Building 7 symmetry- yes or no?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton

I know you are not interested in my background in the handling and use of various explosives. That would not qualify me as knowing anything about the results to be expected from them being used.



Correct.

But what about the lack of explosions with the brissance and loudness typical of cutter charges on all audio recordings?

What is your opinion on that?




posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton

Why should anyone of us who are not comfortable with and continue to question the O S have to provide any answers for the reasons the towers fell as they did?


Cuz ubtil "you" do, the "OS" is the accepted explanation by those who you would seek to re-investigate 9/11.


I think the burden of proof of the O S is still on those who support it.


You're wrong. Sorry.

It is a logical fallacy to state that the commonly accpeted explanation (by professionals with relevant credentials) needs to be proven to be the most likely explanation... again. that would be redundant.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by hdutton

I know you are not interested in my background in the handling and use of various explosives. That would not qualify me as knowing anything about the results to be expected from them being used.



Correct.

But what about the lack of explosions with the brissance and loudness typical of cutter charges on all audio recordings?

What is your opinion on that?


He's just going to say that the recorded audio evidence is trumped by witnesses reporting random explosions throughout the day. It happens every time this is brought up. Apparently physical evidence is trumped by human perception in the moment.

"It's a bird!"

"It's a plane!"

"This video shows that it's a plane."

"But that person said they saw a bird! It must be a bird!"



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero

Definte symmetry, and if the debunkers dont agree on 'perfect' symmetry it's a close to symmetry as you're gonna get with a controlled building collapse.

As for the footprint, these buildings fell straignt down, yeah maybe a few pieces of debris went outwards, but the bulk of all the buildings that collapsed went into it's own footprint. If you think otherwise please explain why you think it didnt.



Ironically, a totally uncontrolled failure would be expected to be somewhat symmetrical.

Assymmetrical collapse would mean it was steered.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by hdutton

I know you are not interested in my background in the handling and use of various explosives. That would not qualify me as knowing anything about the results to be expected from them being used.



Correct.

But what about the lack of explosions with the brissance and loudness typical of cutter charges on all audio recordings?

What is your opinion on that?


He's just going to say that the recorded audio evidence is trumped by witnesses reporting random explosions throughout the day. It happens every time this is brought up. Apparently physical evidence is trumped by human perception in the moment.

"It's a bird!"

"It's a plane!"

"This video shows that it's a plane."

"But that person said they saw a bird! It must be a bird!"


Well that would be a shame.

Cuz he would then be proven to be a delusional shill for Gage



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
@Fluffyboywonder & Vermin

There are many videos with explosions going off in the background!

You lot are obvious 9/11 noobs who have done zero research, you'd know this if you'd watched the countless videos and audio recordings! Couple that with numerous eye witness reports from people, including reporters, and other circumstancial evidence then it's pretty hard to disprove there were no explosions!

C'mon, keep up with the pace!
edit on 22-5-2012 by 4hero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero


There are many videos with explosions going off in the background!



Yep.

But none of them have the loudness and brissance (you might want to look up that word in a dictionary before you respond) that are typical of RDX based cutter charges.

A person claiming to have experience with these types of explosives would understand this. I am just curious what his opinion will be.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by 4hero


There are many videos with explosions going off in the background!



Yep.

But none of them have the loudness and brissance (you might want to look up that word in a dictionary before you respond) that are typical of RDX based cutter charges.

A person claiming to have experience with these types of explosives would understand this. I am just curious what his opinion will be.


I don't need dictionaries fluffy, I'm reasonably educated to understand your useage of words.

RDX is just a punt on your behalf, you have nothing to back this up, thermite is more probable based on particle findings.

The recordings were captured at a safe distance from the towers, and they were still audible, and as for the brissance, you certainly had that in close proximity.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero

RDX is just a punt on your behalf, you have nothing to back this up, thermite is more probable based on particle findings.


Thermite doesn't explode brah. And thermite wasn't found either. Paint was found.


The recordings were captured at a safe distance from the towers, and they were still audible, and as for the brissance, you certainly had that in close proximity.


Delusionally wishing this to be true doesn't make it so...



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous


Ironically, a totally uncontrolled failure would be expected to be somewhat symmetrical.

Assymmetrical collapse would mean it was steered.


Where did you pluck this junk science from?!



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by 4hero

RDX is just a punt on your behalf, you have nothing to back this up, thermite is more probable based on particle findings.


Thermite doesn't explode brah. And thermite wasn't found either. Paint was found.


The recordings were captured at a safe distance from the towers, and they were still audible, and as for the brissance, you certainly had that in close proximity.


Delusionally wishing this to be true doesn't make it so...




I never said thermite did explode, you mentioned cutter charges, and I said thermite was used for that.

Why is it that when you OS huggers dont have any answers you throw the delusional card!

Yet another OS'er that cannot be taken seriously from now on!



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by 4hero

RDX is just a punt on your behalf, you have nothing to back this up, thermite is more probable based on particle findings.


Thermite doesn't explode brah. And thermite wasn't found either. Paint was found.


The recordings were captured at a safe distance from the towers, and they were still audible, and as for the brissance, you certainly had that in close proximity.


Delusionally wishing this to be true doesn't make it so...




I never said thermite did explode, you mentioned cutter charges, and I said thermite was used for that.

Why is it that when you OS huggers dont have any answers you throw the delusional card!

Yet another OS'er that cannot be taken seriously from now on!



Ok then...

You agree that thermite doesn't explode. So thermite isn't responsible for the explosions in your referenced videos, correct?

Therefore, these explosions are normal in big office fires, correct?

