It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


One Problem I have with Controlled Demo

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 08:50 AM

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
But when you open your mind for a second, you have to answer some tough questions.

i agree with this statement, but in the end you have to go with what you know.

griff and bsb know more about physics than i do, and griff certainly knows more about structures than most of us do so when they look at the collapses from their own point of view they see problems with the official story.

me, i know explosives. so when i see all these cd theories and i ask questions, i get real unpopular. real fast.

in the end i end up with answers like "oh it was thermate" which no ones been able to demonstrate would do anything remotely resembling the kind of job necessary for such an undertaking

or i get "well it must be some super secret stuff only the govt knows about"

sure, an explosive with an RE factor of 50. (personlly i like the hushaboom comments others have made, they amuse me and yet its so true)

so which way should i lean? go with what i know or ignore what i know just cuz everyone says i must be wrong without providing me with anything to actually even hint im wrong?

i mean, if i had a nickel for every time i read "oh it violates the laws of physics" id be retired, yet if i had to pay 1000 for each time i saw a mathematical proof of that, id be none the poorer

but what happens when i provide some math to go with my assertations that its unlikely explosives were used? its written off as just another debunker shilling for the govt.

the other thing that gets old in a hurry is the mindset that if i say it wasnt a CD then by god i MUST prove what DID cause the collapse, yet no one has provided me with concrete proof it was a cd....
proving it how the towers fell is way outside my area of education and id never claim how they fell, but does that disqualify me from providing an educated theory why it wasnt a CD involving HE?

dont get me wrong, there are several people in the truth movement who i have communicated with outside ats threads and have great respect for. bsb and i have discussed a lot of this at length, ive communicated with griff gotta go and valhall and have great respect for them and their convictions. i even have a lot of respect for pootie just based on the strength of his convictions even if i disagree with him. but there are enough people out there that are in the "by god im right cuz i say so" crowd that discussing this topic is simply and excersise in futility. (i even had an ats member that wanted my ph# so he could call me and "convince me i was wrong" and yet wouldnt take the time to read any of the data i provided for him. his experience with explosives=youtube and wiki)

having said that, i want to offer a counter challenge to something GG said about educating yourself. i agree with him 100% and we should all educate ourselves as well as we can about ALL facets of this topic so as to better hold civil conversations. however, id personally like to see those that are so sure this was a CD to also educate yourselves on explosives. what they can do, how they are used and more importantly what they can NOT do. once you do that you may be suprised at what you find.

ive never claimed i was absolutly right, and have many times stated flat out i may be 100% wrong, but having said that if i am wrong im just not sure where. yet i remain open minded enough, and humble enough to know i could be and if shown to be wrong will be first to say it. sadly i dont think thats something several of you could claim. i believe that this topic has turned into its own psuedo religion that nothing will ever change your mind, and hey, thats all on you.

my only goal has ever been to a) find the truth in whatever form that may be and b) try to provide unbiased information on topics im familiar with. i think ive done a decent job at that my opinions not withstanding. but at least if i do provide information (and im always careful to provide information that can be verified cuz not even i would take my own word at face value, im just some guy on the net right?) then if people want to believe it was a CD they are basing that belief on reality not hollywood. you know, hollywood where in lethal weapon a suitcase bomb will take out a high rise? all while the cats being rescued?

so my problem? no one has provided with an even remotly plausible explaination of the collapses being caused by preplaced high explosives. the best ones ive seen sadly are my own (ive spent a lot of time trying to figure out how i would do it and i have yet to come up with one that is covert enough to even come close to passing as a natural collapse)

so, WHOEVER was behind the attacks are succeding on one level though, it has divided us as a nation, which is sad due to not only the heavy cost in lives but also because the united front we all put forth in the weeks after the attacks is nothing but a memory now.

ps, for those interested about the math i spoke of, i had a moderated debate with whatukno here. i know a few of you have read this so i apologize for whoring out my debate yet again but i REALLY dont feel like retyping any of the calculations and so forth.
also, valhal, WELCOME BACK!! if you care to check that debate out and tell me if there are flaws in anything i know your personal experience may give you a unique insight to anything i may have flubbed up on. ty

pps: sorry for the dissertation like post, i dont post often anymore so i kinda gotta say it all at once. my apologies.

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:11 AM
I tried to edit the post but it really doesn't make sense otherwise. I clarified in a few posts down.

[edit on 8/18/2007 by Griff]

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:22 AM
rofl (expletive deleted) and the horse you rode in on....jk

sure i write a dissertation and you focus on the part that talks about money. and for the record i said if i HAD to pay a grand, so i spose its a good thing i dont have to huh?

yeah i dont know why or how either. but ive also seen nothing substantial that points to it being HE, thermite/mate, mini nukes death rays from space, kinetic energy weapons, or self lighting charcoal briquettes either.

but that could also explain why i post so little in these threads anymore also.

lol but thanks for the comment, it made me laugh and i could use more of that.

think thats one of the reasons i do respect you is that while youre serious about your research and your opinoins, you dont take it TOO seriously and get annoying about it
dont change that for the good of us all heh

ps: for the record i think thats the first time I personally have seen you say it, but admittedly i read very few of these threads anymore. so blame other people, i dont discuss the structural aspects of the collapse as i do the explosivse parts of it.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Damocles]

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Damocles
ps: for the record i think thats the first time I personally have seen you say it, but admittedly i read very few of these threads anymore. so blame other people, i dont discuss the structural aspects of the collapse as i do the explosivse parts of it.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Damocles]

I didn't mean you at all. Actually, I haven't seen you in awhile. Welcome. I hope all is well with you.

That's why I enjoy talking with you also. Even though we don't agree 100% we can be civil and learn from one another.

Woods and Jones could learn a few from us and others here. Take care.

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:00 AM
I have to clarify something before I get called out on it.

It is unbraced fames (columns) that will collapse in the same direction. If there is a structural wall connecting some of the columns, they become braced and can therefore fall in different directions. But the unbraced portions of the columns will fall in the same direction. I was baiting it in another thread to see if someone would even look it up and call me out. One person came close when they asked if I ment the whole structure or parts of the structure. Anyway, as far as I know, WTC 7 was an unbraced frame with simple column lines. I could be wrong though.

As far as WTC1 and 2, I'm not sure if they would be considered braced or unbraced. If looking at it with just the exterior, I'd say they were braced to each other with the spandrels. Looking at it with the exterior column, floor and interior column (core) it would be considered unbraced I believe.

Like I've said. I don't design highrise buildings (I inspect them for structural purposes though), so I'm not this structural god either. But, I do posses the degree with structural background. My structural background is in parking structures (reinforced concrete) and retaining walls so far. We did have to do some calculations for a building though. The owner wanted to erect a brick monument along a non-structural wall. We had to calculate what the added weight would do to the floor. It wasn't an easy problem because where it was made the calculations become statically indeterminate and there's alot more math involved than with simple determinate structures. Anyway, it turned out to not be a problem. My point is that we need to not forget the added weight of the plane either. As always I am here to learn as you are Damocles. If anything I state is wrong, call me out.

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:20 AM
I for one appreciated your dissertation post! Those are usually the product of a passionate argument. I also appreciate your articulate and well balanced writing style.

Question for you. Since the military is the designing and testing grounds for explosives, might we not be discussing apples and oranges? I mean we are talking about explosive technology that may be terribly outdated. Like comparing the capabilities of a model T to those of a Ferrari.

We all know how technology is evolving exponentially and the military is usually on the leading edge for defense purposes. Caps and cord could have already been replaced with microprocessors or some such capable of receiving transmissions from previously unknown/unused tech.

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Damocles
(personlly i like the hushaboom comments others have made, they amuse me and yet its so true)

No offense Damocles, but Hashaboom is not a great way of describing things. These series of posts were put together by Valhall of first responder quotes and such. They describe anything but hashaboom.

Typed memorandum by Det. Thomas M. Inman, dated January 22, 2002:

As a roll call was being taken of the responding Detectives, Tower #2 began to collapse. This occurred after a secondary explosion on the west side of the tower that appeared to take place in the area of the high 60's. The area above the secondary explosion actually leaned to the west and then the collapse took place.


Here are the remaining 3 links. I have gotten through half of the first one so far. It's heart renching to say the least.

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:37 AM

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

Question for you. Since the military is the designing and testing grounds for explosives, might we not be discussing apples and oranges? I mean we are talking about explosive technology that may be terribly outdated. Like comparing the capabilities of a model T to those of a Ferrari.

We all know how technology is evolving exponentially and the military is usually on the leading edge for defense purposes. Caps and cord could have already been replaced with microprocessors or some such capable of receiving transmissions from previously unknown/unused tech.

yes and no really

yes the military is always looking for more efficient ways to kill people, thats without question. but the problem when discussing things like new types of explosives etc is one of cost/benefit and so forth. they do want more bang for the buck but theres a limit to what you can do and thats a function of chemistry and physics. to be able to extract the same power of a pound of tnt from an ounce of material is kind of pushing it and thats kind of what i meant when i made the comment about and explosive with an RE factor of 50, or something 50x more powerful than TNT.

but the biggest reason that there isnt a LOT of new research into new tech like that is the old if it isnt broke dont fix it mentality, thats why the standard blasting cap has been around for over 100 years, even the electric blasting cap is just a variation on a theme.

theres been a lot of discussion between me and other members of ways they could make radio controlled detonators that use encrypted digital signals and of course, they could, but the basic problem with electric blasting caps doenst doesnt take much of a radio signal to set them off prematurely. ever travel through a construction area (highway w/e) where they have to blast and there are signs all over that say turn off cell phones and cb equipment? thats why.

also, in that debate thread i had stated that to cut all 47 core columns using the most efficient means available (in this case linear shaped charges) would take an explosive yeild of 170lbs/floor or so, so to get that number down you'd have to have a material taht could release the same energy with less ordinance, and yet, if there was such an explosive releasing that much energy i couldnt honestly say it would be significantly quieter and therefore would still have the problems of not being covert.
(for comparison to use a c4 sheet explosive would take around 1100lbs per floor vs the 172lbs per floor of shape charges)

so that would be the challenge for the military's technology, be able to release as much energy as 172lbs of shaped charges with less ordinance and make exponentially less noise, and at the risk of sounding like a hypocrit im going to say that i feel that violates the laws of physics lol.

@griff: ill check those out later but as ive read a lot of witness testimony i still have to ask (unqualified question as ive not read them yet) were they hearing explosions, loud noises that "sounded like a bomb going off" or bombs? not all explosions during a fire are the result of preplaced high explosives.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Damocles]

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:46 AM
One specific officer states that he heard an explosion, the pedestrian bridge collapses and then WTC 2 (the first tower to collapse) started to fall. I'll try and find it for time sake here.

[edit on 8/18/2007 by Griff]

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:51 AM
i would be interested to read that, but for now im going to crash, probably for the day, maybe for tomorrow as well. been a rough few days lol

until i return, ya'll play nice or no one goin to chuck e cheese's


posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Damocles
@griff: ill check those out later but as ive read a lot of witness testimony i still have to ask (unqualified question as ive not read them yet) were they hearing explosions, loud noises that "sounded like a bomb going off" or bombs? not all explosions during a fire are the result of preplaced high explosives.

What is this?
Press Play.

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:52 AM

Typed report by Police Fire Marshal Shield 1483, undated:

I responded...via a police convoy to the World Trade Center. Upon our arrival, at the staging area our rescue team prepared to enter the facility.

As we prepared to locate our equipment, I saw and heard a loud thunder coming in front of us. It was a connecting bridge. Smoke and debris covered the entire area.

As I recall, running for cover the connector collapsed, I sustained significant inhalation of smoke and debris. After running several blocks choking I entered an ambulance where I washed off the debris and was given oxygen.

While resting inside the ambulance I saw the 1st tower collapse and the second.

Here it is. What would cause the pedestrian bridge to collapse before the towers? Jet fuel?

Notice he says after running several blocks. If anyone has been to NYC, they know this would take several minutes. Then he says he watched the 2 towers collapse from the ambulance.

[edit on 8/18/2007 by Griff]

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:55 AM
I here what you're saying about 'don't fix what ain't broken'. But there's the other saying, 'Necessity is the Mother of Invention'. I can't begin to imagine the 'necessities' of our government, but if this was an inside job, I guess there would be a few.

As far as the RF thing, I lean toward not underestimating technology. I am continually amazed by how far we've come in the last century, decade, etc.

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:02 PM
After reading through some of Valhall's posts, I have come to the conclusion that it wasn't really that covert at all. Explosions going off, pedestrian bridges falling, basements exploding. There's some good stuff in Valhall's posts. Some of it is rather frank and gory, but if you can get past that, I highly recommend reading them. These people were there. They lived through it. I believe what they heard and saw over some engineer sitting in an office watching videos all day (NIST). But that includes me also.

WATS Valhall!

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:39 PM
well breakfast came before nap so i figured id throw a few comments out there.

thich: no idea. it sounds like an explosion to be sure but theres no context for it. its obvious that its after at least one of the towers fell unless theres reason to think that manhattan was covered in dust etc just from the plane impacts which i dont think anyone has, but i cant be sure personally so for the sake of argument we'll assume taht at least one towers fallen by the time this video was taken. but we dont really know do we? another thing at least i dont know, maybe ya'll do is were there ANY gas lines that could have been damaged in anyway by the collapse of the first tower? i mean, has anyone done any research in an attempt to rule out all other possible causes for explosions of any kind? but given the fact that the video appears to be from a handheld can anyone speculate with any authority what something fairly heavy falling and reverberating through city streets would sound like on a minicam's mic? i dont know but as we dont SEE an explosion we cant just say "oh well its an explosion so that means it absolutly 100% MUST have been a preplaced explosive" also, just to play devils advocate, has this particular video clip been subjected to the same scrutiny as others have? or even the run of the mill ufo pic/video? cuz you guys wouldnt just take it on faith as proof would you?
in ALL honesty it is the ONE piece of video thats ever intrigued me in the least where explosives on 911 are concerned though. and in all honesty its probably the biggest reason i keep an open mind on the subject.

griff: the quote from the fire dept testimony...he attributes the sounds he heard directly to the fall of the walkway, is there anywhere else in the testimony where he mentions an explosion prior to the "thunder" he describes as the fall of the walkway? as the sound from an explosion is typically supersonic id have expected the sound from an explosion to reach him first and as it seems it would take more than youre avg pipe bomb to destroy a walkway id think if there was an explosion to drop the walkway somebody may have noticed. but, did anyone else notice that he used the term "loud thunder coming in front of us" we can assume that he's not attributing the failure of the bridge to a lightning strike so why does it suprise people when they say "it sounded like a bomb going off"?

semantics, analogies, similie, and context are CRITICAL when using eyewitness testimony to support or refute an event.

himwhohath: i see what youre saying but also really consider what i said about the physical properties of explosives and their apparent limitations. not to mention that even if they custom brewed some stuff to take down the towers using just a couple lbs/floor, you still have to release the same ammount of energy to cut the steel.
but past that, if they HAD such a material, can you imagine they'd have sat on it this long? consider this. a 500lb bomb used by the airforce is nearly half steel casing and half explosive (i may have that proportion way off but im tired and dont feel like looking it up) but 50/50 is a good arbitrary number to make this point. if a 500lb bomb is 250lbs of explosive and you had an explosive with an RE factor of 50, then your 500lb bomb suddenly weights 255lbs and has the same lethality so you can double your combat payload without loosing any firepower...u think the military would sit on that? possible but unlikely.
plus theres the whole sidestepping physics/chemistry to be able to do it in the first place.

so i guess the questions we should answer BEFORE we conclude taht there were actual bombs in the building include: were there any gas lines that ran into the wtc? (cafeterias? hot water heaters? etc) steam lines? (one of those busting would sure sound like a bomb going off if it was big enough) for the smaller ones what kind of aeresol cans were in the janitors closets? (you laugh and try to write that off as lame debunking but have you ever accidently put an aeresol can of anything remotely flameble in a fire? if you ever do 'accidently' do it, be sure to be standing wayyyyyyy back) its been discussed and dismissed before but what about any power transformers anywhere in the area? can those all be dismissed definitivly?

ive seen people type (not in this thread that i recall) that "well i think firefighters would know if a bomb went off" why? how many firefighters work with high explosives as part of their normal training? none ive ever met but i cant say i knew more than say 50 firefighters ever, but why would they? thats waht EOD is for, but with all the speculation of people talking about bombs in the buildings and the firefighters all knew about it, why werent their radios off? why were they going into the buildings?

and i see ive gone off on yet another tangent, boldly going where no pointless rants gone before.

but i feel these are ALL very very valid questions that should at least be considered before we put high explosives in the lead for causal effect for the fall of the towers.

so i thank you all for the comments and questions, this thread so far has been yet another of what i consider great discussions as its remained JUST THAT a discussion and not another flamefest or "dogpile damo" session lol and you all raise great points that i cant dismiss out of hand and wont try to, but for me personally before ill take them as evidence, much less proof i kind of want paul harvey to come along with "the rest of the story" ya know?

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Griff
My point is that we need to not forget the added weight of the plane either.

sorry for the double post but i totally missed this earlier (i am REALLY tired) and i didnt want it to get lost in the blather that was my previous post.

how much did that plane weigh again? and what would happen if you simply added that static weight and forgot about the impact damage or the fires?

cuz lets face it, NO structure can take an unlimited ammount of static weight and we've only to look to the tragedy in minnesota or even several years ago when that mall opened and people croweded on to the 2nd story walkway and it collapsed to see that as evident.

so now im totally intrigued as this is outside my area and im genuinly curious, add the weight of the plane, minus whatever parts you feel (you being anyone) exited the building what might that have done?

i can honestly say i dont think ive ever read anyone theories on this, and was it mentioned in the nist reports? seems like a huge oversite if they didnt.

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:22 PM

by Damocles
you still have to release the same ammount of energy to cut the steel.

Your points are well taken. My question would be, was weakening of strategic structural points used in concordance with whatever metal cutting materials? As you would see in a normal Demo. If they had the access and time to place the charges, they could certainly accomplish the necessary cuts to facilitate minimal charges. Obviously, this would be highly advantageous to plausable deniability, ie. this discussion.

From what I know of the towers, they were really three buildings sitting on top of each other. Even if the top building of those three collapses, the 'roof' of the next one should, if not stop it, slow it down. As has been stated many times before, an object cannot fall at gravitational speed with that much hardware in the way. At least not without side stepping it and sliding off a side. Which would be the path of least resistance. The equations for a 'pancake' collapse run at 96 seconds minumum. Ten times longer than it took for the towers to fall. Something was helping to get hardware out of the way.

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:56 AM
and these are good questions really, but the flip side is they are questions ill not try to claim are within my area of expertise.

remember what ive stated my training is in. military demo ops. i COULD plan a building demo right now, but it would be a pretty brutish demo job. ive always tried to be pretty clear that my training was as a combat engineer and the curriculum doenst cover really pretty CD's. what it DOES cover is explosives, charectaristics, employment, and use on various materials. so when ive done my calculations ive always done them from the standpoint of "ok, i need to cut 2" thick steel column of this dimension" and then multiplied that by the number of columns. i calculated for TnT and then applied a formula to refigure that yeild number using an RDX based explosive. i then further simplified it (believe it or not in an attempt to try to make a cd theory work with the evidence we have) and used linear shape charges which is pretty straight forward.

not being a structural engineer and not knowing exactly how many columns would need to fail to drop the building in the fashion we witnessed, i simply figured that for the sake of my arguments id cut them all (just the core none of the floor trusses or the perimeter columns)

any wiring schemes or ring main layouts would be pretty straight forward demo 101 type stuff. always keep it simple...ALWAYS becuase you want to make sure your stuff is ALL going to go off so that there is minimal physical evidence left behind.

now, for my calcs based on all of the columns i got 172lbs of HE per floor. so thats just under 4lbs per column (based on the dimensions given in the leaked schemos for the buildign at the 66th floor and assuming they stayed that size from 66 down, which they didnt but it makes the math simpler for the sake of argument. we'd guess they likely got bigger as you went closer to the ground which of course means more HE to cut them but keeping them uniform makes easier discussion points)

so, if you could get the building to fall with 15 severed columns, i MAY be willing to consider the plausibility of setting off the required HE and staying covert (read quiet) enough to fit within what we as outsiders can glean from videos we have access to.

now, as to precutting, they do that to minimize the neccessary amount of HE for the job for 2 reasons. keeps the risk of blowing out the neighbors windows down and reduces the amount of HE you need and thereby keeps costs down.

so honestly it would take someone with more structural knowledge than i possess to calculate the curve between how much you can cut and not risk the building falling down a week early in a wind gust and how much any cutting is going to reduce the amount of HE needed to keep it more covert. (did that make sense to anyone but me?) i guess i mean you have to cut enough to make it worth the time but not so much as to comprimise the building and have a team of inspectors in there going "hey bubba, wtf is this doing here?"

but i have to ask what you would consider "minimal charges"? cuz even if you cut each core column 50% with a torch and reduced your need to 85lbs/floor, that is STILL 85lbs/floor. the problem is, unless youve heard anywhere near that size explosive go off, you simply dont realize how amazingly unbelievably loud that is. in my debate thread i linked a video of a CD that had charges going off after the start of the fall and you could still hear the charges very distinctly. i have no idea the yeild of each charge going off but i think it does make a point. beyond that ive conseded that maybe the sound of the collapse could mask the charges, but you WOULD hear the first one (this is of course where thermate/mite comes into play and i start looking for things to gouge out my eyes but thats another topic) but i mean, everyones seen a fireworks display. we're talking relativly small amounts of things like black powder. or if anyones ever heard a gunshot from several blocks away in a city. the sound of that gunshot carried around buildings and down streets and thats only a few grams of cordite going off...yet 50+lbs of HE going off and theres only a few people reporting this? (few being relative, if there are even 1000 published reports of people hearing bombs going off and yet there were how many 1000's of people running every which way on 911 just before the collapse? my opinion is still that if enough HE went off to damage the buildings we wouldnt be having these discussions, just my opinion on this point, not claiming it as fact)

ive seen the video thich posted dozens of times in dozens of threads and it is the ONLY one that even gets my attention.

im going to go out on a limb and make one statement that i stand by but cannot back up in any way. IF high explosives had initiated the collapse of the WTC towers, every live feed that had audio in NY would have picked it up. every one (and wouldnt need a 9 second time/audio adjustment. 9 seconds? does this guy even KNOW the speed of sound much less the det speed of most HE materials? sorry that one irked me for some reason months ago and i havnt gotten over it. yes i have no life, carry on )

as far as fall times, eh all i have is my own laymans opinions on that one. but what gets me is that there isnt a real hard concensus on the actual fall time which ive seen range from 9 seconds up to 18 seconds. (NO im not going to comb the internet to find links to those cuz im lazy and they were nothing more than someone elses opinion so they dont really matter but the point is that it IS disagreement) but i am interested where the 96 second figure comes from as its the first ive heard of it. and i do like to try to read things that have real factual and educational value to them.

as to other contributing factors i have a list of questions a few pages long. granted ill admit that bsb has pointed out that most of them are silly and uneducated questions but as i feel i am a good representation of the lay community out there when it comes to the engineering side of it im not asking anything others may be thinking lol.

so yeah, i again took 4000 characters to say what i could have done in a couple hundred lol. but im not going to try to intelligently answer questions that ive admitted were outside my area of expertise or experience and figured id throw out my disclaimers again on my explosives knowledge.

but once you have the knowledge and experience with explosives its not too hard to translate one area into another. CDI has spent their long history and careers learning the art of bringing down structures inside urban environments to minimize damage to surrounding structures and my area of expertise was dropping a bridge or putting holes in the road while someone is shooting at me. but once you know how to cut steel with explosives, the rest is just in wehre the steel is located and whats the best way to rig it for that particular situation.

and of course if anyone is shooting at you while yer doing it lol (lame attempt at humor, i know 911 is a serious topic but if we take ourselves too seriously in the discussion of it, tempers flare and people who may have a lot to contribute end up banned for getting hot under the collar)

hope at least SOME part of this post made sense.


EDIT TO ADD: on a side note i just wanted to take a moment to thank everyone participating in this thread for managing a level of decorum that seems to go above simply following the tac's. its rare i partake in these discussions much anymore so when i do im glad its with a group of adults who are acting as such. thank you all. i took a few mins and starred every single post in this thread to this point. even the ones i disagreed with. lol yes wizard even yours
(just a joke, i mean i did but i didnt want you to think that i seriously didnt like you personally, i just find i disagree with you...pretty much in general, but your posts in this thread were star worthy to me

[edit on 19-8-2007 by Damocles]

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Damocles
griff: the quote from the fire dept testimony...he attributes the sounds he heard directly to the fall of the walkway,

The point is. What caused the walkway to collapse in the first place? Before the towers? Jet fuel?

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:20 AM

If there is a possible way to get around linear momentum, it certainly wouldn't occur in a common fall and collision. Understand here that there is no known instance of a violation of conservation of linear momentum in the entire earth's scientific experience. So, if one shows that linear momentum conservation is violated in the fall of the towers ... then ... they were brought down by demolition ... no ifs ands or buts.

Found this site about the math involved in collapse time. Right after this statement the guy gives a breakdown of conservation of linear momentum.

Everything else aside, this is why I'm seeing something sinister in the collapses.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in