Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: 9/11 survivor fails to confirm pre-impact explosions
Anthony Saltalamacia was with Rodriguez on the basement. Rodriguez's story has changed over the years, but one version popular with "truthseekers" includes explosions prior to the plane impact. Saltalamacia says nothing at all to support that, and nothing inconsistent with the official story.
He does say that it sounded like grenades, are "truthseekers" now going to claim grenades brought down the towers?
but one version popular with "truthseekers" includes explosions prior to the plane impact. Saltalamacia says nothing at all to support that, and nothing inconsistent with the official story.
"we then was talking about the days work that needed to be done, we heard a massive explosion that was in the WTC about 8.46am in the morning.
the explosion came from, i believe at first, we believe it came from the mechanical room, then we heard a series of other explosions that sounded up on the above levels of the building, we then realised that there was something wrong and there was a major problem."
sounds to me he is saying there was an explosion from the mechanical room or it sounded as though it was coming from that direction, before they heard a seperate event which he describes as a series of explosions coming from above which we can assume was the plane crash.
so where was the mechanical room? any ideas?
if it was in the basement area, what caused it to occure before any noise from a plane crash above?
or do you precieve what he said differently to me? if so please explain how you precieve what he said. it clearly sounds to me that he supports rodriguezes claims and confirms what rodriguez said. that is if the mechanical room was in the basement.
but one version popular with "truthseekers" includes explosions prior to the plane impact. Saltalamacia says nothing at all to support that, and nothing inconsistent with the official story.
"we then was talking about the days work that needed to be done, we heard a massive explosion that was in the WTC about 8.46am in the morning.
the explosion came from, i believe at first, we believe it came from the mechanical room, then we heard a series of other explosions that sounded up on the above levels of the building, we then realised that there was something wrong and there was a major problem."
sounds to me he is saying there was an explosion from the mechanical room or it sounded as though it was coming from that direction, before they heard a seperate event which he describes as a series of explosions coming from above which we can assume was the plane crash.
so where was the mechanical room? any ideas?
if it was in the basement area, what caused it to occure before any noise from a plane crash above?
or do you precieve what he said differently to me? if so please explain how you precieve what he said. it clearly sounds to me that he supports rodriguezes claims and confirms what rodriguez said. that is if the mechanical room was in the basement.
The point is that he does not claim to know when the plane impacted, in relation to what he heard, on the other hand Rodriguez claims somehow to know that the first explosion he heard was 6/7 seconds before impact even though he was underground 80 odd stories below where it was happening. The explosion from the mechanical room (which was below them) was probably the fireball flashing down the elevator shafts from the impact, followed by the noise of other destruction from upper floors. You could understand it the other way, that there was an explosion of some sort below them first, and the noise from the upper floors was the impact, but he says he heard a series of explosions from the upper floors, which sounds as though they were all much the same to him. The impact would surely have been louder than anything else. We do know a fieball came down the shafts, many people describe it.
We do know a fieball came down the shafts, many people describe it.
yes, but we don't know what caused it. it is just speculation it was from the jet fuel. the same as it is speculation it was explosives.
Quote:
The point is that he does not claim to know when the plane impacted, in relation to what he heard
agree, i do not hear him say when he felt the plane must of hit, in that video at least. i don't know if the full interview exsists somewhere. the video in question is clearly edited. it would be intresting to hear the bits that were not included, it could shed more light on what he actually thought without us speaking for him.
Quote:
which sounds as though they were all much the same to him.
im not sure what you think explosions should sound like, imo they all do sound the same, its just that some are louder than others.
this is a point made by critics when they say an explosion could be anything, clearly there is no distingishing from one to an other, apart from how loud it was.
he clearly desribes the explosion he thought came from the mechanical room as massive, he dos'nt describe the series of explosions in the same way. this could only ever give clues on distance, not what type of explosions it was, they are all the same.
Quote:
The impact would surely have been louder than anything else.
it depends where the other explosions were, i don't know, so i cannot say. but if you feel the impact would of been louder than anything else then im not sure i understand the following statement......
