FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

WTC construction manager - towers okay for multiple impacts
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Me
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Compare it with any sort of chain you like, a thin gold chain for instance; it will never break in a number of places simultaneously.


Again, youíre comparing metals to glass. Itís a bad analogy. Metals behave nothing like glass and respond completely different to stresses when applied. If we were talking about steel beams would you being using a glass analogy? I would hope not. Metal and glass arenít even in the same ballpark. Youíre trying to make it sound as if itís literally impossible for more than one window to break based on a poor chain link analogy. As if one window being broken suddenly makes the rest of them invincible somehow? Iím just not buying it.

Quote:
Have the lights got anything to do with it?


I was being facetious.

The point being that when youíre running for your life, youíre not concerned about conserving electricity, or closing doors. Are we supposed to believe that the only areas where this discharge of air occurred was in places where doors were left opened? That seems like a pretty credulous assumption based on no evidence.

Iím not familiar with this alleged door closing feature. Do you have an official verification of this that you can cite as a reference?

As far as the thickness of the glass. I admit that I donít know the exact dimensions. Apparently you donít either? Weíre not exactly talking about the thick glass of a theme park aquarium here you know. It's a simple window in a bulding.

Quote:
Because that was where the pressurised air escaped.


It had to travel a whole twenty or thirty floors before finding a proper escape route? I find that hard to believe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheTruth
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacko prattles about the large air-pressure created when one floor supposedly drops onto another.

Of course, he never explains how this pressure might have developed.

He never mentions that ALL of the windows on the floor that the air is supposedly being compressed in, are already broken (by the supposed, crushing drop of the above floor).

He never mentions that all of the air being compressed can escape through these hundreds of broken windows. Instead, he claims that it does not escape through these broken windows, but chooses to escape by breaking one, or two, previously unbroken windows, up to 20 floors below the collapse and then selectively rushes out of these.

He never mentions that, if the air on the floor that supposedly drops cannot be compressed, to any extent, because it will escape, then the air further below cannot be compressed, either.

Bushwacko doesn't tell you any of this because he is a propagandist for those who did 9/11 and for him, any lie that the suckers believe is good enough.

Bushwacko most probably doesn't believe what he is telling you. He just smiles as the suckers soak it up without questioning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
Me wrote:
Quote:
It is actually a very good analogy, the links of the chain are all made in just the same way, the same tension is applied to all, but one will give out before the others, they will not all fail simultaneously, some tiny difference in strength will mean that one goes first. With the windows in the towers, there will similarly be small manufacturing differences, and perhaps more importantly they would have been installed manually, and there will be subtle differences arising through that.



Itís a bad analogy because for one, there is no ďlinkĒ between any of the windows as would be in the case of chain so itís an entirely different situation. Those windows were not directly applying a force on one another. Secondly, glass is much more fragile than say a steel chain. Defective or not, thereís no reason to believe that multiple windows on the same floors wouldnít have broke if exposed to the amount of air pressure that is being suggested. Whether a given window already has a small crack in it or it is in perfect condition, whether it has been poorly framed or not, I still ought to be able to through a baseball through it regardless. The air pressure theory is just too selective and assumes too many things.
Quote:

Also of course, there would be major differences in the ease with which the pressurised air could even reach the windows. it will have had to travel down lift shafts, stair wells, and private stairs put in by tenants between their floors, so whether doors are open or not would make a crucial difference. Similarly to when one chain link breaks, the tension on the others is relieved, when one window breaks the air pressure drops, so others nearby do not suffer the same pressure.


Fine but most rooms have more than one window in them. You'd expect to see groups of windows shattering. Windows sharing the same room. I donít see any of the (in your own words) ďsubtleĒ differences that youíve described being enough to account for the dramatic amounts of air pressure that have been suggested. Look at the sheer force being exerted in those photos. Projectiles and debris being tossed large distances. Glass is glass, it breaks very easily. We all know that. Trying to compare a thin, very fragile pane of glass with the link of a steel chain is worse than comparing apples to oranges.

Compare it with any sort of chain you like, a thin gold chain for instance; it will never break in a number of places simultaneously. Why do you assume the glass is thin? Perhaps more than one window in a room did break, you cannot tell from the video, and you cannot really see what is coming out, any sudden depressurisation will cause loose items to blow out.


can we compare the interconnected steel beams in the towers to a chain also??

just asking because that structure of interconnect steel that is a closer thing to compare to a chain all failed simultaneously around all 4 walls all the way down perfectly and symetrically, do your rules only apply to glass? or does connected steel act the same way as your claiming the glass windows would act?

in other words if windows/glass would not fail simultaneously when all put under the same stress then why would the steel structure fail simultaneously and not stages or unevenly like the windows?.

yes theres a downward momentum but if the chain link example is true then some steel beam connections would fail before others therefore creating an uneven collapse.

or like i said does this only apply to glass.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheTruth
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 5:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey marky 54, cut to the chase and answer the above post:

Bushwacko prattles about the large air-pressure created when one floor supposedly drops onto another.

Of course, he never explains how this pressure might have developed.

He never mentions that ALL of the windows on the floor that the air is supposedly being compressed in, are already broken (by the supposed, crushing drop of the above floor).

He never mentions that all of the air being compressed can escape through these hundreds of broken windows. Instead, he claims that it does not escape through these broken windows, but chooses to escape by breaking one, or two, previously unbroken windows, up to 20 floors below the collapse and then selectively rushes out of these.

He never mentions that, if the air on the floor that supposedly drops cannot be compressed, to any extent, because it will escape, then the air further below cannot be compressed, either.

Bushwacko doesn't tell you any of this because he is a propagandist for those who did 9/11 and for him, any lie that the suckers believe is good enough.

Bushwacko most probably doesn't believe what he is telling you. He just smiles as the suckers soak it up without questioning.


This needs to be answered. This is the crux of the matter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheTruth wrote:
Hey marky 54, cut to the chase and answer the above post:

Bushwacko prattles about the large air-pressure created when one floor supposedly drops onto another.

Of course, he never explains how this pressure might have developed.

He never mentions that ALL of the windows on the floor that the air is supposedly being compressed in, are already broken (by the supposed, crushing drop of the above floor).

He never mentions that all of the air being compressed can escape through these hundreds of broken windows. Instead, he claims that it does not escape through these broken windows, but chooses to escape by breaking one, or two, previously unbroken windows, up to 20 floors below the collapse and then selectively rushes out of these.

He never mentions that, if the air on the floor that supposedly drops cannot be compressed, to any extent, because it will escape, then the air further below cannot be compressed, either.

Bushwacko doesn't tell you any of this because he is a propagandist for those who did 9/11 and for him, any lie that the suckers believe is good enough.

Bushwacko most probably doesn't believe what he is telling you. He just smiles as the suckers soak it up without questioning.


This needs to be answered. This is the crux of the matter.


i don't need to answer this, i never said a word of it.

i was simply intrested in critics opinons to what i asked earlier, end of story i got what i asked for regardless of how possible or true the answers were.

if you want answers to anything bushwacker has said then you should ask him and stop presuming that people just soak up or believe ever word that is said.

i am not going to change critics opinons about what they think, but knowing both sides of the arguement helps to come to a conclusion about what information is true or who's arguement is flawed.

are you suggesting i should not ask critics for their opinon and should always only listen to one side of the storey and waste time argueing the toss with them when all i was intrested in was their opinon or reason why THEY think the information i recieved is wrong?

i asked for a opinon, i got it regardless of if i agree with it, it is up to others to decide for themselves if what was said by the critics was true.

im decided and there is no point argueing the toss, you are also free to come to your conclusion or bring the answer to my question by critics into question if you wish, i have no need trying to sway the unswayable however their arguements have to tested as i doubt truthers are correct 100% of the time as much as i doubt critics are right 100% of the time.

so if i have a question i will ask both sides and come to a conclusion from their as would anyone lurking here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

also with all respect what your expecting me to give answers to is totally unrelated to anything i asked critics in this thread and none of it came from me nor have i stated in this thread anything about squibs or air pressure.

i am very confused why you are coming after me to answer this other than you thinking that because i asked critics a question to get their opinon you somehow think i just believe everyword they say, when the fact is i dont believe a word critics or truthers say but will take both sides points into consideration to decide which is more likely and will not work from the assumption only one side is right, not everything is black and white.

ive said it before and ill say it again "im of the opinon both sides are right and wrong about differant things, but no side can see it nor want to admit it".

what i basically did was saw something that seems conclusive and then said "what do you think about this, what are your reason to explain it"
the answer to that no matter how true will give me the answer and make sure everything has been taken into account.

mmm no thats not plausible or ah yes that is plausible would then be my thought from the answers, dont take me for some type of mug who just laps up comments or claims as being true because im somehow gullible, the gullible never check both side of the arguement as far as im concerned.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny how the people who believe the weaker windows could not break due to air pressure would never question whether explosive charges could selectively break windows. Are you saying that the charges were placed on individual windows? Or are you just applying the typical troofer logic - infitinite scepticism and argumentativeness for the OCT, no questions and no scepticism for troofer version?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Me wrote:
Quote:
Compare it with any sort of chain you like, a thin gold chain for instance; it will never break in a number of places simultaneously.


