| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: | The point is that it is not the use of explosives that causes pulverisation of concrete or brickwork or gypsum or anything else when buildings collapse but the release of enormous amounts of energy as potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. All caused by the force of gravity - not explosives.
|
You do not seem to understand what you are talking about. At free-fall ALL the potential energy is being turned into kinetic energy. Otherwise it wouldn't be free-fall. There is NO FURTHER ENERGY AVAILABLE to do anything else.
As the building hits the ground THEN debris clouds can be created as the kinetic energy of the material of the building now becomes zero and must turn into some other form of energy.
In the WTC 1 and 2 collapses, the debris was created WHILE the buildings were at almost the start of their free-fall. Your 'answer' is no answer at all. You are simply repeating an irrelevant circumstance and not understanding the very concept of 'Conservation of Energy'.
By the way, if you get a chance go up a high building with a slab of aged concrete. Drop it off the roof. Get someone at the bottom to observe the impact. See if the slab pulverises to dust......it won't happen. Shatter, yes. Pulverise, NO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | I have also seen those videos of Fred Dibnah knocking down chimneys in that manner and I have also seen relatively little dust coming down with the chimney and crowds of people standing nearby with no problem as the dust quickly settles leaving!!!!!...... wait for it ...... drum roll .......masses of BRICKS AND LUMPS OF CONCRETE. In BIG LUMPS!!! Piles of them!!! That is what the chimney was made from and that is what was left. NO EXPLOSIVES means they were not pulverised into dust. The WTC towers had well over one hundred and fifty floors between them not damaged by planes or fire but were reduced to next to nothing. That is because they did not just collapse like those chimneys. Just as the chimney only had a fire at a small part of its structure and therefore the 90% that fell by gravity remained as solid so should the WTC towers. The chimney didn't keep burning for weeks either and there was no molten metal found there six weeks later. Thanks for helping prove that explosives MUST have been used CTS. Your next move is to say that there WAS a huge amount of solid chunks of the WTC buildings. Keep up the lies - its all you have going for you. |
Yes, it doesn't matter how you approach the WTC collapses the official line (and CTS's illogical arguments) are palpable b*******. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
IMO those are such pathetically weak responses CTS that I really can't be arsed to respond back, but I would like an answer to my question "what are the major parts of the argument (as presented on 911myths) that you claim we are ignoring". We will then be able to get back to the point of this thread which is debunking the evidence on 9/11myths
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
blackcat writes:
| Quote: | | I have also seen those videos of Fred Dibnah knocking down chimneys in that manner and I have also seen relatively little dust coming down with the chimney and crowds of people standing nearby with no problem as the dust quickly settles leaving!!!!!...... |
Blackcat,
I suggest your memory is defective regarding the amount of dust observed when Fred Dibnah caused the collapse of old industrial chimneys.
Please note that kbo234 agrees that
| Quote: | | Yes there were huge clouds of dust when Fred Dibnah's chimneys collapsed |
.
Those clouds of dust were caused by pulverisation of the chimney bricks as potential energy was converted to kinetic energy which in turn was converted to crushing energy - and all brought about by the force of gravity.
Whenever any building collapses, there are always huge clouds of dust created. The larger, the taller, the building, the larger the clouds of dust.
When buildings are professionally demolished, the implosions do not create dust, the implosions are directed to shearing through the supporting columns of the buildings. The dust is created then by the gravity-led collapse of the building as kinetic energy is converted to crushing energy.
OK?
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CTS you are evading the point all the time. You have not explained where the energy for the massive destruction came from WHILE the buildings were undergoing free-fall.
You have not acknowledged that Dibnah's chimneys left huge piles of bricks that had to be removed later....not completely puverised bricks.
OF COURSE there was dust created on impact. This is neither disputed nor part of the argument.
Energy, CTS, energy....where did it come from while the buildings were under free-fall? It can't be gravitational potential energy. This is all being used up in accelerating the falling body, so where does the massive extra energy required come from? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kbo234 asks:
| Quote: | Where is the response to Stephen Jones finding 'Thermate' (Thermite and Sulphur) on the WTC steel debris? Where is..........oh, forget it.
|
Molten aluminium can react with gypsum, CaSO4.2H2O, which is also called plaster and would have been used extensively on the interior walls of the Twin Towers. Molten aluminium could have been obtained both from the aircraft bodies or from any of the aluminium panels which were used to clad the outer surfaces of the Twin Towers from top to bottom.
Molten aluminium can react with gypsum as follows:
8Al + 3CaSO4 = 4Al2O3 + 3CaS (To find this reaction, do a Google search for: 8Al + 3CaSO4 = 4Al2O3 + 3CaS)
Another possibility is
2Al + 3CaSO4 = Al2O3 + 3CaO + 3SO2 (Do a Google search for: 2Al + 3CaSO4 = Al2O3 + 3CaO + 3SO2)
SO2 combines with water (available from the gypsum, CaSO4.2H2O) to give sulphurous acid, H2SO3 - a reactive substance.
So, kbo234, the source of the sulphur that Prof Jones claims to have found might well be not thermate but the gypsum.
Has Prof Jones tested for the presence of Al2O3, or CaS or CaO, or salts of H2SO3, eg Al2(SO3)3 or CaSO3, in the WTC debris?
CTS
Last edited by ConspiracyTheorySceptic on Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:30 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kbo234 writes:
| Quote: | 1) The huge dust and debris clouds created when the twin towers fell were produced long before the towers hit the ground. The energy for Dibnah's dust clouds came from the loss of kinetic energy (which went from maximum K.E. to zero) of the falling building or chimney as it hit the ground (the lost kinetic energy was then transferred mostly into creation and expansion of dust cloud). The 'dreadlocks' of debris were being formed while the twin towers were in free-fall and seemed to begin when they had only dropped a few floors. So, firstly your rebuttal presents no analogy to the collapse of the twin towers because for WTC's 1 and 2 major debris was created before the buildings hit the ground.
|
kbo234
But of course! Fred Dibnah brought down the chimneys by toppling them. Their kinetic energy was not converted to crushing (pulverisation) energy until they hit the ground.
The collapses of the Twin Towers were quite different. As each floor pancaked, the kinetic energy of the collapsing upper sections of the towers was partially converted to crushing energy; and the resistance offered by each floor prevented the collapses ever reaching free-fall rates. Resistance to collapse and, therefore, pulverisation occurred all the way down.
It was noticeable that the further the collapses progressed and accelerated downwards, the greater the clouds of dust produced. This is entirely consistent with the increase in kinetic energy, 1/2 mv squared. As v increased, the available energy increased in proportion to its square.
Because the towers were so tall, v had time to increase to a very large value, and its square to an even larger value. Hence, the kinetic energy available for dissipation as crushing (pulverisation) energy increased to enormous levels, and that explains why the clouds of dust caused by the collapses of the towers were so large.
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| utter drivel CTS. that is all |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: | kbo234 writes:
| Quote: | 1) The huge dust and debris clouds created when the twin towers fell were produced long before the towers hit the ground. The energy for Dibnah's dust clouds came from the loss of kinetic energy (which went from maximum K.E. to zero) of the falling building or chimney as it hit the ground (the lost kinetic energy was then transferred mostly into creation and expansion of dust cloud). The 'dreadlocks' of debris were being formed while the twin towers were in free-fall and seemed to begin when they had only dropped a few floors. So, firstly your rebuttal presents no analogy to the collapse of the twin towers because for WTC's 1 and 2 major debris was created before the buildings hit the ground.
|
kbo234
But of course! Fred Dibnah brought down the chimneys by toppling them. Their kinetic energy was not converted to crushing (pulverisation) energy until they hit the ground.
The collapses of the Twin Towers were quite different. As each floor pancaked, the kinetic energy of the collapsing upper sections of the towers was partially converted to crushing energy; and the resistance offered by each floor prevented the collapses ever reaching free-fall rates. Resistance to collapse and, therefore, pulverisation occurred all the way down.
It was noticeable that the further the collapses progressed and accelerated downwards, the greater the clouds of dust produced. This is entirely consistent with the increase in kinetic energy, 1/2 mv squared. As v increased, the available energy increased in proportion to its square.
Because the towers were so tall, v had time to increase to a very large value, and its square to an even larger value. Hence, the kinetic energy available for dissipation as crushing (pulverisation) energy increased to enormous levels, and that explains why the clouds of dust caused by the collapses of the towers were so large.
CTS |
CTS, youre a total gibbering, gullible fool. Look, if you dont believe that 9/11 was an inside job, so be it, but why keep coming on here regurgitating the same old twaddle. Go and set up a 'debunking' site if you so wish. It's as though your defending your own psyche, as if accepting this TRUTH will crush your psychological make-up into a fine powder.
Please F U C K O F F ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | When buildings are professionally demolished, the implosions do not create dust, the implosions are directed to shearing through the supporting columns of the buildings. The dust is created then by the gravity-led collapse of the building as kinetic energy is converted to crushing energy.
OK? |
NO!! Not ok. The implosions DO create dust - that is the chemical reaction which takes place and causes computers and desks and carpets and furniture to be pulverised into dust. It is NOT the kinetic energy of the fall that creates it. Look at pictures of Dibnah's chimneys or any high-rise building collapsed after an earthquake for a comparison. See what remains !!! Huge quantities of shattered building material and contents still recognisable as what they were originally. Do some research for god's sake!!!
BTW - My memory is fine. Definitely crowds of onlookers cheering when the chimney comes down and very little dust and lots and lots of bricks. I suggest your memory is fine but your honesty is on the wane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GEFBASS
Moderate Poster
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:30 pm Post subject: Talk to an expert. |
|
|
Please CTS watch this Video from 27 minutes 10 seconds.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2842384983834100001
Prof. S. Jones talks about pancaking, and I`m not being funny here but have you tried to contact Prof. S. Jones to tell him your concerns.
We`re not the experts here, but I think you`ll find he is.
Here you are.
Steven E. Jones.
HardEvidence@gmail.com
Geoff.
That took all of 4 seconds to get an E-mail address.
_________________
TRUTH IS NOT A FOUR LETTER WORD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gypsum
Moderate Poster
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 211
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: | | As each floor pancaked |
Anyone who has bothered to do research on the 3 wtc buildings that collapsed on 9/11 should know that the pancake theory is ridiculous...
Most people on this forum have done research, so I'm afraid you are making a bit of a fool of yourself CTS  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blackcat writes:
| Quote: | | BTW - My memory is fine. Definitely crowds of onlookers cheering when the chimney comes down and very little dust and lots and lots of bricks. I suggest your memory is fine but your honesty is on the wane. |
No one is suggesting that ALL of the bricks were converted to dust. If just 10 per cent of them were, that would still amount to a lot of dust - and still leave a lot of bricks intact.
Even kbo234, who never normally agrees with me about anything, said:
| Quote: | | Yes there were huge clouds of dust when Fred Dibnah's chimneys collapsed |
OK?
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Define huge.
Of course there will be dust! The point is - is almost everything reduced to dust? Answer NO!!! Lots and lots of recognisable bricks. Relatively little dust. Not the case with the WTC where little was left EXCEPT dust!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: |
The collapses of the Twin Towers were quite different. As each floor pancaked, the kinetic energy of the collapsing upper sections of the towers was partially converted to crushing energy; and the resistance offered by each floor prevented the collapses ever reaching free-fall rates. Resistance to collapse and, therefore, pulverisation occurred all the way down.
|
This is not a serious attempt at an explanation. If there had been significant resistance to collapse the towers would have taken much longer to fall. The argument presented by CTS is absolute rubbish. Resistance to collapse, if there had been any significant resistance to collapse, could never have caused total pulverisation anyway. There was not anything like enough unused energy available to cause the massive damage that occurred without the use of explosives. The situation is analysed in great detail in 'The Journal of 911 studies' by Frank Legge and Gordon Ross. CTS understands nothing but it is not CTS's purpose to understand.
I am finished with this pretend argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I believe the best approach to this tiresome tirade of flat earth philosophy from CTS is to simply, ignore it. He obviously has no interest whatsoever in any investigation. He, I believe enjoys watching us jump through his absurd hoops. My advice to anyone who contemplates a reply to his provocations is DON'T! Maybe he'll take off and find Rachel from North London, whatever her name is, because, frankly, I am sick to the back teeth of his interventions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blackcat wrote:
| Quote: | Not the case with the WTC where little was left EXCEPT dust!!
|
Really, Blackcat? So where did the - what was it? - 70 ft depth of debris at the base of each of the Twin Towers come from?
I believe that once the dust had settled in the environs of the Twin Towers, it was only about 1 mm deep.
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
This "debate" is splitting hairs over small cheese
It is still the most extremely unlikely conjecture to propose that the planes brought the towers down: it flys in the face of the history before and since of aviation crashes and enginerring tolerances for steel framed structures
I dont mind CTS believing in absurd fairy tales promulgated by a powerful mass hypnotism machine (the media), hes hardly to be blamed for it
but wriggling around about how deep he believes the dust was is just dodging looking the balance of probability in the face
Weve even had apparently infinitley leaky molten aircraft fusealage to go alongside infinitley destructive jet fuel over the course of this thread
If he wants to bring foward specifc info off "911myths" for us to look into, then he should do so, and if any site members feel its worth their while to use that as practise for their debating skills, then thats useful too
Me, Im a strange fellow, I just like to stick to what my faculties tell me is most likely the truth:
*BOOM!*
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Really, Blackcat? So where did the - what was it? - 70 ft depth of debris at the base of each of the Twin Towers come from? |
It has taken a while but I did predict this two pages ago.
| Quote: | | Your next move is to say that there WAS a huge amount of solid chunks of the WTC buildings. Keep up the lies - its all you have going for you. |
| Quote: | | I believe that once the dust had settled in the environs of the Twin Towers, it was only about 1 mm deep. |
I bet you do too! :roll |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And in any case, the dust looked pretty deep to me on the French brother's film which wasn't even a 'Truth' film. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/911EW_Victims-1.wmv
There is a nice comparison with a genuine collapse on this video. Cars are shown crushed near a genuine collapse as opposed to incinerated by intense heat as at the WTC. You only have to look at the wtc exploding in all directions to know it was no "collapse". The flashes of the explosions within the dust cloud are nicely highlighted as well. It is staggering that anyone can believe they were not deliberately destroyed by explosives. Staggering how evil people can be to do it and staggering how evil anyone can be to be an apologist for the perpetrators by constantly denying the obvious.
Last edited by blackcat on Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gypsum
Moderate Poster
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 211
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blackcat that link doesn't work for me  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nor for me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kbo234 asks:
| Quote: | | CTS you are evading the point all the time. You have not explained where the energy for the massive destruction came from WHILE the buildings were undergoing free-fall. |
kbo234
I am surprised that someone who claims to have a physics degree should ask such a question. The energy comes from the force of gravity.
Whenever buildings are demolished, cluods of dust are produced as potential energy is converted to kinetic energy and then to crushing (pulverisation) energy. The larger, the taller, the building, the larger the clouds of dust that are produced.
Implosions do not produce dust. Implosions are used to shear through the supporting columns of the building. The dust is produced later when the building collapses.
Those people who think that clouds of dust are evidence pf explosives have not understood the processes that are occurring.
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gypsum and wokeman - the link is fixed now - sorry for the error.
I disagree with the conclusion that thermo-nuclear devices were used in the basement. They should stick to showing the evidence such as the flashes showing a series of explosions and the obvious blowing outwards of huge amounts of materials.
Cts
| Quote: | | Those people who think that clouds of dust are evidence pf explosives have not understood the processes that are occurring. |
Pure fantasy! You just pluck "facts" out of the ether to suit your agenda. Do some research!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wokeman wrote: | | I believe the best approach to this tiresome tirade of flat earth philosophy from CTS is to simply, ignore it. He obviously has no interest whatsoever in any investigation. He, I believe enjoys watching us jump through his absurd hoops. My advice to anyone who contemplates a reply to his provocations is DON'T! Maybe he'll take off and find Rachel from North London, whatever her name is, because, frankly, I am sick to the back teeth of his interventions. |
I've said this before but why hasn't CTS claimed his $1M prize from the 'reopen911' site by proving explosives were not used to bring down WTC 1,2 and 7?
Wot a useless debunker![/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 294
Location: London
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CTS writes:
| Quote: | kbo234
I am surprised that someone who claims to have a physics degree should ask such a question. The energy comes from the force of gravity.
Whenever buildings are demolished, cluods of dust are produced as potential energy is converted to kinetic energy and then to crushing (pulverisation) energy. The larger, the taller, the building, the larger the clouds of dust that are produced.
Implosions do not produce dust. Implosions are used to shear through the supporting columns of the building. The dust is produced later when the building collapses.
Those people who think that clouds of dust are evidence pf explosives have not understood the processes that are occurring.
|
Dear all
Does anyone dispute this statement? I challenge anyone to find a video of the professional demolition of a building that shows the following:
1. The sounds and maybe the flashes of the internal implosions going off shearing through the main supports of the buildings that were ALSO accompanied by the production of large clouds of dust.
2. The subsequent (ie after the implosions has gone off) gravity-led collapse that did NOT produce any dust.
If everything the CTs claim about the collapse of the Twin Towers is true, then there should be no difficulty in finding dozens of examples to meet this challenge. If the dust is always produced by explosives, then demonstrate it in videos of collapses of other buildings. OK?
Whenever large buildings collapse, it is normal and entirely to be expected in line with the laws of physics for large clouds of dust to be produced. The intial implosions used to shear through the internal supposrts of the buildings NEVER produce dust - for obvious reasons [it would be a complete waste of explosive power to pulverise concrete to dust as well as shear through the main supports]. The dust is entirely caused by the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy to crushing(pulverisation) energy.
I - and I am sure all the readers of this post - have seen many examples on TV of large buildings being demolished. In every case, one hears first of all the internal charges going off - with no dust being produced - followed by the gravity-led collapse - accompanied by large clouds of dust. OK?
The simplest explanation is therefore that there were no explosives involved in the collapse of the Twin Towers.
Everyone should also note that, in both cases, the collapse began at the level where the aircraft penetrated the building. Again, the simplest explanation suggests that the collapse of each building was directly connected to the damage done to the building by the aircraft.
For the vast majority of people the obvious question presents itself: Why should anyone go to the bother of both flying aircraft into the Twin Towers AND planting explosives? Furthermore, why should they plant them at different levels in the two towers? And how could inexperienced pilots have the skill and presence of mind to crash their aircraft at the correct and different levels in the two towers? I have yet to read convincing answers to these obvious questions.
For those who are not susceptible to conspiracy theories, ie the vast majority of people for whom I am a self-appointed spokesman, simplest explanations are the most convincing even for those who have never heard of Occam and his Razor. It is for that reason that CTs will never persuade more than a fringe element in any population that the events of 9/11 were an inside job.
I challenge anyone to find a video of the professional demotion of a building that showed the following:
1. The sounds and maybe the flashes of the internal implosions going off shearing through the main supports of the buildings that were ALSO accompanied by the production of large clouds of dust.
2. The subsequent (ie after the implosions has gone off) gravity-led collapse that did NOT produce any dust.
CTS
Last edited by ConspiracyTheorySceptic on Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:01 pm; edited 7 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Whenever buildings are demolished, cluods of dust are produced as potential energy is converted to kinetic energy and then to crushing (pulverisation) energy. The larger, the taller, the building, the larger the clouds of dust that are produced"
Yes, when they are DEMOLISHED - USING EXPLOSIVES! I still don't think he gets it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eckyboy
Validated Poster
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 162
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:10 pm Post subject: Be fair |
|
|
| I am not a conspiracy theorist, crank or a nut. The simplest explanation is that the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition. As for the dust clouds they first appeared above the impact point. There is not enough energy for this too happen this high up due to jet fuel or even the building collapsing an other element has pulverised the concrete and steel lattice into small sections and powder. I suppose you believe raging fires made WTC7 collapse neatly in on itself as well then do you CTS? WTC7 is the neatest demolition I have ever seen. I have not closed my mind too other explanations or theories I am just saying that based on the evidence I have seen and heard the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
