FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Official Conspiracy theory EVIDENCE?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You're making some confusing remarks here. Earlier you said :


the first comment is what i believe, the second comment is aimed more towards critics, who seem to think there is no visual simularites of the wtc collapse and an implosion therefore NO evidence.



Quote:
The fact that the authors expected dust profiles similar to a CD does not mean that critics are wrong in saying there is "NO evidence what so ever for explosives or a CD". There is no such evidence. The buildings fell down unassisted by explosives.


all anybody has to do is watch the collapse of the wtc's to know the claim 'NO evidence' is false. all anybody has to do is listen to witnesses experiences and emergency workers to know the claim 'NO evidence' is false.

why deny the obvious? of cause just because there is some evidence to suggest, dos'nt mean it occured or is true. i think you have a distinct lack of what evidence means.


Quote:
EVIDENCE –noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
–verb (used with object) 4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
—Idiom6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.


ground for belief; proof. an indication or sign.

flashs in video footage.
speed of the collapse.
lots of dust created.
squibs.
witnesses, emergency workers hear/feel explosions on different floors throughout the buildings over a period of time, from impact upto collapse.

now, wether any of that means it was CD or not,(and i proberbly could add more, this is just quick of the top of my head), it is certainly signs or events you'd expect to see or hear or feel if it was a CD.

wether it was a CD or not, the claim there is NO evidence of a implosion is the wildest load of rubbish in the other extreme to those you accuse of making wild claims by saying it was certianly 100% a CD.

i don't see how denying the obvious convinces people there was nothing to hide on 9/11 and it happened how we were told.

you say NO evidence of an implosion, if anybody went and checked they would find evidence that could point to a implosion. so there IS evidence.

wether it happened or not is another matter. but don't make out people got the CD theory from out of thin air, they did not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is a squib Marky?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pepik wrote:
What is a squib Marky?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive)

good point.

obviously not what i meant. i made the mistake of using the wrong term to explain something that is seen during the wtc collaspe, but also seen in some implosions.

small dust clouds being ejected out at certain points, is what i should of said.

obviously again, that dos'nt mean it was an implosion. but the simularities do not disappear simply by claiming there is NO evidence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pepik wrote:
What is a squib Marky?


If you think the so-called 'squibs' visible in video footage of the collapse of the North Tower at heights 10-20 floors below the level of destruction are nor more than puffs of smoke squeezed by compacting of all those floors above them, then I would suggest you have little understanding of Boyle's Law. Why? Because:
* The squibs contain thick dust of a light colour, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.
* The squibs emerge from the facade 10 to 20 floors below the exploding rubble cloud inside of which the tower is disintegrating. The thick clouds appear to contain the pulverized concrete of the floor slabs, which was the only concrete component of the tower. But their interpretation as jets of smoke caused by pancaking floors requires that the floors have already pancaked down to the level of the squib, making them unavailable for the production of the concrete dust more than 10 floors above.
* The compression theory requires a rather orderly pancaking of the floor diaphragms within the intact sleeve of the perimeter wall. Such a process should have left a stack of floor diaphragms at the tower's base at the end of the collapse. But there was no such stack. In fact, it is difficult to find recognizable pieces of floor slabs of any size in Ground Zero photographs.
* The North Tower exhibits three distinct sets of squibs at different elevations of the building. Each set is visible as two distinct squibs on the same floor, one emerging from about the horizontal centre of each of the tower's two visible faces. This pattern is is far too focused and symmetric to be explained by the compression theory, which would produce similar pressures across each floor and over successive floors.
* The pancaking of floors within the perimeter wall would have created underpressures in the region above the top pancaking floor. But we seen no evidence of dust being sucked back into the tower.

Air would have been expelled from windows at the level of maximum pressure, e.g., closest to the last pancaked floor, not 10-20 floors down, where the air pressure would have been still normal. We don't see this. Therefore, the squibs were not jets of air compressed by collapsing floors. Indeed, careful examination of the videos reveals NO pancaking floors. Instead, each successive floor was blown up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No Micspi, answer the question first.

What is a squib? Do you think these puffs of smoke could be squibs? Why?

_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Micpsi wrote:


If you think the so-called 'squibs' visible in video footage of the collapse of the North Tower at heights 10-20 floors below the level of destruction are nor more than puffs of smoke squeezed by compacting of all those floors above them, then I would suggest you have little understanding of Boyle's Law. Why? Because:
* The squibs contain thick dust of a light colour, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.
* The squibs emerge from the facade 10 to 20 floors below the exploding rubble cloud inside of which the tower is disintegrating. The thick clouds appear to contain the pulverized concrete of the floor slabs, which was the only concrete component of the tower. But their interpretation as jets of smoke caused by pancaking floors requires that the floors have already pancaked down to the level of the squib, making them unavailable for the production of the concrete dust more than 10 floors above.

That really is a classic example of a muddle-headed troofer argument!
To paraphrase - "the jets look to me like crushed concrete and gypsum, not smoke, but they can't be, therefore they must be smoke from explosions"
The towers had been burning for an hour, they would be full of smoke, if a jet of air came out from the inside, for whatever reason, it would be smoke.

Micpsi wrote:

* The compression theory requires a rather orderly pancaking of the floor diaphragms within the intact sleeve of the perimeter wall. Such a process should have left a stack of floor diaphragms at the tower's base at the end of the collapse. But there was no such stack. In fact, it is difficult to find recognizable pieces of floor slabs of any size in Ground Zero photographs.

There is no reason why a rather orderly pancaking of floor diaphragms is required by the theory, if the floors fell as a collection of rubble they would still drive air before them. And there is certainly no reason why the floors should fall intact into a neat stack and be recognisable. This is a very silly strawman argument.

Micpsi wrote:

* The North Tower exhibits three distinct sets of squibs at different elevations of the building. Each set is visible as two distinct squibs on the same floor, one emerging from about the horizontal centre of each of the tower's two visible faces. This pattern is is far too focused and symmetric to be explained by the compression theory, which would produce similar pressures across each floor and over successive floors.

So you are arguing simultaneously that there is a focussed and symmetric pattern to these puffs of smoke, and that they are caused by random premature detonations? Is that really your case?

Micpsi wrote:

* The pancaking of floors within the perimeter wall would have created underpressures in the region above the top pancaking floor. But we seen no evidence of dust being sucked back into the tower.

The perimeter walls were falling at the same time, there was no tower left to have dust sucked back into, even if it were possible to see what was happening in the centre of that huge dust cloud.

Micpsi wrote:

Air would have been expelled from windows at the level of maximum pressure, e.g., closest to the last pancaked floor, not 10-20 floors down, where the air pressure would have been still normal. We don't see this. Therefore, the squibs were not jets of air compressed by collapsing floors. Indeed, careful examination of the videos reveals NO pancaking floors. Instead, each successive floor was blown up.

Air would have been expelled from windows where the air pressure was sufficient to blow them out. That depended on the internal arrangements of the building, funnelling the air in different ways, and the strength of the individual windows. In addition, the mechanical floors had vents, making for easy exit of air. You can have no idea whether or not air pressure was normal 10-20 floors down, survivors spoke of a huge rush of air. Careful examination of the photographs reveals that some floors were already hanging down prior to the collapse.



No one can say for sure what caused these puffs, but compression of air in the towers is the most likely explanation. In slow motion, they look quite unlike explosions, starting with a small jet and building up, whereas explosions would start with a bang and then die down. If they were premature explosions, then the geniuses who installed explosives and detonators invisibly in an occupied building, having discovered a method of protecting them from the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires in a way unknown to demolition experts, had such an unreliable detonation system that premature explosions were possible. The explosions caused no apparent structural damage at the time, and it made no difference to the subsequent appearance of the falling towers that these explosions had gone off. Lastly, they were wasting a huge amount of effort in planting explosives on every floor, because every calculation shows that once the collapse started it would continue down to the ground.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11
Page 11 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group