Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

WTC7


Q24

Recommended Posts

I'm not talking about "after the first few impacts", I was talking about halfway through the collapse. I did not say the upper block was "immediately turned into dust and sifted through a wire mesh", only that it should be broken up by halfway through collapse. I did not say the debris was "gently poured", only that the upper block is no longer a single solid/rigid mass.

It is difficult to discuss the subject when you misunderstand everything I say despite my best effort to make it simple.

Anyhow, the finding further below actually changes my opinion of what occurred to a degree - the upper block did not even need to be broken up as it was nearly outside of the building footprint.

Half way through the collapse there would be 50 floors worth of additional rubble added to the descending mass, minus whatever percentage was expelled outward.

You are blaming me for not reading your mind to discern that you were specifically talking about halfway through the collapse here?

That is nonsense because this picture alone...

construction-1.jpg

... shows that the uppermost core at any time can stand with no risk whatsoever without support from at least three levels of floor trusses/external columns. That means if energy is expended in debris breaking the floors then the core must still be contended with, i.e. it is not so simple as to state the core structure is "useless and unstable" without the floors.

The 'spire' proves this anyway, as it remains standing for in excess of 20 seconds after the floors are removed from its uppermost point, despite all that debris coming down around it. It is only when the 'spire' is freestanding over approximately 60 stories that it comes down.

Three whole floors near the base during construction is not the same as 50 to 80+ floors towering above after the supporting floors have been violently stripped away in a collapse. Are you honestly trying to compare the two?

It is the antena without doubt - the close-up video from a different angle which I previously posted shows it better (though is not such use to track the antena movement). The fact that the image quality is poor is completely irrelevant - it is good enough to track the antena movement that I depicted.

The antena had to be connected to the roof with the continued rotation of the upper block carrying it to the horizontal position. It is the only way it could get there. The circle and blue vertical line inserted below show where contined rotation of the upper block would place the roofline: -

hhgj4.jpg

The roofline is right where the antena base is.

The above circle and blue line are not precise depictions of where I think the roofline rotated because obviously the upper block was in downward motion at the same time as the rotation, i.e. it would be an elongated oval rather than the perfect circle (now I'm wondering why I didn't just draw that - doh, never mind). It is only meant to show where the continued rotation through the drop would place the antena - right where it was observed in the video footage.

How else can the base of the antena move outside the building footprint, so far from its starting centre-line?

The upper block tilted right off - it was no longer driving the collapse!

I believe that I already agreed with you that it was most likely the antenna...

As for it still being attached to the roof, you have done nothing to establish this. If the roof is there, it is hidden by smoke and debris clouds. Or do you have some kind of magical x-ray glasses that you are viewing this video with allowing you to see the roof line through that mess?

That leaves a huge black hole in the official explanation of complete collapse.

Stupid Bazant.

That should be a lesson to anyone who comes up with assumptive calculations without first observing the reality.

It doesn't leave any black hole in how the building collapsed and it does absolutely nothing to Bazant's limiting case.

The discussion has always been about Bazant's theory. You are right Bazant was not calculating the actual collapse. But no you cannot just discount reality in favour of non-matching hypotheticals - unless you want to live in fantasy land. Or do you still think it 'conservative' to have that rigid upper block falling inside the tower footprint?

Pffft.

If you want to talk about Bazant's theory talk about his theory within the context of the model he presents. As soon as you compare it to the actual collapse you are comparing apples to oranges.

You need to understand that Bazant's theory can be completely sound even if it doesn't match every little detail of the actual collapse. If Bazant's theory is not sound, you should be able to falsify it within the boundaries of the model he has presented.

If you want to talk about the actual collapse, we can talk about the actual collapse. If you want to talk about Bazant's model, we can talk about Bazant's model. They are not one and the same, and the sooner you make that distinction within your mind, the sooner we can have an actual discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to hear that you now accept the fact that there are other things that make sounds simliar to explosions, but nothing to do with explosives.

And here we go again with more fantasy based argument.

Just like I know buildings can collapse from earthquakes.

Just like I know that there is a difference between box beams and I beams.

Just like I understand that A&E9/11 truth are not demolition experts.

Just like I know there are other things that sound similar to explosions.

The problem is you are sitting behind a computer and you wasn't there, you have provided no evidence for these other explosions that the people heard and video has captured.

They could be other things, but they could also be explosives and you have not provided the evidence which disproves that possibility.

No matter how many times you spam the thread! :w00t:

What you hear here;

Is what you DON'T hear, here.

There were explosions before the collapse in the WTC7 and the first building probably wasn't demolished with the aid of thermite.

And not the 175 pound plus of thermite you think it needs to cut a steel column either! :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are forgetting that the hotel did not suffer from impact damage, only fire, unlike the WTC buildings, which suffered from impact and fire damage.

That's why I included WTC5 which you have doublethinked your way around! It suffered much more impact and fire damaged than WTC7 and still stood.
Ok, let's try again.
No need, your denial of the evidence doesn't constitute another try just because you have ignored the flaw in your entire argument.
Trade_Center_Explosion.jpg

More than 1000 pounds of explosives detonated and the WTC Tower is still standing. SUPER FAIL for explosives!!

That is because they were placed in and small location, but if they had started a fire, the whole thing would have come down by your logic.

tanzaniaembassybombing.jpg

Despite a huge bomb, the building is still standing. SUPER FAIL for explosives!!

Maybe they should have used a fire, because according to your logic, fire is capable of bringing down an entire structure, all the undamaged parts included, make it fall down into its own footprint in about 7 hours, therefore......you have to agree.... :yes:

That fire is without a doubt, the most time efficient, fastest and quickest way to demolish a building.

beirut.US.embassy.bombing.1983.546548989.jpg

Bomb fails to bring down that building. SUPER FAIL for explosives!!

Probably because the bombers were amateurs, although no doubt using fires will supersede instead of terrorist bombs.
I see that you still haven't provided your evidence that explosives were used.
I don't need to provide evidence for something you can't disprove without to resorting to your imagination for argument that you invented which serve no purpose and points I never made. You will even lie rather than accept the remotest possibility let alone it being da twoof!! lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it couldn't have been explosives because sensors in the area did not detect bomb explosions.
Refuted already, Blanchard is not a demo expert as he ain't demolished anything but himself in that poor paper you keep spamming the forum with. Its not like you picked out salient points.

No one as seen the data other than Brent Blanchard, unless you have remotely viewed it. :rolleyes:

One the contrary, the sound of that crane was the same kind of sound others heard in New York City.
So what evidence do you have it was a crane? Were people at GZ and news report a crane collapsing nearby? Any evidence to suggest that notion? Or will this be edited out and ignore in your brain and therefore your reply.

Posting a youtube video of what you think they heard and what the videos posted sound like, therefore it ist evidence that the hundreds of people who were there are wrong, doesn't work either. An internet warriors opinion are no substitute for the people quotes, testimonies and even sworn statements. You are fooling yourself and maybe a gullible poster or two.

Brent Blanchard examined the facts and stated that his sensors never recorded bomb explosions.
And didn't post the data in his 12 page report.

Or will this be edited out in your reply.

Mr. Reality is not required to implode buildings to know the truth.
He is if you are touting him as an expert. Edited by Stundie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I included WTC5 which you have doublethinked your way around! It suffered much more impact and fire damaged than WTC7 and still stood.

Building construction can determine many things.

No need, your denial of the evidence doesn't constitute another try just because you have ignored the flaw in your entire argument.

Let's take a step back. I posted where demolition experts on the scene of the collapse have stated for the record that they neither heard nor saw explosions. Those facts are backed by the fact detectors in the gernal area, which failed to detect signs of bomb explosions

The company that has such detectors also indicated that its detectors did not detect explosions. There is a major difference between sounds that can be mistaken as explosions and actual bomb explosions, but you would have known that if you've heard bombs go off, which obviously, you haven't .

