What doesn't add-up for me

[Nuclear Unicorn]

If the Twin Towers were blown the explosives had to survive aircraft collisions and the raging inferno that lasted for hours before the charges were set off. How would the demolitions survive a raging fire for hours?

If the explosives themselves didn't burn off what about the wiring, blasting caps and receivers used to control the blast?

If your goal is to horrify people into accepting a trumped-up war all you need is one moment captured on video replayed over and over and over again. A crater works just as well as waiting for hours. Why would they even wait hours before setting off the demolitions?

For that matter a single attack counts just as good as 4. Hitler only needed 1 Reichstag, why the 3 extra attacks?

A secret cabal worth its weight would have started disappearing people years ago. If the government is willing to kill 3,000 of its own to get its way why have all these silly CTers been allowed to "get too close to the truth"?

[tiny elvis]

1. the first two questions are wrong

i cannot give you a good technical explanation of how hiroshima was destroyed
i have more questions about how that happened than you have answers
therefore, hiroshima spontaneously combusted
the second and third questions are answerable only by the perpetrators
all else is fancy
many times over, speculation has been asked for
then condemned as speculative by those who ask for it
to the last question
the original crime, the supreme crime from which all others followed, the overthrow of the executive,
was responded to with thrown eggs and shoes
the truths of that crime were thoroughly exposed, yet vince bugliosi lives
because good americans like yourself accept anything authority gives

[Bolo Boffin]

2. "condemned as speculative by those who ask for it"

There is nothing here that states your viewpoint is protected. I want everyone to be welcome here, but that doesn't mean a free ride for things you say. If you need a critical-free zone to be able to speculate, then you have come to the wrong website.

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. here is the thing

Certainly the questions in the OP don't rebut the logical possibility that the towers were somehow brought down by explosives, or whatever.

That said, your analogy doesn't seem to work as you want it to work. I'm not aware of anyone (although somewhere there must be someone) who contests the conclusion -- supported by many lines of evidence -- that Hiroshima was attacked with a nuclear bomb. That is, in fact, "the official story." If you wanted to argue that Hiroshima was not attacked with a nuclear bomb, it would behoove you to offer an alternative explanation that makes at least as much sense, preferably more.

The fact that you can't offer a good technical explanation of the Hiroshima bomb is off point. If no one could offer a good technical explanation, then we would have a real problem.

In the case of 9/11, a lot of us see a consensus account of how the towers collapsed that, frankly, makes sense -- challenged by a lot of people who argue, unpersuasively to us, that it doesn't make sense, and whose alternatives seem to make less sense.

because good americans like yourself accept anything authority gives

So, anyone who accepts that the United States bombed Hiroshima just accepts "anything authority gives"? Or is it possible that some people have considered the evidence?

If you can imagine someone who actually disagrees with you, perhaps you can imagine how your personal attack sounds.

[tiny elvis]

4. a muddle

switched to me taking the side of no nuke over hiroshima in analogy
conflated the answer to the last question with switched version of answer to first question
that is no argument at all

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. please pay attention

switched to me taking the side of no nuke over hiroshima in analogy

That is incorrect. However, I think it's fair to wonder why you don't take the side of no nuke over Hiroshima. Do you have an answer?

[wildbilln864]

6. Here's the thing!

The reason it doesn't add up is you're making assumptions based on false premises.

"View profile
If the Twin Towers were blown the explosives had to survive aircraft collisions and the raging inferno that lasted for hours before the charges were set off. How would the demolitions survive a raging fire for hours? "
There was no raging infernos in the towers that lasted for hours!

"If the explosives themselves didn't burn off what about the wiring, blasting caps and receivers used to control the blast? "
There was no need for wires to set off any incendiaries or explosives. They could easily be triggered by cell phones or radio waves or other methods.

"If your goal is to horrify people into accepting a trumped-up war all you need is one moment captured on video replayed over and over and over again. A crater works just as well as waiting for hours. Why would they even wait hours before setting off the demolitions? "
Mere assumptions based on opinion.

"A secret cabal worth its weight would have started disappearing people years ago. If the government is willing to kill 3,000 of its own to get its way why have all these silly CTers been allowed to "get too close to the truth"? "
Which silly CTers are you referring to?

[zappaman]

7. "Mere assumptions based on opinion."

The Truther argument in a nutshell.

[cpwm17]

8. One can only go by what truthers write.

Since truthers rarely correct each other, we can reasonably make assumptions that what truthers commonly claim represents most truthers.

So here is your opportunity: give a plausible explanation on how 9-11 went down. You don’t have to prove it. It just has to be plausible, and consistent with the facts. So far I’ve never seen that done.

Since any explosive that is capable of taking down the towers would create an extremely loud sound audible for many miles, explosive are automatically eliminated as a possibility. No explosive are audible during the collapse, let alone any explosive capable of taking down the towers.

Both towers collapsed from the location where the fires were naturally the most intense from the aircraft collision. So any device would have been destroyed, regardless if there were extended wires or not.

