Just how convoluted can you get?

Those pictures you posted look nothing like the WTC collapses. The jets of debris, and the collapsing are the only things in common.

Notice how the controlled explosives act throughout the buildings and not from the top down. If anything I see those pictures as evidence against controlled demolition.

They all implode or fall over. They all have multiple explosions clearly visible all over the structure.

They look nothing like the way the WTC collapsed, IMHO.

Also in your humble opinion from a different thread. Let's not forget that you dismissed those same kinds of comparisons.

www.abovetopsecret.com... Fourth post down.

Originally posted by Bsbray11You can't compare the demolition of a baseball dome, or whatever the hell that thing is, with three skyscrapers. Nor bridges, apartment complexes, etc.

Bsbray This is an extremely trivial detail anyway in the face of how eerily familiar the above pics should look to you, and I never claimed that 80% of the debris being launched out of the footprint is any "proof" of controlled demolition.

Your progressive collapse challenge requires that 80% of the debris lands outside the footprint, implying that this is only possible with demolition.
Sorry if I misunderstood.

I've been looking into the mechanics behind compressed air and I still can't figure out how to work out this problem with bernoulli's equation.

However if the pressure equalizes, then why did the cloud from the bottom of the collapse have enough force behind it to envelope all of Manhattan?

What about the other possibilities I brought up?

Is it possible that internally falling debris could explain the jets of air?

8bitagent- I totally agree. This certainly wouldn’t be the 1st time the American public was led down a garden path and it will not be the last. Making outlandish claims has always gotten more coverage the totally plausible happens surrounding so many world events. I’d be more apt to believe that some evidence would have been planted to feed the tin hat society, but it doesn’t appear there is even that (in reference to the WTCs). I can subscribe to conspiracy (TWA800), I just require something to go on, something other then folly. I think the underlying reasons for 9/11 is a problem that has been ignored for decades, but many presidents. I just don’t see an inept government being able to bring these towers down by controlled demolition, but maybe complacency.

BS- Do you understand that all of the pictures & vids you posted show nothing to support your assumption for controlled demolition? All the examples are wildly different structural designs (concrete, stone, steel) between themselves (though one does tip like a tree…), let alone compared to the shell/tube construction of the WTCs. For “squib” placement, your numbers range from 8 floors below to 50 below, which is it? Do you have an estimate as to how many “squibs” would have been needed to bring down the 2 tallest builds ever brought down? How long would they have taken to unknowingly been placed or install?

I still don’t get the point in the amount of dust present at most collapses or demolitions and how that has any bearing on it being controlled or not. Maybe you do not understand that normally when a collapse is expected, other means of suppression have been implemented (ie water, foam, etc)? Again, due to the WTCs massive size, hardly any amount of water could have suppressed the dust.

I am also still wondering if you realize how a “squib” gets placed? It isn’t taped or puttied in place & lots of preparation is done to the area. It would have left MASSIVE amounts of evidence on beams & columns. Yet, none of that exists. Why?

Please look up the definitions of EVIDENCE & PROOF before you respond any further. I too realize this is going nowhere, but until you understand you need PROOF, that will always be the outcome.

All I want is some PROOF or EVIDENCE to support your extreme claims.

bsbray-

Just want to say thanks for working so hard. I stop trying to convince these people after a little while, it seems so pointless sometimes. Gave you a way above vote, you deserve it lots.

LeftBehind- There seem to be a few plausible explanations of the puffs of dust on the tapes. I’ve seen them range from air compression, floor collapses, structural compression, etc. I heard of “explosives” early on, but no credible source ever claimed that, especially after studies were done.

I just don’t think people realize how much evidence a controlled demolition leaves behind. Far too much to have had it covered up. Funny how no reliable or creditable source is backing this claim.

People not only choose WHAT they believe, but they choose what they CAN believe.

Just waiting on PROOF.

Editted for spelling

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Jake the Dog Man]

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
I just don’t think people realize how much evidence a controlled demolition leaves behind. Far too much to have had it covered up.

When it finally hits you that the towers were controlled demos, you might slap yourself for not realizing "all the evidence it left behind"

He's shown you the evidence plenty. You're wanting him to prove that people can stand up, he points to a person standing and you say "give me proof."

You are a troll.

... any so called "evidence" has been explained more then enough. Flawed physics, incorrect assumptions & not a stitch of evidence doesn't look very promising to me, or any other "free-thinker" I've heard of.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Notice how the controlled explosives act throughout the buildings and not from the top down.

Tech news flash: demo charges can be rigged to go off in any order you want.

Also in your humble opinion from a different thread. Let's not forget that you dismissed those same kinds of comparisons.

www.abovetopsecret.com... Fourth post down.

Originally posted by Bsbray11You can't compare the demolition of a baseball dome, or whatever the hell that thing is, with three skyscrapers. Nor bridges, apartment complexes, etc.

I believe you were talking about outward explosions on that post. In fact, the very same thing we're talking about here. You were comparing those demolitions with the WTC, suggesting that since there were no visible explosions at the WTC (besides squibs, I suppose you meant, and the floors blowing out as they fell), it was therefore not a controlled demolition. I said you can't compare that way, and you can't. To clarify, you can't compare the way a public demolition is set up with the way those towers must've been set up. Those towers weren't meant to be an obvious demolition. Thus you can't compare the visibility of the explosions with publicly acknowledged demos.

Now you've asked me for pics showing that implosions eject charges outwards. I've provided images of that. We're talking about comparing two similar, but different aspects of collapse: the visibility of the explosions during implosions vs. the ejection of debris during implosions.

Your progressive collapse challenge requires that 80% of the debris lands outside the footprint, implying that this is only possible with demolition.
Sorry if I misunderstood.

Landing 80% of the debris outside of the footprint is one of the five requirements for the challenge to be met. It is not in itself proof that the towers came down by demolition charges.

However, I do believe that it is only possible via demolition. Remember, though, that this part of the challenge also states that the center of gravity also has to be within the footprint, too. This happened at the WTC at least twice. If you'd like to show me any gravity-driven collapse that caused this to occur, feel free. I would love you to show me such evidence.

I've been looking into the mechanics behind compressed air and I still can't figure out how to work out this problem with bernoulli's equation.

Nice.

You might want to backtrack a little:

A gas is one of the phases of matter. Like liquids, gases are fluids: they have the ability to flow and do not tend to return to their former configuration after deformation, although they do have viscosity. Unlike liquids, however, unconstrained gases do not occupy a fixed volume, but instead expand to fill whatever space they occupy.

Wikipedia Article.

Take that thought into account while trying to prove that compressed air flew down these air shafts and across offices to blow concrete dust out scores of feet laterally.

However if the pressure equalizes, then why did the cloud from the bottom of the collapse have enough force behind it to envelope all of Manhattan?

You're thinking of currents, dude. Not the same at all.

And why do I have to answer all of this crap for you? Look it up yourself. I'm not interested in answering why such and such does not work, etc. I'm interested in if you have any objective evidence in favor of the official story that you'd like to present.

What about the other possibilities I brought up?

Is it possible that internally falling debris could explain the jets of air?

I seriously doubt it, but if you want to prove that internal debris was raping through the concrete slabs ahead of the collapse, then feel free to post this evidence. I'm sure FEMA and NIST would love to hear about it, too.

We could explore the possibility of suicidal gnomes causing the squibs, too. You know, with bombs attached to themselves, hiding in the buildings. I'm sure this is a much more logical explanation than an explosive. I mean, who in their right mind would think an explosive would eject concrete dust scores of feet out into the air? Yeah. It must've been the magic air, or the "internal debris," or the suicide gnomes.

Alright, man. I'm about finished responding to your posts for now. Happy hunting for your evidence of non-equalizing air, internal debris, and whatever else you need to keep your ideas afloat.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by bsbray11]

So is this thread strictly about demolitions and squibs or are people looking at the overall picture?
[edit on 13-9-2005 by redmage]

[edit on 13-9-2005 by redmage]

Originally posted by bsbray11


You're thinking of currents, dude. Not the same at all.

Currents? Currents caused the dust to barrell down the streets of Manhattan, overruning people running for their lives?

I'm sorry but that just doesn't cut it. Laughing at Bernoulli's equations shows to me that you really don't understand the concepts or forces involved here.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Alright, man. I'm about finished responding to your posts for now. Happy hunting for your evidence of non-equalizing air, internal debris, and whatever else you need to keep your ideas afloat.

That's very big of you.

When I use evidence against your theory, you dismiss it. You use the same evidence to support your theory and somehow we are talking about different things?

Go ahead stop responding. It is plain that you ignore what you don't want to hear, so there really is no point in debating.

As Jake has pointed out, nothing you have presented is proof of controlled demolition. Just because something is "common sense" to you, is not evidence.

Searching for a plausible explanation for those jets of debris is much more rational than watching a half-baked documentary and then agreeing, without any evidence, that it's bombs. Bombs that were placed without cutting into the steel, on every single floor with no cables, just thousands of wireless transmitters that work almost flawlessy despite being buried behind walls and having to deal with tons of interference from all the electronics in the building. All placed with not one person noticing in a giant skyscraper. All that followed by flawless detonation within 10 seconds to make it appear like a collapse.

So far I have only seen speculation, not proof on said outlandish scenario.


Here is my proof.

wtc.nist.gov...

Originally posted by LeftBehind
It is plain that you ignore what you don't want to hear, so there really is no point in debating.

Well isn't that the pot and the kettle. lol

Bsbray, well thought out and presented, great posts.

It's clear the american public hasn't been given the whole story regarding 9/11, though it WAS so well orchestrated it's amazingly still being debated.
What really surprises me is that they were so overconfident and cocky afterwards that they got far to sloppy with the war on Iraq, and it's everchanging excuses. People still won't accept or acknowledge that they are being lied to throughout this campaign on "terror" and the spread of democracy. All to line the pockets of Haliburton, The Carlyle Group, and to centralize more power by stripping away civil rights.

I have to laugh when an affair, that has nothing to do with national security, is impeachable but sending our troops to die based on lies is fine.

As to 9/11, the administrations own words regarding wmd's come to mind.
"Absence of evidence, as Donald Rumsfeld has said, is not evidence of absence" ROFLMAO. Just because people can't see they're being lied to doesn't mean it's not happening.

The truly hillarious part is that there IS evidence regarding 9/11 and people choose to ignore it.

Jake,

You fail to realize that a building's structure is no obstacle for demolition. Any building that is built can be demolished.

All I want is some PROOF or EVIDENCE to support your extreme claims.

Let me make this clear one more time:

There is no definitive evidence of the official story.
There is no definitive evidence of demolition.

The very existance of both the squibs and disappearance of angular momentum both directly contradict the official story.

The squibs were not air. The squibs were not video edits. The squibs were not "screen smudges." The squibs were not caused by the buildings vibrating during collapse. Let's leave it at this for now.

The disappearance of angular momentum of the top floors of both buildings is direct evidence of a shattering of the frames of those floors. This directly contradicts the official story very explicitly.

Now, with no definitive evidence of either case, and two points that fly up in the face of the official story, you have a decision to make. Believe the explanation that brings you the most comfort or what have you, but also has at least two very troubling errors, or believe the explanation that has no such errors.

If that's not clear enough for you, then I'm going to be fair and ask you for evidence for the official story. I know you'll probably just rant, but if you can ask for definitive evidence that does not exist, then I will ask for definitive evidence that does not exist. It's as much your responsibility to prove your case to me as it is mine to you.

I heard of “explosives” early on, but no credible source ever claimed that, especially after studies were done.

No "studies" were ever done in regards to the squibs whatsoever. Totally ignored in government reports. Better left unmentioned, I suppose.

... any so called "evidence" has been explained more then enough. Flawed physics, incorrect assumptions & not a stitch of evidence doesn't look very promising to me, or any other "free-thinker" I've heard of.

Show how my reasoning is flawed, rather than simply stating that it is flawed and leaving it at that. If you can't tell me why it's flawed, then you're a troll.

Originally posted by spacesounds
bsbray-

Just want to say thanks for working so hard. I stop trying to convince these people after a little while, it seems so pointless sometimes. Gave you a way above vote, you deserve it lots.

I think I'm about to go insane. lmao.

But thanks.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Currents? Currents caused the dust to barrell down the streets of Manhattan, overruning people running for their lives?

Yep. Do you know what fluid currents are?

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...(fluid)

I'm sorry but that just doesn't cut it. Laughing at Bernoulli's equations shows to me that you really don't understand the concepts or forces involved here.

I was laughing at your suggestion of making use of it, while not understanding that compressed air equalizes when it meets less dense air.

LeftBehind, you haven't produced jack squat worth of evidence, and the NIST report is no proof whatsoever.

For something to be scientifically proven, the idea has to be tested via experiments a multitude of times with consistent results, and the exact methods and procedures, as well as results, are made available so that others may duplicate the trials and provide further proof. I suppose you'll try to debunk the scientific method, too, though.

At any rate, NIST failed to do that. We don't know how they got their results, much less how to go about reproducing them, and therefore they are not valid results from a scientific perspective. Unless one has a sort of religious faith in NIST, there is no convincing argument on their part. It amounts to a guess.

You yourself have provided nothing of value to the discussion in my opinion.

But I'll stop here, put you on my ignore list for now, allow you to make another melodramatic post (this time one that I won't respond to, so knock yourself out), and we can both be on our ways without wasting each others time any longer.

Originally posted by redmage
So is this thread strictly about demolitions and squibs or are people looking at the overall picture?

I think the original post was a bit of a rant, and so there's no specific topic, I suppose.

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
8bitagent- I totally agree. This certainly wouldn’t be the 1st time the American public was led down a garden path and it will not be the last. Making outlandish claims has always gotten more coverage the totally plausible happens surrounding so many world events. I’d be more apt to believe that some evidence would have been planted to feed the tin hat society, but it doesn’t appear there is even that (in reference to the WTCs). I can subscribe to conspiracy (TWA800),

Well we know that there is a lot of evidence to point toward some sort of missle bringing down TWA 800: either an accidental test missle fromt he Navy or a coverup of a terrorist attack as to not get invovled in a war. But
you want one reason to believe the government helped to orchestrate 9/11?

NORAD leading up to and the day of 9/11 was running covert drills
simulating the WTC and pentagon attacks. They had done this many times up to 9/11, and had 5 different drills that day. It confused many air traffic and other NORAD commanders. "Is this a drill?" they all said on those recordings.
This is NOT conspiracy, this is all admitted stuff. Bush signed an order for these drills, and Cheyney and Rumsfeld were in command of these drills, even the day of 9/11. Tell me you think this is just a coincidence, and for the first time NORAD stood down(tho there is some proof flight 93 may have been shot down)

Also, its been uncovered that some of th esupposed hijackers were staying with FBI agents, and were themselves operating for the CIA and FBI to spy on other islamic extremists. These people had been in a variety of simulated hijackings. It's why Bush proably didnt seem too concerned in the classroom, thinking it was just a drill.

Remember how many people asked "is this just a drlill?"

8bitagent- Again, all very good points. I also have a feeling that 93 was shot down, but that will never be admitted. I feel that 800 was shot down by terrorists, but that will also never be admitted. These type events span all political parties & groups. Both of these cases have more proof then any "squib" theory though, especially posted here. Chasing you tail promoting folly only draws the attention away from any real cover-ups that can be proven. I don’t doubt a conspiracy, I just can’t support an aspect of one with no proof what so ever. Your points have considerably more proof then some of the other points here.

I am simply asking for some PROOF of squibs, because IF they were used, the remaining evidence would be overwhelming. No video I have seen looks anything like a controlled demolition, but I guess it could cause questions to some people IF some valid evidence was brought forth.

Redmage- The thread was started to point out how convoluted some of the conspiracists must get to support their claims. The people and resulting evidence required for such an event would have been astounding. No answers were provided and it pretty much went down hill from there.

BS- You certainly are very fond of the term “troll”, when referring to someone who doesn’t agree with you. I take that term as a personnel attack though it doesn’t seem the powers that be do. Your comments go unmentioned, while others making less remarks don’t. I don’t think you have questions as much as an agenda to push. Simply adding someone to an ignore list limits your chances of hearing differing opinions and really only uniterested in hearing anyone else. That certainly doesn’t seem like a wise thing to do. I now realize Deny Ignorance has proven to be more of a slogan then a mind set.

Again with the squis, dust, air.

I don't understand how any sane person can look at those towers come down and then respond "well that's gravity for you".

Isn't it America where they are now teaching gravity doesn't exist? That god is pushing all those things to the ground?
Wich makes me wonder if those are the same scientists that investigated the collapses.

I am continually amazed at the self contradictions that bsbray11 presents as arguments.

He claims that the puffs of dust and debris can not be caused by compresses air because the pressure would equalize immediately once the air left the building, yet anyone that has blown out a cloud of condensation on a cold winter morning, or even a stream of cigarette smoke will tell you that the moisture or the smoke don’t just stop dead in the air the second that they leave your mouth.

Bsbray11 forgets the fact that the visible puff cloud is comprised of dust and debris particles as well as air and that all of those have mass and thus inertia. They won’t just stop dead after leaving the building.

He claims that this can not be caused by compressed air, yet he conveniently forgets that that is just what explosions are, expanding clouds of compressed air.

Nor does he, or anyone else, for that matter, explain how, with this so-called demolition that supposedly required thousands of charges, you only see one so-called charge going off.

I mean, if you are going to knock out the columns on every floor, you would need somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 separate charges, right?

Originally posted by bsbray11

A gas is one of the phases of matter. Like liquids, gases are fluids: they have the ability to flow and do not tend to return to their former configuration after deformation, although they do have viscosity. Unlike liquids, however, unconstrained gases do not occupy a fixed volume, but instead expand to fill whatever space they occupy.

Wikipedia Article.

Take that thought into account while trying to prove that compressed air flew down these air shafts and across offices to blow concrete dust out scores of feet laterally.

My god, man, you don’t even understand what you just posted, did you? You ask how the air pressure could have built up on the floors until it found the release point of an open window and you quote an article that explains it, yet you still persist in your arguments?



You just answered your own question!

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Nor does he, or anyone else, for that matter, explain how, with this so-called demolition that supposedly required thousands of charges, you only see one so-called charge going off.

There are multiple puffs of dust visible, but they're in random locations which suggests to me that they are open/broken windows. Floors collapsing above are going to push air. It has to go somewhere. Some of it will go out windows (or break them) and some will go down air vents and shafts to the floors below where it will also be pushed out of windows. This air is mixed with smoke and dust from the collapse above, which is why it forms a visible cloud pushing out.

The clouds of dust visible in controlled demolitions are not, as far as I know, the actual explosive, but formed from the collapse. The explosive is merely blasting apart the steel frame (and perhaps concrete in places, which would cause *some* visible expanding clouds of dust but not a huge amount). I am not completely certain of this, and correct me if I am wrong, but I do think it's correct.

8bitagent- Again, all very good points. I also have a feeling that 93 was shot down, but that will never be admitted. I feel that 800 was shot down by terrorists, but that will also never be admitted. These type events span all political parties & groups. Both of these cases have more proof then any "squib" theory though, especially posted here. Chasing you tail promoting folly only draws the attention away from any real cover-ups that can be proven. I don’t doubt a conspiracy, I just can’t support an aspect of one with no proof what so ever. Your points have considerably more proof then some of the other points here.

I am simply asking for some PROOF of squibs, because IF they were used, the remaining evidence would be overwhelming. No video I have seen looks anything like a controlled demolition, but I guess it could cause questions to some people IF some valid evidence was brought forth.

Redmage- The thread was started to point out how convoluted some of the conspiracists must get to support their claims. The people and resulting evidence required for such an event would have been astounding. No answers were provided and it pretty much went down hill from there.

BS- You certainly are very fond of the term “troll”, when referring to someone who doesn’t agree with you. That term is a personnel attack, though it doesn’t seem the powers that be think so. Your comments go unmentioned, while others making less remarks don’t. I don’t think you have questions as much as an agenda to push. Simply adding someone to an ignore list limits your chances of hearing differing opinions. That certainly doesn’t seem like a wise thing to do. Deny Ignorance has proven to be more of a slogan then a mind set.

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
8bitagent- Again, all very good points. I also have a feeling that 93 was shot down, but that will never be admitted. I feel that 800 was shot down by terrorists, but that will also never be admitted. These type events span all political parties & groups. Both of these cases have more proof then any "squib" theory though, especially posted here. Chasing you tail promoting folly only draws the attention away from any real cover-ups that can be proven. I don’t doubt a conspiracy, I just can’t support an aspect of one with no proof what so ever. Your points have considerably more proof then some of the other points here.

Well Richard Clarke in his book eludes crypticly to a decision to coverup the TWA 800 terrorist attack to avoid a possible ocnflict with whatever country sent them. I can understand this actually, but to the families its not right.
They saved the lives of innocent civilians in (Iran? Syria? who knows) but
the families deserve to knwo the truth.

And yeah, focusing on specifics of the WTC buildings can get a bit tricky.
I think in a year an even clearer picture will emerge.

The big smoking guns have to be NORAD conudcting the 9/11 war games before and during the attack, NORAD standing down, possibility the hijackers were FBI related(much like Oswald was in fact a CIA operative),
WTC 7, oh and this:
www.fbi.gov...

Wow, where does it say bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks? It doesnt.

Paul O'Neil before he died working security at WTC was probably one of several people who were getting to close to the truth and told to back away from investigating al Qaeda. All the money trails of these supposed hijackers would for sure lead back to the government.