That fire is without a doubt, the most time efficient, fastest and quickest way to demolish a building.

Fire, in conjunction with impact damage, did the job of bringing down the WTC buildings and did so in the absence of explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here we go again with more fantasy based argument.

I am right on the mark.

Just like I know buildings can collapse from earthquakes.

I posted a photo where a steel-framed building collapsed during an earthquake. If you missed it, then go back until you find it.

Just like I know that there is a difference between box beams and I beams.

I don't think you understood the experiment differences between the I-beam and the box beam.

The problem is you are sitting behind a computer and you wasn't there, you have provided no evidence for these other explosions that the people heard and video has captured.

I can tell you from first hand experience in war zones that there were no bomb explosions evident in any of the WTC videos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refuted already, Blanchard is not a demo expert...

How amusing!! Brent Blanchard it one ot the top demolition experts in the country and you don't need a college degree to know how to push a button.

How Building Implosions Work

Becoming a Blaster

Brent Blanchard, an implosion expert with Protec Documentation Services, says that countless implosion enthusiasts ask him the very same question: "How can I become a blaster or demolition expert?" There is no "blaster school" or organized demolition instruction program in the world, Blanchard says, so the only way to become a demolition expert is learn on the job.

Prospective blasters will work at an established blasting company until they know the field inside and out. Then, they can either stay on with their boss or venture out on their own and compete with the blasters who trained them.

My link

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent Blanchard

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the above video is unbelievably bad. I can only presume that some supporters of the Official Account are now

resorting to the same dishonest tactics that some of the Inside Job supporters do. Ie. making ridiculous videos

to play mind games...is it a 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander type of thing'?

What exactly is wrong with that video bee?

If you dispute the timing as analyzed in the video, can you point to the moments in the video where the collapses actually ceased?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need to provide evidence for something .....

That is because you don't have evidence to provide, which explains why you have failed to provide any evidence.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posting a youtube video of what you think they heard and what the videos posted sound like, therefore it ist evidence that the hundreds of people who were there are wrong, doesn't work either.

It should considering that none of the detectors detected bomb explosions and add to the fact that some of the firefighters who reported hearing explosions later found that the sounds they attributed to explosions were from something other than explosives.

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

This paper is written to demonstrate that those who believe that the World Trade Centre was destroyed by controlled demolition, rather than the impact of the planes, are mistaken.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which building came down from fires??

The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire.

beijing_torch.jpg

No collapse! SUPER FAIL for fire!! Lets try again!

The First Interstate Bank Fire.

fib_la_fire_lg_s.jpg

No collapse! SUPER FAIL for fire!!

The 1 New York Plaza Fire.

fib_la_fire1_s.jpg

Oh no, it's another SUPER FAIL for fire!!

Caracas Tower Fire

parque_central2.jpg

SUPER FAIL AGAIN!!

Now naturally before you go start stating the obvious, everyone is aware that these buildings didn't have any impact damage, so lets look at some others that did.

WTC5

wtc5_fire_floors.jpg

That another SUPER FAIL for fires and impact damage.

Obviously, all of these buildings were designed differently, so lets use closer comparisons.

McCormick Building

mccormick_fire.jpg

Ooohhh!! Very close, some of it has collapsed, but not entirely, so it's another fail.

Windsor Towers.

madrid_remains.jpg

Its another fail, although not as bad a fail as the others. I'm sure we can get a win for fires!!

Kader Toy Factory

kade-m16.jpg

HURRAH!! We have a win, it looks like it might have collapsed to the ground.

Overpass Near San Francisco

collapse2.600..jpg

Its a win!! WOW!! Fires...Come on!!

So there you have it, fires can bring down third world sweatshops and overpasses.

The closest comparisons out of all of them, to the WTC 7!! :w00t:

All up, SUPER FAIL! :w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

*Snip*

2e. Garbage posting: Do not deliberately post nonsense either for personal amusement or to wind up other members, keep your posts sensible.