Quote:
on the other hand Rodriguez claims somehow to know that the first explosion he heard was 6/7 seconds before impact even though he was underground 80 odd stories below where it was happening.
rodriguez in his talks clearly describes a soft quiter boom coming from above which he felt must of been the impact, once he learned what had happened and had time to reflect on the event.
this would support your notion that the plane impact would be the loudest, as it was heard within the whole building.
sorry for not qouting your post in order, i was simply picking out the points i either disagree with or need ferther explaination, or where i felt it was worth making a point.
Rodriguez changed his story considerably, his early version was "We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture and then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off." And he talked a lot about the fireball coming down the freight elevator shaft and burning that man, who was standing in front of the doors. Later, he talked about explosions, said they had pushed him upwards and claimed the first was before the impact.
Saltalamacia's account is something in between, he talks of an explosion, but it might or might not be before the impact, and does not mention being pushed up, or that the first explosion was before the impact. So, although he seems to be with Rogriguez, he is not fully supporting him, but it is also fair to say, not contradicting him either.
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 102 Location: NYC/Pennsylvania
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject:
Bushwacker wrote:
Rodriguez changed his story considerably, his early version was "We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture and then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off." And he talked a lot about the fireball coming down the freight elevator shaft and burning that man, who was standing in front of the doors. Later, he talked about explosions, said they had pushed him upwards and claimed the first was before the impact.
Saltalamacia's account is something in between, he talks of an explosion, but it might or might not be before the impact, and does not mention being pushed up, or that the first explosion was before the impact. So, although he seems to be with Rogriguez, he is not fully supporting him, but it is also fair to say, not contradicting him either.
Sounds a lot like you are speaking for Mr. Rodriguez. Would you care to provide references/links of Mr. Rodriguez changing his story? _________________ The answer to 1984 is 1776!
i reckon the full interview could shed more light, im always wary when claims are made and then proved via edited material.
i'll try to find a full version if there is one.
there was a topic recently about bush being took out of context. whilst in the middle of looking into it, all the links to the edited versions mysteriously disappeared.
it was claimed bush was saying he was going to attack iran, upon listening to the full version he never said anything i'd consider as saying he was going to attack iran, i never got that impression from the edited version either.
but when it was pointed out that the video could of been edited in a way to make it appear so, the links to the edited version vanish.
my basic point is without the full version of this interview which is the topic in this thread, theres just no knowing what was edited out and if it was edited in a way to give a different picture.
Rodriguez certainly ramped up his adjectives - but in his first interview he said "like moving furniture but on a massive scale" not "like moving furtniture" - I do believe the distinction is an important one .
In his first interview he did not specify one from below and one from above - that doesn't constitute a changing of story when he did - it constitutes an adding of detail to an initial account.
As for this guy not mathcing his testimoney - I say it matches it perfectly and appears to be two different wordings of the same set of events and perfectly normal in the case of eye witness accounts.
As for "we know a fireball travelled down the elevator shafts" -no Bushwhacker - we do not. This has been the excuse created from thin air for every event that happened at the base of the tower.
There are two variations of the "ket fuel down the shafts" explanation - that the jet fuel did not ignite and poured down the shafts causing an explosion at the bottom. The other is that it was ignited jet fuel from the impact which travelled down the shafts as a fire ball. These events were explosive - jet fuel does not explode unless it is under pressure - it ignites - even ignoring the impossibility of jet fuel not igniting on the intitial impact, then ignore tha improbablity of this unignited jet fuel travelling the depth of the tower without igniting on the way down - it does not account for some of the accounts of extreme physical blast effects at the base of the tower. Using the "fire ball" rather than the jetfuel version the explosive effects are even more unlikely - as is the fact that the fireball could last long enough to reach the bottom with any potency at all - we saw how long it lasted outside the building - the ascribing of all explosive and fire based events at the bottom of the tower to a small portion of the fireball that got sucked down into the shafts is simply absurd.
The "fire ball" or "kerosene" travelling down the elevator shafts is one of the most unproven and at the same time most one-in-a-million science fiction-ish elements of the official story.
We do not "know it" you "buy it" and it speaks to your lack of rationalism that you do. _________________
It may not suit you, but there are in fact many, many descriptions of the fireballs that came down both towers, including from Rodriguez until he started changing his story to suit his bomb theory.
