NY's Finest Tour Guide Pokes Major Holes in the CD Theory

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
For evidence supporting the use of explosives:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

See video 4 @ 4:25 into the video. There was a video taken a good distance away that picked up explosions at the tower and it is shown here as well as a few other places within the 6 videos presented there. This affirms that there were large explosions BEFORE the buildings fell.




posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
HFS that was ridiculous. I'll admit, nicely done as a video and to convince people, but they did not show a clip of WTC7! Because that WAS a controlled demonlishion. As far as the towers go, that could be debated for ever. Even after that show, I still feel the towers were brought down in a controlled fashion. Do all buildings have to use the same bombing methods; or massive amounts of TNT? No. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and in this case, collapse a building. Molten metal, and thermate deposits were there. One can discredit Stephen Jones all they want. If you don't believe the towers were brought down in a controlled fashion that's fine, but look at the Solomon Building. Why didn't they explain that one? If they could get the proper materials into that building to bring it down, they could have done it with the towers. But, they must have done it before hand, so they had to know about it before hand. WTC7 is the "smoking gun" that proves some kind of conspiracy beyone the official conspiracy.
to this video



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
He does not deny the existance of explosions.... but explosives, there is no such evidence. I am sure "scientist" that you know the difference.


Well I'm no scientist but I think I know the difference, and the evidence for explosives, you know, other than the explosions and the effects thereof that can be heard, seen, felt, is layed out here:

Engineer Gordon Ross MEng. at the Indian YMCA, London on the 8th June 2007 analyses the destruction of the Twin Towers of the World Trade ... alle » Center on September 11th 2001.
video.google.com...

Also notice the difference in amount of evidence this video has, compared to the "debunking" efforts by Roberts.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by Shroomery]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki
since a common CT theory is that explosives were used at the same place that the planes hit in order to cover up the supposed fact that explosives were used.


It is not a common CT that this is the scenario at all. At least, I don't believe this. Why? We'll get to that.


Of course there's also the theory that thermite/thermate was used rather than explosives.


Now we're getting closer to the common argument. Most of us feel that thermite was used to sever the core structure then explosives were used to bring the buildings down complete.


So how did the thermate survive the impacts, a question that also must be asked for the explosive theory?


Because neither the thermite nor the explosive would need to be in the impact areas at all. This is a common strawman put out by the "debunkers".

Question. What do you think would happen if there was thermite to cut the core a tad lower than the impact zone (say the mechanical floors directly below)? Would the structure start and look like it is failing at the impact zones? My opinion is yes it would.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist


way to take things out of context. I was stating the bias, in relation to buying a copy or two, not in agreeing with the conclusions presented in the video. You are simply debating your own false assumptions at this point.


I saw "Adaptation" i hated it.... Chris Cooper won the best supporting actor Academy Award. I know Chris Cooper and his wife pretty well. I can tell you I did NOT buy the DVD
But to each his own..... and I have to add...if people I know make a documentary...filled with false claims...the LAST thing I would do is pass it around for my other friends and family to watch.



I'm not trying to prove anything, but you apparently are, so I'm still waiting.


I stated evidence...not proof. I also stated "punch holes" not "debunk" or "prove" UNLIKE most truther claims.


I do admit that the steel was shipped to MANY different locations a little faster than I am sure engineers would have liked.


Good, you agree. So I see no need to back this up with redundant proof. Are you denying that the wreckage was sent out before it could be analyzed?






really... that's strange. In fact, that's much stranger than any other theory I've heard yet.. the silent building collapse theory. That's a new one.

You know EXACTLY what I meant. There were ZERO witnesses to detonation audio or visual that would suggest a CD. I have postedi nthe past a video of BIG BLUE the crane that collapsed. The sound of metal crashing together has a very eeire sound. (its on you tube)




oh, ok. so his qualification is that you approve? How about qualifications other than your own opinion?


No, his quilifications speak for themselves. But yes...my opinion is ( based on what I have read and seen) He is as I stated.




well know truthers are afraid to debate him on television.


doesnt that contradict what you just said about him meeting all the truthers you mentioned? If I challenge this guy to a debate, and get no response.. does that mean he's afraid of me?

Ok,I stated that he has in fact debated truthers. Twice on TV... both times he pretty much made his apponents look like fools.

Kevin Ryan offered to debate Mr. Roberts. Mark agreed. Mr. Ryan was given links to Mark research and for some reason...has no declined to debate. Mr. Cage and Mr. Rodgequiez have both refused. I may add that Dr. Griffin has refused as well.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Interseting video... thanks for posting this...
This may change some of the beliefs... or maybe not



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by 2PacSade
 


Oops, I had the wrong video in mind, I just skipped over the Mark Robert's video and didn't notice. I found my source of the video I had in mind but it's gone now....



I'd say your comment about charges being left intact is possible, but not probable at all, sorry. And besides, there's no blast evidence, that's why CTerz have switched to thermate....

PS- you may owe me a new keyboard. i spit my Glenfiddich all over it when I read your avatar.....



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



And my opinion is -



Research some and see how difficult it is, if not downright impossible to get thermite to cut horizontally......



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by communicator
Interseting video... thanks for posting this...
This may change some of the beliefs... or maybe not


It hasnt changed my mind.

In the first few minutes we see an example off how a building is demoed but you cant compare the 9/11 CD with a "regular" CD.

The 9/11 CD was made to LOOK like a structural failure instead off bringing down the building with explosives AKA CD.

Then my question for the people who think that the planes brought it down:
How is it possible that a building 110 stories tall, falls down in 9 seconds???

That is freefall speed and to do that you need to have all the floors underneath the impact zone to be vacuumed totaly but that was anything but...

Those fires sucked in air so their was even more resistance iff it was a structural failure.

And how do you get rid off all that air in milliseconds??? Explosives....


Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use -- Please Review



[edit on 16-11-2007 by chissler]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 


James, this "idiot" (me) would like to point out that the building did in FACT NOT fall in the time to say it did.

Keep your playground name calling to yourself.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Please refrain from petty name calling and off-topic commentary.

Thank you.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki
reply to post by poet1b
 


And still, the explosions are clearly heard.


I'm not convinced at all that explosions are the only explanation for the sound. When the the structure started buckling, huge amounts of energy were being released, in an explosive manner. Presumably pancaking started happening when a few girders or whatever gave in, producing significant shock in the steel structure. Soundwaves associated with such shock could easily sound like gunshots or explosions, or bear such similarity.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by ANOK
Anok, don't you see a contradiction in what you just wrote? Think about the "resistance". Resistance can be viewed as a channel for energy dissipation. Now, as you said yourself, pieces of the structure were EJECTED with huge energy. That's where the energy went and that's why the building was able to collapse. No mystery here...


Yes we see the outer facade being ejected. The buildings main vertical load was on the inner structure of box columns, not the facade. So the resistance should have come from the inner columns and the thousands of welds and fasteners holding the floor plates etc...The central columns were 47 massive 4-6" thick box columns.

The lack of resistance and the outer facade being ejected are two different issues.

Make sense now?

How did those massive columns fail at the same time straight down from office fires? How is that even possible? The central structure was like a building in itself, it could stand by itself. Even if the spandrel plates failed the core structure should have remained standing.

[edit on 16/11/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I made a mistake. The video in MR's thing was different from the one I remembered.

Yes, snapping steel can be loud too. I've heard a ripper shank on a D-9 Caterpillar snap and I thought a bomb went off too.

Or a crane. It collapsed when two 1" pins snapped from preforming the lift during high winds:





[edit on 16-11-2007 by Haroki]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Transformers can blow too. There were a few in the Towers, and a big ConEd substation under 7. Hmmm, maybe this is the source of the random explosions?



[edit on 16-11-2007 by Haroki]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Scientist ....

Here is just a little info on the steel that was recovered:


May 29 2002: As the last steel column of the demolished World Trade Center was removed Tuesday, construction workers at the site were honored for their work there since September 11th.


www.wndu.com...


"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".


www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm

Members of the FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study Team and others including members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), Dr. J. Gross, a structural engineer at NIST, and Professor A. Astaneh-Asl of the University of California, Berkeley had access to the recovery yards where debris, including the steel, was taken during the cleanup effort.

There were four major sites where debris from the WTC buildings was shipped during the clean-up effort and these teams looked for debris were:

Hugo Neu Schnitzer, Inc., Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island, New Jersey;
Hugo Neu Schnitzer East, Inc., Claremont Terminal in Jersey City, New Jersey;
Metal Management, Inc., in Newark, New Jersey; and
Blanford and Co. in Keasbey, New Jersey.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by ANOK
Anok, don't you see a contradiction in what you just wrote? Think about the "resistance". Resistance can be viewed as a channel for energy dissipation. Now, as you said yourself, pieces of the structure were EJECTED with huge energy. That's where the energy went and that's why the building was able to collapse. No mystery here...


Yes we see the outer facade being ejected. The buildings main vertical load was on the inner structure of box columns, not the facade. So the resistance should have come from the inner columns and the thousands of welds and fasteners holding the floor plates etc...The central columns were 47 massive 4-6" thick box columns.


The facade had to go somewhere. I think that there was an effective pressure inside because the building effectively was being compressed from top, so the walls were flying out to the sides. Some pieces of innder structure were probably also shooting out. Once the fasteners are gone, there is indeed little to hold all the floor plated in place, don't you agree?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The facade had to go somewhere....


Agree with what exactly? An assumption based on more assumptions that just don't work in the real world?
Once the fasteners were gone? How do you explain all the fasteners being gone? What caused them to fail? Don't say fire, we already know it wasn't the fires.

Yes the facade had to go somewhere. That somewhere, when only gravity is acting on the steel, is straight down. Not laterally 600ft, or embedded in other buildings.

In a gravity fed collapse there shouldn't be anything flying out of anywhere when it weighs in the tons.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

The central structure was like a building in itself, it could stand by itself.


Erm...Can you back that up? As far as I know the core structure for the World Trade Center towers NEVER stood by itself, prior to 9/11/2001.


Even if the spandrel plates failed the core structure should have remained standing.

[edit on 16/11/2007 by ANOK]


For how long, do you reckon? 5 seconds? Five Hours? Five days? Forever?

The cores of both towers stood breifly after the collapses. Very breifly..is this what you would expect?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Erm...Can you back that up? As far as I know the core structure for the World Trade Center towers NEVER stood by itself, prior to 9/11/2001.


Oh for peats sake, have you looked at the buildings structure? Do you understand how it was constructed? Erm go look at it.



For how long...
The cores of both towers stood breifly after the collapses. Very breifly..is this what you would expect?


What do you mean for how long? Why would it collapse at all if the collapse was caused by falling (pancaking) floors?

Yes a small section of the core remained standing, until it turned to dust!

It would help you guys immensely to study a little simple physics and then study the WTC structure and put them together...
Right now you are all trying to argue points you get from websites without really knowing the physics behind what you're trying to claim.

[edit on 16/11/2007 by ANOK]





top topics
 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join