| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:30 am Post subject: Re: kerosene experiment (3) |
 |
|
| truthseeker john wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | truthseeker john wrote: | Here’s yet another version of the kerosene experiment.
1) Dig a hole and put a steel girder in it, in an upright position. Pretend you are planting a tree if makes you feel better.
2) Next, splash some kerosene onto the steel girder but let’s make this fun! Pretend you are some sort of priest who is baptizing the girder, in the name of the power, the propaganda and the oil, as you splash kerosene all over it.
3) Next, get a blowtorch and hold the hot blue flame to the steel girder.
What happens then? Does it explode? Call 911?
I don't think any more has to be said about this. Those who argue have obviously got their heads in the sand. |
No, the kerosene needs to be vapourised. Some unfortunates in Glasgow unwittingly carried out a much more accurate experiment. LINK |
Your link, http://www.workplacelaw.net/display.php?resource_id=8984 says, | Quote: | | The blast happened after petroleum gas ignited in a pipe which had been corroding over the years. |
Talk about dishonesty! How can that accident be "a much more accurate experiment" than the one I gave?? And since when is petroleum the same as kerosene?
You said that the kerosene needs to be vaporised. So now we have vaporised kerosene running down the walls according to you! If it had run down it would have had to be liquid so how did it become vaporised? It’s not as if the lobby or basement were red hot and the fires where many floors above! |
It is a more accurate experiment because it is vapourised fuel, vapourised fuel explodes because of it has sufficient oxygen to burn with extreme rapidity, liguid fuel does not. This applies to both petrol and kerosene. Your failure to understand basic science means you should really stop digging yourself deeper in the mire. The kerosene of course does not need to be liquid for the fireball to go down the liftshats and stair wells. Read all the witness accounts of those who saw the fireball and smelt the kerosene and explain why they are all wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | I think the energy represented by the fuel in the plane was sufficient to raise a 110 ton plane 30,000 feet in the air and fly it across a continent at 500mph, so I have no trouble imagining that a fraction of it could do the damage described. |
And yet the massive fireball at the top of the tower didn't appear to cause any structural damage - and it must have been far more massive than any fireball appearing deep in the basement (and given that no lift ran from floor 100 into the sub-basement). I would expect some of the outer walls to have been removed completely by such a fireball - how do you explain that? |
At the top of the tower there were windows to be blown out, and they obviously were, given the massive fireball outside the building. In the sub-basement there would not be any windows to vent the blast, so the walls would take it. It is speculation, but it sounds as though it was separated into areas by brick or block walls, which would not be load-bearing and therefore were probably no more than one brick/block thick and relatively easily blown over.
There were two freight lifts running from the impact floors to the sub-basement, cars 6 and 50, and car 50 was reported to fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement. LINK |
Car 50 stopped is at level B1 - which is a few levels above where it needs to get to before it starts destroying walls - not to mention the 50 ton hydraulic press ...... keep trying though .... |
The shaft for car 50 went down to sub-level B6. One report says it stopped below B1 before a fireball came down (........In the north tower, with elevator operator Arturo Griffith and carpenter Marlene Cruz aboard, the #50 elevator was hit by a blast, dropped several floors, and stopped below the B1 landing. A large fireball came through the shaft just after Griffith and Cruz were pulled from smoky elevator.) and another report says it dropped to its pit. These could both be accurate if the fireball referred to blew car 50 the rest of the way to its pit.
A 50 ton hydraulic press is not a large item, it is a press capable of exerting 50 ton pressure, not an item weighing 50 tons. (See one for sale on E-Bay here When he says it was gone, I presume he means it was not visible, perhaps covered in rubble.
I do not understand where you are trying to go with all this, very many witnesses saw a fireball, are you trying to say they must all have been wrong? |
I'm saying, as you well know, that I find it doubtful that a fireball would be able to cause such an explosive effect. And presuming he means "not visible, perhaps covered in rubble" is ever so slightly pathetic don't you think?
