View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 16:46

Dude, um, you are not being reasonable here. The steel was shipped off and melted, we cannot examine it for more explosives residue. Duh! The molten steel and thermite constitute hard evidence anyway. You guys can't dismiss it, so all you can do is provide conjecture, not scientific evidence.


The steel was not shipped off. Samples were taken. The material was checked. There was no molten steel or thermite residue.


So you were told. Do you believe everything you hear? You were also told that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident happened, yet it turned out to be a fraud. Why do you skeptics have ZERO skepticism toward the government and mainstream media, no matter how many times they lie to you?

Yes there are plenty of noises of explosions by hundreds of witnesses, reporters, firefighters, policemen, etc.


No. There were no explosive noises - none. The claims of CD explosions are not recorded on ANY recordings taken that day.
Notice I didn't follow that up with the ad hominem DUH. Civility please.


Are you deaf? I just posted a ton of videos of explosions for you in the other thread! Sheesh. I'm not going to do it again. Go back to the other thread and see them again. Or did you not get to it yet?

One of them showed a loud bang!

All the evidence is there. The only problem is your faith based rejection of it. Totally illogical.


No. There is evidence. Where it leads is based on inferences. I see no reason to invoke CD when that conjecture requires loud explosions. There aren't any. Simple. No boom, boom, boom. No CD.


MIT engineers like Jeff King disagree with you, as well as many engineers. What are your qualifications? You don't even give your full name.

There are loud explosions. Hundreds of people heard them. Are they all lying? lol

Besides, there are many types of explosives and many ways to do CD's. The military may have different ones than are used by the demolition industry.

Did you see or know that Europe's top demolitions expert from Holland, said that Building 7 came down by controlled demolition? Who are you compared to him?

Yes I've seen that rather poor document done by the guy at the U of Copenhagen. It states that the material is red and gray and contains iron and aluminum (iron oxid pigement and kaolinite, a stabilizer). The document also says it burns at the temperature of paper - just like paint chips. All the paper says is that the material is flammable and well below the ignition point of thermite. Instead of saying it is not thermite the paper continues its demand of CD to state that this is the unknown *thermite. Please insert milli, nano, pico, femto, or whatever for the wild card character.


I was referring to the scientific paper by Professor Steven Jones, which is beyond the scope of a layperson to understand.

But feel free to listen to his lecture here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8eYPZfE ... 1E&index=1

Why do you think the mainstream media mentioned explosions and bombs in the WTC? Dan Rather said it too. And so did Peter Jennings. Then the next day, they stopped saying it cause someone told them so. Why is that?


This is too simple. Someone not on site sees a large debris avalanche begin to form. They say explosion. They put into words what they see. So what. It does not mean there was an explosion.


Did you consider that they were right the first day? It was just simple common sense to them that a building that comes down that way does so cause of bombs planted. Yet they were told not to say it anymore after the first day. After he retired, Dan Rather said that you can't speak your mind in the highly censored media. In other words, he was highly controlled.

You do not present any science, only conjecture and denial.


Scepcop you are doing exactly that. You are watching videos and not being properly skeptical of the claims. They say CD. Is that a reasonable claim? Compare the video to other CDs. Where are the dozens of bang, bang, bangs?


I'm presenting facts and credible authorities and scientific laws. Not being skeptical? Dude, you are showing ZERO skepticism toward the official claim, which has more holes than swiss cheese. What kind of skepticism is that????????

Yes CD is reasonable. It fits all the features of the WTC collapse.

Features:


http://www.ae911truth.org

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1.

Rapid onset of “collapse”
2.

Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
3.

Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
4.

Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint
5.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6.

Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
7.

Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8.

FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9.

Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
10.

Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1.

Slow onset with large visible deformations
2.

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3.

Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4.

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.


I got one for you: "Evidence is proving how someone trained on a Cessna plane can suddenly jump into a 757 cockpit and fly the plane. REAL pilots say it's impossible. Only skeptic nutters claim it's possible to just jump in and fly a 757."


Please provide a citation for this quote. It is of no use as it stands. BTW, I flew a plane once and never had any instruction. The maniacs that slaughtered thousands of people took lessons.


I already did, in the "Pentagon" thread started by highflyertoo. Go see it there. Sheesh. Tell me you didn't get to it yet, right?

