Verifiable, OBJECTIVE evidence of explosives

"That's what you get for trying to analyze a dynamic event by using a single still photo. Bad idea, Russell."

Good point!

Here are two videos of the Southwark Towers too.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8315231887206033924&q=southwark+towers&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4707898082309624249&q=southwark+towers&hl=en

Did you notice the flashes too in those?

Stephen Gregory -- [SIZE=-1]Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)[/SIZE] We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I know you hate judging things on what they look like, but damn if these explosives didn't cause debris to blow out of this building. The spacing is even interesting.

squib1.jpg


I know it is just a coincidence but it looks so similar. Then of course you have all of these firefighters describing it too (I know it isn't "objective" but if you haven't read these accounts, you really should in light of these photos and the similarity to a controlled demolition). I'll just quote one for a reference so as not to upset you.

Quote:
Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53] It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...xplosions.html

squib2.jpg


squib3.jpg


Now, before you go into any of your kooky conspiracy theory rampages, I want a couple of things explained to me.

1) Air is compressed evenly in all directions.
2) All the windows are made of the same material.
3) The original blast (hot air) come out at the lobby.

So, if air had a free path to the lobby what caused it to back up progressively below the collapse in both towers sequentially?

If the window materials were the same how come a bunch of windows didn't blow out?

How come (since air is compressed evenly) windows all the way up and down didn't blow out simultaneously? I mean after these blow outs there were ones that occurred lower. Why the time delay?

And since we're trying to be "objective" keep in mind you have NO objective proof that explosions weren't used.

I can here it now....."you can't prove the non-existence of something".

WRONG.

NIST had the opportunity to and did not test for explosives residue even though it would have been reasonable to test for secondary devices planted by the terrorists. The FDNY was well trained on this subject and it is rule number 1 when responding to a terrorist event!

Serious replies only please.
Click to expand...

Russel how do they ignore this?

I mentioned earlier the patterns of spacing of the squibs is obvious. These are indeed systematic explosions.
 
jessicarabbit said:
The numbers thing doesnt work that way. Knowing the rational number system is infinite doesnt give me infinite knowledge does it?
Click to expand...

Wrong. And I'm a librarian with poor math skills, yet I still know you're wrong.

Binary is one's and zero's. If a single line encapsulates one idea and if a single line can on infinitely then the logical conclusion is that there exists an infinite amount of ideas to keep God busy.

A moment with the JREFers- CTists remind me of the taxi-driver that Sagan talks about in the beginning of "Demon-Haunted World". Intellectually curious and interested in the world, but wasting their time on the wrong things.
 
senorpogo said:
Wrong. And I'm a librarian with poor math skills, yet I still know you're wrong.

Binary is one's and zero's. If a single line encapsulates one idea and if a single line can on infinitely then the logical conclusion is that there exists an infinite amount of ideas to keep God busy.

A moment with the JREFers- CTists remind me of the taxi-driver that Sagan talks about in the beginning of "Demon-Haunted World". Intellectually curious and interested in the world, but wasting their time on the wrong things.
Click to expand...

If you dont understand the maths thats not my prob.
 
Russell Pickering said:
"That's what you get for trying to analyze a dynamic event by using a single still photo. Bad idea, Russell."

Good point!

Here are two videos of the Soutwark Towers too.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8315231887206033924&q=southwark+towers&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4707898082309624249&q=southwark+towers&hl=en

Did you notice the flashes too in those?
Click to expand...

cool. you cite a ct web site for your facts

oops hearsay

darn, hearsay again, and again, over and over again

hearsay

it would help if you had the guy repeat for your conclusion, see if he wants to back you on your ideas of things that did not happen.

where are the windows? No windows

darn in the WTC there were windows that would blow out in an explosion! Multiple windows would blow. What happen was the weakest window blew when the pressure built up slower than an explosion but rapidly non the less.

So your late night attempt at fact is just smoke.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Russel how do they ignore this?

I mentioned earlier the patterns of spacing of the squibs is obvious. These are indeed systematic explosions.
Click to expand...

Yes, how do they ignore grainy video, poor reasoning, and non-existant math?

And don't forget to act like Gravy hasn't proven you wrong on multiple occassions (both on-line and in person, by the way).
 
senorpogo said:
Yes, how do they ignore grainy video, poor reasoning, and non-existant math?

And don't forget to act like Gravy hasn't proven you wrong on multiple occassions (both on-line and in person, by the way).
Click to expand...

Iv'e met gravy?

Study the evidence. Those squibs are systematic and the syringe idea is just nonsense. The official scientists are just making it up now
 
Russell Pickering said:
Beachnut,

Please stay in the present and do not attempt to discredit me by repetition.

There is a disclaimer on my site.

Russell
Click to expand...

okay,

there needs to be a disclaimer on your posts

photos of CD, buildings with no windows

photos of WTC with windows blown out with pressure from collapse

you have proved, as CT artist always do, with your own shallow research, that there were no explosives at the WTC

simple quick and easy

one stop shopping

there is not need to debunk you or Docker
 
jessicarabbit said:
If you dont understand the maths thats not my prob.
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly. And I've conclusively shown why you're wrong. Instead of refuting my claims, you decide to be intellectually dishonest. I was hoping for a moment that we had found a topic to converse honestly about. I was wrong.

Instead, you'll take your lame argument against God and put it on your website alongside your lame arguments against the official 9/11 story.
 
Russell, you failed to study CD

Check the CD video for speed of your squib

Check the WTC video for speed of squib

check with LC, bet they can lab it up for you
 
Russell,

Try to imagine what was going on in the building after the plane struck.

A fast moving object has just slammed into a structure made up of steel columns and floor trusses. Some of these columns have been damaged, shifted or broken. The floor trusses themselves in the immediate vicinity of the impact have probably been destroyed.

So we now have some localised areas of heavy steel columns which are no longer fully connected to the remaining structure above and below, and we have floor trusses which no longer support the floor deck.

During the period of the fire this situation is going to get progressively worse.

Elements of the structure are going to begin falling internally. Columns may crash down onto floor decks below. Sections of the concrete floors will be breaking off and falling onto floors below.

The structure is going to be increasingly stressed as loads are transferred onto members which are themselves being affected by heat. Conections are going to be stressed to breaking point and in some cases will break explosively.

The build up of debris within the building is going to further stress the weakened structure, and the undamaged structure above the impact point is going to be bearing down upon this weakened structure.

Beams will bend, columns will buckle, connectors will snap, concrete will fracture, debris will fall and smash.

A floor deck might fail completely and fall onto the deck below, causing compression of the air which is then forced down through the damaged structure finding points of weakness where floors have buckled or steel has punched through the deck.

The air will evacuate through these points of weakness and the pressure on the outer fabric of the building will be unevenly distributed, leading to isolated cases of windows blowing out.

It could also be the difference between an office door being open or closed as the air is pushed down stairwells and through fractures in the structure.

I would suggest that the collapse of the building, to all intents and purposes, started the moment the plane slammed into it.

At first the collapse is localised to the area of maximum damage, but it compounds the weakening of the remaining structure by the redistribution of loads and the affect of fire.

You have to consider the chaotic nature of the damage and the fire and the internal failure of the structure long before the effects are witnessed externally.

Just my £5.37 worth.
 
Last edited:
jessicarabbit said:
Iv'e met gravy?
Click to expand...

No, by your response, I'm guessing you haven't. Gravy, Abby, and others go down to ground zero regularly to debate with 9/11 deniers. Not being a regular to the conspiracy forum, I, incorrectly, assummed that you were one of those deniers. I apologize for my mistake.

jessicarabbit said:
Study the evidence. Those squibs are systematic and the syringe idea is just nonsense. The official scientists are just making it up now
Click to expand...

We have official scientists? I am familiar with the evidence and disagree with the conspiracy theorists.

And I'm still waiting for your math that proves that the official story is bogus. Why sit on that? Let's hear it.
 
Russell Pickering said:
"That's what you get for trying to analyze a dynamic event by using a single still photo. Bad idea, Russell."

Good point!

Here are two videos of the Southwark Towers too.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8315231887206033924&q=southwark+towers&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4707898082309624249&q=southwark+towers&hl=en

Did you notice the flashes too in those?
Click to expand...
What in the world is your point? I have lots of videos of controlled demolitions that show debris ejections and flashes. And? Did you read my post above, beyond the first lines? Did you look at my post in the "squib timing" thread and watch the video I linked to, in the way I recommended?

Russsell, I asked you, as I have asked dozens of CTs, what it should look and sound like when a skyscraper collapses. You said you didn't know. So how can you be surprised by how the WTC collapses looked and sounded? Please explain. Imagine the electrical sytems shorting in the world's largest office buildings: with all the systems necessary to supply power to the equivalent of a small city.