Or do you have an explanation for the explosions in those videos? Can't be thermite...

But those explosions are evidence for.... what?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous


Ironically, a totally uncontrolled failure would be expected to be somewhat symmetrical.

Assymmetrical collapse would mean it was steered.


Where did you pluck this junk science from?!


Logic. Something that truthers lack, BTW....

If something is perfectly random, then the distribution pattern will be fairly symmetrical. Like a bell curve. But this is not evidence for either CD nor natural collapse, cuz a CD could be steered.

Now if it is assymmetrical, then it WAS steered. But this is not evidence for CD nor for natural collapse either. For the same reason.

Therefore, the debris pattern means next to nothing.

Logic.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 



Yep.

But none of them have the loudness and brissance (you might want to look up that word in a dictionary before you respond) that are typical of RDX based cutter charges.

A person claiming to have experience with these types of explosives would understand this. I am just curious what his opinion will be.


First, who said anything about RDX being the charge in question. It has been demonstrated that you can do the same with other, non-high explosive compounds. RDX is a red-herring. And yes thermite DOES explode, but it is not a HIGH explosive. Just fyi, low explosives look far more "explodey" than high, for the same reason that high frequency sound is easy to damp.

Second, I work right next a construction site for where they do controlled rock blasting on a daily basis. Let me explain to you what you hear: You hear the siren going off, and then you feel the floor the floor rumbling. You don't hear ANY higher frequency noise apart from the windows rattling.

Why?

Because it is an urban area where steps have been taken to mitigate noise, and if you know anything whatsoever about sound you would know that mitigating high frequency sound is a very easy (if pricey) thing to do indeed.

But let me tell you something, when you feel that low frequency noise you KNOW it was a powerful blast. You don't hear it, you feel it rattling your bones. THAT is what makes a powerful blast, not the high frequency pew-pew noise that sounds impressive on a Mythbusters episode.

The reason they don't mitigate noise on YouTube demolitions is because these things are once-off events where there is no statutory requirement to go to the not inconsiderable expense to do just that. So why would you?
edit on 22-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01

And yes thermite DOES explode, but it is not a HIGH explosive.


No, it does not explode at all. You just believe that it does cuz you've been told that it does.

An explosive, by definition, releases huge quantities of gas during its chemical reaction. thermite does not.

you have drunk the kool aid and believed it uncritically.


Second, I work right next a construction site for where they do controlled rock blasting on a daily basis. Let me explain to you what you hear: You hear the siren going off, and then you feel the floor the floor rumbling. You don't hear ANY higher frequency noise apart from the windows rattling.

Why?


This has to be one of the dumber questions I've ever seen from a truther, and that's saying a lot.

the noise is attenuated cuz it's underground.

edit on 23-5-2012 by Fluffaluffagous because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Logic. Something that truthers lack, BTW....

If something is perfectly random, then the distribution pattern will be fairly symmetrical. Like a bell curve. But this is not evidence for either CD nor natural collapse, cuz a CD could be steered.

Now if it is assymmetrical, then it WAS steered. But this is not evidence for CD nor for natural collapse either. For the same reason.

Therefore, the debris pattern means next to nothing.

Logic.


If you actually had any logic at all you'd realise youwere being lied to, but if you're being paid to lie then you'll spout any old rubbish!



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
Ok then...

You agree that thermite doesn't explode. So thermite isn't responsible for the explosions in your referenced videos, correct?

Therefore, these explosions are normal in big office fires, correct?

Or do you have an explanation for the explosions in those videos? Can't be thermite...

But those explosions are evidence for.... what?


Nope, you're twisting round my words again, i never said it did, and I never said it didn't, i said that traces of thermite were found in the dust particles, and thermite was most likely used to cut the beams.

No, the bombs were responsible for the explosions, and no, explosions are not necessarily normal in office fires, and explosions were witnessed prior to the 'plane' hitting. Those pre-impact explosions had nothing to do with the fire because they were before the impact. Also seismic data captured prior to the impacts...

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

You have nothing, you have never provided one shred of real evidence. You aren't even remotely scientific in your approach to 9/11.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Or are us 'conspiracy nutters' all delusional paranoid freaks?


Well.....



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero
Nope, you're twisting round my words again, i never said it did, and I never said it didn't, i said that traces of thermite were found in the dust particles, and thermite was most likely used to cut the beams.


Wrong. Aluminum and rust were found in the dust, which were abundant in the buildings, as the cladding of the entire tower was aluminum, and the steel columns had plenty of rust. It is only conspiracy folk who try to assert that the presence of those materials dictates thermite.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
People, does this building fall in symmetry or not?

Here is a video showing multiple angles of WTC7 collapsing.

1- Does the entire building fall at once?

2- Does it fall into it's footrpint?

Good'old Dave says that we can't see that the south side collapsed in symmetry with the building, but given the side we can see does fall at close to free fall speed- then surely when that part moves out of the way when it collapses, the couth side would still be standing?



Or is he just a shill and it is blatantly obvious the entire building all comes down at the same time in a speed that assumes no resistance?

Just watch the collapse video, do you think it all comes down at the same time? Or are us 'conspiracy nutters' all delusional paranoid freaks?

Make up your own minds people! Don't listen to the shills.



Yep, I'd say it was relatively symmetrical, especially when natural building collapse are asymmetrical. It looked just like a traditional demolition for the most part, where they blow out all the columns at the same time so it comes straight down. However the dust cloud was totally abnormal, it looked a volcanic eruption, or like someone had detonated a small atomic demolition munition below wtc7, the pile smouldered for days. Wouldn't expect that from normal explosive demolition...
edit on 23-5-2012 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)



new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join