What really happened ....11 september

[Turok]

Quote from ratboy88:

its so funny... but i have never once had a debunker try to explain the squibs on the south tower that were 40 floors below the initial collapse. ODD HUH????

And no one ever explained the "free fall" thing to you either have they?

You just make statements, but you never engage Rat.

So in an attempt to engage you again...

Quote from ratboy88:

its so funny... but i have never once had a debunker try to explain the squibs on the south tower that were 40 floors below the initial collapse. ODD HUH????

What's to explain... you clearly have determined that they are "squibs". No chance they are windows blowing out from the increase in building pressure caused by the collapse. Multiple stair wells and elevator shafts increasing in pressure -- some floors with doors in said shafts closed, and now and then a floor with a door (or enough doors) open to pressurize the floor shattering and blowing out a select weak link window. (tempered glass blowing out would create a puff like that BTW due to the bazillion tiny reflective shards.)

No chance of that huh? Of course not -- because they are squibs and because you and Mav say so.

Do I know what blew out those windows. No, and neither do you. I can say however that if that building collapsed without "squibs", physics will tell you that my scenario above is quite likely.

JB

 

[Turok]

Mav:
>Anyone want to show how smart he is? There
>seems to be a lot of experts here on the
>governments side.

I may not qualify since I'm not on the "government side", but WTH...

See my post to Rat above.

JB

 

[Turok]

Man,

I haven't read that site other than a brief scan of the free fall paragraphs so I can't comment on your questions.

I generally don't post a lot of links to those sorts of sites because I don't have the time to go over their numbers to see if it's real or a bunch of BS (after all, anyone can post a bunch of calcs and say they explain something)

That link post was an afterthought (as a PS below my signature). After I wrote the post I googled "Free Fall WTC Myth" and that link was one of the top 2-3.

If I get a chance I'll look at it again and see if what they say on the explosives makes any sense to me.

BTW. I appreciate your reasonable approach.

JB

Quote from man:

Turok

on the debunking911 site i found it strange that they
try to prove that too much explosives would be needed,
at least i understood it that way, while implicitly claiming
that there was no explosives needed at all. since they
assume it was merely the planes. thoughts on that?

you are a pilot plus an engineer; don't you find it strange
that it not only seems to be lunatics making the claims?
are the "experts" on the conspiracy side just misquoted
or only consisting of economists, theologists, media
producers and charlie sheen?

thnx

 

[dpt]

Quote from ratboy88:

its so funny... but i have never once had a debunker try to explain the squibs on the south tower that were 40 floors below the initial collapse. ODD HUH????

Not until now, that is.

 

[dpt]

Quote from ratboy88:

oh cool... then you can show us the south side of wtc7. i have been waiting to see credible shots of this... maybe a video or two. thanks... i appreciate someone finally coming up with this.

Google is your friend. As to credible, why is it that you think the pictures of the North side are `credible?'

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from Turok:

And no one ever explained the "free fall" thing to you either have they?

You just make statements, but you never engage Rat.

So in an attempt to engage you again...

tell you what... why don't you start off like an arrogant prick... thats a great way to engage.

so let me get this straight... your answer regarding the squib 40 floors below the collapse is pressure from pancaking? you do realise that the govt and most debunkers have abandoned the pancake theory, right? nist doesn't bother explaining the collapse.... thats where they stop. 9/11 commission abandoned the wtc7 altogether.

govt reports make this statement, "this case scenario has a low probability." in summation, they are admitting they have no credible explanation.

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. also, i believe the elevator shafts could not have been a vessel for this pressure. lets say the squib was on the 33 floor.... i doubt that same elevator shaft went to the 80th floor. the bank of shafts that went to the 80th or 90th floors more than likely did not have exits on the 33rd floor. but i will have to research this.

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from dpt:

Google is your friend. As to credible, why is it that you think the pictures of the North side are `credible?'

i googled it.. didnt come across what you speak of. i would be thrilled to see these pics or videos. to be honest i didnt come across anything close to what you described... so i thought you knew something no one else did.

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from dpt:

Not until now, that is.

wait... are you going to make me google that too?

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from dpt:

Google is your friend. As to credible, why is it that you think the pictures of the North side are `credible?'

because i have seen them???? and i havent seen the southside ones??? am i on candid camera??? wait... do i have to google this too?:eek:

 

[dpt]

Quote from ratboy88:

because i have seen them???? and i havent seen the southside ones??? am i on candid camera??? wait... do i have to google this too?:eek:

Are you using so many question marks for
emphasis? Or is that just a nervous tic?

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html