911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

reply to post by bsbray11


Yes, we know exactly what happened. Exactly what happened is that two airplanes struck WTC 1 & 2 and they came down.

There is no evidence for any other cause. Anomalous booms do not mean demolitions.

reply to post by bsbray11


First, you want to make any sharp noise an "explosion." Now you think you know what I am thinking when you post a youtube compilation of people hearing random booms and bangs?
If you want to postulate demolitions, take a guess at numbers and sizes of charges that it would take to bring down a building the size of the WTC from the top down. Then estimate the noise each charge would make and how the charges would be timed. Then track the videos in real time to see if anything matches up.
Merely hearing a few booms and postulating demolitions without any other evidence shows only that you want to believe in a conspiracy.

Originally posted by pteridine
If you want to postulate demolitions, take a guess at numbers and sizes of charges that it would take to bring down a building the size of the WTC from the top down.

Then work out how many tonnes of explosives that would be, then explain how all those explosives were somehow smuggled into the buildings, then explain how no one noticed the man months of work required to wire them all up, bash holes in the walls, run km of cable betwen them all etc.

All without anyone at all noticing....

Originally posted by pteridine
Yes, we know exactly what happened. Exactly what happened is that two airplanes struck WTC 1 & 2 and they came down.

Yep, no disagreement about that. But we both know that's not the full explanation, either. You love being so cute.

There is no evidence for any other cause.

Is that why you guys haven't been posting any evidence to support the other parts of the "official story"? Like stuff from NIST, FEMA, the Kean Commission...? Because that would make a lot of sense.

Anomalous booms do not mean demolitions.

They don't exactly debunk the idea either.


So where your positive evidence that these explosions were not caused by explosives/bombs?

Originally posted by bsbray11
So where your positive evidence that these explosions were not caused by explosives/bombs?

Where is your positive evidence that it was caused by explosives/bombs?

You are the one calling them explosives/bombs,so how about proving it?

Originally posted by pteridine
First, you want to make any sharp noise an "explosion."

Not just me, the dictionary, too.

I guess the people who wrote the dictionary are all "truthers."

Now you think you know what I am thinking when you post a youtube compilation of people hearing random booms and bangs?

I know your head is racing to come up with other explanations besides explosives/bombs for what these people experienced while you are listening to/watching them.

Did you even watch the video? You complain about it but I notice you don't say anything else. I really doubt you watched the whole thing. It probably makes you feel sick watching it, doesn't it? Been there already man, years ago.

If you want to postulate demolitions, take a guess at numbers and sizes of charges that it would take to bring down a building the size of the WTC from the top down. Then estimate the noise each charge would make and how the charges would be timed. Then track the videos in real time to see if anything matches up.

"take a guess at numbers"..."estimate the noise"... Need I say more? You're about as experienced to "guess" those things as Bozo the Clown.


So where is your positive evidence that the explosions weren't caused by explosives/bombs?

Merely hearing a few booms and postulating demolitions without any other evidence shows only that you want to believe in a conspiracy.

I have plenty of reasons to believe the buildings were demolished besides the explosions themselves, but why would I bring anything else up when you exhibit so much damned bias towards the most direct and obvious evidence of all: the explosions themselves?


So where is your positive evidence that the explosions weren't caused by explosives/bombs?

[edit on 6-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
So where your positive evidence that these explosions were not caused by explosives/bombs?

Where is your positive evidence that it was caused by explosives/bombs?

We went over this last night. Answering my question with another question....doesn't answer my question.

So where is your positive evidence that these explosions were not caused by explosives/bombs?

You are the one calling them explosives/bombs,so how about proving it?

We went over this last night too. I never said such a thing. You are really going to make me feel bad if it turns out you only have psychological issues that prevent you from retaining information for even a single day. Like Johnny Knoxville in "The Ringer" feel-bad.

Originally posted by bsbray11
So where is your positive evidence that these explosions were not caused by explosives/bombs?

you made the claim, you back that claim up - except of course you are unable to, as there is no evidence at all that explosives/bombs were in the WTC buildings.... you also refuse to state how your tonnes of explosives were able to be laid in the buildings!