Edited by Karlis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All up, SUPER FAIL! :w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

*Snip*

2e. Garbage posting: Do not deliberately post nonsense either for personal amusement or to wind up other members, keep your posts sensible.

The bottom line is, we have evidence of fires and impact damage within the WTC buildings before they collapsed and the fires were hot enough to weaken steel. What we don't have is evidence of bombs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steering this back to the original thread...

I have repeatedly said I don't think the upper block should stop dead and that a loss of momentum should occur only after the upper block has broken up... obviously this can only occur some way (halfway?) through the collapse. Why do you think I was pointing out the significant loss of momentum halfway through collapse at 0:22 in the earlier video?

Yes there would be a lot of rubble and broken steelwork falling halfway through the collapse. This is completely different to a rigid block which can compact the debris and deliver all impact forces at each level in a single instant. Instead it is individual pieces which meet different resistance at different times and is more readily able to be deflected/follow path of least resistance. A non-rigid mass of debris is unlike a rigid block - they are not "essentially" the same and neither have you explained that comment - there are completely different calculations required for each case.

Bazant's theory for complete collapse is only viable to a rigid upper block driving the collapse and an ever increasing momentum - neither of which compare to the reality and neither of which are 'conservative', but in fact detrimental to the tower survival.

Your logic doesn't fit. If the descending mass largely avoids the most resistant portions of the lower structure, it has a more dramatic effect on the less resistant portions. This does not lead to cessation of collapse, it leads to continuation of collapse at a higher rate of speed.

I'm not saying that the whole core structure should remain standing. I am saying that even after energy is expended in destroying a number of floors, the immediate core structure is not rendered "useless" and still needs further energy to destroy. This is opposite to destroying the core columns first which in contrast would render the floors useless.

This is why Bazant should be applying impact forces across the whole structure (columns, bracing, floor trusses), and not making a simplified assumption that "all the impact forces go into the columns". This is not reality nor 'conservative', but in fact detrimental to the tower survival.

It is not reality, but it is conservative. Avoiding the strongest elements and taking out everything else is more detrimental to the tower survival.

Of course, if you have a better model to present for all of us, I'm willing to look at it.

The upper block rotation is the only way the antena base can reach that position.

No it isn't.

If you disagree then you need to answer the question I asked: -

How else can the base of the antena move outside the building footprint, so far from its starting centre-line?

No I don't.

If the upper block did not continue to rotate (as the criminal Bazant 'calculates') and the antena broke free of the roof, then the pivot point of the antena base should be close to the starting centre line. That is how we know the upper block continued to rotate outside of the building footprint - because the antena base is well outside of the building footprint.

Note: no "magical x-ray glasses" are necessary for this analysis. It can all be determined knowing length of the antena, the motion of the antena tip and initial rotation of the upper block.

How do you know the antenna is fully intact if all you can see is the tip?

Yes it does because the official theory needs the upper block to drive the collapse.

The official theory assumes a ) but the reality was b ) : -

ki7ho.jpg

Once again assumption a ) is not 'conservative', but in fact detrimental to the tower survival.

This ( b ) image is your construct and you haven't substantiated it with anything of substance at all.

I could hardly have said it better - good to see you distance Bazant's theory from any form of reality.

Now what you must realise, is that Bazant could calculate how the tower could hypothetically be destroyed by a meteor strike... but it would mean nothing when the observable reality shows that did not occur.

So if Bazant's complete collapse theory is not a reality, then what the hell is it? Propaganda? A lie? Nothing to the truth of the matter, that is for certain.

You must understand that Bazant cannot just fabricate any assumption he likes, otherwise the theory is meaningless - a fantasy - the theory must fit within the bounds of reality. If the theory were based on 'conservative' assumptions, that would be acceptable, but it is not, through and through.

