It's like those who argue in favour of ID, dpt. It is not up to them to provide any proof for their assertions. It is up to you to prove that the picture they keep posting up, which is obviously a pressure-related event linked to either a pipe or elevator shaft or A/C or electrical conduit, is not a squid. The fact that a million tons of building was in free fall at the time? Inconsequential. That little puff of material is proof that George and Laura Bush planned the whole thing and that the Zionist bankers warned the Jews before hand and that the Bin Laden family is currently living in Roswell, NM and plotting the next big thing!!! It's PROOF, damn you!
Of course you're sure that ALL vertical shafts (mechanical, utility, service, stair well) also break between those floors... Of course you are. JB
Thanks for your post. Since none of us have the time/resources/means to recreate an experiment of that magnitude for the sake of using the scientific method (formulation, observation, recording, testing etc) to back our arguments, it seems to me that we are reduced to using common sense and probabilities. The answer that one should ask oneself is one of a conditional probability: What are the odds that air pressure would only affect a few select lower floors while bypassing every one of the 20 or so floors in between given (a) the countless descriptions of explosions from people both inside and outside the building and (b) the projectiles uncanny resemblance to squibs in a typical demolition In addition, you dismiss the witnesses' accounts wholesale, but is it fair to do so when there is a preponderance of such descriptions of explosions? Would you completely ignore such testimony if you were in a juror in court?
i find it hilarious that u even doubt explosions took place in the towers when u could clearly hear them on tv during the coverage at the time. i also found a video where some cops and fema staff told the public to back off wtc7 because in their own words: "it is gonna BLOW UP, it will EXPLODE, please disperse".
Rat: >tell you what... why don't you start off like >an arrogant prick... thats a great way to engage. Perhaps I should browse for a sampling of things you have called people over the last bit and see who comes off as the arrogant prick -- the evidence would show that I can't hold a candle to you in that area. Anyway, when you continue to scream "free fall" when every picture out there shows you're out to lunch, expect it to be called like it is. Why do you continue to avoid me on that issue? (and while we're on the avoidance subject... you're silence on the wtc7 "pull" issue is deafening. Here's my reasonable request from more than a year ago... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=915171&highlight=rat#post915171) >so let me get this straight... your answer regarding >the squib 40 floors below the collapse is pressure >from pancaking? A: You're the one calling it a squib which shows nothing but presumption on your part. The glass is blowing out, that's a fact -- the question is why. B: Did I ever even mention "pancaking"? The building is collapsing -- that also is a fact. Pancake or no pancake, the building is pressurized due to the collapse -- that also is a fact of physics. >you do realise that the govt and most debunkers >have abandoned the pancake theory, right? Did I say anything about pancaking? Why to you keep bringing this up without me mentioning it? But--- while we're on the subject.. Would you mind providing me with some meaningful evidence that "the govt and most debunkers have abandoned the pancake theory". I'd be most interested in hearing the governments (and most "debunkers") takes on this. >im sorry, but your pressurization theory seems to be >far fetched. i have very little confidence that this force >could have travelled this far and then be so concentrated >as to pop out the window exactly like a squib. If you were to brush up on your physics studies... you would find that pressure can "travel far" (to use your term) and when backed up by a motivating force can indeed be quite concentrated. But--- while we're on the subject.. In the scenario I described, it's not any particular "concentration" of pressure (floor wise) that would blow out the window -- the entire floor (or floors) *could* be at a nearly even pressure relative to each other and yet only one window blow (the weakest link, so to speak). JB
Bit: >i also found a video where some cops and fema staff >told the public to back off wtc7 because in their own >words: "it is gonna BLOW UP, it will EXPLODE, please >disperse". These same folks will also tell you that marijuana will end your life as you know it. Not everything they say is the truth BTW. JB
because tradernicole said so damn it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! she said it was them pesky ayraaaaaaaaaabs.... you know the ones from the caves in af ganny stan. some binlotto guy ... he plays the numbers down at the quikie mart. he outsmarted norad and the penty gone. and all the airport see cur a tee. he also bought all dem put options on them big fly ee thing companies and made hundreds of dollars. the ayraaaaaaabs boarded the fying machines with box cutters and hi jacked them things. they took invisible pills at the air ports so they wouldnt show up on the camey ras. all ceptin moo hamid atta.... he showed up and left bunches of ev ee dentz in his rental car so the cia/fbi could find it real easy like.