WTC Demolition: Two Pictures Are Worth Two Thousand Words

[spooked911]

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. Yet, you neglected to provide a single one.

wtf? Nice ovals by the way, perfectly drawn.

[SDuderstadt]

2. To be blunt....

I have no fucking idea what Spooked is yammering about most of the time. Frankly, I'm not sure he does either.

[spooked911]

3. Was the WTC blown up by demolition charges?

I say "yes".

You say, "gee, what are you SAYING??? It's all so CONFUSING!!!!"

[SDuderstadt]

6. Really?

Show me where I said that, Spooked.

Hint: a picture of the Towers collapsing isn't a picture of them exploding.

[BuddyBoy]

139. Seeing different things

You seem to be saying that what YOU see is a picture of a building collapsing. That isn't what I see. What I see is
a picture of the aftermath of explosions that occurred high up in the building - which is not to say that there
weren't also explosions in lower parts of the building and even in the basement areas. Explosions are what caused the
seismic spike. A cartoon plane gliding into the building couldn't have caused the spike.

Explosions created all those tons of debris that can be seen being blown out and falling to the ground.

[SDuderstadt]

150. Dude....

call the US Attorney for your state and present your evidence. When the US Attorney laughs at your lack of evidence, you're on your own.

[spooked911]

4. I provided two pictures and nine words in the title

what's the problem?

[BuddyBoy]

5. What's the PROBLEM? I'll tell you what the problem is.

You're asking Official Conspiracy Theorists to make admissions against their own interest. They know all about Perry Mason and
they aren't ABOUT to make THAT mistake.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. The problem is that you overestimated the worth of those pictures by 1992 words.

[spooked911]

53. what do you see in the pictures if not demolition?

[rhymeandreason]

7. Obviously the buildings are exploding.

I really can't understand how there can be any question about it. The visual evidence is conclusive -- the buildings were blown up.

photos taken September 21, 2001:

[SDuderstadt]

8. If it's so "obvious"....

why aren't people flocking to the "truth movement"?

[rhymeandreason]

9. So, tell me what you see in the photographs.

Be detailed.

[SDuderstadt]

10. I see a building pulling apart...

Read the NIST report. Have you?

[rhymeandreason]

11. "A building pulling apart"

How is it "pulling apart", be specific.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Do you know how buildings are constructed?

Do you know what's connecting the exterior walls to the floors? Have you actually READ the NIST report?

[rhymeandreason]

13. I didn't ask you about the NIST report.

I asked you to explain how the building in the photograph is "pulling apart".

[SDuderstadt]

14. The NIST report explains it quite well...

have you read it?

[rhymeandreason]

15. The NIST report is another subject.

What I would like to know is what you see in the photographs the Spooked and I posted. You said the building is "pulling apart", how is it "pulling apart" and what is causing it to pull apart?

[SDuderstadt]

17. The NIST report is NOT another subject...

You haven't actually read it, have you...

Each WTC tower was essentially bolted together like an erector set. Each average floor had 376 5/8" bolts, 188 Truss seats, 120 ViscoElastic pieces and 120 gusset plates.

- snip -

Trusses connected Perimeter columns to the core. Without this connection neither one could stand alone. The columns are constructed in threes known as column trees. Each column was bolted onto the column beneath and to the tree beside it.

- snip -

The heat expanded the steel in the truss in all directions. As a result they also expanded into the columns. The trusses/floor system, sagged in the middle because the columns were preventing the trusses from expanding in their direction. That led to the bowing of the exterior columns.

- snip

In terms of mass, the floors were comparable to tree trunks and the columns were like branches. The floor connections of the long span floors could support a load of a couple story masses and had an energy absorbing ability of a couple hundredths of a GJ per story. The floor connections were like crepe connecting the floors to the columns. The crepe was sufficient for the structure in its static organized state but was a weak link during collapse when the structure in the region of the collapse front no longer resembled the static organized state.

- snip -

After the columns bowed, the weight was no longer going straight down. Like taking a straw and bowing it in the middle, it no longer can hold the same weight as it did when it was straight. The building tried to transfer the load to the core columns and massive hat truss on the roof. The weakened core, weakened by fire and impact, couldn't hold the massive weight from tilting. As with the perimeter column, the massive load on the deformed core columns gave way.

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

Somehow, I doubt if you understand any of that. I highly suggest you read the NIST report.

[rhymeandreason]

18. I'm sorry, perhaps I haven't made myself clear.

I didn't ask you to cut and paste information and analysis from the NIST report but I would very much like to know what you see happening in the photographs that were posted by Spooked and myself. If you'd like to discuss the NIST report, start another discussion. But I would really like to know is what you see in the photographs. Your personal perceptions.

[SDuderstadt]

19. It wasn't from the NIST report

And I already said what I saw.

[BuddyBoy]

20. The NIST report?

Exactly where in the photos do you see the NIST report?

[SDuderstadt]

21. Dude...you might want to read all the posts chronologically...

then you might have a clue as to which question I was answering rather than just go off half-cocked.

[BuddyBoy]

25. Why won't you just answer the simple question you were asked?

Do you need a reminder of what the question is?

[SDuderstadt]

27. Do you need a reminder of what my answer was?

How are you doing with locating those videos of the building exploding without a plane hitting it?

[BuddyBoy]

28. Yes.

Please tell us what you see in those photos, and don't just say that you see a "building pulling apart". That's not a very
substantive observation. Surely you can do better than THAT.

[SDuderstadt]

29. That's what's happening, dude...

I don't give a fuck if you think it's substantive or not. Speaking of substantive, I think you'd be thankful for ANY evidence of your goofy claim, substantive or not. From here on out, I'm invoking Lared's Rule, dude.

Don't you have some videos to look for?

[rhymeandreason]

22. I was looking for a more detailed description

of what is happening in the photos. You said that the building was "pulling apart" and I asked you to elaborate on that in detail. How is the building "pulling apart"? Where in the photo is it "pulling apart"? How does it look to you?

[SDuderstadt]

23. I already answered your question...

if you don't like the answer, too bad. I'm not playing "truther rope-a-dope" with you.

[BuddyBoy]

24. You didn't answer the question, you merely pasted some NIST

report paragraphs. Why won't you answer the question? It's a straight-forward, simple question asking what you see in
the PHOTOS.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Read it again, dude...

It wasn't from NIST, which you'd know if you looked at the url.

I already answered what I see in the photos. I don't give a fuck if "no-planers" are satisfied with my answer or not, especially you, dude.

[greyl]

32. "I was looking for a more detailed description of what is happening in the photos"

Hilarious. That's precisely the burden the 9/11 Truth Industry should be bearing.
Your problem is in overcoming the very rational and sensible null hypothesis of why the buildings collapsed.

[rhymeandreason]

34. I'm not quite sure why it is so hard to answer a simple question.

What do you see in the photographs? How does it look to you?

[SDuderstadt]

35. Translation: "Until you say what I want to hear, I will badger you over and over"

n/t

[rhymeandreason]

36. No. I'd just like you to compose a straightforward

description of what you see happening in the photos posted by Spooked and Myself. Is that so hard?

[SDuderstadt]

37. I've already answered your question....

I'm done.

[Realityhack]

44. Quick answer.

Spooked's photos show a building collapsing.
Yours show debris sitting on the ground and some show clean up workers removing some of it.

Neither proves anything about explosives.

[BuddyBoy]

30. spooked911...or anyone else

What is your take on the issues which I raised this morning about the Naudet video?

[greyl]

31. What SHOULD the pictures look like

if the OCT were true?
That question is for any CTist in this thread.

[spooked911]

62. the buildings would still be standing

with perhaps a partial collapse.

But certainly there wouldn't be volcano-like eruptions of thick dust and complete obliteration of the structure.

[SDuderstadt]

63. ASCE doesn't agree with you...

dude.

[greyl]

65. No, I said "if the OCT were true".

In other words, if the buildings collapsed as per the OCT i.e. after being struck by planes and burning.

...volcano-like eruptions of thick dust and complete obliteration of the structure...

"Volcano-like" is a woefully vague description, and "complete obliteration of the structure" is a false description.

So, how should the photos look if the towers fell as per the OCT?

[BuddyBoy]

66. The towers didn't fall

What fell is debris that was caused by massive explosions. An example of a tower that fell is the hotel in China that has been
shown on TV during the past few days.

[greyl]

71. The photos prove you are posting bullshit. nt

[SDuderstadt]

84. "The towers didn't fall"

I nominate this as the outright dumbest "truther" claim of all time.

[BuddyBoy]

96. What fell was tons of debris created by explosions in the towers.

Saying and repeating "the towers fell" doesn't change the fact that the towers didn't fall. The Official Conspiracy Theorists
want people to believe that because if the public comes to realize the simple fact that it was only DEBRIS that fell, they will
easily understand that the only way that those tons of debris COULD have fallen is if there were massive explosions in the towers.
Fake planes and small fires weren't the cause. A hotel building in China fell the other day, but the twin towers didn't fall. Only
debris caused by the destruction of the towers fell in NYC.

[SDuderstadt]

106. "the only way that those tons of debris COULD have fallen is if there were massive explosions...

in the towers".

Not according to an overwhelming number of structural engineers, dude.

[spooked911]

81. "if the OCT were true" is kind of an oxymoron-- there are so many things wrong, where do you start?

But I did say if there was a collapse it would be partial. I think my other descriptions were clear enough for the purposes here.

[BuddyBoy]

82. It's like saying "if the videos weren't faked" or "if real planes

actually crashed into the WTC" or "if Official Government Conspiracy Theorists weren't biased" etc.

[Realityhack]

95. Imagine that...

using hypothetical situations to think things through. Man what a foreign concept that must be for you.

[BuddyBoy]

97. That's ironic, coming from someone

whose username is "Realityhack". Were you trying to be ironic or just hypothetically ironic?

[Realityhack]

94. Hypotheticals are not oxymorons.

And your idea of a partial collapse is laughable.

[anigbrowl]

180. Pics please

with such insight into the dynamics of buildings under stress, I'm sure you or someone else would be able to put together an artist's impression or simulation showing what you think should have have occurred.

[LARED]

33. So what's the red ovals supposed to tell us? nt

[SidDithers]

38. I think they show that Spooked is confirming...

that the buildings fell at much slower than free-fall speed.

Sid

[SDuderstadt]

39. And the funniest part is that he doesn't even know he's doing it...

n/t

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ohio Joe]

40. I'm not seeing it spooked

It does not look like a demolition to me. I'm also not seeing the mini nukes going off. I don't know what your seeing in these pictures that leads you to believe it but... I'm not seeing it.

[BuddyBoy]

46. What would you expect a mini nuke "going off" would look like?

How do demolitions look any different than what's shown in the pictures that leads you to believe that those buildings collapsed
from fake airplane crashes?

[Realityhack]

51. Spooked believes a series of mini-nukes went off...

all the way down. You would expect shock waves (as one example) that are clearly not present.

[Ohio Joe]

52. buddyboy

Still here making wild ass claims and offering nothing to back them up I see. Hows that working for you?

[BuddyBoy]

54. Another opportunity for you to answer the question I asked you

Let me repeat my question to you. This time I'd appreciate a substantive response.
Your insults may be intended to hurt, but
I'm used to verbal combat with people who use insults to mask a lack of knowledge or to draw attention away from the truth, so you aren't going to hurt me by trying to insult me and insults won't stop me from asking questions.

Here's that question I asked you:

"How do demolitions look any different than what's shown in the pictures that leads you to believe that those buildings collapsed
from fake airplane crashes?"

[Ohio Joe]

57. You see buddyboy...

I don't care what your questions are or how often you ask them. See... When you make wild ass claims and offer nothing to back them up, it comes across as just playing games and I have no interest in playing your game.

When you put out a question like this:

"How do demolitions look any different than what's shown in the pictures that leads you to believe that those buildings collapsed from fake airplane crashes?"

Your making several claims that simply defy the facts and you have to offer evidence to make them credible enough to answer. When you offer no evidence for your claims, you are in effect, asking me to first prove your claim then disprove it. First, you have to prove that the towers coming down look like demolitions, I've never seen a skyscraper demolished from the top. Next, you have to prove no planes... You know... The witnesses, why no video, why no experts call the photos/videos fake... Just a few of the holes in no planes.

Tell me... Why is your pet bunny, a well known minion of the lizard people, working with the hidden civilization on Venus?

[BuddyBoy]

58. Yes, I see very well, Ohio Joe.

Have yourself a nicer day today.

[Ohio Joe]

59. I don't think you do see buddyboy

You seem to think it is perfectly fine for you to make whatever wild ass claim that has no basis in fact and when asked to explain basic reasons it cannot be true, your reply is that the person asking should go find the answers them-self.

You then turn your claim into a question, wanting people to prove what still has no basis in fact to be false... again, with nothing to prove your claim might even be valid. I've shown why your question is not valid but do you offer anything to even try and make it so? No... again you just ignore facts and expect other people to prove your claim for you. Such a shame it is not working out to well for you, sure does suck when people won't play along with you, huh?

You have a nice day as well :D Do let me know though if you feel like offering anything that resembles proof of your claims.

[BuddyBoy]

67. Is it perfectly fine for me to laugh out loud?

I won't tell anyone that I just read one of your posts.

[greyl]

69. If cackling like a madman helps you deal with not having any evidence

to convince the world of your beliefs helps, I say go for it.
I'd prefer it if you analyzed your beliefs a lot more carefully, but whatever.

[BuddyBoy]

72. Credible evidence must really be upsetting to you.

Why would that be?

[greyl]

74. If you had evidence, you'd be presenting it.

The coin of the 9/11 Truth Industry is bullshit, and the world doesn't care what's in your pockets.

[BuddyBoy]

76. The video evidence proves the towers didn't fall & no planes crashed

At the WTC or at the Pentagon. Videos show tons of debris falling after the twin towers suffered massive explosions. Videos also show only fake (cgi) planes in NYC. As far as the Pentagon is concerned, there's not even any faked videos showing a plane there, unless you count the cartoonish blur from a parking lot camera that is supposed to represent a plane or a missile or a teardrop or Ollie North's microphone.

No wonder Official Government Conspiracy Theorists have a tough job and prefer to focus less on the substance and more on
insults. Is that how Amazin' Randi says it has to be done?

[greyl]

78. If what you say were true, the world would be very different.

Because what you say is utterly false bullshit, you are left with the task of arguing against the reason-based null hypothesis of why the towers collapsed. You have no evidence, so you can only rely on empty declarations.

[BuddyBoy]

80. What I said IS true. Your response proves it.

If what I said wasn't true, you'd be able to explain why it isn't. You've seen what a building looks like when it falls down, so
you know it's not true that the WTC buildings fell. The truth about 9/11 isn't that elusive. Common sense and the evidence that
wasn't destroyed or hidden away is enough to figure out that that particular crime of the Bush administration.

[greyl]

86. My response proves it? How do you know I wasn't lying?

Dude, the fucking lame-ass Birthers have worked up more support in a few months than the No-Planes dept. of The 9/11 Truth Industry has in 7 years.

Reality. What a concept.

[BuddyBoy]

88. How do I know you weren't lying? Good question.

I DON'T know that you weren't lying. How would YOU know if you weren't?

[greyl]

105. Ok, so when words like "true" and "proves it" eminate from you

everyone would do well to ignore them.
Got it.
If you had evidence, you'd be talking about it.

[SDuderstadt]

107. "I DON'T know that you weren't lying. How would YOU know if you weren't?"

Dude, you need to look up the difference between a lie and a merely false statement. Since a lie is, by definition, a deliberately false statement, it would be impossible for someone to lie and NOT know it. If they didn't know it, it might still be a false statement, but it wouldn't be a lie. All you're doing here is displaying your ignorance of Logic and critical thinking. Of course, that's no different than usual.

[BuddyBoy]

112. I appreciate your interest in this.

Did you read the NYT article? Would you agree that deception is the essence of lying? Whether you do or don't agree, I know that
you didn't understand the point I was making but we can just leave that alone. It would serve no useful purpose and might even
cause a frisson of anxiety.

[SDuderstadt]

113. Dude...if you remotely knew what the fuck you were talking about...

how in the world would you ask such a stupid fucking question? Since a lie is, by definition, a deliberately false statement, how in the fuck could someone lie and not know it?

I'm done with your nonsense, dude. I'll end with a plea to you to stop embarrassing DU with your patent bullshit.

[Ohio Joe]

73. I agree with greyl

I think you should laugh all you wish at whatever you feel like. Don't forget to get back with me whenever you find some evidence of your claims :hi:

[spooked911]

85. yeah, that is weird

I see this and think "no fucking way that is a collapse-- the buildings are being blown to smithereens-- and anyone who can't see this must be blind or brainwashed".

So go figure.

[Ohio Joe]

101. I do not have the answer

I do not know what you think the towers collapsing should look like, nor do I know what in those pictures makes you think they are being blown up. I can't imagine the towers collapsing and looking any different. I also do not see anything these that looks like a nuke going off... no mushroom cloud, no blinding flash of light, no building being vaporized... I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing it.

[spooked911]

122. If there was collapse, I do not think there would be complete collapse

and if even there was, there would not be this immense pulverization of the tower contents instantaneous with it going down.

It seems obvious that the way the building peels apart and turns into thick clouds of dust as it goes down points to massive energy being added to this event.

In terms of the nukes, there wasn't one large one but multiple micro-nukes. There *is* a mushroom-like cloud here. You wouldn't see a flash when the nukes had already gone off, and in any case their flash would be shielded to a large extent by the structure.

Just still amazing to me that someone could look at the top photo and think it shows simply a large collapse.

[Ohio Joe]

167. Well...

I would disagree when it comes to partial or total collapse, I can think of no reason it would suddenly stop mid collapse. I would expect that once it began, there would be no stopping it.

What you are referring to as a mushroom cloud, looks more to me like the plume of black smoke (that was pouring out of the building prior to collapse) reacting to the building collapsing beneath it.

Multiple micro-nukes... hmmm. I can't find where such a thing as a micro-nuke actually exists except in conspiracies. The closest thing I can find is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54

The smallest of the W54's however was still very powerful and would have been easily visible from outside the towers. I'm going to guess here and think that you figure they have been made even smaller... perhaps... perhaps not, that is unknown. I would guess not though or information of some kind would be available. Not to mention, they probably would have been put to use in Iraq by bush, he used D.U., why not micro-nukes if he had them?

Also, I see a problem with radiation. To the best of my knowledge (and I could be wrong, anyone correct me if I am) the low yield "micro-nukes" have the problem of being very "dirty", leaving behind large amounts of radiation. The only way they would get a low yield reaction without the radiation would be for it to be a pure fusion reaction... which would require a very large laser and as far as I am aware has not been done and only works in theory.

Now, if I'm wrong about any of this, please feel free to correct me. I am by no means any kind of expert when it comes to this stuff.

[whatchamacallit]

41. No buildings anywhere, anytime, have collapsed like this

Yet the blind keepers of the faith, will twist their minds into pretzels to explain it away. Luckily, the NIST has provided the hocus-pocus they need to shut off their senses and *believe*! Anyone who can look at this and claim it makes "perfect sense" is either a liar, or a moron.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Funny how you forget to mention...

About the Towers being hit by large jetliners at high speed, which had also never happened before. Why you would expect buildings with different designs and construction to all behave identically when subjected to different stress is fucking unbelievable.

[whatchamacallit]

43. The planes did some damage

What the planes didn't do was cause the buildings to disintegrate all the way to the ground. The rube-ality of the OCT is fucking unbelievable.

[Realityhack]

45. What do you think should have happened...

once the area hit by the planes began to collapse?

[BuddyBoy]

48. Fake planes can't cause buildings to collapse

What makes you think those at the WTC did? The videos show only fake planes.

[Realityhack]

49. Unproven.

You are committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Furthermore there is an enormous amount of evidence that planes did indeed strike the twin towers. Your inability to grasp the physics involved does nothing to diminish the case.

[BuddyBoy]

55. Right. It hasn't been & can't be proven that real planes struck the WTC

You must not have seen the videos. They all clearly show fake planes doing what real planes can't do in the real world. Your
inability or unwillingness to admit that does violence to historical truth.

[Realityhack]

93. Hasn't and can't...

to *your* satisfaction because you dismiss all such evidence by definition.

[SDuderstadt]

60. Dude...

I love the way you try to chop up the ''OCT'' into little bite-size pieces, then try to dispense with it in a disjointed fashion, because you cannot impeach the overall hypothesis. Maybe you should study something called ''complex cause'' before you set the ''truth movement'' back any further than you already have, dude.

[BuddyBoy]

47. You've made a gross error in reasoning

You are assuming that real jetliners crashed into the WTC, but the videos taking that morning show no such thing. They show
only fake (CGI) planes doing what can only be done in cartoons: gliding into and thru buildings as though they weren't even
there. One of the funniest mistakes the video fakers made was allowing the fake plane's nose to "bleed" out the other side
of the building.

Why you would expect people to believe in an impossible conspiracy theory is unbelievable.

[Realityhack]

50. "allowing the fake plane's nose to "bleed" out the other side"

What a silly notion, considering it has been disproved repeatedly.

[BuddyBoy]

56. Yes, it has been proven to be a video fakery mistake.

And I agree it would be silly if it wasn't for the fact that some people try to ignore it because it's more evidence
that 9/11 was an inside job.

[Realityhack]

89. It most certainly has not.

Unfortunately for you a bunch of ignorant armatures on youtube blathering that something is fake does not a proof make.

I have seen absolutely no proof that any of the videos of aircraft hitting the twin towers are fake. Much less all of them. Enormous amounts of supporting evidence exist. If you are going to claim they are faked you will need to do much better and provide sources to back up your claims.

[lovepg]

142. Hey YOU Said its been proven not to be a fake why not back up something

you say for once? I have seen that video and the plane nose comes out the other side of the tower.
It could not look any faker. AND I AM NOT A NO PLANER!!
But that video sure looks fake. So you know tell us whats up with it.
Enlighten us!

[Realityhack]

158. This has been discussed and thoroughly debunked here...

many times before. And I do not have the time to repeat that work. However instead of making you search DU for those old threads I will point out a couple of things. I would also recommend WS's post down thread for some more information.

1. The 'nose' is not in synch with where the 'fake plane' would be at that time. If you move an image of a plane through the video frame by frame the nose would appear on the other side of the building long before the 'nose' in the video does. This takes a careful examination of the video but it is quite undeniable. If you search though the threads here someone posted a nice video of a 'debate' where a video expert performed such a layover.
Of course if this is indeed landing gear or other debits pushed out by the impact this is exactly what we would expect.
This alone disproves the claim but of course there is more.
2. Other angles. It turns out that this was not the only footage taken of the impact. So we can see the impact from other angles which clearly show this was no nose cone.
Again that alone would disprove the claim.
3. Inability to control other footage. This is in a way the weakest claim but in other ways the strongest. As you are not a no-planer I expect you are familiar with it.
If one were to insert an entirely fake plane, you would not be able to predict and control all the other images taken from god knows where. This would make it impossible to fake the impact because all kinds of videos would turn up showing your attempted deception.
While this does not disprove the specific video it is a serious flaw in the reasoning behind the idea that someone would create such a fake video.

I hope that helps.

[Realityhack]

165. Found the video for you

Unfortunately the poster has interspliced some junk in this and I have no sound so I don't know if it is commented over but you should be able to find the original if necisary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqLWT7332Qg

At about 6:03 you will see the discussion of and then demonstration of how a superimposed aircraft would exit far before the debits people are calling a 'nose cone' do.

[BuddyBoy]

163. He backed it up by saying it's been disproven!

Video fakery was crucial to selling the public on the Official 9/11 Conspiracy, yet as you said, "It could not look any faker."
Think maybe some of the video people were secretly real patriots/whistleblowers, and that's why they left so many clues?

[Realityhack]

164. I notice you posted this...

almost an hour after I made the above post providing further evidence to support my claim.
As such it appears you are hell bent on ignoring any evidence I or anyone else might provide and would much rather simply take digs at us or ignore our posts and respond with off topic material.

How you expect anyone to take such posts seriously is beyond me.

[AZCat]

61. Curious.

Very few building professionals I've talked with share your opinion. How do you explain the discrepancy?

[BuddyBoy]

68. Who have you talked with?

Define "building professional"

[AZCat]

168. A building professional...

is someone who designs or constructs buildings for a living. I work with about 200 of these people.

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. Exploding downward?

If you watch the video you will notice that those plumes of dust above the collapse is NOT going upward, as it may appear in the picture, and as you would expect in a "hexplosion" but going in a downward direction, being sucked down by the vacuum created by the collapsing building.

[BuddyBoy]

70. I like the video that shows some smoke going up & other smoke

moving sideways. Were some of those video fakers intentionally leaving clues?

[greyl]

75. Why are you trying to distract from the authentic crimes of the Bush admin? nt

[BuddyBoy]

77. You've seen that video too?

Which video is your favorite? The BBC lady announcing the fall of the standing building shown live on camera and not falling down?
That's a good one. I also really like the Pinocchio Nose video. I know, I know. It's supposed to be the nose of a jetliner that
miraculously survived after crashing into and thru a large building. What do you think that nose was made of?

[greyl]

79. Why won't you just answer the simple question you were asked? nt

[SDuderstadt]

87. Debris and office contents being pushed out ...

the other side. Duh.

[BuddyBoy]

90. Debris and office contents? The video shows an airplane nose.

Maybe it was full of debris and office contents - picked up while "the plane" was gliding thru the building, carefully dodging
columns, people, and other obstructions.

[Realityhack]

92. No it does not.

The video shows a shape. You have absolutely no way of proving it was a nose cone of an aircraft.

[BuddyBoy]

98. The video shape is an exact fit for "the plane" that allegedly

crashed into the building. And that's a reality, Jack.

[Realityhack]

102. Your word != proof. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

109. Bullshit, dude...

You have zero proof of that.

[BuddyBoy]

123. Sorry, but your BS is BS, and it's easy to prove.

In fact, all you have to do is compare the cartoon nose image coming out the building with the cartoon nose image gliding into
the building.

[SDuderstadt]

124. Then do so and quit yammering...

Show us your photographic analysis, dude.

[BuddyBoy]

125. Use your eyes. If you need glasses to see clearly, wear 'em.

Do some eyeball analysis. You aren't afraid of what you might see, are you?

[SDuderstadt]

126. Just as I thought...

You didn't do any photographic analysis, did you...

[BuddyBoy]

127. That's how I, you, and anyone else can see it was a fake nose

It's easy to see. All you need are two half-way good eyeballs.

[SDuderstadt]

128. Why don't you just admit that you have...

ZERO photographic analysis? 0h, I forgot... that would require actual honesty.

[BuddyBoy]

129. Why don't you just examine the evidence and see for yourself?

Implying that someone is dishonest is bad manners and does nothing to support your own position.

[SDuderstadt]

130. Dude...

I HAVE examined the evidence and your claim is bullshit. If you have some photographic analysis, please do share, otherwise this is just more of your bullshit.

[BuddyBoy]

133. If you've examined the evidence & conclude that it's "office contents"

or whatever you say, that's fine. What I see in the photographic evidence is the nose of the same cartoon plane that glided into
the building.

[SDuderstadt]

134. Yet you have ZERO photographic experts who support your...

goofy claim. That should tell you something, dude.

[BuddyBoy]

136. Can we agree to encourage others to take a look at the photos

and draw their own conclusions?

[SDuderstadt]

137. Dude....many already have...

only a very few draw the same conclusion you do. Again, this is why you've so quickly become an inside joke here, dude.

[BuddyBoy]

138. What proof is there for your claim?

You said that many people have examined the video image and "only a very few draw the same conclusion you do."
Can you prove that?

[SDuderstadt]

151. Yeah, you're being dissed by most of your own "movement", dude...

that should tell you something.

[lovepg]

145. Come on SD get a new line for heavens sake. Thats just tired.

[BuddyBoy]

152. I think it's okay for him to continue calling people who see thru the

Official Government Coincidence & Conspiracy Theories "Dude". But, yes, the same old divert, dodge, and insult lines are
tiresome, stale, and so juvenile. Is that what Amazing Randi teaches his disciples to do when trying to defend the indefensible?

[lovepg]

144. So the office debris comes out the other side shaped like a nose cone of a plane?

Really? what laws of physics praytell explain this one?
Mass times momentum times Bull =SD

[Realityhack]

159. Take a look at post 140

Just because something momentarily looks reminiscent of a nose cone when viewed from a certain angle at great distance spanning only a few pixels does not mean it is one.

[SDuderstadt]

108. No, it doesn't show a nose cone, dude....

It shows exactly what I described being pushed out the other side, which is what one would expect. Your lack of ability to critically analyze something properly doesn't amount to proof, dude.

[BuddyBoy]

110. Office contents aren't shaped like an airplane nose, Sdude

And nothing was being "pushed out the other side". The video faker for that segment goofed up and allowed the inserted image
of the fake plane to accidentally remain in the video after it "entered" the building. It then continued on thru the "building"
but the mistake wasn't caught until after the fake nose of the fake plane is seen trying to make its exit from the other side.
It actually has a name: Pinnocchio Nose.

"Office contents". Sure.

[SDuderstadt]

114. You don't think things in the path of the plane would be pushed out the opposite side???

Really?

[BuddyBoy]

115. A real plane didn't enter the building.

All of the videos show only a fake (cgi) plane gliding into the building and it wouldn't matter if a non-perp had used an
analog camera to record images that day and was able to avoid having to turn over his/her film to the authorities and thus
save the images s/he took AND those images were to somehow be made available on the Net, they wouldn't show a real plane
crashing into the WTC. We know that, because all of the KNOWN videos show only a fake plane gliding into the building.

Anything that may have been "pushed out" the opposite side would have been as the result of concussion energy from explosives.

[SDuderstadt]

116. "Anything that may have been "pushed out" the opposite side would have been as the result of ...

concussion energy from explosives".

Dude, is there any limit to the nonsense you'll embrace? Do you really expect us to believe that explosives were planted on the impact floors of the building, somehow survived the impact, then were somehow detonated just as the plane struck the building?

Simple question: Is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it?

[BuddyBoy]

117. Yes. Yes there is.

"Is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it?"

Yes. The Official Government 9/11 Conspiracy Theory and the BS promoted by Official Government Conspiracy Theorists.

[SDuderstadt]

118. Done, dude....

Done with your blatant dishonesty.

[BuddyBoy]

119. I answered your question candidly and you're calling me a liar?

You do need to chill out because you're breaking forum rules and you should know better than to resort to that kind of behavior anyhow.

[SDuderstadt]

120. I didn't call you a liar, dude...

and twisting what I said to claim I called you a liar is, oddly enough, a perfect example of the dishonesty I am citing. Of course, with your basic problems with reading comprehension, I'm not surprised.

[BuddyBoy]

121. It's the dishonesty that I don't appreciate

There are many examples of the dishonesty in your posts that i could cite. Of course, with your basic problems coming to
grips with the dishonesty of the Official Government Conspiracy Theory and Randi's inability to change that, I'm not
surprised anymore.

[lovepg]

146. No I think office debris shaped like a planes nose cone being pushed out the other

side is a pretty good one. its right up there SD!

[Realityhack]

91. NO!

"I know, I know. It's supposed to be the nose of a jetliner that miraculously survived after crashing into and thru a large building."

Only according to your straw man.

[BuddyBoy]

99. It's the very same (fake) nose from the fake plane

Measure it, copy it, take a photo of it, and prove it for yourself. Just promise not to fake any photos you take.

[Realityhack]

100. Well aren't you good at changing the subject.

You created a straw man. No question about it. I called you on it and you changed the subject.
FAIL.

BTW If you had bothered to do any of those things you would realize that it lags behind where the hypothetical nose of the plane would be and that it is far to small on the video to determine the actual shape. This isn't magical CSI land where you can zoom in 4,000% and get a clear image.

Your hypothesis is has been disproved. I suggest you get a new one.

[BuddyBoy]

103. That's all well & good, but the Pinnocchio nose is just as fake

as the fake plane it was attached to before it glided into the building. Check it out.

[Realityhack]

104. Do try to follow along.

You commit a logical fallacy.
I call you out on it.
You change the subject.
I point out you are changing the subject.
You change the subject again.

How about if you just admit you created a straw man and look just a tiny bit less foolish instead of continuing to try to distract from your error.

[BuddyBoy]

111. That fake plane nose is bothersome

To Official Government Conspiracy Theorists isn't it?

[Realityhack]

162. Um, if you can't follow along logically...

and admit when you commit logical errors why would anyone take what you have to say seriously?

Your claims are just as well 'supported' as those of creationists. If you ignore enough evidence you can claim whatever you like.
For the record no the news tape in question is not a problem for so called "Official Government Conspiracy Theorists".

[lovepg]

148. So I guess ITS far TOO SMALL to determine if its the shape of a plane hitting

the building then right Hack? Come on dude thats weak.
You said its been proven that tape is not fake.
Is that all ya got?

[Realityhack]

161. No it isn't

Please check out all the other posts both in this thread and where this has been discussed over and over again in this forum.

I noticed that you also ignored my point regarding the speed the plane was traveling at vs. the time when the 'nose cone' exited the building. That actually does prove that the theory claiming someone was faking the video and accidentally let the plane show out the other side of the building is incorrect.

[William Seger]

131. You should take you own advice

For those of us who HAVE looked at that "nose out" horseshit very carefully, those of you who obviously HAVEN'T but believe it anyway will never be taken seriously. Guaranteed. Same thing with the OP topic, really: Those of us who understand pretty well what happened to the buildings will never have any response but ridicule for arguments like, "I just don't understand how this could happen without demolition, so it must have been a demolition." Guaranteed.

[SDuderstadt]

132. I think contempt is a better descriptor than...

ridicule.

[BuddyBoy]

135. See post #133

Is it also your contention that the photo is just "office contents"?

