| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
And whats more, the fact that YOU spend so much time here argueing with us about it is crazy!!
You say its to discourage lurkers from the alternative theories. Bullsh1t, and you know it.
You being here is the result of your pathological need to engage us in a point scoring, childish ego boost.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
quicknthedead
Minor Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 25
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: | I'll have a go.
The impact of the planes didnt register because the mass of the buildings absorbed the energy of the impacts.
The explosion that did register did so because it was underground and as such the energy of the blast would have more easily travelled through the earth.
Also, it seems a bit of a coincidence that there were multiple witnesses who reported a large explosion just before the plane impacted. This data certainly seems to back up these accounts.
As for why there was no sound of the explosion on the video, why would there be? It was underground. A dull thud (what an underground explosion would have sounded like from above ground as only low frequencies of sound would have been audible) would be much less likely to be picked up.
And please, dont try and claim that no witnesses heard this explosion. You know that is a lie.
And as a side note;
What do you OCTers think of this footage;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7BnTaWMyoc
Dont worry JP, its only 18 seconds long. I'm sure you can find the time in your obviously busy schedule to watch it.
Just in case you dont, its of MULTIPLE smoke ejections on MANY FLOORS of the north tower just before the impact of the second plane.
Cant wait to hear this....  |
From the LDEO data, the blasts registered were 0.7 and 0.9 on the richter scale.
That's not much more than a hand grenade going off.
So how do you explain a handgrenade doing so much damage?
Don't believe me?
Try the Earthquake calculator to work out equivalent TNT yields from Richter magnitudes.
http://home.att.net/~srschmitt/script_earthquake.html
Oh and that black smoke coming out the windows? Glass breaks when heated. There was a fire in the tower, that's where the smoke came from. The fire heated the glass and it broke. That's why when the second fireball gets near the other tower, the windows break. |
Defector, that is a fabulous find you showed there with that link. It shows absolute evidence of the squibs to my eyesight (which isn't very good anymore). In case you folks missed Defector's link, here it is again. She is right, it is only 18 seconds, but it is 18 seconds that are dynamite to watch (sorry, but that wasn't a pun).
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7BnTaWMyoc
Everyone, here is the testimony of William Rodriguez. He and 36 other people were in the WTC1 basement that morning. Watch and listen to him. He is referred to in my paper.
After you are done, don't waste your time conversing with Pixels as he is obviously working for them.
Instead, pass this data along as it proof that demands a new investigation begin now, this time a real one, with teeth. This is strictly a mass murder investigation. No politics, just deadly explosions.
Don't take my word for it; listen to Willie and look at the data.
His testimony is now validated by the seismic data, and things will change because of this causal link.
Adios!
http://www.jonhs.net/911/william_rodriguez.htm
_________________
This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1 John 4:10 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| quicknthedead wrote: |
After you are done, don't waste your time conversing with Pixels as he is obviously working for them.
|
Please QNTD. I'm still clinging on to the tiniest sliver of hope that he might at the very least one day agree that some of these accounts are suspicious.
Yeh, i'm probably fooling myself but still, he's not with 'them'. He's just fallen for all the bullsh1t.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: |
Look JP. I dont really care about the seismic data to be honest.
|
This thread is about seismic data though. Just because it doesn't show what you want doesn't mean it becomes irrelevant.
| Quote: |
You are trying to build a straw man with this. Its not like the entire demolition theory rests on it. There may well have been explosions that did not register with LDEO. I dont know and i dont care. If you think you've scored a point, well done. Go right ahead and feel great about yourself. It doesnt change a damn thing about the FACT that there were as yet unexplained explosions in those buildings. |
Unexplained explosions DOES NOT mean explosives, There are loads of things in offices that exploded when heated. Aerosol cans for one. They don't make a huge bang I know, but they still explode, they're found in offices, and they're not explosives. Eletrical equipment like transformers does explode, with a very loud bang. The guy in the basement, Willie Rodriguez says the lights flickered when there was an explosion. Electrical equipment?
| Quote: | | Perhaps you would like to explain to me how ignited jet fuel could have fallen that distance from the impact and still had the energy required to cause that level of damage. |
Jet fuel only burns as a vapour. If it were liquid then it would be able to fall down the elevator shaft. Heat and flames at the top of the shaft could have ignited the fuel at the top, causing the fuel to vaporise and burn on the way down. When fuel burns it causes an expansion of gas, which builds up pressure in the confines of the elevator shaft. That's one possible explanation.
| Quote: | | I know by now that you are quite willing to bend logic and science until it breaks to make events fit your version of what happened, so go ahead. Amuse us all with your 'explanation'. |
That's the thing, I haven't had to bend logic and science once to fit the facts. It is the conspiracy theory that requires leaps of faith. For instance, you may be claiming that C4/RDX was used to demolish the tower, but they burn if exposed to heat. You can light it with a match and it will burn, but not explode. It needs to be set off with a detonator. How did the exposives survive, admist all that fire? How did the wiring to them not burn out?
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Oh and that black smoke coming out the windows? Glass breaks when heated. There was a fire in the tower, that's where the smoke came from. The fire heated the glass and it broke. That's why when the second fireball gets near the other tower, the windows break. |
| Quote: | You are twisting the facts and you know it.
The first 'blasts' occur seconds BEFORE the plane impact. That is entirely obvious on the video.
|
They occur before the second plane impacts. There is already a fire in the first tower. The fire heats the windows and they break, sending clouds of smoke out. That's why the smoke rises upwards straight out of the window, because it is hot. If it were explosive, then the smoke would be forced out horizontally.
| Quote: | Even if it did occur after the impact, how do you explain this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8HuaiuayAI
It is a shot from the OTHER SIDE of the building and it clearly shows a flash at the moment of impact. |
Yes, there is a flash. It is interesting. But it is not from explosives. Firstly, there is no support structure near the windows, apart from the perimeter columns. The explosives would have to act on the central core columns. Assuming they haven't been burned up by the fire, they'd be inserted inside the column, because explosives work by pressure. They force things apart, and so have to be inside the thing they are destroying. However, they'd also have to be hidden underneath layers of plasterboard otherwise people working in the offices would see them. That would also hide any flash from the explosion. Secondly, if they were acting on the perimeter columns, you'd see the damage occur on the outside, and there is no new damage associated with the flash.. Thirdly, the flash is too long to be explosive. Explosive flashes are, literally explosive. They occur when the substance goes bang, and it does so incredibly quickly, which is why it produces so much pressure, and why the flash is so brief.
| Quote: | | Please JP, i'm not asking you to believe what we believe. But anyone IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would think that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with at least examining the posibility of pre-planted explosives. Fine, we can leave out the 'who' but * sake there is a LOT of evidence for this. |
There's nothing wrong with examining evidence. Examining evidence is a very good thing to do. But if you do examine all of the the evidence properly, there is no way that explosives were used.
Fog of war. There was so much going on that day, so much confusion. People were mistaken.
| Quote: |
I MEAN JESUS FUKCING CHRIST!!
WHY!!!!!!!!!!!! are you so god damn biased in favour of the official story. This is REAL EVIDENCE. It should be fukcing well investigated properly.
