Why a “controlled demolition”

Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by rival

ANY QUESTIONS?

Why aren't there any sounds of explosions in the last video ? You can hear them in all the other videos.

LOL.

Superdupernanunanusilentthermitethermate.

Duhhh.

ANY QUESTIONS?

Why aren't there any sounds of explosions in the last video ? You can hear them in all the other videos.


LOL.

Superdupernanunanusilentthermitethermate.







Duhhh.

Is that that them special silent exploden red paint chip things ?

edit on 21/6/12 by argentus because: removed superfluous BB code causing threadspread

edit on 21/6/12 by argentus because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno


Wrong plans. Show an elevation of the exact scenario and watch how minuscule your case becomes.

killtown.911review.org...

Are you going to explain to us what happened to the 19500 cu ft of air traveling at 680 ft per sec. Where did it go ?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by rival
ANY QUESTIONS?

Why aren't there any sounds of explosions in the last video ? You can hear them in all the other videos.

Thermate would produce smoke...not booming explosions. The existing "cover" fires, and the smoke
they created, would be all that is needed to conceal the truth.

After weakening the central core columns with heat, small cutting charges could have initiated the
synchronized global collapse. And those charges were naturally baffled to some degree by
existing structures which would have been removed in the other videos....and a true conspiracy
would have entailed some mechanism of baffling the blasts from the cutting charges to an even
larger degree...

Is that that them special silent exploden red paint chip things ?

Rather than to to simply ridicule, you should make an attempt at a refuting argument. Your odds of
success are much higher with a reasonable refutation....

I'm handicapped by a lack of evidence to supports my argument, except for the obvious prima facia
video.

But you're completely outnumbered and overwhelmed in the sarcastic wit department...friendly warning

Originally posted by rival

But you're completely outnumbered and overwhelmed in the sarcastic wit department...friendly warning

Maybe you should concentrate a little harder on the actual real evidence and coherent alternative theory depart.

Thermite does not fit into either one of those categories.

reply to post by waypastvne


What do you mean?

Lack of evidence of thermitic reaction?

Do you think it's implausible as an alternate means (other than blasting) to compromise the core structure?

I see it as a logical choice as a means to covertly bring down a building under cover of existing fire.

Explain this. Really explain it. And you will have your answer. Remember, this happened in ten seconds flat. If you're going to argue (like the Amazing Randi's group did) that it's the result of long term deformation from being in the heat of the pile, then you are also going to have to figure out what caused blast furnace temperatures in an oxygen starved environment with millions of gallons of water being thrown on it for more than three months.
(Hint: Residual thermonuclear reactions...)

www.youtube.com...

And, don't forget this; everyone wants to cling to the ideas of thermite or DEW. We really don't know the characteristics of DEW, whatever that might be, and the amount of demolition seen negates thermite; it hasn't the power. Almost as much weight of thermite as building would have been required, a 1 to 1 ratio. We *do* know that governments the world over now have tactical nuclear weapons as small as a lunch pail or potted plant or an apple; that they can be made in any signature required, low radiation, low yield, focused yield. That's why they're so nervous about 'terrorists' coming into the country; not only has hundreds of pounds of enriched plutonium gone missing, but the technology to make these things is pretty simple; second year physics student level easy.

Seriously people, only one weapon turns buildings, glass, steel, gypsum, people, and tens of thousands of other items into dust in a fraction of a second while leaving paper alone. Only an EMP, as far as those of us without access to black projects knows, could cause the effects described by people who were close to the buildings when they came down; car engines bursting into flames but not gas tanks, doors popping off, lights blinking off and then on again; the dust that blew down the canyons was so hot it burned people, many did not survive who were close in, and they died of burns. Many of the people dying now are dying of known radiation related diseases. Ask yourself why people with Geiger counters at Ground Zero (heh) were arrested. NYC was nuked and not by Osama Bin Ladin. Look at the photos again of the buildings coming down. The exterior and floors are turning to dust with the aluminum cladding being blown spectacularly outwards. The interior heavy steel core is the darker upright column of black smoke. It's being vaporized.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by rival
reply to post by waypastvne

 

What do you mean?

Lack of evidence of thermitic reaction?

Do you think it's implausible as an alternate means (other than blasting) to compromise the core structure?

I see it as a logical choice as a means to covertly bring down a building under cover of existing fire.

Maybe you should consider Dexpan as an alternative to thermite.

Dexpan® Non Explosive Blasting, Controlled Demolition Agent Highlights
"Dexpan® controlled demolition agent works without noise, ground vibration, airblast and dust, No blasting training, blasting permit or blasting license needed."

It's got all the qualities Truthers are looking for in one neat package. The perfect addition to any controlled demolition theory.

reply to post by hooper


Resistance would cause asymmetry and a slower collaspe speed.

If a car hitting a guard rail went the same as the towers OS it would go like this

The car is doing 60mph. It hits the guard rail and continues to do 60 mph until the nanosecond that it stops.

That is the same as the building falling at freefall.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by hooper

 

Resistance would cause asymmetry and a slower collaspe speed.

If a car hitting a guard rail went the same as the towers OS it would go like this

The car is doing 60mph. It hits the guard rail and continues to do 60 mph until the nanosecond that it stops.

That is the same as the building falling at freefall.

Yes that statement is correct, If the Truther behind the wheel keeps his foot on the gas pedal until he hits the wall at the end of the guard rail.

reply to post by huh2142


The kinetic energy of the upper falling part is less than the potential energy it had when the lower part was pushing it into the air all of those years. The falling part does not increase in weight just because it is falling.

reply to post by samkent


I think you are using gravity twice. The weight of the biulding was always the same. The finite energy from gravity could cause pulverization, The bottom stops the falling part dead still and the top pulverizes, but the bottom doesn't fall, or the energy from gravity causes the bottom to fall, but not pulverize, because the bottom is set in motion like a cue ball moves a hit ball.

reply to post by hooper


an object in motion will remain in motion at constant velocity unless acted upon by a net force.

an object resists any force from another object with a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

the lower parts of the tower were under no additional force by the floors above them, no matter what the floors above did.

reply to post by waypastvne


like gravity is just doing its normal thing until something falls and then it really floors it.

like if a car can do 60 through the air, it will do sixty through anything other than invoked walls. I guess guard rails don't slow down anything.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno


Wrong plans. Show an elevation of the exact scenario and watch how minuscule your case becomes.

killtown.911review.org...

Are you going to explain to us what happened to the 19500 cu ft of air traveling at 680 ft per sec. Where did it go ?

That's not an actual elevation!! Show an elevation(not superimposed or cropped) that "one" could see the whole freakin tower(ALL THE FLOORS and including the plane). And to scale please. The point of a true debate is being fair not speculating and twisting 24/7.



But I am willing to bet this won't happen so I will answer your question. The air obviously escaped or evaporated(or contributed) once the gases of the explosion commenced(expanded); pick your assumption. And your point is what? You think that AIR in a plane became some solid dense object? Or enhanced the explosion?Let's say the plane was filled to the brim with petrol or better yet solid steel. Yes,There would have more damage on the top(catastrophic damage). And ?,,so what! You actually think I will assume the OS to be the truth(ever?,,,the pancake theory that is). If you want to really damage a building ,impact the lower floors not the top or install hundreds of charges.


Not send some type of missile at the top floors. Get it?


The air is irrelevant,,, that's if you don't believe the OS.