WTC2 photo series shows upward explosive forces

reply to post by WraothAscendant


There is already a thread on that Roberts video that was current about a month ago, and it got a thrashing; you should have read through it before posting that as some kind of remarkable dragon slayer of what's being argued here.

Roberts treats 9/11 like a box of chocolates and daintily picks what he wants to discuss, and frames his argument to his own advantage; the vid is frankly tedious and annoying and definitely sophomoric for anyone with a decent knowledge of 9/11.

If you want to argue about it, do it on that thread, not here thank you very much.

Originally posted by jthomas
I am really surprised to see this claim of "upward trajectory" to be revived. It was one of the first claims to be debunked early in 2002, six years ago.

Back then, there were several websites devoted entirely to claiming that there was an upward, explosive trajectory of debris, "proving" that explosives had to have been used to destroy the twin towers. Lots and lots of photos were used to support this claim.

It was "obvious" by just looking at the photos that there was an "upward and outward arc: of debris coming from the "top" of the towers as they fell. They all used the photo posted here earlier of a detonation in the desert to show the "obvious" comparison.

It was easily debunked by showing the videos of the collapses.

The photos - every one of them - fail to show the one crucial fact of the collapses: the collapse fronts of the collapsing towers were obviously moving downward. The photos fail to show the motion of the collapses and the motion of the dust.

Hey, look at that second OP photo. You've got a massive section of the east facade sailing off to the east about 8 stories above the blast--excuse me, collapse--wave. Show me the video that debunks this. I'm quite eager to see it.

Look at the last photo. You've got arcing ejecta coming from the stripped core. Just what the heck is causing that? Gravity?

Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

reply to post by gottago


Thought so.
Thank you very much.
Have a good day.




And by the way at the end of a collapse debris (dust) will be shot up.
Unless you want to tell us a bomb survived the collapse and all the forces there in and exploded at the end.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant



Now, I don't even watch conspiracy videos, why on earth would I want to watch this? I don't need other people's videos to do my research and thinking for me.

The onus is not on me to debunk him or his video. The onus is on everyone else to debunk what I say. At least to me that is. Not the other way around. If you feel I have erred (sp?) in ANYTHING I have stated, please feel free to point out the errors. I am not here saying "oh, the big bad gubment did it." But, I am also not naive enough to say "oh, there is nothing to 911, move along".

That's all I'm going to say from here on out about Mr. Gravy. If he personally wants to debate me here, fine, I'll do that. But, I am not a good speaker for one (unlike a tour guide would be). For two: I have seen people's faces when ANYTHING that goes against the official story is presented by people. For an example: Google: NIST + WTC molten steel video. That is a perfect example of the look of consternation gven by those who think they know everything about everything when they clearly don't.

Anyway, sorry gottago, for derailing this thread.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Watch this and provide a detailed debunking if you can Griff or anyone who can.

The inward buckling proves nothing. Please explain how this buckling proves it was a natural collapse. So what if there were no ejections? They only needed to take out the central core, which means if there were any explosives they were deep inside the building.

Showing the sound of other demolitions prove nothing, other than conventional explosives were probably not used on the WTC. Don't ask for proof I'm just pointing out that the lack of explosive sound does not prove a natural collapse.
I notice the sound was a little enhanced on his examples also. I love the one where he asked where the explosives are when you can barely hear the sound of the building when it collapses. He must think we’re stupid?

Also I guess you'll just ignore all the witnesses that did hear explosives?

www.youtube.com...

I guess those firefighters must have heard faked noises to huh? I think they have enough experience in fighting fires to distinguish between sounds common to them.

The crane example proves nothing either, other than conventional explosives were probably not used. If they were they were deep within the central core and the sound would not travel to a video camera as well as it would if it was outside like the crane was.
And again the sound level was way louder in his crane example than the WTC collapse vids (except the one he claims was doctored.) Maybe his was the doctored version? Listen to it, you notice a lack of low end? A hi-pass filter and all the explosions gone…

Even the collapse example near the end jumps up in volume to create that drama and work on your emotions. Make you think the WTC weren’t collapsed with explosives because they weren't loud enough.

