911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

The following pictures were taken from two different perspectives at very close to the same time on 9/11. I have edited them with simple line drawing and text to help explain the common-sense difficulty I have with the O(fficial) S(piel).



Source

In the first image, the building is rotated somewhat to the left. The line segment indicating 207ft (the width of the tower from WTC north tower blueprints) is conservative due to not viewing the building squarely in the photo. The same line segment was copied and pasted to illustrate the distance from the building that steel girders were being ejected to. It should be easy for the layman to see that the steel pieces were ejected 300ft conservatively from the building. If the collapse was gravity induced, and the force of gravity points (green arrow) downward to the center of the Earth, why were heavy steel girders being shot outward 100 yds? Why were they being shot upwards (see arrows pointing to the top right at approx. 45 deg angle)? What forces could overcome the force of gravity to produce this upward and outward momentum? There is enough of this type of common sense observation that regular people should feel comfortable in demanding a new investigation.
I encourage the common sense approach to looking at why things in the OS don't add up. All the other sidetracking and namecalling drive the undecided away from the arguments the best of us may present.

Originally posted by Nutter

Good way to have debate there. I find when someone is an ass, then they deserve the ignore button. Welcome to it.

Translation: you got pwned, and the only way to save face is to go for the iggy button and claim indignation. Gotcha.

You get an A for proving fire heats steel. You still have yet to prove that the WTC fires were able to heat the WTC steel to such levels.

IOW, you have no rebuttal to the fact that these real world fire tests PROVE the rate at which a typical fire will heat steel. It even gave the formulae for determining what can be expected for various surface area to mass ratio steel vs heat to use to determine that.

BTW, welcome for your education.

What you need to really prove is the OS where flimsy floor trusses are able to pull in columns designed to resist huricane winds enough to cause failure.

Why would that be critical? there's several factors that feed into the report. Creep, load transfer, damage, etc. To ask us to show how a truss would pull in an ext column thorugh the sagging mechanism alone is the worst strawman I've ever heard.

It's not surprising that yet another has fallen for the garbage that CT sites give the TM.

I swear, if there was just one of you that actually read the report and had intelligent questions about it, it would be a frickin' miracle.

OK no bites from OS(pielers). How about this for another common sense OS problem:

How does the top section of the WTC south tower that is toppling, turn into rubble and pulverized concrete with pyroclastic flow? The angular momentum of the top floors with all their weight should have kept going to the left in the pictures. Instead the whole section was pulverized just like the rest of the lower floors with steel core columns. If explosives were not involved, why didn't this huge piece of building simply fall into the streets below?
See frame by frame sequence. Why did all of the exploding concrete and steel shoot out to the side of the building when it was supposedly fire and gravity at work?

Multiple photos:





Source

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Translation: you got pwned, and the only way to save face is to go for the iggy button

I want you to soak up the feeling you had when you posted this, Joey. Just soak it all up and absorb it in all its triumphant glory, and really get to know what it feels like. Really familiarize yourself with it, like it's family, like you're never going to be without such an awesome feeling ever again. That awesome feeling of harassing ("pwning" as you put it) a stranger on an internet forum.

I'm entirely convinced the only reason people like you post here (and the others who keep engaging in all the petty bickering here, rather than, say, answering a simple question with a straight answer) is to get your fix of this feeling. Come on, you know exactly what I'm talking about, too. You felt really good after coming up with that, huh? Like somebody important, right?


All I'm saying is you guys should take every opportunity to get your fill of what that feels like, so maybe one day you'll get over it and actually be able to have discussions like mature adults that know how to ration things without all these prideful emotions getting in your way.


Still waiting specifically for multiple people to give me a straight, honest answer to a simple and straightforward question.





What caused this explosion, and where's the proof?

This explosion represents unnumbered other explosions throughout the day, most of which come from witness testimonies. All of them equally unexplained and equally requiring serious consideration due to the very serious potential implications of so many explosions occurring around these buildings.

If you happened to think they couldn't have possibly been explosives/bombs (a negative assertion), you are more than welcome to try to prove it. Though if you simultaneously realize such a thing is futile then you must accept the logical consequence of being unable to prove it, namely that it is a real possibility.

And of course as always if you DO have any POSITIVE evidence as to what caused these explosions, still waiting for that as well.

These explosions alone are enough to warrant another investigation considering they affected so many people yet remain totally unexplained. And no matter how important you guys think you are, and how smart you think you are, none of your answers are based on anything but rhetoric, you don't actually settle the fundamental question and issue, and nobody gives a damn what your personal opinion is, either of the unexplained explosions or of your opinions of "truthers."

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
To suggest this is concrete evidence of "regular detonations" is of course ridiculous.

Strawman much? I said it was evidence that some explosions were not "randomly spaced". Try to keep up please.

So some woman surrounded by panicking New Yorkers and the clamour of the a shattering terror attack, desperately attempting to keep on broadcasting while around her madness reigns - her saying that she can hear bangs every twenty minutes or so is "evidence that some explosions were not randomly spaced"?

Anyway, according to you she's not even right. They were every 13-15 minutes. And the sample size isn't exactly large.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

So some woman surrounded by panicking New Yorkers and the clamour of the a shattering terror attack, desperately attempting to keep on broadcasting while around her madness reigns - her saying that she can hear bangs every twenty minutes or so is "evidence that some explosions were not randomly spaced"?

Anyway, according to you she's not even right. They were every 13-15 minutes. And the sample size isn't exactly large.

Wow, this explains why you are so confused on the other thread. He said he was relying on seismic data for his theory and that was when he corrected his 20 minutes to 15 minutes. I read it, didn't you?

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

So some woman surrounded by panicking New Yorkers and the clamour of the a shattering terror attack, desperately attempting to keep on broadcasting while around her madness reigns - her saying that she can hear bangs every twenty minutes or so is "evidence that some explosions were not randomly spaced"?

Anyway, according to you she's not even right. They were every 13-15 minutes. And the sample size isn't exactly large.

Wow, this explains why you are so confused on the other thread. He said he was relying on seismic data for his theory and that was when he corrected his 20 minutes to 15 minutes. I read it, didn't you?

Yes. It's you who is mistaken.

If you look, you'll see that he responded to me when I mentioned the reporter. I haven't made any post at all about seismic data (other than to quote his evidence that contradicts itself - the reporter and the seismic do not agree - something that he has been forced to admit.)

Nor have I responded to "Nutter" apart from above, and to highlight the fact earlier that he admits he cannot prove his claims. You'll see that my original reply was to, I think, DerekS.

Indeed I think he misunderstood as well. My post refers to the usefulness and credibility of the reporter's claims. He apparently thinks her response is good evidence that the bangs are "not randomly spaced". I disagree.

So you know, as ever - keep up.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Yes. It's you who is mistaken.

If you look, you'll see that he responded to me when I mentioned the reporter. I haven't made any post at all about seismic data (other than to quote his evidence that contradicts itself - the reporter and the seismic do not agree - something that he has been forced to admit.)

Nor have I responded to "Nutter" apart from above, and to highlight the fact earlier that he admits he cannot prove his claims. You'll see that my original reply was to, I think, DerekS.

Indeed I think he misunderstood as well. My post refers to the usefulness and credibility of the reporter's claims. He apparently thinks her response is good evidence that the bangs are "not randomly spaced". I disagree.

So you know, as ever - keep up.

I am not sure how any of what you said makes me mistaken. Do you need a link to the post where he clearly stated that he was relying on the seismic data for his timing? It does not matter who you did and did not reply to. What he actually said does not change with that.

According to a reporter, there were explosions every 15 minutes or so at one point during the evening.

Well here is FEMA's seismic which corroborates this:




You can see after both tower collapses, at 11:01 "subsequent collapses" start occurring which are not given any further explanation by FEMA. Then at 11:15 a very significant signal, larger than the plane impacts. You can see other activity slightly above background despite the resolution, the largest of which occurring at 11:29, and then FEMA stops giving data shortly thereafter.

I would love to see whether or not the "further collapses" continued after 12'ish, into the evening when WTC7 finally collapsed, but like I said they cut the data off there and I don't know where one could find the rest of the data for that day.

I would love to see how FEMA determined exactly what was causing these signals, but we all know we never will.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You felt really good after coming up with that, huh?

Nope. It actualy was quite sad that after talking to nutter, and seeing that he has education, honesty, and intelligence to state that ANOK is completely wrong about his statements regarding slower than freefall acceleration=zero resistance, that when I then directed him to a site that contains all the info necessary to also discover just at what rate that steel can be heated in fires.... that he then declined to comment any further on the issue.

If I were to do a search of his posts, I'm quite sure that I'd see the exact same statement from him that is common among truthers. Namely, that they aren't a "truther", steered by their politics, but is an honest searcher of truth.

As it turns out, he, like all the rest of you, is lying about that. No surprise there.

All of them equally unexplained and equally requiring serious consideration due to the very serious potential implications of so many explosions occurring around these buildings.

You think they're serious. Professionals don't. I wonder who's right....

If you happened to think they couldn't have possibly been explosives/bombs (a negative assertion), you are more than welcome to try to prove it.

NISt already gave the reasons for proving it impossible. You're also welcome to try and prove it otherwise.

and nobody gives a damn what your personal opinion is, either of the unexplained explosions or of your opinions of "truthers."

And believe me, no one cares what your opinion is either.

You are irrelevant.

Your questions are irrelevant.

Deal with that irrelevancy by bringing evidence that can convince someone with the power to get the investigation that you seek.

I'm sure you'll get right on it, right?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

All of them equally unexplained and equally requiring serious consideration due to the very serious potential implications of so many explosions occurring around these buildings.

You think they're serious. Professionals don't. I wonder who's right....

Speaking of liars and lying, count this as blatant lie #1 in your post.

If you happened to think they couldn't have possibly been explosives/bombs (a negative assertion), you are more than welcome to try to prove it.

NISt already gave the reasons for proving it impossible.

That's lie #2.

So NIST proved a negative now huh? Go ahead and post the 130 dB line so I can just re-post the video above and everyone can watch it and realize it's definitely louder than a jackhammer from WTC7 (a block or two away) would have been. Jackhammer = 130 dB.

And believe me, no one cares what your opinion is either.

I haven't been giving my opinions, especially as if they were factual, but you've been too self-absorbed to notice.

I only have asked questions that you can never answer, and laugh when you respond with these adolescent spews like you're some kind of authority and already have the world figured out.

You are irrelevant.

Your questions are irrelevant.

Ouch, I'm so hurt big man. Unfortunately you can't say whether or not my questions are irrelevant because you can't even answer them.


So just to rub it in your face one more time that you have no idea what you're talking about.


Can you prove what was causing those explosions, or prove the negative that they couldn't possibly have been bombs/explosives?

No, you only know how to pwn newbs.

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
OK no bites from OS(pielers). How about this for another common sense OS problem:

How does the top section of the WTC south tower that is toppling, turn into rubble and pulverized concrete with pyroclastic flow? The angular momentum of the top floors with all their weight should have kept going to the left in the pictures. Instead the whole section was pulverized just like the rest of the lower floors with steel core columns. If explosives were not involved, why didn't this huge piece of building simply fall into the streets below?
See frame by frame sequence. Why did all of the exploding concrete and steel shoot out to the side of the building when it was supposedly fire and gravity at work?

Multiple photos:





Source

The only people that should have to explain this is the gov't and thier so-called experts that deny demolition. Fantastic response!

wrong thread


[edit on 11-2-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
OK no bites from OS(pielers). How about this for another common sense OS problem:

How does the top section of the WTC south tower that is toppling, turn into rubble and pulverized concrete with pyroclastic flow? The angular momentum of the top floors with all their weight should have kept going to the left in the pictures. Instead the whole section was pulverized just like the rest of the lower floors with steel core columns. If explosives were not involved, why didn't this huge piece of building simply fall into the streets below?
See frame by frame sequence. Why did all of the exploding concrete and steel shoot out to the side of the building when it was supposedly fire and gravity at work?

Multiple photos:





Source

That last Pic is the S***

How is the building STILL exploding below the tilting Section?

It Should (if physics means anything) topple over.

reply to post by Sean48


The OS(pielers) are not attacking yet. Presume they're circling the wagons and preparing a WMD (weapon of mass deception). They live in another world where simple discussions are avoided, but complicated BS name-calling games are readily welcomed, dragging the evidence that the masses can comprehend into the dirt like flight 93.... BLAAAAHGH!
I welcome them to attack some simple evidence that most laymen can understand. Μολὼν λαβέ

Edit to add: the OS(pielers) count on the fact that most in the U.S. have no science or math education. Duh.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

reply to post by Sean48


Sean, have you ever done any research on just how the WTC Towers were built? Any at all? Outside the conspiracy sites of course.

Reason why I ask is, if you ever had, and understood the certain design cues, you would see that having it just topple over and off would not happen as you think.

reply to post by GenRadek


Would you mind explaining what aspect of the building's construction would cause that tilt to correct and the vector to turn straight down?

reply to post by GenRadek


Please explain with some basic common sense.

What causes the top 1/6th of a building to disintegrate, then compact and crush the rest of the steel-cored structure below into pulverized concrete and hurtling steel beams?

BTW: the absence of OS(pielers) in the common sense argument is well-noted. Just want to hear from ya's

[edit on 11-2-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Please explain with some basic common sense.

What causes the top 1/6th of a building to disintegrate, then compact and crush the rest of the steel-cored structure below into pulverized concrete and hurtling steel beams?

BTW: the absence of OS(pielers) in the common sense argument is well-noted. Just want to hear from ya's

[edit on 11-2-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

Who said it was disintegrated? Oh I see, when it goes behind the thick volume of clouds of dust and crushed drywall and concrete, that means it has disintegrated?
Common sense in reality would dictate the top 1/6th of the tower has tilted down and initiated a collapse. Seeing how the top section was intact as it began to plummet down, it fell down roughly intact, with the floors below pancaking as the building progressively collapsed. As we cannot see behind the thick volumes of dust, one cannot go and claim that the top floors disintegrated in a few seconds going down. We see the tower intact as it tilts during the start of the collapse, then we see it going behind the dust intact. Where it actually begins total break up, no one can say. However, to suggest or imply, or use innuendo, that somehow explosives were used, is dishonest and best, and disinfo at worst.

reply to post by GenRadek


Need I ask again or put a cherry on top or what? I am starting to doubt, after reading your last post, that you have the knowledge. I was giving the benefit of the doubt and asking you to educate me here. Let me say please.