U watch -- U consider -- U explain

www.youtube.com...

Here is a video of Richard Gage contradicting himself. And now the big question is this...is there such a thing as silent explosions?

Explosion
The act of exploding; detonation; a chemical action which causes the sudden formation of a great volume of expanded gas; as, the explosion of gunpowder, of fire damp,etc.
A bursting with violence and loud noise, because of internal pressure; as, the explosion of a gun, a bomb, a steam boiler, etc.
A violent outburst of feeling, manifested by excited language, action, etc.; as, an explosion of wrath.

Richard Gage asserts that there were silent explosions.

reply to post by WarminIndy


If you think you can just throw chemicals together randomly and make a reactive mixture then you are the one who is clueless.

For a start off how was it ignited? Office fires do not get hot enough to ignite thermite, even correctly mixed thermite.

As users of Thermite know, it is very difficult to get Thermite to ignite. Although it is possible to ignite it with a propane torch or Magnesium ribbon, it does not always work, and can leave you frustrated. Thermite can even be heated until it's red hot and still not ignite.

www.unitednuclear.com...

This was debunked years ago btw.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

If you think you can just throw chemicals together randomly and make a reactive mixture then you are the one who is clueless.

For a start off how was it ignited? Office fires do not get hot enough to ignite thermite, even correctly mixed thermite.

As users of Thermite know, it is very difficult to get Thermite to ignite. Although it is possible to ignite it with a propane torch or Magnesium ribbon, it does not always work, and can leave you frustrated. Thermite can even be heated until it's red hot and still not ignite.

www.unitednuclear.com...

This was debunked years ago btw.

Which proves my point, just because aluminum, carbon and a thousand other chemicals were found in the rubble does not mean nanothermites caused the fire. Thank you for explaining the fact it has been debunked, I know that but the guy above my post still believes the theory you just told me even though it was debunked.

And I think the many chemistry classrooms that have exploded or caught on fire because of randomly mixed chemicals only proves it is possible for it to happen.

www.nbcchicago.com...
www.foxnews.com...
www.clickondetroit.com...

Three examples of classrooms exploding because some students mixed chemicals they did not know how they would react. Chemistry sounds like a dangerous subject, good thing my class only learned the Periodic table of elements.

reply to post by WarminIndy


As I read this reply, I recalled an event from my days in chemistry. Of course back then we had fewer chemicals . ha ha ha

A friend baggered me for several days for the formula of an explosive compound. He knew I had learned it because I was into that sort of thing. At last I told him the ingredents he needed but warned him it had to be processed in a certain way in order to function properly.

Well, you guessed it. He got everything together and dumped it all into one large flask.

Suddenly there was a mushroom cloud of greenish-yellow smoke going up to the ceiling that left a stain for the next two years. The heat was intense enough to make the top few inches of the flask curl out and down. There was no explosion, just a load "swoosh" and other students screaming and running.

I was about 15 feet away and felt the rush of heat on my back.

He got five days suspension, to let his hair and eyebrows grow back. I sat down and laughed until I cried.

The moral of the story is this:

Having the right stuff in the right amounts can make a lot of different things. But there is almost always a "process" for mixing and handling this stuff inorder to get what you want. If you just throw everything into a big bowl, you may not get what you want and may be lucky to survive

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

As I read this reply, I recalled an event from my days in chemistry. Of course back then we had fewer chemicals . ha ha ha

A friend baggered me for several days for the formula of an explosive compound. He knew I had learned it because I was into that sort of thing. At last I told him the ingredents he needed but warned him it had to be processed in a certain way in order to function properly.

Well, you guessed it. He got everything together and dumped it all into one large flask.

Suddenly there was a mushroom cloud of greenish-yellow smoke going up to the ceiling that left a stain for the next two years. The heat was intense enough to make the top few inches of the flask curl out and down. There was no explosion, just a load "swoosh" and other students screaming and running.

I was about 15 feet away and felt the rush of heat on my back.

He got five days suspension, to let his hair and eyebrows grow back. I sat down and laughed until I cried.

The moral of the story is this:

Having the right stuff in the right amounts can make a lot of different things. But there is almost always a "process" for mixing and handling this stuff inorder to get what you want. If you just throw everything into a big bowl, you may not get what you want and may be lucky to survive

That was a funny thing. I laughed so hard when I read it.

