British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

If folks wish to read ridicule and scorn, I recommend your good posts.

If folks want to see and hear described what I see when I view the fall of the North Tower, they can view the video I linked.

yet its claims extend beyond that particular 10 seconds, it loses credibility instantly

I don't believe that the above quote accurately reflects your view, Ghent12. I am confident that even if the video had carefully avoided any mention of events outside that 10 seconds, it still would have lost credibility with yourself, because it shows strong evidence of explosive detonations and describes them as such.

So I ask you, TPC, "where is the pile driver?"

It disintegrated prior to the ten seconds shown in that video.

What were those clearly visible explosive blasts of air coming from seemingly below the point of impact all the way down? What caused them?

View other controlled demolitions. Such 'explosive blasts of air' are common in them. They come from explosions designed to take out some of the internal supporting structure ahead of the rest of the demolition. They aren't "designed to blow out windows exclusively." The windows have a trivial contribution to the structural integrity of a building and will collapse soon enough when the rest of the building falls.

But I am clearly wasting my time telling you this, for you have other explanations in mind and only ridicule and rhetoric for those who disagree.

Hopefully some with more open minds can at least see what things look like to this Cow.

Have a fine day.

[Ghent12]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

The video posted by the nutjobs for 911Truth asks where the supposed pile driver is, starting with video footage of a point when it was already well into the debris cloud.

It disintegrated prior to the ten seconds shown in that video.

Please, I implore you to think critically about this for some time. You're probably much closer than you realize to finding out the truth. Please explain this disintegration in a modicum of detail, either on this board or just to yourself. Did it involve throwing dust and debris into the air and horizontally at high speed? Did it cause even a significant fraction of the mass of the upper section to vaporize?

View other controlled demolitions. Such 'explosive blasts of air' are common in them. They come from explosions designed to take out some of the internal supporting structure ahead of the rest of the demolition. They aren't "designed to blow out windows exclusively." The windows have a trivial contribution to the structural integrity of a building and will collapse soon enough when the rest of the building falls.

There is almost nothing similar to this and a controlled demolition. Unless you can explain the curious downward cascade which coincides precisely with the descent of the upper section that still retained the vast majority of its mass during descent into floor after floor.

Humor me some more, if you would. Please explain why those "explosions designed to take out some of the internal supporting structure ahead of the rest of the demolition" were necessary, or why the following supposed larger explosions (the ones claimed to be responsible for blasting out large sections of debris horizontally at high speed which clearly the window-poppers did not) were necessary. Why not just either one?

Also humor me with this notion. What would an impact- & fire-induced global structural collapse look like if the upper section of the tower collapsed onto the lower section?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

What would an impact- & fire-induced global structural collapse look like if ...

I don't know from any historical example what such a collapse of a steel frame high rise would like like, for want of historical examples.

I expect that substantial portions, if not almost all, of the building below the impact zone would still be standing. The impact forces the building encountered from the airplane crash were well within the range it was designed to handle, and the heat from the fires goes mostly up, not down. So I would expect most of the towers below the impact zone to remain standing, give or take some asymmetric damage, mostly to non-structural elements.

No, I am not a building or demolitions engineer, in case you're looking for some additional reason to dismiss this present post.

I did not post that video clip expecting to convince yourself, Ghent12. Your mind is made up, and you seem mostly interested in "scoring debating points". The mindset of yourself and many like you constitutes one of the impediments to an honest, freedom respecting government, and provides fertile ground for some of the "Big Lies" of mass propaganda.

[Ghent12]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

I'd love to see video of an arrested fall. Especially one where it was a substantial percentage of the top falling onto the bottom. Even more especially after an airliner impact.

I did not post that video clip expecting to convince yourself, Ghent12. Your mind is made up, and you seem mostly interested in "scoring debating points". The mindset of yourself and many like you constitutes one of the impediments to an honest, freedom respecting government, and provides fertile ground for some of the "Big Lies" of mass propaganda.

We've been doing some ad hominem back and forth in this thread, but you're wrong here too; or at the very least a hypocrite. Your mind is made up as well, but on a fundamentally less sound foundation. Which "Big Lie" you choose to believe in is your business, of course. Alex Jones may post some truth from time to time, but that is the diamond in the rough; in this case you cling to his version of events for unknown reasons. He's your "Big Liar."

Of course, that's unfair. You believe in what you believe for your own reasons, and unlikely because of prolonged exposure to conspiracy theorist propaganda; but who knows. I believe the collapse of the towers from the plane crash and fires is absolutely credible. All "mysterious and unexplained" aspects of it have been thoroughly debunked on various places in the Internet, yet as all good conspiracy theories (especially this and the staged moon landing theory), the believers in such a conspiracy invariably pursue data to support their theory, and not the other way around; even to the point of questioning rudimentary physics. Who, exactly, is open to "honest" inquiry in that case? The absolute most plausible theory is that the crash and subsequent fires caused collapse as all the data supports that theory. The "nano-thermite bomb" theory has, in stark contrast, far less support from the data and some of the data actually contradicts parts of said theory.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

The absolute most plausible theory is that the crash and subsequent fires caused collapse as all the data supports that theory.

Not for all of us.

[c1ue]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

You don't know that. All "crime scene" evidence was carefully controlled or destroyed by the FBI and other such federal agencies. The steel was shipped off for scrap to Korea or China. Anyone working in the cleanup soon learned to keep quiet about what they might have found.

No plane parts were "found" that we know of either, except for one rather suspicious wheel, with its rubber tire still in good shape (rather amazingly so, given that it had just survived such an "inferno".) But no aircraft engines or black boxes were found, so far as we know. Those should have survived, perhaps worse for the wear.

Certainly it is possible that thousands of people all committed themselves to this coverup. That the entire area for miles around would have been scrubbed of all evidence, and that not one of the many involved would have felt qualms over the deliberate slaying of 3500 Americans.

But on the other hand, it is far more likely that there simply was no such evidence.

Looking at the 'explosive' video presented, the primary reasoning tree seems to be:

1) There is material ejected - not just bits but large chunks
2) There is material being ejected at high speed
3) There is material being ejected at areas lower than the main mass of dust

The problem is that the explosive explanation given is unconvincing.

We've all seen building demolitions: the explosives used in these instances is a minimum - merely hundreds or a thousand pounds for up to 30 story buildings, but these demolitions don't look anything like the WTC video.

I can only presume that an actual explosion that would throw a large section of a floor out to one side would be at least 10 times larger than the explosives needed for shooting steel beams out the side of an air filled building.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=2570920

Furthermore the professionals note that the primary work is done by gravity, not by explosives.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

As for the materials ejected at high speed and/or embedding: again, the scale of the numbers involved is tremendous. Hundreds of thousands of tons of material falling up to a thousand feet. A largely air building reliant on a steel frame - for example the ejections could be due to a portion of the upper floors falling inside the outer walls of the WTC - ahead of the overall collapse. Perhaps the air conditioning systems at the top? The water tanks? Elevators?

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7970951

As for the thermite evidence - here's the link again:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

In particular, the video near the bottom though the other material is also of note - the missing material in question is aluminum oxide and barium nitrate.

I don't know what you are trying to say. But your examples have no resemblance and relevance to the real world scenario here. Now try this:

1. Place a 80 kg mud square on the ground. Drop a 10 kg mud square from 12 meter onto the the mud square on the ground.
2. Place a 10 kg mud square on the ground. Drop a 80 kg mud square from 12 meter onto the the mud square on the ground.

Sorry, again your examples are pointless. The WTC was a hugely heavy structure which was still 95% air by volume. Mud is nothing similar, and the scale of the examples are so small such that the compression strength of the mud is large compared to the gravitational energy gained.

A cat can fall off a cliff and live, a horse falling the same distance SPLASHES.

Similarly a car hitting a cow more or less bounces. A train hitting a car sends the car flying away in pieces.

Scale matters.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Certainly it is possible that thousands of people all committed themselves to this coverup. That the entire area for miles around would have been scrubbed of all evidence, and that not one of the many involved would have felt qualms over the deliberate slaying of 3500 Americans.

Some have come forth, some have great qualms, but you have not ears to hear.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

We've all seen building demolitions: the explosives used in these instances is a minimum - merely hundreds or a thousand pounds for up to 30 story buildings, but these demolitions don't look anything like the WTC video.

It is true that most demolitions are done bottom up (as WTC 7 apparently was done), and sequenced so as to minimize the explosives needed. WTC 1 & 2 blew top down, and used more explosives than a normal demolition would have used, resulting in more damage to nearby buildings and in greater (and finer) dust volumes in lower Manhattan.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Similarly a car hitting a cow more or less bounces.

Ouch!

[Ghent12]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

It is true that most demolitions are done bottom up (as WTC 7 apparently was done),

So ridiculous; that is completely absurd.

Tell me, did the firefighters who knew it would collapse get word from "them" that the demolition was scheduled for hours after the first two collapsed? Or is it more likely that they saw the 20-story hole, structural damage, and rampant fires (yes, they were relatively rampant) and decided, using their knowledge and experience, to evacuate it and let it collapse on its own?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

So ridiculous; that is completely absurd.

