Recent Implosion of the Amway Center Raises Further Doubts

Originally posted by samkent


Just how does det cord/wire or what ever survive fire for multiple hours?

Two choices

- I don't know. It just must have because no other option is possible than blah demolition blah. Jeez, I don't have all the answers

- Special det cord and wiring

Its like saying there is no traffic in New York, because in an interview on a NY street with traffic in the background you do not hear it.

What I said before it all depends on how your equipment is set up. In this video you hear the explosions more clearly, you know what else you hear more clearly? The noise of the building collapsing.

We all agree that WTC 7 did collapse. I think we can all agree that a building collapsing makes some noise, not like explosions, but its noisy, well on the WTC 7 video you do not hear the building collapsing either, so the faintness of the noise must be due to the way the equipment was set up. You still can hear both in the WTC 7 videos, the explosions before the collapse, and the noise of the building coming down, albeight very faint.

EDIT: Well actually like in the second video, now imagine the equipment set up to record the audience in the vicinity, the building not being windowless and gutted and more objects in the way and you are there.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Six Sigma
All three clearly have very loud explosions followed by the collapse.

And as mentioned many times (but ignored by conspiracy theorists) in a controlled demolition there is an order to the explosions as well.
The building is not brought down in one big bang, but as heard very well in the videos here, the internal structure is taken out first by earlier explosions in a predefined order, before the building is finally taken down by the final explosions.

Indeed



Also its curious that the office of Crisis Management was evacuated shortly after a plane struck a building in your city, but I am just going to assume that the order was given to evacuate all of the WTC complex shortly after the first strike, unless somebody can show me it was otherwise.

I'm sure if the government had anything to do with it, they would be using the latest technology, possibly a compund/explosive that isnt even known. I'm sure they will have stuff that people dont know about?

Originally posted by 4hero
I'm sure if the government had anything to do with it, they would be using the latest technology, possibly a compund/explosive that isnt even known. I'm sure they will have stuff that people dont know about?

Yes that's it! The super duper secret government silent explosives. Ugh.

reply to post by Six Sigma


Thats impossible according to truthers. Things that have never happened before are impossible and are in fact a conspiracy consisting of events that have happened before. Since super duper secret government silent explosives have never happened before, it must have been something else. Probably a conspiracy inside a conspiracy.

Not the 'there were no explosives heard' crap again?

First off there were explosives heard, get over it.

Secondly for the billionth time it doesn't matter.

The final outcome of the collapse, as evidenced by pics, is not consistent with a fire induced collapse, regardless of what was heard.

What a weak argument, you fail.

reply to post by ANOK


I haven't gotten over it yet, mister "too busy IRL so I can't read 2 pages back so I don't have to reply to inconvenient posts".

How about you providing any evidence at all that the explosions that were heard came from explosives (as in, devices designed to explode).

Nah, don't bother, we all know you don't have any evidence.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

I haven't gotten over it yet, mister "too busy IRL so I can't read 2 pages back so I don't have to reply to inconvenient posts".

How about you providing any evidence at all that the explosions that were heard came from explosives (as in, devices designed to explode).

Nah, don't bother, we all know you don't have any evidence.

Typical ANOK behavior. He also failed to respond to my post a couple pages back on this thread as well.

Originally posted by Six Sigma


Typical ANOK behavior. He also failed to respond to my post a couple pages back on this thread as well.

The continual assertion that Building Seven's state of collapse proves that it must have been blown up is nearly as funny as the continual assertion that he has already explained why this must be so. And both of those are just slightly less amusing than the refusal to accept the authority of any experts whatsoever because ANOK has, um, investigated it all himself and - in the face of almost every major source - reached a conclusion that is apparently a cast iron fact.

But my favourite thing of all is the use of this self-discovered fact to trump all others. Explosions, firemen's testimony, witnesses, expert opinion. None of it matters because super physics sleuth ANOK has reached a bullet proof conclusion.

That he can't actually explain.

No building has ever undergone implosion.

An implosion is what happened to the plutonium in the Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

Equal explosions all around the outside to force the material inward. An implosion is what happens to submarines when they go to deep.

The word CONTROLLED means that the people implementing the action are in control. It does not mean they have the same objective or are using the same methods and materials that are used in the majority of known controlled demolitions. Causing lots of collateral damage and leaving lots of molten steel is not the normal objective in the usual controlled demolition. That does not mean that people in control of other demolitions will not produce those effects.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I am sure that the hijackers meant the towers to collapse like that, so according to your definition it was indeed a controlled demolition. Although nobody else uses your loose definition.

reply to post by ANOK

The final outcome of the collapse, as evidenced by pics, is not consistent with a fire induced collapse, regardless of what was heard.

It is to the experts.

Originally posted by -PLB-
How about you providing any evidence at all that the explosions that were heard came from explosives (as in, devices designed to explode).

How about you pay attention to what I said?

You don't need to hear explosives when the final outcome of the collapse is not consistent with fire, but is consistent whit implosion style demolition.

Sorry if I don't reply to everyone's post, I have more important things to do. I've already heard what you all have to say a million times.

IF I read your post I reply to it.

Originally posted by samkent

It is to the experts.

Not all experts.

You are not an expert. You only argue this because you believe your experts, an appeal to authority.

Sorry that argument doesn't work with me lol.

For once can one of you use your own head to explain your opinions?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
No building has ever undergone implosion.

But it is a demolition term to explain a building collapsing in on itself to land in its footprint, as apposed to toppling it over.

The long-vacant Keystone Towers apartment complex will be imploded Aug. 28 at 8 a.m., the Department of Metropolitan Development announced Monday afternoon.

www.ibj.com...

Demolition contractors typically use a combinations of techniques through explosives, whether for explosions or implosions. They also use equipment like backhoes, cranes, and tractors for excavation and digging, as well as wrecking balls for breaking through concrete.

dallas-tx.yellowusa.com...

Denney Excavating plans to implode the towers within 120 days, the city announced Monday.

www.ibj.com...

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

That he can't actually explain.

But I have explained it, many times.

The outer walls can not fall inwards from a natural collapse because it is the path of MOST resistance. The walls would be pushed outwards, as the majority of the buildings mass is the inner structure and contents.

YOU need to explain how the outer walls ended up on top of the rubble, and not underneath it. But all you have done so far is deny that fact.

You fail to understand the explanation because you fail to understand the physics of it.

I find it funny how you are all scrambling to discredit me, like a pack of yapping lap dogs, saying a lot but without saying anything.

Originally posted by ANOK
How about you pay attention to what I said?

Yes, but it seems you are not willing to back it up when called on it. No surprise.

You don't need to hear explosives when the final outcome of the collapse is not consistent with fire, but is consistent whit implosion style demolition.

Says the self proclaimed expert on demolitions and building collapses due to fire with no education in engineering and without anything to back it up.

Sorry if I don't reply to everyone's post, I have more important things to do. I've already heard what you all have to say a million times.

IF I read your post I reply to it.

Or in other words, you don't know the answer to my simple physics question. Or the question you just replied to. Or any other question for that matter.