clocker bob wrote:

sunset_gun wrote:This place is full of government shill-types.

Don't let them get you down Bob.

They need to send someone fast. I just added another reader. I'm up to six.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the Internets, does it?

sunset_gun wrote:Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the Internets, does it?

Gravity??

Colonel Panic wrote:You have presented no physical evidence to support that hypothesis.

That job was made an awful lot more difficult by the removal of evidence from one of the largest crime scenes in history.

let me ask - does that removal of evidence - preventing a final full explanation of what actually happened either way - coupled with the buildings-never-falling-down-due-to-fire-before-until-that-day-when-three-did not raise either of your eyebrows?

I mean not only was it one of the biggest crimes ever committed but, even if explosives had nothing to do with it the event (the collapse of three buildings due to fire) was so anomolous that it should have been investigated for safety reasons if no other.

If that removal of evidence was not deliberate then it was staggeringly incompetent and yet no one lost their job over it?

Those photographs aren't physical evidence.

Molten steel is inconsistent with explosive demolition.

Far as I've seen they haven't recovered any explosive "squibs" from the scene.

Demolition of a building by explosives does not pulverize the concrete. It merely knocks out the support structures and allows the building to collapse under its own weight. Usually, the concrete breaks up into lots of large chunks which then must be hauled away by bulldozers and dump trucks..

That image of the cloud blowing out the side of the tower is not necessarily indicative of a bomb. It is most likely a window blowing out due to the extreme pressure of the floors collapsing above.

Strange that the sound of "explosions" prior to the collapses wasn't caught on any of the numerous audio/video recordings taken on that morning.

And that video you posted of the Salomon building being demolished was a laughably obvious hoax, an inept cut & paste job. The editor cut the video so that the same "boom" sound replayed over and over, simulating multiple explosions when in reality there was only one "boom." Just watch it again. You can see that the same clip of video was cut and replayed over and over again. Not only was it a hoax, but whomever created it wasn't even skillful enough with digital video editing to know how to separate the audio track from the video before cutting & pasting.

Hmmm... "removal of evidence" or "massive rescue effort, investigation and clean-up"... YOU decide

Colonel Panic wrote:Molten steel is inconsistent with explosive demolition.

Is it consistent with fires that are never claimed to have exceeded 1000 C?! The liquefied and molten steel in the collapse zone is indicative of being cut and melted with an INCENDIARY like thermate:

There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7.

For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten
metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared
and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002 )

The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers , including Greg Fuchek:

For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be
dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002, ‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002 )

Colonel Panic wrote:Far as I've seen they haven't recovered any explosive "squibs" from the scene.

A squib is what you see on video ejecting from the sides of the demolished buildings. A squib is not recoverable. Beyond that, your question about whether any squib was 'recovered' further displays your shillish bias away from common sense- if any evidence of explosives was recovered, where do you think reports of it would have ended up? The front page of newspapers? The fact that you think that the people allowed into that site had a free run to bring explosives evidence to the attention of the government is nutso, dude. They were sent by the government. What do you think would have been the end result of anyone conducting an investigation pointing towards inside job?? In your psycho brain, you think that the investigation could have gone either way, and it was just some objective eventuality that the US Government ended up blaming al Qaeda! Yeah, dude, they surely would have made the case for inside job if that had been where the evidence led them!

colonel panic wrote:Demolition of a building by explosives does not pulverize the concrete. It merely knocks out the support structures and allows the building to collapse under its own weight. Usually, the concrete breaks up into lots of large chunks which then must be hauled away by bulldozers and dump trucks..

You are completely avoiding what the dust tells you. Gravity could not have made such fine dust, and yet there was fine dust. Instead of inventing a strawman description of what you think demolition would do, why don't you tell me how your gravity-driven collapse made the dust clouds, and why the pile of debris left in the footprint was so short, because of the pulverization of the concrete? Explain the dust, as it fits into YOUR theory!

colonel panic wrote:That image of the cloud blowing out the side of the tower is not necessarily indicative of a bomb. It is most likely a window blowing out due to the extreme pressure of the floors collapsing above.

We're not talking about the squibs here, dope. We're talking about the HUGE dust clouds and ejected steel ABOVE the collapse zone. Since you brought up windows, how come the fires didn't pop out numerous windows in the towers? That happens around 600 C, and yet we didn't see exploding windows from fires? Any theories?

Tell me how the cap ( which was traveling very slowly at the inception of the gravity-driven collpase, according to your cockamamie theory ) produced sufficient downward pressure to produce squibs like these:




Gravity?????

colonel panic wrote:And that video you posted of the Salomon building being demolished

Which video? Post the link I used.

...

Colonel Panic wrote:BTW, the video I was referring to was the one that shows those kids being evacuated as the Salomon building was being demolished was a laughably obvious hoax, an inept cut & paste job. The video was obviously so that the same "boom" sound replayed over and over, simulating multiple explosions when in reality there was only one "boom." Just watch it again.

If I posted a link to such a video, I don't remember it. I asked you to post the LINK, inside one of MY POSTS, to this video. Please do that. Until you post a link from one of my posts to that video, you're talking out your ass again.

I'm off to work, I'll deal with the rest later.

Allow me to address these points more thoroughly.

clocker bob wrote:Of course I have. If I see three buildings implode in a manner identical to controlled demolition, then controlled demolition must become a hypothesis considered by those investigating the crime

So you're saying that the investigators are duty bound to search for evidence of every possible preconceived opinion of unskilled laymen like yourself, who haven't even seen the actual physical evidence, let alone having knowledge of how to effectively interpret the evidence or properly calculate the physics? Is that your understanding of how the scientific method works? Do you really think they did not rule out the hypothesis that somebody placed explosives in the building?

I suppose NASA ought to stop wasting taxpayer dollars and immediately start work on a mission to send astronauts to the "Face On Mars," because somebody somewhere feels absolutely certain that it is conclusive proof of life on the Red Planet.

clocker bob wrote:rate of collapse

BTW, as far as the "rate of collapse being too fast", do you have any mathematical calculations by a certified structural engineer that support this assertion?

Because it certainly looks like a collapse to me, not a controlled demolition. In a controlled demolition, stages of timed explosives go off in sequence, and the structure hangs there a second before coming down. In the videos of the towers collapsing, I see no evidence of these timed explosions. It looks to me like the top 10-15 floors topple and then plow downward through the rest of the building, each floor pulverizing as the wave of material cascades down.

clocker bob wrote:squibs

By "squibs" I am assuming you mean high explosives. Squibs are tiny explosives used on movie sets to simulate bullets striking a surface when blanks are used. Squibs are nowhere near powerful enough to take out steel support beams. I am supposed to ignore evidence from experts and licensed structural engineers on the word of people who don't even know how to use correct terminology?

But just for shits 'n' giggles, I'll address the issue. That image of the cloud blowing out the side of the tower is not indicative of a bomb. It really looks more like a window blowing out due to pressure built up from the extreme weight of material collapsing above.

Here's a nice round debunkment of the "squib theory": http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

In the video of that same still image which you claim as proof that "squibs" were used, it looks to me like that cloud is actually pulverized material being ejected out the window under increasing pressure.

clocker bob wrote:pulverized concrete

Demolition of a building by explosives does not pulverize the concrete. It merely knocks out the support structures and allows the building to collapse under its own weight. Usually, the concrete breaks up into lots of large chunks which then must be further broken up and hauled away by air hammers, bulldozers and dump trucks.

clocker bob wrote:ejected steel

I don't get why these are definitive evidence of explosives. Do hundreds of thousands of tons of material collapsing collapsing under its own weight not have enough kinetic energy to pulverize brittle concrete or launch steel into the air?

As far as I see it, the steel being ejected is positive evidence that the two towers were not demolished using explosives. In a controlled shot, you don't have chunks of steel flying all over the place. The supports just fold under as the building comes down. To me, ejected steel indicates that the supports were still in place, trying to support the weight of the building as it came crashing down, and they buckled and split, sending pieces flying.

clocker bob wrote:liquid and molten metal

Molten steel is inconsistent with explosive demolition. However, it is certainly consistent with massive amounts of burning material being trapped in oven-like spaces beneath thousands of tons of concrete, for a period of several weeks or months.

And the "thermate" argument has been decisively debunked. That BYU professor guy had his chemistry wrong.

clocker bob wrote:reports of explosions by eyewitnesses

Strange that the sound of "explosions" prior to the collapses wasn't caught on any of the numerous audio/video recordings taken on that morning.

BTW, the video I was referring to was the one that shows those kids being evacuated as the Salomon building was being demolished.

clocker bob wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote:Molten steel is inconsistent with explosive demolition.

Is it consistent with fires that are never claimed to have exceeded 1000 C?! The liquefied and molten steel in the collapse zone is indicative of being cut and melted with an INCENDIARY like thermate:

There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7.

For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten
metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared
and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002 )

The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers , including Greg Fuchek:

For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be
dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002, ‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002 )

So you're saying that that was caused by thermate? How much thermate do you think they used, to keep the steel hot enough to still be melting after several weeks? 100 tons of thermate? 500 tons of thermate? It's a ridiculous notion.

Besides, there's no evidence to support that. The analysis of the pools did not indicate the proper chemicals to indicate use of thermate.

The jet fuel was the main source of heat, until other flammable materials got going and added to the fire. When the buildings came down, the debris trapped these fires and superheated material into spaces insulated by concrete, but enough air got down there to allow a very hot, slow-burning fire that melted the steel. The concrete trapped and concentrated this extreme heat like a forge.

clocker bob wrote:If any evidence of explosives was recovered, where do you think reports of it would have ended up? The front page of newspapers?

You think it wouldn't?!? We do have a free press in this country. The government doesn't control everything. But assuming they did have that much power, why would they need to destroy WTC to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq? They could simply make something up and promote it through their mouthpiece, the state-run media.

I seriously can't believe you're so paranoid as to believe that the entire news media is completely controlled by the US government. .

clocker bob wrote:The fact that you think that the people allowed into that site had a free run to bring explosives evidence to the attention of the government is nutso, dude. They were sent by the government. What do you think would have been the end result of anyone conducting an investigation pointing towards inside job??In your psycho brain, you think that the investigation could have gone either way, and it was just some objective eventuality that the US Government ended up blaming al Qaeda! Yeah, dude, they surely would have made the case for inside job if that had been where the evidence led them!

So you're alleging that all the investigators in the clean-up of WTC were government operatives or shills who had knowledge of the plot? Dude... you're calling me psycho?!?

You're making huge assumptions about events and situations for which you have absolutely zero evidence.

clocker bob wrote:

colonel panic wrote:Demolition of a building by explosives does not pulverize the concrete. It merely knocks out the support structures and allows the building to collapse under its own weight. Usually, the concrete breaks up into lots of large chunks which then must be hauled away by bulldozers and dump trucks..

clocker bob wrote:You are completely avoiding what the dust tells you.

Bob, I think you ought to lay off the dust.

clocker bob wrote:Gravity could not have made such fine dust, and yet there was fine dust. Instead of inventing a strawman description of what you think demolition would do, why don't you tell me how your gravity-driven collapse made the dust clouds, and why the pile of debris left in the footprint was so short, because of the pulverization of the concrete? Explain the dust, as it fits into YOUR theory!

Gravity did not make the dust. The dust was caused by hundreds of thousands of tons of material smashing together. For an explosive demolition to create that much dust, there would have had to be explosives installed into every square foot of the building.

clocker bob wrote:

colonel panic wrote:That image of the cloud blowing out the side of the tower is not necessarily indicative of a bomb. It is most likely a window blowing out due to the extreme pressure of the floors collapsing above.

We're not talking about the squibs here, dope. We're talking about the HUGE dust clouds and ejected steel ABOVE the collapse zone. Since you brought up windows, how come the fires didn't pop out numerous windows in the towers? That happens around 600 C, and yet we didn't see exploding windows from fires? Any theories?

I don't have enough evidence to answer that, but maybe it had something to do with the direction in which the heat was escaping from the building.

clocker bob wrote:Tell me how the cap ( which was traveling very slowly at the inception of the gravity-driven collpase, according to your cockamamie theory ) produced sufficient downward pressure to produce squibs like these:

...pics...

Gravity?????

OK I'm finished addressing this "squibs" thing. You obviously have no idea what squibs even are, and I already explained it. Those windows blew out because of escaping pressure from the tremendous weight of collapsing matter from above.

Colonel Panic wrote:BTW, the video I was referring to was the one that shows those kids being evacuated as the Salomon building was being demolished.

I notice that you have edited earlier posts. Are you retracting your allegation that I posted a link to what you call a hoax video? Just say it. Nobody's reading this thread except you and me.

I'll deal with the rest Wednesday. Work turned out to be 12 hours long.

Colonel Panic wrote:So you're saying that the investigators are duty bound to search for evidence of every possible preconceived opinion of unskilled laymen like yourself, who haven't even seen the actual physical evidence, let alone having knowledge of how to effectively interpret the evidence or properly calculate the physics?

What?? Yeah, sorry, when three skyscrapers explode and then fall to dust at near freefall speed, all on a single day, I would say it would be sound investigative practice to thoroughly explore the explosives hypothesis. You know, since fire and gravity collapses had NEVER occured before.

colonel panic wrote:It looks to me like the top 10-15 floors topple and then plow downward through the rest of the building, each floor pulverizing as the wave of material cascades down.

I'm sure it does look like that's what happened, to people who choose to lie to themselves about the laws of physics and the load bearing capacity of the buildings and the heat of the fires. Once you tell yourself lies about all those annoying obstructions to your wacky theory, then believing that a cap has enough kinetic energy to fall through the bases of the towers like they were air makes total sense.

colonel panic wrote:The jet fuel was the main source of heat, until other flammable materials got going and added to the fire. When the buildings came down, the debris trapped these fires and superheated material into spaces insulated by concrete, but enough air got down there to allow a very hot, slow-burning fire that melted the steel. The concrete trapped and concentrated this extreme heat like a forge.

With what fuel source??? How do you get steel liquefying fires from what was buried in that hole? They were pouring water on Ground Zero 24 hours a day. To get liquid steel under those conditions, you'd need a leftover chemical reaction from the incendiaries, which cannot be doused by water and which make their own oxygen supply as part of the chemical reaction. The concrete rubble turned into a forge, hot enough to liquefy steel?? Dude, you are out of your mind.

colonel panic wrote:I seriously can't believe you're so paranoid as to believe that the entire news media is completely controlled by the US government. .

I seriously can't believe that you're so far out of your mind, you think the corporate media was ready, willing and able to focus on the US government as the culprits behind 9/11. You live in a fantasy world.

colonel panic wrote:So you're alleging that all the investigators in the clean-up of WTC were government operatives or shills who had knowledge of the plot?

There's no need to send people with orders to blame al Qaeda. The agenda is understood. You clearly are in complete denial about the fear that sets in when investigators are faced with risking their jobs ( and likely their lives ) when they are confronted with evidence of an inside job. We've seen it from Pearl Harbor through JFK through 9/11 to the manufactured intel against Iraq. People don't think they can beat the government, investigators included. They give in. It is a dangerous world. You act like those sent to investigate 9/11 can just say the truth and not fear reprisal. You're demented and naive.