Please note that this is not a black and white issue. Now I know that your argument technique is to make an assumption and then push it. Therefore I argue that a fire way up a tower would be incapable of causing multiple explosions lower down. You say "KP thinks that fires cannot cause explosions". You then lower your standards even further by posting threads about fires where there weren't explosions. So to clarify - I do not think that explosions cannot be caused by fire. However there wasn't a fire at the place where there were reported explosions. Get it?
So onto the fireball. There was undoubtedly a fireball caused by the plane impact. However, I don't think it can have caused the basement damage (not to mention Willie thinks the basement explosion came before the plane collision). All clear now? So no need to proceed down the "no fireball" blind alley.
What else? Why did the ground shake a few seconds before the first tower came down? Why do witnesses report the bright orange lights going around the building? We could keep going for years yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | I think the energy represented by the fuel in the plane was sufficient to raise a 110 ton plane 30,000 feet in the air and fly it across a continent at 500mph, so I have no trouble imagining that a fraction of it could do the damage described. |
And yet the massive fireball at the top of the tower didn't appear to cause any structural damage - and it must have been far more massive than any fireball appearing deep in the basement (and given that no lift ran from floor 100 into the sub-basement). I would expect some of the outer walls to have been removed completely by such a fireball - how do you explain that? |
At the top of the tower there were windows to be blown out, and they obviously were, given the massive fireball outside the building. In the sub-basement there would not be any windows to vent the blast, so the walls would take it. It is speculation, but it sounds as though it was separated into areas by brick or block walls, which would not be load-bearing and therefore were probably no more than one brick/block thick and relatively easily blown over.
There were two freight lifts running from the impact floors to the sub-basement, cars 6 and 50, and car 50 was reported to fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement. LINK |
Car 50 stopped is at level B1 - which is a few levels above where it needs to get to before it starts destroying walls - not to mention the 50 ton hydraulic press ...... keep trying though .... |
The shaft for car 50 went down to sub-level B6. One report says it stopped below B1 before a fireball came down (........In the north tower, with elevator operator Arturo Griffith and carpenter Marlene Cruz aboard, the #50 elevator was hit by a blast, dropped several floors, and stopped below the B1 landing. A large fireball came through the shaft just after Griffith and Cruz were pulled from smoky elevator.) and another report says it dropped to its pit. These could both be accurate if the fireball referred to blew car 50 the rest of the way to its pit.
A 50 ton hydraulic press is not a large item, it is a press capable of exerting 50 ton pressure, not an item weighing 50 tons. (See one for sale on E-Bay here When he says it was gone, I presume he means it was not visible, perhaps covered in rubble.
I do not understand where you are trying to go with all this, very many witnesses saw a fireball, are you trying to say they must all have been wrong? |
I'm saying, as you well know, that I find it doubtful that a fireball would be able to cause such an explosive effect. And presuming he means "not visible, perhaps covered in rubble" is ever so slightly pathetic don't you think?
Please note that this is not a black and white issue. Now I know that your argument technique is to make an assumption and then push it. Therefore I argue that a fire way up a tower would be incapable of causing multiple explosions lower down. You say "KP thinks that fires cannot cause explosions". You then lower your standards even further by posting threads about fires where there weren't explosions. So to clarify - I do not think that explosions cannot be caused by fire. However there wasn't a fire at the place where there were reported explosions. Get it?
So onto the fireball. There was undoubtedly a fireball caused by the plane impact. However, I don't think it can have caused the basement damage (not to mention Willie thinks the basement explosion came before the plane collision). All clear now? So no need to proceed down the "no fireball" blind alley.
What else? Why did the ground shake a few seconds before the first tower came down? Why do witnesses report the bright orange lights going around the building? We could keep going for years yet. |
Very well, you accept that explosions are to be expected in fires, but you think there were explosions where there were no fires, you accept that there was a fireball but doubt if it could do the damage reported in the lobby and basement. Noted.
Willie did not even mention at the time that there were any explosions, he decide there were over a year later, and his story has got more interesting as Jimmy Walters paid for him to fly around the world. He cannot be regarded as a reliable witness. The seismograph evidence is consistent with the NIST theory. I have never heard of orange lights around the building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
Very well, you accept that explosions are to be expected in fires, but you think there were explosions where there were no fires, you accept that there was a fireball but doubt if it could do the damage reported in the lobby and basement. Noted.
