Verifiable, OBJECTIVE evidence of explosives

jessicarabbit said:
I have verified via the gift of video. It is objective unless you think those flashes are people in the towers taking pictures or something.
Click to expand...

Now that I think about it and have rewatched the video, I seem to recall seeing a clearer version of the vid you posted, in the clearer version the "flashes" are paper. I'll have to try and find the clearer version though.
 
Skibum said:
Now that I think about it and have rewatched the video, I seem to recall seeing a clearer version of the vid you posted, in the clearer version the "flashes" are paper. I'll have to try and find the clearer version though.
Click to expand...
No, they're flutter bombs!
 
You have any idea how tough it is to wade through the millions of ct sites and grainy blurry versions of videos to find a decent looking clip.
 
jessicarabbit said:
They made plenty of noise ask the witnesses. They were not invisible, that video just showed some.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't. Explosives used in CDs are not dropped along the outside of the buildings. Those were pieces of reflective debris, most likely window fragments. You could see them falling relative to the building behind them.
 
Only two bombs were enough to bring down a whole WTC tower?

No conventional explosive is capable of that. These must have been H bombs.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
On these pages are a wealth a photographic evidence, showing clearly that the towers were blown to kingdom come. That is, there is very little left of them.
Click to expand...
My search of scientific literature containing the phrase "kingdom come" has been fruitless. I have seen that term used in a religious context. You've been asked this before, but would you mind giving an exact definition that's relevant to the issues at hand?
Please bring your evidence that they "collpased"
Click to expand...
Ditto for "collpased."

and "fell down". I see no evidence of that.
Click to expand...
Fell down is easy. The buildings are no longer there, and they weren't dismantled. There are some videos and photos of them falling. I'm sure an internet search will turn them up for you.

While you're at it, offer explanations about the melted cars and the blown out windows.
Click to expand...
No melted cars that I'm aware of, but this issue was discussed in another thread recently. I'm pretty sure you were involved in that thread. Search for "Docker," "Judy Wood," and "beam weapons." The windows were broken by wind and debris.
 
mortimer said:
No, it didn't. Explosives used in CDs are not dropped along the outside of the buildings. Those were pieces of reflective debris, most likely window fragments. You could see them falling relative to the building behind them.
Click to expand...

Do you have expert analysis or commentary to verify that?
 
Gravy said:
My search of scientific literature containing the phrase "kingdom come" has been fruitless. I have seen that term used in a religious context. You've been asked this before, but would you mind giving an exact definition that's relevant to the issues at hand?
Ditto for "collpased."

Fell down is easy. The buildings are no longer there, and they weren't dismantled. There are some videos and photos of them falling. I'm sure an internet search will turn them up for you.

No melted cars that I'm aware of, but this issue was discussed in another thread recently. I'm pretty sure you were involved in that thread. Search for "Docker," "Judy Wood," and "beam weapons." The windows were broken by wind and debris.
Click to expand...

He has a point. I would like to see your analysis of the total collapse after initiation please gravy.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Do you have expert analysis or commentary to verify that?
Click to expand...
In your world, the world where "look at these two spots of light, they could have been nothing other than explosions" qualifies as expert analysis, I think it's safe to say that everyone has expert analysis to back up their claims. Except for the actual experts, of course.
 
jessicarabbit said:
He has a point. I would like to see your analysis of the total collapse after initiation please gravy.
Click to expand...
Millions of pounds of building fell, destroying the structure below. Glad to be of assistance.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Do you have expert analysis or commentary to verify that?
Click to expand...
A clear video will make it all moot. But CTists avoid clear video like a *vampire avoids garlic.








*disclaimer for the stupid: use of the word "vampire" is simply for the use of a literary tool known as an "analogy" and should not be construed to make it appear that I believe in vampires.
 
This thread is lame. I thought it would contain dozens of quotes by people who had planted the explosives in the three towers. But nooooo... Lame, I tell you.
 
WildCat said:
A clear video will make it all moot. But CTists avoid clear video like a *vampire avoids garlic.

Similar explosions are seen in similar positions in the north tower when the south tower is hit.








*disclaimer for the stupid: use of the word "vampire" is simply for the use of a literary tool known as an "analogy" and should not be construed to make it appear that I believe in vampires.
Click to expand...

Similar explosions are seen in similar positions in the north tower when the south tower is hit.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Could I have a slightly more scientific analysis? Maybe a few equations and a quantitative breakdown.
Click to expand...
Why don't you consult the engineering dept. of a university near you? They will be able to explain to you that buildings aren't designed to withstand the equivalent of a 20 story building falling on top of them. Hard to believe, isn't it? :rolleyes:
 
Gravy don't ever ask me to back up my statements again until you can back up your analysis of the total collapse.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Similar explosions are seen in similar positions in the north tower when the south tower is hit.
Click to expand...

Well I guess I was completely wrong. That couldn't POSSIBLY have been broken glass falling from the N tower when the S tower was hit. INCONCEIVABLE!

:rolleyes:
 
WildCat said:
Why don't you consult the engineering dept. of a university near you? They will be able to explain to you that buildings aren't designed to withstand the equivalent of a 20 story building falling on top of them. Hard to believe, isn't it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I was asking gravy. When I make a claim I am asked to back it up. Gravy should do the same.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Similar explosions are seen in similar positions in the north tower when the south tower is hit.
Click to expand...
That's debris, mostly paper, being expelled by the force of the crash. Seriously, get a clear video of the events of that day. Your "explosions" vanish under the glare of high-resolution.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Could I have a slightly more scientific analysis? Maybe a few equations and a quantitative breakdown.
Click to expand...
Huh? Why would you ask a tour guide for a scientific analysis of the collapse of the towers? You've already been referred to Bazant & Zhou (2001), Bazant (2006), Greening (2005-6). Your refutation of their work? Your experts? Your peer-reviewed articles?

Still waiting, Jessica. Start a thread to present the work of your experts.

In the meantime, please stop derailing the thread with nonsense.
 
Gravy said:
Huh? Why would you ask a tour guide for a scientific analysis of the collapse of the towers? You've already been referred to Bazant & Zhou (2001), Bazant (2006), Greening (2005-6). Your refutation of their work? Your experts? Your peer-reviewed articles?

Still waiting, Jessica. Start a thread to present the work of your experts.

In the meantime, please stop derailing the thread with nonsense.
Click to expand...

Gravy this is not a dump for you to name papers you don't understand.

Please present your arguments for total collapse or withdraw.

If you dont understand the papers you cite then thats fine. I do and I don't buy them
 
jessicarabbit said:
Gravy this is not a dump for you to name papers you don't understand.

Please present your arguments for total collapse or withdraw.

If you dont understand the papers you cite then thats fine. I do and I don't buy them
Click to expand...
Although the math quickly goes over my head, I understand the principles involved, I have read arguments supporting and attempting to refute the papers I cited, I have read the entire NIST report and numerous other papers and some books about progressive collapse, the behavior of structural steel in fires, and the construction of tall buildings. I have seen no reason to disbelieve the experts.

Since you "understand" the papers, start a thread and present your calculations that refute them.
 
Gravy said:
Although the math quickly goes over my head, I understand the principles involved, I have read arguments supporting and attempting to refute the papers I cited, I have read the entire NIST report and numerous other papers and some books about progressive collapse, the behavior of structural steel in fires, and the construction of tall buildings. I have seen no reason to disbelieve the experts.

Since you "understand" the papers, start a thread and present your calculations that refute them.
Click to expand...

Thats not how this site works. You made a claim, please present your evidence to support it. If you don't understand that evidence (and not understanding the math indicates you don't) then that's fine.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Thats not how this site works. You made a claim, please present your evidence to support it. If you don't understand that evidence (and not understanding the math indicates you don't) then that's fine.
Click to expand...

Please, endulge us. Explain the math.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Thats not how this site works. You made a claim, please present your evidence to support it. If you don't understand that evidence (and not understanding the math indicates you don't) then that's fine.
Click to expand...
He presented papers by recognized experts in the appropriate field. That is how science works, and that is how this site works. If that is unsuitable for you you're welcome to go elsewhere where you won't look as foolish.
 
WildCat said:
He presented papers by recognized experts in the appropriate field. That is how science works, and that is how this site works. If that is unsuitable for you you're welcome to go elsewhere where you won't look as foolish.
Click to expand...

Appropriate field? Greening is a retired Nuclear Scientist. He couldn't be furthe from his field
 
jessicarabbit said:
Thats not how this site works. You made a claim, please present your evidence to support it. If you don't understand that evidence (and not understanding the math indicates you don't) then that's fine.
Click to expand...
I explained myself quite clearly. Since you are capable of doing the math and believe the papers are wrong, show us. I have learned a lot from the lively discussions that result from such actions. I love to learn about things. While I wouldn't be competent to analyze your math if it's complex, others here are, and I always learn a lot from their explanations.

Please stop this derail. Shall I start the new thread for you?
 
Gravy said:
I explained myself quite clearly. Since you are capable of doing the math and believe the papers are wrong, show us. I have learned a lot from the lively discussions that result from such actions. I love to learn about things. While I wouldn't be competent to analyze your math if it's complex, others here are, and I always learn a lot from their explanations.

Please stop this derail. Shall I start the new thread for you?
Click to expand...

I do not require a new thread thanks. I await your evidence.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Appropriate field? Greening is a retired Nuclear Scientist. He couldn't be furthe from his field
Click to expand...
Still awaiting your detailed mathmatical debunking of Bazant and Zhou (structural engineers btw Jessica).
 
WildCat said:
Still awaiting your detailed mathmatical debunking of Bazant and Zhou (structural engineers btw Jessica).
Click to expand...

If Bazant is a structural engineer he is a poor one. But I will not discuss this with people who dont understand the papers

P.S. I have reported the new thread to the admin as I specifically requested it not be started.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Appropriate field? Greening is a retired Nuclear Scientist. He couldn't be furthe from his field
Click to expand...

I don't suppose jessicarabbit has volunteered her own qualifications, since she finds Dr. Greening's wanting?

Or found the errors, that must be so obvious, in his reasoning?

No? You cannot imagine my surprise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom