- This topic has 424 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Node, you say there’s lots of evidence for pre-rigged demolition of the Twin Towers, but the only piece of “evidence” I can think of that’s (supposedly) specific to the Twin Towers is Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration”. eg. thermite traces: if WTC7 was indeed brought down by thermite, and residue was found in New York dust, then the thermite residue isn’t specific to the Twin Towers.
MODS, many thanks for implementing my request to unembed the videos I linked.
Clark asks what evidence there is “for pre-rigged demolition of the Twin Towers”
Let’s start with eye witnesses.
All surviving New York fire fighters (FDNY) were interviewed shortly afterwards. 118 out 0f 503 said they had witnessed blasts or explosions distinguishable from the four kinds of explosions that typically occur in fires (boiling-liquid-expanding-vapor-explosions or “BLEVEs”; electrical explosions; smoke explosions or “backdrafts”; and combustion explosions). The majority of the 118 were not asked about explosions but volunteered the information, therefore 118/503 represents a minimum number of such FDNY witnesses.
Additionally 14 policemen, 13 reporters, and 8 other first responders reported blast explosions.
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/eyewitness-accounts-of-explosions
Since your question asks about the events of 9/11 without reference to me personally, I’ll answer it. I’ll start a fresh comment to do so. We’re done here. You have failed to provide a rational justification for your claim that Chandler is responsible for fires in Birmingham.
Chandler carries considerable responsibility for undermining public understanding of science, and promoting public distrust of the scientific process. I can’t quantify Chandler’s share, but on this very page, J describes the collapses of the Twin Towers as “impossible” (without explosives). There’s only one source for that meme, and that’s Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration…”. The direct opposite of the truth, still doing the rounds after well over a decade.
Grief Node, can’t you do anything but fight?
Yep, there were loads of explosions on 9/11 because there was loads of fire. Fire causes explosions. As to blast explosions; famously, the US has loads of guns and ammunition; the public have a constitutional right to carry them. Either the AFT office or the US Customs House (WTC5 or WTC6?) had a sizeable ammunition store.
Reports of explosions don’t indicate “controlled” demolition; for the top-down collapses of the Twin Towers, you’d need a descending wave of blasts, timed to produce the descending collapse front. The Twin Tower collapses were recorded on countless videos; each Twin Tower fell with a roar, not a fusillade.
What about the countervailing reasoning? The supposed “controlled” demolitions had to be initiated at each tower’s damaged zone. Each was a site of major fire, and had been subjected to something resembling a fuel-air bomb when the aircraft struck (massive fireballs recorded on video). How were these critically important demolition materials, including explosives, supposed to withstand around 45 minutes and 90 minutes of intensive fire? It’s absurd.
“Explosions prove controlled demolition!” Seductive but superficial plausibility.
It’s easy to mislead the gullible, isn’t it? (If Truthers deny this, then their claims about sheeple mindless lapping up the “official story” constitute gross hypocrisy.)
“Yep, there were loads of explosions on 9/11 because there was loads of fire. Fire causes explosions. “
I specifically addressed this point but you ignored it. Firemen are trained to recognise the 4 typical explosions produced by burning buildings :BLEVEs plus electrical/smoke/combustion explosions. These men reported. The explosions witnessed by the firemen were distinguishable from these by:Identification: If the explosions encountered were the type typically encountered in fires, the firefighters would be expected to recognize them as such and name them. There are very few instances where they do so. On the contrary, they clearly feel these were different types of explosions than those they were used to encountering…
Power: Many eyewitnesses clearly thought they were watching explosions destroy the Twin Towers. But none of the common four types of fire-related explosions could accomplish this…
Pattern: …[M]any eyewitnesses reported regular, rapid energetic events in sequence down the building, which cannot be explained by any of the four common types of explosion.
“What about the countervailing reasoning? The supposed “controlled” demolitions had to be initiated at each tower’s damaged zone. Each was a site of major fire, and had been subjected to something resembling a fuel-air bomb when the aircraft struck (massive fireballs recorded on video). How were these critically important demolition materials, including explosives, supposed to withstand around 45 minutes and 90 minutes of intensive fire? It’s absurd.”
The spectacular fireballs lasted a few seconds and burned most of the fuel. Great visual effect but little fire damage. The resulting office fires affected relatively small areas of the towers.
You can’t ignite thermite with gasoline. Not hot enough. Demolition charges probably concealed and protected behind wall panels.
You said “Explosions prove controlled demolition!” Seductive but superficial plausibility.
You used quote marks to infer that I or someone in my link said “Explosions prove controlled demolition.” DISHONEST. You made the quote up yourself so that you could attribute superficial reasoning to the Truther movement. SNEAKY and DESPERATE.
– “[M]any eyewitnesses reported regular, rapid energetic events in sequence down the building, which cannot be explained by any of the four common types of explosion.”
Yep, you can see those events on most collapse videos, and they’re referred to in the NIST report. They are dusty air being ejected through the perimeter columns. The internal front of destruction of floor assemblies proceeded (from memory) at around four or five storeys per second, and nearly all that air had to be ejected. These would have happened – would have to have happened – whether explosives were used or not.
In fact, think about it. If these ejections had been caused by explosives, there would have to have been another descending front of ejections caused by the expelled air.
– “Many eyewitnesses clearly thought they were watching explosions destroy the Twin Towers.”
Well of course they did! Whose first thoughts would turn to ejected air in the few seconds of witnessing such a sudden, momentous event?
Oh for goodness sake; I put quotes around a soundbite; I’d have prepended your name if I were attributing it to you, Node. Who’s desperate?
– “The resulting office fires affected relatively small areas of the towers.”
Balderdash. Just look at how much smoke was produced. It was so hot that people in the sections above the damaged zones were breaking windows and jumping out. There was so much heat that the buildings’ steel perimeters deformed.
But you can’t sequence thermite charges to 200 milliseconds (five storeys per second); thermite burns too slowly. And so what anyway? There’s all the high-tech detonation control equipment to consider as well.
This is all silly anyway. Why bother with explosives at all? All that was needed was structural failure across the damaged zone, and total collapse was assured. And who says that total collapse was ever an objective in the first place? Had the towers not collapsed there would have been an even longer spectacle of people jumping out of windows to escape the fire.
There was, and is, no way to extinguish a fire that high up.
You make up a soundbite, put quote marks round it, disparage it as though someone else had said it, then act offended when I say it’s misleading. You lie about your dishonesty.
As for the rest, you asked for evidence, I give you over a hundred competent eye witnesses, and you dismiss them because you know better.
More evidence : Molten steel in the wreckage in large enough quantities to stay molten for weeks.
You make up a soundbite, put quote marks round it, disparage it as though someone else had said it, then act offended when I say it’s misleading. You lie about your dishonesty.
As for the rest, you asked for evidence, I give you over a hundred competent eye witnesses, and you dismiss them because you know better.
More evidence : Molten steel in the wreckage in large enough quantities to stay molten for weeks.
And what if an aircraft had failed to arrive or strike? “Travellers, we apologise for the inconvenience but flight 175 has been cancelled due to delayed arrival of lemon-soaked paper napkins…”. The Illuminati or whoever would have been left with a very embarrassing building stuffed with explosives and never seen before, incomprehensibly high-tech detonation equipment.
“Dammit, Mutley, why didn’t you warn me?”
Controlled demolitions don’t produce molten steel. And how do you know it was steel anyway? There was masses of aluminium, copper and lead in the Twin Towers.
Thermite melts steel, but you can’t sequence thermite charges to the necessary 200ms, see above.
YOU proffered reports of explosions as evidence of pre-rigged explosives – though you change track to thermite whenever needs be. I encapsulate the former as a soundbite, so you accuse me of dishonesty. Sigh. Conspiracy theory is always like this… Chop and change, no consistency, all just a means to an end, grist to the mill…
Nano thermite then.
But I don’t claim to know the details of how they did it. I’m not a demolition expert. I just don’t believe that 3 steel framed buildings would fall as though they’d been expertly explosively demolished if they hadn’t been expertly explosively demolished.And thermite burns* rather than explodes, so if you’re going for thermite, your whole point of witness reports of blast explosions is moot.
(* reacts actually, but it’s slower, like burning, rather than a blast).
Going to try thermate instead? Then we’re back to my point above; “each Twin Tower fell with a roar, not a fusillade”.
Give it up Node; you keep failing because you’re arguing for something that didn’t happen, and wasn’t even necessary.