Willie did not even mention at the time that there were any explosions, he decide there were over a year later, and his story has got more interesting as Jimmy Walters paid for him to fly around the world. He cannot be regarded as a reliable witness. The seismograph evidence is consistent with the NIST theory. I have never heard of orange lights around the building. |
From http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-Twin-Towers26jan06.htm
| Quote: | Shaking Ground before the Collapse
As we saw earlier, some people in the towers reported that there were powerful explosions in the basements. Such explosions would likely have caused the ground to shake. Such shaking was reported by medical technician Lonnie Penn, who said that just before the collapse of the south tower: “I felt the ground shake, I turned around and ran for my life. I made it as far as the Financial Center when the collapse happened.”
According to the official account, the vibrations that people felt were produced by material from the collapsing towers hitting the ground. Penn’s account, however, indicates that the shaking must have occurred several seconds before the collapse.
Shaking prior to the collapse of the north tower was described by fire patrolman Paul Curran. He was standing near it, he said, when “all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet. . . . The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.”
Lieutenant Bradley Mann of the fire department, one of the people to witness both collapses, described shaking prior to each of them. "Shortly before the first tower came down,” he said, “I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. People started running." Then, after they had returned to the area, he said, “we basically had the same thing: The ground shook again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down." |
Not to mention the 2 films taken by fixed cameras where camera shake is recorded a few seconds before collapse.
Orange lights - can't find all the reports together, saw them a while ago. From the same page as above.
| Quote: | Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.”
Flashes were reported in the north tower by Captain Karin Deshore, who said: “Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash.”
Demolition Rings: At this point, Deshore’s account moved to another standard phenomenon seen by those who watch controlled demolitions: explosion rings, in which a series of explosions runs rapidly around a building. Deshore’s next words were: “Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."
An explosion ring (or belt) was also described by firefighter Richard Banaciski. Speaking of the south tower, he said: “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”
A description of what appeared to be a ring of explosions was also given by Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick, who said: "We looked up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: |
Very well, you accept that explosions are to be expected in fires, but you think there were explosions where there were no fires, you accept that there was a fireball but doubt if it could do the damage reported in the lobby and basement. Noted.
Willie did not even mention at the time that there were any explosions, he decide there were over a year later, and his story has got more interesting as Jimmy Walters paid for him to fly around the world. He cannot be regarded as a reliable witness. The seismograph evidence is consistent with the NIST theory. I have never heard of orange lights around the building. |
From http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-Twin-Towers26jan06.htm
| Quote: | Shaking Ground before the Collapse
As we saw earlier, some people in the towers reported that there were powerful explosions in the basements. Such explosions would likely have caused the ground to shake. Such shaking was reported by medical technician Lonnie Penn, who said that just before the collapse of the south tower: “I felt the ground shake, I turned around and ran for my life. I made it as far as the Financial Center when the collapse happened.”
According to the official account, the vibrations that people felt were produced by material from the collapsing towers hitting the ground. Penn’s account, however, indicates that the shaking must have occurred several seconds before the collapse.
Shaking prior to the collapse of the north tower was described by fire patrolman Paul Curran. He was standing near it, he said, when “all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet. . . . The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.”
Lieutenant Bradley Mann of the fire department, one of the people to witness both collapses, described shaking prior to each of them. "Shortly before the first tower came down,” he said, “I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. People started running." Then, after they had returned to the area, he said, “we basically had the same thing: The ground shook again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down." |
Not to mention the 2 films taken by fixed cameras where camera shake is recorded a few seconds before collapse.
Orange lights - can't find all the reports together, saw them a while ago. From the same page as above.
| Quote: | Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.”
Flashes were reported in the north tower by Captain Karin Deshore, who said: “Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash.”
Demolition Rings: At this point, Deshore’s account moved to another standard phenomenon seen by those who watch controlled demolitions: explosion rings, in which a series of explosions runs rapidly around a building. Deshore’s next words were: “Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."