Why would the conspirators chose to strike the buildings at the locations that were most likely to ruin their demolition? How was their targeting so perfect, such that they struck both towers at the precise location were they would create the most intense fires at the locations of the buildings’ demolition devices? A common assertion of the truthers is that the hijackers couldn’t have hit the side of a very large building, but truthers have no problem with this perfect targeting.

There are countless more problems with truther claims.

[wildbilln864]

9. since anti-truthers don't want to accept the possibility of CD then I expect this is another ...

waste of time.
however...

"Since any explosive that is capable of taking down the towers would create an extremely loud sound audible for many miles, explosive are automatically eliminated as a possibility."
FALSE!

Many on the scene witnesses heard explosions and reported same yet you will not acknowledge that because it shows you're wrong.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. A faked explosion in one video and a poison-the-well inadequate comparison in the other

And we're the anti-truth side, wildbill?

The problem is not that we will not accept controlled demolition, but that we insist on evidence that is not faked and on explanations that are not slanted. Bring us that and we'll start talking. Keep bringing the same old same old and you will continue to get nowhere.

[wildbilln864]

12. what faked explosion bolo?

please explain?
with evidence!
you can say anything is faked?
poisoned well?
anything would be inadequate to you!
You're the one with that "steuben glass versus a sledge hammer analogy bs!
you make assertions based on nothing!

[wildbilln864]

15. you're the one goes no where!

the reason I keep bring up the same old same is because it still applies!
There were plenty of witnesses that said they heard explosions! They were in the buildings that day, you were not! The video speaks for itself! Deny it all you want. Prove it's fake!

[AtheistCrusader]

86. I don't assume that's a faked explosion.

What I don't accept, is that it is evidence of demolition. Plenty of things that can explode like that. There's a power substation across the street from the towers. (con edision substation was the lower levels of WTC7)

The plane impacts dramatically cut off somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 acres of office space from power, shorting them out, etc. Transformers go big when they go. Plenty of videos of them going up from simple things like trees across power lines in a storm.

[Bolo Boffin]

91. It is. When the video came out originally, all the sound in it was mono but the explosion

was in stereo.

When this was pointed out, the video disappeared and was re-released with a completely mono soundtrack, explosion included. The sound of the explosion has been added to this film.

At any rate, the "explosion" happens minutes after the collapse of the second tower. WTC 7 would not collapse for another 7 hours. So what this "explosion" would have had to do with the collapse of 7 has yet to be explained by anyone positing it. But, OOOOOH, BIG SCARY EXPLOSION!

[AtheistCrusader]

92. I didn't know about the alleged edits in the video.

Even if I take the video at face value, there are PLENTY of things that collapsed, shorted, burned, pressurized with heat, etc, on that day to explain a bang like that without some nefarious plot to blow up buildings in play.

And one bang isn't bringing down any buildings unless you placed it on one of the critical columns in WTC7, but of course multiple problems with that:

1. The building would probably come down immediately.
2. The collapse would precisely resemble what it would from a progressive collapse induced by fire, in the manner NIST specified, and the whole 'something weird about WTC7' claim is predicated upon horseshit about 'unexpected free fall' and other things about the collapse that would still happen in either a single-column demolition on the critical column, or a progressive collapse induced by fire.

So either way, their claim falls on it's face. Big bangs here or there or no.

Edit: I mean, think of large vehicle high pressure tires. Like on a semi. Ever hear one of those pop? In the blocks around the WTC complex, there were plenty of scorched to the frame vehicles in the streets, stopped where they were when people got out of them. To say nothing of gas tanks, etc.

[cpwm17]

11. You need to do better than that to support your complicated conspiracy

Last edited Sun Dec 25, 2011, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

The first video appears fake. Regardless, like in many fires there were sounds that were loud from close range. There are many items that can potentially sound explosive in fires. When the planes hit, some of the elevators slammed to the basement which sounded loud from close range. The jumpers made a loud sound when they hit the ground. There are no explosives heard during any of the buildings’ collapses.

The second video has nothing to do with anything. Place a 25lb weight on your foot: what do you feel? - probably not much. Now drop the same weight from ceiling height. Now what do you feel? OK, don’t do it. You’d regret it. The force on your foot when the weight is dropped is many times the force when the weight is placed.

Those buildings weren’t designed to withstand any force that is many times the normal force of the floors above. That would make them very expensive to build, and it would leave less room for the occupants. Once the collapse started, there was no way the building underneath could stop it.

[wildbilln864]

14. BS

you have no evidence it's fake! You think it appears fake because it doesn't agree with your belief about what happened therefore it must be faked!
Are they not suddenly surprised by hearing something?
anti-truthers are so predictable!

[cpwm17]

17. It doesn't matter if it's fake or not

In any controlled demolition ALL videos with sound during the collapse will record many very loud explosions from any distance. All collapsed videos I've seen have no explosions audible.

There is no context to that video you posted. But it didn't appear to have been taped during any building collapse. It could have been a local explosion associated with the fires, or more likely a fake. I've seen that same video before. If there had been a controlled demolition you should be able to find numerous videos with very loud explosions.