[William Seger]

140. And what am I supposed to see in post #133 ?

All I see is evidence that you have neither looked at nor thought about the whole thing very clearly. Just one example: Have you thought about looking at how long it took that supposed "nose" to pass through the building and compared that to the speed of the plane before impact?

Apparently not, otherwise you would see that your hypothesis -- that someone just made a mistake compositing the plane into the video -- is nonsense, unless the supposed faker also accidentally slowed the animation down by one-half.

Apparently, you haven't even looked at Simon Shack's "nose out" videos very closely either, as pointed out even by other "truthers": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034

And, obviously, you haven't paid any attention whatever to the videos from other angles that show pretty clearly what's being ejected from the building, and that the (very vague) resemblance to the plane's nose is a laughably stupid argument for claiming that it IS the plane's nose:



In short, you are a typical "no-planer" who clearly demonstrates why "no-planers" are marginalized even within the incredibly gullible "truth movement."

[lovepg]

149. Problems problems problems....

this photo clearly shows debris that is shaped nothing vaguely similar to a planes nose cone.
I believe a plane hit the tower but the video does look pretty fakey.

[Realityhack]

157. Well...

yes one video from one angle looks slightly suspicious at youtube resolution if you don't examine it very closely (ex. looking at the speed).
But that can be said of many videos of many events.
After YEARS of these videos being available I think it is reasonable to expect people making a claim that the video is a fake to have done some basic research into other videos from alternate angles, the speed of the plane, etc. before claiming that they have "proven" it to be fake.
If your only "proof" is your gut reaction when you see the video on youtube ridicule is a perfectly reasonable response IMO as the person holding that up as proof is willfully ignorant of the facts, the scientific method, and basic psychology.

[Realityhack]

166. Watch the video WS linked to.

Also watch the section I pointed to in the video in post 165.

Just because something looks fake at first glance to a rank amature does not mean it IS fake or that everyone else who understands things better should agree that it 'looks fake'.

[lovepg]

147. Hey you guys do not get to use them ALL the time! Nt

[Realityhack]

156. It takes a lot of effort...

to make a straw man out of Spooked's nonsense or even no plane BS.
If you see someone use one you should point it out. Many people here will admit mistakes when they make them.

[lovepg]

143. The same material that the pentagon planes nose was made of that smashed

thru 3 levels of steel reinforced walls. Of course!

[Realityhack]

160. Ahh... so it was made of straw man.

Because the only people I know of that you can point to as saying that the nose cone of an aircraft smashed through 3 'levels' of steel reinforced walls are in the 'truth' movement and do not think an AA flight hit the pentagon at all.

[lovepg]

172. Correction my bad only two layers of steel reinforced concrete. nt

[rhymeandreason]

141. I really and truly do not understand all the confusion.

This is a WTC tower being blown up:


This is the WTC bomb site:

[lovecanada56035]

153. I'm all for questioning 9/11

But how do those pictures prove that the WTC was demolished.

[tiny elvis]

154. Do you see where the top of the building is?

In the first picture, it is on the ground.

[rhymeandreason]

155. Because the first picture shows one of the towers exploding

and the second picture is of the shattered smoking aftermath.

[spooked911]

169. dust-trailing debris

a relevant video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i93qOBT70k

"A close-up view of debris being ejected from the South Tower of the World Trade Center as the 30-floor top section falls to the east shows numerous smoking projectiles that look like comets. Several of them can be seen to explode. One such exploding projectile is followed here. It ejects two fragments, both of which undergo secondary explosions. (Note, the rising fragment to the left of the projectile under consideration appears to be a tumbling object that alternates from black to white to invisible. It passes behind one of the fragments described in the video.)"


Most likely the dust is super-heated gaseous material trailing away from the nuked columns.

[SDuderstadt]

170. Most likely...

this is just more of your bullshit, Spooked.

[spooked911]

173. is that really the best you can come up with?

[SDuderstadt]

175. When responding to one of your goofy posts?

Yes, dude.

[Bolo Boffin]

171. Comets. n/t

[spooked911]

174. yeah-- "comets" from a "collapse"

makes perfect sense.

not.

[SDuderstadt]

176. Makes as much sense as many, if not most, of your posts...

dude.

[spooked911]

181. "comets"

yeah, that's pure brilliance, there

[Bonobo]

177. If it were possible to have seen that from a straight top-down view and...

if one could view the scattering of debris as it happened...

Would it show a uniform spray of debris?

Can we agree that a uniform explosion would cause a uniform spray of material?

If we do not see such a uniform spray, would this rule out or at least provide evidence AGAINST a CD?

[Realityhack]

178. An explosion would not necessarily result in a uniform spray of material.

In fact it is highly unlikely depending upon what you define as 'uniform'.

[Bonobo]

179. True, but don't you think that it would be a good way to debunk an "explosion" in general?

If it were a crime scene, and someone said it was an explosion, you should be able to see the pattern from it, right? It would be a normal forensic technique that would be applied. Don't you think?