An explosion ring (or belt) was also described by firefighter Richard Banaciski. Speaking of the south tower, he said: “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”
A description of what appeared to be a ring of explosions was also given by Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick, who said: "We looked up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV." |
|
OK, I read David Ray Griffin's piece (interesting that these oral histories were obtained and published by the NY Times, part of the dreaded mainstream media, incidentally!) but I found very little about explosions on other floors, most reports were just of hearing explosions, which could have been anywhere. So I took what seemed like possibly your best case, Fireman Louie Cacchioli, about whom DRG says:
Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, after entering the north tower lobby and seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris, asked himself, “how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above?” After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman “heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.” After they pried themselves out of the elevator, “another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I’m thinking, ‘Oh. My God, these b****** put bombs in here like they did in 1993!’”
Then I did some delving. First of all, you might expect that after this experience, Louie would now think there were bombs in the building and therefore that it was an inside job, but he doesn't. Three years later he is reported in these terms "Cacchioli is also angry. He's read the final 9-11 Commission report recently released by the bipartisan National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States investigating the lead up to the terrorist attacks. He concludes that people in high places failed him and failed their country when the nation was so stunned and unprepared for a terrorist assault."
Then I found out some more about the incident he refers to in an interview with Fire Lieutenant William Wall
He says, "……..he entered the elevator with the last company
that went up, they went up to the 24th floor or the
22nd floor and the company was getting off I think
it was the truck company at that time because he
grabbed the last guy getting out who was the irons
man, and he said “You gotta stay with me because
I need tools in the elevator.”
At that time the doors closed and that’s when
the power went out, which what we found out later
was when the South Tower fell down. They were able
to force their way out of the elevator and for some
reason the guy from the truck went
to the right and he went to the left and found
the stairwell and he was able to make it out.
Q. who is he?
A. Louie Cacchioli
So now we know, the huge explosion that seemed inexplicable was in fact the South Tower falling. William Wall's interview was also in the NY Times archive. Funny that DRG did not spot it or relate it to his piece, isn't it?
The stories of the ground shaking all say much the same thing, "I felt the ground shaking, looked up and saw the tower was collapsing" That is consistant with the impact floor giving way, the upper section of tower falling, and initiating the pancake collapse. Similarly, reports of explosions immediately prior to the collapse are consistant with the impact floor collapsing.
I cannot explain why some people saw rings of flashes round the building, but they are not visible on any of the videos. Other reports of puffs of smoke we have previously discussed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BW, you are starting to sound so much in denial these days - I was too lazy and lacking in time to find the piece I wanted, so was stuck with DRG's piece on demolition, which did not highlight the explosions pre-collapse.
You seem to want every eye-witness to not only report explosions but also be quoted as thinking it is an inside job. Sheesh.
If there were actually explosions (as I think there were), the people in the vicinity would be killed or badly injured by it and therefore unable to provide their account.
So what did make those cameras shake prior to collapse? Strong gust of wind?
You are undoubtedly one of the fairest 9/11 denialists I have come across, all you need is to really think for yourself and you can solve this crime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bushwacker in this thread
qoute:
"The stories of the ground shaking all say much the same thing, "I felt the ground shaking, looked up and saw the tower was collapsing" That is consistant with the impact floor giving way, the upper section of tower falling, and initiating the pancake collapse. Similarly, reports of explosions immediately prior to the collapse are consistant with the impact floor collapsing."
*confusion*
a differant thread
qoute:
"Congratulations, you have proved whoever said it to be wrong. It was not me, by the way.
marky gets very excited that the "official" theory has changed, but what is strange about that? The alternative theories are constantly multiplying. The original ASCE/FEMA report thought that the floor trusses had become detached from the support columns leading the floors in the fire area to drop on to the floor below,causing it to drop in turn, a pancaking collapse. The NIST reports reject that theory, although some floors did indeed fall like that, their theory is that the trusses sagged but mostly remained attached to the support columns, pulling them in and initiating progressive collapse as the upper parts of the building fell with devastating force on to the remainder. This is supported by photos that actually show the perimeter columns distorting prior to collapse, something that no CD theory can explain."
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8073&highlight=panca king
this is simply for clarifaction.
did nist reject the pancake collapse theory or not? if so why are you saying it was a pancake collapse?
which is it? then you wonder where the confusion comes from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | BW, you are starting to sound so much in denial these days - I was too lazy and lacking in time to find the piece I wanted, so was stuck with DRG's piece on demolition, which did not highlight the explosions pre-collapse.
You seem to want every eye-witness to not only report explosions but also be quoted as thinking it is an inside job. Sheesh.
If there were actually explosions (as I think there were), the people in the vicinity would be killed or badly injured by it and therefore unable to provide their account.
So what did make those cameras shake prior to collapse? Strong gust of wind?
You are undoubtedly one of the fairest 9/11 denialists I have come across, all you need is to really think for yourself and you can solve this crime. |
Louie Cacchioli thought he heard bombs, and is quoted as part of the evidence cited. As he now blames terrorists for the attacks, he must accept that there were not bombs, and it appears he actually heard the South Tower fall. It is not unreasonable to point that out, in order to counter what is said to be evidence, surely?
You think there were explosions on the basis of evidence, I presume, not on speculation about what the victims might say. There undoubtedly were explosions, but no evidence they were bombs.
I suggest the cameras were shaken by the initial collapse of the impact floors, dropping the top section of the building on to the remainder.
I do think for myself, and I question the evidence produced by both sides. My conclusion is that the evidence produced in support of the official story is convincing, that from the conspiracists is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | bushwacker in this thread
qoute:
"The stories of the ground shaking all say much the same thing, "I felt the ground shaking, looked up and saw the tower was collapsing" That is consistant with the impact floor giving way, the upper section of tower falling, and initiating the pancake collapse. Similarly, reports of explosions immediately prior to the collapse are consistant with the impact floor collapsing."
*confusion*
a differant thread
qoute:
"Congratulations, you have proved whoever said it to be wrong. It was not me, by the way.
marky gets very excited that the "official" theory has changed, but what is strange about that? The alternative theories are constantly multiplying. The original ASCE/FEMA report thought that the floor trusses had become detached from the support columns leading the floors in the fire area to drop on to the floor below,causing it to drop in turn, a pancaking collapse. The NIST reports reject that theory, although some floors did indeed fall like that, their theory is that the trusses sagged but mostly remained attached to the support columns, pulling them in and initiating progressive collapse as the upper parts of the building fell with devastating force on to the remainder. This is supported by photos that actually show the perimeter columns distorting prior to collapse, something that no CD theory can explain."
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8073&highlight=panca king
this is simply for clarifaction.
did nist reject the pancake collapse theory or not? if so why are you saying it was a pancake collapse?
which is it? then you wonder where the confusion comes from. |
Sorry to confuse you. NIST rejected the theory that the floor trusses gave way, the floor above the impact floor fell, and that started the collapse. In that sense, they reject pancake collapse, as causing the collapse. NIST do not go any further in their report after "global collapse ensued"
I was referring to the stage after global collapse ensued, when it was a pancake collapse, each floor being crushed by the weight of the falling top of the building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | BW, you are starting to sound so much in denial these days - I was too lazy and lacking in time to find the piece I wanted, so was stuck with DRG's piece on demolition, which did not highlight the explosions pre-collapse.
You seem to want every eye-witness to not only report explosions but also be quoted as thinking it is an inside job. Sheesh.
If there were actually explosions (as I think there were), the people in the vicinity would be killed or badly injured by it and therefore unable to provide their account.
So what did make those cameras shake prior to collapse? Strong gust of wind?
You are undoubtedly one of the fairest 9/11 denialists I have come across, all you need is to really think for yourself and you can solve this crime. |
Louie Cacchioli thought he heard bombs, and is quoted as part of the evidence cited. As he now blames terrorists for the attacks, he must accept that there were not bombs, and it appears he actually heard the South Tower fall. It is not unreasonable to point that out, in order to counter what is said to be evidence, surely?
You think there were explosions on the basis of evidence, I presume, not on speculation about what the victims might say. There undoubtedly were explosions, but no evidence they were bombs.
I suggest the cameras were shaken by the initial collapse of the impact floors, dropping the top section of the building on to the remainder.
I do think for myself, and I question the evidence produced by both sides. My conclusion is that the evidence produced in support of the official story is convincing, that from the conspiracists is not. |
So what caused the numerous explosions? What could possibly cause them? Were they investigated? Where is the report?
I suggest that the camera shaking was not caused by that as it happened some seconds before. Not to mention it takes something a lot closer to the ground to cause the ground to shake.
If you really, really thought for yourself, you might think about the top 25 stories of WTC2 and where went to ..... where did all the desks go? All the computers? All the things that go to make up the modern office? They should have been lying in a shattered heap shouldn't they?
At this point I give up, you can't seem to reasonably explain any of these strange events and yet you find the official story "convincing". I am hoping you aren't on the jury when I am in court ....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | bushwacker in this thread
qoute:
"The stories of the ground shaking all say much the same thing, "I felt the ground shaking, looked up and saw the tower was collapsing" That is consistant with the impact floor giving way, the upper section of tower falling, and initiating the pancake collapse. Similarly, reports of explosions immediately prior to the collapse are consistant with the impact floor collapsing."
*confusion*
a differant thread
qoute:
"Congratulations, you have proved whoever said it to be wrong. It was not me, by the way.
marky gets very excited that the "official" theory has changed, but what is strange about that? The alternative theories are constantly multiplying. The original ASCE/FEMA report thought that the floor trusses had become detached from the support columns leading the floors in the fire area to drop on to the floor below,causing it to drop in turn, a pancaking collapse. The NIST reports reject that theory, although some floors did indeed fall like that, their theory is that the trusses sagged but mostly remained attached to the support columns, pulling them in and initiating progressive collapse as the upper parts of the building fell with devastating force on to the remainder. This is supported by photos that actually show the perimeter columns distorting prior to collapse, something that no CD theory can explain."
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8073&highlight=panca king
this is simply for clarifaction.
did nist reject the pancake collapse theory or not? if so why are you saying it was a pancake collapse?
which is it? then you wonder where the confusion comes from. |
Sorry to confuse you. NIST rejected the theory that the floor trusses gave way, the floor above the impact floor fell, and that started the collapse. In that sense, they reject pancake collapse, as causing the collapse. NIST do not go any further in their report after "global collapse ensued"
I was referring to the stage after global collapse ensued, when it was a pancake collapse, each floor being crushed by the weight of the falling top of the building. |
so nist reject a pancake collapse, even though they did no investigastion after the point of collapse, how can they then dismiss pancaking? they did no investigastion into it.
if truthers say or use the word pancaking they are pulled up for it, but critics use the term all the time when it suits, and when it dos'nt suit them they say it was not pancaking it was a progressive collapse or pile driving etc.
now im being told NIST rejects pancaking but only investigated upto the point of collapse and your refering to the part after that. therefore implying it was a pancake collapse afterall.
it seems more like a case of keeping people confused so they don't know what it is they are giving evidence against which disproves either scenerio, when ever pancaking get proves wrong you just switch your stance to pile driving, but then when it suits inorder to try and disprove other evidence its switched back to pancaking.
does anyone actually know what happened to the towers? it seems as though nobody knows for sure and no attempt based on evidence has been made to explain all that is seen and include all the evidence.
it seems the progressive collapse/piledriving/pancaking theorys are just as much theorys than the CD scenerio rather than being identified as fact.
none of them have been investigated or proved due to the fact they have either not been investigated properly or at all. and everyone contridicts eachother even those who support the offical version aswell as offical investigators NIST/FEMA etc.
its a total fruitloop and a disgrace the family members who want a new investigastion are refused when its obvious there is still confusion on how the towers actually fell to ground level and into the path of most resistance.
more people would of survived if it was not for a global collapse therefore for those who lost their lives on lower floors there is no closure on the cause of those deaths when nobody can be bothered to explain after the point the collapse started and everyone disagrees on the cause that speculates or who's scenerios have not been investigated even though there are credible reasons to suspect them.
FEMA says pancaking.
NIST rejects pancaking and does NOT investigate after the point the collapse started, but SPECULATE on the cause.
therefore NIST rejects pancaking, but the cause of global collape is still OPEN to DEBATE and has NOT been investigated.
