Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
what demolitions grade explosive would create a white smoke vs a black smoke.

That is exactly one of the questions that will be answered in my documentary. I'll be contacting a few demotion companies to ask some questions and the question about what type of explosive/incendiary that would cause white smoke is one of them.

Hilarious.

Prior to this, Bonez has stated that different explosives will give off white smoke, and others black.

Now he admits he has no clue and has been lying about whether or not this is a fact.

IOW, in typical truther fashion, he BELIEVES this to be true, therefore it MUST be true.

I do not believe the official story but at the same time I do believe something impacted the Pentagon. CIT did a great job in finding the witnesses that disproved the flight path but still there are some problems that cannot be resolved in my mind.

IMO there is no way a generator with damage was prepositioned as a cover story, much less the surrounding fence damage as well. Something had to hit the generator.

At one time I believed even the fireball of the Pentagon was wrong, but....if something struck the generator then it is possible the fireball that rolled over the building was the generator's fuel and not aircraft fuel.

Still baffled,

Rich

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
what demolitions grade explosive would create a white smoke vs a black smoke.

That is exactly one of the questions that will be answered in my documentary. I'll be contacting a few demotion companies to ask some questions and the question about what type of explosive/incendiary that would cause white smoke is one of them.

Hilarious.

Prior to this, Bonez has stated that different explosives will give off white smoke, and others black.

Now he admits he has no clue and has been lying about whether or not this is a fact.

IOW, in typical truther fashion, he BELIEVES this to be true, therefore it MUST be true.

Are you actually claiming that he is WRONG on that point? It sounds to me like you are trying to twist what he said and make connections that don't exist. It is scientific fact that different elements and compounds respond to rapid oxidation in different ways. Always there is a byproduct, in most cases visible. With high temperatures as in 9/11, this would be expected.

In the photo of the support column, there is definitely some unique smoke present. If it were cement or drywall or paint, it wouldn't just be spewing from the ends. Furthermore, in that explanation it should be the same color as the surrounding dust, and is clearly a stark white, while the surrounding dust is darker. It's probably impossible to determine what it IS, but it is rather easy to determine what it is NOT.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Son of Will]

We have a photographer and hanger-on stating his opinions. Claims are now being made of RF controlled demolitions but there is no evidence of any high-brisant explosions. Squibs are back in the picture but no one has ever explained how a squib could silenty cause collapse of a large building. The smell of "cordite" was brought up. One assumes the witness meant burning "cordite" or something similar. This smell is not diagnostic of the source and is due to nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen oxides occur in any high temperature combustion event, such as a fireball from burning jet fuel.

No one in their right mind can disupte the fact that the collapses look like a controlled demolition.

Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

Yet in another interview of demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."


Why do so many experts say that it was a controlled demolition and so many experts say that it was not a controlled demolition?

Why is it that with every major event (pearl harbor, JFK assassination, MLK assassination, lunar landing, 9/11, WWI, WWII) there are conspiracy theories to go along with them?

Originally posted by iamcpc

Why is it that with every major event (pearl harbor, JFK assassination, MLK assassination, lunar landing, 9/11, WWI, WWII) there are conspiracy theories to go along with them?

People need reassurance. It's bewilderingly hard to understand why bad things happen and some people find that daunting, so they invent a simpler, comic-book style solution.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by iamcpc

Why is it that with every major event (pearl harbor, JFK assassination, MLK assassination, lunar landing, 9/11, WWI, WWII) there are conspiracy theories to go along with them?

People need reassurance. It's bewilderingly hard to understand why bad things happen and some people find that daunting, so they invent a simpler, comic-book style solution.

I can accept that answer. What about answering the other question:

Why do so many experts say that it was a controlled demolition and so many experts say that it was not a controlled demolition?

Why do people like bonez chose to ignore the evidence that points away from demolition and why do debunkers chose to ignore that it looked like a controlled demolition?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

In either case, not reading your own source is very poor posting and leaves us with nothing positive to say whatsoever. I refuse to be "debunked" by ignorance however. Please elaborate, or even begin to explain what "that was easy" meant. Other than of course its easy to cut and paste non sequitur responses.

I actually showed why "cordite" has no significance whatsoever to what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

And, BTW, "...you don't really care about what happened that day" is a personal attack, n'est pas?






[edit on 9-5-2010 by jthomas]

How did you show that cordite has no significance whatsoever? You linked to an article that said cordite had been in production for a century, and the production ceased quite recently before 911. There is an overabundance of the stuff.

And no, the "you don't really care" comment is because you posted an article that you did not read. That is the definition of ignorance. You write on a 10th grade level (that's quite high in fact) so I must assume that you actually comprehend the article, you just choose to ignore it.

I could easily say you are being ignorant intentionally, but that would certainly be a personal attack.

TBH, I cant say why you post the things you do, all I can do is correct you, which I have. There was plenty of cordite available in 2001, according to wikipedia.

Instead of answering each question individually, here is the information I am looking for. In this photo you see a cutaway of a RB-211; the heat exchanger is the shell casing that surrounds the compressor hubs; there are 12 compressor hubs and 1 turbo hub; the casing is used to quickly displace the heat from the centrifuge; the next photo is the casing fully intact; the photo after is a RB-211 crashed landed into the ground from 500' at full throttle; as you can see in this photo the heat exchanger is still fully intact; all of the outer piping has been torn off the outside heat shield but, the core structure is very much intact.

I would also like for someone to tell me how an engine that weights 59,000lbs and 9' 6" Diameter does not appear to have made an impact crater; oh and mind you there are two of these?

As for my creation of a "STRAWMAN" as you put it; this is sheer physics and outright logic; if you have a problem dealing with logic then I cannot help you.

People can debate who blew up what; and if there was or was not explosives involved; to me none of that makes a bit of difference; simply look at the structural damage done to the Pentagon; all of the 9/11 truthers would do themselves and the rest of the truth movement a much bigger service by concentrating on science; for the science will set you free.

Picking a battle that cannot be proved or disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt; is simply a waste of energy and brain power. They have not proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a 757 hit the Pentagon; in fact I would go as far as saying, that from the damage that appears to the Pentagon, that a Tomahawk Missile was the culprit not a 757 with dual RB-211's. I say this only because, I have seen first hand the damage a Tomahawk does to buildings up close and personal during the first Gulf War; serving as an Officer with the 1st SFOD-D.








Respectfully

MolecularPHD

Originally posted by jprophet420

How did you show that cordite has no significance whatsoever? You linked to an article that said cordite had been in production for a century, and the production ceased quite recently before 911. There is an overabundance of the stuff.

Where?

TBH, I cant say why you post the things you do, all I can do is correct you, which I have. There was plenty of cordite available in 2001, according to wikipedia.

Actually, you haven't shown where or how it was used since it ceased production, why, or for what it was produced.

If you really think there was any significance, please let us know what, why, how and show the significance you claim it has on 9/11 at the Pentagon.

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
I Know I'm going to get flamed for this and that's fine. I'm just asking an innocent question and hope for a constructive answer:

Let's say if the OS is indeed true, isn't it possible that explosives in the World Trade Center buildings were planted by Muslim terrorists and not by Agents who work for the government like many 9/11 truthers believe. (At least that's what I'd imagine they'd believe in)

Once again, I'm just asking. Thank you!

There's no need for flaming, here. You're simply asking an honest question.

The problem isn't with the existence of explosives, per se, since muslim terrorists bombed the WTC in 1993. The problem is with the impact of the hijacked aircraft, since all authorities with real experience in such fields agree that the planes caused the initial structural failure in some way (they just disagree as to what it was that failed first). The conspiracy people here are claiming that for some undeterminable reason, the conspirators used hijacked planes as a cover story to conceal the bombs, and they concentrate on the imagined bombs with such zealotey that they completely ignore the fact that the towers even were hit by planes. Once the conspiracy people grant themselves license to manufacture such accusations as they go along, it opens the flood gate to every goofball conspiracy claim under the sun.

At the end of the day, the fact still remains that the building started to collapse at the point of impact of the planes, where substancial damage from the impact and the subsequent fires makes the survival of any bombs unlikely. That doesn't even account that the towers were occupied buildings and the occupants would certainly notice any such sabotage, particulary when whey were on the lookout for such sabotage since the first bombing in 1993.

If these conspiracy people find the scenario of the plane impact and the subsequent fires to be unsatisfactory, I can accept that, but that does NOT in any way give them license to invent all these crackpot accusations fueled by their own abject paranoia.

In order to put this to rest for those paying attention, let me put forth a reason for the second plane seen passing over the pentagon. Lets say that you wanted to make it appear that a 757 hit a building, so you first strike the building with a missile of some sort; you then would need to point at something that actually did the damage; so you drop parts that are identifiable as belonging to an RB-211; except you cant drop the whole engine; "Why you may ask?" well the answer is simple; all Rolls Royce Engines have numbers stamped on the inner shell casing just like the vin on your automobile; if the Rb-211 were to be found mostly intact you would have a paper trail leading to the location of sale; buyer, the plane that it was installed on and hence you would have the tail numbers of that plane; point in fact if you were trying to cover something up you would obviously make sure any parts found were small enough to cover your tracks.

I find it interesting that the FAA always does a complete rebuild of the aircraft from wreckage found at the impact site; and when they have completed their findings they always show pictures of this to the public, until 9/11? Why did the FAA change the standard protocol when dealing with the public? The FAA does this usual publicity stunt to assure the public that not only did they find the cause of a crash but, to assure the public that it is safe to fly. Now you will simply say well they did not need to perform this as the cause of the crash was obviously a deliberate impact; and I would agree with your assumption but, the fact of the matter is the FAA would have had a reason to show these to the public to assure the public they were doing everything in their power to find the people responsible; and to help the victims families rest easier knowing that someone in a government capacity was doing something.

I would also ask "Why are there no photos of partially intact wing sections, partially intact cabin sections showing seats, partially intact tail section with flight numbers, or any photos showing large cargo containers with which they use to house your luggage? They would simply like all of us to believe that the major portions of a 757 simply was destroyed into its own impact Crater; this is not logical by any stretch of the imagination; however small or large that maybe. The following are a few photos I thought would fit what I am talking about.










These two separate aircraft both were reported to have crashed at over 400 miles an hour.




This photo is my favorite as it makes me laugh every time I see this photo; you may ask "WHY'? is that so funny to you because, the compressor hub (which is what is in the photo) of a RB-211 is 4'3" in diameter that is the hub without the fans attached (the overall size is 74.3"), now you tell me why it is funny?







This is a photo of a very similar engine used in the Tomahawk; as you can see it is visibly smaller but, the diameter of the compressor hub is 27.4" or 2.28'; you decided which is which.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

Originally posted by Son of Will

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
what demolitions grade explosive would create a white smoke vs a black smoke.

That is exactly one of the questions that will be answered in my documentary. I'll be contacting a few demotion companies to ask some questions and the question about what type of explosive/incendiary that would cause white smoke is one of them.

Hilarious.

Prior to this, Bonez has stated that different explosives will give off white smoke, and others black.

Now he admits he has no clue and has been lying about whether or not this is a fact.

IOW, in typical truther fashion, he BELIEVES this to be true, therefore it MUST be true.

Are you actually claiming that he is WRONG on that point?

No.

I'm saying that HE'S been saying that it is a fact.....

And he's admitted that he has zero support of this.

Therefore, it is NOT a fact, but a belief.

Originally posted by MolecularPhD

I would also like for someone to tell me how an engine that weights 59,000lbs

The reason everyone's ignoring you is because this is just so abysmally wrong, that there's zero point to trying to have a discussion with you.

Do more research.