Bazant's theory does not explain the collapses that occurred on 9/11 (not any more than a meteor strike explains it). A revision is needed; another theory that is truly 'conservative' within the reality.

Comparing Bazant's model to a meteor strike is completely invalid and you know it, or at least you should know it. His model is a limiting case. I'm not sure why I have to keep telling you this.

You've made it clear that you disagree, but you have not shown how Bazant's model isn't a limiting case. You've complained about the model excessively but no amount of whining on its own will be compelling. If you want to effectively dismiss Bazant's model you must do so within the bounds of the model. You must establish that he has made some kind of fundamental flaw and show, along with the related equations and explanations, exactly how it is wrong and what is (in your opinion) right.

Until you do so you'll have about as much real impact on the discussion as an infant in a car seat who is crying because he has soiled himself. It will serve as a distraction, momentarily, but nothing more.

Maybe you could revisit the supposed missing application of Newton's third law? Can you demonstrate for us where he did that? Can you point to the portions of his equations which don't account for it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way... is this the fully intact antenna that you are proposing is still attached to the roof?

342887920.png

Source

Edit to add animated GIF comparison from page 2 of the above link...

829190212.gif

I dunno... I can't be sure... but it does look like a pretty good match to me...

Are you still of the opinion that the only possible explanation is that the entire upper block fell outside of the building's footprint?

Original image...

124vxuc.png

Edited by booNyzarC
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've made it clear that you disagree, but you have not shown how Bazant's model isn't a limiting case. You've complained about the model excessively but no amount of whining on its own will be compelling. If you want to effectively dismiss Bazant's model you must do so within the bounds of the model. You must establish that he has made some kind of fundamental flaw and show, along with the related equations and explanations, exactly how it is wrong and what is (in your opinion) right.

Until you do so you'll have about as much real impact on the discussion as an infant in a car seat who is crying because he has soiled himself. It will serve as a distraction, momentarily, but nothing more.

Maybe you could revisit the supposed missing application of Newton's third law? Can you demonstrate for us where he did that? Can you point to the portions of his equations which don't account for it?

I haven't really been following the back and forth between you two, but I'm under the impression that Bazants model Isn't based on the actual collapse is that correct? As in It is not a portrayal of how the towers actually collapsed. Is that right?

It's a "If column X crushes column Y then the effect to column Z is this:..." type of paper Yes? No?

I'm just a little confused why you both are arguing over a model that doesn't prove anything either way....Because It's not what happened.

Maybe I missed something though. Wouldn't surprise me on a sunday arvo. :lol:

Edited by Wandering
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't really been following the back and forth between you two, but I'm under the impression that Bazants model Isn't based on the actual collapse is that correct? As in It is not a portrayal of how the towers actually collapsed. Is that right?

It's a "If column X crushes column Y then the effect to column Z is this:..." type of paper Yes? No?

I'm just a little confused why you both are arguing over a model that doesn't prove anything either way....Because It's not what happened.

Maybe I missed something though. Wouldn't surprise me on a sunday arvo. :lol:

Bazant's papers represent what is called "a limiting case." In the papers he positions the buildings in "a best case scenario" in favor of arresting the collapse. If the papers find that global collapse ensues under the most collapse resistant conditions, then they prove that global collapse will ensue under any condition, including the actual "real world" collapse scenarios.

We are arguing about it because Q24 does not accept that Bazant's case is in fact "a limiting case," and he accuses Bazant of neglecting to account for Newton's third law of motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here we go again with more fantasy based argument.

The only fantasy here is yours

Just like I know there are other things that sound similar to explosions.

So how can you be 100% sure what you heard on the video was demolition explosives? Because the guys on the otherside of the video said so? Really? :w00t:

The problem is you are sitting behind a computer and you wasn't there, you have provided no evidence for these other explosions that the people heard and video has captured.

Sorry but the burden of proof is on your side. Offical Story states there where no explosions. So far all you have come to the table with is "non-expert first hand accounts of explosions due to demolition charges" . Now prove to me demolition was used.