Typical of a "truther" avoiding the facts!

Originally posted by dereks
you made the claim, you back that claim up

Show me where I made the claim. Show me in what post I said "the explosions were caused by bombs or explosives."

Good luck, because I never said that.

I asked WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BOMBS OR EXPLOSIVES?

All you have to do is say "there IS no such proof!"

Or else just shut up already, because you are lying every time you say I made a positive claim about what caused them here.

you also refuse to state how your tonnes of explosives were able to be laid in the buildings!

Would you like to prove there would have to be tons of explosives and not only a handful of specially-placed bombs? Let's see your evidence for that. This is going to be great considering you simultaneously believe NO explosives did the exact same thing.

Typical of a "truther" avoiding the facts!

I could train a parrot to say the same thing.


Where is your proof that the explosions were NOT caused by bombs or explosives?

Originally posted by bsbray11
I asked WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BOMBS OR EXPLOSIVES?

Where is the proof that they were bombs or explosives? You think they were, so back up that claim. It is not up top others to disprove your claim, it is up to you to back that claim up.

Of course you are unable to, so you try and squirm out of your claim!!

Typical of a truther who realises that their claim has zero facts to back it up!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
I asked WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BOMBS OR EXPLOSIVES?

Where is the proof that they were bombs or explosives? You think they were, so back up that claim. It is not up top others to disprove your claim, it is up to you to back that claim up.

Since you keep refusing to answer the question, and repeatedly answer me with another question, I take it you also have no evidence that they weren't bombs/explosives.

So then you admit you don't know what they were, right?

reply to post by bsbray11


I see what you mean, we are just beating a dead horse with some of these posters it does not matter what you present, and they will always justifies their means.

I don’t give a hoot to what they think, I know what is real. Like the firefighters said, it was like every floor being blown out BOOM, BOOM, BOOM.

I know it was demolition, because every floor, every truss, floor beam, every welded bolt broke at the exact same time. In a natural collapse building floors do not brake all at once at all four corners of the building simultaneously, in fact, I think it is impossible.
Yet, we all saw every floor vaporized simultaneously.

We were watching the WTC destroying itself from within itself, and that does not come from a natural collapse.

We may not have found any pieces of left over bombs or devices at ground zero, how could we? NYC polices and FBI closely guarded ground zero, no one was allowed to go snooping around the WTC debris.

However, the sound recordings and videos speak volumes for themselves as proof of demolition.
I know what you are saying is true about the OS believers want to see the evidences to what made those loud BOOM, BOOM, BOOM. One can only assume right. I mean how many generators did the WTC have, because from my understanding they did not have them on very floor, yet every floor was making the same “explosive noises” according to NYC firefighters & police officers and WTC survivors.

It funny, because if someone did find a remaining piece of a bomb at ground zero, the OS believers will say oh yeah, but that was only one explosives device that was found and that couldn’t have been enough to bring down the WTC. This is the game they want to play, logic is not important. The fact is, if we got lucky and found one explosives device in the WTC rubble, surly there would be more.

You and I are not ignorant we know what sciences has proven concerning the demise of the WTC.

reply to post by dereks



From the way you keep repeating yourself, I realize you have a special need for additional explanation derek so let me try to make this easier for you.


You keep expressing the sentiment that these explosions weren't caused by bombs or explosives, without giving any evidence.

I haven't expressed that they were caused by bombs or explosives. But even if I do believe that, I haven't given any evidence for it here, you're right. That's not to say I couldn't, but like I told pteridine, if you're having so much trouble with this, there is no point in me trying to make things any more complicated for you.


So let's say, for the sake of argument:

You don't believe they are explosives/bombs.

But I do.


So if I don't have any evidence they were explosives, and if you don't have any evidence they weren't explosives, then the two possibilities for you here are:

1) You're just a hypocrite for having an equal amount of evidence as I do but bitching about me anyway. (Best case scenario.)

2) You're flat-out wrong about this whole thing. (Worst case scenario.)


And in case you didn't notice, this thread is about "official story" believers proving THEIR case, not the other way around. Maybe that just blows your mind and you're unable to comprehend what that even means.


