and of course these people didnt start any of the bashing.. nah.. no way.. bottomline.. i didnt bash you till you were a smart ass... want to start over now? i would be happy to debate you with respect... but you started with the attitude.
rattyboy is well informed in the matter, he may not have everything right and neither do i or u, but he's bringing fww important points and anomalies to discuss. i see that u incredulous have no wish to engage into a debate here but ridicule only.
this clip is all over the place... are you serious that you still have not seen it? debunkers argue that he meant pull the firemen... only problem with that is they "pulled" the firemen at 11 am that morning... 6 hours before they pulled the bldg.
i can back this. on the debunk sites it's stated no firemen were in the building [wtc7]. someone is lying here.
you cant have it both ways... either it is pancaking and causing this pressure or explosions are reducing all the matter to dust which would not force a concentrated pressurization down a shaft out a window in an exactly horizontal fashion. you are going to have to choose.. to pancake or not to pancake.
ok.. see now we are back to the elevator shafts that were not continuous and would need the pressure from the pancaking. i am well aware that pressure can travel far... but it needs some type of containment otherwise it would diffuse before it reached the 40 floors and then decides to exit... i believe the probability that this pressure could bypass 40 floors and then exit is fictional.
Mav: >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 The odds are high when considering the following: A: Perhaps the air pressure "bypassed" certain floor due to doors/vents/penetrations being closed/restricted/unevenly sized(probability high in my given scenario). B: Perhaps all doors were open and all floors pressurized evenly (probability low in my given scenario) and YET, there were a small percentage of the windows that were overtempered/installed improperly/previously damaged. (probability high). Once again, the glass would only blow where it exceeds the manufactured limits or damaged glass limits. >given (a) the countless descriptions of explosions >from people both inside and outside the building A: Just because it sounds like an explosion doesn't mean it is. There were lots of things going inside as those towers burned that could have made very loud noises and shook things up. B: Just because there is an actual explosion doesn't mean it's planted explosives. For example, debris falling through atrium glass can sound and fell like an explosion. >and (b) the projectiles uncanny resemblance to squibs >in a typical demolition A: Do you know what tempered glass exploding due to overcoming pressure looks like? perhaps those projections bear an uncanny resemblance to that as well? As a note and question back to you Mav... (Background: While not an expert, I have just one bit of experience in the "building implosion" business. While working for the engineering firm CH2M Hill , I was project manager(1996) of a new facility in Idaho where we had to remove a large industrial plant structure (375ft) to make way for the new one. Due to the proximity to other buildings (the usual reason), we chose implosion as the method and the Loizeaux family as the contractor. It was fun to watch the process from close up is all I can say) Every video I've seen of a explosively demoed building shows squibs going off in a very regular and organized fashion. It would certainly make sense with the massive structure of the WTC towers that these squibs would need to be regularly placed around the outside columns at regular intervals. All the video that you guys tout show an incredibly RANDOM and infrequent pattern to the event. To me, I say it doesn't look ANYTHING like building demolition by explosive just for this one reason. Comments? JB
if this video has not been altered.. then i dont see how anyone can deny the existence of explosions. i am open to debate on authenticity. <embed style="width:450px; height:367px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5860825099435530591&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>
Rat: >tell me how long wtc7 took to fall. How about you address the towers first since I've been raising that question for a year and a half (and you reference their "free fall) as recently as the 14th of this month. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1304669#post1304669 We'll get to WTC7 after the twins, how 'bout it? >and btw your out to lunch comment is antagonistic. And you would definitely know antagonistic. JB