Explosive News

reply to post by seethelight


No I'm sorry I'm nowhere near convinced.

In the case of the bridge, the steel heated up and buckled which is what I have already said should happen. Then the steel moved off the support and fell to the ground. It didn't smash into smitherines, it didnt eject itself 100 yards, the rest of the bridge which was not on fire did not evaporate into dust.

What happened is exactly what i would expect, the heat caused local distortion but the main body of the bridge remained unaffected.

In the WTC case we have local heating to a relatively small area, which gave way, but what should have happened is that a chunk of building would slide off the supports below and fall to the ground in one piece, and the remainder of the building should have remained standing like the stump of a tree.

Both buildings were similar but they were hit at different points, one high up to the centre, and the other lower down and off to the side.

So they should have failed differently, but we see the same type of failure.... so going by your own analogy there must have been something else involved.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Orkojoker

 

Red herring and here's why:

Show me ANY building over 40 storeys tall NOT made with steel re-enforced concrete (like the WTC) that was hit by a plane full of fuel.

If can sow me one that hasn't collapsed, then it'd be interesting.

But the only two that EVER HAVE BEEN both collapsed.

So that's consistent.

And, for your info, the WTCs DON'T look like demos.

The tops slope off above where the planes hit.

And they DON'T FREE FALL like demos.

There's a brief period that they do, but a demo completely free falls... not just a bit in the middle.

PLUS if they were demo'd there would LITERALLY have been HUNDREDS of TIMED explosions.

And even if they were invisible, they would've moved air (as explosions do) and that sound would've been heard.

None of that happened.

We talk about them being similar because our ONLY FRAME OF REFERENCE for collapsing giant buildings in controlled demolitions, but ig you ACTUALLY compare them, they really aren't that similar.

There's no hundreds of explosions, the buildings only briefly fall in free fall and the collapse starts at the top.

In demos, the building basically loses all support equally across it's structure, so that it falls straight down and not over.

Like I said, if you WANT to see ONLY the similarities that's what you'll see, but if you go through my little list there and look for the characteristic traits of all known demos, you'll see the WTC doesn't have them.

So are you saying that in your extreme open-mindedness, it is inconceivable that, considering the unique non-concrete-reinforced steel structure of the WTC towers, that only demolition methods used to take down concrete-reinforced steel buildings can be applied here? That we can only rely on seeing cues similar to those demolition practices in deciding whether or not the WTC towers are CD?

You also say that there would be many timed explosions, hundreds of them. This is exactly what witnesses report hearing, seeing, and being blown back by, throughout the day. Is it not conceivable that the demolition of this unique structure could be undertaken by wave after wave of explosions occurring over the span of 2 or 3 hours?

And although you claim Jones is a fraud, this is just an ad hominem attack, one of those fallacies of logic that your signature mentions. Other than the fact that you don't believe him and can point to websites that also don't believe him, it is a fact that there were pools of molten metal beneath the WTC for up to 6 weeks at temperatures around 1300º to 1500º F (as estimated by those at ground zero). The only analysis of that metal appears to confirm some sort of chemically-accelerated high-temperature stress and corrosion. This is disturbing information, and it is not going to go away just because Jones included a picture that appeared to illustrate his point but turns out was of something else. Truly, there are many other photos that could have been chosen to illustrate or document the molten metal, and the existence of one mistaken photo does not disprove the other evidence. I have never seen a post of yours that presents a reasoned and logical argument based on any science to dispute his findings.

Let's look at your link's claim that Jones falsified evidence of nano-thermate by burning paint chips. I find it very unusual that paint chips from a fire-retardant coating on a wall would explode the way the samples Jones and others wrote about did. Kind of goes against the purpose of flame retardancy for the paint to explode. I think someone with an open mind would give everyone a reasonable doubt as to their motives, and I don't intend to impugn your motives or your linked sites' motives. But the arguments against Jones' research appear to be derived arguments based on suppositions that fit a pre-conceived notion that attack the person and their assumed motivations--much as you do in your posts--but don't run tests on the same material and empirically prove that the samples are merely paint chips, for example. They attempt to convince that this is the case, but the thrust of the argument is based on the person, not the science. In fact, if the science was valid, no ad hominem attacks would be necessary in the presented arguments, and a reasonable scientist, knowing that such attacks weaken the validity of other, logical arguments, would avoid them entirely.

I really don't think posts that say "I read something here or there that I can't actually paraphrase or follow the logic of myself but seems really convincing to me prove you are an idiot and a liar and bestow upon me an intimate understanding of who you are as a person and in particular how your shortcomings rule your life" actually contribute anything to revealing the truth of any situation. Nor does arguing a point that you aren't sure how to refute by lumping the person you disagree with into a group that you can describe in derogatory terms or attribute obviously discredited ideas to. This is another fallacy of logic that you have been fond of using.

Today I see you have actually put some reason into your arguments, which is good, but those are not proof of anything except that you have reasonable assumptions behind your arguments. To prove your points, you have to prove that your assumptions are correct and are unquestionable beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very tall order for something that you don't have first hand experience of. It means you have to make declarative statements that can stand up to rigorous logical attacks, as well as all the fallacious attacks that those who think they know something but only have opinions will make. Dr. Jones has the courage to do that. He may be right or he may be wrong, but the types of arguments you are making will not decide that fact. Ever.

You appear to be an intelligent person. You feel deeply that you are right. If you want to convince any one of that, my advice is that you drop the personal attacks, the name-calling, and the group characterizations and make your points by rigorous logic instead of logical fallacies. Don't just point to an argument you agree or disagree with and then render judgement on everyone based on if they agree with you or not. Explain WHY it is right or wrong, not THAT it is right or wrong.

Peace. I'm out.

[edit on 2/25/10 by without_prejudice]

reply to post by bigyin


This always comes up, from the same people, yet I've shown them many times that the bridge did not melt and the steel was reused to repair the bridge.

The only thing that melted was the rubber between the joints.

Melted steel was just media hype.

“It doesn’t look right now like we’re going to have to replace it,” Caltrans spokesman Bob Haus said. “We might have to do some straightening, but it looks as if the actual structure is OK despite the scorching.”

www.examiner.com...

Also see this...

stopthelie.com...

reply to post by bigyin


There's no evidence that steel "smashed into smithereens" at the WTC... where'd you get that from?

reply to post by without_prejudice


Show me any witness that says they heard hundreds of timed explosions and I'll check it out.

I have never seen such a thing.

In fact I've seen many truthers claim that the reason that DOESN'T EXIST is because secret government technology was used.

I've seen truthers post links to documents about "silent explosives", etc.

Now, none of them know what you're talking about, and I certainly HAVE LOOKED and haven't seen anything like that, but if you show me witnesses saying they heard hundreds of timed explosives I will check it out with a VERY open mind.

So please, show me.

reply to post by without_prejudice


By the way, I claim Jones is a fraud, not as an ad hominem attack, but because I've seen him use photos which he KNOWS have been doctored, so that they appear to show one thing, when actually they show something else entirely.

He either knows that, or he's claiming something he hasn't researched and obviously doesn't understand.

So a fraud and a liar, or grossly negligent and incompetent.

You can call him either, I've watched him speak, he doesn't seem stupid, so I assume he knows he's lying, which makes him a pretty despicable guy.

Go watch that video and then tell me he's not lying.

I mean, just do it, man.

Couldn't be easier.

Also this was the biggest crime scene since Pearl Harber! yet they cleared it up very fast, getting rid of most of the evdence!

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Are you claiming there was a forensic examination of the wreckage of pearl harbour?

Care to back that claim up?

Here's ANOTHER example of Truthers using a completely debunked photo:

www.infowars.com...

This is exactly what I mean.

And look, here's Jone's paper, again using the same image:

drjudywood.com...

Originally posted by john124

Is this where you're going to whip out the physics to prove it?

Not really... I can't be bothered to go over it all again.

Oh, alright then, if you say so. I guess this is just all too complicated for some people huh? I mean you can only be expected to "explain" it once, somewhere else of course, no need to go through it all again.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by john124
Not really... I can't be bothered to go over it all again.

Again? Then could you kindly direct us to where you went over it all before?

No response from him, huh?

These kinds of posts are really pathetic. I know for a fact that he didn't prove what he says he did anywhere. No independent researchers have access to enough information to conclusively find what john says he did *somewhere* but "can't be bothered to go over it all again."

These guys are transparent as hell and they don't even realize it.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

 

Are you claiming there was a forensic examination of the wreckage of pearl harbour?

Care to back that claim up?

No, same scenario! the cats on the ground were surprised by the Attack, but the tptb were not, America wanted in the War so they could slice up the world for profit! All Wars are false flag's to keep people in fear, i guess you fit into that category...

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by bigyin

 

There's no evidence that steel "smashed into smithereens" at the WTC... where'd you get that from?

errr.... hello ....... is that a serious question ?

Originally posted by bigyin

Originally posted by seethelight
There's no evidence that steel "smashed into smithereens" at the WTC... where'd you get that from?

errr.... hello ....... is that a serious question ?

"seethelight" is not a serious poster so no, I don't think it was a serious question. Obviously "smithereens" is not a technical term in the first place.


However there are technical studies that have provided the same thing:



The next image is too big to fit here but shows the difference between mechanical pulverization, molecular dissociation, and a combination of the 2 which is actually the particle size distribution signature of the WTC dust:

www.studyof911.com...


These are particle size distribution diagrams from UC Davis, an educational institute that did studies at Ground Zero. You see that the pulverization of particles, including particles of steel, into fine dust, is consist with both mechanical pulverization and molecular (chemical) dissociation, whether that would have been explosives, a eutectic, or any other reaction that results in breaking down the molecular bonds themselves instead of just smashing mechanically over and over.


Original source here: delta.ucdavis.edu...




These are the same scientists who debunked the EPA's claim that the air was "safe to breathe."

In the trade-center air samples, Cahill identified four classes of particles that have been named by the EPA as likely to harm human health:

* Fine and very fine transition metals, which interfere with lung chemistry.
* Acids, in this case sulfuric acid, which attack cilia and lung cells directly.
* Very fine, un-dissolvable (insoluble) particles, in this case glass, which travel through the lungs to the bloodstream and heart.
* High-temperature organic matter, many components of which are known to be carcinogens.

"For each of these four classes of pollutant, we recorded the highest levels we have ever seen in over 7,000 measurements we have made of very fine air pollution throughout the world, including Kuwait and China," Cahill said.

You can see above the WTC dust was largely very fine powder of aluminum and iron, in addition to silicon from concrete and sulfur from other building materials.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by Ahabstar
Hi Ahab,
Part of your post,
"With all the events that happened that day and the constant drive to be the first to report the news, what makes the BBC (actually just that reporter that had a very long day) an authority on what building has collapsed when?"

The reporter was Phillip Hayton, and he actually referred to his monitor to confirm that WT7 had collapsed, so he was fed the story, not so much as that he had a long day, in fact in a much later interview, he had forgotten he was on anchor that day. He left the BBC in 2005 after 37 years. The most notable thing about the incident is that Richard Porter, who was in charge of BBC news editing stated that the news footage of WT7 had been lost, (it was later found) and that he may have been also involved in the BBC "Conspiracy Files" documentary, which attempted to debunk the demolition theory and embarrass the late Barry Jennings.

Recent interview with Philip Hayton,

www.infowars.com...

reply to post by Bombeni


I don't rightly know, your guess is as good as mine, but I believe that bringing down the towers utterly filled people with hatred. Kinda like adding sprinkles onto the doughnut: It's good enough with the frosting, but adding the sprinkles always makes it better.

Originally posted by The River
reply to post by Bombeni

 

I don't rightly know, your guess is as good as mine, but I believe that bringing down the towers utterly filled people with hatred. Kinda like adding sprinkles onto the doughnut: It's good enough with the frosting, but adding the sprinkles always makes it better.

Utterly filled People with hatred! And that's precisely what TPTB want! an they got it, same with all the Wars since PEARL HARBOUR ! False flag, false flag, false flag!

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Interesting that this is posted in the "Politics" section of the Washington Times.

Yeah, politics. This isn't treason now, this isn't mass murder now, this isn't evidence of an extremely serious crime now. this isn't terrorism now- this is POLITICS!

The mass media doesn't have the balls to report the truth when it comes to 9/11. Because yeah, it's a political issue now. I am sure the people who died (and continue to die "because" of 9/11) just love the fact that their lost lives are now mere politics.

It has always been politics, that has never changed.

The Mass Media is owned by Fed Govt under The FCC, The Federal Trade Commission. This is why they don't have balls - they had to be cut off to take their jobs. Connie Chung said so much and you never saw her again. Well at least she's got her balls back. HA!

reply to post by bsbray11


This an incredibly bogus response.

So one side of the truther movement says all the steel beams we're sold to China... the other side says all the steel was pulverised....



riiiiiiight...


And btw,, here's some serious questions for you:

Name another non-steel-re-enforced concrete building over 40 storeys tall.

Now name one that's been hit by a giant plane full of fuel and not collapsed.

You can't do either.

Show me evidence of peopple claiming to hear the hundreds of timed explosives it would take to demo the WTC.

Explain why the WTC is the only demo in history that started 3/4 of the way up.

Explain why it was the only demo to only fall at free fall speed for about 1/8 of its collapse.

Explain why prominent truther Stephen Jones would repeatedly use an obviously false photo in his big scientific paper.

Explain why, if the info is SO conclusive less than 1/10th of 1% of all licensed engineers has publicly gone on record against the OS after 8.5 years of research.

---

Those are serious question which I have asked repeatedly to you serious researchers, but which none of you will bother answering... if this is sooooooooo clear cut, it should be easy to answer them.

reply to post by bigyin


It is a serious question.

Supposedly tons of steel was sold to China... did they buy dust?