911 Towers Were Exploded Outwards, Not Collapsed

[Btodd]

It really sucks you can't link to a single post where I say anything about silent explosives. Are strawmen all you have left?

You don't have to 'say it'. Everyone has seen video and heard the corresponding audio of the collapses, which occurred on live television.

So if you, or anyone, wants to argue that such a powerful explosion happened, then let's hear the audio of it. If not, then it's a 'silent explosive', or at least very, very quiet one...yet still incredibly powerful. The contradiction is enormous, and nobody needs a direct quote from you to determine that; it's a necessity of what you're arguing.

This is aside from the points I made about how it (the mechanism of explosives) survived the impact of the planes and ensuing fires, so the absurdity just keeps adding up.

Besides, if someone asked you a direct question about it, like oldbetang did...you would find an excuse to not answer the question. Rinse and repeat.


Btodd

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

You don't have to 'say it'. Everyone has seen video and heard the corresponding audio of the collapses, which occurred on live television.

So if you, or anyone, wants to argue that such a powerful explosion happened, then let's hear the audio of it. If not, then it's a 'silent explosive', or at least very, very quiet one...yet still incredibly powerful. The contradiction is enormous, and nobody needs a direct quote from you to determine that; it's a necessity of what you're arguing.

This is aside from the points I made about how it (the mechanism of explosives) survived the impact of the planes and ensuing fires, so the absurdity just keeps adding up.

Besides, if someone asked you a direct question about it, like oldbetang did...you would find an excuse to not answer the question. Rinse and repeat.


Btodd

I have addressed the audio issue several times. As for how the planes had to have destroyed anything pre-planted.....explain that for us. Since there were several floors fully in tact above and below the crash levels...explain how exosives on those floors were destroyed when nothig else on those floors were. This oughta be fun....

 

[Skaloop]

I have addressed the audio issue several times. As for how the planes had to have destroyed anything pre-planted.....explain that for us. Since there were several floors fully in tact above and below the crash levels...explain how exosives on those floors were destroyed when nothig else on those floors were. This oughta be fun....

So the explosions you are claiming happened (implicitly silent explosions) were not on the floors where the planes crashed? Were they above or below the impact floors? If the explosions were on other floors, why aren't the seen on other floors?

 

[Btodd]

I have addressed the audio issue several times. As for how the planes had to have destroyed anything pre-planted.....explain that for us. Since there were several floors fully in tact above and below the crash levels...explain how exosives on those floors were destroyed when nothig else on those floors were. This oughta be fun....

I have only seen you address the audio issue by using the fallacy of special pleading you did above ('they would have access to the best technology', which is not an answer).

I don't see why you think this is damning, because the collapse STARTED at the impact points. There was no giant explosion at all, there was a failure at the impact points, and the upper block crashed down on the lower block, ejecting debris outward.

And a demolitions explosion would have happened BEFORE collapse, in order to cause it. That never happened, and anyone that watches the video/audio from live television is able to see that. The steel finally gives way at the impact points, and the upper block comes crashing down with enormous force. Physics, not science fiction.


Btodd

 

[stelow]

Three huge steel framed skyscrapers, one skyscraper was not hit by a jet and the other two remained standing after impact from a jet, and then all of a sudden they collapse very close to free fall speed, which would be physically impossible.

This science has existed for a long time, and unless physics has changed, this science would still stand as being proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Note, I did say very close to free fall speed, but regardless of these facts, the debunker has some kind fallacious reason, for trying to explain them away.

 

[Btodd]

Three huge steel framed skyscrapers, one skyscraper was not hit by a jet and the other two remained standing after impact from a jet, and then all of a sudden they collapse very close to free fall speed, which would be physically impossible.

This science has existed for a long time, and unless physics has changed, this science would still stand as being proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Note, I did say very close to free fall speed, but regardless of these facts, the debunker has some kind fallacious reason, for trying to explain them away.

The only one you could come close to saying that about is WTC7, and even then it is not true unless you discount all of the time from when the penthouse collapses into the building (because of the structural failure noted by NIST), and then start your countdown at the final stage of it.

As for the Twin Towers, not even close. Even in photos, there is debris well below the point-of-collapse, which would entail that debris falling FASTER than free-fall.

If you think tiny little paragaphs like this erase the entire NIST report, and independent peer-reviewed science on the collapses (except WTC7, I did not find an independent study on it)...then power to you. You're just not going to convince anyone in the scientific community, or anyone who abides by the scientific method.


Btodd

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

So the explosions you are claiming happened (implicitly silent explosions) were not on the floors where the planes crashed? Were they above or below the impact floors? If the explosions were on other floors, why aren't the seen on other floors?

I never said anything about silent explosions and never said they would be silent. Let me know when you can keep track of what I actually say so we can honestly discuss the issue.

 

[Skaloop]

I never said anything about silent explosions and never said they would be silent. Let me know when you can keep track of what I actually say so we can honestly discuss the issue.

Fine.

So the explosions you are claiming happened (not silent explosions) were not on the floors where the planes crashed? Were they above or below the impact floors? If the explosions were on other floors, why aren't they seen on other floors?

 

[Btodd]

I never said anything about silent explosions and never said they would be silent. Let me know when you can keep track of what I actually say so we can honestly discuss the issue.

Same game, different day. You can't claim they happened, yet provide no evidence of the sound, and refuse to explain how they survived the impacts and ensuing fires. Speaking of honesty...


Btodd

 

[stelow]

The only one you could come close to saying that about is WTC7, and even then it is not true unless you discount all of the time from when the penthouse collapses into the building (because of the structural failure noted by NIST), and then start your countdown at the final stage of it.

As for the Twin Towers, not even close. Even in photos, there is debris well below the point-of-collapse, which would entail that debris falling FASTER than free-fall.

If you think tiny little paragaphs like this erase the entire NIST report, and independent peer-reviewed science on the collapses (except WTC7, I did not find an independent study on it)...then power to you. You're just not going to convince anyone in the scientific community, or anyone who abides by the scientific method.


Btodd

They had the script of the structural failure going on the day of the collapses, before they paid millions to NIST for their fictitious science report.

Sometimes saying things simply, the less is more concept, can have a deeper effect on the change of perspective that's looked for.

I believe their are plenty in the scientific, engineering, architectural, and those who construct steel frame skyscrapers who seriously question the NIST report, as being something of out of a fairy-tale story.

 

[Btodd]

They had the script of the structural failure going on the day of the collapses, before they paid millions to NIST for their fictitious science report.

Sometimes saying things simply, the less is more concept, can have a deeper effect on the change of perspective that's looked for.

I believe their are plenty in the scientific, engineering, architectural, and those who construct steel frame skyscrapers who seriously question the NIST report, as being something of out of a fairy-tale story.

Cool, point me toward their engineering/architectural/demolitions papers in a peer-reviewed journal, or enjoy your belief.


Btodd

 

[stelow]

Cool, point me toward their engineering/architectural/demolitions papers in a peer-reviewed journal, or enjoy your belief.


Btodd

Pointing directions to a debunker, is never a solution.

 

[wpage]

The conspiracy believers still insist Kennedy was shot by more than one gunman.

Take a trip to NYC and see the truth. Its evident.

 

[Btodd]

Pointing directions to a debunker, is never a solution.

I don't even know what that meant, other than the obvious...there are no scientific papers on the conspiracy that have been introduced to peer-reviewed journals. You are welcome to your beliefs, though.


Btodd

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Fine.

So the explosions you are claiming happened (not silent explosions) were not on the floors where the planes crashed? Were they above or below the impact floors? If the explosions were on other floors, why aren't they seen on other floors?

Im not claiming explosions happened. Im saying there are many witnesses to explosions that happened inside the towers after the planes hit. These were over 40 floors below impact. As for the question of why they weren't seen on other floors...ummm...they were seen on other floors.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

The conspiracy believers still insist Kennedy was shot by more than one gunman.

Take a trip to NYC and see the truth. Its evident.

What does this mean? Has anyone claimed the towers are stilll there?

 

[stelow]

Pointing directions to a debunker, is never a solution.

I don't even know what that meant, other than the obvious...there are no scientific papers on the conspiracy that have been introduced to peer-reviewed journals. You are welcome to your beliefs, though.


Btodd

Sorry, let me be a little more clear!!!

Pointing directions to a debunker, in a kin to pointing directions to a blind man.

 

[stelow]

The conspiracy believers still insist Kennedy was shot by more than one gunman.

Take a trip to NYC and see the truth. Its evident.

Saying Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, is the same as saying Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.

Just like in the Kennedy assassination, they had their man before Kennedy's body got cold, was the same for 9/11, they had their man before the towers even came down.

Both events were scripted in advance, before they happened.

 

[Btodd]

Saying Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, is the same as saying Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.

Just like in the Kennedy assassination, they had their man before Kennedy's body got cold, was the same for 9/11, they had their man before the towers even came down.

Both events were scripted in advance, before they happened.

I love how every complex event can be wrapped up in a single 'they did it' sentence for you. I wish life really were that simple.


Btodd

 

[stelow]

I love how every complex event can be wrapped up in a single 'they did it' sentence for you. I wish life really were that simple.


Btodd

The planning behind the 9/11 event, was complex and took some time, just the propaganda groundwork, that had to be laid before the event was to happen, took years to accomplish.