Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

You failed to provide what I specifically asked BR. I for one am not totally surprised.

Again I will ask. Show me a video with audio where you can hear a discernable shockwaves strong enough to vertically displace debris "hundreds of feet".

A burst of energy that strong would have been heard from a few miles away, yet video cameras within the vicinity of the collapse had no such evidence.

There within itself is a mystery the likes of AE911T have never bothered to address. They say explosives vertically shot beams, yet no audio? How mysterious......

To be fair if there is a pic of the finance centre with impaled chunks of the trade centre embedded, then we've got TWO mysteries, that BOTH sides are not addressing... If that pic is accurate, then no video or audio is needed, just a bit of research into the force needed to achieve the end result.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair if there is a pic of the finance centre with impaled chunks of the trade centre embedded, then we've got TWO mysteries, that BOTH sides are not addressing... If that pic is accurate, then no video or audio is needed, just a bit of research into the force needed to achieve the end result.

And the physics of a chaotic collapse of debris falling from a distance of several hundred feet is not a valid explaination?

Conspiracy theorist regarding this subject seem to start off at a predisposed notion that ONLY Controlled Demolition is the answer. When, quite frankly, a chaotic scattering of debris is a much more simplified, yet highly plausible answer.

Which is why a video with audio during the collapse specifically proving the amount of energy required to displace debris that far is what I am looking for to prove the demo theory.

Are you willing to provide such evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a picture of the piece impaled, and it is consistent with the fairly symmetrical distribution of other smaller debris. That symmetrical distribution of debris, when viewed from above, is one of the main points addressed by Richard Gage et al in their analysis.

That picture was shown very early in the game, within a day or two of the attacks. I'm really sorry I'm not skilled enough to provide a link to it, but it was there years ago. Audio is not necessary, as Spinebreaker mentioned. The picture speaks 1000 words.

And to compare to the very recent event of the high rise catching fire in Russia somewhere, just last 2 or 3 months, that shows what happens when there are no explosives involved. In the Russian case the video clearly shows debris falling straight down, no horizontal component at all.

I've seen calculations of the force required to move such a piece of structural steel, and it is very large. Way larger than can be derived from a jetfuel fire and gravity. It is part of the prima facie evidence that some sort of explosives were involved that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the physics of a chaotic collapse of debris falling from a distance of several hundred feet is not a valid explaination?

On the basis that I have very limited knowledge of practical physics and ZERO knowledge of the area we're talking about. I have no idea.

Conspiracy theorist regarding this subject seem to start off at a predisposed notion that ONLY Controlled Demolition is the answer. When, quite frankly, a chaotic scattering of debris is a much more simplified, yet highly plausible answer.

I'm not coming to this with preconceived notions, if there are questions about a photo, let's ask 'em. How much can it hurt?

W

hich is why a video with audio during the collapse specifically proving the amount of energy required to displace debris that far is what I am looking for to prove the demo theory.

But what if we aren't discussing a particular theory. That's the problem that repeatedly occurs. Let's ignore all the theories and proposals and ideas. As for Audi and video. This is the internet. Audio and video stopped being reliable in roughly 1998. Without camera specs, diagrams of camera positions, map of the area, information on uploading, compression and a dozen other things I personally have no faith in any video on the net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://fousse.com/wtc-special2.html

I believe the photo being referred to is the 3rd picture on this page...

That the one Raptor?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen calculations of the force required to move such a piece of structural steel, and it is very large. Way larger than can be derived from a jetfuel fire and gravity. It is part of the prima facie evidence that some sort of explosives were involved that day.

Let's do a review. First of all, the photo of WTC2 and steel columns sitting in the middle of a large bomb crater.

WTC_1993_ATF_Commons.jpg

Why was that huge bomb unable to throw those steel columns into next week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's do a review. First of all, the photo of WTC2 and steel columns sitting in the middle of a large bomb crater.

WTC_1993_ATF_Commons.jpg

Why was that huge bomb unable to throw those steel columns into next week?