Imagine a small city collapsing on itself! Do you know that electrical transformers are the major source of explosions in skyscrapers? Can you imagine that when acre-sized floors impact each other, it makes a loud noise? You have an active imagination, so why not use it? What should it look and sound like when a billion-pound building collapses?
 
Last edited:
jessicarabbit said:
Russell I just read the disinfo tactics. Every single one is practised here.
Click to expand...

Every single one... plus one.
(We're just that good.)

Yours truly,

Stooge for the Elite

P.S.
nyuk nyuk

P.P.S.
a woob woob whoa....
 
Last edited:
uk_dave said:
No, I would suggest that what is practised here is Habeas Corpus

Show us the body

Show your proof to indict someone other that the hijackers and AQ
Click to expand...

Now why is proof against someone else neede d to question the official line?

If a man is falsely imprisoned, he can be released due to new evidence. That evidence does not have to involve a new suspect.
 
Russell Pickering said:
There is a disclaimer on my posts about NIST evidence not being used in court.

Yes now that your discredit tactic via website is over you should try associating me with somebody else.

Have you read these rules?

http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/
Click to expand...

go read it yourself

have you read it? (you use it)

I think your photo of air being pressed out of the WTC proves explosive were not used

you post crap on about some fringe group and how disinformation is your web site

once again your post exposes your techniques for disinformation

example:::: you say on your web site; how did the NTSB get altitude from 77 without the transponder squawking mode C. It is disinformation because you failed to study radar, and find they can estimate altitude with radars. Go figure, you use the techniques I do not know I am using so you point me to the very site you learned how to spread disinformation.

good job

Now your photos on proof of explosion, only prove the opposite. I would be upset, but then you always have your warning, this is not updated!!!

Your case for explosives evaporate. Hope you do not use squibs as your term for air being expelled from the WTC.

Boom, no RDX. building failing sounds like boom. RDX sounds like CD. Did not hear anyone report the sound. You have people who told you they did not hear it, and you ignore them to make up your story with more hearsay. You actually talked to all the people you quote?

Good luck but your photos fall short
 
uk_dave said:
No, I would suggest that what is practised here is Habeas Corpus

Show us the body

Show your proof to indict someone other that the hijackers and AQ
Click to expand...

I would suggest that what your practising right now is rule 14:

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.
Example: "Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?"
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?
Click to expand...
 
jessicarabbit said:
Beachnut is one of those flies you have to swat occasionally. Im sure hes harmless
Click to expand...

docker / jessica

you have never

seems you will never

tell us where you got your numbers for the energy of impact for the design impact of a 707 for the WTC

when will you ever explain why you are wrong by a factor of 10

guess if I was wrong I and hiding out, I would call those asking for facts flies

YOUR NUMBERS WERE OFF

YOUR CALCULATION WAS OFF BY A FACTOR OF MORE THAN 10

10 times wrong on your number, but where did you get it?
 
jessicarabbit said:
I would suggest that what your practising right now is rule 14:
Click to expand...

So, basically, anyone asking you to provide evidence for your claims is breaking rule #X? Nice little defense you've built yourself there.

Where's the math you promised that disproves the official story? Or what rule am I breaking when I ask you for evidence that you've claimed you have?
 
senorpogo said:
So, basically, anyone asking you to provide evidence for your claims is breaking rule #X? Nice little defense you've built yourself there.

Where's the math you promised that disproves the official story? Or what rule am I breaking when I ask you for evidence that you've claimed you have?
Click to expand...

I promised no math. You are currently using a host of rules and you know it.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Russell I just read the disinfo tactics. Every single one is practised here.
Click to expand...

mainly by docker and Russell

his web site is a textbook example

and your evasion of answering where you got your 707 numbers is textbook

and your short post void of facts is textbook

no wonder Russell knows the web site, disinformation is how he built his web site

have you any proof of explosions? Russell's work has essentially prove explosion were not used. What do you have?
 
jessicarabbit said:
I promised no math. You are currently using a host of rules and you know it.
Click to expand...

Shuck and jive, rope a dope, and evade like you always do.

You claim to have mathematic proof that the official story is wrong, yet you won't release it. Why? Why would someone with such a bombshell not put it for the world to see?

I do not await your elusive, childish response.
 
senorpogo said:
Shuck and jive, rope a dope, and evade like you always do.

You claim to have mathematic proof that the official story is wrong, yet you won't release it. Why? Why would someone with such a bombshell not put it for the world to see?

I do not await your elusive, childish response.
Click to expand...

When did I claim that? I said I didn't buy Bazants paper? Your strawmanning
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom