOT my claim that there is something conspiratorial about the footage, it's YOURS.

BTW, if there is anyone else here with a decent knowledge of investigation and research who wishes to take up the cause, I'm happy to go into much more detail and discuss how REAL research is (or isn't) done..  But I won't be wasting my time further on WTell for obvious reasons (amongst which are things like his belief that a ceiling can't collapse unless the floor above comes down...  My guess is that he isn't in the building trade...).

I await clarification.. after which I'm happy to go through what sort of information would be required to actually analyse this video.  And then the readers will be able to judge who is able to swim at the deep end, and who is just poking their toe into a puddle while claiming to have won the last Olympic 50m freestyle..

[Q24]

Chrlzs, on 15 June 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

OK, I shall. And remember, neither YOU or WTell did any of what will now follow.

First up, let me try to explain this to you gently - feel free to dispute any of the following, but do so in a logical step by step fashion. (No editing out bits you don't like..)

WTell opened this thread with a video. His intent was (and still is) somewhat uncertain, but he seems to suggest that there was an explosion (of the incendiary type, methinks), and a person ejected by that.

Are we agreed so far? If not do clarify..

You've now joined in, with the seeming intent of suggesting that this is 'evidence' - but you are being a little vague as to what you think it is evidence of, other than again, suggesting a deliberately placed explosive device. But more to the point, you haven't shown us anything even remotely looking like an analysis, merely a whole pile of opinions and assumptions providing no support for any of them, and immediate (again unsupported) dismissal of any other possible causes.

Agreed? If not, now's the time to clarify - feel free, in your next post, to clarify specifically what this is evidence for, and why. Also feel free to add in anything that is in any way 'analytical'... As an example - how did you identify this as a person?

I can't agree with the way you have worded it...

Methinks it would be worthwhile you going back and reading word for word what W Tell and myself have actually said. For one example... neither of us have claimed the object is definitely a person (I haven't commented on the object at all)... yet you end with the question above. Also, I did already spell out both of our positions/intents toward the end of my post #36...

It's quite simple - W Tell and myself would like to discuss the observation and likely cause - that is why the thread was created. We are not closed minded... I think earlier W Tell said he was open to the idea of a floor collapse, and I couldn't entirely rule out your methylated spirit blast (though don't find it the best answer). So... if you have any further relevant information to add or discuss on the observation (as you keep hinting but not delivering), we'd love to hear it.

Chrlzs, on 15 June 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

why aren't YOU (and/or WTell) - as the promoters of the claim - bearing your responsibility to support the claim (not heard of 'burden of proof')? It's NOT my claim that there is something conspiratorial about the footage, it's YOURS.

Neither of us have drawn a definite conclusion: "it was an explosive/demolition charge because X, Y and Z". Again, what we would actually like to discuss is: "what are the possible causes for the observation?" Along with the pros and cons of each.

If you have anything to rule out our leading hypothesis which you so obviously don't like, then go ahead. If you have anything to support your own favoured hypothesis then let us know and we will take a look. Let's weigh up the options and everyone can decide the likely cause.

Currently you're writing a lot but not saying much (in way of the topic).

Finally to add - this observation is a drop in the sea in way of evidence for demolition of the WTC buildings. I would think that W Tell, and certainly myself, are viewing the observation in context of the wider evidence which we are aware of. I find this best as it allows us to provide a one fit answer to explain all observations... and that answer, is demolition. On the other hand, I know that official theorists don't like to view the body of evidence, for there is no one fit answer, preferring to explain each observation in isolation. The result is a ever-growing list of coincidental and disparate explanations.

The above becomes relevant when considering Occam's razor: a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.

Anyhow, please continue with your methylated spirits hypothesis (yet another new one for official theorists to add to the list)...

[MID]

W Tell, on 15 June 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

Weed agree on that dud.

Indeed, I think most people agree that  weed has a great deal to do with one deveoping into  a dud .

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Could I just bring it to the attention of people that this site has rules, one of which is this one:

Quote

5h. Redundant quoting: Avoid quoting large amounts of material just to provide a short reply, only quote what you need to in order to avoid ambiguity.

Thank you.

[NavyDoc]

W Tell, on 11 June 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

Don't think I'm not being honost. I didn't bring this in as evidence in an already established thread. I want to know what people think about this footage. If it's debunked, then here's the place to do so.

Even if it was just air, it had to build up some how. It's not air pressure from the collapse, that comes later. It's an explosion of something isn't it?

Occam's razor. We know that fires blow out windows all of the time. This phenomenon is see by fires frequently.  The simplest answer is that this window was blown out by the fire, rather than some sort of charge.

[W Tell]

psyche101, on 15 June 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

Mr Tell

I Do not post in here usually because I find it maddening how people are trying to get known murderers of the hook on a political agenda. Now, with that out of the way.

Have you ever been in a high Rise Building? If so, have you ever opened the door to the stair fire escape? If not, I suggest you give it a go, it will be difficult to open. Each floor has air conditioning, and that creates pressure in the closed space. Pressurisation fans are used to equalise the pressure in the fire escapes so that in the event of a fire you can actually open the door to the fire escape. This is known as buoyancy force. Humidity is also affected by the pressures. It is conceivable that with the building deteriorating that some fans cut out, and the pressures became unequal, and could possibly cause said apparent explosion.

That dark object could be a person, in fact it vaguely looks like a person in sitting position being thrown out, but then again it could be a curtain or even a coat stand. The clip is simply not clear enough to come to a definite conclusion, more information is required.

Now that is some food for thought. I've never tried to open the door to the stairwell. Could there be so much pressure in the stairwell, that when released, that it would create that much force?