But nonetheless I'm going to ask again.


Do you have any evidence that proves what exactly is causing these explosions? Yes or no?

Originally posted by impressme
I know it was demolition, because every floor, every truss, floor beam, every welded bolt broke at the exact same time. In a natural collapse building floors do not brake all at once at all four corners of the building simultaneously, in fact, I think it is impossible.

I know what you mean about all four corners of WTC1 dropping simultaneously, and also its antenna, meaning the entire structure across an entire floor was destroyed simultaneously. But you'll probably have to re-word the way you said this or someone's going to jump down your throat for suggesting the entire buildings exploded all at once, which they obviously didn't, but someone would probably try to construe it that way anyway just to be argumentative about it because they're petty like that.


I don't want to even bring up that kind of evidence if we have numerous sounds of explosions and tons of witness testimony to them, and these guys can't even comprehend THAT, and just try to dismiss it/down-play it/pretend they somehow know that it was something else causing them all.

If they can't even admit to themselves that they have no idea know what was causing these explosions, which are obvious evidence of explosives in themselves, then there's no use going into anything that requires critical thinking. The intellectual honesty on their part just isn't there.


Maybe all the explosions were really just caused by "truthers" trying to fool them into believing conspiracy theories.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by impressme
nt we know what sciences has proven concerning the demise of the WTC.

and science has proven it was not done by bombs/explosives!

The funny thing about this is there will not be another investigation, the "truthers" will still be ranting in years time, the same as the "birthers", moon landing was a hoax proponents, flat earthers etc etc. No one cares about their rants, they have become irrelevant

Originally posted by dereks
and science has proven it was not done by bombs/explosives!

What science is that?

This is the evidence I keep asking you for. Is it the irrelevant question you keep answering me back with?

reply to post by dereks

and science has proven it was not done by bombs/explosives!

Do you care to elaborate?
What science disproved there were no bombs/explosives?
Please enlighten us.

The funny thing about this is there will not be another investigation,

You do not know that, and that is your opinion.

the "truthers" will still be ranting in years time, the same as the "birthers", moon landing was a hoax proponents, flat earthers etc etc. No one cares about their rants, they have become irrelevant

Obviously, you care or you would not be in here posting to me about your rants 24/7.

Originally posted by dereks
Then work out how many tonnes of explosives that would be, then explain how all those explosives were somehow smuggled into the buildings

As a purely speculative argument, if we go from history and expert opinion, I predict one ton.

The bomb in 93 was 1,500 lbs:

"The 1,500 lb (680 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device" (source: en.wikipedia.org...)

And experts think that if it was a little bigger or placed in a different location it would have brought it down:

"If they had found the exact architectural Achilles' heel [of the World Trade Center]," says an explosives expert who works for the FBI, "or if the bomb had been a little bit bigger, not much more, 500 pounds more, I think it would have brought her down. It's really scary." ( Source: www.textfiles.com... and www.historycommons.org...)

So if I add 1,500 lbs. and 500 lbs. I come up with 2,000 lbs. which is one ton.

But we can also forget the one ton conclusion and stick with 1,500 lbs because as the expert said back in '93, only 1,500 lbs may have done it if it went off at the building's "exact architectural Achille's Heel." Exactly where that expert thought this location was I don't think they released, probably based on security reasons.

As for the smuggling part, the 93 case is precedence enough.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by bsbray11

 

I see what you mean, we are just beating a dead horse with some of these posters it does not matter what you present, and they will always justifies their means.

I don’t give a hoot to what they think, I know what is real. Like the firefighters said, it was like every floor being blown out BOOM, BOOM, BOOM.

I know it was demolition, because every floor, every truss, floor beam, every welded bolt broke at the exact same time. In a natural collapse building floors do not brake all at once at all four corners of the building simultaneously, in fact, I think it is impossible.
Yet, we all saw every floor vaporized simultaneously.

We were watching the WTC destroying itself from within itself, and that does not come from a natural collapse.

We may not have found any pieces of left over bombs or devices at ground zero, how could we? NYC polices and FBI closely guarded ground zero, no one was allowed to go snooping around the WTC debris.

