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

In the world of reality there is no evidence supporting 911 truthers. :no: This is reality.

[media=]

[/media]
The reality is a youtube video which shows a computer simulation which looks nothing like the actual collapse.

I think I'll stick with a more real version of reality than a faith based one...lol

They know where the credible sources on explosives are located.
Again, rather than accept it was a dumb comment to expect investigative journalist of major news corps to uncover explosives, you then suggest that they know where credible sources on explosives are located. What does that even mean? lol They have lots of credible sources on many different subjects, making you point again stupid, irrelevant and pointless again. :rolleyes:

Basically, more stupidity, backed up by more stupidity. lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The reality is a youtube video which shows a computer simulation which looks nothing like the actual collapse.

It is right on the money and considering that firefighters noticed the structure of WTC7 was buckling and failing due to fire, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of WTC7, especially in light of the fact that no explosions were heard as WTC7 collapsed, and if you don't believe me, review this video and you will not hear explosions as WTC7 collapses.

[media=]

[/media]

To sum that up, no explosives of any kind were responsible for the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 nor WTC7. So once again, until you provide evidence of explosives, you have no case.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha! That's a good one, Stundie, "facts and evidence".

I'm glad you got the irony of my statement which I borrowed from your friend Skyeagle. lol

Oh wait a minute, you missed the irony..Oh noes!! lol

You sure have an odd definition of 'confirms' if you are offering up the opinion of this 'journeyman' (snicker) 'operating engineer' who has 'helped' (lol) in the planning of demolitions and 'often' (LOL!) works for a demolition company, who also apparently moonlights as a psychologist who we can trust to correctly ascertain what people 'fear' (Bwaahahaha!) the most.
Its not my definition...lol I totally understand that both the experts Sky and I have posted are the professional opinions of these people. Not facts or evidence which Sky is always claiming that is all he posts. lol

Yet I didn't hear you complaining or pointing out to Skyeagle when he was using an odd definition of the word 'confirms' when he is offering up the opinion of Blanchard who works for a documentation company on demolitions, who we can trust to correctly ascertain that there were no explosives.

What incredibly high standards you do have for who qualifies as an expert....

Don't blame me for the standards set by Skyeagle, but at least I am trying to raise it by providing the professional opinions of people who have first hand experience of demolition a building.

Like this guy...

Dennis A Thompson (Commercial Blaster's License, Calif., General Lic: No. 2158 (Rtrd), Eureka, CA)

Having participated in many blasting operations in the past, from less than 1 lb. to many thousands of lbs. I have cut steel and concrete with explosives and I know how well explosives work. I believe now as I did when I first saw the event live on TV the day it happened, that the WTC collapse was due to Controlled Detonation.

Or the professional musings of this guy...

Tim Erney A & P. A.S. Aviation Maintenance Technology. Licensed A & P mechanic. U.S. Army Reserve, Combat Engineer, Specialized in Demolitions.

"In the Army Reserves I was trained in demolitions so I know what it takes to bring down a building in a controlled symmetrical fashion and what it looks like when it happens. As an aircraft mechanic, my knowledge of the properties of fuels, specifically Jet fuel (or highly refined kerosene), brings the conclusion that fires couldn't be hot enough to cause symmetrical structural collapse. Based on what I know, looking at it from various disciplines, it's obvious that all three WTC buildings collapsed due to pre-planned, well placed, precisely timed controlled demolitions."

No facts or evidence, just professional opinions to counter the ones which Skyeagle has fooled himself into thinking is facts and evidence.

Thanks for pointing it out, although I'm sure you never intended too...lol

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm glad you got the irony of my statement which I borrowed from your friend Skyeagle.

He is right on the money, and to prove that fact , where is your evidence of explosives?

Yet I didn't hear you complaining or pointing out to Skyeagle when he was using an odd definition of the word 'confirms' when he is offering up the opinion of Blanchard who works for a documentation company on demolitions, who we can trust to correctly ascertain that there were no explosives.

Brent Blanchard, one to the top demolition experts in the world, and his company, document demolition implosions around the world, which placed them in a perfect position to determine whether demolition implosions occurred at ground zero during the 911 attacks, and yet, they found no evidence that explosives were used and to further add, clean-up crews found no evidence of explosives within the ground zero rubble either.

No evidence, no case.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what is happening here and remember, no explosive is used during this demolition process.

verinage2.jpg?t=1263186279

verinage3.jpg?t=1263186335

verinage4.jpg?t=1263186376

The middle is being pulled out and the upper and lower block of similar size collide and the energy is dissipated through both blocks which is enough to enable the collapse the structure.

Now Skyeagle, tell us what would have happened if they had pulled out the floors much higher up?? lol Don't worry I don't expect an answer because we all know what it is and again, it makes your argument, pointless, irrelevant and again full of stupid. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The middle is being pulled out and the upper and lower block of similar size collide and the energy is dissipated through both blocks which is enough to enable the collapse the structure.

Now Skyeagle, tell us what would have happened if they had pulled out the floors much higher up??

The same occurrence, since nothing would have changed.

This video will also provide the answer and notice that no explosions are heard as the WTC building collapses..

[media=]

[/media]

Simple laws of physic at work, you understand.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same occurrence, since nothing would have changed.

So why do they do it in the middle if it makes no difference? lol
Simple laws of physic at work, you understand.
So simple that you think if they cut it higher up, nothing would have changed. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So why do they do it in the middle if it makes no difference?

Why go all the way to the top? The same principal applies.

verinage2.jpg

This is the way it happened.

Collapse of the North Tower

After the South Tower collapsed, NYPD helicopters relayed information about the deteriorating conditions of the North Tower. At 10:20 am, the NYPD aviation unit reported that "the top of the tower might be leaning," and a minute later reported that the North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south". At 10:28 am, the aviation unit reported that "the roof is going to come down very shortly." The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 am, after burning for 102 minutes.

The Collapse of the South Tower

The fires continued to burn, occupants trapped in the upper floors of the South Tower provided information about conditions to 9-1-1 dispatchers. At 9:37 am, an occupant on the 105th floor of the South Tower reported that floors beneath him "in the 90-something floor" had collapsed. The New York City Police Department aviation unit also relayed information about the deteriorating condition of the buildings to police commanders.

At 9:52 am, the NYPD aviation unit reported over the radio that "large pieces may be falling from the top of WTC 2. Large pieces are hanging up there".With the warnings, the NYPD issued orders for its officers to evacuate. During the emergency response, there was minimal communication between the NYPD and the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), and overwhelmed 9-1-1 dispatchers did not pass along information to FDNY commanders on-scene. At 9:59 am, the South Tower collapsed, 56 minutes after being struck.

Fires

The light construction and hollow nature of the structures allowed the jet fuel to penetrate far inside the towers, igniting many large fires simultaneously over a wide area of the impacted floors. The fuel from the planes burned at most for a few minutes, but the contents of the buildings burned over the next hour or hour and a half.[17] It has been suggested that the fires might not have been as centrally positioned, nor as intense, had traditionally heavy high-rise construction been standing in the way of the aircraft.

Debris and fuel would likely have remained mostly outside the buildings or concentrated in more peripheral areas away from the building cores, which would then not have become unique failure points. In this scenario, the towers might have stood far longer, perhaps indefinitely. The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above

wtc_graphic_small.gif

The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions

One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

http://sydney.edu.au...civil/wtc.shtml

Nothing there about explosives bringing down the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are arguing something which I for the life of me can't fathom out as I am not arguing or have never suggested that the middle block or debris didn't have a greater force on the bottom than the top. lol

Here's what you said on May 16th, Stundie:

Why is the force of the upper block less than the force on the lower block?? Surely if the lower block resists the debris and then the upper blocks collides through the cushion of debris, then the energy is still transfered equally. Meaning that the lower block of the upper portion are likely to break before the upper floors of the lower block.

That sure sounds like you're suggesting what you are now saying you haven't. So how can the energy transfer possibly be equal when you now admit that the forces on the upper and lower parts of the middle block, which means by necessity the forces on the upper and lower block themselves, are not equal? Isn't that a direct contradiction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't the time today to go into detail, so I'll just ask you this:

If you're happy with the middle block having a greater force on the bottom than the top in the simple example, why can't you accept that the same applies to the debris layer, which is just the middle block compressed?

Because you are taking a static example which shows the obvious – that different force/load exists at different levels of a building, which the building is designed to hold up of course – and applying it to a dynamic ‘crush’ situation which is entirely different again. In this case the lowermost level of debris isn’t necessarily moving downward until the moment the upper block exerts force on that structure and therefore suffers an equal and opposite force. In other words, the debris isn’t falling within the tower footprint, it is driven down by momentum of the upper block and this is the specific force which overloads the lower structure. If the upper block provides the force to overload the lower structure then the upper block sustains an equal and opposite force.

