Architect & Engineers for 911 Truth Have 1000 Members!!!

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Wait, you actually have seen squibs that do not behave like explosives? Squibs that defy the laws of physics? Is this what you are saying?

Once again, since when do explosives detonate and then have their velocity increase after 2-3 seconds? Explosives do not, I repeat, do not detonate with an initial velocity that then INCREASES after detonation. It goes: initial detonation velocity which then as it progresses, it exponentially decreases in velocity (ie SLOWS DOWN).
The squib you circle does nothing of the sort and is increasing in velocity as if there is increasing pressure being forced out via collapse. It doesnt matter the size of the blast and how powerful it is, because they dont INCREASE in velocity AFTER detonation. They decrease immediately AFTER detonation.

In your "research" you would have seen that what you circled behaves nothing like it should, ergo your research is flawed and incorrect and your conclusions are all wrong. I too have researched these things and have come to the conclusion that the "demolitions" idea is wrong and flawed, and based on incorrect assumptions and innuendos and a flawed understanding of how explosives work on the most basic level.

You report the accounts of the firefighters that saw "flashes" which could have been anything, but there are virtually NO video evidences or audio evidence of "explosives" going off at all. No detonations prior to collapse. None. None recorded, none noticed. All accounts of hearing "boom boom boom" occur AFTER the collapse has initiated, NOT before.

[edit to add:]

yes I am aware people heard explosions. No duh..... You just had two 767s impact two 110 story buildings with about 5-10 floors burnings and each floor about an acre in size full of offices and equipment. Explosions are heard in a lot of fires. Does that mean explosives were used in them all? Were there explosions? Yes. Is that conclusive proof or remote evidence of CD? NO.

[edit on 2/22/2010 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by GenRadek
I too have researched these things

I don't see how you possibly could have when:

1.) You can't get the terms right. "Squibs" are actual explosives. What I've pointed out are plumes, jet's of dust/debris, puffs, whatever you want to call them, but they're not squibs.

2.) I don't see how you can possibly come to any conclusion when the plume you referenced get's covered up by the falling building, so the full travel of the plume isn't even visible. Oh wait, you didn't come to any conclusion. You're copy/pasting someone else's conclusion. And of course they have to be correct no matter how incorrect they are because you will never entertain the "9/11 Conspiracy" idea.

The only other thing I will say about the plumes, because enough has been said already, is that no matter what you make up to explain them away so that you never have to entertain the "9/11 Conspiracy" idea, I guarantee you will never, ever find concentrated plumes such as the following in any other type of building collapse in history other than a controlled demolition:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]


So, you go ahead and keep making things up like "those are air being released from pancaking floors", or "elevators dropping to the bottom of their shafts", or any other thing you can concoct just so you don't have to believe a "9/11 Conspiracy". But every time you make something up, it's opinion, conjecture and theories only.

What is not a theory and what is only a fact is you will never, ever, ever, see those concentrated plumes outside of a controlled demolition, period.

I personally don't understand why you even keep making things up to explain the plumes away. When an intelligent person sees that these concentrated plumes have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions, then any "theory" someone else concocts to try to explain them away just goes in one ear and out the other.

Theories hold no weight to facts. Your theories on what the plumes could be hold no weight to the fact of what the plumes have only ever been in our entire history, and that's from explosives in controlled demolitions. I don't know how much more clearer I can make this.

Originally posted by GenRadek
You report the accounts of the firefighters that saw "flashes" which could have been anything

Oh really?





See the flashes going up, down and around the building while making popping or exploding sounds? That would be yet another fact. The fact the flashes going up, down and around buildings has only ever been seen in controlled demolitions, no matter what you try to concoct to keep from believing the "9/11 Conspiracy".

That makes two facts of controlled demolitions that were seen at the WTC, but not seen anywhere else in the world throughout our entire history except other controlled demolitions.

Oh, and then there's the fact the no steel-structured highrise has ever completely and fully collapsed due to fires anywhere in the world throughout our entire history. But that's a miracle in and of itself.

Originally posted by GenRadek
there are virtually NO video evidences or audio evidence of "explosives" going off at all. No detonations prior to collapse. None. None recorded, none noticed.

I have no words for your above comments. Seriously. You're either blatantly lying, or you haven't done a lick of 9/11 research. I went into length in my last post about the basement explosions that happened and continued well after the plane strikes and the damage the continued explosions caused to the basement levels and the lobby, which you obviously totally ignored.

I also went into detail about the documentary called "9/11 Eyewitness" that recorded the pre-collapse and during-collapse detonations. "9/11 Eyewitness" recorded 9 or 10 pre-collapse explosions coming from the WTC just before the south tower fell. First responders in the oral histories also testified to this same exact number of pre-collapse explosions before the south tower fell.

Since the explosions in "9/11 Eyewitness" are corroborated by first responders in the oral histories, then you're either being purposefully dishonest or unresearched.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Explosions are heard in a lot of fires. Does that mean explosives were used in them all?

The explosions I'm talking about happened in the lower levels and the basement levels which I explained very well in my previous post and many other posts on ATS. The explosions in the basement levels caused extensive damage to the basement levels and the lobby, killing and severely injuring many people. These explosions in the basement levels were a quarter mile away from any fire, so again your concoction of theory to explain away fact is again visible.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Were there explosions? Yes. Is that conclusive proof or remote evidence of CD? NO.

Explosions being conclusive proof of CD would be no, you're correct there. But the explosions coupled with things that have only ever been seen in CD like flashes going up, down and around the buildings, or concentrated plumes, is conclusive proof of CD.

To conclude, you will continue to be the very definition of "denial disorder" that is posted in my signature due to your ability to concoct theories and inability to accept facts that have only one conclusion.

So. you can continue to make yourself look foolish with every keystroke from your keyboard, but facts are facts and your concoctions can only be seen as denial and ignorance, plain and simple.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


_BoneZ_


I've respected your contributions, man....I really have. you've been valiantly stating your position........

BUT, THAT YOUTUBE VIDEO, in your post, just completely blows your entire theory....dude!!!!

WATCH it again, turn the sound up...and HEAR the explosions!

THEN, think and ponder very, very hard about the speed of SOUND versus the speed of LIGHT!!!!

(HINT...We Humans, see, with our eyes, at the speed of light, of course....we HEAR, with our ears, at the speed of SOUND, based upon the medium the soundis traveling in (for most of us, in air....)



I STILL blame Hollywood, and even some of my favorite Science Fiction movies, and TV series, for causing this problem of perception, in the realm of SOUND....

AND other things, that Hollywood movies got wrong, AS IN planets blowing up, etc.....

ALL of that has colored perceptions, in people's minds, of what they THINK they should see......

THINK on this, please....and I hope you will begin to understand what I'm trying to desribe, here.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by GenRadek
I too have researched these things

I don't see how you possibly could have when:

1.) You can't get the terms right. "Squibs" are actual explosives. What I've pointed out are plumes, jet's of dust/debris, puffs, whatever you want to call them, but they're not squibs.

2.) I don't see how you can possibly come to any conclusion when the plume you referenced get's covered up by the falling building, so the full travel of the plume isn't even visible. Oh wait, you didn't come to any conclusion. You're copy/pasting someone else's conclusion. And of course they have to be correct no matter how incorrect they are because you will never entertain the "9/11 Conspiracy" idea.

Oh Bonez. You point to the "jets" of debris from the WTC and somehow assume they are only found with explosive demolition of buildings. You point to the "jets" from an actual demolition which are caused by explosives, and now you say they are not "squibs" but something else. So are they explosive caused, or are they not? Which is it? Cause right now you are starting to haze the argument with back peddling and twisting and trying to reneg on your original claims:

And you will never find concentrated plumes in natural building collapses because the concentrated plumes are a direct result of explosives, period.

So these plumes are explosive caused? So what type of explosives? Squibs have been thrown around a lot, but now you claim they are not squibs. Fine fine, so what are they now? To me, and the rest of the rational world these "plumes" still do not behave like explosives at all, nor do they appear to be made by explosives. Again, explosives do not create a jet of dust and debris that increases in velocity AFTER they have detonated. So back to square one.

The only other thing I will say about the plumes, because enough has been said already, is that no matter what you make up to explain them away so that you never have to entertain the "9/11 Conspiracy" idea, I guarantee you will never, ever find concentrated plumes such as the following in any other type of building collapse in history other than a controlled demolition:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]

Yes yes, I have seen that lovely picture of the little spurt of dust from the explosives on the actual CD. But I have also watched the video, and what do I see? I see the spurt pop out and subside rapidly. Like a puff! What do I see with the WTC "spurt"? I see a constant jet of dust and debris being forced out increasing in velocity. Nope, nothing like any explosives going off.

So, you go ahead and keep making things up like "those are air being released from pancaking floors", or "elevators dropping to the bottom of their shafts", or any other thing you can concoct just so you don't have to believe a "9/11 Conspiracy". But every time you make something up, it's opinion, conjecture and theories only.

What is not a theory and what is only a fact is you will never, ever, ever, see those concentrated plumes outside of a controlled demolition, period.

I personally don't understand why you even keep making things up to explain the plumes away. When an intelligent person sees that these concentrated plumes have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions, then any "theory" someone else concocts to try to explain them away just goes in one ear and out the other.

Theories hold no weight to facts. Your theories on what the plumes could be hold no weight to the fact of what the plumes have only ever been in our entire history, and that's from explosives in controlled demolitions. I don't know how much more clearer I can make this.

Refresh my memory, when was the last time we eve saw ANY 110 floor building collapse from any explosive or non-explosive reasons? None. So no that argument is baseless.

I'm not making up anything. You are. The "truth" movement is. Making up stories about how super-secret MIB people managed to rig up every floor of the WTC Towers with some sort of special magic explosives or thermite, or thermate, or super-paint-on thermite that explodes, that explode silently and are unheard until the building is already collapsing, but for some reason they still need to detonate every single floor all the way to the base as if the top crumbling down isnt enough to do the job.

Now, when was the last time you ever saw an explosive detonate, with its initial high velocity, and then actually INCREASE in velocity 2-3 seconds after detonation? Please tell me what explosives do that. Because THIS is what you are trying to argue with. A "plume" which is actually a jet of pressurized air from the collapsing building exiting through one broken window (maybe two, hard to tell) which is at the location of the mechanical floors for the elevators. The only "explosive" type material that can nearly do the same thing is a rocket engine which upon ignition can throttle up or down its jet of exhaust. But thats apples to oranges here. So now unless you can direct me, or show me a video where an explosion's blast actually increases in velocity 2-3 seconds after the detonation, I'd be most interested.

BTW.

1000 members isn't even 1/10th of 1% of licensed Engineers, much less architects, in America.

So, not a huge number at all.

reply to post by GenRadek

 

Originally posted by GenRadek
You report the accounts of the firefighters that saw "flashes" which could have been anything

Oh really?

See the flashes going up, down and around the building while making popping or exploding sounds? That would be yet another fact. The fact the flashes going up, down and around buildings has only ever been seen in controlled demolitions, no matter what you try to concoct to keep from believing the "9/11 Conspiracy".

That makes two facts of controlled demolitions that were seen at the WTC, but not seen anywhere else in the world throughout our entire history except other controlled demolitions.

Oh, and then there's the fact the no steel-structured highrise has ever completely and fully collapsed due to fires anywhere in the world throughout our entire history. But that's a miracle in and of itself.

Originally posted by GenRadek
there are virtually NO video evidences or audio evidence of "explosives" going off at all. No detonations prior to collapse. None. None recorded, none noticed.

I have no words for your above comments. Seriously. You're either blatantly lying, or you haven't done a lick of 9/11 research. I went into length in my last post about the basement explosions that happened and continued well after the plane strikes and the damage the continued explosions caused to the basement levels and the lobby, which you obviously totally ignored.

I also went into detail about the documentary called "9/11 Eyewitness" that recorded the pre-collapse and during-collapse detonations. "9/11 Eyewitness" recorded 9 or 10 pre-collapse explosions coming from the WTC just before the south tower fell. First responders in the oral histories also testified to this same exact number of pre-collapse explosions before the south tower fell.

Since the explosions in "9/11 Eyewitness" are corroborated by first responders in the oral histories, then you're either being purposefully dishonest or unresearched.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Explosions are heard in a lot of fires. Does that mean explosives were used in them all?

The explosions I'm talking about happened in the lower levels and the basement levels which I explained very well in my previous post and many other posts on ATS. The explosions in the basement levels caused extensive damage to the basement levels and the lobby, killing and severely injuring many people. These explosions in the basement levels were a quarter mile away from any fire, so again your concoction of theory to explain away fact is again visible.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Were there explosions? Yes. Is that conclusive proof or remote evidence of CD? NO.

Explosions being conclusive proof of CD would be no, you're correct there. But the explosions coupled with things that have only ever been seen in CD like flashes going up, down and around the buildings, or concentrated plumes, is conclusive proof of CD.

To conclude, you will continue to be the very definition of "denial disorder" that is posted in my signature due to your ability to concoct theories and inability to accept facts that have only one conclusion.

So. you can continue to make yourself look foolish with every keystroke from your keyboard, but facts are facts and your concoctions can only be seen as denial and ignorance, plain and simple.

I ahve also watched 9/11 Eyewitness, a long time ago, and found it to be a well edited piece of bunk.

For one thing I find simply amazing that he managed to record "explosions" all the way across the waters in Hoboken, while the hundreds of cameras and videos that were less than a block away from the base of the WTCs didnt pick up anything at all. Now that is simply stunning. More magic explosives? Also what do I hear when I watch it? I hear something called, wind! Wind on a microphone! I mean come on, trying to fool people into believing that wind on a microphone are "explosives" going off? And you tout THIS tripe as evidence? Who is making stuff up again??

That poor excuse for a video is well debunked here:
9/11 Eyewitness: Sensationalism
Also here and explained.


Now why can't I hear any "explosions" here?



Now you mean to tell me that someone miles and miles away across the waters in Hoboken can pick up distant "explosions" but someone who is about 4 -5 blocks away doesnt pick up anything at all?

[edit on 2/24/2010 by GenRadek]

The collapses started where the planes hit... how'd that happen?

There's NO evidence of the hundreds of timed explosions in two seperate buildings that would be needed to demo the buildings.

You would see them for one thing... and the sound of the explosions would've been heard my THOUSANDS of people...

How did thousands of people miss hundreds of timed flashes and explosions?

reply to post by seethelight

Arguing that after the untold gazillions of dollars spent in black budget testing of things like explosives the alleged planted detonation charges were some off the shelf supplies and not specially formulated to the exact requirements of this key bit of a spectacle is as unbelievable as saying the Pentacon only had that one camera to give that crappy bit of film,etc.In other words,your alleged needed explosions,with the usual sounds and flashes,completely ignores the common sense position that the boyz in black hats might have had something special in their arse-nal.Besides being TRAITORS.Allegedly.

Originally posted by trueforger
reply to post by seethelight

 

Arguing that after the untold gazillions of dollars spent in black budget testing of things like explosives the alleged planted detonation charges were some off the shelf supplies and not specially formulated to the exact requirements of this key bit of a spectacle is as unbelievable as saying the Pentacon only had that one camera to give that crappy bit of film,etc.In other words,your alleged needed explosions,with the usual sounds and flashes,completely ignores the common sense position that the boyz in black hats might have had something special in their arse-nal.Besides being TRAITORS.Allegedly.

Ah, the ever popular "black ops" argument. The bottomless bag of alien technology that anybody can reach into and pull out anything, limited only by the imagination. You can almost imagine Rod Serling, with his lipless grimace describing spooky explosives, installed by spooky men just around the bend in the "Truther Zone".

Originally posted by weedwhacker
WATCH it again, turn the sound up...and HEAR the explosions!

Go to Google Video, search for "9/11 Eyewitness", turn the sound up...and HEAR the explosions!

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Ahem, why cant I hear anything here???



Its only a few blocks from the WTC. Why arent the "powerful detonations" that can be heard clear across Hoboken, not be heard a few blocks away?

reply to post by trueforger


Ahh yes, the, "my faith allows me to invent secret weapons" arguement.

Does it also explain how you can make air rapidly expand hundreds of times without producing a distinctive pattern of sound?

Cause there's not one in any of the videos?

This is a GREAT example of faith: I have my belief and I'll do whatever it takes to justify my belief.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Controlled demo of two 100 storey building would take HUNDREDS of TIMED explosions.

Where's the video showing that again...?

Riiiight, it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Cause right now you are starting to haze the argument with back peddling and twisting and trying to reneg on your original claims

My "original claims" are the same since I've joined ATS. Feel free to view my post history in my profile to confirm that. I think you're purposefully being dishonest about my "original claims" so that you can look like the good little debunker and try to catch a truther "reneging, back peddling and twisting". Nice try, but my post history shows you to be the one who's doing the twisting and being dishonest.