They could be other things, but they could also be explosives and you have not provided the evidence which disproves that possibility.

Again, it is YOU who has to provide CLEAR evidence explosives were used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Building construction can determine many things.
Yet you can't tell us what was so unique about the WTC7 that allowed fire to demolish it, yet other buildings except an over pass and sweatshop all survived fires.

Even WTC5 which you conviently ignored suffered damage too.

Let's take a step back. I posted where demolition experts on the scene of the collapse have stated for the record that they neither heard nor saw explosions.
Explain how he's an expert when he's never demolished a building?
Those facts are backed by the fact detectors in the gernal area, which failed to detect signs of bomb explosions
Show us the data from Blanchard and not the paper, because as we all know, there is no data.

Just words from a man you think is an expert whose paper has already been destroyed by a non expert.

The company that has such detectors also indicated that its detectors did not detect explosions.
Show is the data then, cause it's not in his paper.
There is a major difference between sounds that can be mistaken as explosions and actual bomb explosions, but you would have known that if you've heard bombs go off, which obviously, you haven't .
Sorry but you wasn't there to know if what they heard and you have no evidence for what these explosions could have been mistaken for.

Sitting behind a keyboard and telling us that they could be mistaken cause you know better and other things make explosives and that you know better than me or the people at GZ, is not evidence or even a valid argument. Its your opinion and a poorly formed one at that!

Fire, in conjunction with impact damage, did the job of bringing down the WTC buildings and did so in the absence of explosives.
Well until you have source for what they heard, you could be wrong.

Sitting behind your screen being an internet warrior is not evidence they are incorrect, therefore explosives are a possibilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am right on the mark.

With these arguments, I doubt it...lol

.....buildings can collapse from earthquakes.

..... there is a difference between box beams and I beams.

...... that A&E9/11 truth are not demolition experts.

.....there are other things that sound similar to explosions.

I posted a photo where a steel-framed building collapsed during an earthquake. If you missed it, then go back until you find it.
And your point was what exactly?

Building collapse from eathquakes. :w00t:

Pure genius!

I don't think you understood the experiment differences between the I-beam and the box beam.
I understand the difference but what you don't understand It is irrelvant, the video proves that a simply built, cheap thermite device can be made which cuts steel.
I can tell you from first hand experience in war zones that there were no bomb explosions evident in any of the WTC videos.
You can tell me.... :yes: .. because you have first hand experience, so therefore you know better than those at GZ and the videos of explosions! :w00t:

How do you know that out of all those people, like firefighters, police, general public, reporters that they have no first hand experience, heck have you ever thought that some might have MORE FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE THAN YOU! :w00t: Of course not, you are internet warrior, you claim to know more than anyone about what they heard at GZ because you are an expert and no one including those who were there have more first hand experience than you, therefore you can't be taught nothing because in your mind, you think you are some explosives jedi!

Please stop this merry go round, I'm laughing to much that you think your opinion counters the numerous videos capturing explosions and the hundreds of accounts of explosions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How amusing!! Brent Blanchard it one ot the top demolition experts in the country and you don't need a college degree to know how to push a button.

But you need experience of demollishing a building to be an expert in demolishing buildings..

As far as I'm aware, Brent Blanchard has no experience in demolishing building. You have yet to neither confirm or deny it either. I'll give you the answer, he hasn't!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know that out of all those people, like firefighters, police, general public, reporters that they have no first hand experience, heck have you ever thought that some might have MORE FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE THAN YOU! :w00t: Of course not, you are internet warrior, you claim to know more than anyone about what they heard at GZ because you are an expert and no one including those who were there have more first hand experience than you, therefore you can't be taught nothing because in your mind, you think you are some explosives jedi!

Do you have substantiating evidence of their experience in identifying demolition explosions as well? You don't! SEEMS like you are assuming as well.

Please stop this merry go round, I'm laughing to much that you think your opinion counters the numerous videos capturing explosions and the hundreds of accounts of explosions.

I will stop MY merry go round with your witness accounds to hearing "DEMOLITION" explosions once you provice me irrefutible evidence of explosive remains.

Till then we can keep going round and round about my "assumptions" and your "assuptions".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only fantasy here is yours
Fantasy, I'm not the one whose imagining other things that there is no evidence to support and disbelieve what the people at GZ heard.
So how can you be 100% sure what you heard on the video was demolition explosives?
Who says I'm 100% sure??

Come on, this is Skyeagles stick! Don't sink to that kind of level of argument.

if you have read what I've said all along, I've always maintained that the explosives were a possibility. And cause I'm not 100% sure and therefore consider other possibilities, but I've not seen any evidence which that has persuaded me that would make me think, they are wrong, you are right.

Because the guys on the otherside of the video said so? Really? :w00t:
And why do you believe othewise, because some you and some dudes on the internet think you know better?? Really?? :w00t:

I have to accept the numerous testimonies, statements, reports, footage of explosions because this a possibility as this what the people at GZ were saying, unless you were there and know better, then you can't top that kind of evidence especially the volume because you and some dudes on the internet think you know better without as so much as a single report of a crane snapping and while I accept that some of the account might be explainable, until I see evidence to suggest otherwise, I'll trust the people who at GZ there any day of the week than some dudes on the net.

Sorry but the burden of proof is on your side.
To prove what, that fires csan bring down a 47 storey building quicker than any demolition company or jihadist nutter could ever have wished for, in a nice pile into it's own footprint.

I doubt that!

Offical Story states there where no explosions.
That's the problem with offical stories, they are sometimes wrong because even though the offical story states it, there is evidence which shows the possibility is wrong.

I hope your argument isn't, because its official, therefore it's true? Cause that would then beg the question, how anyone with such a dogmatic religious belief in the official story ever be able to question it or challenge it. Cause thats faith and I ain't got much.

So far all you have come to the table with is "non-expert first hand accounts of explosions due to demolition charges" .
And so far you have come with none expert second hand accounts of ANYTHING other than explosives,
Now prove to me demolition was used.
Not here to prove it, just here to show its possible,

If you don't think its possible, you are entitled to your opinion, but it's not based in any kind of reality.

Again, it is YOU who has to provide CLEAR evidence explosives were used.
What evidence would satisfy you? Hundreds of people witnessing the explosive being planted? Wouldn't that make their accounts irrelevant due to the fact they don't know what demolition guys look like, cause how many of them know what a demolition expert looks like, by looking at one, right? Kind of like those people who witnessed molten steel but didn't witness it.

Or maybe det cord, miles and miles upon it would have been found in the quickly shift out debris and steel that investigator barely got a look at before it was sold.

When you provide CLEAR EVIDENCE it was something else, cause I can't provide evidence any clearer than all the accounts, then I have to go with the evidence of the people who were there, I'm afriad.

I'm sure you understand... :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have substantiating evidence of their experience in identifying demolition explosions as well? You don't! SEEMS like you are assuming as well.
I'm not assuming anything other than the people at GZ know better than you and their evidence is much more compelling than another internet warrior joining the crusade.

Can't say fairer than that can you.

I will stop MY merry go round with your witness accounds to hearing "DEMOLITION" explosions once you provice me irrefutible evidence of explosive remains.
Who said I have irrefutible evidence of explosives, let alone the remains? :blink:

This is hilarious, we are watching another decent into madness creating arguments that I have never made and then demanding me to prove something I have never once claimed.

Till then we can keep going round and round about my "assumptions" and your "assuptions".

Mine are based on evidence that of the people who were there and the videos, your is based on a bunch of guys who were never there and think they know better!

Denial and spam make a great monty pyhton joke, but do not make a great counter argument to the people who were actually there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain how he's an expert when he's never demolished a building?

Explain how Carl Sagan was an expert in Exobiology although he had never touched a specimen of extraterrestrial life (so far as we know, anyway) nor had he ever once set foot on another planet.

Sorry but you wasn't there to know if what they heard

Just like you "wasn't" there to know if what they heard was actually explosions or other events, the sounds of which could very easily be confused by someone with little or no experience in explosives / explosions, or by someone under the enormous stress, strain and confusion that people experienced that day.

you have no evidence for what these explosions could have been mistaken for.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Perhaps you have ignored missed the discussion on the elevators?

While probably not accounting for all the "sounds of explosions", not only is it quite possible, it is quite probable that falling elevator cars can and do explain some of the "sounds of explosions" heard that day.

Sitting behind a keyboard and telling us that they could be mistaken cause you know better and other things make explosives and that you know better than me or the people at GZ, is not evidence or even a valid argument.

Just as your argument that because someone was at GZ means that they are better able to distinguish between the sound of an explosive and some other event that sounds like an explosion is neither evidence or valid.

Fact: People can be mistaken about what they have seen and heard in times of great stress, strain and confusion.

Fact: Elevator cars were responsible for at least some of the "sounds of explosions" hear that day. This evidence has already been presented.

Fact: It is possible and quite probable that some of the "sounds of explosions" heard and other accounts of explosions being witnessed visually could very well be actual explosions, but that does not mean that the only explanation is that they were the sounds of "demolition charges" or :"secondary devices" as some conspiracy theorists would like us to believe.

Its your opinion and a poorly formed one at that!

Regardless, he is entitled to his opinion, just as you are entitled to yours and just as I am entitled to say that, in my opinion, your opinion is equally ill-informed.

Your thinking that he is wrong doesn't make him wrong, just as your thinking that the people at GZ were right doesn't make them right.

Well until you have source for what they heard, you could be wrong.

Just as your witnesses could be wrong about what they heard as well unless you are able to provide sufficient background information for all of them which will show that they are experts in the field of explosives and / or building demolition.

Sitting behind your screen being an internet warrior is not evidence they are incorrect,

Nor is sitting behind yours evidence that they were correct.

therefore explosives are a possibilty.

A possibilty not supported by direct evidence, only assumptions about the validity of "eyewitness testimony", which is known to not be as reliable as most conspoiracy theorists people would like it to be.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantasy, I'm not the one whose imagining other things that there is no evidence to support and disbelieve what the people at GZ heard.

Who says I'm 100% sure??

Come on, this is Skyeagles stick! Don't sink to that kind of level of argument.

I am not sinking to any kind of level. I am just hoping you understand that your evidence that explosive "may" have been used is based on eye witness accounts that may or may not have experience in recognizing the difference between demolition explosives and something else.

if you have read what I've said all along, I've always maintained that the explosives were a possibility. And cause I'm not 100% sure and therefore consider other possibilities, but I've not seen any evidence which that has persuaded me that would make me think, they are wrong, you are right.

And why do you believe othewise, because some you and some dudes on the internet think you know better?? Really?? :w00t:

I have been reading. To me so far is "If it wasn't fires and impact damage that brought down WTC7 so it must be demolition"

I have to accept the numerous testimonies, statements, reports, footage of explosions because this a possibility as this what the people at GZ were saying, unless you were there and know better, then you can't top that kind of evidence especially the volume because you and some dudes on the internet think you know better without as so much as a single report of a crane snapping and while I accept that some of the account might be explainable, until I see evidence to suggest otherwise, I'll trust the people who at GZ there any day of the week than some dudes on the net.

Thats fine, you are entitled to your opinion. Where I have a problem, is beleiving witness accounts of hearing demolition explosions without taking into account what other sounds it could have been. Falling debris, elevators slamming to ground level, etc. First reaction to sounds can be mistaken can it not?

To prove what, that fires csan bring down a 47 storey building quicker than any demolition company or jihadist nutter could ever have wished for, in a nice pile into it's own footprint.

Wrong. Impact damage AND Fire.. You seem to always leave out the fact that WTC7 suffered impact damage from falling debris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.