Tell me, [a] did the firefighters who knew it would collapse get word from "them" that the demolition was scheduled for hours after the first two collapsed? Or [B] is it more likely that they saw the 20-story hole, structural damage, and rampant fires (yes, they were relatively rampant) and decided, using their knowledge and experience, to evacuate it and let it collapse on its own?

[a]

However the two of us are far enough apart on this topic that useful discussion seems quite unlikely, as I suspect you quite agree .

[c1ue]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Some have come forth, some have great qualms, but you have not ears to hear.

Please do point to me some of this testimony. Of course there is a bit of circularity in this: if the government is suppressing it, then presumably internet accounts would be suppressed as well. But still.

It is true that most demolitions are done bottom up (as WTC 7 apparently was done), and sequenced so as to minimize the explosives needed. WTC 1 & 2 blew top down, and used more explosives than a normal demolition would have used, resulting in more damage to nearby buildings and in greater (and finer) dust volumes in lower Manhattan.

The point I was trying to make is that 1000 pounds of explosives is easy to place. Demolished structures are also weakened structurally ahead of time - as Ghent12 has noted I believe.

Ten thousand pounds, or tens of thousands of pounds, not so much.

Ouch!

Nothing personal intended. If I lived in the North, I'd have said moose. Where I've lived, the only other choice is deer - and cars don't bounce off deer :eek:

I repeat: I do grant that the gubbamint gained a great deal of power from 9/11 and thus there clearly was at least some motive.

But again my recollections of the actual event showed a government which was in great disarray for quite some time after this tragedy.

Dubya just ain't that good an actor.

[marvenger]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

The World Trade Towers were built to withstand a direct hit by a fully loaded passenger airplane. They withstood that fine.

of course they were, a world war 2 bomber flew into the empire state building so when the world trade centre was built it was of course made strong enough to withstand an impact from a passenger jet. and the empire state held up fine despite the impact and not being designed for it.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Please do point to me some of this testimony.

The links and evidence comes and goes as I read books and webpages.. Various fire, police and cleanup crew have complained bitterly of the overlooked evidence, reports and first hand accounts of the day.

Here's one item I recently listened to. It has the radio chatter of fire and rescue in WTC2 in the last few minutes before it fell. Certainly the building was no raging inferno at least up to about floor 78.

The topic of 9/11 is not like more esoteric subjects such as economics. Some good sites, such as the one we're on now, iTulip,. can sustain extended discussions with evidence, links, sensible contributions and thoughtful analysis in subjects such as economics. Carrying on a thoughtful discussion of 9/11 in any public web forum is like having a public and in depth discussion of the weaknesses of the Canadian hockey team, in a barroom in Canada, the night after they won the gold. Ain't going to happen.

The point I was trying to make is that 1000 pounds of explosives is easy to place.

Ten thousand pounds, or tens of thousands of pounds, not so much.

Maintenance, both major and minor, is ongoing in a building the size of a World Trade Center tower. Portions would be closed off for work, including whole floors and whole elevator or stairwell shafts. The floors on the two towers which were hit by the planes each had been reworked earlier in the year with new false flooring to house major power conditioners and UPS backups for a computer operations center. A major "rewiring for security" was done in the summer of 2001.

When you work in a big building like that, it's like working in a small city. Maintenance work outside of the area you frequent is routine and merits little notice.

I write here from memory of my readings and my brief visits to the WTC; sorry I don't have links at hand and I might have my facts a bit askew.

Nothing personal intended.

Yeah, I know. I was just teasing you with that picture of the sad cow .

[Ghent12]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

[a]

However the two of us are far enough apart on this topic that useful discussion seems quite unlikely, as I suspect you quite agree .

Right, the hundreds of firefighters, having just lost their friends in the collapses of the first two, decided to be completely silent after being told that tower 7 was scheduled for demolition hours later. :rolleyes:

Yes, we are very far apart on this topic. I keep trying to focus on reality, and topics of mild complexity such as physics and thermodynamics, but you want no part of it.

According to your logic, the man in the attached photo cannot survive so close to molten metal. According to your logic, it is more believable that multiple stages of explosives (from the most exotic, unique, and easily-traced explosive on the planet) were used rather than relatively easily-understood physical principles. According to your logic, previous completely dissimilar situations (those high-rise fires) negate the possibility of what actually happened. You believe that thousands or tens of thousands of people have kept silent about this, including those whose friends and loved ones were killed. Your continued belief in this is not indicative of deductive reasoning.