Momentum Transfer in WTC

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Pardalis asked a fair question

1) No building near that size or strength had ever been demolished before, so the requirements were uncertain. Better to use too much than too little.

2) It was being exploded from the top down, whereas standard demolitions are from the bottom up. Bottom up makes better use of gravity to destroy intact structure.
Click to expand...

Any explanation for the lack of the audible booms?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Kent you are avoiding. Yes, photos can have more detail, but if it was not taken at the moment the flashes were occuring, is useless for this study. Also, the time dimension is important here too.

I can appreciate the obvious fear that all of you OCT's are demonstrating. Please, watch the video I linked. There are clear flashes, there is no debris falling there, at all. The fact that you have all resorted to name calling is very telling. I will not do that. I will stick to the science pseudoscience.
......
Click to expand...
(my bolding-and correcting)
If you had demonstrated any capability in that regard, you might have more credibility



but not much..
 
Kent, you are avoiding the video I linked, one of the one Ross relied on. you claim that you believe it is reflections off of aluminum, I hear you. The problem is, there is evidentally no debris of any kind anywhere near the flash. What is observed in another video, or another picture says nothing about this one.

Observation is a key part of science. Theory must account for observation. Theroy that ignores relevant observation is bad science.

I suppose Kent's hypothesis is that pieces of aluminum cladding popped off the facade, reflected sunlight at the camera, then went invisible before another frame of video had been shot. Also, the reflection just happened to assume a horizontal "flame" shape.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Kent, you are avoiding the video I linked, one of the one Ross relied on. you claim that you believe it is reflections off of aluminum, I hear you. The problem is, there is evidentally no debris of any kind anywhere near the flash. What is observed in another video, or another picture says nothing about this one.

Observation is a key part of science. Theory must account for observation. Theroy that ignores relevant observation is bad science.

I suppose Kent's hypothesis is that pieces of aluminum cladding popped off the facade, reflected sunlight at the camera, then went invisible before another frame of video had been shot. Also, the reflection just happened to assume a horizontal "flame" shape.
Click to expand...
Again IM not avoiding the video. Just not giving the answers you would like to hear.
Again that's why I posted this video which matches up with the "Core"destruction" video.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem7/911.wtc.1.demolition.north.03.avi
This one has "disappearing" debris also.
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-4.avi
But basicly yes, could be the smoke obscured it.

The other flash that hangs there a little longer (closer to the back of the building) could be some flame coming out.
Again hard to tell. But note its happening as the building is just starting to collapse, pushing out materical.
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Kent, you are avoiding the video I linked, one of the one Ross relied on. you claim that you believe it is reflections off of aluminum, I hear you. The problem is, there is evidentally no debris of any kind anywhere near the flash. What is observed in another video, or another picture says nothing about this one.

Observation is a key part of science. Theory must account for observation. Theroy that ignores relevant observation is bad science.

I suppose Kent's hypothesis is that pieces of aluminum cladding popped off the facade, reflected sunlight at the camera, then went invisible before another frame of video had been shot. Also, the reflection just happened to assume a horizontal "flame" shape.
Click to expand...

Not attempting to answer questions about anomalies with your observation/theory is bad science too.

1. Where. Are. The. Booms?
2. Even you admit there that they serve no purpose, so why were the charges detonated in such an illogical manner?
3. Can you cite just one example of a CD that relies on firing off (quiet)charges after the building is 2/3 of the way to the ground?

Science time. Please answer..
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Paradalis persisted

The purpose would be to continue to demolish and destroy still-intact parts of the structure, as explained by Ross.
Click to expand...
So how much of a Twin Tower would need to fall on its lower portion to lead to progressive collapse? 1/2? 3/4? Let's say you took out two connected floors: how many stories (if any, in your calculation) would need to be above those two floors to accomplish global collapse of one of the towers?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Here is your answer. Please read this. I concur with this study, as it proceeds scientifically, trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html
Click to expand...

Wow! That is ... just ... wow.

Okay, so we finally have Truthseeker's hypothesis as to the colapse of the towers. Now, we can move on to question two and it is for all the points: Do you realize what you are asking us to believe?

Because you're asking us to believe a lot. You're asking us to believe:

1. That the government decided to win public support for a war against Islam through a false flag operation.

2. That the government studied possible targets and discarded any government buildings, monuments, military facilities, naval vessels or anything else that they could completely control.

3. That the government chose a civilian target in the most populous city in America.

4. That the government chose to execute the plan the day after a national holiday, ensuring thousands more casualties than if the plan had gone forward twenty-four hours earlier.

5. That the government studied how best to bring down the towers but no witness to such an engineering/demolition study has ever come forward.

6. That the government's plan for controlled demolition was unlike any other controlled demolition in engineering history, proceeding from near-the-top to the ground instead of from the ground up.

7. That, despite the fact that the 1993 WTC bombing was carried out from the ground and despite the fact that ground-up demolitions are better understood by experts, the government chose not to simulate a ground-floor bombing but an airplane strike.

8. That the government planted explosives in the Word Trade Center but no single witness has ever come forward to claim any part in the attack.

9. That the government made 45 degree cuts in crucial support structures before September 11 but with no apparant fear that this would cause any instability in the building until they were ready on 9/11.

10. That four passenger jets took off on 9/11 with 19 terrorists onboard, that their names were on the manifests, that airport personnel remembered them, that ground controlers heard speaking over radios, and that passengers called loved ones and described but that all of this was Not the cause of the collapse of the towers.

11. That two 767s hit the towers in exactly the right spots to correspond with the government's plan for a close-to-the-top-down controlled demolition either making the terrorist patsies the luckiest unwitting co-conspirators in history or showing that air force pilots can barrel in to a building at 400 mph at exactly the right altitude even though the pilot who struck tower one did so while turning.

12. That the government's plan which went so perfectly in execution got so botched up when Iraq, the country the government wanted to invade, turned out to be the one country none of the terrorists were from and the one country that never gave a cent to their terrorist organizations.

13. That all of this was accomplished without one single witness feeling guilt or remorse or admitting to anyone his involvement whereas the patsy, Osama Bin Laden, proudly proclaims his involvement whenever he gets the chance.

Did I miss anything?
 
1. Where. Are. The. Booms?
2. Even you admit there that they serve no purpose, so why were the charges detonated in such an illogical manner?
3. Can you cite just one example of a CD that relies on firing off (quiet)charges after the building is 2/3 of the way to the ground?

Science time. Please answer..
Click to expand...

1. First, we have a litany of firefighters and others in the buildings reporting that they saw, heard, felt, and were seriously injured by explosions. Some videos, such as the one I linked, do not have sound on them. Others do, but recall that sound takes about 6 seconds to travel a mile, so we would have to account for the delay. Plus, sound is significantly attenuated by distance, especially the high frequencies. If you will link to a video that has an audio track that you think ought to have "booms" on it, but does not, I'll look, listen and answer from there.

2. I already answered the question about why charges continue during the collapses, as does Ross.

3. No. WTC 1 , 2 was special for the reasons stated (very big, very strong, top down). WTC7 was much more of a standard controlled demolition. We haven't even gotten into that one yet. Can of worms.
 
Truthseeker, you realize there is quite a lot of evidence and eye witnesses that contridict your theory, right?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Others do, but recall that sound takes about 6 seconds to travel a mile, so we would have to account for the delay. Plus, sound is significantly attenuated by distance, especially the high frequencies. If you will link to a video that has an audio track that you think ought to have "booms" on it, but does not, I'll look, listen and answer from there.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but there are countless vidoes taken from DIRECTLY beneath the towers throughout the morning, even from INSIDE the buildings, including during the collapses.

Not one of these videos captures explosions. Not one.

-Andrew
 
If you will link to a video that has an audio track that you think ought to have "booms" on it, but does not, I'll look, listen and answer from there.
Click to expand...

NO. Burdon of proof transfer attempt noted and deflected. If YOU will link to a video that has an audio track that HAS booms on it that we think shouldn't, then WE'LL look and listen.
 
Hmmm... I am watching another documentary on 9/11 and there is footage of the aftermath of the towers...and there are large chunks of concrete all over the place.....so much for your "theory" truthseeker.

Do CT's have even a rudimentary grasp of kinetic energy?
 
Kent, or anyone. Can you please explain what you see that allows you to believe that the flashes in the video I linked are reflections from debris? I see no debris of any kind. This certainly appears to be arguing from incredulity, as in "I just can't believe there would be explosions, so it can't be true, regardless of what we observe".

I am aware that you guys believe the flashes have innocuous explanations. I want to know what you see, in the video I linked, that allows for this opinion.
 
Hmmm... I am watching another documentary on 9/11 and there is footage of the aftermath of the towers...and there are large chunks of concrete all over the place.....so much for your "theory" truthseeker.
Click to expand...

Great, link it and then we'll estimate how much is there, and what percentage of the total that represents. That would be science.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
1. First, we have a litany of firefighters and others in the buildings reporting that they saw, heard, felt, and were seriously injured by explosions. Some videos, such as the one I linked, do not have sound on them. Others do, but recall that sound takes about 6 seconds to travel a mile, so we would have to account for the delay. Plus, sound is significantly attenuated by distance, especially the high frequencies. If you will link to a video that has an audio track that you think ought to have "booms" on it, but does not, I'll look, listen and answer from there.

2. I already answered the question about why charges continue during the collapses, as does Ross.

3. No. WTC 1 , 2 was special for the reasons stated (very big, very strong, top down). WTC7 was much more of a standard controlled demolition. We haven't even gotten into that one yet. Can of worms.
Click to expand...

1. So all these firefighters are on record as saying they were explosives?
Yes/no.
Noone here has ever disputed that there were explosions in the Towers. However, as gumboot pointed out there are no videos which capture the boom booms. Why?
2. Your answer defies all logic, common sense and as well as the entire history of building demolition.
3. See 2.

Again, in case you missed it, this is what a demo sounds like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Great, link it and then we'll estimate how much is there, and what percentage of the total that represents. That would be science.
Click to expand...

It's on the History Channel right now.

And you should have already done the math on your own before you started this thread Killtown.....I mean truthseeker.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Kent, or anyone. Can you please explain what you see that allows you to believe that the flashes in the video I linked are reflections from debris? I see no debris of any kind. This certainly appears to be arguing from incredulity, as in "I just can't believe there would be explosions, so it can't be true, regardless of what we observe".

I am aware that you guys believe the flashes have innocuous explanations. I want to know what you see, in the video I linked, that allows for this opinion.
Click to expand...

Bad. YOU think every flash you see has a nefarious explanation. YOU have the burden of proof. Prove that what you see can have NO other explanation other than CD. Prove you have the expertise and qualifications to interpret what you see enough to claim foul.

You are just some dude on the internet looking at videos and making some pretty wild claims, and accusing people of some pretty heinous crimes. One would think you would really want to be sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom