Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

Originally posted by TupacShakur

Does anyone in the video say what explosives were used, how much was used and where they were placed?

Nope. What, you didn't watch it?

The only refrences made to any incendiaries are thermite, and they describe it's ability to cut steel, and what byproducts it produces. I think there may have been some guy who talked about other explosives being needed to accompany this, but I don't remember any specific names.

The evidence presented within the film focuses more on anomalies that are explainable by the use of explosives in a controlled demolition rather than the specifics of exactly where the explosives were in the building and things of that nature. Because proof that demolition explains certain things that fire does not doesn't need those specifics that you described to accompany it in order to make it any more valid.

So what we have here is the proverbial "Hush-a-Boom" that leaves no evidence at all. No loud sounds even remotely similar to those necessary for a demolition and it was all secret. In addition, that Hush-a-boom propelled huge pieces hundreds of feet away at 50 mph.

Yea, that makes perfect sense.......to someone.

reply to post by spoor


Because I figured the World Trade Center Construction and Project Management Manager would know a little more about the building than say, Steven Jones.

Did you forget about this fella too?: Richard Humenn, WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer with 41 years of experience. Principal Chief Electric Engineer for the World Trade Center Complex.

reply to post by Reheat


You must not have saw the video of witness testimonies describing explosions. They're in the OP. There are also some in the film that I'm sure you didn't watch.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Ah......NOW you are catching on ..... albeit, slowly.....

reply to post by ProudBird


PLEASE understand the concept of progressive collapse....as each portion of a building is exceeding its design parameters, both in vertical AND lateral tolerances.....

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Reheat

 

You must not have saw the video of witness testimonies describing explosions. They're in the OP. There are also some in the film that I'm sure you didn't watch.

Of course there were explosions as one would expect in a building that size. However, there were NONE even remotely resembling those required for a demolition.... Not even close = NO DEMOLITION

reply to post by Reheat

However, there were NONE even remotely resembling those required for a demolition.... Not even close = NO DEMOLITION

I respectfully disagree with your all caps conclusion.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
The evidence presented within the film focuses more on anomalies that are explainable by the use of explosives in a controlled demolition rather than the specifics of exactly where the explosives were in the building and things of that nature. Because proof that demolition explains certain things that fire does not doesn't need those specifics that you described to accompany it in order to make it any more valid.

Theories that explosives explain things better are generated by those who want explosives but know little about them. None can say where they would place the explosives and how big the charges would be. None can say how long it would take to place the charges, how the charges would be triggered, how the charges would be timed, how anyone could predict where the planes hit, or how the charges could survive such. None can say how a top down demolition can be controlled or, once the collapse started, why explosives would be needed at all [they wouldn't.]
These clowns don't have a clue about explosives other than to say "the buildings didn't fall the way I thought they should so it must have been demolition."

Thanks for sharing all this knowledge with us Pac.

My brain is still tryna process this wealth of information.

I find the videos on the engineers speaking, especially interesting as architecture & engineering have never been my strong points..

S&F.

reply to post by pteridine

These clowns don't have a clue about explosives other than to say "the buildings didn't fall the way I thought they should so it must have been demolition."

Not the way they thought they should, but the way the laws of physics say they absolutely must have according to the official explanation of their collapse. Free-fall means there was no resistance through the path of greatest resistance. It's not that the building should have not fallen at free-fall speed, but the building must not have fallen at free-fall speed.

Magic fire doesn't explain that, explosives removing the material that would have otherwise provided resistance and slowed the collapse if not prevented it in a fashion that's consistent with a controlled demolition meant to bring down a building explains it.

NIST sure as hell didn't explain how the building was allowed to fall at free-fall speed, but they acknowledged that WTC7 fell at free-fall speed and that the Twin Towers fell at near free-fall speed, one taking 9 seconds and the other taking 11 seconds.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Please pay attention to this:

video.google.com...

reply to post by ProudBird


I'd watch it if you would have actually watched the video posted in the OP, which unless you've seen beforehand, you didn't watch, because you posted well before the 2+ hour video could have been fully watched.

How about you summarize it for me

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by pteridine

 

These clowns don't have a clue about explosives other than to say "the buildings didn't fall the way I thought they should so it must have been demolition."

Not the way they thought they should, but the way the laws of physics say they absolutely must have according to the official explanation of their collapse. Free-fall means there was no resistance through the path of greatest resistance. It's not that the building should have not fallen at free-fall speed, but the building must not have fallen at free-fall speed.

Magic fire doesn't explain that, explosives removing the material that would have otherwise provided resistance and slowed the collapse if not prevented it in a fashion that's consistent with a controlled demolition meant to bring down a building explains it.

NIST sure as hell didn't explain how the building was allowed to fall at free-fall speed, but they acknowledged that WTC7 fell at free-fall speed and that the Twin Towers fell at near free-fall speed, one taking 9 seconds and the other taking 11 seconds.

Great job addressing these ad hominem attacks Tupac. Most impressive thread.

Nice thread, lots of information here. I just have one little piece to add.



The owner and the holder of the insurance policy on the buildings says on camera to "pull" building 7. Pulling means to demolish using explosives. If one building was a controlled demolition, it's a safe assumption all of the buildings were controlled demolitions.

Or at least, you need to prove they weren't.

reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe
reply to post by litterbaux
reply to post by dezertdog

I'm glad you guys liked it, but it was just a summary, the video does a much better job of presenting the evidence. Feel free to share the YouTube version of the film with friends and family who you think would be willing to watch it and make an informed decision about the evidence.

reply to post by TupacShakur

You posted "...explosives removing the material that would have otherwise provided resistance and slowed the collapse if not prevented it in a fashion that's consistent with a controlled demolition meant to bring down a building explains it."
So do death rays and elves and there is no evidence for them either. The old "laws of physics" ploy doesn't cut it. Using explosives to "remove the material" on #1 and #2 would have required massive amounts of explosives which would have been very noticeable. Demolishing #7 by destroying joints at the cantilevered beams and allowing a gravity collapse would have been quieter but that says that a failure there would have caused gravitational collapse. What might cause a failure there? Fire would heat the beams and cause them to expand several inches, more than enough to shear the bolts at the joints and initate gravitational collapse.

For #1 and #2, see if the demolition geniuses can come up with amounts, types, and locations of explosives that could possibly do the job. Tell them they can use anything they want; RDX, C4, Nitrostarch, HMX, or black powder. It doesn't matter, they just have to have something that could work. Then have them tell you how they would initiate and time the explosives. There is not one who could do it because they know they will run into the problem of placing charges at one end of every floor truss on every floor. Then they have to initiate and time them so gravity doesn't over run the demolition. Nothing would be more embarrasing than having a falling truss assembly suddenly explode in the air.

As to the collapse times, not many had those correct, especially early on. You still don't. Here is a source that uses video frames: "Despite the availability of video evidence establishing lower bounds of total collapse times of over 13 seconds for each of the towers, assertions that they collapsed in under ten seconds are widespread."
911review.com...

and the video at two second intervals
911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Because I figured the World Trade Center Construction and Project Management Manager would know a little more about the building than say, Steven Jones.

You figured wrong,you did not investigate what his job actually entailed. Find out what he actually did....

reply to post by pteridine

So do death rays and elves and there is no evidence for them either.

That's stupid.

The old "laws of physics" ploy doesn't cut it.

Oh, are the laws of physics not valid in our day and age? What about September 11th exempts the WTC7 from the action/reaction law? Was there some sort of forcefield set up by those death rays and elves that you just mentioned that transported the building into another sector of space and time that was outside of the universe in which the universal laws of physics apply?

Using explosives to "remove the material" on #1 and #2 would have required massive amounts of explosives which would have been very noticeable.

You mean like people would have reported hearing explosions? Or there would be massive projectiles following paths that aren't caused by the force of gravity? Or like concrete turning into a fine powder?

Fire would heat the beams and cause them to expand several inches, more than enough to shear the bolts at the joints and initate gravitational collapse.

Even if this was true, collapse initiation and therefore the collapse itself would not be symmetrical because the building sustained asymmetrical damage. This isn't even high school physics, this is just basic common sense. Then the gravitational collapse would not have been at free-fall speed, because as floors and material within the building at the point where the collapse was initiated interacted, the building would slow down.

Then have them tell you how they would initiate and time the explosives. There is not one who could do it because they know they will run into the problem of placing charges at one end of every floor truss on every floor. Then they have to initiate and time them so gravity doesn't over run the demolition. Nothing would be more embarrasing than having a falling truss assembly suddenly explode in the air.

Yes, demolitions can go wrong. They can also go exactly as planned.

As to the collapse times, not many had those correct, especially early on. You still don't. Here is a source that uses video frames: "Despite the availability of video evidence establishing lower bounds of total collapse times of over 13 seconds for each of the towers, assertions that they collapsed in under ten seconds are widespread."
911review.com...

and the video at two second intervals
911research.wtc7.net..

Tell that to lead NIST investigator Shyam Sunder, who reported 9 and 11 seconds. ( I just noticed that, 9 and 11 for the collapse times on 9/11. How odd )

But even those original numbers were not free-fall speed I believe, they were just near it. Regardless of whether it was 9 or 11 or 13 seconds, the Twin Towers still accelerated constantly when they should have been destroying the bottom section upon collapse initiation, which, in accordance with those pesky laws of physics that you're not too fond of, would have caused it to slow down. That's just one of the many anomalies that hasn't been explained by the official report, and is one of the many reasons that these experts are calling for a new investigation through which they can answer these questions and figure out why things like this occured.

reply to post by spoor


He described it in the video that you didn't watch champ.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
He described it in the video .

So you know he had nothing at all to do with the design or construction of the tower....

He stayed on, becoming the construction manager, the man to see when you wanted to move a wall or rearrange the plumbing.

www.legacy.com...