Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

False premises. What method of CD would not be known to engineers. And there still would be physical evidence. As in light distortion and visible signs of the building and material off gassing if being hit with a energy ray in the provided clip. And the claim is the resistance of every floor had to be removed for the witnessesed collapse speed to fit the CD model. You are still talking ten to twenty energy devices per floor? Chemical probably in nature.

Unless the supports were all removed, milliseconds apart, floor by floor, in exact sequence, such a collapse is impossible.

What happens in a CD if charges were not placed at the crucial supports, throughout the structure? Or not timed exactly, in the correct sequence?

Obviously, the building doesn't collapse, or not completely, uniformly, in it's own 'footprint'.

It's necessary to place the charges at the precise spots in a structure, and timed to detonate milliseconds apart, in the proper sequence, because nothing else can generate a uniform, global, structural collapse.

Get the point?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

False premises. What method of CD would not be known to engineers. And there still would be physical evidence. As in light distortion and visible signs of the building and material off gassing if being hit with a energy ray in the provided clip. And the claim is the resistance of every floor had to be removed for the witnessesed collapse speed to fit the CD model. You are still talking ten to twenty energy devices per floor? Chemical probably in nature.

That's a good one. 'All the engineers know every method of CD, being no method is unknown to engineers!'

The military has never developed anything at all, unknown to the public, right?

Yikes...


Those collapses happen because all supports were removed, milliseconds apart, throughout.


Show me any massive object, being supported atop some structure, drops from mid-air, onto the supporting structure, magically removes all of the supports, in precise sequential order.

No excuses.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

False premises. What method of CD would not be known to engineers. And there still would be physical evidence. As in light distortion and visible signs of the building and material off gassing if being hit with a energy ray in the provided clip. And the claim is the resistance of every floor had to be removed for the witnessesed collapse speed to fit the CD model. You are still talking ten to twenty energy devices per floor? Chemical probably in nature.

That's a good one. 'All the engineers know every method of CD, being no method is unknown to engineers!'

The military has never developed anything at all, unknown to the public, right?

Yikes...


Those collapses happen because all supports were removed, milliseconds apart, throughout.


Show me any massive object, being supported atop some structure, drops from mid-air, onto the supporting structure, magically removes all of the supports, in precise sequential order.

No excuses.

"Precise sequential order" implicates gravity, doesn't it, unless you have evidence of the top secret "Harry Potter Device?"

a reply to: turbonium1

Please cite a theory with proof to supersede inward bowing and collapse as outlined and captured in video in this thread....

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: firerescue


Thank you for the honest attempt, but that article had me chuckling, it was so much CYA type writing. He expected to get a reading, but the building came down? Duh. Did he not know that radiation lasts for quite some time. He could have come back, and in the meantime to discover that Geiger counters, no matter how fancy cannot detect all forms of radiation.

So, I'm going to say that it's the art of propaganda being practiced.

Let's apply Occam and say that the reason WTC looked like a frigging nuclear bomb went off there, was because a nuclear bomb HAD gone off there. Occam Rules, BTW

originally posted by: Salander
He could have come back, and in the meantime to discover that Geiger counters, no matter how fancy cannot detect all forms of radiation.

This isn't true. A Geiger counter can detect emissions of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, which are the forms of radiation associated with nuclear processes.

Let's apply Occam and say that the reason WTC looked like a frigging nuclear bomb went off there, was because a nuclear bomb HAD gone off there. Occam Rules, BTW

This is outright embarrassing rubbish.

a reply to: Salander

So a silent nuclear bomb went off to cause a building to fall down in to itself in such a way the truth movement claims it looked like a classic building CD implosion. But now it looks like a nuclear bomb went off? Can you contradict yourself any further?

a reply to: Salander

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension...??

States clearly that was using a SCINTILLATION COUNTER

That was fortunately not the case, Borri found, using a portable liquid scintillation counter, which measures radioactivity like a Geiger counter. The high-tech portable gadget he carried, one of the few available in the United States, is far more precise than its century-old cousin, the Geiger, counter with a much more refined ability to detect any kind of radioactivity.

You asked about FDNY HAZ MAT unit

I provided the source from which I get it from. Something you totally ignored then when off claiming it was a nuclear bomb

AGAIN WHY WAS NO RADIATION DETECTED ?????

You have someone on scene with a sensitive radiation detector not finding any radiation at moment a nuclear bomb
goes off !!

Delusional does not cover it .....

originally posted by: pteridine

"Precise sequential order" implicates gravity, doesn't it, unless you have evidence of the top secret "Harry Potter Device?"

No, it's done with explosives in CD's.

Removing the supports in a precise, sequential order, ALLOWS gravity to bring everything straight down, into the building's footprint.

If the supports are removed randomly, going from an upper floor, to a lower floor, it will fail to collapse properly. The charges also have to detonate within milliseconds of each other, in the exact order. If not, the building will not collapse either.

Because the charges aren't yet detonated on the floor impacted by the upper structure, there will be resistance against the downward force of the upper structure. Even if the resistance slows the collapse down by a half-second, it will be enough time for charges to detonate on several lower floors, that ARE set correctly. Since the upper structure was delayed, it is now flying in mid-air, chasing the lower floors. Not a good thing, obviously.


This is why the 3 WTC buildings did not , COULD not, collapse on their own, nearly free-fall, in their own footprints.

If you removed only a couple of explosive charges at critical supports, a building would fail to collapse like that.

But apparently, three WTC buildings collapsed on the same day without removing ANY supports!


And nobody has to prove it, because you have 'experts' spewing about simulations!


How anyone can live in such a world of denial, is truly mind-boggling.

a reply to: turbonium1

Let's start with the towers and free fall speed. The truth movement is based on a lie. The towers fell nowhere near free fall speed.

Nutty 9-11 Physics

www.uwgb.edu...

So according to the seismic record, the first impacts are about ten seconds after the onset of collapse. That's the free-falling debris. Seismic signals continued for 15 more seconds. So it took at least about 25 seconds for the buildings to collapse. The seismic records are probably the best information because the last stages of collapse were obscured by dust, but a time indexed series of video frames on the 9-11 Research site shows the collapse of one tower still in progress after 19 seconds. So the collapse speed was less than half of free-fall speed. Also:

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
And the people who like to take "ten seconds" and "essentially in free fall" literally don't seem to care much about paragraphs like this:

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
9-11 troofers are a lot like some Biblical fundamentalists. Anything that they want to believe is to be taken with absolute literalness, and anything that contradicts what they want to believe, they just ignore.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

So a silent nuclear bomb went off to cause a building to fall down in to itself in such a way the truth movement claims it looked like a classic building CD implosion. But now it looks like a nuclear bomb went off? Can you contradict yourself any further?

No, it or they were not silent. Why would you say that?

Good heavens man, Willy Rodriguez and his mates reported the first one, experienced the first one. Don't know about the others.

Silent? Are you serious?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: pteridine

"Precise sequential order" implicates gravity, doesn't it, unless you have evidence of the top secret "Harry Potter Device?"

No, it's done with explosives in CD's.

Removing the supports in a precise, sequential order, ALLOWS gravity to bring everything straight down, into the building's footprint.

If the supports are removed randomly, going from an upper floor, to a lower floor, it will fail to collapse properly. The charges also have to detonate within milliseconds of each other, in the exact order. If not, the building will not collapse either.

Because the charges aren't yet detonated on the floor impacted by the upper structure, there will be resistance against the downward force of the upper structure. Even if the resistance slows the collapse down by a half-second, it will be enough time for charges to detonate on several lower floors, that ARE set correctly. Since the upper structure was delayed, it is now flying in mid-air, chasing the lower floors. Not a good thing, obviously.


This is why the 3 WTC buildings did not , COULD not, collapse on their own, nearly free-fall, in their own footprints.

If you removed only a couple of explosive charges at critical supports, a building would fail to collapse like that.

But apparently, three WTC buildings collapsed on the same day without removing ANY supports!


And nobody has to prove it, because you have 'experts' spewing about simulations!


How anyone can live in such a world of denial, is truly mind-boggling.

Now for some rough calculations. About 100 stories collapsed in about 15 seconds. That is about 150 milliseconds per floor. How much explosive would have to be used to remove supports from each of those 100 floors and clear each in 150 milliseconds? Where would the charges be placed to accomplish such? Since you are an expert in demolitions, you should be able to easily answer these questions.
If charges were placed in the outer walls and each floor was cleared in 150-200 milliseconds, don't you think that there would be some video or physical evidence of the explosions?

a reply to: Salander

It's you claiming the nukes were silent. Don't pin this on me. The silent part is your rant of "you don't know what technology the military has". Why is there no evidence of a nuclear explosion and over pressure event that would produce the resultant audible shock wave on video that by the laws of physics would be created for a pressure disturbance that would cut steel columns!

Your have lost it

Why did Gage come up with fizzle no flash explosives.....

Because there is no evidence of an explosion that would have cut steel columns.

a reply to: neutronflux


I never said they were silent. YOU said they were silent, and now you attempt to blame that false claim on me.

Yes, as Plato or Aristotle said, when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

a reply to: Salander

Funny how you alsways create this alternative reality. I have always asked why there in no captured audio of an audible signature that physics dictates goes hand in hand with a pressure wave with the energy and force to cut steel. The closest you have come to answering in "secret military technology."

Either quote yourself why the was no audible signature of a nuclear bomb detenating captured on video.... why there is no evidence of an over pressure event.

Or

Answer the question now?

Along with why WTC columns were pulled in, in near silence, in isolated areas, and areas in relation to the jet impacts that initiated the collapse. With no windows being blown out during inward bowing of vertical columns. Or evidence of a pressure disturbance in the smoke pouring out of the WTC.

Why there was no resultant radiation that would have caused radiation burns, poisoning, contamination, uncontrollably vomiting, death to individuals in hours, and hair loss.

Why there was no indication of an electromagnetic interference that would have left a signature on video recordings and broadcasts from the WTC.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


I never said they were silent. YOU said they were silent, and now you attempt to blame that false claim on me.

Yes, as Plato or Aristotle said, when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

And when the debate is lost, Salander claims slander and avoids answering the key questions relating to his theory.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

So a silent nuclear bomb went off to cause a building to fall down in to itself in such a way the truth movement claims it looked like a classic building CD implosion. But now it looks like a nuclear bomb went off? Can you contradict yourself any further?

No, it or they were not silent. Why would you say that?

Good heavens man, Willy Rodriguez and his mates reported the first one, experienced the first one. Don't know about the others.

Silent? Are you serious?

They?

Experienced the first one?


So not only did one nuclear device detonate but multiple nuclear devices?

What was it? 3? one for each building?

originally posted by: pteridine
And when the debate is lost, Salander claims slander and avoids answering the key questions relating to his theory.

The awful truth is that he is concealing nothing because he has nothing to say. It's clear from his performance to date that he has absorbed some claims and phrases, but has no idea how they might connect, and hasn't looked beyond the face value of the words he's typing.

This is why he's able to come out with ludicrous claims about (e.g.) R&D changing the basic physical laws that govern nuclear fission weapons: he has never bothered to investigate the stuff he is blindly regurgitating. His argument is a collage of clippings jumbled together any old how.

The irony of all this is that he persistently chides everyone else for 'thinking uncritically' or 'parroting talking points' whenever they try to engage with him rationally.

From now on, I'm taking a leaf out of his book and just dismissing everything he says without bothering to engage with it. Either I'll be spared the irritation of his idiocy, or he'll up his game. Either would be a positive outcome.

(With due apologies to Salander for talking past him, which is a bit rude, but I promise it won't happen again).

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

False premises. What method of CD would not be known to engineers. And there still would be physical evidence. As in light distortion and visible signs of the building and material off gassing if being hit with a energy ray in the provided clip. And the claim is the resistance of every floor had to be removed for the witnessesed collapse speed to fit the CD model. You are still talking ten to twenty energy devices per floor? Chemical probably in nature.

Unless the supports were all removed, milliseconds apart, floor by floor, in exact sequence, such a collapse is impossible.
?

Yes, all the connections for the trussed floors - which braced the columns - were removed milliseconds apart.

You obviously believe it involved explosives.

Others understand that a descending mass will impart a dynamic load on the connections and give the same result.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

So a silent nuclear bomb went off to cause a building to fall down in to itself in such a way the truth movement claims it looked like a classic building CD implosion. But now it looks like a nuclear bomb went off? Can you contradict yourself any further?

No, it or they were not silent. Why would you say that?

Good heavens man, Willy Rodriguez and his mates reported the first one, experienced the first one. Don't know about the others.

Silent? Are you serious?

They?

Experienced the first one?


So not only did one nuclear device detonate but multiple nuclear devices?

What was it? 3? one for each building?

LOL, you guys are funny. If some government spokesperson doesn't explain things to you, you're lost. Rather reminds me of what the old cynic H.L. Mencken said:

The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.

Or Herbert Agar: The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear.

The NIST report has been demonstrated to be scientifically, intellectually and morally bankrupt, but many americans still defend it today.

Bottom line is that burning office fires could not have caused the damage observed, yet many americans still believe it.

Faith, you know, if when you believe in something that you know ain't true. The only possible theory to explain the damage observed at WTC is the nuclear theory. Thank you Mr. Occam, the reason Ground Zero looked like a nuclear bomb had gone off was because, indeed, a nuclear bomb HAD gone off.