All your talk is further trumped by the three physical observations here which show the upper block deteriorated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it, unbelievable, a refreshing change! Sounds like an opportune time to push my luck and see if we can agree on a couple other things. With regards to Bazant's paper:

  • If we go with the assumptions made in Bazant's paper, that the upper block remains 100% rigid, do you disagree that the building would collapse and if so do you have any grounds for it? I understand you think this assumption is relevant to the point of being fatal to his paper, but leave that as a separate issue for a moment.
  • Do you agree that the assumption that Bazant made concerning how the upper block is oriented and thus how "all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally", by itself regarding just the variable of block orientation, is the best situation for arrest of the upper block? Do you agree that variations from this straight-on oriented impact do not favor the upper block being stopped as much as the perfectly oriented scenario that Bazant has assumed?

Great! We’re on a roll: -

  • If we go with the condition in Bazant’s paper that the upper block remains rigid, of course the building will completely collapse - there’s a theoretical, bloody great indestructible piledriver crushing it. And yes, it is fatal to the paper when Newton and most of all, observation of reality, show that ‘bloody great indestructible piledriver’ did not exist.
  • Of course the assumption, “all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally” is the best case for outright arrest/halt of the upper block. However, arrest of the upper block (a.k.a. ‘bloody great indestructible piledriver’) is never going to happen once the collapse initiates – Bazant’s equations show that much. The only way to arrest the collapse is to break that upper block ASAP to create a more fluid mass. The best assumption to achieve this is not column-to-column as Bazant’s case, but a more realistic off-centre impact where the block is broken down and energy also expended in destroying the support structure, i.e. the floors/cross-bracing.

No, I don't see why you have a huge problem actually, possibly because I'm misunderstanding you here. I'll just risk being wrong and come flat out and say, I don't think that what you have said is correct, that the 'official collapse theory' does require a literally 100% rigid upper block; I think Bazant just assumed a rigid upper block in his paper, it doesn't necessary follow that anything less will not be adequate and thus the official collapse theory is invalidated.

You didn’t answer the question. I asked, “You see why I have a huge problem with that fundamental condition, without which, the calculations are no longer applicable?” Please read the rest of this post before answering again. If the calculations are not applicable, the official story is unproven. I’m sure that is not a problem to some, but it is to any real skeptic.

When you say 'the calculations' are based on this, are you referring to the actual engineering equations that need to be used and that apply to the collapse scenario, or just the results derived from the equations he did correctly apply?

You really should read Bazant’s paper, it would help.

Here is what I said: -

“It [a rigid/solid upper block] is a fundamental condition that the calculations within are based upon.”

Here is where Bazant confirms it in the paper addendum: -

“the analysis that led to Eq. (1) implies the hypothesis that the impacting upper part of the tower behaves essentially as a rigid body.”

Did Bazant's calculations show that his model is right on the cusp of collapse/non-collapse somewhere?

It is not that straightforward to address – there are numerous variables which affect the result. It is certainly possible for Bazant’s equations to produce no collapse at all. That can be achieved for instance simply by reducing the height of the initial drop, until the dynamic load of the upper block no longer overcomes the lower structure.

Since our current discussion is in regard to how a rigid/solid upper block affects proceedings, here is what Bazant has to say about a non-rigid/solid upper block, again taken from the paper addendum: -

In that case, the upper part would be slender enough to act essentially as a flexible horizontal plate in which different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times. Instead of one powerful jolt, this could lead to a series of many small vertical impacts, none of them fatal.

In theory, it further follows from the last point that, if people could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the lower part of the tower might have been saved by exploding the upper part or weakening it by some “smart-structure” system so as to make it collapse gradually, as a mass of rubble, instead of impacting the lower part at one instant as an almost rigid body.

This highlights the huge difference between a “rigid body” and a “mass of rubble”.

It's really your position that if the upper block is 99.99% rigid, Bazant's 'calculations are no longer applicable'? Has someone else published a rebuttal paper showing the calculations that should have been used then, and why? I agree that if the upper block and each floor it crushed turned to liquid instantly then the collapse would arrest. How have you determined how much non-rigidness is allowed, how do you know where the threshold exactly is between 100% rigid and liquid?

No, it is my position as stated above: that once we move from “one powerful jolt” to “a series of many small vertical impacts”, his Eq. (1) no longer applies and the lower part of the tower might be saved. These are Bazant’s own admissions. The calculations for a series of smaller impacts that would represent a deteriorated upper block have never been performed – i.e. there is nothing to ‘refute’, the calculations have simply never been performed. This is, I think, understandable, as alluded to in my last post, such a chaotic collapse scenario cannot be calculated with pen and paper, rather a computer simulation is required. Indeed, your final question is what needs to be answered. As I said in my last post: “What needed to be done, and still needs to be done, is a realistic calculation to test and answer questions of the theory you mention above. Indeed, was the deteriorated mass ‘enough’ to continue and complete the collapse?”

Let me see if can reword this, and this is essentially a repeat of my first question up above. Is it correct to say that his paper does not apply because you believe the assumption of a rigid block significantly changes the overall result of his calculations, and not that he has made an error in calculation or application of the relevant physical laws given his assumptions?

Please see Bazant’s comments from the paper addendum above.

It is not the calculations that are a problem, but the assumptions they are based upon.

Great, if you see no reason that it cannot be achieved, then why hasn't anyone in the truther movement done so? When people make an argument based on how so many of the experts do not agree with truthers, you trot out AE911 and quotes from various scientists worldwide agreeing with you on some aspect or another, and you point out how they number I believe in the thousands. So many relevant experts on your side to appeal to, yet none have access to physics software and cannot get to work on this given 11 years? If with 'Blender' you are yet again referring to the simulation/cartoon done by an artist, then let's be patently clear that 'the best' you have utterly sucks.

An accurate simulation of the collapse progression could be achieved but it is not an easy task. Consider that it took NIST over 3 years and a $16 million budget to develop the computer software and models necessary just to produce an accurate computer simulation up to the point of the WTC towers’ collapse initiations. I’m not sure why you think that proving the towers could collapse due to the impacts and fires is a ‘truther’ responsibility. It is the NIST investigation that were tasked, and provided the budget and manpower, to determine “why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed”. Yet all NIST did from collapse initiation is refer to Bazant’s paper to explain the continuation.

It is incorrect to refer to Blender simulations as simply a cartoon. The program uses Bullet physics software which incorporates collision detection and gravity. Yes it is the best we have whilst the official investigation has refused to competently address the collapses. And it sure doesn’t suck half so much as Bazant’s paper with ‘bloody great indestructible piledriver’assumptions that do not match reality.

See from 3:36.

What sucks about this?

Except for your own discomfort that the lower block survives.

Okay, well it's good at least to get this reality check. I'm unclear whether you really have seen a physics simulation that has any relevance, but the above seems to put lie to what you stated before, that the official collapse theory (which is not synonymous with 'Bazant's paper') requires a 100% rigid upper block.

See above for one physics simulation.

And I think for most who have looked at the topic in detail, the official collapse theory is synonymous with Bazant’s paper. As mentioned above, the official investigation by NIST refers to Bazant’s paper to explain the collapse continuation. There is nothing more official out there.

If you want to break it down to ‘Bazant’s paper’ and a more general ‘official theory’, the first is not applicable to reality as we have seen and the latter has not been proven by any official investigation – the calculations/simulations remain to be done. Which can only lead one interested in definitive answers to demand a new investigation.

It was my understanding that the rate of floor failure accelerated at some part of the collapse, how did that occur if not by gravity?

The upper block is accelerated by gravity, the momentum of which drives the debris layer downward.

Not that it matters to our discussion here, but I have yet to see any evidence that the collapse accelerated. My own timings of collapse and others I have seen indicate that if anything the collapses slowed.

Actually I was noting that 90% of the evidence that we find in a demolition is unavailable in this case despite your reference to 'all' the evidence for demolition, you disagree? Please define then what evidence we should expect to find in 'a covert demolition' and why, and what 11% of it we have and how you know. Before you say it, 'could be' doesn't count.

I don’t know where you’re pulling the 90% and 11% figures from. And I don’t know why you think conventional demolition should match covert demolition in all regards. I’d be happy to knock together a list of what we should expect to find in a covert demolition but I’ll save that for another post/time. Though, to begin, one finding we should certainly expect is an official paper not based in reality and an official story that declines to prove its case beyond that – it’s an inherent result of a deception – and we sure got that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I don’t know why you think conventional demolition should match covert demolition in all regards. I’d be happy to knock together a list of what we should expect to find in a covert demolition but I’ll save that for another post/time.

What are you implying when you say; "covert demolition?" No evidence of explosives was ever found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why go all the way to the top?

Yes, there is a reason why they do not do it from the top.

Do you understand why yet Skyeagle, or are you living the dream of dumb...lol

The same principal applies.

verinage2.jpg

This is the way it happened.

Yes, look at where the collapse initiates, in the middle of the building again.

What would happen if it was done at a higher floor. lol

Nothing there about explosives bringing down the WTC buildings.

No evidence of beams sagging, just the suggestion. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what you said on May 16th, Stundie:

That sure sounds like you're suggesting what you are now saying you haven't.

What a load of nonsense...lol

I never mentioned anything about force being different on the middle block. Here is what Flyingswan as said....,

"The force between the middle and top blocks is the weight of the top block. The force between the bottom and middle blocks is the weight of the top and middle blocks. The two forces on the middle block are different, there is a net force on the middle block equal to its weight." <--Notice that he is talking about the middle block...

Now lets read again what I posted...

"Why is the force of the upper block less than the force on the lower block?? Surely if the lower block resists the debris and then the upper blocks collides through the cushion of debris, then the energy is still transfered equally. Meaning that the lower block of the upper portion are likely to break before the upper floors of the lower block."

Did you notice something.......Did you notice that I NEVER mentioned anything about a middle block?? lol

Liquid, if you are going to try and catch me out, at least try doing it honesty instead of make points or arguments which do not exist....lol

Otherwise, you'll come across as cranky as Skyeagle.

So how can the energy transfer possibly be equal when you now admit that the forces on the upper and lower parts of the middle block, which means by necessity the forces on the upper and lower block themselves, are not equal? Isn't that a direct contradiction?
Not at all because I never mentioned a middle block...lol So how can I contradict something which I have never mentioned?? :blink:

Flyingswan is saying that the middle block will exert more force on the lower block and than the upper block. Which of course it will. What you fail to understand is that even though the middle block will exert more force on the lower block than the upper, that the upper block will still hit the middle block and energy in the collision will be transferred equally as in accordance with newton's laws.

This post is patently stupid and pointless. If you think you can explain the collapse, I suggest you do it but we know you won't because it will highlight how moronic the official story is. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With no evidence to back that up, he has no case.

No different to Brent Blanchard then...lol

Except my guy has first hand experience demolishing buildings where your guy just watches them a lot...lol

He failed to take into consideration that temperatures of 1500 degrees can weaken steel in relatively short period of time, now why wasn't he aware of that fact?
No, I think he thought of that possibility and used his demolition expertise to come to his conclusion. lol
It is of no surprise to me why demolition experts and firefights, architects and civil engineers disagree with him as well and why firefighters have onfirmed that fire, not explosives was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, so the fact remains, you have no evidence of explosives, which simply that means that you have no case.
Well when you start posting these experts other than trolling out Blanchard, then you might have a point, up until that point. The experts who have spoken out for and against the WTC collapse from fires are against the fire method because it doesn't make any sense...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh noes....Look at this.....

1-67.gif

The upper block disintegrates and drops a few floors before the lower block even starts to move.

Evidence that the lower block provided resistance until something else removed the resistance from the lower block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there is a reason why they do not do it from the top.

Why go further than is required?

Do you understand why yet Skyeagle, or are you living the dream of dumb...

Considering that you have failed to refute facts and evidence, what more is there to say?!

Yes, look at where the collapse initiates, in the middle of the building again.

And, what is that upper block doing to the lower block?

What would happen if it was done at a higher floor.

It all comes down to the strength of the floors below the initiation sequence to support the weigh of the upper floors.

No evidence of beams sagging, just the suggestion.

Of course there was.

The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe.

http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives2.html

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html

9/11 cops saw collapse coming

The World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground, scientists probing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster said yesterday.

In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m.

http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20040619.html

Now, what was that you were saying when you said:

"No evidence of beams sagging, just the suggestion."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No different to Brent Blanchard then..

I guess you missed when experts and others from around the world contacted Brent Blanchard, one of the world's top demolition expert, to explain the collapse of the WTC buildings. After all, what is the specialty of his company in regards to demolition implosions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Oh noes....Look at this.....

1-67.gif

The upper block disintegrates and drops a few floors before the lower block even starts to move.

Evidence that the lower block provided resistance until something else removed the resistance from the lower block.

What you don't see are bomb explosions. And, you've failed to understand that the lower block was unable to stop the mass of the upper block once the downward movement began.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why go further than is required?

The reason why they don't pull the building higher up is simply because it won't collapse. That is why they pull they tend to building in the middle but you would know this if you knew anything about demolitions, especially the verinage technique.
Considering that you have failed to refute facts and evidence, what more is there to say?!iden
You are certainly no judge of what constitutes as fact and evidence. lol
And, what is that upper block doing to the lower block?
Nothing, the upper block is crumbling while the lower portions remain intact for a moment.
It all comes down to the strength of the floors below the initiation sequence to support the weigh of the upper floors.
Yep, and you have 17 to smash through 93 and that's leaving out the fact that 17 floors in the lower portion would have been stronger than the 17 floors of the upper portion as the steel strength and thickness tapered in height.

But you would know that if you knew anything about the construction of the WTC.

Of course there was.

Now, what was that you were saying when you said:

Sorry but the police, fireman and civilians are not capable or have the relevant experience or knowledge to identify a sagging building, especially when using and not the correct scientific equipment to identify the sagging. How do we know they were looking at the building straight......lol

Hilarious how these eyewitnesses all of a sudden become experts in buildings structures that they know when it's going to collapse, but are too stupid to identify molten steel......lol

But then again, you would understand the flaws of your silly argument with my silly argument, if you understood logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you missed when experts and others from around the world contacted Brent Blanchard, one of the world's top demolition expert, to explain the collapse of the WTC buildings.
I guess I did...lol

After all, what is the specialty of his company in regards to demolition implosions?

Documentation services. If I ask him to demolish a building for me, he might know a man cause he or his company can't do it. Where as the experts I mentioned, if I asked them to demolish a building, they could do it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you don't see are bomb explosions.

You see plenty of explosions.

And, you've failed to understand that the lower block was unable to stop the mass of the upper block once the downward movement began.

And what you failed to understand is that the photo i.e. FACT AND EVIDENCE shows that lower block was able to stop the mass of the upper block because the upper block disintegrates before the lower block goes.

That is what the photo shows us and that is what the facts and evidence show us.

But you would know that if you knew anything about the collapse of the WTC. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I did...

Documentation services. If I ask him to demolish a building for me, he might know a man cause he or his company can't do it. Where as the experts I mentioned, if I asked them to demolish a building, they could do it. ;)

As being one of the top demolition experts in thewhole world with over 1000 demolitions under his belt, it is no secret why demolition companies and experts from around the world seek out Brent Blanchard for advice and his expertise on demolition implosions.

The high position he holds within the demolition industry places him in the best position to say, 'yay or nay' to the question if there were demolition explosions or not, and he says no, which is backed by no evidence of explosions on video, nor heard on audio, nor even detected on seismic monitors in the general area, In fact, no evidence of explosives was ever found within the rubble of ground zero, which explains why there is no evidence of explosions on video nor heard on audio, nor detected on seismic monitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why they don't pull the building higher up is simply because it won't collapse. That is why they pull they tend to building in the middle but you would know this if you knew anything about demolitions, especially the verinage technique.

You are certainly no judge of what constitutes as fact and evidence. lol

Nothing, the upper block is crumbling while the lower portions remain intact for a moment.

Yep, and you have 17 to smash through 93 and that's leaving out the fact that 17 floors in the lower portion would have been stronger than the 17 floors of the upper portion as the steel strength and thickness tapered in height.

But you would know that if you knew anything about the construction of the WTC.

Sorry but the police, fireman and civilians are not capable or have the relevant experience or knowledge to identify a sagging building, especially when using and not the correct scientific equipment to identify the sagging. How do we know they were looking at the building straight......

Because there are photos as well. In fact, I even posted a close-up video as WTC2 buckled just before it collapsed, which indicated that you have not been paying attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see plenty of explosions.

No you don't because as the building collapsed, there was no sound of explosions.

And what you failed to understand is that the photo i.e. FACT AND EVIDENCE shows that lower block was able to stop the mass of the upper block because the upper block disintegrates before the lower block goes.

Let's place your claim into practice.

So, you are proven incorrect again because you do not understand the specifics as related to the collapse of the WTC buildings nor the importance of their construction techniques when applied to their collapse..

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.