God damn it. What the hell is wrong with you people? |
I'm not biased in anyone's favour. The evidence points at the conclusions of the official story. That's how it came about, from examining evidence. That includes all the reports of bombs, and explosions, and squibs and everything.
| Quote: | | You see obvious squibs blasting out of the bloody towers when they come down and you twist it in to "oh no its DEFINATELY a pressure wave. And anyone who disagrees is a nut bag." |
That part of the problem. You think it's an obvious "squib". You can't start with a conclusion, and then find facts to back it up. When you have something like that, you need to find all the possible causes, and then work out the pros and cons of each one. If it were explosive, then it would act on more than one window. If it were pressure, it would be released when one window has broken. If you compare the black smoke ones from the impact you posted the video of above, notice how they're different from the ones when the tower is collapsing. The collapse ones are a lot more forceful as the air pressure pushes debris out, but the same source shouldn't have two very different effects.
| Quote: |
MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT. Maybe it is some kind of wierd pressure wave. But any normal human being would at least look at it and say "well, i dont think it was controlled demolition, but i understand why YOU see it as suspicious. Maybe it should be investigated just to be sure. After all, it does BLOODY WELL LOOK LIKE EXPLOSIONS." |
I do understand why you see it as suspicious, but the actual cause of it isn't, which is why I don't find it suspicious. It's the same reason why I don't find ghosts scary anymore, but I can see why some people do.
| Quote: | ITS CALLED HAVING AN OPEN FUKCING MIND.
Why the hell am i bothering with this. You guys will NEVER admit you are wrong. No matter what is presented. |
If I am wrong, I'll admit I am wrong, but it'll take a hell of a lot to convince me that the collapse was due to explosives, because there is such a huge mountain of evidence against, and so little for.
| Quote: | | You are terrified of being put in the tin foil hat brigade and see anything even remotely like a 'conspiracy theory' as garbage to be automatically judged so BEFORE EVER considering an alternative. |
I WAS in the tin foil hat brigade at one point. I was a JFK conspiracy believer. I swallowed everything that came my way. I took everyone's word on merit. What changed my mind? Evidence. Undeniable evidence that made me stop and think, and then I went and looked evidence for myself, instead of taking other people's word for it, and I found out that a great proportion of them were either twisting the truth, or lying through their teeth.
| Quote: | | You think we are stupid and gullible. I'm so glad you cant see how you appear to me. |
I don't think you're stupid and gullible. I think you've been lied to and mislead.
| Quote: | The fact that you mock us instead of engaing in open minded debate really lets me know your psychology. You are petrified of a possible alternative to the world you already know.
If you werent, you would gladly accept others having different views to your own. |
I don't mock you, not on pupose anyway. I am open minded, but that has its limit at the truth. I can't be so open minded that I start taking in any old rubbish, or I'd be out buying magnet therapy bracelets and some healing crystals.
I do gladly accept other having different views to my own, but only on issues where such things are possible. You can't have a different view on a fact. It is either one thing or it isn't. I wouldn't accept someone having the view that gravity doesn't exist, that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: |
Look JP. I dont really care about the seismic data to be honest.
|
This thread is about seismic data though. Just because it doesn't show what you want doesn't mean it becomes irrelevant.
| Quote: |
You are trying to build a straw man with this. Its not like the entire demolition theory rests on it. There may well have been explosions that did not register with LDEO. I dont know and i dont care. If you think you've scored a point, well done. Go right ahead and feel great about yourself. It doesnt change a damn thing about the FACT that there were as yet unexplained explosions in those buildings. |
Unexplained explosions DOES NOT mean explosives, There are loads of things in offices that exploded when heated. Aerosol cans for one. They don't make a huge bang I know, but they still explode, they're found in offices, and they're not explosives. Eletrical equipment like transformers does explode, with a very loud bang. The guy in the basement, Willie Rodriguez says the lights flickered when there was an explosion. Electrical equipment?
| Quote: | | Perhaps you would like to explain to me how ignited jet fuel could have fallen that distance from the impact and still had the energy required to cause that level of damage. |
Jet fuel only burns as a vapour. If it were liquid then it would be able to fall down the elevator shaft. Heat and flames at the top of the shaft could have ignited the fuel at the top, causing the fuel to vaporise and burn on the way down. When fuel burns it causes an expansion of gas, which builds up pressure in the confines of the elevator shaft. That's one possible explanation.
| Quote: | | I know by now that you are quite willing to bend logic and science until it breaks to make events fit your version of what happened, so go ahead. Amuse us all with your 'explanation'. |
That's the thing, I haven't had to bend logic and science once to fit the facts. It is the conspiracy theory that requires leaps of faith. For instance, you may be claiming that C4/RDX was used to demolish the tower, but they burn if exposed to heat. You can light it with a match and it will burn, but not explode. It needs to be set off with a detonator. How did the exposives survive, admist all that fire? How did the wiring to them not burn out?
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Oh and that black smoke coming out the windows? Glass breaks when heated. There was a fire in the tower, that's where the smoke came from. The fire heated the glass and it broke. That's why when the second fireball gets near the other tower, the windows break. |
| Quote: | You are twisting the facts and you know it.
The first 'blasts' occur seconds BEFORE the plane impact. That is entirely obvious on the video.
|
They occur before the second plane impacts. There is already a fire in the first tower. The fire heats the windows and they break, sending clouds of smoke out. That's why the smoke rises upwards straight out of the window, because it is hot. If it were explosive, then the smoke would be forced out horizontally.
| Quote: | Even if it did occur after the impact, how do you explain this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8HuaiuayAI
It is a shot from the OTHER SIDE of the building and it clearly shows a flash at the moment of impact. |
Yes, there is a flash. It is interesting. But it is not from explosives. Firstly, there is no support structure near the windows, apart from the perimeter columns. The explosives would have to act on the central core columns. Assuming they haven't been burned up by the fire, they'd be inserted inside the column, because explosives work by pressure. They force things apart, and so have to be inside the thing they are destroying. However, they'd also have to be hidden underneath layers of plasterboard otherwise people working in the offices would see them. That would also hide any flash from the explosion. Secondly, if they were acting on the perimeter columns, you'd see the damage occur on the outside, and there is no new damage associated with the flash.. Thirdly, the flash is too long to be explosive. Explosive flashes are, literally explosive. They occur when the substance goes bang, and it does so incredibly quickly, which is why it produces so much pressure, and why the flash is so brief.
| Quote: | | Please JP, i'm not asking you to believe what we believe. But anyone IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would think that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with at least examining the posibility of pre-planted explosives. Fine, we can leave out the 'who' but * sake there is a LOT of evidence for this. |
There's nothing wrong with examining evidence. Examining evidence is a very good thing to do. But if you do examine all of the the evidence properly, there is no way that explosives were used.
Fog of war. There was so much going on that day, so much confusion. People were mistaken.
| Quote: |
I MEAN JESUS FUKCING CHRIST!!
WHY!!!!!!!!!!!! are you so god damn biased in favour of the official story. This is REAL EVIDENCE. It should be fukcing well investigated properly.