Again, youíre comparing metals to glass. Itís a bad analogy. Metals behave nothing like glass and respond completely different to stresses when applied. If we were talking about steel beams would you being using a glass analogy? I would hope not. Metal and glass arenít even in the same ballpark. Youíre trying to make it sound as if itís literally impossible for more than one window to break based on a poor chain link analogy. As if one window being broken suddenly makes the rest of them invincible somehow? Iím just not buying it.

Quote:
Have the lights got anything to do with it?


I was being facetious.

The point being that when youíre running for your life, youíre not concerned about conserving electricity, or closing doors. Are we supposed to believe that the only areas where this discharge of air occurred was in places where doors were left opened? That seems like a pretty credulous assumption based on no evidence.

Iím not familiar with this alleged door closing feature. Do you have an official verification of this that you can cite as a reference?

As far as the thickness of the glass. I admit that I donít know the exact dimensions. Apparently you donít either? Weíre not exactly talking about the thick glass of a theme park aquarium here you know. It's a simple window in a bulding.

Quote:
Because that was where the pressurised air escaped.


It had to travel a whole twenty or thirty floors before finding a proper escape route? I find that hard to believe.

You are being overly literal, of course metals and glass have dissimilar properties, but consider a chain with glass links if you like. Under excessive tension one link will break first, although it may be visually identical to all other links. Once it has broken, the tension is relieved and the other links will not break. Similarly with excess pressure inside a building, one window is likely to give way first, rather than all simultaneously, although all appear to be identical. Once that has given way, the others do not become invincible, the pressure drops and they do not suffer the same excess pressure, and therefore do not break.

Of course I am not saying that necessarily doors were left open, I am simply illustrating that you cannot assume that equal pressure was suddenly applied to all windows, because other building features may affect the flow of air.

If you are not familiar with large buildings and their fire precautions, simply google "fire regulations" "door closers" and you will see many references.

To take it back to fundamentals, buildings are hollow structures mostly filled with air. If floors collapse on to each other they will act like a piston and drive the air down. The displaced air has to go somewhere and therefore air in the building below is pressurised and eventually has to escape somewhere. This applies whatever has made the floors collapse, including demolition.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheTruth wrote:
Bushwacko prattles about the large air-pressure created when one floor supposedly drops onto another.

Of course, he never explains how this pressure might have developed.

He never mentions that ALL of the windows on the floor that the air is supposedly being compressed in, are already broken (by the supposed, crushing drop of the above floor).

He never mentions that all of the air being compressed can escape through these hundreds of broken windows. Instead, he claims that it does not escape through these broken windows, but chooses to escape by breaking one, or two, previously unbroken windows, up to 20 floors below the collapse and then selectively rushes out of these.

He never mentions that, if the air on the floor that supposedly drops cannot be compressed, to any extent, because it will escape, then the air further below cannot be compressed, either.

Bushwacko doesn't tell you any of this because he is a propagandist for those who did 9/11 and for him, any lie that the suckers believe is good enough.

Bushwacko most probably doesn't believe what he is telling you. He just smiles as the suckers soak it up without questioning.

I always think that people resort to abuse when their argument is weak, don't you agree? If you cannot see that a floor dropping on another displaces the air in the building and thus increases the pressure, I am afraid I cannot help you. Of course the falling floors do not act as a perfect piston, much air will escape round the sides, but some will be driven down. Similarly a fan will blow a stream of air, much will leak off to the sides, but you will still feel the effect some distance away. Most of the air in the towers obviously escaped through some other route than blowing out the windows, because after all, very few windows were blown out.

Consider the alternative theory offered, that the puffs of smoke were the result of premature detonation of explosives placed in the towers. Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence at all that explosives were used. Secondly, if they were, it was highly organised and professional job, placing all the explosives and wiring so that it was quite unnoticed by all the people working in the towers, and rigging them up to a computer or some mechanism that would fire them in an exact sequence to mimic the effect of the towers collapsing through fire, starting from the floors hit by the planes, where the explosives and control mechanism would have to survive not only the impact of the planes but also the fires there for at least an hour. However, despite all this highly skilled work, which professional demolition experts are at a loss to explain, we are asked to believe that somehow by accident some charges went off randomly and prematurely just as the proper sequence of explosives started, however these charges had no visible effect whatsoever on the structure of the building. Do you really believe all that? It seems that as usual the conspiracy theory is much less plausible than the generally accepted theory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
ZUCO wrote:
How come there were "puffs" of dust ejected 20-30 floors below the collapse zone? Confused

Because that was where the pressurised air escaped.


