WTC 2 - South Tower Explosions Visible - Extreme Slow Motion

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
reply to post by skeptic_al

 

So why do you care then? If this is just bunk, why are you wasting your time here? Surely you must have better things to do then to argue with what you consider fools.

And if it just bunk why do more Americans believe this "bunk" then not? And feel to argue otherwise, but your mistaken.

So enlighten me, as I am honestly curious as to what motivates you here and what your goal is, and why you waste so much time discussing"bunk" with strangers on the internet?

Cheers-
Phil

And if it just bunk why do more Americans believe this "bunk" then not?

I wouldn't say more, but it is a lot.
Could it be as simple as what Bush said once:
"You Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda"

Why did more Americans vote for Dubya than Not, the second time around???
Seriously WHY?

Thing is this:
The US may be gearing up for another war in the not to distant future,
and the situation in Mid-East has still not been resolved, nor has the US
involvement in the Mid-East, nor has the US changed it's relationship with Israel,
or changed it's policies with respect to Israel. Every thing is exactly the same
as it was before 2001. It's a Work In Progress, that has no End.
And this was the whole basis of the Terrorist Attack.

I guess the last thing I want to see is another Fake War, based on False
Information, just to keep Israel happy.
Although, it will make watching TV a bit more Interesting. As theres not
a lot on lately of any Interest.

reply to post by REMISNE


Sure, you can let it happen, and I don't dispute that.

But WHY did THEY want to do it in FIRST Place.
That's the real question. And that applies to Both Events, even though they
were not releated but similar.
Boredom, 15 Minutes of Fame, there has to be reason why both of these
events were even dreamed up.

Originally posted by skeptic_al
And the sooner Amercians discover this is just Bunk, the sooner they
will stumble on to the real reason for the terrorist attack.

I can assure you that nobody will discover anything is bunk when it comes from you since you like to purposely and blatantly say untruthful and dishonest things and twist the facts.






[edit on 4-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I refuse to look up any more references because you talk mean to me.
Say you're sorry.

reply to post by skeptic_al
part post by Septic Al,

"You Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda"

Isn't that just one of the saddest Bushisms, You know, at one point I genuinely thought that you were G.W. himself when rebrowsing your posts, now I'm sure. The net result, you have succeeded in messing up a decent, albeit not perfect, thread about the South Tower, to the point that yet another alternative 9/11 debate is going into oblivion by obfuscating bullshy. So congratulations.

Originally posted by skeptic_al
Why did more Americans vote for Dubya than Not, the second time around???
Seriously WHY?

When people say things that are so blatantly not true, it either means they are too ignorant to say anything or lying. When they have to drift way off topic to do it, it seems a bit suspect. This is what the ignore button must be for.

Originally posted by spy66


Its true. shaped charges with Thermite would have to be placed quite close to the metal it is going to cut. But the charges can be calculated to make them work.

What would be the logical pint of using a shape charge with thermite rather than the standard copper?

The purpose of the explosive is to turn the copper into plasma, and shoot it in a specific direction. Thsi happens in a milisecond.

Does thermxte make it go quicker?

Does thermxte allow less explosive to be used?

Are you aware that Steven Jones and harrit BOTH have stated that thermxte was just a fuse that would set off the conventional explosive, which would presumably use the standard copper/plasma scheme?

Do you have any data at all to support your statement?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Cutter charges only work when they're at a certain distance from the material being cut.

Cutter (shaped) charges are placed on and wrapped around the steel beams they're cutting. I don't know where you learned your information from, but you probably shouldn't look at that source again. Care to post that source, by the way? I'd like to see where you're getting your inaccurate information from.

I don't know where you learned your information from, but you probably shouldn't look at that source again. Care to post that source, by the way? I'd like to see where you're getting your inaccurate information from.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


So you copy my post and make it your post? That tells me that you don't have a source and you're making stuff up. Thanks for showing everyone that you're not interested in any form of adult debate.





[edit on 4-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by skeptic_al

 

part post by Septic Al,

"You Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda"

Isn't that just one of the saddest Bushisms, You know, at one point I genuinely thought that you were G.W. himself when rebrowsing your posts, now I'm sure. The net result, you have succeeded in messing up a decent, albeit not perfect, thread about the South Tower, to the point that yet another alternative 9/11 debate is going into oblivion by obfuscating bullshy. So congratulations.

All threads are the same.
If somebody says they have Jesus on Toast, there are going to be some saying WOW,
that's amazing, it's a Miracle. And there will those saying it's a Fake. In this case peoples will to
believe is stronger than the possibility of it being real.
You can also replace the Jesus on Toast with UFO and it still works to.

It is very Important that both sides argue their respective side.
And with respect to the WTC I have not seen any Proof that could be called
definative Proof, without a doubt.

Proof would be, somebody seeing something suspicious in the building prior,
somebody who laid the explosives, evidence of explosive damage on
steel, or even a dud charge, a tranfer order for tons of explosives prior.



G.W.B, good one.
I Promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here.
I miss me.

Originally posted by skeptic_al
Why did more Americans vote for Dubya than Not, the second time around???

You must've been asleep at the wheel for the election fraud of 2000 and 2004. The beginning of my thread below talks about the election fraud and has a couple documentaries. All you need to do is Google "Election fraud 2000" or "Election Fraud 2004" and the links are in abundance.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Get researched.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

So you copy my post and make it your post? That tells me that you don't have a source and you're making stuff up. Thanks for showing everyone that you're just here to play childish games instead of any form of adult debate.

So instead of proving a source for your claim - since you made the FIRST claim - you feel like there is no need, and you are correct in your claim due to the bare assertion fallacy? That tells me that you don't have a source and you're making stuff up. Thanks for showing everyone that you're just here to play childish games instead of any form of adult debate.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


I asked you for a source first. You either oblige or concede. Instead you'd rather play games. Your choice. You're the one looking foolish, not I.

Well the good thing about this is that this is just a discussion. It dosent matter if anything gets debunked on this site. Personally i dont even think any of you really care by how you people are going at each other.
All you people are doing is create a conflict among your self. How is that going to do any good?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by skeptic_al
Why did more Americans vote for Dubya than Not, the second time around???

You must've been asleep at the wheel for the election fraud of 2000 and 2004. The beginning of my thread below talks about the election fraud and has a couple documentaries. All you need to do is Google "Election fraud 2000" or "Election Fraud 2004" and the links are in abundance.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Get researched.

I talked to an American about this a few years ago.
There wasn't anything he didn't know about Politics.
He was quite mystified as to why Bush won, even without ticket machines scams,
he believed more people still voted for Bush. They were conned
with the Better the Devil you know approach.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


I asked you for a source first. You either oblige or concede. Instead you'd rather play games. Your choice. You're the one looking foolish, not I.

You made the claim first - that there wouldn't need to be much prep work, just "install" the explosives.

Since extensive prep work is the norm, you need to back up your extraordinary claim with some evidence.

You either oblige or concede. Instead you'd rather play games. Your choice. You're the one looking foolish, not I.

Originally posted by skeptic_al

Originally posted by chunder

Originally posted by skeptic_al

This really isn't a difficult concept, What would happen if you banged a
2 Meter hole in a wall in your house. Is the roof going to stay in exactly the
same place.

But this seems to be the concept you aren't getting.

If you banged a 2m hole in a wall in your house NOTHING would happen.

Even if you put the hole in a supporting wall.

Even if you then set fire to your house.

The impact didn't destroy enough of the internal support columns to cause collapse, otherwise it would have occurred at impact.

So what caused the collapse ?

How silly of me not to realise that.

Just because there are dirty great big chunks missing, why should it
collapse.

Your right, It could only of collapsed with the aid of Explosives.
Thankyou for pointing that out.

Where did I point out that it was explosives ?

However they are a possible explanation - especially in the absence of others.

The dirty great big chunks were missing from the moment of impact.

The building did not collapse at the moment of impact.

So what caused the collapse ?

reply to post by chunder


What caused it collapse?

Like anything be it plastic, wood, steel or concrete when something
is fractured it can no longer support what it was designed to do.

You could have a crack on car gearbox, it will still work for a while
then suddenly bam, catastropic failure.

This applies to everything, my laptop could have small crack on the lid,
and one day bam it;s totally stuffed. Lids in one hand and keyboard in
the other.

There is also the Rostraver Ice Rink Roof collapse, the whole roof didn't
collapse at the same time. It would have been a progressive failure all
happening in a fraction of a second.

Just because it didn't crumble in the first 5 minutes, doesn't mean it
will stay up days, months, years. It was destiny that broke it.
I was surprised it lasted 50 minutes, And I remember saying something
like I'll give it half an hour.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You made the claim first - that there wouldn't need to be much prep work, just "install" the explosives.

Since extensive prep work is the norm, you need to back up your extraordinary claim with some evidence.

This is all hypothetical speculation to explain an unknown variable.

But all this speculation is really unnecessary.

The real issue is that no one has proven it is physically possible for buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other unknown variable.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You made the claim first - that there wouldn't need to be much prep work, just "install" the explosives.

Since extensive prep work is the norm, you need to back up your extraordinary claim with some evidence.

This is all hypothetical speculation to explain an unknown variable.

But all this speculation is really unnecessary.

The real issue is that no one has proven it is physically possible for buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other unknown variable.

This logic is a bit like proving somebody did NOT stab somebody to
death as opposed to proving they did stab them to death.