"Pancake collapse" proven possible

reply to post by _BoneZ_


That's funny actually. Because this is actually what you said:

You can make up whatever BS you need to help you sleep at night and keep you from believing in a conspiracy. However, your made-up explanations are theory and opinion only. What's not theory or opinion and what's real fact is that these concentrated jets/plumes that I posted in my last post, have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated.

There's absolutely nothing you can do to prove that wrong.

You won't find a single video of a building collapse that is not a controlled demolition that shows these concentrated jets/plumes. So while you're sitting there theorizing and making things up to explain them away because of your denial, the rest of us who are seeking the real truth will deal with just the facts and the facts are these concentrated jets/plumes are seen in controlled demolition only and nowhere else.

Anyrate.... Sad you can't actually even remember what you type from one minute to the next. And what is this obcession with videos? I mean not every possibility in life can be found in a video I hate to tell you. The effects I talked about would by common sense look simular. Your lack of ability to mentally view things is not my problem. Which is another investigatory flaw.

reply to post by jprophet420


Down is also a direction air can be forced.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
high power explosives are not the ONLY source of these plumes.

You and others keep saying, but you fail to provide any evidence to support your claim. See, I've posted other images that show how controlled demolitions have those plumes. Anyone that has looked at CD knows that those plumes are from high-powered explosives being detonated.

What you have not done is showed us any videos that show plumes in a building collapse that is not CD. I don't care what somebody's "opinion" is that they use to explain the plumes away. Either show a video that has plumes that is not CD, or concede. That's a very plain and simple request.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
the jets are seen as the 2 floors meet

Yeah, that's disinformation. There were plumes/jets that were seen some 60-floors below the collapse in the lower part of the towers where no floors were even moving yet. Not to mention the flashes that were seen down in the lower levels of the towers by the first responders as I've already posted earlier in this thread.

What you're doing is making up things out of thin air to explain away the evidence so that you don't have to believe that there was a conspiracy, all while ignoring the real evidence and not posting any links to back your claims up. Making things up to explain away the evidence, and not posting any links to verify your claims, would be classified as disinformation.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
"troof"

Spell-checker would have worked in this instance. Or is that an attack? I'll say that it was an attack since the word is in quotes. Very mature.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Your continued attacks and lack of posting the requested evidence continues to be noted.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Because I don't have a video.............. Hey if that helps you sleep at night..... Your fun! And it's funny that someone who initiates soo many attacks at others on the first sign of disagreement would whine about attacks. Kinda hypocritical.

Good day sir, unless you have anymore deflections/copouts to attempt to pass off as refutations of my arguments. And I am still waiting for that link to the 12000 page document you claimed. Wait, that's where you got the idea to push the video of plumes thing. How funny.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Why are you wasting so much bandwidth and space on this forum with your meaningless words? Just post some damn sources for your claims already. Why is it so hard for you to provide sources instead of typing a bunch of meaningless drivel?

troll -
someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Your posts towards me have been inflamatory, provocative, and most have been irrelevant or off topic when I've asked for you to post some simple evidence to back up your claims. Big shocker there.


Post some evidence to back you your claims or concede. Plain and simple.

well you make a real good point here. i mean sure anything is possible.
it's just that no one believes it anymore. please no more like this.
you are boring.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Given your first response to my respectful disagreement. But hey, some people can't take what they dish. I know that. Good day sir.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

You and others keep saying, but you fail to provide any evidence to support your claim. See, I've posted other images that show how controlled demolitions have those plumes. Anyone that has looked at CD knows that those plumes are from high-powered explosives being detonated.

I did give a source. The Balzac-Vitry demo. No explosives were used. You confirmed this in one of your posts. It was done using hydraulics.

And when the upper part met the lower floors, it resulted in high vslocity jets of air being forced out from between the space. This carried dust out with it.

So while it was indeed a CD, it also proves that explosives aren't the only source of air jets.

And if you doubt that there was air being forced out of the building at high speed all over the place, all one needs to do is read the accounts of the survivors in 1's collapse. They were in the stair wells around the 10th floor, IIRC, and describe them being pushed down the stair wells by hurricane like winds. Nowhere do they describe a blast blowing them down. Or hearing a blast.

How do you explain their experience?

Originally posted by jprophet420

Its wonderful you noted this actually. The jets in the wtc collapses were far below the collapsing floors.

As I noted in my above post, the survivors of 1's collapse also describe them being pushed down the stairwells by hurricane like winds. And as the other poster noted, air can also be pushed down.

Care to explain their experience?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by jprophet420

 

Down is also a direction air can be forced.

but there was no resistance from below according to the story I've been given. "Global failure" and all. What was underneath the air that made it stop accelerating down and blow out the sides instead?

As ever its not what they do show you in these 'proof of' videos .. its what they dont show that gives the true story. You DONT see what is left of the building at the end of the video. This would indicate that the collapse only looked like a pancake collapse for a couple of seconds and then the dust cloud gets to big to see anything.

You can be sure that if the end result was a real pancake collapse they would have showed you what the broken up building looked like.

This building was made of bricks and the WTC towers were a matrix of steel girders.

Also that building broke in the middle where the weight was enough to produce that effect . For that to be compared to the WTC towers the top floor on its own (10%) would have to bring down the whole building.



[edit on 9-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

As I noted in my above post, the survivors of 1's collapse also describe them being pushed down the stairwells by hurricane like winds. And as the other poster noted, air can also be pushed down.

Care to explain their experience?

Sure! I can explain it.

When a explosion occors, the energy pushes EVERYTHING around it from the ignition point.

You know what's included in that "everything"? Air.

In an explosion, there is a "little thing" with a funky name that actually produces the majority of the damage in an explosion. It's called "SHOCKWAVE".

Have you ever seen a nuclear explosion? You know that the first damage it's actually caused by AIR, right? It's called "Megaton Air Blast", and it's massive effects can cause heavy damage to 30 miles away from the explosion point.

The rush of air doesn't prove AT ALL that there was no explosion. And don't forget to mention all the OTHER witnesses that said they heard (and felt) various explosions on the 3 buildings.

And you also fail to mention the damage, sounds of explosion and vibration on the lower levels BEFORE the collapse happens...

Originally posted by Tifozi

In an explosion, there is a "little thing" with a funky name that actually produces the majority of the damage in an explosion. It's called "SHOCKWAVE".

So they were close enough to be pushed down 2 flights of stairs, and yet didn't experience ruptured organs, eardrums, etc ?

You sure you want to go with that?

reply to post by jprophet420


It went down and then out the side. Thus the plumes. I talked about that earlier.

reply to post by VitalOverdose


Beacause there was dust kicked up it wasn't? Great logic that.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

So they were close enough to be pushed down 2 flights of stairs, and yet didn't experience ruptured organs, eardrums, etc ?

You sure you want to go with that?

Do YOU even know where you are going with your claims?

So, they won't be suffering massive internal damage from the air blast by a collapse, but they would if it was an explosion?

Get your act together. I never said they suffered from the shockwave directly, I just explained to you that an rush of air doesn't prove or exclude an explosion/natural collapse, and it happens in both cenarios.

You fail to understand the physics around a shockwave. If there was an explosion on the wall where they were, they wouldn't get internal injuries, they would be dead. You know how they would be after that? Like those bone and tissue pieces that were found far away from the towers.

But the explosion didn't occour where they were. It occured way up, but the air blast continued through the building. Do you know what is one of the main reason NOT to use elevators in a fire or attack? Because air travels pretty quickly around buildings when forced to it, and in a fire there is a pretty damn chance that a violent fire will travel through the elevator shafts.

What I find pathetic is that you claim that a air compression on the upper floors, pushing the air of some of those floors creates "hurricane winds" but an explosion, with all it energic power creating a shockwave that pushes air is just impossible...

You must be amazed each time you turn the ignition of your car on.

[edit on 10/8/09 by Tifozi]

reply to post by Tifozi


Shows how little you know about physics. Thank you.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Tifozi

 

Shows how little you know about physics. Thank you.

I fail to see what valid point you bring to the discussion.

...neither I can sense from that one-line-post where is your physics masterpiece refuting what I posted.

You're welcome. Happy to make trolls happy.

[edit on 10/8/09 by Tifozi]

BTW, to the physics genius, I would like you to explain to me this:

The first squids you see coming from the buildings are caused by the initiation of the collapse, right? Those massive tons, going down, blowing air like Katrina itself was running away from the fire... Amazing.

So, it pushes air down, and to the sides, making those cute and adorable farts of dust.

The first ones, it's because of the massive air that suddently was pushed down. But how about the other ones that have the same size and intensity? Where comes that air from?

I mean, according to you, the air was pushed down and to the sides, so that means it was dissipated...

All the other floors didn't have nearly as much air as the initial collapse.

Can you explain THAT?