I am not even going to ask what it was you knew how to make.

reply to post by hdutton


OK I have read all the replies and both sides make for a good arguement, My question is if WTC bld7 collapsed with no outside force other than fire, then explain to me how the Murra Fed bld ( in my own home state) was attacked and mostly distroyed. Why did the Murra Bld not collaps under the fire? ppl need to wake up and realize truthers talk about a "shadow" government conspiracy.

My question is( as i work with steel all day as a welder/draftsman) If steel across the building in WTCB7 that had no fire on it or nier it, how did it fail?
when i use a torch to cut steel you cannot stack 2 pieces of steal and cut through them as they lay on top of each other. No matter how hot the top piece gets the bottom will not burn through. the top piece will not allow the fire to pass throughthe bottom one. The micron of space disapates the heat not allowing bottom to be cut. So how is it a localized fire above the 10th floor caused the steel in the lower floors to fail, or better yet, why did the building not just collaps to the fire zone. and if you say "gravity did it" then look at following video and explain why this silo's top floors do not collaps after it had its base completelly distroied, then explai why all the top floors did not pancake like we wer told that WTC1,2,and 7 did? www.youtube.com...

Ok, now that you looked at the video explain to me how come the steel frame didnt collaps under the stress and force of gravity after it fell.....steel is steel, is steel. so unless BLD7 was made out of lightweight materials like maby 2x2x1/4 angle iron then the "Gravity did it theory" doesnt fly. IMHPO


better yet look at this bld under controlled demo fall www.youtube.com... notice how they had to use explosives in all the collums to get the buildings upper floors to collaps? And that was a good demolition...what strikes me is the height of the building even after it turns to rubble, it seems this skinless bld didnt even fall as well as any of the WTC buildings.

Not a truther, just not an idiot who refuses to see eveidence when it stares me in the face.... try and build a popcicle stick framed building 20 sticks high then set a fire in the middle or upper floors.. watch what happens when it falls? Gravity works the same no matter the material, and fire does to, so yeah...I do not believe the "official" story behind BLD7 collaps..O' wait there wasnt an official story of WTC7 in the official 911 report as it was not mentioned in it...more food for thought...hugh?

Originally posted by andione1
reply to post by hdutton

 

The difference is the fact the Murrah Building was only 8 stories high. The blast at the Murrah Building took of the front chunk but the truck was not inside the building. The Murrah Building was not a tube frame either. There was a bomb blast in the basement garage of the WTC and that did not bring it down.

The Murrah Federal Building had a prior bomb blast in 1983 that did not cause the damage that McVeigh did.

And there was fire in WTC7.

reply to post by andione1


Here are NIST's two models of WTC 7's collapse. It was not a pancake collapse in any manner. The first simulation shown is what their physics engine produced when considering NO damage to the building. The second simulation, starting at approximately 47 seconds is the simulation that factors in the damage caused by WTC 1. You'll notice that the building buckles where the corner damage is.



I can't really simplify this any further.

reply to post by andione1


Let me among the first to admit, you have some very valid questions. Actually, almost the same questions I have been asking for several years.

As to the Murra Building in Oklahoma City.

It was distroyed by the blast of a truck bomb - OS - and, seemingly, with the help of some other devices. Some of these devices apparently did not work, as was noted in the news, but that has been "forgotten". There were no large fires that I remember.

I would encourage you to continue to question those things you don't have enough information about. And when you get all the information you can, question ... question...question.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by andione1

 

Here are NIST's two models of WTC 7's collapse. It was not a pancake collapse in any manner. The first simulation shown is what their physics engine produced when considering NO damage to the building. The second simulation, starting at approximately 47 seconds is the simulation that factors in the damage caused by WTC 1. You'll notice that the building buckles where the corner damage is.

I can't really simplify this any further.

I don't know about anyone else, but I like the side-by-side comparison video myself.

That was the second in this set. It compared the NIST "fantasy" to reality. It is easy to see the difference.

The more replies I get to this thread the more it appears we have been right all along.

Even those who are trying to argue a different point, are proving us right.

Originally posted by hdutton
I don't know about anyone else, but I like the side-by-side comparison video myself.

That was the second in this set. It compared the NIST "fantasy" to reality. It is easy to see the difference.

The more replies I get to this thread the more it appears we have been right all along.

Even those who are trying to argue a different point, are proving us right.

I believe you may be referring to the one I have added in this current post.

The problem inherent with accusing it of being inaccurate due to the tilting of the building to the side is that you must realize that the NIST simulation did not factor in the facade of red granite into the equation. This gives the exterior skeleton of the building a greater stability when the building begins to come down. The interior damage, however, is reflected in the simulation.

reply to post by hdutton


Also, of note when looking at the collapse is that you'll see the East side of the building (left side in the videos) wobbles toward the North (the side facing the camera).

This shows a couple more simulations done of the building as well, and gives you a Southward view of it, showing why the East side would wobble North:

Originally posted by Varemia

Do you not see anything wrong with this photo? Seriously?

From which vantage point was it taken from?
How can objects in the foreground and in the background both be in focus and
objects in the middle ground out of focus?
Does the image of building 7 look remotely genuine to you?
Doesn't it look pasted in to you?

This is a faked photograph, just like the rest!

Edit to add:


Do the dimensions and appearance of these three images of building 7 even come close to one another?
The below photo is definitely genuine!


The original 7 World Trade Center from the WTC observation deck, August 14, 1992.

Isn't it time we woke up to the extensive 9/11 media fakery angle?

Originally posted by pshea38
Do you not see anything wrong with this photo? Seriously?

From which vantage point was it taken from?
How can objects in the foreground and in the background both be in focus and
objects in the middle ground out of focus?
Does the image of building 7 look remotely genuine to you?
Doesn't it look pasted in to you?

This is a faked photograph, just like the rest!

You.... I don't even have words.

Check out aperture.
www.digital-photography-school.com...
www.vividlight.com...
luminous-landscape.com...

Just because something is closer and something is farther does not necessarily mean that one or the other will be blurred. Learn your science, man!

reply to post by pshea38


I for one have not seen this view until today.

I will also admit that I should have looked closer when I did see it.

All the other views are looking over another building . This must have been from the rear or some thing.

I am not saying it is a fake, just saying it is new to me.

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by pshea38

 

I for one have not seen this view until today.

I will also admit that I should have looked closer when I did see it.

All the other views are looking over another building . This must have been from the rear or some thing.

I am not saying it is a fake, just saying it is new to me.

It is a southward view. I found it whilst looking into the pictures released under the FOIA.

Here are a few other notables from the photos I have:

i.imgur.com...

i.imgur.com...

i.imgur.com...

i.imgur.com...

reply to post by Varemia





If you claim that these two stills represent the same building in reality,
I will not believe you!

Why is the black band along the top of the building cropped in the demolition still?
What about the still differences up the length of either end/ side of the building?

These 2 shots do not represent the same reality!
One is a computer generated fake. One is not!

reply to post by pshea38


I hope this is not construed as my mounting a defence for the other side. ha ha

I think the still shot and the vid are showing different sides of the building.

It is hard to tell from just these but the large dark "air unit" which is visible on the still shot on the right, should be on the left in the video. The frames of the video in which this unit are visible have been left off this video.

I would suggest you find a vid which shows this feature and decide for yourself. I would not want you to rely totally on my say-so. I have been wrong before.

reply to post by hdutton


No, you're correct, and pshea is being dense.

The picture pshea posted was the South side of the building. The videos we have of the collapse are all from the North or Northwest side. The smoke completely obscures the south side of the building like I showed in the pictures I posted.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
www.youtube.com...

Here is a video of Richard Gage contradicting himself. And now the big question is this...is there such a thing as silent explosions?

Explosion
The act of exploding; detonation; a chemical action which causes the sudden formation of a great volume of expanded gas; as, the explosion of gunpowder, of fire damp,etc.
A bursting with violence and loud noise, because of internal pressure; as, the explosion of a gun, a bomb, a steam boiler, etc.
A violent outburst of feeling, manifested by excited language, action, etc.; as, an explosion of wrath.

Richard Gage asserts that there were silent explosions.

This video appears to be new and perhaps speaks of the possibility of silent explosions starting at 1:47...



I just found it myself and then read your post. I was like... "Hey. wait a minute, wasn't that just in that video?" lol

Cheers