God damn it. What the hell is wrong with you people? |
I'm not biased in anyone's favour. The evidence points at the conclusions of the official story. That's how it came about, from examining evidence. That includes all the reports of bombs, and explosions, and squibs and everything.
| Quote: | | You see obvious squibs blasting out of the bloody towers when they come down and you twist it in to "oh no its DEFINATELY a pressure wave. And anyone who disagrees is a nut bag." |
That part of the problem. You think it's an obvious "squib". You can't start with a conclusion, and then find facts to back it up. When you have something like that, you need to find all the possible causes, and then work out the pros and cons of each one. If it were explosive, then it would act on more than one window. If it were pressure, it would be released when one window has broken. If you compare the black smoke ones from the impact you posted the video of above, notice how they're different from the ones when the tower is collapsing. The collapse ones are a lot more forceful as the air pressure pushes debris out, but the same source shouldn't have two very different effects.
| Quote: |
MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT. Maybe it is some kind of wierd pressure wave. But any normal human being would at least look at it and say "well, i dont think it was controlled demolition, but i understand why YOU see it as suspicious. Maybe it should be investigated just to be sure. After all, it does BLOODY WELL LOOK LIKE EXPLOSIONS." |
I do understand why you see it as suspicious, but the actual cause of it isn't, which is why I don't find it suspicious. It's the same reason why I don't find ghosts scary anymore, but I can see why some people do.
| Quote: | ITS CALLED HAVING AN OPEN FUKCING MIND.
Why the hell am i bothering with this. You guys will NEVER admit you are wrong. No matter what is presented. |
If I am wrong, I'll admit I am wrong, but it'll take a hell of a lot to convince me that the collapse was due to explosives, because there is such a huge mountain of evidence against, and so little for.
| Quote: | | You are terrified of being put in the tin foil hat brigade and see anything even remotely like a 'conspiracy theory' as garbage to be automatically judged so BEFORE EVER considering an alternative. |
I WAS in the tin foil hat brigade at one point. I was a JFK conspiracy believer. I swallowed everything that came my way. I took everyone's word on merit. What changed my mind? Evidence. Undeniable evidence that made me stop and think, and then I went and looked evidence for myself, instead of taking other people's word for it, and I found out that a great proportion of them were either twisting the truth, or lying through their teeth.
| Quote: | | You think we are stupid and gullible. I'm so glad you cant see how you appear to me. |
I don't think you're stupid and gullible. I think you've been lied to and mislead.
| Quote: | The fact that you mock us instead of engaing in open minded debate really lets me know your psychology. You are petrified of a possible alternative to the world you already know.
If you werent, you would gladly accept others having different views to your own. |
I don't mock you, not on pupose anyway. I am open minded, but that has its limit at the truth. I can't be so open minded that I start taking in any old rubbish, or I'd be out buying magnet therapy bracelets and some healing crystals.
I do gladly accept other having different views to my own, but only on issues where such things are possible. You can't have a different view on a fact. It is either one thing or it isn't. I wouldn't accept someone having the view that gravity doesn't exist, that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun. |
I appreciate your response. I truely do. I may get heated and band about insults a bit more often than i should but i'm pretty certain your probably not that bad a guy. Jay Ref is a nasty piece of work and it is a shame that others who oppose our views have to be associated with him. He makes you all look bad. Though your post does let me know that we are on completely different wavelengths and will never agree with one another.
I'll respond to your points though from this point on, its more to let you know why i believe the things i do and not to convince you of the validity of what i say. I feel the evidence as i see it should have been more than suficient but i guess not.
| Quote: |
This thread is about seismic data though. Just because it doesn't show what you want doesn't mean it becomes irrelevant. |
Earlier in the thread, i think it was this one, i mentioned about how this data would need to be verified before i would take it on board as solid evidence. I dont want it to show what i 'want'. I want to understand its relevance. Thats all. But if it does not support the aternative theory, then it is largely irrelivent data. Unless it can disprove the use of explosives or help bolster the official theory, then it really bares no relevance on my opinion. And to be truely honest, at this stage it would take a blasted mountain of evidence to take me away from where i am right now.
| Quote: | | Unexplained explosions DOES NOT mean explosives, There are loads of things in offices that exploded when heated. Aerosol cans for one. They don't make a huge bang I know, but they still explode, they're found in offices, and they're not explosives. Eletrical equipment like transformers does explode, with a very loud bang. The guy in the basement, Willie Rodriguez says the lights flickered when there was an explosion. Electrical equipment? |
It may have been. But the problem i have with this idea is that you (we) would have to call those witnesses liers in order for it to fit. They said it happened before the impact. I believe them. I have no reason not to. Beside, the time of the explosion is irrelivent, given that there has been no adequate research in to what those blasts were. Why on earth did the commission ignore it? Seems highly suspicious to me. They took Rodriguez' tesimony and ignored it. Why? This impies a cover up of information.
What about the media reaction to Rodriguez? In EVERY interview he gave he tried to or either did mention the multiple explosions he witnessed. In EVERY case they left it out. Why if there is a simple honest explanation?
At any rate, the idea that it may have been elecrical equipment exploding still seems a long way off. That damage was far too severe, i believe.
| Quote: | | Jet fuel only burns as a vapour. If it were liquid then it would be able to fall down the elevator shaft. Heat and flames at the top of the shaft could have ignited the fuel at the top, causing the fuel to vaporise and burn on the way down. When fuel burns it causes an expansion of gas, which builds up pressure in the confines of the elevator shaft. That's one possible explanation. |
I dont think it is possible. An entire parking garage was reduced to rubble. And just looking at the distance that the fuel would have to have travelled makes me feel like this is a HIGHLY unlikely possibility.
| Quote: | That's the thing, I haven't had to bend logic and science once to fit the facts. It is the conspiracy theory that requires leaps of faith. For instance, you may be claiming that C4/RDX was used to demolish the tower, but they burn if exposed to heat. You can light it with a match and it will burn, but not explode. It needs to be set off with a detonator. How did the exposives survive, admist all that fire? How did the wiring to them not burn out?
|
Thats not fair JP. You are picking the one area of the explosives arguement you feel is weak to pick apart.
To say that those basement blasts were caused by fuel falling down an elevator shaft, that to me is a huge leap of faith. As is the footage of the 'squibs'. To say that it is being caused by a pressure wave seems a big leap to me. Especially as there is absolutely no scientific data on how this might occur.
To say that those blasts are the result of a planted explosive would be a logical conclusion based on the footage compared with other demolitions. It being caused by a pressure wave however, THAT is the leap as there is no comparitive evidence to support it. It is completely general guesswork, necessary to provide some continued basis for refuting the alternative theory. Wanting to look for other reasons is one thing, but logic would dictate that, until further evidence arises, one must go with the explanation that has supporting evidence.
As for the question of why did the planes not damage the wiring and explosives?
I believe that it may be possible that those planes were very precisely flown in to those points in the buildings. From the footage of molten metal pooring out of the holes before impact, i think it is possible that there were no 'explosives' as such in those areas of the buildings. Possibly only thermite to melt the central columns to initiate the collapse. Once that had begun, a C4/RDX chain of detonations would have taken over.
Absolutely just a theory. And largely irrelivent as it comes back to the arguement of HOW did they wire the bulidings. That is something we probably will never know and may never be answered, though if thermite or other demolition agents can be verified as playing a role in the collapse this question would not necessarily need to be answered.
This however is a very good question and i would have to be honest and say that i do not know.
| Quote: |
They occur before the second plane impacts. There is already a fire in the first tower. The fire heats the windows and they break, sending clouds of smoke out. That's why the smoke rises upwards straight out of the window, because it is hot. If it were explosive, then the smoke would be forced out horizontally. |
I do see your point here but what ever pressure caused those windows to break occurs on many floors at the same time. It would seem highly unlikely that all those windows would happen to give at the same moment, not to mention that it happens right when the plane impacts. Far to coincidental for me.
| Quote: | | Yes, there is a flash. It is interesting. But it is not from explosives. Firstly, there is no support structure near the windows, apart from the perimeter columns. The explosives would have to act on the central core columns. Assuming they haven't been burned up by the fire, they'd be inserted inside the column, because explosives work by pressure. They force things apart, and so have to be inside the thing they are destroying. However, they'd also have to be hidden underneath layers of plasterboard otherwise people working in the offices would see them. That would also hide any flash from the explosion. Secondly, if they were acting on the perimeter columns, you'd see the damage occur on the outside, and there is no new damage associated with the flash.. Thirdly, the flash is too long to be explosive. Explosive flashes are, literally explosive. They occur when the substance goes bang, and it does so incredibly quickly, which is why it produces so much pressure, and why the flash is so brief. |
No offence but this seems like guess work. Again, the timing is very coincidental. Yes i know that coincidence is not enough to pass as evidence alone but what else might it be? The storage of combustable materials is heavily regulated with in high-rise buildings. Again it is another anomalous detail that does give weight to an explosives theory.
| Quote: | | There's nothing wrong with examining evidence. Examining evidence is a very good thing to do. But if you do examine all of the the evidence properly, there is no way that explosives were used. |
I disagree. I'm not sure i'll ever hear of anything that can explain all these anomalies though i truely am open to other theories.
| Quote: | | Fog of war. There was so much going on that day, so much confusion. People were mistaken. |
This is outright speculation. There is no way for you to adequately explain these reports as 'fog of war'.
Ask yourslef a simple question. What if they were not mistaken? What if they were correct in what they witnessed. There are a LOT of reports of explosions. They cannot all be mistaken.
We hear witness talking about explosives. We see what appears to be explosives. We have physical evidence of what appears to be explosives. I for one feel very confident in my opinion on this.
| Quote: | I'm not biased in anyone's favour. The evidence points at the conclusions of the official story. That's how it came about, from examining evidence. That includes all the reports of bombs, and explosions, and squibs and everything.
|
I'm sorry but the reports of explosions were never examined properly.
| Quote: |
That part of the problem. You think it's an obvious "squib". You can't start with a conclusion, and then find facts to back it up. When you have something like that, you need to find all the possible causes, and then work out the pros and cons of each one. If it were explosive, then it would act on more than one window. If it were pressure, it would be released when one window has broken. If you compare the black smoke ones from the impact you posted the video of above, notice how they're different from the ones when the tower is collapsing. The collapse ones are a lot more forceful as the air pressure pushes debris out, but the same source shouldn't have two very different effects. |
No JP. Is looks a hell of a lot like a 'squib'.
You say that if it were explosive it would act on more than one window.
Why?
Why would it? You dont know how they were placed so this is pure speculation. You say you need facts to support a theory but you use speculation to disprove one.
I can use exactly the same arguement to say that a pressure wave would have built up so much pressure that muliple windows on multiple floors would have broken. With out collapse data it is speculation.
And to say that the same source would not have two different effects is presuming that the blasts before the collapse and after the collapse came from the same type of blast.
| Quote: | | If I am wrong, I'll admit I am wrong, but it'll take a hell of a lot to convince me that the collapse was due to explosives, because there is such a huge mountain of evidence against, and so little for. |
I'm sorry but i really dont think you have approached this with an open mind. I see the exact opposite of you.
It seems so wierd to me that people could be so different on an issue like this. Kind of makes me realise just how varied our strange species is...
| Quote: | | I WAS in the tin foil hat brigade at one point. I was a JFK conspiracy believer. I swallowed everything that came my way. I took everyone's word on merit. What changed my mind? Evidence. Undeniable evidence that made me stop and think, and then I went and looked evidence for myself, instead of taking other people's word for it, and I found out that a great proportion of them were either twisting the truth, or lying through their teeth. |
That you "swallowed everything" that came your way tells me a lot. You never did view things objectively. You saw yourself proven wrong on an issue but this did not change your ability to critically reason. You have gone from one extreme to the other. Whilst before you believed all the 'conspiracy stuff', now you are fiercly anti-conspiracy. Either way, i feel you are still "swallowing everything" that comes your way. You are just within a different paradgym, a different mindset. Your filters never changed.
Sorry if im trying to pick your brains too much here.
| Quote: | | I don't think you're stupid and gullible. I think you've been lied to and mislead. |
If this can be shown to me i will agree, and have done. However, the majority of the information i use to support my views have nothing to do with being lied to.
No i dont think Rodriguez was lying, and the footage of the collapse cannot lie.
I may believe the opinions of people who turn out to be geuinely wrong but liers? I dont think so. Embellishment, perhaps (Alex Jones would be a prime example) but even these people truely believe that 911 was an inside job.
You hold the commission report as valid. I see them as the ultimate liers, so where does that leave us?
| Quote: | | I don't mock you, not on pupose anyway. I am open minded, but that has its limit at the truth. I can't be so open minded that I start taking in any old rubbish, or I'd be out buying magnet therapy bracelets and some healing crystals. |
Again this shows ignorance of the evidence. Calling the mass of culmative evidence for CD "any old rubbish" is an insult. And it betrays were you really are coming from on this. Lumping it all with magnet therapy and healing crystals lets me know full well that you dont care about evidence. You see it all as 'conspiracy kook rubbish' and have automatically labelled it as such. I truely believe that you will sooner believe ANYTHING than accept the posibility of inside job. Thats up to you man. We are still somewhat free, and you can view the world whatever way you want. You say that if we present the right evidence you too would believe what we believe. I dont think that is true. We could have video tape of them wiring up the buildings and, so long as your peer group of sceptics still claimed "conspiracy rubbish", you wouldnt dare stick your neck out.
| Quote: | | I do gladly accept other having different views to my own, but only on issues where such things are possible. You can't have a different view on a fact. It is either one thing or it isn't. I wouldn't accept someone having the view that gravity doesn't exist, that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun. |
I do not see how you or anyone else on this earth can say that 911 being an inside job is impossible.
| Quote: | | You can't have a different view on a fact. |
That, evidently, is not correct. Your facts appear to differ wildly from mine.
If you had come from the originally thinking that 911 was an inside job to being a sceptic i would be open to your opinion much more than i can be now, because you, from day one had your mind made up.
Its cool though.
At the end of the day, does what either of us believe actually change a damn thing?
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: |
This thread is about seismic data though. Just because it doesn't show what you want doesn't mean it becomes irrelevant. |
Earlier in the thread, i think it was this one, i mentioned about how this data would need to be verified before i would take it on board as solid evidence. I dont want it to show what i 'want'. I want to understand its relevance. Thats all. But if it does not support the aternative theory, then it is largely irrelivent data. Unless it can disprove the use of explosives or help bolster the official theory, then it really bares no relevance on my opinion. And to be truely honest, at this stage it would take a * mountain of evidence to take me away from where i am right now. |
The seismologists whose data it is state that it shows zero evidence of explosives. They know what explosives look like on seismographs because they spend their lives looking at them, and filtering them out from real earth tremors
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Unexplained explosions DOES NOT mean explosives, There are loads of things in offices that exploded when heated. Aerosol cans for one. They don't make a huge bang I know, but they still explode, they're found in offices, and they're not explosives. Eletrical equipment like transformers does explode, with a very loud bang. The guy in the basement, Willie Rodriguez says the lights flickered when there was an explosion. Electrical equipment? |
It may have been. But the problem i have with this idea is that you (we) would have to call those witnesses liers in order for it to fit. They said it happened before the impact. I believe them. I have no reason not to. Beside, the time of the explosion is irrelivent, given that there has been no adequate research in to what those blasts were. Why on earth did the commission ignore it? Seems highly suspicious to me. They took Rodriguez' tesimony and ignored it. Why? This impies a cover up of information. |
They don't have to be called liars. They are not expert witnesses. Luckily very few people have experience of explosives explosions. Most people only have television, and the few pops and bangs that you get around the house etc. They don't have the skill or knowledge to differentiate between different types of explosion. They almost certainly did hear things going bang, but to jump to the conclusion that bang=bomb, is too great a leap, because there are more innocent explanations, and ones that fit the evidence infinitely better than explosives.
| Quote: | | What about the media reaction to Rodriguez? In EVERY interview he gave he tried to or either did mention the multiple explosions he witnessed. In EVERY case they left it out. Why if there is a simple honest explanation? |
I don't know the specifics but it wasn't necessaraily relevant. It may well have been for his own good if he was pushing the idea of explosives. That's not meant in a "don't mention the bombs" and we let you live kind of way, but if the media are trying to potray him as a hero, then if he starts going off about conspiracies, then they lose their hero. He may well have heard multiple explosions, the jet impact, the fireball down the elevator shaft to the parking garage, and then the cars exploding in the garage.
| Quote: | | At any rate, the idea that it may have been elecrical equipment exploding still seems a long way off. That damage was far too severe, i believe. |
For exploding electrical equipment, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH5UudSEMQw
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Jet fuel only burns as a vapour. If it were liquid then it would be able to fall down the elevator shaft. Heat and flames at the top of the shaft could have ignited the fuel at the top, causing the fuel to vaporise and burn on the way down. When fuel burns it causes an expansion of gas, which builds up pressure in the confines of the elevator shaft. That's one possible explanation. |
I dont think it is possible. An entire parking garage was reduced to rubble. And just looking at the distance that the fuel would have to have travelled makes me feel like this is a HIGHLY unlikely possibility.
|
Well there were also cars in the garage, if there were a fireball they may well have exploded too, adding to damage, or it could have just been a large quantity of jet fuel, or a fireball. Because the garage is enclosed, then a fireball would cause a lot of damage due to expanding the air inside it rapidly.
| Quote: | | Quote: | That's the thing, I haven't had to bend logic and science once to fit the facts. It is the conspiracy theory that requires leaps of faith. For instance, you may be claiming that C4/RDX was used to demolish the tower, but they burn if exposed to heat. You can light it with a match and it will burn, but not explode. It needs to be set off with a detonator. How did the exposives survive, admist all that fire? How did the wiring to them not burn out?
|
Thats not fair JP. You are picking the one area of the explosives arguement you feel is weak to pick apart.
To say that those basement blasts were caused by fuel falling down an elevator shaft, that to me is a huge leap of faith. As is the footage of the 'squibs'. To say that it is being caused by a pressure wave seems a big leap to me. Especially as there is absolutely no scientific data on how this might occur. |
Jet fuel only burns as a vapour. I'm guessing you've seen loose change? The plane that was remotely landed several times was part of an experiment into fuel fires. If you make the droplets of jet fuel big enough, they won't ignite, so they tested additives to make the jet fuel clump into larger droplets to stop plane crashes from streaming fuel and bursting into flames. This means that it is entirely possible that when the plane impacted, the fuel tanks in the wings would have been ripped open, sending a cascade of liquid fuel towards the core of the building. It is also possible that this fuel hit the elevator shafts and fell to the ground floors. This would leave a trail of vapour down the shaft, so when the plane ignited, then the flame would travel down the shaft.
| Quote: | To say that those blasts are the result of a planted explosive would be a logical conclusion based on the footage compared with other demolitions. It being caused by a pressure wave however, THAT is the leap as there is no comparitive evidence to support it. It is completely general guesswork, necessary to provide some continued basis for refuting the alternative theory. Wanting to look for other reasons is one thing, but logic would dictate that, until further evidence arises, one must go with the explanation that has supporting evidence.
|
Now for the squibs:
The pressure of the tower collapsing, is much like blowing up a balloon. If you blow air in, then the pressure acts evenly around the inside of the balloon, and it expands in all directions. In the WTC, it would act on all the walls, and the windows evenly. However, because the windows are not all 100% identical, and some may have been damaged by the impact or collapse, there will be one window that is the weakest of the lot on that section. It may not be by much, but because they are not identical, then one will be slightly weaker. That window then breaks, and this is like making a hole in the balloon (you'll have to do the sellotape trick to stop it popping though). Now there is a hole, all the air flows out of that hole, rather than acting on the walls and the windows, so once that one weak window goes, the pressure has an escape route.
The blast from an explosive on the other hand, is like a ripple on a pond. If you make a ripple on a pond, then when part of the ripple hits the bank and is stopped, that doesn't stop the rest of the ripple. That carries on going. The same works with a blast wave. When it hits and breaks one window, the part of the wave that reaches the next window along is not affected by the broken window, so it continues and breaks the window next door, and so on for all parts of the wave, and all the windows it reaches.
So if it were air pressure, only the weak window on each floor breaks, but if it is an explosive blast wave, then all the windows break. On 9/11, only single windows broke.
It's hard to compare with other implosions, because they don't have the same smoke, dust and debris inside, and they often have windows removed to prevent flying glass damage.
| Quote: | As for the question of why did the planes not damage the wiring and explosives?
I believe that it may be possible that those planes were very precisely flown in to those points in the buildings. From the footage of molten metal pooring out of the holes before impact, i think it is possible that there were no 'explosives' as such in those areas of the buildings. Possibly only thermite to melt the central columns to initiate the collapse. Once that had begun, a C4/RDX chain of detonations would have taken over.
Absolutely just a theory. And largely irrelivent as it comes back to the arguement of HOW did they wire the bulidings. That is something we probably will never know and may never be answered, though if thermite or other demolition agents can be verified as playing a role in the collapse this question would not necessarily need to be answered.
