Explosive News

reply to post by bigyin


Do these experiments fully replicate all the forces at work? Like the full weight of the building? Stress and fatigue factors from wind, pollution, improper maintenance (etc) over the years that the building has been in use? How about effects of the temperature differences of secondary ignitions of say synthetic carpets, plastics, paints (etc.)?

There are far more variables to take in account than just stacking some cinderblocks, a few steel I-beams and lighting a scale sized puddle of kerosene.

None of proves that there wasn't a conspiracy, mind you, just that there is far more that went on inside the building than just localized heated metal that most people do not account when making blanket statements.

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom

how many times do I have to post this video?

You don't have to.
Please feel free to stop.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by butcherguy]

Here is a thought... would it be more plausible, if the steel structure melted, due to thermite being placed in the fuel tank's of the plane's?

It's an idea for how the thermite could of got there.



[edit on 24-2-2010 by jonnyc55]

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom

how many times do I have to post this video?

You don't have to.

Please feel free to stop.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by butcherguy]

how about we make a deal, every time someone says there is no evidence of controlled demolition, I'll post that video, that way I will do it only as many times as is needed.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by ancient_wisdom]

I would love to see a new investigation.
I would love to see this issue resolved once and for all.
There are too many questions about 9/11 that have gone unanswered.

People were murdered,and by who and how is still open for debate.
Why would anyone argue against a new investigation?
Money certainly cant be the reason,afterall much more money was spent investigating wether or not Billy Clinton gotta BJ.

Nobody i've ever met has said they know for certain what did or didnt happen,or even how for certain.
But the official story has more holes in it than a wheel of cheese.

The WTC is always gonna remain a focal point,along with building 7.
Id like to see the investigation also focus on all the insider trading that took place that day.

Along with the release of all the footage from the cameras looking at the pentagon.
The ones that were comfiscated from the surounding busnisses and all the pentagons cams.
As we have yet to ever be told why that footage is classified.
And it has nothing to do with the feelings of the victims families,as the media has no problem showing the planes flying into those buildings every sept 11th.

Maybe more people would be demanding a new investigation if it were their family members that had died in those buildings that day.

reply to post by ancient_wisdom


You're hearing something that you are ASSUMING to be an explosion caused by some sort of demo related charge.

You have no proof that the sound you are hearing is anything at all related to what you believe it is.

As far as footage from the media that's just not true:



No helicopter crashed into the pentatgon, but people claimed it did.

People like yourself heard what they thought were explosions, they then said that on camera and now you believe it.

Now watch this:




Couldn't be MORE different than the WTCs.

Really watch and listen to that and try and compare the sights and sounds.

reply to post by seethelight


what's funny is that the video you uploaded made explosive noises that sound identical to the one on the youtube video proving that the really loud explosive noise at the beginning of the video was indeed a controlled charge. So I guess I owe you one. Furthermore there were multiple witnesses including media people who reported explosives in the WTC. No one to this day that I know of still believes a helicopter hit the pentagon.



[edit on 24-2-2010 by ancient_wisdom]

reply to post by ancient_wisdom


How about you accept that that's not evidence of a controlled demo?

Just because someone says it is doesn't ACTUALLY mean it is.

I've seen that video, a few times even, and think it DISPROVES the demo theory.

If that's what you guys have, it's VERY weak.

Watch my demo video (you know, of a real demo, and compare them.

Couldn't be more dissimilar.

reply to post by ancient_wisdom


Yeah, they sound identical, but the WTC one contains a few explosiony sounds; the actual demo contains dozens of visible timed explosions, followed by a massive visible explosion, followed by dozens of more timed and visible explosions.

So really, they're hugely different.

Only someone that WANTS to BELIEVE they're similar would claim that.

That's why you guys are faithers.

ALL evidence points to explosions, even evidence that doesn't.

Gotta love that kind of blind faith.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by seethelight]

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by ancient_wisdom

 

How about you accept that that's not evidence of a controlled demo?

uh, no. How about I don't. And I do not believe this because someone said it, I believe it because I hear the explosion, which sounds the same as the explosion on your uploaded video of a controlled demolition explosion. You are closed minded, but don't worry, I'll keep arguing with you, this is fun.

edit to your second post: just because the demolition was not done the exact same way does not mean anything. There were reports of multiple explosions, so it could be possible that every explosion necessary was done, just not all at once. Reports say "if there's one more explosion, the building will collapse." Obviously they would not do all the explosions at the same time. Furthermore, the sound is IDENTICAL to that singular sound on the total proof video.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by ancient_wisdom]

reply to post by seethelight


I watched your Demo vid (I enjoy a good demo)

Question for you sir.

Where they trying to Hide the Demo on that Vid ?

Make it look like something else.

reply to post by ancient_wisdom


Dude, you're lying again.

Stop it.

reply to post by butcherguy


oh dear another non engineer.

It takes a while to understand how buildings are designed, thats why people spend years at school learning about it.

Put simply though the section above floor 70 does have certain weight or mass.

That mass was. up till the point of destruction, being supported by the framework of the building below it.

Thinks this way... the first floor of the building has to be strong enough to hold up all of the building above it, therfore it has to be super strong, the strongest part of the bulding.

The second floor does not have to be as strong as the first floor, because it only has to hold up one floor less than the ground floor.

And so the higher up the building the less strong, which means lighter the floors become or need to be.

Now if you remove a section of the building at the top, what this means is that the lower floors actually have LESS weight to support than they did before.

So in this case we vave lower floors which held up since being built, but then on 911 when a section was removed the lower floors with less to do suddenly decided they wern't up to the job.

Which of course is nonesence ... they would be even more likley to stay put ... not less likely.

Now when I hear about pancaking, apart from the fact the OS said pancaking didnt occur, if you watch the videos you will see the top section move off to one side, which is what you would expect with localised buckling as i said before. Then what should have happened is that top section should have slid off and fallen to the street leaving the lower section remaing standing.

What we actually see happening in all the videos makes no sense from an engineering/physics point of view. Something else must have been occuring to cause the destruction that we see.

That something has yet to be explained satisfactorily.

reply to post by ancient_wisdom
There's no evidence of controlled explosions at the WTC.

reply to post by bigyin


Wow dude, you don't understand the WTC towers AT ALL.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Can anyone else please give me some reliable engineering sources that will confirm the WTC towers were designed to take an unknown but multiple number of strikes from unspecified planes ? Thanks.

Hi Alfie.......Here you go...

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by ancient_wisdom

 

Dude, you're lying again.

Stop it.

dude, nice argument. LOL

reply to post by Sean48


Where's you're proof (other than faith) that what happened on 9/11 is evidence of a hidden explosive demo?

Demos take weeks to prepare and in the case of two skyscrapers, hundreds of timed explosives.

That NO ONE reported hundreds of timed explosives, even those in the buildings is remarkable.

How exactly do you hide hundreds of bright timed flashes?

Demos are created in such a way (and would have to be in the case of the WTC where the OUTER SKIN was, to a degree, load bearing) that the external walls are also rigged with explosives.

There would've been literally hundreds of explosions both interanlly and externally.

Forget the sound... visible to those inside and out.

Remember, someone tried the bomb in the basement, it didn't work.

And these buildings fell from the top down.

reply to post by ancient_wisdom


You are lying if you say the two videos are similar.

and you know that.

reply to post by seethelight


ah, I see you are asking for proof even after we showed it to you, multiple times. And yet you call us faithers? Hmm...which alphabet organization do you work for?