20-30 floors below the collapse zone? Seems a little far fetched and assumptious to me don't you think?

_________________


"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--

ZUCO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZUCO wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
ZUCO wrote:
How come there were "puffs" of dust ejected 20-30 floors below the collapse zone? Confused

Because that was where the pressurised air escaped.


20-30 floors below the collapse zone? Seems a little far fetched and assumptious to me don't you think?

Rather less so I would say than that some group within the US administration decided to stage 9/11, but flying airliners into the towers was not spectacular enough, so they arranged for exposives to be planted extremely expertly to simulate collapse through fire, as detailed above, but despite this expertise some explosives went off prematurely, however without visible damage to the buildings, thereby looking like puffs of smoke.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zuco, I think you quote is a perfect example of the troofer movement. While pretending to be reverential to history, that quote is not only wrong (the actual wording is "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety", it hasn't even been definitively attributed to Franklin.

Perfect quote for a troofer.

_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pepik wrote:
Zuco, I think you quote is a perfect example of the troofer movement. While pretending to be reverential to history, that quote is not only wrong (the actual wording is "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety", it hasn't even been definitively attributed to Franklin.

Perfect quote for a troofer.


So sad your life is that you would look at the quote in my signature and look on the net to find out who said it just so you could engage in some one upmanship with me. It does appear, however, that you are correct for once. Since the man is now dead and can't sue me for misquoting him I'll leave it how it is because the message in the quote is still very much true.

Note to self - Check quotes

Note to Pepik - Leave the house from time to time

_________________


"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--

ZUCO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
ZUCO wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
ZUCO wrote:
How come there were "puffs" of dust ejected 20-30 floors below the collapse zone? Confused

Because that was where the pressurised air escaped.


20-30 floors below the collapse zone? Seems a little far fetched and assumptious to me don't you think?

Rather less so I would say than that some group within the US administration decided to stage 9/11, but flying airliners into the towers was not spectacular enough, so they arranged for exposives to be planted extremely expertly to simulate collapse through fire, as detailed above, but despite this expertise some explosives went off prematurely, however without visible damage to the buildings, thereby looking like puffs of smoke.


Would it not be impossible to simulate "collapse through fire" as this has never before happened to a steel framed building?

_________________


"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--

ZUCO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZUCO wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
ZUCO wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
ZUCO wrote:
How come there were "puffs" of dust ejected 20-30 floors below the collapse zone? Confused

Because that was where the pressurised air escaped.


20-30 floors below the collapse zone? Seems a little far fetched and assumptious to me don't you think?

Rather less so I would say than that some group within the US administration decided to stage 9/11, but flying airliners into the towers was not spectacular enough, so they arranged for exposives to be planted extremely expertly to simulate collapse through fire, as detailed above, but despite this expertise some explosives went off prematurely, however without visible damage to the buildings, thereby looking like puffs of smoke.


Would it not be impossible to simulate "collapse through fire" as this has never before happened to a steel framed building?

How adroitly you change the subject! You do not really want to consider the far-fetched assumption of premature detonations, I suppose.

Where do you get the idea that no steel framed building has collapsed through fire? Of course they have, but it was true and is still true that no steel-framed skyscraper has collapsed through fire alone, apart from the upper floors of the Hotel Windsor in Madrid. It is also true that every single steel-framed skyscraper hit at high speed by a well-laden air liner has caught fire and collapsed, and every single steel-framed skyscraper severely damaged by having a nearby larger skyscraper collapse near it and allowed to burn untended for 8 hours has also collapsed.

Perhaps I should really have spelt it out more fully and said that the premature detonations theory involves expertly planted and detonated explosives simulating an initial collapse of one floor through fire, followed by a progressive collapse of the lower part of the building. You do, I suppose, accept that buildings have progressively collapsed before? The premature detonations theory then involves the experts who achieved a task professionals consider impossible, then somehow accidentally allowing some demolition charges to explode prematurely. Do you know of any incident of demolition experts accidentally allowing premature detonation?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence at all that explosives were used.


Well there are many people who reported explosions. To suggest there is absolutely no evidence is bizarre ........

And secondly, BDDT - Buildings Don't Do That. While you constantly state that the OCT is the only plausible answer, it fails to address the basic fact that it is impossible for 3 buildings to behave in the manner they did without some other influences at work. Which doesn't mean that we know how exactly it was done ........
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
ZUCO wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
ZUCO wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
ZUCO wrote:
How come there were "puffs" of dust ejected 20-30 floors below the collapse zone? Confused

Because that was where the pressurised air escaped.


20-30 floors below the collapse zone? Seems a little far fetched and assumptious to me don't you think?

Rather less so I would say than that some group within the US administration decided to stage 9/11, but flying airliners into the towers was not spectacular enough, so they arranged for exposives to be planted extremely expertly to simulate collapse through fire, as detailed above, but despite this expertise some explosives went off prematurely, however without visible damage to the buildings, thereby looking like puffs of smoke.


Would it not be impossible to simulate "collapse through fire" as this has never before happened to a steel framed building?

How adroitly you change the subject! You do not really want to consider the far-fetched assumption of premature detonations, I suppose.

Where do you get the idea that no steel framed building has collapsed through fire? Of course they have, but it was true and is still true that no steel-framed skyscraper has collapsed through fire alone, apart from the upper floors of the Hotel Windsor in Madrid. It is also true that every single steel-framed skyscraper hit at high speed by a well-laden air liner has caught fire and collapsed, and every single steel-framed skyscraper severely damaged by having a nearby larger skyscraper collapse near it and allowed to burn untended for 8 hours has also collapsed.

Perhaps I should really have spelt it out more fully and said that the premature detonations theory involves expertly planted and detonated explosives simulating an initial collapse of one floor through fire, followed by a progressive collapse of the lower part of the building. You do, I suppose, accept that buildings have progressively collapsed before? The premature detonations theory then involves the experts who achieved a task professionals consider impossible, then somehow accidentally allowing some demolition charges to explode prematurely. Do you know of any incident of demolition experts accidentally allowing premature detonation?


Your theory is that as the floors fell, they created pressure and the dust was forced out through windows, vents, whatever it could get through. This still doesn't explain the dust being ejected 30 floors below the collapse zone. So however arrogant and long winded you made your rebuttal, you still failed to address my initial question. Try again.

_________________


"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--

ZUCO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KP50 wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence at all that explosives were used.


Well there are many people who reported explosions. To suggest there is absolutely no evidence is bizarre ........

And secondly, BDDT - Buildings Don't Do That. While you constantly state that the OCT is the only plausible answer, it fails to address the basic fact that it is impossible for 3 buildings to behave in the manner they did without some other influences at work. Which doesn't mean that we know how exactly it was done ........

Certainly there are people who reported explosions during the time between the impacts and the collapse. There are no people who reported any structural damage to the buildings as a result. DDWLT - Demolition Does Not Work Like That. You do not demolish a building by exploding charges randomly about the building for an hour, causing no known structural damge, and then set off the real charges. I repeat, there is absolutely no evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings, people reporting explosions in a burning building does not constitute such evidence.

It may be your opinion that buildings don't do that, whatever it is you are talking about, and you are entitled to it, but it remains only an opinion, and is countered by other opinions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZUCO wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
ZUCO wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
ZUCO wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
ZUCO wrote:
How come there were "puffs" of dust ejected 20-30 floors below the collapse zone? Confused

Because that was where the pressurised air escaped.


20-30 floors below the collapse zone? Seems a little far fetched and assumptious to me don't you think?

Rather less so I would say than that some group within the US administration decided to stage 9/11, but flying airliners into the towers was not spectacular enough, so they arranged for exposives to be planted extremely expertly to simulate collapse through fire, as detailed above, but despite this expertise some explosives went off prematurely, however without visible damage to the buildings, thereby looking like puffs of smoke.


Would it not be impossible to simulate "collapse through fire" as this has never before happened to a steel framed building?

How adroitly you change the subject! You do not really want to consider the far-fetched assumption of premature detonations, I suppose.

Where do you get the idea that no steel framed building has collapsed through fire? Of course they have, but it was true and is still true that no steel-framed skyscraper has collapsed through fire alone, apart from the upper floors of the Hotel Windsor in Madrid. It is also true that every single steel-framed skyscraper hit at high speed by a well-laden air liner has caught fire and collapsed, and every single steel-framed skyscraper severely damaged by having a nearby larger skyscraper collapse near it and allowed to burn untended for 8 hours has also collapsed.

Perhaps I should really have spelt it out more fully and said that the premature detonations theory involves expertly planted and detonated explosives simulating an initial collapse of one floor through fire, followed by a progressive collapse of the lower part of the building. You do, I suppose, accept that buildings have progressively collapsed before? The premature detonations theory then involves the experts who achieved a task professionals consider impossible, then somehow accidentally allowing some demolition charges to explode prematurely. Do you know of any incident of demolition experts accidentally allowing premature detonation?


Your theory is that as the floors fell, they created pressure and the dust was forced out through windows, vents, whatever it could get through. This still doesn't explain the dust being ejected 30 floors below the collapse zone. So however arrogant and long winded you made your rebuttal, you still failed to address my initial question. Try again.

There is no reason why dust should not be ejected 30 floors below the collapse zone, since there were lift shafts and stairwells running through the building. Is that succinct enough for you?

Are you going to tackle any of the problems with the premature detonation theory, or continue to ignore the far-fetched assumptions because you have no answers?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
There is no reason why dust should not be ejected 30 floors below the collapse zone, since there were lift shafts and stairwells running through the building. Is that succinct enough for you?

Are you going to tackle any of the problems with the premature detonation theory, or continue to ignore the far-fetched assumptions because you have no answers?


Your assertion that
Quote:
every single steel-framed skyscraper hit at high speed by a well-laden air liner has caught fire and collapsed
....is a blatant lie.

Also your assertion that
Quote:
every single steel-framed skyscraper severely damaged by having a nearby larger skyscraper collapse near it and allowed to burn untended for 8 hours has also collapsed
....is a lie. What about the WTC buildings that didn't collapse? Even the ones closer to the towers than building 7 stayed standing.

Seems your argument is based on falsehoods. If you think the US military couldn't bring down a building in the manner they did on 9/11 then you're very naive or very stupid, or very well paid.

_________________


"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--

ZUCO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
KP50 wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence at all that explosives were used.


Well there are many people who reported explosions. To suggest there is absolutely no evidence is bizarre ........

And secondly, BDDT - Buildings Don't Do That. While you constantly state that the OCT is the only plausible answer, it fails to address the basic fact that it is impossible for 3 buildings to behave in the manner they did without some other influences at work. Which doesn't mean that we know how exactly it was done ........

Certainly there are people who reported explosions during the time between the impacts and the collapse. There are no people who reported any structural damage to the buildings as a result. DDWLT - Demolition Does Not Work Like That. You do not demolish a building by exploding charges randomly about the building for an hour, causing no known structural damge, and then set off the real charges. I repeat, there is absolutely no evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings, people reporting explosions in a burning building does not constitute such evidence.

It may be your opinion that buildings don't do that, whatever it is you are talking about, and you are entitled to it, but it remains only an opinion, and is countered by other opinions.


But people reporting explosions (many explosions) in parts of a burning building which aren't on fire is bizarre don't you think? And why would there be reports of structural damage, the core was the part that had to be weakened, that wouldn't necessarily manifest itself as visible structural damage.

And I am a bit puzzled by your reports of premature explosions not being part of a demolition - squibs, dust clouds etc. They are hardly premature are they? Just ahead of the demolition wave and taking out stronger parts of the building before the demolition wave arrives. Looks like good practice to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
There is no reason why dust should not be ejected 30 floors below the collapse zone, since there were lift shafts and stairwells running through the building. Is that succinct enough for you?

Are you going to tackle any of the problems with the premature detonation theory, or continue to ignore the far-fetched assumptions because you have no answers?


ZUCO wrote:
Nothing


OK, you have no answers, and cannot even attempt explain why premature detonations should take place.

ZUCO wrote:
[Your assertion that every single steel-framed skyscraper hit at high speed by a well-laden air liner has caught fire and collapsed is a blatant lie.


No, it is not a lie, name one that has not collapsed!

ZUCO wrote:
Also your assertion that
Quote:
every single steel-framed skyscraper severely damaged by having a nearby larger skyscraper collapse near it and allowed to burn untended for 8 hours has also collapsed
....is a lie. What about the WTC buildings that didn't collapse? Even the ones closer to the towers than building 7 stayed standing.


The other WTC buildings were NOT skyscrapers

ZUCO wrote:
Seems your argument is based on falsehoods. If you think the US military couldn't bring down a building in the manner they did on 9/11 then you're very naive or very stupid, or very well paid.


Oh dear, false accusations, unproved allegations, total failure to answer any question put to you. Who do you think you are going to convince like that? You are just demonstrating again that 9/11 "Truth" is simply a cult, based on unprovable and unjustifiable beliefs, nothing more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KP50 wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
KP50 wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence at all that explosives were used.


