ANZACs and war and stuff

[Banditbandit]

I'm beyond caring what he thinks.

Yeah .. I wasn't going to get sucked into this debate again ... I think I'll just walk away again ...

[Drew]

You realise, that the word implosion in no way actually describes what demolition experts to do a building aye? It is a series of EXplosions. They're loud, and make windows and other stuff blow OUT before shit starts falling DOWN.

Didn't notice any explosive forces until after shit started coming down.

Please explain to me Katman, how the managed that little marvel.

[bogan]

If no explosives were used it matters not how fast the building fell.

Just to point out the blindingly obvious. Katman is saying how fast the building fell determines whether explosives were used or not, which makes sense. You're then saying it doesn't matter how fast they fell because people have already told you there were no explosives used, which is just typical question dodging. Only one seems to be arguing with facts and sense, while the other just claims to use them.

You realise, that the word implosion in no way actually describes what demolition experts to do a building aye? It is a series of EXplosions. They're loud, and make windows and other stuff blow OUT before shit starts falling DOWN.

Didn't notice any explosive forces until after shit started coming down.

Please explain to me Katman, how the managed that little marvel.

See, this guy discusses with some sense. Explosions can be damped pretty well, like the cutting charges with water on the one side. Would take a lot of technical expertise though, and makes you wonder why such experts would then overlook other aspects such as the fall speed.

[Edbear]

You realise, that the word implosion in no way actually describes what demolition experts to do a building aye? It is a series of EXplosions. They're loud, and make windows and other stuff blow OUT before shit starts falling DOWN.

Didn't notice any explosive forces until after shit started coming down.

Please explain to me Katman, how the managed that little marvel.

Funny how the several thousand tonnes of explosives went off so quietly and unobtrusively in order to bring the buildings down.

Ever seen a buiding demolished using explosives? Lots of very loud bangs precede the collapse...

[Katman]

You realise, that the word implosion in no way actually describes what demolition experts to do a building aye? It is a series of EXplosions. They're loud, and make windows and other stuff blow OUT before shit starts falling DOWN.

Didn't notice any explosive forces until after shit started coming down.

Please explain to me Katman, how the managed that little marvel.

In the video footage of the building collapsing you don't get to see what is happening on the lower floors.

All you get to see is the top half of the building falling down into a seeming void.

[Edbear]

Just to point out the blindingly obvious. Katman is saying how fast the building fell determines whether explosives were used or not, which makes sense. You're then saying it doesn't matter how fast they fell because people have already told you there were no explosives used, which is just typical question dodging. Only one seems to be arguing with facts and sense, while the other just claims to use them.

See, this guy discusses with some sense. Explosions can be damped pretty well, like the cutting charges with water on the one side. Would take a lot of technical expertise though, and makes you wonder why such experts would then overlook other aspects such as the fall speed.

Ah, another one who ignores facts in favour of theories. It has been very clearly shown why and how the buildings collapsed, but as with Katman, you too have proven you don't like to ascertain anything for yourself, just blindly accept idiotic theories and keep asking the same dumb questions that have been already answered by more than just me on here.

[Katman]

Funny how the several thousand tonnes of explosives went off so quietly and unobtrusively in order to bring the buildings down.

Ever seen a buiding demolished using explosives? Lots of very loud bangs precede the collapse...

There are plenty of eye witness accounts of hearing explosions just prior to the collapse of Building 7 Ed.

[bogan]

Ah, another one who ignores facts in favour of theories. It has been very clearly shown why and how the buildings collapsed, but as with Katman, you too have proven you don't like to ascertain anything for yourself, just blindly accept idiotic theories and keep asking the same dumb questions that have been already answered by more than just me on here.

Ignores facts? As usual you seem incredibly reluctant to post any so what is there to ignore? well, apart from your vitriolic outbursts which don't deserve any replies anyway.

[Katman]

It has been very clearly shown why and how the buildings collapsed, but as with Katman, you too have proven you don't like to ascertain anything for yourself, just blindly accept idiotic theories....

And yet you're happy to believe that the failure of a single column can bring an entire building down uniformly at freefall speed?

[Drew]

In the video footage of the building collapsing you don't get to see what is happening on the lower floors.

All you get to see is the top half of the building falling down into a seeming void.

Hang on, you only questioned building sevens collapse earlier.

The video of that which you posted a link to, was from ground level. It's the only one of that building I've seen, until then I didn't know it had even come down. There are no explosions at ground level, until the floors above start taking up the space too.

[oneofsix]

Just to point out the blindingly obvious. Katman is saying how fast the building fell determines whether explosives were used or not, which makes sense. You're then saying it doesn't matter how fast they fell because people have already told you there were no explosives used, which is just typical question dodging. Only one seems to be arguing with facts and sense, while the other just claims to use them.

Not really, how fast the building falls is determined by the failure scenario and this has been explained previously and in the official reports without the use of explosives, comes back to original design, plane type and fuel load. The speed of explosives would mean that the building could have been felled as soon as the plane hit rather than waiting until some of the potential victims had escaped the lower floors.

See, this guy discusses with some sense. Explosions can be damped pretty well, like the cutting charges with water on the one side. Would take a lot of technical expertise though, and makes you wonder why such experts would then overlook other aspects such as the fall speed.

Exactly. Start putting the lot together and the conspiracy fails.

Also over looked is the major re-editing and delay this event caused to the release of the first Spiderman movie, no way would Hollywood have let a Govt. conspiracy get in the way of a major movie release therefore no conspiracy can have occurred.

[Katman]

Hang on, you only questioned building sevens collapse earlier.

The video of that which you posted a link to, was from ground level.

Sorry Drew, you've lost me.

Which post was that?

[Katman]

Not really, how fast the building falls is determined by the failure scenario and this has been explained previously and in the official reports without the use of explosives, comes back to original design, plane type and fuel load. The speed of explosives would mean that the building could have been felled as soon as the plane hit rather than waiting until some of the potential victims had escaped the lower floors.

We're talking about Building 7 here.

Remember?

[Edbear]

As I said the evidence has been posted many times throughout both threads, but as I also said, the cnospiracy theorists will always ignore any proven facts to the contrary of what they want to believe.

Bogan if you want to have any more credibility than Katman, which is absolute zero, you will stop being an idiot and go and watch the videos yourself and comment on them specifically. I am not the only person here who thinks you guys are being dumb and ignoring facts.

Why not prove also that you are not merely obsessed with discrediting me personally and apply the same comments to the others? Attacking me does nothing for your arguments and only proves you are incapable of rational thought.

[Katman]

Why not prove also that you are not merely obsessed with discrediting me personally and apply the same comments to the others? Attacking me does nothing for your arguments and only proves you are incapable of rational thought.

You still haven't answered the question Ed.

Was it bollocks that the building fell at freefall speed or bollocks that NIST tried to hide that fact?