This however is a very good question and i would have to be honest and say that i do not know. |
Well the problem still stands with the thermite igniting with the crash, but also, how was the collapse initiated?, because it started at the plane impact point, and thermite doesn't take an hour to burn through columns. The second problem with thermite is precisely that it doesn't burn through vertical columns. It uses gravity to burn down through things, that's why every video of thermite has the thermite going downwards. There seem to be interesting theories about strapping a container of thermite to the side of a column, but as they were box section, and hollow inside, that doesn't explain how they were cut all the way through.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
They occur before the second plane impacts. There is already a fire in the first tower. The fire heats the windows and they break, sending clouds of smoke out. That's why the smoke rises upwards straight out of the window, because it is hot. If it were explosive, then the smoke would be forced out horizontally. |
I do see your point here but what ever pressure caused those windows to break occurs on many floors at the same time. It would seem highly unlikely that all those windows would happen to give at the same moment, not to mention that it happens right when the plane impacts. Far to coincidental for me. |
The first windows to go probably are no more than coincidence. The second ones are du to the fireball. I know you won't like the coincidence argument, but they do happen, because people tend to find patterns in things. I mean they could have gone of at the exact moment of impact, 5 seconds before, 10 or 15 seconds before, 5 after, 10, 15 after, people would still see it as coincidence, and that's gone from an instant to a 30 second window.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Yes, there is a flash. It is interesting. But it is not from explosives. Firstly, there is no support structure near the windows, apart from the perimeter columns. The explosives would have to act on the central core columns. Assuming they haven't been burned up by the fire, they'd be inserted inside the column, because explosives work by pressure. They force things apart, and so have to be inside the thing they are destroying. However, they'd also have to be hidden underneath layers of plasterboard otherwise people working in the offices would see them. That would also hide any flash from the explosion. Secondly, if they were acting on the perimeter columns, you'd see the damage occur on the outside, and there is no new damage associated with the flash.. Thirdly, the flash is too long to be explosive. Explosive flashes are, literally explosive. They occur when the substance goes bang, and it does so incredibly quickly, which is why it produces so much pressure, and why the flash is so brief. |
No offence but this seems like guess work. Again, the timing is very coincidental. Yes i know that coincidence is not enough to pass as evidence alone but what else might it be? The storage of combustable materials is heavily regulated with in high-rise buildings. Again it is another anomalous detail that does give weight to an explosives theory. |
Not every anomaly means more evidence for explosives. It means something is unexplained. That means neither side can use it as evidence either way.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | There's nothing wrong with examining evidence. Examining evidence is a very good thing to do. But if you do examine all of the the evidence properly, there is no way that explosives were used. |
I disagree. I'm not sure i'll ever hear of anything that can explain all these anomalies though i truely am open to other theories. |
Well I think I've explained a good deal of them.
quote] | Quote: | | Fog of war. There was so much going on that day, so much confusion. People were mistaken. |
This is outright speculation. There is no way for you to adequately explain these reports as 'fog of war'.
Ask yourslef a simple question. What if they were not mistaken? What if they were correct in what they witnessed. There are a LOT of reports of explosions. They cannot all be mistaken.
We hear witness talking about explosives. We see what appears to be explosives. We have physical evidence of what appears to be explosives. I for one feel very confident in my opinion on this.[/quote]
You should watch rolling news channels more often. It's not much fun I'll admit, but if you see how a news story develops throughout the day as more information comes in, and old information is corrected, or proved wrong. There is a lot of initial confusion, which gradually clears up. As I said above, people did hear explosions, but they weren't the sounds of explosives, they were a lot more innocent. Even steel and concrete cracking makes a bang. I've stood a couple of yards away from a guy who dropped a 12 inch square, 1/2 inch thick steel plate, 3 or feet onto a concrete floor. The noise was literally deafening, it made my ears ring and made me slightly dizzy. And the steel didn't even break.
| Quote: | | Quote: | I'm not biased in anyone's favour. The evidence points at the conclusions of the official story. That's how it came about, from examining evidence. That includes all the reports of bombs, and explosions, and squibs and everything.
|
I'm sorry but the reports of explosions were never examined properly. |
They were explained by innocent events, that's why they never figured in any great investigation.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
That part of the problem. You think it's an obvious "squib". You can't start with a conclusion, and then find facts to back it up. When you have something like that, you need to find all the possible causes, and then work out the pros and cons of each one. If it were explosive, then it would act on more than one window. If it were pressure, it would be released when one window has broken. If you compare the black smoke ones from the impact you posted the video of above, notice how they're different from the ones when the tower is collapsing. The collapse ones are a lot more forceful as the air pressure pushes debris out, but the same source shouldn't have two very different effects. |
No JP. Is looks a hell of a lot like a 'squib'.
You say that if it were explosive it would act on more than one window.
Why?
Why would it? You dont know how they were placed so this is pure speculation. You say you need facts to support a theory but you use speculation to disprove one.
I can use exactly the same arguement to say that a pressure wave would have built up so much pressure that muliple windows on multiple floors would have broken. With out collapse data it is speculation.
And to say that the same source would not have two different effects is presuming that the blasts before the collapse and after the collapse came from the same type of blast. |
I explained this above. When the pressure is released through one window it ceases to act on the others with sufficient force to break them.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | If I am wrong, I'll admit I am wrong, but it'll take a hell of a lot to convince me that the collapse was due to explosives, because there is such a huge mountain of evidence against, and so little for. |
I'm sorry but i really dont think you have approached this with an open mind. I see the exact opposite of you.
It seems so wierd to me that people could be so different on an issue like this. Kind of makes me realise just how varied our strange species is... |
I approach everything with an open mind these days. You don't see it because I've already slugged it out on the Loose Change forum and been banned for disagreeing with them. I'd link you to my posts over there, but they deleted the skeptics forum.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I WAS in the tin foil hat brigade at one point. I was a JFK conspiracy believer. I swallowed everything that came my way. I took everyone's word on merit. What changed my mind? Evidence. Undeniable evidence that made me stop and think, and then I went and looked evidence for myself, instead of taking other people's word for it, and I found out that a great proportion of them were either twisting the truth, or lying through their teeth. |
That you "swallowed everything" that came your way tells me a lot. You never did view things objectively. You saw yourself proven wrong on an issue but this did not change your ability to critically reason. You have gone from one extreme to the other. Whilst before you believed all the 'conspiracy stuff', now you are fiercly anti-conspiracy. Either way, i feel you are still "swallowing everything" that comes your way. You are just within a different paradgym, a different mindset. Your filters never changed.
Sorry if im trying to pick your brains too much here. |
I remember watching the film JFK and feeling mad that he could've been murdered that way. When I found out the truth I was angry that I'd been lied to, but more so at myself for falling for the hype. That's when I started reading about conspiracy theories, checking up on the facts. That lead me to "Dr" Kent Hovind, an American crazy guy who had a "theme park" that taught kids that evolution wasn't true (it's been shut down now because he never had planning permission for it, and never paid any tax, ever, but that's beside the point) From him I learned how people lie, and manipulate truth to further their beliefs. That led me to the JREF forum. I initially read it because of the $1 million dollar challenge for anyone that could prove they had paranormal abilities. They kept a log of challenges, and one by one they'd always come up with excuses as to why their powers weren't working, and they nearly always found a get out by getting picky over rules, never agreeing to anything because they didn't want to get pinned down on anything. Because that's the way the paranormal works, it never get's pinned down on anything, to stop people from proving it wrong. That's why mediums get "an m sound, an m or an n maybe" They never go for a whole name. They can't allow them selves to be confined like that, because then they can be tested, and then they will fail.
The same goes with the 9/11 conspiracy theory. There's a lot of could'ves, maybes might'ves. Everyone is just asking questions. No-one is putting down facts, because then they can be shown to be wrong. The towers started off being dropped with explosives. Then it was explosives and thermite. Then it was thermate, now it has become some solgel super-thermate. Each time it changes when a argument is found against it. Each time getting more and more complex, but never sticking at the same thing for long.
I'm not anti-conspiracy theory as such. I'm anti-bull. Unfortunately the majority of conspiracies are bull.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I don't think you're stupid and gullible. I think you've been lied to and mislead. |
If this can be shown to me i will agree, and have done. However, the majority of the information i use to support my views have nothing to do with being lied to.
No i dont think Rodriguez was lying, and the footage of the collapse cannot lie.
I may believe the opinions of people who turn out to be geuinely wrong but liers? I dont think so. Embellishment, perhaps (Alex Jones would be a prime example) but even these people truely believe that 911 was an inside job.
You hold the commission report as valid. I see them as the ultimate liers, so where does that leave us? |
I don't think any (or at least the vast majority) of the eyewitnesses are lying. They're describing what they remember. That's not always exactly the same as what they saw, and sometimes it's what they thought they saw. People are mistaken, and people can misinterpret things. That is why I see the commission as true, because it is not the work of any one person with an agenda, its not the words of anyone person. It's multiple, independant statements that all corroborate each other. Where there is no evidence to support one persons claim, the commission mentions it. There were both Democrats and Republicans on the commission. If the Republicans were trying swing it for Bush, the Democrats would've been on to them like a shot. Just think how much power that would've given them over Bush. They would've been calling for him to be impeached the day that got their hands on the evidence.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I don't mock you, not on pupose anyway. I am open minded, but that has its limit at the truth. I can't be so open minded that I start taking in any old rubbish, or I'd be out buying magnet therapy bracelets and some healing crystals. |
Again this shows ignorance of the evidence. Calling the mass of culmative evidence for CD "any old rubbish" is an insult. And it betrays were you really are coming from on this. Lumping it all with magnet therapy and healing crystals lets me know full well that you dont care about evidence. You see it all as 'conspiracy kook rubbish' and have automatically labelled it as such. I truely believe that you will sooner believe ANYTHING than accept the posibility of inside job. Thats up to you man. We are still somewhat free, and you can view the world whatever way you want. You say that if we present the right evidence you too would believe what we believe. I dont think that is true. We could have video tape of them wiring up the buildings and, so long as your peer group of sceptics still claimed "conspiracy rubbish", you wouldnt dare stick your neck out. |
If my "peer group" are wrong, I'll tell them. I have no loyalties to them that are worth more than the truth. If there were concrete evidence of foul play I'd accept it, and then I'd be banging on at the JREF forum to convince them that there was foul play, the same as I do here, to say there wasn't. I have no affiliation with any political party, with no secret society. I'm strictly freelance.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I do gladly accept other having different views to my own, but only on issues where such things are possible. You can't have a different view on a fact. It is either one thing or it isn't. I wouldn't accept someone having the view that gravity doesn't exist, that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun. |
I do not see how you or anyone else on this earth can say that 911 being an inside job is impossible. |
From the evidence that abounds, there is no way that 9/11 was an inside job, not from the way that is argued here. What I've never understood is that no-one has ever gone for the easy conspiracy theory. That the goverment acted to organise the terrorists, through a third party, to attack America. There's so few complications. It's 99.9% the same as the official story, the only difference is that the government egged on the terrorists so that they could benefit from the fallout. That's what I would've done if I were organising an inside job. Leave my hands as clean as possible.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | You can't have a different view on a fact. |
That, evidently, is not correct. Your facts appear to differ wildly from mine.
If you had come from the originally thinking that 911 was an inside job to being a sceptic i would be open to your opinion much more than i can be now, because you, from day one had your mind made up.
Its cool though.
At the end of the day, does what either of us believe actually change a damn thing? |
[/quote]
We have the same facts, just different interpretations. The first I heard about the 9/11 inside job theory was on the JREF forum, from a post that said:
| Quote: | Has anyone else seen this 9/11 conspiracy theory "documentary?" A friend asked me to watch it, and it's making me so angry I can't say anything intelligible about it. We're going to be stuck forever with people denying this tragedy just like we're stuck with people denying the Holocaust.
It's all over google video. Just type in "Loose Change" if you hate your brain.
ETA: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Loose+Change |
It never mentioned any of the topics, or tried to debunk any of the claims. I watched Loose Change looked at the evidence, and made my mind up from that.
Does what we believe change a thing? Yes. I think it does. Not to the facts of 9/11. If everyone in the world believed it was conspiracy/official story, it wouldn't change the fact of what it truly was. I think it makes a difference to your life though. If you spend your life chasing ghosts, then you're going to end up with nothing.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The seismologists whose data it is state that it shows zero evidence of explosives. They know what explosives look like on seismographs because they spend their lives looking at them, and filtering them out from real earth tremors |
This doesnt really make sense. All it shows is that the blasts did not show up on their equipment. To read this statement one might think that there were no explosions because seismographs didnt pick them up, but we do both agree that there were explosions, we just disagree on their source. Those explosions were not earth tremors. They were something.
| Quote: |
They don't have to be called liars. They are not expert witnesses. Luckily very few people have experience of explosives explosions. Most people only have television, and the few pops and bangs that you get around the house etc. They don't have the skill or knowledge to differentiate between different types of explosion. They almost certainly did hear things going bang, but to jump to the conclusion that bang=bomb, is too great a leap, because there are more innocent explanations, and ones that fit the evidence infinitely better than explosives. |
I've yet to see any solid evidence that these explosions were caused by generators, electrical swtiches or anything else.
| Quote: | I don't know the specifics but it wasn't necessaraily relevant. It may well have been for his own good if he was pushing the idea of explosives. That's not meant in a "don't mention the bombs" and we let you live kind of way, but if the media are trying to potray him as a hero, then if he starts going off about conspiracies, then they lose their hero. He may well have heard multiple explosions, the jet impact, the fireball down the elevator shaft to the parking garage, and then the cars exploding in the garage.
|
He never said explosives. He said explosions, so my point still stands; If there was a completely reasonable explanation for them, why was he ignored by the media and the commission?
They must have had gigantic transformers down there then. Also, where in the schematics of the WTC does it show transformers like that throughout the building?
| Quote: |
Well there were also cars in the garage, if there were a fireball they may well have exploded too, adding to damage, or it could have just been a large quantity of jet fuel, or a fireball. Because the garage is enclosed, then a fireball would cause a lot of damage due to expanding the air inside it rapidly. |
Still seems like a serious stretch given the damage witnessed.
| Quote: | | Jet fuel only burns as a vapour. I'm guessing you've seen loose change? The plane that was remotely landed several times was part of an experiment into fuel fires. If you make the droplets of jet fuel big enough, they won't ignite, so they tested additives to make the jet fuel clump into larger droplets to stop plane crashes from streaming fuel and bursting into flames. This means that it is entirely possible that when the plane impacted, the fuel tanks in the wings would have been ripped open, sending a cascade of liquid fuel towards the core of the building. It is also possible that this fuel hit the elevator shafts and fell to the ground floors. This would leave a trail of vapour down the shaft, so when the plane ignited, then the flame would travel down the shaft. |
I've yet to see ANY scientific data on how this could be possible. If this did indeed happen, why did the commission not report it (as they were aware of what happened in the basement levels from witness testimony) and why did neither FEMA nor NIST attempt to explain these events. If they occured so innocently as you claim, it may have help strengthen their theory that the building was weakened by fire.
I beleive they never modelled this because they knew from the start that it couldnt be. So they ignored the basement blasts completely. Surely they would rather have dismissed the 'myths' about bombs in the buildings.
| Quote: | Now for the squibs:
The pressure of the tower collapsing, is much like blowing up a balloon. If you blow air in, then the pressure acts evenly around the inside of the balloon, and it expands in all directions. In the WTC, it would act on all the walls, and the windows evenly. However, because the windows are not all 100% identical, and some may have been damaged by the impact or collapse, there will be one window that is the weakest of the lot on that section. It may not be by much, but because they are not identical, then one will be slightly weaker. That window then breaks, and this is like making a hole in the balloon (you'll have to do the sellotape trick to stop it popping though). Now there is a hole, all the air flows out of that hole, rather than acting on the walls and the windows, so once that one weak window goes, the pressure has an escape route.
The blast from an explosive on the other hand, is like a ripple on a pond. If you make a ripple on a pond, then when part of the ripple hits the bank and is stopped, that doesn't stop the rest of the ripple. That carries on going. The same works with a blast wave. When it hits and breaks one window, the part of the wave that reaches the next window along is not affected by the broken window, so it continues and breaks the window next door, and so on for all parts of the wave, and all the windows it reaches.
So if it were air pressure, only the weak window on each floor breaks, but if it is an explosive blast wave, then all the windows break. On 9/11, only single windows broke.
It's hard to compare with other implosions, because they don't have the same smoke, dust and debris inside, and they often have windows removed to prevent flying glass damage. |
This logic just baffles me. So you are saying that an entire floor had all this built up pressure and debris that was blown out 30 feet or so because of one weak window? That is ridiculous. Look how far out that debris goes. That 'pressure' must have been enormous. If this was the case windows would have been popping out all over the place. Besides, it comes nowhere close to explaining the ejections much further down the building just as the building begins to collapse.
Still, if NIST had modelled any of the actual collapse maybe they could have shown this to be the case. They didnt, so this idea is entirely speculative until some real science is put in place to adequately explain this 'pressure wave' theory.
| Quote: | | if it is an explosive blast wave, then all the windows break. |
Again, you are presuming to know how the explosives would have been set.
Take this video as an example of what i'm talking about;
http://www.terrorize.dk/misc/demolition/
(Scroll down to - Video: cd.southwark.towers.wmv -- 320 x 240 pixels, 0m41s, 691KB)
Ring any bells?
It seems obvious to me and a many others that there is good reason to believe that these blasts are explosives.
Oh and BTW, i've been meaning to ask you guys something. You claim that the fireproofing in the TT was blown off by the plane impacts (sounds like an excuse to me) but what exactly happened to the fireproofing in WTC7?
| Quote: | | Well the problem still stands with the thermite igniting with the crash, but also, how was the collapse initiated?, because it started at the plane impact point, and thermite doesn't take an hour to burn through columns. |
Its begining to seem to me like there really are only two arguements you guys use against CD. How did they get it in the buildings and why didnt the impacts damage the CD setup?
| Quote: | | The second problem with thermite is precisely that it doesn't burn through vertical columns. It uses gravity to burn down through things, that's why every video of thermite has the thermite going downwards. There seem to be interesting theories about strapping a container of thermite to the side of a column, but as they were box section, and hollow inside, that doesn't explain how they were cut all the way through. |
This has been shown by Steven Jones. It involves a highly temperature resistant tube directing the flow of the thermite. You can find stuff on it out there.
| Quote: | | The first windows to go probably are no more than coincidence. The second ones are du to the fireball. |
You havnt watched the video properly. The yellow circle draws your attention to that group of windows but if you look to the left and a couple of floor down, there are more 'blasts' that occur at the same time.
Coincidence is really starting to stretch.
| Quote: | As I said above, people did hear explosions, but they weren't the sounds of explosives, they were a lot more innocent.
|
I've yet to be given any kind of solid evidence on what the 'innocent' explanation for these explosions are. What I've heard so far is entirely speculative.
| Quote: | | They were explained by innocent events, that's why they never figured in any great investigation. |
Eh? That doesnt even make sense. They didnt feature in any investigation so how on earth were they explained by innocent events?
| Quote: | | I explained this above. When the pressure is released through one window it ceases to act on the others with sufficient force to break them. |
Show me the data.
| Quote: |
The same goes with the 9/11 conspiracy theory. There's a lot of could'ves, maybes might'ves. Everyone is just asking questions. No-one is putting down facts, because then they can be shown to be wrong. The towers started off being dropped with explosives. Then it was explosives and thermite. Then it was thermate, now it has become some solgel super-thermate. Each time it changes when a argument is found against it. Each time getting more and more complex, but never sticking at the same thing for long. |
Do you not think you are being slightly hypocritical here. The official story changed three times before we got to where we are now.
| Quote: | | That is why I see the commission as true, because it is not the work of any one person with an agenda, its not the words of anyone person. It's multiple, independant statements that all corroborate each other. |
I find this statement staggering.
Have you read David Ray Griffins book - The 911 Commission - Ommissions and Distortions?
| Quote: | | Where there is no evidence to support one persons claim, the commission mentions it. |
Despite the fact that there is no evidence BL ordered the attacks.
| Quote: |
There were both Democrats and Republicans on the commission. If the Republicans were trying swing it for Bush, the Democrats would've been on to them like a shot. Just think how much power that would've given them over Bush. They would've been calling for him to be impeached the day that got their hands on the evidence. |
This too is an astoinishing statement. Do you think for one second that if anyone within the democratic party suspected the administration of involvment they would have stuck their neck out? Man, come on. Besides, this arguement feeds in to the whole left-right illusion. Its not something i buy for a second. I could go in to why but i wont here.
| Quote: |
We have the same facts, just different interpretations. |
Possibly. Though you see the blasts in the basement being caused by something other than explosives as a fact. I do not.
You see it as a fact that what witnesses heard was something other than explosives. I do not. If i am incorrect here you would have to admit that there is at least a possibility that explosives were used.
| Quote: |
The first I heard about the 9/11 inside job theory was on the JREF forum, |
That in itself makes me very nervous.
| Quote: | Does what we believe change a thing? Yes. I think it does. Not to the facts of 9/11. If everyone in the world believed it was conspiracy/official story, it wouldn't change the fact of what it truly was.
|
You and i are not everyone. Our opinions have an effect yes, but there are larger things occuring around us that are shaping our world and our minds. We could disappear tomorrow and things would still keep on going.
| Quote: | I think it makes a difference to your life though. If you spend your life chasing ghosts, then you're going to end up with nothing.
|
I'm not chasing anything. Though when i see you guys so active here, i'm forced to wonder what exactly it is you want.
I want freedom for my family. That is something i'm fighting for, not chasing. And i'll die doing it, regardless of 911.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It is also interesting that, on the 18sec clip, when the 2nd set of puffs of smoke are observed after the fireball, there are also small puffs of smoke that appear independently of all the other smoke further over to the right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a house on fire:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=578595038097868956&q=fire+wi ndow
Notice how the smoke escapes through the window frame, until the heat breaks the glass, and then the smoke billows out, in big clouds.
The only difference with the WTC is the windows are sealed so the smoke buildis up rather than being able to escape through the frame, so when the smoke billows out, it does so with a bit more gusto.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | Here's a house on fire:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=578595038097868956&q=fire+wi ndow
Notice how the smoke escapes through the window frame, until the heat breaks the glass, and then the smoke billows out, in big clouds.
The only difference with the WTC is the windows are sealed so the smoke buildis up rather than being able to escape through the frame, so when the smoke billows out, it does so with a bit more gusto. |
Really? Thats nice.
Nope JP. I aint fur buyin'.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | Here's a house on fire:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=578595038097868956&q=fire+wi ndow
Notice how the smoke escapes through the window frame, until the heat breaks the glass, and then the smoke billows out, in big clouds.
The only difference with the WTC is the windows are sealed so the smoke buildis up rather than being able to escape through the frame, so when the smoke billows out, it does so with a bit more gusto. |
Really? Thats nice.
Nope JP. I aint fur buyin'. |
You ask for evidence, I give you evidence. What's wrong with it?
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
