the rubble pile was quite large and was what one would expect
Really? What qualifies you to say that 110 should rightly be reduced to 5 in such an event? Who are you?
the rubble pile was quite large and was what one would expect
Did I say that material falling outside the footprint was proof of explosives? Please show me where I said that. I don't think I did.
Go back to sleep, have another beer - isn't there something on tv?
Really? What qualifies you to say that 110 should rightly be reduced to 5 in such an event? Who are you?
no more clues
Ahh yes, quickly resort to cynical semantics and ad hom attacks...FAIL.
Please show me where I said YOU said that...
Who are YOU to say it wasn't a pile one would expect?
You whined and whinged for a picture of this large rubble pile...it was provided and you -typically- ignored it.
This analysis puts forth a decent argument:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM
Furthermore, you assert explosions. Measure the velocity (speed and direction) of significant objects in the videos and demonstrate using more than hand waving that they were being propelled by explosive force as opposed to falling away from a collapsing structure. The photo and videos are consistent with a progressive collapse having begun with a significant failure in one or a couple adjacent floors. Assertions of explosions and heaps of molten metal need better evidence than you have so far provided. There is a significant rubble pile described in the link provided.
Yup, that's right - steel being ejected like toothpicks is just them bouncing,
That pile is a pile that's been collected and piled by machinery.
How about the hundreds of documented eyewitness accounts...all telling us of bombs, further explosions, etc ad nauseam.
Among the things you should take away from this video:
- The collapse starts at 0:14 and ends roughly at 0:27, which means it fell in about 13 seconds. At freefall speed it would have taken 9.2 seconds.
- The camera happens to be zoomed right in on the exact point of structural collapse at the exact time it occurred, and you can clearly see the beams slowly give way, twisting inward. In an explosion, they would have moved suddenly away.
- As the camera zooms back out, you can clearly see beams and concrete being thrown the entire width of the building away from it, and continuing to travel outward as the collapse proceeds; obviously it didn't fall into its own footprint.
- The collapse begins at the point of the fire, so a demolition would either have required explosives to have been placed at exactly that point beforehand and to have survived the impact and fire without being destroyed, or they would need to have been planted ahead of time with nobody noticing.
No it is not lucky - they collapsed just exactly as physics would have them collapse.
Luck had nothing to do with it.
Given your propensity for telling everyone else to bring the evidence, why are you still here with none of your own?
Hard evidence of what exactly? Are you saying there is hard evidence of explosions?
Do you think explosions caused the destruction of the towers?
Funny Lee...what are you "implying" here...
Can you proof of that statement? Where is your evidence?
It is by any rational definition a large pile.
It is by any rational definition a large pile.
Actually- there were NO "eyewitness" accounts of a bomb. Lots of people heard loud noises and perhaps explosions that sounded like what they thought was a "bomb"- and given the context of the moment it is easy to understand why they thought that. That does not mean it was a bomb- just that it sounded like that. Explosions and loud reports could have been from many things from combustible materials in the building - oxygen tanks etc..to falling elevators to compressed air shooting out near the speed of sound as the building collapsed.
...but there were no eyewitness accounts of bombs that I am aware of.
From an earlier link somewhere else...
The end of the controlled demolition theory.
http://www.howtonotsuck.com/viewarticle.php?id=63
End Of...
Actually- there were NO "eyewitness" accounts of a bomb. Lots of people heard loud noises and perhaps explosions that sounded like what they thought was a "bomb"- and given the context of the moment it is easy to understand why they thought that. That does not mean it was a bomb- just that it sounded like that. Explosions and loud reports could have been from many things from combustible materials in the building - oxygen tanks etc..to falling elevators to compressed air shooting out near the speed of sound as the building collapsed.
...but there were no eyewitness accounts of bombs that I am aware of.
Actually- there were NO "eyewitness" accounts of a bomb
Did I say that material falling outside the footprint was proof of explosives? Please show me where I said that. I don't think I did. In fact, I know I didn't.
I'm implying that the towers' destruction was an explosive event. What's funny about that?
Actually, I'm wrong, I'm not implying it, I said it a while back, it's pretty explicit actually. Go find that quote
Do I really need to go and find the proof of this for you?
Oh Socrates...I really am LOL!
Among the things you should take away from this video:
- The collapse starts at 0:14 and ends roughly at 0:27, which means it fell in about 13 seconds. At freefall speed it would have taken 9.2 seconds.
- The camera happens to be zoomed right in on the exact point of structural collapse at the exact time it occurred, and you can clearly see the beams slowly give way, twisting inward. In an explosion, they would have moved suddenly away.
- As the camera zooms back out, you can clearly see beams and concrete being thrown the entire width of the building away from it, and continuing to travel outward as the collapse proceeds; obviously it didn't fall into its own footprint.
- The collapse begins at the point of the fire, so a demolition would either have required explosives to have been placed at exactly that point beforehand and to have survived the impact and fire without being destroyed, or they would need to have been planted ahead of time with nobody noticing.
A mixture of molten aluminum from the airplanes fuselage and water from the broken sprinkler system may have caused a large explosion that initiated or amplified the collapses. Even small amounts would cause a proportionate explosion.
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-scie...rought-down-by-molten-aluminum-says-scientist
Funny
Actually- there were NO "eyewitness" accounts of a bomb. Lots of people heard loud noises and perhaps explosions that sounded like what they thought was a "bomb"- and given the context of the moment it is easy to understand why they thought that. That does not mean it was a bomb- just that it sounded like that.
...but there were no eyewitness accounts of bombs that I am aware of.
The Body of Evidence
According to Jim Dwyer of the New York Times, the FDNY oral histories were
“originally gathered on the order of Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner on Sept. 11,
who said he wanted to preserve those accounts before they became reshaped by a collective
memory.”[2] The oral histories constitute about 12,000 pages of testimony by 503 FDNY
firefighters, emergency medical technicians and paramedics collected from early October, 2001
to late January, 2002. Mr. Von Essen’s prophetic act has given us a remarkably rich body of
narrative material.
I sincerely hope this opens a new avenue of research.Initially, the city of New York refused to release this material, but after a lawsuit by the
New York Times and some of the 9/11 victims’ families the city was ordered to release them.
The New York Times then posted them on its internet site, where they have been available (with
some deletions) to the public since August, 2005.[3]
As we learn from the oral histories themselves, the interviews took place in various
FDNY offices and were conducted by a variety of FDNY officers. Sometimes only the
interviewer and the interviewee were present, while at other times additional persons were
present. Locations, dates, times, and names of those present are all meticulously recorded.
It is impossible to tell simply by reading the recorded interviews if the atmosphere in
which the interviews were conducted was coercive in any way, but I have found no evidence of
this. In many cases the interviewer simply asks the interviewee to recount what he or she
experienced on 9/11. Thereafter, some interviewers intervene frequently with questions, while
others are largely silent. Interventions typically seek to establish details of times and locations, of
the actions of various chiefs and firefighters, and of the progress of operations. Interviewers
usually do not show any special interest in the topics central to my concerns—the collapses of
the Towers and the use or non-use of explosions in these collapses--but their curiosity and
attention are sometimes crucial to the eliciting of critical information.[4] There are very few
cases where the interviewer may be said to have “led” the witness toward the explosion
option.[5]
Here's a couple of eyewitnesses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYlEVCpG_0
But they're just firemen, just evacuated from one of the towers, just saying what they witnessed. Obviously they are traumatised; they don't know what they're saying. What would they know?
I sincerely hope this opens a new avenue of research.
Seems to me there are no explanations which completely explain what happened on that DAY. . . All is speculation. . . Probability of the events happening as described by NIST and conspiracy advocates are just as unlikely. . . The truth will never be known. . . I have studied accidents, deaths, etc as part of my job. . . Many times there are no satisfactory explanations. . . CIS, NCIS, etc is often fantasy for consumption by the masses. . . .this is the same thing. . .
Shall we call them ear witnesses? The semantics are epic, but poor. You shouldn't ask for a raise just now.I read through all of that years ago... Actually- there were no "eyewitnesses"- they did not see bombs go off...they heard explosions and experienced debris. You are assuming and/or implying that because there were "explosions" that it was a bomb. Is it possible that there were explosions and loud reports caused by things other than a "bomb"? For example- What would the result be if an damaged elevator dropped 50 floors to the ground? or if a broken gas line exploded? Or if any of the numerous combustible materials in a modern day office building...er...combusted? What would you expect to hear as a 100+ floor building begins to collapse? In my previous research I have read through the FD oral reports...no one reported seeing a bomb go off. Hearing an explosion or a "loud bang" is not the same thing Read through the selected quotes in the 9/11 journal- not a one says they saw a bomb...they all heard explosions and loud noises. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
I read through all of that years ago...
Actually- there were no "eyewitnesses"- they did not see bombs go off...they heard explosions and experienced debris.
You are assuming and/or implying that because there were "explosions" that it was a bomb.
Is it possible that there were explosions and loud reports caused by things other than a "bomb"?
For example- What would the result be if an damaged elevator dropped 50 floors to the ground? or if a broken gas line exploded? Or if any of the numerous combustible materials in a modern day office building...er...combusted?
What would you expect to hear as a 100+ floor building begins to collapse?
In my previous research I have read through the FD oral reports...no one reported seeing a bomb go off.
Hearing an explosion or a "loud bang" is not the same thing
Read through the selected quotes in the 9/11 journal- not a one says they saw a bomb...they all heard explosions and loud noises.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
Shall we call them ear witnesses? The semantics are epic, but poor. You shouldn't ask for a raise just now.
Pretty much.
My problem is with those who claim to know. And perhaps by coincidence sing from the same hymn book as all versions 'official'. Scientific method is claimed but it is neglected, for example, that NIST effectively falsified its own report into wtc7 within the report itself. They held a press conference to herald their findings in place of offering the report for peer review. That has not happened. NIST tells the world that the answer to why wtc7 collapsed is now understood; the results are in our computer. Try making an foia and see how far you get with that. We are to take it on trust from NIST that the results of their tests were conclusive in their finding that, effectively, normal office fires caused the building to collapse? This behaviour is demonstrably unscientific yet claiming the opposite; something not right there; call it intuition.
I expect you're right that the truth will not be known. But knowing the truth is possible, it does exist somewhere, with the cooperation of those involved and the simple telling of the truth such as it is. And now I'm back from Wonderland and: That won't happen, so the next best thing might be a good detective. I'd welcome that. Access to all the evidence; no holds barred; no-one above the law; after all the misery US foreign policy- a euphemism if ever there was - 're'action to 911 has caused around the world - we might do our best to get to the closest approximation of the truth as we can and bring those responsible to book. That process has not been carried out. Why on earth not?
Many times there are no satisfactory explanations - I agree. I suppose my point is that there is a satifactory explanation for this out there somewhere, the truth (or near as damn approximation after rigorous work); we just haven't found it yet.
No, you've made up the point. I'm struggling to find where I said I had proof of anything. Please indicate where I said that. Eviidence is not necessarily proof, perhaps you should know. If you were in a court of law, right about now the judge would be putting you out the door. explosion: a. A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the ...etc explosive: Relating to or having the nature of an explosion. 2. Tending to explode. n. 1. A substance, especially a prepared chemical, that explodes or causes explosion...etc It transpires the most likely cause of an explosion might well be explosives - who would a thunk it? Look, you don't have to be Einstein, Hercules Poiroit, Sherlock Holmes and Philip Marlowe all rolled into one to see that something isn't adding up.... Answer me one question, please: why were tests for explosives not made or addressed by FEMA, NIST - anyone? Why not?You are missing or intentionally avoiding the point. You claimed there was proof of bombs going off in the "eyewitness" accounts... The only proof you provided was that they heard loud noises that sounded like explosions...