Yah..9/11 no explosives? COME AT ME BRO!

[nutsy54]

if anything else, doesnt it seem strange that all 3 towers that collapsed did so in an identical manner as controlled demolitions? If you play them side by side, if so obvious that they collapsed in the same manner.

In the manner of which controlled demolitions? Oh, that's right - the CT crowd only shows you videos of controlled demolitions that appear to match these, even though by definition a controlled demolition can be made to fall any way the engineers desire (and they only show WTC7 from one angle). How come they never compare against buildings which fall sideways, because that's where the debris needed to go? How come every video of an actual controlled demolition has a massive series of audible and visible detonations - yet the destruction of two of the largest buildings on the planet has none?

Oh, and you're also presenting a false statement, since the WTC1/2 collapses (which start at the aircraft impact floors) are completely different from WTC7 (which started near the bottom).

[nutsy54]

I believe there were explosives in the buildings.

That's probably because.... There are "explosions" in damn near every fire - especially large buildings. Anything in a sealed container will eventually "explode" when heated enough. The Conspiracy crowd desperately hopes people don't know this, because it just helps to refute their preposterous position.

Controlled demolitions are marked by a large number of sequential, steadily timed detonation blasts - not random, one-off "explosions" that are common in any fire.

[kusok]

In the manner of which controlled demolitions? Oh, that's right - the CT crowd only shows you videos of controlled demolitions that appear to match these, even though by definition a controlled demolition can be made to fall any way the engineers desire (and they only show WTC7 from one angle). How come they never compare against buildings which fall sideways, because that's where the debris needed to go? How come every video of an actual controlled demolition has a massive series of audible and visible detonations - yet the destruction of two of the largest buildings on the planet has none?

Oh, and you're also presenting a false statement, since the WTC1/2 collapses (which start at the aircraft impact floors) are completely different from WTC7 (which started near the bottom).

There were actually great many very loud explosions, check out the vids above.

[nutsy54]

I have watched the fall of tower 1, 2 and especialy 7,countless times, and they all have earmarks of controled demolition, to me i dont see a "progressive collapse" all i see are highly explosive events, from the first time i saw it i knew what i was looking at.

What's your training and work experience in explosive demolition engineering...?

[kusok]

brb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper_fire

brb

http://www.google.com/search?client=...N&hl=en&tab=wi


None of the other buildings look anything like what happened to building 7 and WTC. Fire simply doesn't do that.


brb not spending $$$ and time on demolition, but rather start a few fires next time a building needs to be demolished! High five!

[nutsy54]

That's because it was intended to NOT look like a demolition.

And, once again, the stories fall apart...

First, the proof is that these were controlled demolitions because they "look" like controlled demolitions.
Now, the proof is that these were controlled demolitions because they don't "look" like controlled demolitions.
GiantBertStare.jpg

Just as laughable as Voodoo:
They were controlled demolitions, because they collapsed straight down
They were controlled demolitions, because they exploded outward

[nutsy54]

None of the other buildings look anything like what happened to building 7 and WTC. Fire simply doesn't do that.

So... You're comparing buildings which had completely different designs, and which suffered completely different damage... But expecting the results to be the same. Seriously?

[kusok]

And, once again, the stories fall apart...

First, the proof is that these were controlled demolitions because they "look" like controlled demolitions.
Now, the proof is that these were controlled demolitions because they don't "look" like controlled demolitions.
GiantBertStare.jpg

Just as laughable as Voodoo:
They were controlled demolitions, because they collapsed straight down
They were controlled demolitions, because they exploded outward

Not sure why it's hard for you to grasp. Do you never catch a pickpocket just because he is trying to avoid being discovered?

[kusok]

So... You're comparing buildings which had completely different designs, and which suffered completely different damage... But expecting the results to be the same. Seriously?

Pattern recognition is very important. No building like that was ever brought down in such a way from fire. They all have fairly similar damage. Only #7 suddenly just collapses totally... just from fire... bert stare.gif

brb starting fires next time a demolition is needed and saving $$$ and time with all the silly bombs stuff.

[Vigilante_Inc]

Not a conspiracy nut and I think that the planes took the towers down and that will always be my view point. But everyone talking about explosives being used... wouldn't it make much more sense to use Thermate to melt the support beams instead of using explosives?

Anyone who was alive to see the thermate begin to burn wouldnt have made it out before the tower collpased, and thermate doesn't explode so there would be no noise. No need for thousands of pounds of bombs either because it doesnt take that much thermate to melt metal to a point on intregity failure, thermate ignites easier than thermite and burns even hotter, and it has it's own oxygen supply so any water that the sprinkler system produced from the flames from the crash wouldnt effect the process.... though I suppose it would have made large amounts of steam

[nutsy54]

... wouldn't it make much more sense to use Thermate to melt the support beams instead of using explosives?

Except... How did the thermite, and it's control systems, survive the initial impacts and 1-2 hours of fires? To be perfectly controlled for detonation at the same floors where the airplanes hit...?

That is the underlying failure of every controlled demolition theory: The collapses of WTC 1 & 2 start at the airplane impact points - which means all the explosives had to survive impact/fires, and then be selectively triggered to match the originally damaged floors.

[Vigilante_Inc]

Except... How did the thermite, and it's control systems, survive the initial impacts and 1-2 hours of fires? To be perfectly controlled for detonation at the same floors where the airplanes hit...?

That is the underlying failure of every controlled demolition theory: The collapses of WTC 1 & 2 start at the airplane impact points - which means all the explosives had to survive impact/fires, and then be selectively triggered to match the originally damaged floors.

Thermate *not Thermite.... Thermate would probably work better because it would burn at a higher temp and garuntee a quicker fram melt* requires a very high temperature to ignite it. A normal fuse is not hot enough to do it nor is a normal fire. It should have withstood the fire and even in a zero oxygen enviorment it could still be ignited by various manners.

[nutsy54]

No building like that was ever brought down in such a way from fire.

No building like that has ever been on fire, because WTC 7 had a unique internal & structural design. Why do you keep ignoring this fundamental fact?

[nutsy54]

Hermate requires a very high temperature to ignite it. A normal fuse is not hot enough to do it nor is a normal fire. It should have withstood the fire and even in a zero oxygen enviorment it could still be ignited by various manners.

Please describe these "various manners" which survived the physical shock of an aircraft impact, followed by 1-2 hours of fires. Plus the interconnected control systems which allowed only explosives/"thermite" on the correct floors to be triggered.

[mithfen]

Pattern recognition is very important. No building like that was ever brought down in such a way from fire. They all have fairly similar damage. Only #7 suddenly just collapses totally... just from fire... bert stare.gif

brb starting fires next time a demolition is needed and saving $$$ and time with all the silly bombs stuff.

Correct me if I'm wrong

Nvm I'm wrong

[Vigilante_Inc]

And actually now that I think of it the fact that the building was on fire should have made the Thermate work even better. the reaction is more vviolent if Thermate is preheated. Emparting more energy in a shorter time span. So if it was on fire for a while and then it was ignited the reaction could have been very violent

[Vigilante_Inc]

Please describe these "various manners" which survived the physical shock of an aircraft impact, followed by 1-2 hours of fires. Plus the interconnected control systems which allowed only explosives/"thermite" on the correct floors to be triggered.

Hmm lemme think If I had unlimited access and the ability to do this myself I would think that the actual bolts would make the most sense. A few hollowed out bolts containing magnesium ignition and a type of detonation device to ignite the magnesium should do it. If you went every other bolt up the beams or how ever it could maintain structural integrity and also evenly ignite thee thermate.

Like I said I dont believe this is what happened but I always like to think what if's

[nutsy54]

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could be; I thought the official story was that building 7 suffered massive damage from 1 and 2 collapsing which inevitably destroyed itl.

Incorrect. Other than starting the fires, NIST identifies damage from WTC1 debris as having little or no effect on the ultimate collapse.

http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm

[nutsy54]

Hmm lemme think If I had unlimited access and the ability to do this myself I would think that the actual bolts would make the most sense. A few hollowed out bolts containing magnesium ignition and a type of detonation device to ignite the magnesium should do it. If you went every other bolt up the beams or how ever it could maintain structural integrity and also evenly ignite thee thermate.

Like I said I dont believe this is what happened but I always like to think what if's

Continuing the "What if" theme... You'd still need a control system to actually trigger the explosive bolts. Electronics, cabling, etc which survived the impact & fires...

[mithfen]

Incorrect. Other than starting the fires, NIST identifies damage from WTC1 debris as having little or no effect on the ultimate collapse.

http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm

suppose i should have used google, thx

[Vigilante_Inc]

Continuing the "What if" theme... You'd still need a control system to actually trigger the explosive bolts. Electronics, cabling, etc which survived the impact & fires...

That's easy enough I'm sure there are a billion different ways to do this. Keeping the ignition system inside the beams structure would keep it from being exposed to the fire and therefore prevent it from being damaged. I'm also sure there are many different types of electronical detonators that could be used to light magnesium. With technology what it is these days it cant be too hard to get a bunch X numbers of of detonators to fire at the same time remotely. All it would take was something like a spark plug reaction to ignite the magnesium and that inturn would ignite the thermate

[Radiomanic]

This has probably already been mentioned here, but just to point the fact out again - the collapse of both towers starts at the top, it's very clear for anyone to see. If that was the case, charges would have to go off from top to bottom....the explosives would be pretty LOUD, there should be far more people around saying they could hear the charges, or see the flashes going off. A controlled demolition has never been carried out on a building the size of the WTC, watch this again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U (look at the charges, listen to the very loud bangs).

The only tower that looks like a controlled demolition is WTC7, but you'd have to ask yourself, why would they need to bring it down? It's not like bringing that building down too would have added to the Bush administrations cause, that tower collapsing didn't make 9/11 any more shocking, in fact, it's pretty insignificant :/

[Bushmaster]

Why bite when your the one setting the hook? maybe when a thread adresses that issue i will adress it, right now thread is concerned with original footage presented, nice try ...

Translation: "I got nothing."

Tool, you know you're full of sht about the "video trickery involving the planes," don't you.

[flairon]

That's easy enough I'm sure there are a billion different ways to do this. Keeping the ignition system inside the beams structure would keep it from being exposed to the fire and therefore prevent it from being damaged. I'm also sure there are many different types of electronical detonators that could be used to light magnesium. With technology what it is these days it cant be too hard to get a bunch X numbers of of detonators to fire at the same time remotely. All it would take was something like a spark plug reaction to ignite the magnesium and that inturn would ignite the thermate

So then you only need to be absolutely sure that the plane moving 500+ mph that you have no idea how or where is going to hit the building doesnt do so in such a way that it exposes the ignition systems to the fire...that shouldn't be too hard right?

[realistromeo]

Translation: "I got nothing."

Tool, you know you're full of sht about the "video trickery involving the planes," don't you.

I think you need a new babelfish translation, you mad i can see your tactics? petty wives do that in arguments with their husbands, bringing up the past instead of dealing with the imediate facts, take a good look at the video and explain yourself, then in turn i will expain myself on my previous claim. fair no? there , i set my worm in the water for you.

[Bushmaster]

I think you need a new babelfish translation, you mad i can see your tactics? petty wives do that in arguments with their husbands, bringing up the past instead of dealing with the imediate facts, take a good look at the video and explain yourself, then in turn i will expain myself on my previous claim. fair no? there , i set my worm in the water for you.

The video in the OP? Ok...

You have absolutely NO proof of explosives. Now.. video trickery of the planes please.

[NiceBoat]

The video in the OP? Ok...

You have absolutely NO proof of explosives. Now.. video trickery of the planes please.

They were explosions because 9/11 happened and he wanted it to be caused by the government, and he heard things that might possibly sound like explosions if one is retarded enough to hear explosions anywhere.

Face it, the government did it, because the CT'ers wanted the government to be involved because it indulges their paranoia. The government did it, now they just need to find the missing puzzle peaces that make it possible, even if they have to put a lot of square pegs into round holes to get it to work.

[realistromeo]

What's your training and work experience in explosive demolition engineering...?

None, but thankfuly many acredited experts in engineering agree with my stance. And it has gotten so bad for official storytellers they refuse to debate other scientists and engineers for fear of them gaining "unwaranted credibility".

[Radiomanic]

None, but thankfuly many acredited experts in engineering agree with my stance. And it has gotten so bad for official storytellers they refuse to debate other scientists and engineers for fear of them gaining "unwaranted credibility".

I'm not a structural engineer, but I work in the engineering field and my job requires me to work with structural engineers and architects, every time I've spoken about 9/11 conspiracy theories with any of them, I think only one person has ever said to me it looks like a controlled demolition, and he wasn't completely sure of himself.

[NiceBoat]

None, but thankfuly many acredited experts in engineering agree with my stance. And it has gotten so bad for official storytellers they refuse to debate other scientists and engineers for fear of them gaining "unwaranted credibility".

Are they engineers, or are they all mostly architects and engineering students? How many are structural engineers?

If its so obviously controlled demo, why is there only a small minority that have signed onto the movement, compared to the vast majority who think a plane crash almost certainly caused the towers to collapse?