MEANING NIST have not DISPROVED the use of EXPLOSIVES after the point of collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
marky, if you are quite so determined to misunderstand, you will certainly succeed!
What NIST say about the global collapse is:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
NIST did a very comprehensive report on the towers, it is not true to say that ".....no attempt based on evidence has been made to explain all that is seen and include all the evidence." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | marky, if you are quite so determined to misunderstand, you will certainly succeed!
What NIST say about the global collapse is:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
NIST did a very comprehensive report on the towers, it is not true to say that ".....no attempt based on evidence has been made to explain all that is seen and include all the evidence." |
yes it is fair to say and i stand by it, as im talking about what happens after the point of collapse which NIST did not look into, therefore they did not include all evidence in their report they decided to ignore or explain the remainder of the collapse, which dos'nt explain how the towers collapsed globally, it only explains how the collapse started then speculates and ignores all other evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | BW, you are starting to sound so much in denial these days - I was too lazy and lacking in time to find the piece I wanted, so was stuck with DRG's piece on demolition, which did not highlight the explosions pre-collapse.
You seem to want every eye-witness to not only report explosions but also be quoted as thinking it is an inside job. Sheesh.
If there were actually explosions (as I think there were), the people in the vicinity would be killed or badly injured by it and therefore unable to provide their account.
So what did make those cameras shake prior to collapse? Strong gust of wind?
You are undoubtedly one of the fairest 9/11 denialists I have come across, all you need is to really think for yourself and you can solve this crime. |
Louie Cacchioli thought he heard bombs, and is quoted as part of the evidence cited. As he now blames terrorists for the attacks, he must accept that there were not bombs, and it appears he actually heard the South Tower fall. It is not unreasonable to point that out, in order to counter what is said to be evidence, surely?
You think there were explosions on the basis of evidence, I presume, not on speculation about what the victims might say. There undoubtedly were explosions, but no evidence they were bombs.
I suggest the cameras were shaken by the initial collapse of the impact floors, dropping the top section of the building on to the remainder.
I do think for myself, and I question the evidence produced by both sides. My conclusion is that the evidence produced in support of the official story is convincing, that from the conspiracists is not. |
So what caused the numerous explosions? What could possibly cause them? Were they investigated? Where is the report?
I suggest that the camera shaking was not caused by that as it happened some seconds before. Not to mention it takes something a lot closer to the ground to cause the ground to shake.
If you really, really thought for yourself, you might think about the top 25 stories of WTC2 and where went to ..... where did all the desks go? All the computers? All the things that go to make up the modern office? They should have been lying in a shattered heap shouldn't they?
At this point I give up, you can't seem to reasonably explain any of these strange events and yet you find the official story "convincing". I am hoping you aren't on the jury when I am in court ....... |
What caused the numerous explosions?
Many were caused by the fire, as we have agreed. The one Louie Cacchioli and others heard was the South Tower collapsing. If you remember you were too lazy to find other examples that were away from the fire floors. One gruesome cause that has been noted, was people jumping from the upper stories, and no doubt falling debris had the same effect.
I suggest that the camera shaking was not caused by that as it happened some seconds before. Not to mention it takes something a lot closer to the ground to cause the ground to shake.
We shall have to disagree about when the camera shook, it seems. The ground would certainly be shaken by 25 stories of a building dropping on to the top of the remaining 85 stories.
If you really, really thought for yourself, you might think about the top 25 stories of WTC2 and where went to ..... where did all the desks go? All the computers? All the things that go to make up the modern office? They should have been lying in a shattered heap shouldn't they?
For goodness sake, why should the non-appearance of office contents in the rubble indicate the building was brought down with explosives? That simply makes no sense at all! Think about it for yourself. The office contents of all the floors was crushed to pieces by having the building fall on it. The top 25 stories of WTC2 fell on the remaining stories and all of the building was destroyed in the process, what else do you think happened?
You seem to think the natural consequences of a fire and building collapse are strange events. You appear to have simply been taken in by the conspiracy websites attempts to find evidence where there is none. I really think it is you who need to think for yourself, and read these sites with a more sceptical approach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