Whoa wait a second. You flew a plane once with no instruction? Did you take off and land by yourself, with no flying experience? lol Or did you sit next to a pilot and he had you take controls for a few seconds? What kind of plane was this? A 757?

So you flew a small plane with no experience, and that proves that you can fly a 757 the first time around? LOL

Look here at what real pilots of 757's have to say:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

The video says explosion. It says huge explosion. That's not how CDs are performed. The single sound these people are reporting could not be a CD. Watch CD videos. Notice that later on the reporter gets his wits about him and can't tell if he heard an explosion or collapse. Other people report a single explosion coming down. The news reports call it an explosion. This si not a CD even if there were explosions.

Ever heard a sonic boom? I have. I'd call it an explosion. Ever heard a volcanic eruption up close? I have. I'd call it an explosion. That's does not mean that explosives were set off. Lots of things make loud. A building collapsing. That's loud. A huge ice fall or rock fall in the mountains is amazingly loud. No CD there either.


Some of the reporters and firefighters said that explosive devices were planted. It's in the clips.

Well it doesn't mean that fire caused the collapse too. Even FEMA admitted that "our best hypothesis only has a low probability of occurring". And NIST had to commit fraud to get their computer model to prove the collapse. Whistleblower Kevin Ryan came out with it and exposed them.

Fires cannot cause the whole WTC to pulverize to dust. Nor can it make it fall at free fall speed with no resistance. A building falling from fire, which has never happened, would fall in the path of LEAST resistance, like sideways, not in the path of greatest resistance or straight down. You skeptics have no common sense and you reject data that doesn't fit your hypothesis. Learn about the scientific method. Sheesh.

Fires also cannot cause molten metal to appear and burn for 4 weeks.

These are people caught in a horrible place trying to find words on the fly to describe the events taking place around them. Loud sounds are called explosions especially in light of the known terrorist connection here - planes hit the buildings.
[/quote]

They said the explosions happened just BEFORE the towers went down, not at the same time the planes hit.

You are not paying attention again. Sheesh.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 16:54

Nostradamus, listen to what a real experienced 757 has to say about it.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.

* Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." http://americanbuddhist.net


* Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." http://www.arcticbeacon.com


* Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile." http://911underground.com
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 17:11

You forget that the buildings didn't use gas lines. And people said it was a LOUD BLAST, and also that the sound came from the BASEMENT level of the WTC.


A single loud blast. Good. We are onto something important here. CDs use dozens of explosions in buildings under 10 stories. Thess buildings were well over that. The building collapses top down. There should have been a 1000 explosions. You say 1. That means it was not a CD. Agreed?

On to more interesting things. Some and only some people reported an explosion near ground level. Some reports are from early on when walls cracked in the lobby. When those those walls cracked it wasn't a simple crack. Pieces of the wall flew across the lobby.


Did you see the video? The firefighters said it was like detonators were planted and the floors were dropping like they were detonated. Some heard lots of explosions. Others heard one.

Can you explain the huge explosion from the BASEMENT level?

I didn't say "one". You did. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You guys wear me out. You don't even use the scientific method in your reasoning. The scientific method says that if the data doesn't fit your hypothesis, you update your hypothesis to fit the data. However, you skeptics ignore or dismiss the data, in order to get the hypothesis that YOU WANT. That is NOT the scientific method. That is PSEUDO-skepticism!


No Scepcop. Truthers are the pseudoskeptics when they distort and misquote and misrepresent the data.

The evidence for a CD is a single explosion? But CDs use many explosions. The reports of explosions are based on an unreliable source - witnesses. The reliable source is the huge number of video recording devices used in the area, and the seismographs. These records of the events do not agree with the witness reports. These devices and others I cannot think of do not record the reports of explosions caused by explosive devices.


I did not say it was a single explosion only. You did. Witnesses are not unreliable. They heard what they heard and experienced what they experienced. What makes you think your BS denial is reliable? Sheesh.

Did you even watch this video about all the explosions?



The seismographs do show evidence of explosions. You are badly misinformed.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... shake.html

Who was it that made a statement about the 'fog of war'?


What are you talking about?

Anyways, the use of the term explosion does not mean explosives. It means an awe inspiring loud sound. Ever experienced a lightning strike within 100 meters. Explosion is the best word to describe my experience.


Yeah, but fire doesn't cause that sound either. And we are not talking about lightning here.

However, you skeptics ignore or dismiss the data


Scepcop, I'm not ignoring the data. I am evaluating it. That is what a skeptical person does. Someone wants to make a case for a CD of the WTC. Show me. I look. The claims are based on statements that are shown in some scrambled order. One of the videos begins with an interview of a pre-collapse rescue of someone gravely injured inside of the WTC and then switches to a statement of collapse. Stringing these events together could mislead people into thinking that the rescue occurred due to injuries suffered in the collapse. If someone made that claim then they would be egregious liars wouldn't they?


Yet you believe the official story without evidence.

You said you will look at the data. Did you watch the film "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" yet? Or are you not interested in scientific evidence?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 17:49

Someone in the abovetopsecret forum rightly pointed out how you guys BS and deny and make up stuff:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread495196/pg1

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by mmiichael
There are 141,000 members of the Association of Civil Engineers alone. Only a tiny handful have problems with the NIST and FEMA studies released

Unless you've spoken to every single one of them, I don't see how you could possibly know what any of those members think about anything. Just because they haven't went public with their thoughts one way or the other, doesn't automatically mean they support the official version. You're just speculating with zero proof.


Originally posted by mmiichael
A few of those who attached their names to Engineers for Truth have complained how they were railroaded into signing by Richard Gage who gave he them deceptive paperwork

I'm calling you out on this. It's against the ToS of ATS to knowlingly post false information (disinformation). I want to see some tangible proof of your claim.


Originally posted by mmiichael
There has been a whole sub-industry created capitalizing on 9/11, selling videos, organizing conferences, and other ways to extract money from Truthers.

More disinformation. The conferences are to educate people. It costs money to set up conferences. It costs money to fly the speakers to the conferences and provide their room and board. It costs money to make videos, even though most, if not all have also released their videos for free online. Everything costs money and not a single person in the 9/11 truth movement is doing any of this for profit. It's to educate people and get them informed.

Your accusations are misguided or purposeful disinformation.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Stephen Jones, a low level physics prof

You are becoming the instant king of disinformation. Dr. Steven Jones, PhD. (yes, smarter than you) is not a "low-level" physics professor. He has an impressive resume and you'd do yourself some good to research his 20-year physics background.

You can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones


Originally posted by mmiichael
Independent scientists have looked at it and see nothing to substantiate his claims.

Really? Let's see some independent papers that were written to counter the claims of the thermite paper by Dr. Jones, et al. If you can't provide any, then this claim will also be disinfo.


Originally posted by mmiichael
With half a million related field professionals and academics examining closely the published evidence and less that 1% having difficulty with it - what does that tell you?

Again, a claim which you cannot provide proof. You haven't the slightest clue whether any person believes the official story or a conspiracy. Again, just because they haven't went public one way or the other, doesn't mean they automatically support the official story.

Here's a challenge for you. Provide a list of names that is equal to or greater than 800 that consists of architects and engineers that support the official story. If you cannot (I know you can't), then you will concede and stop this nonsense.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Thousands of independent experts in related fields from a dozen countries have reviewed the material extensively. Probably tens of thousands.

And yet still again, you can't possibly know what people do outside of your computer. You have no idea who has reviewed what or what they believe.


Originally posted by mmiichael
You see a similar phenomenon with out of work academics doing the UFO circuit. Talks about Disclosure, govt cover-ups, how they're champions of THE REAL TRUTH.

This quote right here tells me that you know nothing about science or physics.

Your posts in this thread have been nothing but made-up BS that you can't back up, all because of your denial disorder. If only you could see the fool that you make yourself look like by typing the things you do.


“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Aug 2009, 21:11

So you were told. Do you believe everything you hear? You were also told that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident happened, yet it turned out to be a fraud. Why do you skeptics have ZERO skepticism toward the government and mainstream media, no matter how many times they lie to you?


You ask for evidence and you are not posting anything. You claim it must be true because some video was posted on the internet.

Are you deaf? I just posted a ton of videos of explosions for you in the other thread! Sheesh. I'm not going to do it again. Go back to the other thread and see them again. Or did you not get to it yet?

One of them showed a loud bang!


No explosions. End of story. Loud sounds are not explosions. And a second time I am requesting civility in the postings.


MIT engineers like Jeff King disagree with you, as well as many engineers.
Did you see or know that Europe's top demolitions expert from Holland, said that Building 7 came down by controlled demolition? Who are you compared to him?


Finally some references. Great. Now who is this unamed expert from Holland.

I was referring to the scientific paper by Professor Steven Jones, which is beyond the scope of a layperson to understand.


Please provide a proper citation. I believe Jones is listed as third author on the paper I referred to. If so that was a reasonabe paper to read. If you have trouble understanding the paper please post questions and let's see if it possible to resolve those issues.
Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, et al. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", THE OPEN CHEMICAL PHYSICS JOURNAL, April 2009.


Did you consider that they were right the first day? It was just simple common sense to them that a building that comes down that way does so cause of bombs planted. Yet they were told not to say it anymore after the first day. After he retired, Dan Rather said that you can't speak your mind in the highly censored media. In other words, he was highly controlled.


Are you claiming Rather's comment is connected to the first part of the paragraph or is this unrelated material thrown together?

People were wrong about a lot of things that day. The car bombs in the streets did not exist. Terrorists in the streets did not exist. Rather states that the first WTC to fall "partially collapsed." That was wrong. Great failures of the press include Dewey wins and all saved from Titanic.

I'm presenting facts and credible authorities and scientific laws. Not being skeptical? Dude, you are showing ZERO skepticism toward the official claim, which has more holes than swiss cheese. What kind of skepticism is that????????


Scepcop I have seen almost no facts in your posts. You fail to cite your sources in almost all cases. Not once have you posted a scientific law. Not once.

There is no official story. That is a downright silly misnomer. There are reports by various groups such as ASCE and NIST. If you have a problem with a report you need to name the report. A favorite truther lie is to mix FEMA and NIST with various versions of their reports. Your claim of more holes than Swiss cheese is an unsubstantiated claim at this point. It means nothing until you post the issues with some evidence.

Yes CD is reasonable. It fits all the features of the WTC collapse.


1. Rapid onset of collapse does not mean CD. The collapse begins with the failure of the penthouse. It wasn't rapid.
2. The penthouse collapsed over 5 seconds before the outer wall begins to move. The loud sound heard at ground level was not due to explosives.
3. Symmetrical collapse through path of greatest resistance is a laughable pseudoskeptic claim. The building fell as do all things down. At free-fall acceleration? No. Only parts of the exterior fell at just below that speed.
4. That's what buildings do. They fall into their own imprint.
5. There were no pyroclastic clouds. Look it up. Learn what a pyroclastic cloud is. The use of the term pyroclastic cloud is one the biggest lies spread by twoofers.
6. Show me the evidence on the molten metal.
7. Jones found paint pigment and kaolinite and gypsum. That is expected from a building collapse. (BTW, thermite is not hi-tech)
8. Please explain how number 8 means CD.
9. Name number 9.
10. Please provide citations for this claim of fore-knowledge.

1. The north side that twoofers hate showing was heavily damaged by fire.
2. The collapse was asymmetrical begin on one side and moving to the other side.
3. Steel of the type used in the buildings lost a trememdous part of its strength long before softening.
4. No buildings other than the WTC have caught fire like this.

So you flew a small plane with no experience, and that proves that you can fly a 757 the first time around?


I flew a small plane from Fairbanks to Eagle, around a 3 hour flight. I did not do the take off or landing. The terrorists that took flight training did not take off or land the planes either. The commandeered an in flight craft and crashed the planes.
Now I'm LOL.

Some of the reporters and firefighters said that explosive devices were planted. It's in the clips.


So what. Did the reporters see the devices? No they did not. Show me someone who saw an explosive device in the buildings either before the devices went off or after.

And NIST had to commit fraud to get their computer model to prove the collapse. Whistleblower Kevin Ryan came out with it and exposed them.


Ryan is wrong. Besides computer modeling was done in other places outside of NIST. MIT did one and got the same result.

Fires cannot cause the whole WTC to pulverize to dust.


That's right. It was the collapse. And it wasn't the whole WTC pulverized to dust. That is a truther lie.

A building falling from fire, which has never happened, would fall in the path of LEAST resistance, like sideways, not in the path of greatest resistance or straight down.

This has to be one of the stupidest twoofer claims. To move the building sideways would require huge amounts of energy. The building fell down because that took the least energy. Sheesh.

You skeptics have no common sense and you reject data that doesn't fit your hypothesis. Learn about the scientific method.