And why was fire 90 odd floors above able to throw those steel columns into next week? lol

Maybe they should have used fire instead of bombs. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why was fire 90 odd floors above able to throw those steel columns into next week?

Simple law of physics. What does the word, "ricochet" mean to you?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a picture of the piece impaled, and it is consistent with the fairly symmetrical distribution of other smaller debris. That symmetrical distribution of debris, when viewed from above, is one of the main points addressed by Richard Gage et al in their analysis.

That picture was shown very early in the game, within a day or two of the attacks. I'm really sorry I'm not skilled enough to provide a link to it, but it was there years ago. Audio is not necessary, as Spinebreaker mentioned. The picture speaks 1000 words.

And to compare to the very recent event of the high rise catching fire in Russia somewhere, just last 2 or 3 months, that shows what happens when there are no explosives involved. In the Russian case the video clearly shows debris falling straight down, no horizontal component at all.

I've seen calculations of the force required to move such a piece of structural steel, and it is very large. Way larger than can be derived from a jetfuel fire and gravity. It is part of the prima facie evidence that some sort of explosives were involved that day.

Can you provide a video containing audio that has a distinct sound of a shockwave strong enough to create such a phenomenon as horizontally displacing debris "hundreds of feet"....YES or NO?

The fact that both you and spine breaker are fumbling providing me what I request is EXACTLY the same thing Gage et al are doing in proving their CD theories.

Can you or spine breaker provide that. Yes or No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://fousse.com/wtc-special2.html

I believe the photo being referred to is the 3rd picture on this page...

That the one Raptor?

I did not ask for a photo. Would you like me to type out exactly what I requested for the third time?

Careful now, your fumbling to address such a menial request at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the basis that I have very limited knowledge of practical physics and ZERO knowledge of the area we're talking about. I have no idea.

I'm not coming to this with preconceived notions, if there are questions about a photo, let's ask 'em. How much can it hurt?

But what if we aren't discussing a particular theory. That's the problem that repeatedly occurs. Let's ignore all the theories and proposals and ideas. As for Audi and video. This is the internet. Audio and video stopped being reliable in roughly 1998. Without camera specs, diagrams of camera positions, map of the area, information on uploading, compression and a dozen other things I personally have no faith in any video on the net.

Surely with your limited physics knowledge, even someone who is able to post the way that you do is able to acknowledge the amount of energy needed to displace debris hundreds of feet horizontally.

A force like that could be heard from a few miles away, yet no video records of the events show exactly that.

Gage et al are not willing to provide that evidence. Trust me, I have posted on AE911T forums asking this same thing and was met with the same answer as you provided. Why is that?

To me, it is a diversionary tactic to prance around the one single evidence that proves their theory, which they cannot provide. So instead of providing such, they ask "if its not explosives, then what is it? Jet fuel and fire?"(No doubt the same statement BR always provides when asked to provide proof).

I realize that internet video is not as reliable as photos and witness reports. However, 9/11 is the single most recorded disaster of our time. Yet in all the videos I have seen, from truther, media, news, etc, not one of them displayed a shockwave of the magnitude required to displace debris the way that it did. Are all the videos lying to me? I highly doubt that...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why was fire 90 odd floors above able to throw those steel columns into next week? lol

Maybe they should have used fire instead of bombs. lol

Physics of a chaotic collapse displacing debris.

I'd ask you for the same thing I am asking BR and Spine, however I doubt you would entertain since your personal vendetta against sky is pretty clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple law of physics. What does the word, "ricochet" mean to you?

Oh please expand in your own words...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please expand in your own words..

Okay! The expansion of compressed air as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay! The expansion of compressed air as well.

I ask you to expand. You say "Okay!"

Then you say "The expansion of compressed air as well." :blink:

As well as what? Usually when you put the words "as well" constructed in sentence, you are usually adding to something which you have already mentions.

So ricochet means the expansion of compressed air :blink: as well as what? :rolleyes: lol

I mean Jesus, I ask you to expand, as in tell me more about "Ricochet" means to you, then you respond by writing the shortest sentence possible by replying with a riddle about the expansion of compressed air, as well as something else, which you have not mentioned. How is that telling us what you think ricochet is and how it plays with your compressed air theory. lol Unless when you thought I said "expand" you think I that I think that this is what "Ricochet" means to me, or you are even more confused and think this is a game, where I used a keyword like expand and you have to debunk me using the word expand or expansion in your case for points.

So if a twoofie toofin toofer comes along and says..."I do not understand how the towers collapsed?"

Just tell them....."It's simple laws of physics, ricochet and the expansion of compressed air"..... and its a debunker twoofin smackdown on trooferville!

Well that's convinced me... :w00t: ...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that both you and spine breaker are fumbling providing me what I request is EXACTLY the same thing Gage et al are doing in proving their CD theories.

I'm not fumbling at all. Not even TRYING to find a video. I've explained why I have no faith or trust in ANY video on the internet without a list of information accompanying it. If I don't think it's acceptable, I would find it purposeless, not to mention rude, to post a link to a video I myself don't trust.

I did not ask for a photo. Would you like me to type out exactly what I requested for the third time?

Someone mentioned a photo they couldn't link to, I thought it might help the discussion if everyone was familiar with it. I wasn't trying to prove a point, just make sure everyone is discussing the same thing.

Surely with your limited physics knowledge, even someone who is able to post the way that you do is able to acknowledge the amount of energy needed to displace debris hundreds of feet horizontally.

I honestly have no idea. Probably a calculation involving distance, weight, the depth of penetration into the building. Again. Even if I could roughly hazard a guess I don't know those figures. I'm not familiar with the weight of the piece of steel we're talking about, Or how far it was displaced. It would take a certain amount of force, Mathematically it should be pretty easy to work out, for someone with the knowledge. I know someone who would have a good idea, but he'd need a LOT of very specific information about the piece of debris. (Where it was, where it ended up, the kinds of load it was bearing, the damage sustained...)

A force like that could be heard from a few miles away, yet no video records of the events show exactly that.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here.

That piece of Steel embedded in that building would need a fair amount of force to get there, but the video footage doesn't explain how? Is that it? We could theorise, but I'd still prefer more information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

And why was fire 90 odd floors above able to throw those steel columns into next week? lol

It wasn't the fire that did it, it was the collapse. There was easily enough gravitational energy available to do this, far more than any conceivable demolition charges. Just do the maths on the two and get back with your answer.

Another point to consider, there is an opinion on the conspiracist side that in a natural collapse the towers should have toppled over instead of falling straight down. That would have left the tops of the towers some 400 metres away, or 500 metres of you count the antenna. So debris out to that sort of distance is what conspiracists predict from a natural collapse in one argument, but debris at lesser distances is evidence of explosives in another argument?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you provide a video containing audio that has a distinct sound of a shockwave strong enough to create such a phenomenon as horizontally displacing debris "hundreds of feet"....YES or NO?

The fact that both you and spine breaker are fumbling providing me what I request is EXACTLY the same thing Gage et al are doing in proving their CD theories.

Can you or spine breaker provide that. Yes or No?

No Raptor, I cannot provide a video, either with or without audio, to you at this time.

That does not mean that such a video exists or not, it simply means that I myself cannot provide it to you. The biggest reason for that is my inadequacies regarding links and such, and the secondary reason is that the picture I'm talking about is 11 years old.

My biggest mistake here is assuming that all posters are informed and forthcoming. That is a very poor assumption. Many, not all, posters deny that certain evidence exists. They deny certain facts.

So I don't care whether you understand or acknowledge what happened at the American Express Building aka World Financial Center. I will assume, in the spirit of the other thread here, that you were in a coma back in September 2001 for a number of long months, and simply were never made aware of certain facts. That you choose to remain uninformed is not my problem.

The horizontal displacement of massive structural pieces support the idea that explosives were used. That so many people on the ground and thereabouts reported explosions support that idea.

That so many folks are uninformed of these facts is testimony to the fantastic job of fact suppression and coverup by the mainstream media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://fousse.com/wtc-special2.html

I believe the photo being referred to is the 3rd picture on this page...

That the one Raptor?

Thank you Spinebreaker. That was not precisely the photo I was thinking of, but it is amongst those photos. The one building struck on the corner shows very clearly that whatever struck it was massive and moving at a pretty good velocity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to get a rough picture of the forces involved, The Paris Gun in WWII used a 400 lb charge of gunpowder to launch a solid 260 lb projectile several miles. Now, the propellant bags I've seen were usually a bit less than 100 lbs in a cloth cylinder about a little less than 1.5 feet across and a little less than 2 feet high (I wasn't an Ordi, so I didn't get too close). You would need at least four of those (bearing in mind that this is for the launch from an enclosed hardened metal cylinder designed to direct the force in a single direction). As for steel, unfortunately that varies immensily depending on use, style, and purpose, but just to keep it simple, a standard 12 foot railroad track averages about 90 lbs

So in terms of more common container sizes...what, maybe four medium-sized sport equipment bags full of gunpowder? Used to launch three bound 12-foot railroad rails?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in terms of more common container sizes...what, maybe four medium-sized sport equipment bags full of gunpowder? Used to launch three bound 12-foot railroad rails?

So the next question logically, would be how much force a collapsing building can exert on that piece of debris. It would help to know exactly which piece of the building it was I suppose, If it was load-bearing, and 90 feet of building was applying pressure from above, I imagine that provides a fair amount of force...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask you to expand. You say "Okay!"

Then you say "The expansion of compressed air as well." :blink:

For a better word, expulsion of compressed air.

So ricochet means the expansion of compressed air :blink: as well as what?

When a building collapses, objects are going to bang against one another and compressed air is going blast materials away from the building. Additionally, you can observe in the WTC videos where the collapse of the WTC buildings is encountering resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>It wasn't the fire that did it, it was the collapse. There was easily enough gravitational energy available to do this, far more than any conceivable demolition charges. Just do the maths on the two and get back with your answer.

Another point to consider, there is an opinion on the conspiracist side that in a natural collapse the towers should have toppled over instead of falling straight down. That would have left the tops of the towers some 400 metres away, or 500 metres of you count the antenna. So debris out to that sort of distance is what conspiracists predict from a natural collapse in one argument, but debris at lesser distances is evidence of explosives in another argument?

This is precisely my point!

Gage et al refuse to address the fact that gravity played a part in horizontal displacement of debris from 90 stories high. Why do they purposefully ignore physics to support their highly erroneous conclusions? It is because they work based on an appeal to authority position. "We are engineering experts therefore you should listen to us". When in reality, they practically dismiss any form of science that contradicts their theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

Gravity played a role in the horizontal displacement of structural steel, eh?

Could you please give an example, perhaps an equation, any explanation at all regarding the horizontal component of gravity?

This question came up years ago at a different site than UM. One poster measured the dimensions of the piece impaled--it was part of the exoskeleton--and arrived at an approximate mass. Several thousand tons as I recall. Then he calculated the force required to move that mass the several hundred feet that it had been propelled. His calculations were expressed in joules, and it was a big number.

Imagine for a moment that the same piece of steel was on the street, on a trailer. How much energy would be required to move that piece? How much fuel would be consumed by a tractor pulling it?

Answer: way more than the horizontal component of gravity, for the simple reason that there IS NO horizontal component of gravity. On this planet, the force of gravity works only in one direction, towards the center of the planet.

A recent illustration of this phenomenon, apologies if I'm being repetitious, was the fire in that Russian high rise a few months back, nicely videod by somebody. The pieces that fell from the building, as predicted in high school physics class, fell straight to the ground.

Jetfuel & gravity do not have the power to drive multiton structures horizontally. :no:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Jetfuel & gravity do not have the power to drive multiton structures horizontally. :no:

Let's take a look at this video and you will notice just how far objects are ejected from a much smaller building than the WTC Towers in the absence of bomb explosions. In the video, check out the time line between 28-35 and watch objects as they are ejected away from the building.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.