Suffice it to say, I'll no longer discuss anything CD related with you as you not only haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, you can't comprehend the simplest things I say. Or you're just ignoring what I say and not even trying to comprehend.

Originally posted by GenRadek
For one thing I find simply amazing that he managed to record "explosions" all the way across the waters in Hoboken, while the hundreds of cameras and videos that were less than a block away from the base of the WTCs didnt pick up anything at all.

There weren't "hundreds" of cameras and videos. More like dozens. Either way, I've already explained in detail in this thread and many others and I'm not going to explain videography to you again. You ask a question, it's answered. You ignore the answer and ask the same question again. It's getting old.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Also what do I hear when I watch it? I hear something called, wind! Wind on a microphone! I mean come on, trying to fool people into believing that wind on a microphone are "explosives" going off?

Come on! Trying to fool people into believing that magical, intelligent wind knew to blow at the exact moment each WTC tower collapsed and for the full duration of each collapse? Hilarious! As usual, whatever you have to concoct to keep from believing the conspiracy, I guess.

Originally posted by GenRadek
That poor excuse for a video is well debunked here:
9/11 Eyewitness: Sensationalism

First and foremost, I will say that Siegel's interpretations are bunk. I'll give you that, but that's all you get. I'll now inform you how wrong and unresearched these "debunker" websites are that you seem to love to peddle and copy/paste from.

From the website you linked to:

the vast body of oral histories by emergency responders released in mid-2005 contains numerous accounts of explosion sounds at the onset of the (collapse) of each Tower, but apparently does not contain accounts of such sounds occurring before the (collapses).

Completely false. Just skimming the beginning of the Oral Histories turns up this, for example:

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)

Ten explosions before the south tower collapses he says? From "9/11 Eyewitness":

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b03b63d8cee2.jpg[/atsimg]

So Firefighter Craig Carlsen hears about 10 explosions before the south tower collapsed over a several minute period, and "9/11 Eyewitness" just happens to record just that same amount?

That brings us back to GenRadek's magical, intelligent wind. GenRadek's magical, intelligent wind knew to blow 9 or 10 times just before the south tower collapsed. The wind was also intelligent enough to blow at the precise moment each WTC building collapsed and for the duration of each collapse. That is some mightily intelligent wind there, GenRadek! I wonder why the world never knew about this intelligent wind before?

I guess you would have to concoct things like saying the explosions in "9/11 Eyewitness" are just wind, even though your magical, intelligent wind is corroborated by firefighters. I guess you'd have to call the firefighters liars also so that you can continue your denial to keep from believing a 9/11 conspiracy.

Next your debunker website says:

Other witnesses in the vicinity of the Towers also did not hear the alleged explosions long before the collapses.

More falsehoods. This is proven false just by going to the television archive and watching the newscasts of 9/11. There are dozens of witnesses that talk about the explosions before collapses. And there's even numerous reporters that talk about the explosions before the collapses.

You can YouTube FDNY firefighter John Schroeder and listen to him talk about numerous powerful explosions well before either tower collapsed.

The person that wrote your debunker website must've been living under a rock not to know this easily verifiable information.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ahem, why cant I hear anything here???

I can't answer why you can't hear anything. I hear a massive explosion just as the south tower starts to collapse. In fact, I hear a massive explosion in just about every video of the south tower starting to collapse. Maybe get some new speakers with a subwoofer so you can feel your magical, intelligent wind.

Makes one wonder how firefighters could mistake magical, intelligent wind blowing 9 or 10 times for 9 or 10 pre-collapse explosions. I can't fathom explosions and blowing wind to even be remotely relative. Unless you're from a different universe where physics are different from this universe.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

....
_BoneZ_


I respected you, and your viewpoint....and tried to respectfully debate with you, on our difference of opinion.....but then you wrote this:

That brings us back to GenRadek's magical, intelligent wind. GenRadek's magical, intelligent wind knew to blow 9 or 10 times just before the south tower collapsed.

Did I take that snippet, out of context in any way??? Because to me, sitting here at the computer, reading it....what IS the context?? Did I misunderstand this, take it out of context???

because, sorry for being repetitive....but I see a bit of antagonistic skew in that post, in your response to "GenRadek"