[wildbilln864]

18. never ass/u/me anything!

you make too many assumptions!
"In any controlled demolition ALL videos with sound during the collapse will record many very loud explosions from any distance."
Bulllllll shit!
First off, if it was a CD meant to look like fire and planes caused the collapses then I'd think the perps would use the least audible incendiaries/and explosives possible. Also, there were many witnesses that say they heard explosions!
You ridiculously say "...will record many very loud explosions from any distance."
Really? Any distance?
No limit?
That's a completely ridiculous statement!

[cpwm17]

21. Any distance that is close enough to video the collapse

will be close enough to the hear the demolition explosions.

Here is an example of a controlled demolition:

That looked or sounded nothing like any collapse on 9-11. And the video can't completely represent how loud the sound would have been experienced in person. Any explosion that is capable of severing the columns creates a tremendous shock. That would be audible many miles away. The columns would also have had to have been precut or the demolition won't have worked.

There is no evidence of any controlled demolition.

[wildbilln864]

22. You moved goals agreed!

Your opinions don't amount to evidence!

"Any explosion that is capable of severing the columns creates a tremendous shock."
That's opinion but like I said. The idea was to hide the explosives so less audible means would be needed! They could place smaller less audible charges in places where the sounds would be muffled by the building's structure. Also some say thermit was used which would have been very inaudible! So your arguments fall short. Sorry!

[cpwm17]

25. I've been consistent here

The burden of proof is on you to prove, or at least give good evidence, that there was a controlled demolition.

You're making excuses for your weak evidence and shifting the burden of proof to the non-truthers to prove you wrong. You have no real evidence for your controlled demolition.

[wildbilln864]

31. "non-truthers"!

you got that part right at least!

[cpwm17]

34. You've got nothing

Last edited Mon Dec 26, 2011, 07:53 PM - Edit history (2)

We've thoroughly debunked your alleged evidence. You've completely ignored many of the problems we've shown with your conspiracy theory. Ignoring the many problems with your theory doesn't make them go away.

Unlike you (and most "truthers" ), we've acknowledged what you claim to be evidence of your 9-11 theories. And you refuse to correct yourself when your evidence is shown to be lacking.

William Seger did some great detective work, and he had determined the exact location and approximate time of the video with the explosive sound. You didn't acknowledge, let alone counter, his evidence.

You've got the burden of proof. You need to find answers to the problems with your CT, or you should just accept the fact that you are wrong.

[wildbilln864]

41. you have debunked nothing!

the Dunning-Kruger is strong with the anti-truthers!
"Unlike you (and most "truthers" ), we've acknowledged what you claim to be evidence of your 9-11 theories. And you refuse to correct yourself when your evidence is shown to be lacking.

William Seger did some great detective work, and he had determined the exact location and approximate time of the video with the explosive sound. You didn't acknowledge, let alone counter, his evidence. "

He has only his opinion and you call that evidence! We all have opinions. But let's say he's right. Let's say that explosive sound was around early in the morning. That does not in any way mean those buildings weren't brought down with CD. It could be that that that explosion was meant to bring the building down close to the same time as the others but for some reason it didn't collapse right away as it was supposed to.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. An explosive six hours before 7 fell down was meant to bring it down?

Even though you have no evidence that explosive came from Building 7?

Even though you have no evidence that the explosive sound was even present on the original video?

Oh, you want evidence from me that it was stereo first and then mono audio later? I HEARD IT.

One of the benefits of doing this for as long as I have is that sometimes I'm there when things happen, like the use of this video for 9/11 Truth starting. I've heard both videos, wildbill. I heard it when the explosion was stereo, and I heard it later when the forgers changed it to mono. There's my evidence, wildbill. Me. My ears. The video is faked.

[wildbilln864]

45. Opinion is not evidence! None of us have any evidence for anything!

All videos are subject to be edited by others. We gathered no evidence, you or I. We, you and I depended on others to tell us what happened and I know I've been lied to or the ones telling me what happened were mislead. How everything was done I do not know but I know we've been handed a load of bullshit! Any and all of the videos we see are subject to others to edit as they wish and you would never know some had been edited. We have been debating this for years now here in the dungeon.. You have been doing this for a very long time haven't you. It seems to be like your calling or something. You've made websites to try to debunk the non believers even.
You have convinced no one that I have seen but yet you and others are always here. Always one or the other, is here to defend the official story and discredit any dissent. Yet it doesn't work. I am more convinced than ever those towers were brought down by more than just airplanes. I doubt it will ever be proven now. The evidence is long gone, witnesses dead. No one will ever prove 911 was an inside job now. But here we are in "Creative Speculation" and so I will continue to speculate about the ways it could have been done.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Hearing a fake explosion in stereo and then later in mono is not opinion.

This is a fact. I accept that you may not believe me, but this is not even in the realm of hearsay evidence. I experienced this, wildbill.