Setting up a building for CD is done to make the job as easy and safe as possible minimizing damage to surrounding buildings. They didn’t have to worry about that too much with the towers, so the set up would not have to be as involved as the vid claims. Again WTC 1&2 were not conventional controlled demolitions. WTC 7 was.

And please point out the section where he explains the lack of resistance and other physics laws the collapses broke. Without that his whole hypothesis is useless. Notice, just like the NIST report, he only talks about the collapse initiation and nothing about the collapses from that point to global collapse. That is the problem, not whether there were pyroclastic flows or not.

Prove to me 3 buildings can globally collapse without any resistance I’ll listen. In fact even discussing it would be cool, because so far I’ve not heard a squeak from you or any de-bunker on this. All I get is the collapse was inevitable once initiated, the biggest flaw in the official story. Nothing is inevitable and they have nothing to base that assertion on. No precedence to compare to and it contradicts known laws of physics, in fact Newton’s’ first 3 laws. I suggest a study of that and learn how to apply it to the collapse of buildings.

I’m not even going to bother with the rest it’s just too much to type. Everything in that vid is just the guys’ opinion and his interpretation of what witnesses meant by what they said. Nothing in it proves anything. It’s all been pretty much debunked long ago. There’s nothing in there that we’ve not discussed even recently, did you miss it?

But anyway instead of asking other people to think for you, or just setting people up for an argument, go out and check the stuff from that vid yourself. Stay away from 9-11 sites. Pro or con.

reply to post by Griff

Hey Griff, you didn't drop that...um, video...in here, so no apology necessary at all.

And I totally agree with you; what is the point of debating a video? It's like talking back to your TV (which too many people have the unfortunate habit of doing). It's a set piece, about 10 minutes long (but yet drags its butt like its got a lifetime to lay out its tired set-pieces), and tightly scripted to tell its own version of reality and nicely tied up with smug little sentences and annoying music.

Big deal, there are thousands of them, and it has about as much worthwhile content as a Happy Meal. Or a commercial about a Happy Meal.

Back to regular programming..

[edit on 25-2-2008 by gottago]

Originally posted by Griff

The onus is on everyone else to debunk what I say. At least to me that is. Not the other way around.

In other words, you admit in plain sight your 9/11 Truth Movement position that a 9/11 Truther "NEVER has to back up his/her claim with evidence." That position is officially known as "The Arrogance of Ignorance". It's rather amazing you would admit it so openly, but it sums up the anti-scientific, anti-truth mentality that infects your 9/11 Truth Movement, Griff. And why it will fail miserably.

That is a perfect example of the look of consternation gven by those who think they know everything about everything when they clearly don't.

We have noted the consternation you exhibit from being unable to support your claims and realizing that, indeed, the burden of truth rests on your shoulders, despite your claims to the contrary.

Tune in tomorrow and watch how your 9/11 Denial meets reality. THAT is where the rubber hits the road.

Of course, after the fact, 9/11 deniers will claim they "won", thus proving that what you practice is 9/11 Denial.

Bon voyage.

Originally posted by gottago

Hey, look at that second OP photo. You've got a massive section of the east facade sailing off to the east about 8 stories above the blast--excuse me, collapse--wave. Show me the video that debunks this. I'm quite eager to see it.

Would you be so kind as to define exactly the motion you state shows a "massive section of the east facade sailing off to the east about 8 stories above the blast--excuse me, collapse--wave."

Given that a still photo shows no motion, a more accurate definition of what you think you actually are witnessing would be helpful. Thanks.

reply to post by jthomas


Is this post for real? What the heck does it mean? What channel is this program on tomorrow, so that we can all tune in? And why does it have to wait til tomorrow in the first place? And what the heck does it have to do with the photographic evidence we are ostensibly discussing?

Paging Dr. Derrida, 911; Dr. Derrida, please call 911...

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by jthomas

 

Is this post for real? What the heck does it mean? What channel is this program on tomorrow, so that we can all tune in? And why does it have to wait til tomorrow in the first place? And what the heck does it have to do with the photographic evidence we are ostensibly discussing?

Paging Dr. Derrida, 911; Dr. Derrida, please call 911...

Obviously you missed the announcement:

Monday, February 25, 2008
Challenge to Truthers: Stump Mark Roberts!

Our buddy Gravy from the JREF forums will appear again on Ron Wieck's Hardfire program, along with Arthur Scheuerman to discuss World Trade Center 7. The show will be live at 9:00 PM Eastern time tomorrow night, February 26. Having been unable to find a 9-11 "Truther" willing to debate these gentlemen, Ron will throw open the phone lines, and 9-11 conspiracy theorists are specifically encouraged to call in with their questions and challenges.

The main number is 718-935-9598. If it's busy, call 917-763-9896.

You can watch the show live tomorrow night here:
www.briconline.org...

Put up or shut up, Truthers!

Source: screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

Come watch 9/11 Truth get nailed again.

Originally posted by jthomas

Would you be so kind as to define exactly the motion you state shows a "massive section of the east facade sailing off to the east about 8 stories above the blast--excuse me, collapse--wave."

Given that a still photo shows no motion, a more accurate definition of what you think you actually are witnessing would be helpful. Thanks.

1. Go to the OP

2. Look at the 2nd photo.

3. Look at the massive section of the east facade suspended in space at the right/middle of said photo.

4. Notice said facade section is found well above the collapse wave.

5. Notice as well said facade section has been projected between 1/2 and 2/3 of the distance from where the intact facade stood shortly beforehand.

6. Remark that said facade section required both time and force to find itself in this unusual spot.

7. Notice also said facade section trails dust in an upward arc.

8. Draw conclusions.

reply to post by jthomas



Time to either prove your worth or go on ignore.

Prove ONE thing wrong on this website.

www.ae911truth.org...

Originally posted by gottago

Originally posted by jthomas

Would you be so kind as to define exactly the motion you state shows a "massive section of the east facade sailing off to the east about 8 stories above the blast--excuse me, collapse--wave."

Given that a still photo shows no motion, a more accurate definition of what you think you actually are witnessing would be helpful. Thanks.

1. Go to the OP

2. Look at the 2nd photo.

3. Look at the massive section of the east facade suspended in space at the right/middle of said photo.

4. Notice said facade section is found well above the collapse wave.

5. Notice as well said facade section has been projected between 1/2 and 2/3 of the distance from where the intact facade stood shortly beforehand.

6. Remark that said facade section required both time and force to find itself in this unusual spot.

7. Notice also said facade section trails dust in an upward arc.

8. Draw conclusions.

Gotcha. Thanks.

So that is entirely consistent with the evidence that floors separated from the core and the outer walls leaving both unsupported, and that some outer walls and core sections remained standing momentarily before falling. Thus the "peeling" of the outer walls.

And of course as the walls fell outward, the "pivot point" soon failed and the walls would then fall straight downward trailing dust. Perfectly consistent with the evidence.

There is nothing unusual about the photo or the fact of how the walls collapsed in sections. So we can put the "WTC2 photo series shows upward explosive forces" conspiracy theory to bed.

Once again.

reply to post by jthomas


Oh Lord, not more JREF madness, puhleeze. That explains everything; now your post makes sense. JREFers think they're going to rip out your jugular with every all-caps, boldfaced post they make, like its some kind of 9/11 version of a gun-'em-down video game.

Just what I feared. What exactly did we do here to deserve this migration? Is the boat sinking over there? Checked it out once a few years ago and was frankly appalled. We need to improve the ATS firewall, IMHO.

And why are you so sure that this mighty JREF warrior will slay all the evil truther dragons and orcs and rescue the 9/11 McGuffin from a fate worse than a BSOD?

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jthomas

 

Time to either prove your worth or go on ignore.

You have already put truth, reason, critical thinking, and evidence on ignore.

Prove ONE thing wrong on this website.

Sorry, Griff, the burden of proof STILL remains on you to prove your claims are right. As you have aptly demonstrated, you have not and you cannot.

To demonstrate, please answer these simple questions:

1) When do you plan to file charges against the Bush Administration?

2) When do you expect another investigation of the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 , the Pentagon, and Flight 93? Who do you plan to conduct those investigations?

Originally posted by gottago
Checked it out once a few years ago and was frankly appalled.

As was I. But, I'm sure we'll be told that it's because we couldn't hang with the big dogs. When in reality, it was vitrolic attitude of "those who know everything" that steered me away.

And why are you so sure that this mighty JREF warrior will slay all the evil truther dragons and orcs and rescue the 9/11 McGuffin from a fate worse than a BSOD?

On a side note: Did you see this article gottago?

www.journalof911studies.com...

Looks like we are not the only ones who have noticed this.

Originally posted by jthomas
So that is entirely consistent with the evidence that floors separated from the core and the outer walls leaving both unsupported, and that some outer walls and core sections remained standing momentarily before falling. Thus the "peeling" of the outer walls.

And of course as the walls fell outward, the "pivot point" soon failed and the walls would then fall straight downward trailing dust. Perfectly consistent with the evidence.

There is nothing unusual about the photo or the fact of how the walls collapsed in sections. So we can put the "WTC2 photo series shows upward explosive forces" conspiracy theory to bed.

No, you're looking at the third or fourth photos, which show the east facade "peeling"; I am talking about the very big facade section that is as I described above.

That huge hunk of steel being where it is, when it was photographed, is "nothing unusual" to your eyes. Fine. Just call it an amazing trick of gravity, or Pilgrum's elastic bounce. And you can try to wrap up the tent for this thread as often as you like, but it looks more like wanting something unpleasant to go away than a serious discussion.

And BTW, want to share your reasons why the core should be spewing out ejecta in the last photo of the OP, before the circus tent comes down?

reply to post by jthomas

OK.

You have shown me that all you want to do is argue. Have fun here while it lasts. I predict not long.

Ignored.




[edit on 2/25/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by jthomas

 

Oh Lord, not more JREF madness, puhleeze. That explains everything; now your post makes sense. JREFers think they're going to rip out your jugular with every all-caps, boldfaced post they make, like its some kind of 9/11 version of a gun-'em-down video game.

Just what I feared. What exactly did we do here to deserve this migration? Is the boat sinking over there? Checked it out once a few years ago and was frankly appalled. We need to improve the ATS firewall, IMHO.

And why are you so sure that this mighty JREF warrior will slay all the evil truther dragons and orcs and rescue the 9/11 McGuffin from a fate worse than a BSOD?

Don't tell me you're like Griff and also claim that YOU do not have any responsibility to support your own claims?

No wonder you are offended by JREFers who insist on evidence for claims made by anyone. Just like at www.physorg.org and at Bautforum.

No wonder you are all scared of Mark Roberts who chose critical thinking and the presentation of evidence over 9/11 Truther claims "that never have to be supported by the truthers making the claims." 9/11 Truthers must have special dispensation from God, eh?

Or is this all a desperate attempt to save Post-Modernism?

Originally posted by gottago

So that is entirely consistent with the evidence that floors separated from the core and the outer walls leaving both unsupported, and that some outer walls and core sections remained standing momentarily before falling. Thus the "peeling" of the outer walls.

And of course as the walls fell outward, the "pivot point" soon failed and the walls would then fall straight downward trailing dust. Perfectly consistent with the evidence.

There is nothing unusual about the photo or the fact of how the walls collapsed in sections. So we can put the "WTC2 photo series shows upward explosive forces" conspiracy theory to bed.

No, you're looking at the third or fourth photos, which show the east facade "peeling"; I am talking about the very big facade section that is as I described above.

I looked at all of the photos in an attempt in the sequence to detect relative motion in the time span of the frames. I see nothing unusual in any frame or in the sequence.

I am happy to entertain whatever it is you claim but you are going to have to edit the photos with arrows pointing to just what you claim.

And BTW, want to share your reasons why the core should be spewing out ejecta in the last photo of the OP, before the circus tent comes down?

I never claimed the core did. Only the outer walls. But it is known that core sections also remained standing for a short period after the collapse front passed.

BTW, you are aware of what was called the "spire", aren't you?