Rodriguez at NIST hearings 12.2.2004:
The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized.
Rodriguez to CNN:
And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html
Another janitor about the freight elevator
“It sounded like a bomb and the lights went on and off,” said Sanchez in the tape recording. “We started to walk to the exit and a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator. The hot air from the ball of fire dropped Chino to the floor and my hair got burned,” said Sanchez in the tape recording. “The room then got full of smoke and I remember saying out loud ‘I believe it was a bomb that blew up inside the building.’
“I said ‘Chino, let’s go we gotta get out of here.’ But Chino was wounded and told me he needed help. I remember him saying that the hot air came with such force that it broke his leg. We finally went out through another exit and his leg and knee were both broken.”
The majority of survivors from the towers smelt jet fuel, and jet fuel coming down the shafts is not an alternative version to fireballs, very probably both happened. The jet fuel outside the towers certainly exploded in a fireball, without being under pressure, so it is quite irrational of you to believe that it could not do so inside the building. Most things that will burn, if they are dispersed in fine vapour or powder and therefore have a ready supply of air, will burn so rapidly that they explode, from jet fuel to flour.
Bushwacker,
What you have shown is that people were told the event they witnessesed was a fireball coming down the elevator shafts.
You accept, surley, no one witnessed a fireball coming down the elevator shafts - that would involve someone having an eye on a long retractable stalk which raced down the shaft from the top of the building to the bottom.
What we have is a lot of people witnessing explosive events in the basement levels who have been told it was a fireball from the plane impact - and so terming it as such. This is unremarkable. I am sure you agree they could not know it was in any objective sense.
EDIT} A fireball coming out of an elevator (which almost certainly happened) could be a result of an explosion in the sublevels just as easily (if not more plausibly) than an explosive event (the plane impact) coming from 80+ floors above.
I trust, being a 9/11 researcher of a kind, you have watched 9/11 explosive reality, and so are aware of the extreme bredth and depth of the accounts of ground level and basement explosive events - and I mean explosive - floors collapsing, huge pieces of macheinery being torn to shreds. We also have the fact that huge building high smoke clouds started to rise up from the base of their towers minutes before each collapse - long after the plane impacts.
I find it very hard to accept the idea of the "rouge fireball" as a one-size-fits-all get out of jail card for all of this. I find it equally hard to accept any rational person could do so.
As for jetfuel not exploding under pressure and the validity of the claim - well I am not a scientist and could be wrong on this - it is something I have been told - if you can show me with sources that I am wrong I will retract it. What I have been told, however, is that non presurised fuel when lit will simply ignitie and will not result in any physical blast effects which could destroy anything - it would burn. Could be wrong, that's what I've been told though. _________________
Bushwacker,
What you have shown is that people were told the event they witnessesed was a fireball coming down the elevator shafts.
You accept, surley, no one witnessed a fireball coming down the elevator shafts - that would involve someone having an eye on a long retractable stalk which raced down the shaft from the top of the building to the bottom.
What we have is a lot of people witnessing explosive events in the basement levels who have been told it was a fireball from the plane impact - and so terming it as such. This is unremarkable. I am sure you agree they could not know it was in any objective sense.
EDIT} A fireball coming out of an elevator (which almost certainly happened) could be a result of an explosion in the sublevels just as easily (if not more plausibly) than an explosive event (the plane impact) coming from 80+ floors above.
I trust, being a 9/11 researcher of a kind, you have watched 9/11 explosive reality, and so are aware of the extreme bredth and depth of the accounts of ground level and basement explosive events - and I mean explosive - floors collapsing, huge pieces of macheinery being torn to shreds. We also have the fact that huge building high smoke clouds started to rise up from the base of their towers minutes before each collapse - long after the plane impacts.
I find it very hard to accept the idea of the "rouge fireball" as a one-size-fits-all get out of jail card for all of this. I find it equally hard to accept any rational person could do so.
As for jetfuel not exploding under pressure and the validity of the claim - well I am not a scientist and could be wrong on this - it is something I have been told - if you can show me with sources that I am wrong I will retract it. What I have been told, however, is that non presurised fuel when lit will simply ignitie and will not result in any physical blast effects which could destroy anything - it would burn. Could be wrong, that's what I've been told though.