No one here is saying you can't continue to speculate about the ways it could have been done. You are welcome to do so. And I will continue to give what I see as helpful criticism. And there will always be people on both sides of this issue here because we all do care a great deal about the truth and what happened on 9/11.

[wildbilln864]

49. which of the two times you heard the...

"fake" explosion was mono and which stereo? Where did you hear them? How did you hear them?

[Bolo Boffin]

52. I first heard it in stereo. I later heard it in mono.

I heard them on the Internet right when they came out, whenever that was.

[wildbilln864]

54. and that proves they're both faked?

nope!
maybe one was copied from the other and someone edited a copy of the original and reposted it?

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Or maybe

The people who faked the video screwed up, and when debunkers pointed it out, they fixed their mistake.

They can't fix the mistake of choosing a video that came from a few minutes after the collapse of the North Tower, though.

[wildbilln864]

57. maybe, and...

so what is happening in the video?

[zappaman]

48. I have my own speculations.

I speculate that CIA-trained monkeys with backpacks containing mini-nukes infiltrated the WTC and blew them up.
The planes were high-tech holograms that are sooo secret, you or I will never learn of the technology, which was given to us by the aliens that have our planet under quarantine.
Prove me wrong!

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. "None of us have any evidence for anything!"

I don't get it. If that's your attitude, in what sense do you even have an opinion about any aspect of 9/11?

You've made websites to try to debunk the non believers even.
You have convinced no one that I have seen but yet you and others are always here. Always one or the other, is here to defend the official story and discredit any dissent.

Actually, before I came here, I had never even heard of AE911Truth. A lot of what I know about the holes in their arguments comes from Bolo. Crucially, I didn't especially have to trust him (although I think I did assume for the sake of argument that the slide show he was critiquing really was one of Gage's slide shows). I thought some of his points were debatable. Overall, however, I thought it was a good critique.

I can't tell whether you have ever had the experience of working through the points in a 9/11 argument (on any side) to see which ones hold water, and how much. It's different. If you want to learn the truth, it's not good enough to know that you have been lied to.

As for the stuff about "the official story," it's untrue and unhelpful. It was Cheney's "official story" that he had express authorization from Bush to order a shoot-down, but (as far as I know) no one here took Cheney's word for it. The military's "official story" about the NORAD response was riddled with self-serving errors, which John Farmer in due course filleted; that didn't bother anyone here. Clearly we don't know the whole story of what the CIA and FBI were doing before 9/11, and I don't see anyone here insisting that we do.

I do see a lot of us saying that we don't believe for a minute that the towers were brought down with explosives, or cunningly planted non-explosives, or some combination of explosives and non-explosives. That isn't an off-the-cuff opinion; we've been wading through the supposed evidence of controlled demolition for years.

[wildbilln864]

76. Let me dumb it down for you....

there's been no real investigation!

[OnTheOtherHand]

77. ?!

That's a convenient all-purpose fallback when the David Chandler junk isn't going over very well.

bill, you can believe whatever you want, but I'm not required to pretend that it makes any sense.

[cpwm17]

50. The fact that the sun rises in the east may be an opinion in truther world

But that's the first time I've heard anyone make that claim. I'm not really sure what part of William Seger's evidence you consider opinion. I don't think you know either, since you probably ignored his evidence.

[wildbilln864]

53. I think you're confused again. ...nt

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Yet we don't see any thermite burning through the outer structure of the building.

The collapse is pretty chaotic. Entire multi-floor sections of the exterior of the building break away at points. None of the rubble appears glowing cherry red from cutting, and at no time do we see the arc-welder like brightness of thermite burning in open view. A pretty amazing lack of fuckups for people who supposedly forgot to fake the flight data recorder properly at the pentagon.

Doubly interesting since the core structure of the south tower remained standing for several seconds (from about the impact point of the plane down) after the main collapse... If thermite took any of that out, you could see it. It burns so bright it'll give you sunburn.

[zappaman]

13. What's an anti-truther? n/t

[wildbilln864]

16. also called a no-truther!

someone who doesn't want the full story of 911. Is against a real investigation. Opposes the Truth movement that does want an investigation and the truth about what and how the events that day happened.

[William Seger]

20. I'm sure you know both of those videos have been discussed before

They most certainly have NOT been ignored.

Judging by the angle of the sun, that first video was shot at around 10:30 in the morning, whereas WTC 7 did not collapse until 5:21 PM. Furthermore, the explosion sound is possibly fake: When the video was first posted on YouTube, someone on JREF claims he noticed that the audio of the firemen talking was mono (or rather, both stereo tracks were identical because a single mic had been used), while the sound of the explosion was in stereo (two tracks slightly different and impossible with a single mic). He reports that when he posted a comment saying that, the video was taken down within 15 minutes, and that a new version was uploaded later in which the sound was all mono. I don't know if that's true, but I do know that a sound at 10:30 AM could not have been explosives taking down WTC7 at 5:21 PM.

I'm also quite sure you have read the numerous rebuttals to the whole "people heard explosions" line of argument: Not everything that sounds like an explosion is an explosion; not all explosions are caused by explosives; what was going on in those buildings was quite capable of producing both explosive sounds that weren't explosions and explosions that weren't explosives;and anything like the amount of explosives required to bring down any one of those buildings would have produced a sound that would certainly have been recorded on every video shot in Manhattan, not just heard by a few people in or near the buildings.

You have completely ignored those rebuttals and now you throw up the same failed arguments while accusing, "you will not acknowledge that because it shows you're wrong." Really?

The second video is just embarrassingly idiotic. To the extent that it makes any sense at all to compare the collapse of the towers to a collision between a school bus and a VW (which is ludicrous in the first place), this idiotic analogy has got it exactly backwards which is the schoolbus. The upper 15 stories of WTC1 fell onto one floor below and destroyed it, then 15 stores plus the 1 floor of debris fell on the one floor below that, and so on. (And incidentally, when I posted a comment on YouTube pointing that out, it was deleted within 10 minutes and I was banned from posting again. "Truth movement," my ass.)

[wildbilln864]

23. I know they have been discussed before.

They'll be discussed again! So?

"judging by the angle of the sun...?"
Bullshit! There is dust everywhere and buildings all around blocking the sun. You can't be sure what time it is and of course your opinion is biased!

and we don't care what fools at JREF say! There opinions are no more expert than the witnesses that say they heard explosions.

[William Seger]

26. Nope, you need to watch it again: The sun is clearly not blocked.

When the camera turns to look eastward down Murray Street at the approaching fireman, the sun is almost directly behind him, and the angle of his shadow relative to the street (and thus the time) can be estimated: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4338001&postcount=1241

[wildbilln864]

24. more bullshit from the anti-truther crowd!

"I'm also quite sure you have read the numerous rebuttals to the whole "people heard explosions" line of argument: Not everything that sounds like an explosion is an explosion; "

So fucking what! Maybe they were explosions from explosives or maybe something else but the point was that anti-truthers say there would be sounds of explosives going off if it was CD and there are witnesses that say they heard explosive sounds! Saying they may not have been explosives is just speculation with out an investigation! But witnesses heard what they thought were explosions! That's a fact!

[William Seger]

27. Here's "so fucking what":

You are the one on the hook to prove your highly implausible claims, and what I posted demonstrates why "people heard explosions" is NOT evidence of a controlled demolition, because there is no need for such an absurdly implausible explanation for those sounds. As you yourself demonstrate in the other subthread, most of the reports of "explosions" don't even correspond to the actual collapses at all, which pretty much takes "controlled demolition" completely off the list of possible explanations for those noises.

And obviously you have no explanation for why there is nothing in any of the videos that sounds remotely like a controlled demolition, whereas I have a very simple and obvious explanation.

That's "so fucking what."

[wildbilln864]

29. No!

I am not on the hook for shit sdude! You can pretend that explosives are a "absurdly implausible explanation" for explosive sounds but good luck with that!

[ocpagu]

84. LOL

Loved your answer.

[wildbilln864]

30. Wrong again!

I have already explained why!
You missed it I guess. Gee I wonder how that happened.
The reason you don't hear them is maybe because they weren't meant to be heard! They didn't want them heard because then we'd know for sure it was CD but some people heard them any way!

[zappaman]

32. Now THAT makes sense!

"The reason you don't hear them is maybe because they weren't meant to be heard! They didn't want them heard because then we'd know for sure it was CD but some people heard them any way!"

Magical silent explosions that also don't register on a seismograph is an excellent theory!
That's the kind of critical thinking that will bust this case wide open...any day now...just wait...it's gonna happen...you'll see...it's only been 10 years....hold on....any second...

[wildbilln864]

33. thermit is quite quiet from a distance in case you didn't know that! nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. seems like the goalposts are moving

If your point is that it's logically possible that the twin towers were brought down in a controlled demolition without explosives, I agree. It's even logically possible that they were brought down with a combination of explosives and non-explosives. But it's also logically possible that they fell down without CD at all. You seem to be quite certain that that didn't happen, but I can't tell why.

(As far as I can tell, how quiet thermite is would depend on how it was used.)

[William Seger]

40. That's exactly why the thermite nonsense was invented in the first place...

... because it's quite clear from the lack of huge explosion sounds and seismic spikes that the Towers were not conventional controlled demolitions, so by "truther logic" they must have been unconventional demolitions, of a type never seen before or since. The major problem with that hypothesis is that one of the pro-demolition arguments was that the only way the Towers could have suddenly fallen straight down as they did would be if all the columns on one level were destroyed virtually simultaneously. That would be quite a trick to get the thermite to melt through all those columns at the same instant. In fact, it's absurdly implausible.

What else you got?

[wildbilln864]

43. don't need anything else yet.

you've failed!
There is no such thing as truther logic!
It's quite clear to you because that's what you want to see!

You say, "That's exactly why the thermite nonsense was invented in the first place...

... because it's quite clear from the lack of huge explosion sounds and seismic spikes that the Towers were not conventional controlled demolitions, so by "truther logic" they must have been unconventional demolitions, of a type never seen before or since."

Well, that could be true but it could also be true that if thermit was used then maybe it was in order to use less audible means to take the support structures in the towers out. See, you wouldn't want the public to hear the explosives! Duh!
If they did, who'd explain how they got there?
Al CIAda?
I do notice you qualify the words "explosion sounds" with that adjective "huge". Why. Huge wouldn't be needed or wanted with thermit to aid in destroying the support structure.
And we've already seen video of firemen clearly being surprised by a huge explosion.
Which you seem to ignore! Maybe it was earlier that morning though. Maybe though, that explosive that made the sound was supposed to bring the building down then but didn't. So they "pulled it" later instead.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. "you wouldn't want the public to hear the explosives! Duh!" But according to 9/11 Truth

people DID hear explosions. Just not loud enough to be captured on any footage of the buildings falling. But Richard Gage has like 30 slides of people saying they heard explosions, right?

So if they used nano/thermi/ate to keep people from hearing explosions, they did anyway. But nano/thermi/ate isn't explosive by nature. So what was exploding?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. It doesn't matter what explosive they used

Getting the explosives/thermite/whatever to survive 50 to 100 minutes of raging fire and the massive damage from being rammed by an airliner is the inexplicable part. Supposedly temperatures ~600 degrees centigrade may or may not deform steel. Being rammed by an object weighing ~190 metric tons at speeds measuring hundreds of kph may or may not bring down a skyscraper.

But what about the dentonation triggering systems?

That any device, wired or radio, could survive such stresses is implausible. A system supposedly complex enough to bring down multiple buildings stretches credulity beyond reason.

[wildbilln864]

56. some explosions were heard in the basement! nt

[cpwm17]

60. It happened when the aircraft struck

When the aircraft struck Tower 1 (Tower 2 also?) some of the elevators feel to the basement which was very loud. Plus fire balls from the aircraft fuel made it to the basement. Here's a dramatic, and sad, description from someone that was in the WTC1 basement when the aircraft struck:

The towers didn't fall from the basements so bombs in the basement couldn't have anything to do with the towers collapsing. The towers fell from where the aircraft struck.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. But the collapses plainly begin in the area of the aircraft strikes

Not from the basement.

And who the heck would be in the area to hear explosions and live to tell about it with all that rubble coming down?

And weren't you just arguing that thermite was used to obviate the sound of explosions. You keep shifting "theories" everytime the facts don't meet your pre-determined conclusion.

[zappaman]

28. What's an anti-truther?

And who identifies themselves as such?

[wildbilln864]

47. tell me something william...

how does one floor fall onto another floor and destroy it yet the floor that falls isn't destroyed also?
They made of the same things and will react the same way to the impact! It is not backwards!
The upper section that fell onto the lower building was smaller! Also it was damaged so weaker!
Yet you honestly think it went all the way down to the ground before being finally destroyed at the bottom?
See this image:

there's no way the small section of the building above impact is going to plow straight down through the rest of the undamaged floors below all the way with out help(demolition charges). It would be equally destroyed as it went therefore losing momentum as well as weight as much of the building is clearly seen going over the side in the videos of the collapses.

[cpwm17]

58. Is that a fact?

Last edited Wed Dec 28, 2011, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)

I've tried in the past to determine whether the top or bottom section is destroyed more quickly. I can't really tell. They're obscured by the debris, though they both seem to destroy each other pretty quickly.

Since the top section and bottom section strike each other just as hard, one would think (all things being equal) that they should both disintegrate just as fast. Perhaps they did. But, perhaps, since the bottom section would also experience the impacts from the loose debris (much more than the top section), the bottom section may desintegrate more quickly. That's just my speculation.

[wildbilln864]

59. Conservation of momentum is a fact, yes...

"The law of conservation of linear momentum is a fundamental law of nature, and it states that if no external force acts on a closed system of objects, the momentum of the closed system remains constant. One of the consequences of this is that the center of mass of any system of objects will always continue with the same velocity unless acted on by a force from outside the system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation_of_linear_momentum

[Bolo Boffin]

61. From Bazant, a debris layer would quickly build up between the top and bottom sections.

All things being equal, the debris from both sections tearing apart would be a middle layer that would act more on the lower section than the higher.

Although in the case of the WTC towers, the center core columns would and did "punch through" the top section, leaving them standing after the top section passed by. To my layman's mind, that would tend to tear the top section apart as well. However, loss of structure doesn't mean loss of mass, and that much mass falling would be impossible for the WTC structure below to deflect. Bazant demonstrated that in his first paper on the subject, commonly called Bazant-Zhou.

[wildbilln864]

62. bullshit, more bull shit!

why?
"the debris from both sections tearing apart would be a middle layer that would act more on the lower section than the higher. " please explain this assertion.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. OK.

Two structures come together. The force begins tearing pieces off of both. These pieces are necessarily in between the two structures, a middle layer. This middle layer, as it falls, will affect the lower structure more than the upper structure because the lower structure is -- well, it's lower. The pieces are falling down, not up.