Well there are many people who reported explosions. To suggest there is absolutely no evidence is bizarre ........

And secondly, BDDT - Buildings Don't Do That. While you constantly state that the OCT is the only plausible answer, it fails to address the basic fact that it is impossible for 3 buildings to behave in the manner they did without some other influences at work. Which doesn't mean that we know how exactly it was done ........

Certainly there are people who reported explosions during the time between the impacts and the collapse. There are no people who reported any structural damage to the buildings as a result. DDWLT - Demolition Does Not Work Like That. You do not demolish a building by exploding charges randomly about the building for an hour, causing no known structural damge, and then set off the real charges. I repeat, there is absolutely no evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings, people reporting explosions in a burning building does not constitute such evidence.

It may be your opinion that buildings don't do that, whatever it is you are talking about, and you are entitled to it, but it remains only an opinion, and is countered by other opinions.


But people reporting explosions (many explosions) in parts of a burning building which aren't on fire is bizarre don't you think? And why would there be reports of structural damage, the core was the part that had to be weakened, that wouldn't necessarily manifest itself as visible structural damage.

And I am a bit puzzled by your reports of premature explosions not being part of a demolition - squibs, dust clouds etc. They are hardly premature are they? Just ahead of the demolition wave and taking out stronger parts of the building before the demolition wave arrives. Looks like good practice to me.

If you look in detail at many of these reports, you see more things than the conspiracy sites repeat. Many people in the North tower for instance said they heard explosions, which was actually the South tower collapsing. The initial flash came down the lift shafts, William Rodriguez famously said nothing about explosions in his first interviews and in fact for over a year. Electrical transformers throughout the buildings were exploding, rivets were popping, even people jumping sounded like explosions, and a fire is an extremely noisy environment. There is no seismic evidence of any explosions.

The building had to appear to collapse from the top down, there would be absolutely no point in weakening the core lower down any earlier, that could only serve to destroy that image if it was effective, if it was not there would be no point.

I referred to "premature detonations" because that is what the first post on this subject claimed these puffs to be. Explosions taking out stronger parts of the building ahead of the main demolition wave would surely look very different, the towers were symmetrical, the progressive collapse phase was symmetrical, your supposed earlier demolitions should also be symmetrical, not the random pattern of small puffs that we actually see. Any footage of actual demolitions shows a ring of explosions round a building, looking very different.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, double post, forum software acting up!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
ZUCO wrote:
Nothing

First of all, I never said that so don't quote words which I have never said.

Bushwacker wrote:
Quote:
No, it is not a lie, name one that has not collapsed!


The empire state building was hit by a 10 ton B-25 bomber and I think we can all agree that the twin towers were substantially stronger and better built to withstand a plane impact. It may not be a steel frame building but it acts as a good example of buildings being hit and staying standing. Unfortunately any kind of internet search for buildings that survive jet impacts strangely bring up pages regarding 9/11.

Bushwacker wrote:
Quote:
The other WTC buildings were NOT skyscrapers


So surely they would collapse even easier.

It seems even smaller buildings can survice plane crashes.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/07/content_501143.htm

Why are you here Bushwacker? Most people are here to unite and inform people about 9/11. Seeing as you believe the official theory why are you wasting your time trying to deter us "cult" members?

_________________


"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--

ZUCO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Me
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You are being overly literal,

It wasnít my analogy. As far as Iím concerned itís not even worthy of consideration. At first you said that it was a great analogy and now youíre suggesting that it shouldnít be taken too literally. Which is it? You canít have it both ways. Either itís a valid analogy or it isnít.




Your own statements defeat this argument anyway.

Here's what you told me previously in reference to this chain link analogy that you're so hung up on.

Quote:
Compare it with any sort of chain you like, a thin gold chain for instance; it will never break in a number of places simultaneously.


Yet we know for a fact that 'multiple windows (your "links") had broken in a number of places'.

I thought that the one ("link") window that was destroyed was supposed to spare the others of a similar fate? Or is this just another case where I'm not supposed to be so literal? Maybe itís because the analogy is bad just as Iíve been saying?

Quote:
but consider a chain with glass links if you like. Under excessive tension one link will break first, although it may be visually identical to all other links. Once it has broken, the tension is relieved and the other links will not break.


Quote:
Once that has given way, the others do not become invincible, the pressure drops and they do not suffer the same excess pressure, and therefore do not break.


Yet more than one window 'did' break didn't they?

Besides, explain to me how these windows were linked together and applying stress upon one another as would be the case with a chain? If you want to say that the links were glass then you canít theoretically connect them because the windows werenít directly connected with one another. If you really wanted to remain true to your analogy that is. I guess I'm being too literal again? Who can ever know? Maybe it's because it's a poor analogy as I've been saying all along?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Me
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

........

Last edited by Me on Thu May 31, 2007 1:42 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Me
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Electrical transformers throughout the buildings were exploding, rivets were popping, even people jumping sounded like explosions, and a fire is an extremely noisy environment. There is no seismic evidence of any explosions.


And those are all sounds that youíd typically expect to hear in a building fire. Are you saying that the veteran firefighters wouldnít have been able to recognize these sounds based on previous experiences? Thatís the problem, skeptics seem to believe that all of the first responders were rookies, first day on the job and no past experience. Whatever they heard was clearly above and beyond the norm of what they were previously accustomed to hearing in seeing. They spoke about these explosions in those terms. Some specifically mentioned that they believed devices had been planted in the building.

That's what they do for a living. They fight fires in buildings. The WTC towers weren't the fires in history to be associated with the pop and snaps of an electrical fire. How many buildings in NYC do you figure arenít wired with electricity?

And how exactly does people jumping sound like a bomb going off?

Instead weíre supposed to just trust those who werenít there and have no experience fighting fires? That doesnít sound like a very empirical approach to analyzing data to me.

The 9/11 Commission didnít even consider the firsthand testimony of these firefighter and others. And you want to call that a complete and detailed investigation? Itís a joke, a farce, a masquerade.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Me
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Letís say that I had laid out a number of glass links (since you want to use glass) individually, not connected just as the windows were. Give me one good reason why I couldnít break more than one of them at the same time when applying the same force to each one simultaneously.

Once you separate these "links" or windows and make it accurate to the real life situation as it were the suddenly it becomes completely irrelevant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Me
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Consider the alternative theory offered,


Consider the absurdity of the official theory. A group of so-called ďfanaticalĒ Muslims, some of which enjoyed Las Vegas trips, gambling, lap dances and alcohol (not very religiously devout of them) suddenly decided they wanted to kill themselves. The 9/11 Commission of course ignored this. One even decided to bring his will with him on that fateful day. A bizarre move for someone looking to commit suicide but strangely convenient for the FBI. Kind of reminiscent the 7/7 bomber that was unusually overly concerned about the price of a ticket before going on to commit his atrocity. These are Muslims that were somehow able to make complicated maneuvers in a large commercial airliner when they could barely handle a small Cessna. They were allegedly acting under the control a cave dwelling madmen living in a cave on kidney dialysis namely Osama Bin Laden. A man that the Bush administration canít seem to capture and have even claimed that theyíre not worried about now. The very man allegedly responsible for 9/11? A man that the Taliban said theyíd gladly turned over if the Bush administration offered proof of his guilt. Proof that of course never came. Even the FBI admits that there is no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11. The only ďproofĒ that we have is the so-called bin Laden confession that just so happened to turn up during a search. This is what the entire campaign hinges on. Often ignored though is Bin Ladenís initial statement in which he clearly denies any involvement in 9/11. One of them has to be fake since theyíre clearly contradictory. Why should we believe one over the other? Or maybe the ever elusive Bin Laden is just a schizoid in which case nothing that he says can be taken at face value. I havenít even gotten in to the passports turning up when even plane parts seemed all too scarce. There were drills just so happened to perfectly coincide with the actual attacks that they claimed they never couldíve imagined ever taking place. The coincidences abound. Coincidences that defy all laws of probability.



Then came time for the investigation of these attacks. An attack that was the worst on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Youíd think that the Bush administration would want to get to the bottom of it. Instead they were staunchly opposed to having an investigation from the very start. And only until pressure from victim's families did they finally give in only to intentionally under-fund the investigation that they didnít want to begin with. Firefighters gagged, testimony either ignored or held in secret. But no, thatís not suspicious or anything.

Then of course there was the lie about the toxic dust of the debris in the aftermath of 9/11. Further proof the this administration wouldnít hesitate to lie, even if it meant costing innocent lives. They even lied about Pat Tillman, even burned his clothing. They lied about WMDís to get us involved in a illicit war which ultimately cost thousand of lives. And yet weíre now supposed to trust them on 9/11. Yeah sure.

And the PNAC even asked for a new Pearl Harbor, and low and behold they got it.

That just barely scratches the surface of how pathetic the official version really is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth News All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group