I have shown witness accounts of what they described at the time as a fireball in the basement level, because that is where Rodriguez was, I could also provide accounts of fireball effects all the way down the towers, but will you dismiss those as mistaken as well? If you look at the lengthy survivor account I posted you will see that she says "I can hear an explosion roaring downward inside the building"
I have now looked up the figure, 70% of survivors interviewed by NIST describe smelling jet fuel.
We see on video fireballs exploding outside the building, why would you suppose that the fuel inside the building would not react in the same way?
There is something in what you say about fuel burning, but it burns very quickly, a type of slower speed explosion. I have found this commentary on the burning of fuel air mixtures:
There are dramatic differences between explosions
involving fuel-air mixtures and high explosives at close
distances. The shock wave from a trinitrotoluene (TNT)
explosion is of relatively short duration, while the blast
wave produced by an explosion of fuel-air mixture displays
a relatively long duration. The duration of the positive
phase of a shock wave is an important parameter in
the response of structures to a blast. The temperature can
be as high as 3000°C — more than twice that generated
by a conventional explosive. The blast wave can travel at
approximately 10,000 feet per second.
The blast effects from vapor cloud explosions are
determined not only by the amount of fuel, but more
importantly by the combustion mode of the cloud. Most
vapor cloud explosions are deflagrations, not detona-
tions. Flame speed of a deflagration is subsonic, with
flame speed increasing in restricted areas and decreasing
in open areas.
Flame propagation speed has a significant influence
on the blast parameters, both inside and outside the source
volume. High flame front speeds and resulting high blast
overpressures are seen in accidental vapor cloud explosions,
where there is a significant amount of confinement
and congestion that limits flame front expansion and
increases flame turbulence. These conditions are more difficult
to achieve in the unconfined environment in which
military fuel-air explosives are intended to operate.
Since the fuel uses up the atmospheric oxygen,
asphyxia for those who are not immediately killed by
the explosive device can be a problem. Likewise, since
the temperature of the burning fuel is greater than that
of conventional explosives, extensive burns can occur in
survivors.
This are exactly the effects seen in the towers. Since we know that there was jet fuel present, the effects seen are those expected from a fuel/air explosion, and there is no evidence whatsoever of bombs, it is really quite perverse to insist that the rational explanation is bombs, not fuel/air explosions.
Thanks for the info on burning air fuel mixtures, will look further into this.
But you seem to misunderstanding me and the vast majority of people on this site:
You state I am ignoring testimoney of people who saw fireballs come out of the elevators on these levels - I do not for one second doubt any of them.
I am asserting that in context of all the other evidence that they were caused by sub level explosions - not by a travelling fireball from the tops of the towers.
EDIT} in answer to your question as to why I should reasonably think this there are two answers. One - explosive events were reported throughout the time (and just before) between the impact of the planes and the collapse of the towers - your magic fire ball does not account for them - and if you want to use the "it was steel buckling" well many of these reports feature physical blast properties. There is too much evidence of widespread explosive activity over a long period of time, that I don't intuitivley grasp what seems to be a very pie-in-the-sky explanation for just the earlier ones, when in the context of all the evidence it makes a lot more sense that it was an explosion.
Which leads onto the second point: it has far from been demonstrated that this whole idea of a fire ball, or unignited jetfuel could travel all the way down the elevator shafts, or that it would travel down and not up even if such a travelling fireball existed. Let alone that it could cause the damage cited - such as large pieces of machinery blown apart, floors caving in, people being thron through the air and so on. It doesn't get close to explaining the fact that huge clouds of smoke started billowing from the base of the towers a long time after the impacts - just before the collapse of the towers.
It's yet another part of the official story where we have independent scientists saying its pie in the sky and no real explanation whatsover on the official side.
"Oh there was a fireball that came down the elevator shaft" seems to be the extent of the argument and is employed to explain every single event below the impact zone. With WTC7 it's "oh there was fire and debris damage" - in both cases there is no explanation of how these things are possible - they are scripture for the true beleiver - much like "god works in mysterious ways you know" is employed for the religious.
It's also another example of Occam's Big Bushy Beard in action in the land of the critic. Rather than even put CD on the table for consideration - we have a thousand micro-claims: Explosions in the basement? Giant downward travelling fireball which caused no damage on any other floor and exploded in the basement. Explosions after the event? Steel making a loud noise as it buckled of course. Physical force of these explosions? la la la I can't hear you. Molten metal in the debris: probably either a lot of people lying or aluminium, no no one would have mentioned it was silver - why would that catch the attention. Squibs? Ah well you see the twin towers had bad cleaners - it was dusty - it was REALLY dusty - so the falling floors - 30 floors above pushed down the air, all the dust came out with the air being pushed out - yes pushed out with explosive force - and this all happened at very localised points - because it did OK? Corroded sulfidated steel? Well it was probably heated under ground for a long time because a coal seam burned underground for a long time once you see, and no it doesn't matter that there wasn't a continual source of a combustible like coal at ground zero - why would it? The sulfer, well lets ignore the fact that FEMA said an enormous amount would be needed and pretend that their scientits didn't spot what we could - that a tiny amount of it was in the dry wall. Problem solved.
-And that's barely getting started! That's why I sometimes spit my tea out of my mouth when a critic talks about occams razor. The official report is the biggest abuse of the basic principle of considering first the simplest explanation which covers everything before moving on to a nebulous bit by bit explanation of each piece of minutiae. _________________
You state I am ignoring testimoney of people who saw fireballs come out of the elevators on these levels - I do not for one second doubt any of them. I am asserting that in context of all the other evidence that they were caused by sub level explosions - not by a travelling fireball from the tops of the towers. In answer to your question as to why I should reasonably think this there are two answers. One - explosive events were reported throughout the time (and just before) between the impact of the planes and the collapse of the towers - your magic fire ball does not account for them - and if you want to use the "it was steel buckling" well many of these reports feature physical blast properties. There is too much evidence of widespread explosive activity over a long period of time, that I don't intuitivley grasp what seems to be a very pie-in-the-sky explanation for just the earlier ones, when in the context of all the evidence it makes a lot more sense that it was an explosion.
There was certainly widespread reporting of explosions, and you claim some featured physical blast properties - let us see some reference please. I suggest that there is not one report that cannot be accounted for by something other than explosives. In the North Tower for instance very many people thought that the impact on the South Tower was a bomb. Even the sound of jumpers hitting the pavement was described as explosions and fires are simply inherently extremely noisy. Electrical transformers, even water coolers can explode.
What on earth could be the point of conspirators setting off these bombs which did no apparent structural damage at the time, nor had any visible effect when the collapse wave passed that area? Bombs just makes no sense at all even in an inside job scenario, apart from the fact that there is not the smallest shred of evidence for them.
Stefan wrote:
Which leads onto the second point: it has far from been demonstrated that this whole idea of a fire ball, or unignited jetfuel could travel all the way down the elevator shafts, or that it would travel down and not up even if such a travelling fireball existed. Let alone that it could cause the damage cited - such as large pieces of machinery blown apart, floors caving in, people being thron through the air and so on. It doesn't get close to explaining the fact that huge clouds of smoke started billowing from the base of the towers a long time after the impacts - just before the collapse of the towers.
I say once again, we see a huge fireball resulting from the fuel outside the towers, can it really be doubted that there was also one inside? Contrast that with zero evidence for bombs. You are right that no one has actually proved a fireball could do the things you say, but an internal fireball is a logical expectation. No one has proved anything at all about bombs, or suggested why they should throw random pieces of machinery about, or knock down non-structural walls, but apparently do no structural damage or serve any apparent purpose in the plot. The damage you cite sounds much more likely as a result of the unplanned blast of a fireball. Can you show that any of it happened after the time of the initial impact?
Stefan wrote:
It's yet another part of the official story where we have independent scientists saying its pie in the sky and no real explanation whatsover on the official side.
What independent scientists say that?
Stefan wrote:
"Oh there was a fireball that came down the elevator shaft" seems to be the extent of the argument and is employed to explain every single event below the impact zone. With WTC7 it's "oh there was fire and debris damage" - in both cases there is no explanation of how these things are possible - they are scripture for the true beleiver - much like "god works in mysterious ways you know" is employed for the religious.
