"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 61
17
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


You make a lot of unsupported assumptions very quickly. It's no wonder you can only imagine demolition as the answer.




posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


So how do you calculate how must dust there should have been do YOU know how much dust the following would produce.

Thousands of sq mtrs of sheet rock!
The sprayed on fire protection!
Paint dust!
Dust built up over the years in lift shafts and other building spaces!
Impact damge to concrete!

Not much debris just f******






You guys make some assumptions based on exactly what! knowledge,experience or could it just be BS!



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Ok ..... since your being ... sensible


Look at those pictures of ground zero ........... then since you dont seem to know what im talking about , may i suggest you actually look into pancake collapses and compare them to the rubble left at ground zero ..... once you have something reasonable to say ... get back to me.

Oh and impact damage to concrete ? i`m guessing you dont mean just the area of impact ... infact im hoping thats not what you mean....... i hope you mean the amount of concrete that was oblitorated from all parts of the towers ?



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


You make a lot of unsupported assumptions very quickly. It's no wonder you can only imagine demolition as the answer.


Haha yeah ... its no wonder


Still waiting for your own scientific and mathematical understanding of what happened that day ..... atleast point out where im wrong here ....... and i didnt come to any "unsupported assumpitons very quickly" ... as i have said , i have been looking into this for years now ..... i know what im talking about .. unlike some



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


You make a lot of unsupported assumptions very quickly. It's no wonder you can only imagine demolition as the answer.


Haha yeah ... its no wonder


Still waiting for your own scientific and mathematical understanding of what happened that day ..... atleast point out where im wrong here ....... and i didnt come to any "unsupported assumpitons very quickly" ... as i have said , i have been looking into this for years now ..... i know what im talking about .. unlike some


Does it mean nothing to you that I told you I'm trying not to make assumptions? If I make a list of what I currently accept, then it will be meaningless. Your appeal to your own authority is noted.

I'm not a mathematician, an engineer, or a physicist. I can't explain these things in a satisfactory manner, so I prefer to refer to the people who can. Just because you can't deal, doesn't mean you're right. It makes you a little ridiculous. This is a forum for debate, not for standing on a moral high ground. So, think highly of yourself all you want. I already told you that your "opinion" is useless if you refuse to look at things objectively.



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
Oh and impact damage to concrete ? i`m guessing you dont mean just the area of impact ... infact im hoping thats not what you mean....... i hope you mean the amount of concrete that was oblitorated from all parts of the towers ?


Yeah, by the collapsing tower. How does it not compute that explosives would have been perennially obvious from many other venues in the magnitude you are suggesting? Just listen to the charges going off in every demolition video, ever. Why aren't these heard at all in the 9/11 videos?



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
They ARE heard in 911 videos ..... theres actually one i`d like you to look at and tell me what you hear and see :

www.youtube.com...

Sorry but ^^^THAT^^^ is not burning kerosene or melting plastic bro


And i`m not thinking highly of myself ..... infact im tired of even explaining to you .... look at your posts to me and my posts to you on the past few pages ...... and tell me who is being ridiculous.
The way you were putting yourself across earlier in the thread was asthough you have some amazing knowladge that laughs in the face of phsyics , i just wanted to hear it , but it turns out its the same old tripe weve heard for years now.

Also heres a compilation of videos with clear explosion sounds - www.youtube.com... -

And here is William Rodriguez explaining his story - www.youtube.com... -
edit on 21-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


First video has no explosive sound, and looks more like compressed air being shoved out by a local collapse. The second video is fake, and has been proven fake for a long time. Just ask everyone here, including the Truthers. It is well known to be fake except by the faithful who believe every hoax that comes out.

The last one is debatable, as the guy couldn't possibly have seen the plane, so what he felt cannot be placed on an accurate timeline. Jet fuel did go down elevator shafts and blow out elevators all the way down. This is fact.



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Oh so you dont beleive firemen , now you dont beleive another hero ? dude .... what will it take for you to drop what you have been told ?

You do know that thermite its self doesnt actually explode like c4 would right ?

That guy was blown out of the window .... you can clearly hear he pop when the smoke starts to pour out then you see some poor soul zoom out of the _... given the fact that thermite alone wouldnt blow him out like that , there was obviously another force there .... i`d like you to explain what it was if it wasnt explosives .... bearing in mind this is before the tower is collapsing so it cant be air preassure.

And the video you say is fake ...... maybe the first part of it yes .... i actually thought it was a little odd myself... but what about the other clips in that video , you know , the ones which were recorded from cnn and stuff ? theyre fake too ? so you admit the media were selling a lie ?

check this out - > www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Ok ..... since your being ... sensible


Look at those pictures of ground zero ........... then since you dont seem to know what im talking about , may i suggest you actually look into pancake collapses and compare them to the rubble left at ground zero ..... once you have something reasonable to say ... get back to me.

Oh and impact damage to concrete ? i`m guessing you dont mean just the area of impact ... infact im hoping thats not what you mean....... i hope you mean the amount of concrete that was oblitorated from all parts of the towers ?


The concrete in the floor slabs was 41/2" thick even if all that concrete was placed nice and gently on top of each other it would be about 40ft high now since the top floor dropped from slightly over 1360 ft with each floor below that 12 ft less for each floor are you really that daft to expect a nice neat stack below


Here is just one image of a debris pile



Plenty on the net to look at!



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


you must be "daft" to think such a thing was at ground zero....

Plenty pictures of that on the web .... make a point worth making pal.

3rd



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You're forgetting the steel pans, the trusses, the room contents, the steel from the core, that would all contribute to the rubble pile.

But regardless the very OS you are supporting agrees with us...



The OSers debunked by their own OS lol.

edit on 10/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



2nd
3rd
4th
5th



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008




You don't see in those pics how the debris is outside of the footprints? A pancake collapse does not have the energy to both collapse from its own weight, and eject all the rubble horizontally. That is why pancake collapses are never complete collapses, there is always floors piled up in the footprint, the 'pancakes', that is how it gets it's name you know.

edit on 10/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper


That guy was blown out of the window .... you can clearly hear he pop when the smoke starts to pour out then you see some poor soul zoom out of the _... given the fact that thermite alone wouldnt blow him out like that , there was obviously another force there .... i`d like you to explain what it was if it wasnt explosives .... bearing in mind this is before the tower is collapsing so it cant be air preassure.
.





That is not a guy being blown out the window it's a bird screen. The mechanical floors had vents all the way around them. They also had screens to keep birds from nesting in the vents. The mechanical floors also contained the air-condition units which had compressed gas. Now see if you can figure out the rest from there.


Photo of mechanical floor showing vents




Bird screen hanging from mechanical floor after jet fuel explosion in elevator shaft.




posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wmd_2008




You don't see in those pics how the debris is outside of the footprints? A pancake collapse does not have the energy to both collapse from its own weight, and eject all the rubble horizontally. That is why pancake collapses are never complete collapses, there is always floors piled up in the footprint, the 'pancakes', that is how it gets it's name you know.

edit on 10/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo


A pancake collapse or correct name PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE is called a pancake because compared to before the collapse the end result is a fraction of the height ie as flat as a pancake.

Now in the above pictures you have steelwork from the walls could you tell which piece was from which tower?

The walls were 1360 plus feet high how far apart were the towers ANOK?

Do you really think the walls would fall within the one acre footprint of each tower


This pic here and if you use some sense you can download it in a nice 5.3mb file which you can zoom into and see lots of detail!




All the info you need is in the link !



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


you must be "daft" to think such a thing was at ground zero....

Plenty pictures of that on the web .... make a point worth making pal.

3rd


Well YOU have shown your daft because you dont!



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


haha


2nd
3rd



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


haha its obvious, you dont get the point , never mind the laws of physics .... i dont want to offend you ... you need to LOOK CLOSER ... stop trying to fit everything into their point of view ... as alot of "experts" have done.
Seriously . i want to help atleast 1 person accept the truth .... and unlike the bible ... this is real... its there infront of you.... you just need to look at it.

Where is the energy coming from during the collapse ?
edit on 21-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper


Where is the energy coming from during the collapse ?


The center of the earth.





new topics
 
17
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join