[wildbilln864]

67. for every action....

there is an equal and opposite reaction! Your bull disregards that fundamental law! But thanks for the laugh and for exposing your lack of understanding!

[cpwm17]

68. You're missing his point

The top and bottom sections do have equal and opposite reactions. But that is not all that is going on. The lower section is also being struck by the increasing debris between the sections as they break apart. The debris is forced downward by gravity, which means the debris strikes the lower section much harder than the top section.

The debris does have equal and opposite reaction with the lower section also.

[wildbilln864]

71. His point was to deflect or obfuscate!

I guess you'll want to ignore all that debris going over the side!
Conservation of momentum!

[Bolo Boffin]

74. I grant good faith to you in this discussion. Please do the same for me.

Bazant's calculations account for debris "going over the side" or mass shedding.

[William Seger]

65. Bolo explained it just fine, and anyway, you're falling for a red herring

As Bolo (and Bazant) said, the forces present at the boundary between the debris layer and the lower structure were greater than the forces present at the boundary between the upper structure and the debris layer; the difference being the force due to the weight of the debris layer itself falling on the lower structure.

You didn't bother saying what you were getting at, but I presume that your intent was to launch yet another futile assault on Bazant's one-dimensional "crush down, crush up" model, laboring under the mistaken belief that you can thereby defeat Bazant's argument that collapse was inevitable. That might lead to yet another futile attempt to explain to you that Bazant's analysis presents an argument about energy -- that there was much more energy in the falling mass than the structure could possible absorb -- and was explicitly stated by Bazant to not represent a "realistic" model of the collapse. Furthermore, if "truthers" want to convince me that they can tell what's going on inside that cloud of smoke and dust, and they somehow "know" that "crush down, crush up" didn't happen, please provide some evidence of this remarkable sixth sense.

[wildbilln864]

66. I guess for you he did!

You may even agree with him that the collapses were like Steuben glass meeting a sledge hammer. But that's another crock of shit also that shows his limited ability to understand! Yours too maybe?
perhaps this will help:

[William Seger]

70. "Most people do not realize..."

"... that WTC 1, 2 and 7 did not slow down."

Really? Some people realize that Cole's claim that they didn't slow down is an unsubstantiated assertion based on nothing but Chandler's and Szamboti's crude measurements at the roof line, which shouldn't be expected to show even major decelerations. And some people realize that the "jolts" could have been spread out in time such there might not be any major decelerations of the roof, anyway. And some people realize that Szamboti's measurements actually DO show decelerations if they're properly interpreted -- just not ones of the magnitude that Szamboti imagines with the silly assumption that all the columns acted simultaneously to counteract the falling mass.

You prefer to ignore those people, but if and when Gage ever gets that new investigation and this is the kind of CRAP he brings as "evidence," then there isn't really any serious doubt about the outcome.

[wildbilln864]

73. I realize you are obfuscating!

"Really? Some people realize that Cole's claim that they didn't slow down is an unsubstantiated assertion based on nothing but Chandler's and Szamboti's crude measurements at the roof line, which shouldn't be expected to show even major decelerations. And some people realize that the "jolts" could have been spread out in time such there might not be any major decelerations of the roof, anyway. And some people realize that Szamboti's measurements actually DO show decelerations if they're properly interpreted -- just not ones of the magnitude that Szamboti imagines with the silly assumption that all the columns acted simultaneously to counteract the falling mass. "= same old same! opinion based on bias! Show the evidence!

[cpwm17]

72. You can't compare colliding objects on different scales

Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:21 PM - Edit history (1)

As you scale up objects, all else being equal, the larger object has a lower strength to weight ratio.

As you scale up objects, the weight increases in three dimensions but the strength only increases in two dimensions. For a cylinder the weight is proportional to its cross section area times its height, and its strength is proportional to its cross section area only. If you double it dimensions, its strength to weight ratio is cut in half.

This is a big reason why ants can carry many times their own weight.

The strength to weight ratio is far less for the towers than for any experiment in this video.

Plus the towers weren't solid, nor did they give a continuous resistance to the collapsing top sections. The towers weren't over built. They were design to withstand normal loads, not the tremendous loads of large collapsing sections of buildings from above.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. And lots of people will try and explain what sort of locomotive the tornado sounded like.

BFD.

1. Conditions during the collapse allows for material to be ejected at velocities that break the sound barrier.
2. Shit falling 60+ stories, like pieces of concrete, steel, even 55lb sheets of aluminium alloy, tend to make a dramatic noise on impact.
3. Each tower contained 100 acres of office space. Basically two towns within a city. There are electrical service systems that frankly, no one had ever tested the breakers and shut off's in this manner before. Entirely possible for things that were not explosives, to be busily exploding in the vicinity of the towers that day. Things like racks of UPS batteries, transformers, etc.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. "There was no raging infernos in the towers that lasted for hours!"

The South Tower burned for 56 minutes. The North Tower burned for 102 minutes. That's a lot of time for fires in enclosed space started by aviation fuel to burn.

There was no need for wires to set off any incendiaries or explosives. They could easily be triggered by cell phones or radio waves or other methods.

OK, what about the receivers? Will they still function through the shock, smoke and heat? If this is "easy" then an explanation should be forthcoming.

Mere assumptions based on opinion.

A statement that is just as easily reversed. The opinion of CTers states 4 attacks were required to sufficiently whip the nation into a war frenzy. Is it the argument of the CT community that had ONLY the Pentagon or ONLY a single WTC Tower or ONLY Flight 93 been attacked the US would not have declared war on Afghanistan and all that followed?

[AtheistCrusader]

89. Radio waves or cell phones?

Hell, the firefighter's radios didn't even work properly in all that shit.

You really couldn't use radio controlled explosives in that sort of environment. Too much EM noise. Much of it destructive, like exploding transformers in the building, and from the planes, the rotors in the engines spinning at 10k rpm when they digested aluminum and steel from the outer wall.

If you asked a demolitions engineer to set something up in that environment, he or she would probably immediately break out in hives.

[wildbilln864]

19. And by the way!

I hope everyone has had a very merry Christmas and has the best New Year yet!

[quickesst]

35. Drywall....

..from 1 hour drywall, 2 hour drywall, 3 hour drywall, 4 hour drywall coupled with fire-proofing caulk and fireproof insulation. I don't think that particular aspect of your argument is viable. Most "silly" cters are of the opinion the explosives they believe were planted were below the impact area, and not affected by the explosion or fire. Pretty solid system, and don't get me started on how many elevator shafts I've built. From 20 years experience, just sayin'. Not sure I'll revisit this thread, but I thought the observation would be food for thought for the more serious on this issue. Thanks.
quickesst

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. So how did the drywall survive the ramming of a jumbo jet aircraft?

Not to mention the collapses are plainly visible as beginning at the level of the impact points.

Most "silly" cters are of the opinion the explosives they believe were planted were below the impact area, and not affected by the explosion or fire.

That's quite the risk to ensure the planes struck at the proper height. I've also heard jet fuel was pouring down the elevator shafts and burning. That would indicate fire far below the impact points.

And why would the Evil Cabal let the fires burn for 56 and 102 minutes? Why not blow the towers within minutes if not immediately?

[quickesst]

75. I told you....

....not to get me started on elevator shafts. I've built quite a few. Elevator shaft board is almost two inches thick, coupled with fireproofing in all cracks, crevices, and seams. I would think more doubt would be cast had the "explosives" if there were any had been detonated immediately. Even if the jet fuel had escaped from the elevator shaft somehow, a single sheet of drywall has a rating of one hour. I'd be surprised if they didn't do at least a two hour firewall, especially on the exterior. The fuel down the elevator shaft thing just makes me smile. I'll let you guys get back to it now. Thanks.
quickesst

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. My point is

An impact of the magnitude of a jumbo airliner would have destroyed the drywall. I'm speaking to kinetic force, not temperature. Once that was destroyed any fire proofing would go with it.

[quickesst]

79. Come on....

...don't give me that crap. Sure, a 757 crashing directly into one floor will do the damage you profess, but, given the floors below it will not have that much immedeate damage. Anyone's opinion, not having any real experience in construction, that the floors below the impact fail just as the floors that were actually impacted may have alll the knowledge in the world that academics may provide, but we, who know the business, understand that what happened could not have happened without help. Thanks.
quickesst

On further edit, know this eggheads, when you have floors that have not been damaged, and pulverized shit falls on it, the floors will, for the most part, stand, and offer resistance.
The twin towers should have had at least a third of their structure still standing. I didn't really want to get into this, but the ignorance was just too much for me to ignore. Thanks, and I hope you're proud of yourself.
quickesst

On further, further edit, sometimes it's not just the higher educated, which I admire, as I have a son and daughter-in-law with masters degrees, but occasionally it falls into the hands of the blue collar. Thanks again.

[Bolo Boffin]

80. It's not about overcoming the strength of the steel below.

It's about overcoming the strength of the connections below.

[deconstruct911]

81. Do you mean the bolts...

if that's the case wouldn't the core remain standing until a big gust of wind took it down or something? How did the horizontal columns rip off the verticle core columns at each floor? Pretty strong and weak bolts at the same time?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. "a 757 crashing directly into one floor"

That would be a gross understatement of the nature of the events.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Really? You think you could go back in time, and drop the equivalent mass of a WWII battleship from

20 feet above, onto the top floor of either of the buildings, and you think the building would resist it?

Not a fucking chance.

[wildbilln864]

90. it seems you're on a mission! eom.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. I hate dumb ideas, and that motivates me to debunk them.

Dumb ideas in EVERY field should be run to ground, tested, and confirmed, or destroyed.

[wildbilln864]

94. well good luck with that. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Going pretty good so far.

[wildbilln864]

96. right!

[Logical]

83. 9/11 is no conspiracy! There is nothing to their story!