If there was a fireball, as seems extremely probable, it explains some of the events below the impact area, other events are explained in other ways, as I have said.
Stefan wrote:
Bushwacker comments in bold
It's also another example of Occam's Big Bushy Beard in action in the land of the critic. Rather than even put CD on the table for consideration - we have a thousand micro-claims: Put CD on the table and consider it - it involves planting explosives all over three giant buildings while they are occupied and concealing that so well they were not detected, explosives which could survive the plane impacts and fire, complete with detonators which set them off in precise sequences, although too quickly according to conspiracists. Is this in the least plausible - No. Is it even physically possible, given unlimited personnel and resources? Probably not. Explosions in the basement? Giant downward travelling fireball which caused no damage on any other floor But it did cause a great deal of damage on other floors, you seem to be averting your eyes from that and exploded in the basement. Explosions after the event? Steel making a loud noise as it buckled of course.And many other things, as is usual in all fires, plus additional things in this one, such as the effect of the second plane and jumpers Physical force of these explosions? la la la I can't hear you. I can't hear you referencing any of those, or anything else for that matter Molten metal in the debris: probably either a lot of people lying or aluminium, no no one would have mentioned it was silver - why would that catch the attention. Very few people mentioned it at all, except that someone else had told them. Why should it not be aluminium, the aluminium would melt before the steel? Anyway, in what way does that show CD? Squibs? Ah well you see the twin towers had bad cleaners - it was dusty - it was REALLY dusty - so the falling floors - 30 floors above pushed down the air, all the dust came out with the air being pushed out - yes pushed out with explosive force The air in the towers came out somewhere! - and this all happened at very localised points - because it did OK? The alternative explanation is what - explosives going off randomly in advance with no discernible effect? What part could have have played? Corroded sulfidated steel? Well it was probably heated under ground for a long time because a coal seam burned underground for a long time once you see, and no it doesn't matter that there wasn't a continual source of a combustible like coal at ground zero - why would it? Why are you rambling about coal? There was the entire contents of the building to burn! The sulfer, well lets ignore the fact that FEMA said an enormous amount would be needed and pretend that their scientits didn't spot what we could - that a tiny amount of it was in the dry wall. Problem solved. Drywall was one of the most abundant building materials there, and apart from the liner paper is entirely calcium sulphate! It is simply nonsense to talk of a tiny amount
Stefan wrote:
-And that's barely getting started! That's why I sometimes spit my tea out of my mouth when a critic talks about occams razor. The official report is the biggest abuse of the basic principle of considering first the simplest explanation which covers everything before moving on to a nebulous bit by bit explanation of each piece of minutiae.
Rubbish, I am afraid. The simplest explanation is that nothing was involved apart from the planes. CD is not just an unnecessary complication, it is probably physically impossible on any version put forward up until now. And despite all the effort devoted over six years to examining 9/11 from every aspect, not one piece of solid incontrovetrible evidence has been found, and no one has managed to put together even a coherent account of the whole day, apart from the official version.
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:38 pm Post subject:
Stefan could you please tell me what you think a squib is and why you think there were squibs in the WTC.
Thanks. _________________ "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.
You state I am ignoring testimoney of people who saw fireballs come out of the elevators on these levels - I do not for one second doubt any of them. I am asserting that in context of all the other evidence that they were caused by sub level explosions - not by a travelling fireball from the tops of the towers. In answer to your question as to why I should reasonably think this there are two answers. One - explosive events were reported throughout the time (and just before) between the impact of the planes and the collapse of the towers - your magic fire ball does not account for them - and if you want to use the "it was steel buckling" well many of these reports feature physical blast properties. There is too much evidence of widespread explosive activity over a long period of time, that I don't intuitivley grasp what seems to be a very pie-in-the-sky explanation for just the earlier ones, when in the context of all the evidence it makes a lot more sense that it was an explosion.
There was certainly widespread reporting of explosions, and you claim some featured physical blast properties - let us see some reference please. I suggest that there is not one report that cannot be accounted for by something other than explosives. In the North Tower for instance very many people thought that the impact on the South Tower was a bomb. Even the sound of jumpers hitting the pavement was described as explosions and fires are simply inherently extremely noisy. Electrical transformers, even water coolers can explode.
What on earth could be the point of conspirators setting off these bombs which did no apparent structural damage at the time, nor had any visible effect when the collapse wave passed that area? Bombs just makes no sense at all even in an inside job scenario, apart from the fact that there is not the smallest shred of evidence for them.
You are aware of how the towers were constructed are you not? Now I know your science tends to bend in the wind quite a lot e.g:-
1. My postulation that something like thermite simultaneously raising the temperature of core beams so that they melt may account for the raging fires in the basement post-collapse - was dismissed by yourself as not possible as the steel would conduct the heat away being such a good conductor and all.
2. Yet on another thread, you postulate that the steel in the towers was weakened by an office fire because it is such a poor conductor of heat. Seems you really need to make up your mind about things.
Anyway back to the point. Can we agree that the strength of the towers was in the core - you know the 47 massive columns. Yes?
And that these columns were not visible from the outside of the towers. Yes?
So if pre-collapse explosions were being used to cut these columns in strategic places then it would not be visible from the outside. Yes?
And that if these columns were not weakened pre-tower-destruction, they would still stand even after the outside supports were blasted. Yes?
So in a demolition scenario (where you wanted to make it look like a collapse), you would want to set off explosives periodically to weaken the core. Yes?
So it is patently ridiculous to state that "Bombs just makes no sense at all even in an inside job scenario, apart from the fact that there is not the smallest shred of evidence for them."
Quote:
In the North Tower for instance very many people thought that the impact on the South Tower was a bomb.
They did indeed and the way extra smoke was emitted from the burning North Tower as the second plane struck does make one think that there was a force inside the tower pushing the smoke out. That's by the by really.
Now the scene we often see of the lady reporter on the street talking about massive explosions in the tower and that if there was another explosion, this tower might not last. What do you think she was witnessing? Another water cooler exploding on a lower floor due to the heat of a fire 80 stories up in the air?
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:51 am Post subject:
Quote:
So if pre-collapse explosions were being used to cut these columns in strategic places then it would not be visible from the outside. Yes?
Are you serious?
Demolitions explosives going off on 47 columns over hundreds of floors, and outside you can't see or hear anything?
Is this some sort of joke? _________________ "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.
KP50, it is really quite difficult to reply to such very muddled thinking!
First of all, are you arguing that thermite or a variation was used, or that there were bombs? Thermite is an incendiary, so setting it off would not produce the sound of explosions, so if you are relying on explosions as evidence, that rules out thermite and melting steel. On the other hand, if you want to bring in melting steel and the temperature of the fires in the rubble, that cannot be evidence for explosives. Which is it to be, or do you want to have both?
You want me to agree that the strength of the towers was in the core. That is not in fact correct, the core carried some 60% of the gravity load (estimates vary) and the perimeter columns carried 40%, plus all the wind loading. I share Pepik's incredulity that you are really suggesting that the core columns could be cut in strategic places without it being visible from the outside. You think that otherwise the core columns would remain standing, so you are suggesting that there were enough explosions to seriously weaken all the columns, not just the occasional explosion, and these were not at all visible from outside, there was no visible structural effect at the time, or when the towers collapsed? That is simply ridiculous.
Why on earth do you think that "in a demolition scenario (where you wanted to make it look like a collapse), you would want to set off explosives periodically to weaken the core" ? Of course you would not, you would want explosives to go off sequentially, to mimic a collapse. Of course, if you actually knew anything about demolition, you would know that once the impact floors gave way, the towers would collapse anyway, so you would not need to plant explosives all the way down.
I do not know what any particular reporter saw, but since we know that some floors gave way prior to general collapse, it could have been that. Or it could have been an electrical transformer blowing up. Or you could be right and it could be someone crazy enough to think that exploding a bomb or two at random beforehand is the way to imitate a gravity collapse later.
KP50, it is really quite difficult to reply to such very muddled thinking!
I am clear in my thinking but maybe the ideas came out too quick. I was initially pointing out that you at various times have said that steel is a good conductor when we hypothesised about massive temperatures and a poor conductor when we discussed office fires. Seems like you want it both ways and can flip-flop to any position that suits you when science is concerned.
Bushwacker wrote:
First of all, are you arguing that thermite or a variation was used, or that there were bombs? Thermite is an incendiary, so setting it off would not produce the sound of explosions, so if you are relying on explosions as evidence, that rules out thermite and melting steel. On the other hand, if you want to bring in melting steel and the temperature of the fires in the rubble, that cannot be evidence for explosives. Which is it to be, or do you want to have both?
See above, I am quite happy for there to be both, at different times.
Bushwacker wrote:
You want me to agree that the strength of the towers was in the core. That is not in fact correct, the core carried some 60% of the gravity load (estimates vary) and the perimeter columns carried 40%, plus all the wind loading. I share Pepik's incredulity that you are really suggesting that the core columns could be cut in strategic places without it being visible from the outside. You think that otherwise the core columns would remain standing, so you are suggesting that there were enough explosions to seriously weaken all the columns, not just the occasional explosion, and these were not at all visible from outside, there was no visible structural effect at the time, or when the towers collapsed? That is simply ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? I am presuming that the people responsible for this act actually thought about it beforehand and did some calculations.
Bushwacker wrote:
Why on earth do you think that "in a demolition scenario (where you wanted to make it look like a collapse), you would want to set off explosives periodically to weaken the core" ? Of course you would not, you would want explosives to go off sequentially, to mimic a collapse. Of course, if you actually knew anything about demolition, you would know that once the impact floors gave way, the towers would collapse anyway, so you would not need to plant explosives all the way down.
See above. My point, as you well know, is that you constantly take the view that explosions couldn't have taken place before collapse because they make no sense. Now that is patently a ridiculous argument is it not?
Bushwacker wrote:
I do not know what any particular reporter saw, but since we know that some floors gave way prior to general collapse, it could have been that. Or it could have been an electrical transformer blowing up. Or you could be right and it could be someone crazy enough to think that exploding a bomb or two at random beforehand is the way to imitate a gravity collapse later.
There you go again, yet another transformer blows up - how many have had to blow up now in your scenario? Or were some of them water coolers? Just imagine how many things would have blown up if the fire was actually lower down the towers?
Right, thermite and explosives, as well as fully laden airliners, perhaps there were space beams and mini nukes as well? The perpetrators would not want to take a chance that the towers would be left standing, would they? Have you solved the problem of how thermite can be made to cut horizontally, incidentally?
Please say clearly why anyone would want to weaken any columns in advance, instead of blowing them at the time of a general collapse.
Please say clearly why setting off explosions periodically before a general collapse would make it look like a gravity collapse.
Please explain why explosions sufficient to weaken the massive steel columns of the central core could produce no visible effect outside the building.
I note that in your obsession with water coolers you prefer to ignore the proven fact that floors collapsed prior to the general collapse. Do you suppose they did so silently?
I note that in your obsession with water coolers you prefer to ignore the proven fact that floors collapsed prior to the general collapse. Do you suppose they did so silently?
Um, do you suppose they made so much noise when they slipped a few inches/feet 700-800 feet above the ground that news reporters, fire fighters and other people on the streets far below were duped into thinking they had heard bombs going off at ground level? I think not.
Methinks thou dost stretch credibility too much. But, then, when did that ever concern the debunker?
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:26 pm Post subject:
For someone who's credibility rests on several hundred secretly planted super quiet fire-proof thermite bombs mixed with explosives and set off by antique detonators, none of which left any trace, you haven't much hope in that debate. _________________ "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.
I note that in your obsession with water coolers you prefer to ignore the proven fact that floors collapsed prior to the general collapse. Do you suppose they did so silently?
Um, do you suppose they made so much noise when they slipped a few inches/feet 700-800 feet above the ground that news reporters, fire fighters and other people on the streets far below were duped into thinking they had heard bombs going off at ground level? I think not.
Methinks thou dost stretch credibility too much. But, then, when did that ever concern the debunker?
You miss the point, of course. It does not matter so much how far they fell, but that to do so they sheared off the connections between the trusses and the columns. Perhaps you have never heard the noise made by over-stressed steel when it gives way, but I can assure you it is very loud. Multiply that by the number of floor connections.
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 cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