Twoofers want people to reject skeptism and buy into their lies and vulgar nonsense without thinking about it. Since you are so fond of saying "Learn about the scientific method" can you give me a definition for this. I am wondering if you can.

They said the explosions happened just BEFORE the towers went down, not at the same time the planes hit.
You are not paying attention again. Sheesh.


Part of the video you posted has the people talking about being in an elevator. This was before the collapse.

I am going to to scout around for the quote which you want me to hunt down instead of simply posting the citation. Sheesh.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Aug 2009, 21:38

Nostradamus, listen to what a real experienced 757 has to say about it.


1. The terrorists were trained in simulators for the types of planes they flew. They did more than fly a Cessna.
2. The planes never pulled 5, 6, or 7 Gs. That silly. The planes would have come apart. Max was just over 1G.

So how do we know 1. That's what the flight schools reported. The terrorists used state of the art flight simulators.
So how do we know 2. The flight data recorder.

Want to read what really happened at the Pentagon. Read here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Here is my expert vs your expert: http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 22:12

Bravo Nostradamus! Bravo!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Aug 2009, 22:21

Did you see the video? The firefighters said it was like detonators were planted and the floors were dropping like they were detonated. Some heard lots of explosions. Others heard one.


That's right. They heard loud sounds and described them as explosions. Loud sounds do not mean explosives. Explosions from CDs are heard for miles around. Didn't happen here. No explosives.

Can you explain the huge explosion from the BASEMENT level?


Explain the timing of this loud sound. Was it before the plane impacted, close to the impact time, well before the collapse, during the collapse, or after the collapse.

I didn't say "one". You did. Stop putting words in my mouth.


Here are your statements:
There is a video showing a huge explosion.
In the beginning you can hear a HUGE echoing explosion.
And people said it was a LOUD BLAST, and also that the sound came from the BASEMENT level of the WTC.

You have not demonstrated that the HUGE explosions and LOUD BLASTS came from concrete dropping.
I just posted a ton of videos of explosions for you in the other thread!
There are loud explosions.


I'm not putting words in your mouth. If you want to correct my reading of your words that's ok. I'm certainly open to having a discussion without misunderstandings.

I did not say it was a single explosion only. You did. Witnesses are not unreliable. They heard what they heard and experienced what they experienced. What makes you think your BS denial is reliable? Sheesh.


These witnesses heard loud sounds. Loud sounds do not mean explosives were involved. I'm not denying they heard loud sounds. I am skeptical of your conclusion that explosives caused the loud sounds. CD explosions are loud and carry for miles.

Did you even watch this video about all the explosions?


I did watch the video. It shows a few loud sounds. The talk of explosions is before the collapse - well before the collapse. The video even ascribes many of the loud noises to the collapse process which the video says is happening well before the total collapse begins.

Well done Scepcop. The video even reports the mistaken street level objects that were feared to be bombs and were not bombs. Thanks for providing evidence for my position. You provided evidence that many mistakes were reported by the news that day and that the witnesses were unreliable.

BTW, ever seen a forest fire. Trees blow up in forest fires. I thought the explosions were due to propane tanks or other combustibles at a camp overrun by the fire. No. Trees get so hot they can explode.

Lots of things in a building can blow up due to fire.

The seismographs do show evidence of explosions. You are badly misinformed.

Sorry misinformed is in your corner. The seismic evidence does not show an explosion. see NCSTAR 1-5A

The problem is that the spikes are due to the scaling of the horizontal axis.

From your reference:
The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.

If we get a better look at the data we see that claim is false.
Image

What does a seismologist, Arthur Lerner-Lam, tell us about the data:
There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context.


And from http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020527-secure.htm
Geophysicists have already contributed critical data to terrorist investigations. It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers — but only the impact of the airplanes and subsequent fires — that contributed to the towers' collapse on Sept. 11


Who was it that made a statement about the 'fog of war'?
And we are not talking about lightning here.


Please don't misrepresent me. I was pointing out that loud sounds are often described as explosions when they clearly are not.

Yet you believe the official story without evidence.

Again, there is no official story. Please refer to the report and authors.

You said you will look at the data. Did you watch the film "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" yet? Or are you not interested in scientific evidence?

These videos are not scientific evidence. They do not apply scientific methods.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film! 9/11 Revisited: "Explosive" Evidence

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Aug 2009, 22:24

Thanks ProfWag.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Previous

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron