Since every wave of demolition was symetrical, there would have to have been as many beam weapons as there were waves of demolition. That's a LOT of death rays flying about.
What's more the point where the demolition started higher than any other building on the the skyline, where was the weapon held?
Since every wave of demolition was symetrical, there would have to have been as many beam weapons as there were waves of demolition. That's a LOT of death rays flying about.
Why are you saying this when you don't know how it works?
What's more the point where the demolition started higher than any other building on the the skyline, where was the weapon held?
the compilation shows some dust indeed. Now if you could expand your compilation to show that all the concrete and bricks were pulverised, then it would have some meaning.
Take a look at the foreground rubble in this pic. Hundreds of concrete blocks of sizes varying from pebbles to paving slabs. Just because there's a few inches of dust settled on top doesnt mean the mass beneath isn't packed with concrete and steel.
The WTC concrete was poured on site, there are no bricks or even blocks which can 'give' in the shockwave of an explosion, the shock wave will naturaly vaporise anything which is close to it, in the case of the WTC's this meant hundreds of tonnes of low density concrete, used in the core, for stairwells (right where the explosives were going off), and a comparably much less quantity in the actual floors, which I suspect where only broken up and pulverized in the process of the collapse.
Quote:
Dust happens with explosives, but not to the extent at the WTC where ALL the concrete was pulverised, along with many, many tons of steel.
See my first pic.
Quote:
The leftover steel did not penetrate the basement levels as someone attempted to put forward above. It was left lying around at ground level. The remainder was turned to dust. This massive pulverisation needs to be accounted for since it happened in truth, and is not up for discussion.
Agreed.
Quote:
Nobody is suggesting that explosives do not cause dust.
TTWSU3 Suggested it a few posts back, that's what I was responding to.
Quote:
Alternative theories are being put forward, and a high energy weapon of some kind is being proposed. I would hope that discussions thereof can be held in a rational manner.
Thanks for the summary and reminder, I would hope you didn't find cause to direct it at me.
What is a fact is that the amount of very fine dust was far too much for a conventional controlled demolition
Firstly its not a fact. Secondly it wasn't a conventional CD, it was top down not bottom up. Also it had to be made to look like a ~collapse. They pulled the core columns with thermate, the weakened section above the crash zones collapsed and conventional explosives were detonated for "Shock and Awe" and to ensure a total, fast demolition with no survivors. _________________ Make love, not money.
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:24 am Post subject: rubble rousers.
Fallious,
To my eyes these chunks of concrete are little more than crumbs. The total weight of the WTC x 2 concrete came to about 500,000 tons.
In fact you can see, especially in the first and second images many, many examples of steel rebar which has been stripped of the concrete which had been poured around it.
You are very confident of the positioning of the explosives I note. I have no idea actually what brought the towers down. I am only able to look at the evidence in such images and vids. I have drawn no conclusions except that there is room for grave doubt about conventional explosives.
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:42 am Post subject: Re: rubble rousers.
alwun wrote:
Fallious,
To my eyes these chunks of concrete are little more than crumbs. The total weight of the WTC x 2 concrete came to about 500,000 tons.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but in the first picture there are lumps laying right beside a core column which are comparable in size, thats feet across.
And actualy the quantity of concrete in the towers was incredibly small compared to the steel. There was approximately 1,800,000 Cubic feet of concrete in all the floors combined, compared that to the volume of ONLY the core columns which occupied around 11,000,000 CF.
Quote:
In fact you can see, especially in the first and second images many, many examples of steel rebar which has been stripped of the concrete which had been poured around it.
Now i'm the one that can't see the obvious, please point them out to me.
Quote:
You are very confident of the positioning of the explosives I note. I have no idea actually what brought the towers down. I am only able to look at the evidence in such images and vids. I have drawn no conclusions except that there is room for grave doubt about conventional explosives.
You'll forgive me, much of my opinion rests on my private research which convinced me the core was rigged with a great quantity of explosives. Not a small amount required to sever key supports, (thus creating a very obvious controlled demolition and much less dust) but a quantity sufficient to vaporise 50% of the core mass and eject external columns a great distance outward.
Since every wave of demolition was symetrical, there would have to have been as many beam weapons as there were waves of demolition. That's a LOT of death rays flying about.
Why are you saying this when you don't know how it works?
What's more the point where the demolition started higher than any other building on the the skyline, where was the weapon held?
Could have been anywhere
I'm sorry but something needs to be physically plausible- I don't need to know how a non-existent beam weapon works to make the points I made above.
My challenge to you was to demonstrate to me, plausibly, how a beam or multiple beams caused the exact destruction we saw.
And you haven’t been able to meet that. The only way I can think of a beam being able to affect the top down symmetrical destruction we saw is for it to move downwards on a rail at the same speed as the destruction wave occurred. Where was this based since the start of the collapse was higher than any other building?
I don't think you've thought this through properly.
Everything you and others say seems to be based around an assumption that concrete could not be pulverised by explosives. Could just one of you demonstrate why not?
In order to effect a demolition which could be described later as a gravitational collapse, there needed to be explosives on each side of the building, all the way down every few floors, that is a LOT more explosives than would be used in a standard controlled demolition (such as WTC7), where the bare minimum of the building is destroyed and the rest just drops.
What in particular is it that makes you say explosives can't pulverise concrete? This sounds like a "42 inches is longer than a piece of string" argument- what is the upper limit on the power of explosives- that you know of?
There is no explosive material that could generate enough power to turn concrete to powder so instead a beam was used?
WHY was a beam used when powdering concrete was a RESULT not an AIM of the demolition; or are you trying to claim that they specifically wanted the concrete to turn to dust? Why?
Or maybe you are saying explosives could not have even brought down the building?
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:02 pm Post subject: save the 'bathtub'
It has been proposed that it might indeed have been the plan to turn the concrete to dust, as opposed to allowing half a million tons of concrete plus the steel to fall down on to the bathtub. The 'bathtub' being the concrete basement construction under the WTC complex. If this had been shattered then the railway subways which connect WTC with the rest of Manhatten woud have been flooded, causing much mayhem way beyond the immediate area. This would have been an undesirable consequence, and was in fact avoided.
If Silverstein could have insured all of Manhatten in the run-up, then of course things might have been different.
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:43 pm Post subject: Re: save the 'bathtub'
alwun wrote:
It has been proposed that it might indeed have been the plan to turn the concrete to dust, as opposed to allowing half a million tons of concrete plus the steel to fall down on to the bathtub. The 'bathtub' being the concrete basement construction under the WTC complex. If this had been shattered then the railway subways which connect WTC with the rest of Manhatten woud have been flooded, causing much mayhem way beyond the immediate area. This would have been an undesirable consequence, and was in fact avoided.
If Silverstein could have insured all of Manhatten in the run-up, then of course things might have been different.
If the bathtub had flooded, ONLY the bathtub would have flooded. It was built to expose the bedrock so such large buildings as the WTC's could be constructed.
The only result of the tub being flooded would be that all the underground WTC rubble would be in water also, which would probably have actualy helped a great deal, by cooling the molten metal.
Alwun, you and others here seem to think that people who disagree haven't read the beam weapon article. Infact I read it prety much as soon as it was publicly available, and continue to check back for updates. It initialy interested me, the pictures of car damage etc - but there's few persuasive arguments in there and a lot of misrepresented evidence.
Now Fallious,
Tell it to the 'Wall Street Journal" about your flooding theory.
]The World Trade Center was built on terra firma protected by an underground "bathtub" or foundation ring down to bedrock seven stories below the surface of lower Manhattan. This sturdy enclosure some call the "slurry wall" shielded the foundation of the Twin Towers as well as WTC buildings 3 & 6. According to Wall Street Journal architecture critic, Ada Louise Huxtable, this structure "…saved lower Manhattan from the waters of the Hudson River" (WSJ 9-28-06, p. D8). Many observers worried about whether the wall would continue to do its job to prevent flooding but "To the relief of the engineers, there is no evidence that the 70-foot-deep retaining wall around the basements has been damaged or breached, although the collapse of the towers left one section perilously unsupported."New York Times (link) In the SPIKE TV documentary about the iron workers at Ground Zero, one remarked, "You know, it was amazing, it didn't really damage [that much] ... if they had fallen over sideways, could you imagine the damage to Lower Manhattan?"
I did at no time comment on your reading habits. You share a propensity with some of the more trenchant critics round here which is namely 'to put words in someone's mouth'.
Your claim is false. Full stop. No offence - but your claim is false. Simple.
Read slower perhaps, although I appreciate that you will not be in the habit of soliciting advice, or taking it.
Now Fallious,
Tell it to the 'Wall Street Journal" about your flooding theory.
The actual relevant factual part of that quote being "This sturdy enclosure some call the "slurry wall" shielded the foundation of the Twin Towers as well as WTC buildings 3 & 6."
Quote:
I did at no time comment on your reading habits. You share a propensity with some of the more trenchant critics round here which is namely 'to put words in someone's mouth'.
I assume you are refering to this: "Alwun, you and others here seem to think that people who disagree haven't read the beam weapon article. Infact I read it prety much as soon as it was publicly available." etc..
Your claim is false. Full stop. No offence - but your claim is false. Simple.
What claim?
Quote:
Read slower perhaps, although I appreciate that you will not be in the habit of soliciting advice, or taking it.
Wow.. looks like I hit a nerve there. Maybe you should take your own advice
"Alternative theories are being put forward, and a high energy weapon of some kind is being proposed. I would hope that discussions thereof can be held in a rational manner.
Thank you."
As you have read Judy's paper, you will see she has presented quite a bit of data and calculation to back up the conclusions she draws. Because she is a professor of mechanical engineering, she has a good ability to do this.
Also, in several cases, some of her observations are common sense (e.g. where'd the heck all that steel go?)
So what arguments do you find persuasive and which not. What are your reasons and or evidence for finding them to be weak or whatever.
So that we may judge the level of your responses, are you prepared to tell us a little about your background? (For example, I am a self-proclaimed nobody, with a degree in Computer Science and Physics, who has worked for most of the last 20 years in software engineering, development and design, with stints in tutoring/teaching in further and higher education. I have therefore no real authority and no one should particularly believe what I say because of my "position" - as I have no officially recognised position other than that I understand basic physical laws quite well, and I can follow maths of a level involving, say calculus and possibly even vectors and matrices if I really try hard)
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject:
alwun wrote:
Now Fallious,
Tell it to the 'Wall Street Journal" about your flooding theory.
]The World Trade Center was built on terra firma protected by an underground "bathtub" or foundation ring down to bedrock seven stories below the surface of lower Manhattan. This sturdy enclosure some call the "slurry wall" shielded the foundation of the Twin Towers as well as WTC buildings 3 & 6. According to Wall Street Journal architecture critic, Ada Louise Huxtable, this structure "…saved lower Manhattan from the waters of the Hudson River" (WSJ 9-28-06, p. D. Many observers worried about whether the wall would continue to do its job to prevent flooding but "To the relief of the engineers, there is no evidence that the 70-foot-deep retaining wall around the basements has been damaged or breached, although the collapse of the towers left one section perilously unsupported."New York Times (link) In the SPIKE TV documentary about the iron workers at Ground Zero, one remarked, "You know, it was amazing, it didn't really damage [that much] ... if they had fallen over sideways, could you imagine the damage to Lower Manhattan?"
I did at no time comment on your reading habits. You share a propensity with some of the more trenchant critics round here which is namely 'to put words in someone's mouth'.
Your claim is false. Full stop. No offence - but your claim is false. Simple.
Read slower perhaps, although I appreciate that you will not be in the habit of soliciting advice, or taking it.
cheers Al..
Here's a shocker: just becuase the Wall Street journal publishes something, it doesnt make it true _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
That's the second time I've been asked for personal info in response to a sound trashing. Yet none of what I've mentioned is even slightly dependent upon a particular qualification or experience. I rely on pictures, quotes and established figures to argue my point. I would hope for the same in return, unfortunately NPT and Beam Weapon theorists (you're either both or neither, it seems) seem to have forgotten everything they previously knew about the events of 9/11.
Mushroom clouds, explosions, external columns flying outwards, molten metal, office equipment shattered, bone fragments on distant rooftops, smoke rising from the basements, overturned vehicles, thousands of windows smashed and the little thing with WTC 7 expelling the same dust clouds from it's basement when it was taken down in a controlled demolition.
That's the second time I've been asked for personal info in response to a sound trashing. Yet none of what I've mentioned is even slightly dependent upon a particular qualification or experience. I rely on pictures, quotes and established figures to argue my point. I would hope for the same in return, unfortunately NPT and Beam Weapon theorists (you're either both or neither, it seems) seem to have forgotten everything they previously knew about the events of 9/11.
Mushroom clouds, explosions, external columns flying outwards, molten metal, office equipment shattered, bone fragments on distant rooftops, smoke rising from the basements, overturned vehicles, thousands of windows smashed and the little thing with WTC 7 expelling the same dust clouds from it's basement when it was taken down in a controlled demolition.
Hello Fallious
I would like to argue that the colour black is in fact black
That's the second time I've been asked for personal info in response to a sound trashing. Yet none of what I've mentioned is even slightly dependent upon a particular qualification or experience. I rely on pictures, quotes and established figures to argue my point. I would hope for the same in return, unfortunately NPT and Beam Weapon theorists (you're either both or neither, it seems) seem to have forgotten everything they previously knew about the events of 9/11.
Mushroom clouds, explosions, external columns flying outwards, molten metal, office equipment shattered, bone fragments on distant rooftops, smoke rising from the basements, overturned vehicles, thousands of windows smashed and the little thing with WTC 7 expelling the same dust clouds from it's basement when it was taken down in a controlled demolition.
Hello Fallious
I would like to argue that the colour black is in fact black
Do you agree with me?
If you want to argue about it then i'll take the other side. Start a new thread.
That's the second time I've been asked for personal info in response to a sound trashing. .
Fair enough - you are under no obligation to respond. However, it seems the offence I have caused you by wrecklessly asking you to reveal some basic details (which I tried to "trade" with you) has caused you not to specify which arguments or data you disagree with in Judy's paper.
Again, you are under no obligation to respond, but if you do, it may give us a chance to have a healthy debate and get to the truth. _________________ Andrew
That's the second time I've been asked for personal info in response to a sound trashing. .
Fair enough - you are under no obligation to respond. However, it seems the offence I have caused you by recklessly asking you to reveal some basic details (which I tried to "trade" with you) has caused you not to specify which arguments or data you disagree with in Judy's paper.
huh?
Quote:
Again, you are under no obligation to respond, but if you do, it may give us a chance to have a healthy debate and get to the truth.
Yeah I've bitten that line before Andrew and although you at least understand the need for some civility in discussion, in practicality some disrupter (looking firmly at TTWSU3) naturally destroys any chance at a debate.
and Fallious also - please consider here - this article gives a detailed insight as to whether Manhatten subway services were or were not endangered by threat of flooding post attack atrocity.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject:
Quote:
John White -
Hi John
An acute observation and difficult for me to defend. Fine - I shall never quote the WSJ again, and herewith cancel her testimony.
Would you believe my next witness, the fellow down on one knee who appears less than one minute into this short clip?
Absolutely I would believe him: in that he meant "The Bathtub" (where he was standing at the time, @70ft below ground level) will fill with water (ground water) NOT "Lower Manhatten". The function of the bathtub, as well documented, was to allow digging down to bedrock to anchor the towers original fondations and allow construction: the ground water flows around the bathtub quite happily with no danger to the rest of New York all the time. Obvious, isn't it? The "Bathtub" angle on BW Theory is simply nonesense _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Last edited by John White on Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
That's the second time I've been asked for personal info in response to a sound trashing.
Andrew's got a habit of doing that Alwyn. He also undoubtedly has access to your IP address, so I hope it's dynamic.
considering fallious is one letter short of fallicious which in Latin means 'accustomed to deception', or 'full of deceit', plus he turned up a month ago acting like a know it all with his web site which is hosted under a fake American proxy address - people have the right to question the suspect motives behind his constant hideous patter.
as for yourself snot, you contribute zero except to appear at specific occassions to attack folk, maybe you're the same chatbot?
That's the second time I've been asked for personal info in response to a sound trashing.
Andrew's got a habit of doing that Alwyn. He also undoubtedly has access to your IP address, so I hope it's dynamic.
Yes all true Ferric Mucus me old mucker. I'm a bad boy aren't I? My friends call me "Skipton Git". All pretty shocking compared to the heinous crimes we're discussing ay?
As ever yours, the NSA CIA super spying double agent pretend fake real 9/11 Truth seeker troll and Skipton Git (sanctimonious too) and namesake of US president Andrew Johnson
Enjoy!
It's a great sport this innit? How can anyone take any comments made by a poster named after Ferrous Nasal or other Glandular Secretions I will never know!
considering fallious is one letter short of fallicious which in Latin means 'accustomed to deception', or 'full of deceit', plus he turned up a month ago acting like a know it all with his web site which is hosted under a fake American proxy address - people have the right to question the suspect motives behind his constant hideous patter.
This is one of three threads where Ally, TTWSU3 and Andrew question my legitimacy. I thank you all kindly for your interest in my private life, I also note that it comes just days after my publishing the following article, which still hasn't been refuted. If anyone has doubt about my intent please take a look at this article and ask yourself why these individuals have chosen to target me now.
"My new article exposes the lies of no plane theory researchers..
"I have analysed the composition of this video, and the claims it makes. I now firmly believe that the video creator purposefully misrepresents numerous features of the two clips used, and combines them incorrectly with an aim to setting the plane flight paths as far apart as possible.
...
Whoever made "New Video Overlay proves clearly 9/11 TV Fakery" was not interested in honestly exposing a genuine conflict in flight paths. The short was specifically designed to dupe anyone who might view it"
My advice is unless you wish to make this an issue over which 'we' divide over I would avoid taking a strong categorical position over this. At the end of the day it is over the rights and wrongs of a relatively new (in terms of public debate) theory that is still at the margins of the overall 9/11 truth case and core message: reopen 9/11 and not IMO worth falling out over
Last edited by ian neal on Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
[url]My advice is unless you wish to make this an issue over which 'we' divide over I would avoid taking a strong categorical position over this. At the end of the day it is over the rights and wrongs of a relatively new (in terms of public debate) theory that is still at the margins of the overall 9/11 truth case and core message: reopen 9/11 and not IMO worth falling out over[/url]
Yup, but I believe that No Planes is a divisive theory designed and pushed by agents of some kind. What's more, I have provided proof of the creation of false evidence in my article - the video I analyse is LIEING. What else am I to name it? Why don't the NPT theorists here deal with the evidence of the article rather than attacking me personally?
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 can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. Many observers worried about whether the wall would continue to do its job to prevent flooding but "To the relief of the engineers, there is no evidence that the 70-foot-deep retaining wall around the basements has been damaged or breached, although the collapse of the towers left one section perilously unsupported."New York Times (link) In the SPIKE TV documentary about the iron workers at Ground Zero, one remarked, "You know, it was amazing, it didn't really damage [that much] ... if they had fallen over sideways, could you imagine the damage to Lower Manhattan?"