However, the sound recordings and videos speak volumes for themselves as proof of demolition.
I know what you are saying is true about the OS believers want to see the evidences to what made those loud BOOM, BOOM, BOOM. One can only assume right. I mean how many generators did the WTC have, because from my understanding they did not have them on very floor, yet every floor was making the same “explosive noises” according to NYC firefighters & police officers and WTC survivors.

It funny, because if someone did find a remaining piece of a bomb at ground zero, the OS believers will say oh yeah, but that was only one explosives device that was found and that couldn’t have been enough to bring down the WTC. This is the game they want to play, logic is not important. The fact is, if we got lucky and found one explosives device in the WTC rubble, surly there would be more.

You and I are not ignorant we know what sciences has proven concerning the demise of the WTC.

Ah yes, using that firefighter's quote, without actually understanding what he means and what context its being used as. I think the key words he used were :"it was like" . Ahh and now that exactly points to explosives being used, because it was like that? So by that logic, when people describe a tornado ripping apart their house, and the say, "It sounded like a freight train" or "It was like a bomb hit the house and town," then by God there really must have been a freight train going through their house, or a bomb actually hitting their house, right? and pulling this up, people's own wording of an event thats never happened to them before, and using it as evidence of something sinister like special bombs, its very dishonest and very misleading. Well seeing what he was talking about, I believe he said it was like "puh puh puh" floors popping out, well gee it kinda did look like that, especially when you have 100+ floors pancaking on top of each other going all the way down, where are all those acres of air in between the floors going to go?

I enjoy how you use firefighter accounts of things sounding like explosions, and twist it around to mean there is evidence of "bombs" but in the same breath, ignore them when they mention severe structural damage done to the WTCs, WTC7, the building is structurally unsound, tilting, pulling firefighters out, etc. Picky picky. I dont doubt there were "explosions" heard at WTCs. You just had two fueled aircraft impact two of the largest towers in North America, are there going to be things going boom? Of course. But to go an equate that to secret demo charges being used, is very dishonest.

You constantly forget the way the floors were designed too. There were no large steel I-beams used in the floors, just light trusses bolted at each end to the vertical columns on the interior and exterior. Great for horizontal stability, and strong enough, but wont do much good when 30+ floors decide to drop 10-15 ft straight down. You saw the exterior panels during the collapse slightly peel away, correct? as the florrs dropped, they sheared the connections of the trusses from the colums. And really, how is a 1" bolt of steel, in a small seat going to withstand the sheering energy of 30+ floors moving as one, down?

By the way, can you tell building failure sounds from explosives going off? You know, steel beams snapping, concrete breaking, steel beams and trusses falling down, etc? Or gas tanks, oxygen tanks, fuel tanks exploding? Transformers exploding? Can you tell that from a "CD" charge? I once heard a dumpster drop 5ft off a ramp, sounded like abomb went off and made me jump 10ft.

reply to post by bsbray11

The tapes have noise on them. No one can show what the noise was. You seem to have already concluded that demolitions were involved and that we were hearing them explode.
If that was the case, why didn't the building fall with the booms? It seems like nothing happened when the noise was heard.

When I asked you to estimate the number and sizes of the charges to drop a building from the top down, I knew that you couldn't do it.

Here is a start for you. Take the number of columns you want to remove and estimate 4 pounds HE for each box beam and three for each I beam. Now multiply by the number of floors that you want to drop until the building gets going and collapses by its own unsupported weight.
For a symmetrical collapse, the charges on a floor must go all at once, so add in the amount of detcord needed; you can daisy chain it for this exercise, so a perimeter loop plus an interior column loop will work, if you think you need to cut the core, too.

Now you need to sequence them down the building. That is more detcord going down with delay caps timed to fire sequentially with the rubble fall.

After you have selected a scenario and done the calculations, imagine, if you can, what your version of this would look like and sound like.

Do you think that there would be random booms and bangs over the course of many minutes? Do you think that charges firing on the exterior columns wouldn't be noticed?

There is no evidence of demolitions. There is only your desire for a conspiracy.

reply to post by NIcon


A single basement bomb wouldn't explain the top down collapse, so your estimate does not apply.