Yeah. Yours.
Not an exception. It's called physics. How do you think it goes against natural laws. If you're going to make such nonsensical claims you need to at least explain them. Ok?
Ok... natural laws are things like 'electricity goes through the wire, not the rubber' because the path of least resistance is through the wire. To make it an analogy, let's call the 'collapse wave' the source of current in a wire, as an analogy for pressure being built up as the building was falling. Now, let's call when that 'pressure' blows out a window as a short circuit. Now, How could you have the current run through the wire to a short 10 ft down the line when there was a short at the 2 ft mark?
Then there's the natural law about conservation of energy. Gravity works at an accelleratoin of 9.8m/s^2. So, every pulverized chunk of concrete, every undamaged piece of steel, every bit of debris shot outward, are all converting the 'downward' energy into another energy.
There's also that law that says that an object in motion will continue that motion unless something acts to change it. So, when you see a piece of debris shooting outward and inexplicably shoots downward, you have to ask what caused that propulsion?
And now you even tell me what proof I cannot use? :doh
You read that wrong... I wasn't going to bring up the fact that the stairwells were located in the central core of the building... so, not only did this pressure have to build up in the stairwells, it had to maintain that pressure from the stairwell and focus just on what looks like 1 window at a time... I was going to settle for you explaining how a relieved pressure area, suddenly built up pressure enough to blow out a window... You're telling me essentially that somehow a popped balloon got blown back to size and popped again from another area.... and I'm asking if you can explain how that effect occured.
Once you did that, then I was going to bring up the fact that the stairwells are in the middle of the building, not at the edge where the buildup of pressure had to occur.
So, I was making a statement that there are layers of fraud, rather then your interpretation of that being that you were not allowed to bring them up...
You haven't shown anything of the kind.
You're telling me it's pressure build up... I'm telling you WHY it's an inadequate explanation and now you're dodging.
Yeah, I watched your squibs. And I watched the controlled implosions. Have you? You claim those squibs on the WTC are explosions. Well, after they are seen nothing else happens. Until the falling floors above reach that floor.
But you didn't address how those squibbs were created by pressure, you've just stated it like fact, and are dodging the explaining part. I know why you can't / won't explain... simply, because on critical analysis it makes NO SENSE.
Think of all the air on every floor of the bldg. If all the floors above a floor is falling down and pancaking a particular floor, where do you think the air on that floor is going to go? Out the windows? Sure, some of it. And some of it will get pushed down vertical shafts (stairs, elevators, ductwork, etc).
Yes, the shafts in the CENTER of the building. I'm not saying that this didn't happen, I'm saying that's not the possible explanation for the 'squibbs' effect as it's been documented on film.
This air has to come out somewhere... don't you think?
Yes, and if it was pressure buildup you'd be looking at several windows being pushed out... also, you'd see it where the pressure had built up most (ie; the floor being crushed by the collapse wave, where it would be getting dispersed as windows break as well as down the stairs, elevator shafts...)
Why is it so hard to picture air from say, the 80th floor being pushed down a shaft and exploding out say, the 60th floor whose elevator door is open?
No, you're not getting it... I have no qualms picturing pressure building up within the building... but that is IRRELLEVANT because that DOES NOT explain the 'squibb' effect BECAUSE of the locations and sequence of the squibs as the building collapsed.
What part of that don't you get?
*facepalm* I'm asking you simply : "How do you explain how this pressure turned into such a focused JET of pressure as to knock out 1 window some 20-30 floors below the collapse wave, as a pressure 'relief', so how come other areas HIGHER in between the relief of pressure and the source of that pressure (the collapse wave) was there OTHER pressure buildups (from the same stairs and elevators) when there was already a 'path of least resistance' further away for that air buildup to exit through???"
And if you're thinking those squibs are internal explosions, well then, where are all the others? To bring down a bldg that size there would have to be hundreds of explosions. And where is all the bright fire from the explosions? We don't see any of that.
I gaze at blue, had shown us previously that it's possible to have a building collapse by dropping the top of the building onto the bottom. So, these squibs at best would be minor charges to reduce the factor of resistance. Meaning that all that was needed for explosives was enough to cause the top of the building to fall straight down 1-3 stories to offer enough kinetic energy to take down the building... since the examples shown were still rigged for demolition, perhaps the squibs were needed to destroy the core... I don't know specifically what it WAS... so that last bit is speculation, but I can plainly see what it WAS NOT.
Squibs from a true controlled demolition are all over the place, very visible and bring that floor down immediately. The WTCs' floors didn't move until the floors above fell on them. The collapses look nothing like a U.S. implosion. They do look similar to those French implosions except for all the missing explosions.
I agree with you that, as a demolition, the WTC buildings were not done in the standard way... It had to plausibly look like the planes caused the collapse, or else nobody would buy that 'saudi terrorists working in afghanistan' is a reasonable justification for an invasion of Iraq.
Balogny. I don't know anything about this Jones guy. I read the analysis, watch the videos and decide if any of it makes sense. To assume someone's proof is absolute based on his reputation would be no more than making assumptions. There are scores more scientists and engineers who dispute those claims. I've watched a ton of those videos, especially those re: thermite. Those you refer to all speak as if they're working towards a preconceived theory. The ones I believe work thru the evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence.
Maybe you were not part of that specifically...
Ok,
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=7TOCPJ.pdf&PHPSESSID=6cbb19f3ee8b283566078ab9e2891f4a
So far, the ONLY debunks I've seen of this paper are :
- the way the evidence was collected was not standard (which is true enough, however, the sample source details are in the paper. I think the best was done under the circumstance, also, without millitary clearance people cannot get access to the stuff, even for 'testing' purposes)
- it's not properly peer-reviewed (which I could accept if they bothered to go deeper and show how it's undeserving of peer-review)
- IT comes from Stephen Jones.
- Claiming the described chips were 'paint chips' (which clearly shows that they hadn't bothered to read the paper in itself)
I have YET to see ANYONE make a point that isn't addressed in the paper itself, or attacks the paper without addressing the contents.
That change in direction doesn't confirm anything.
Now, in light of the previously linked paper, seeing a piece of debris show evidence of propulsion, definately adds weight to the finding, and goes against the official version which AT BEST would explain that as 'jet fuel' igniting on that debris...officially, there were 0 secondary devices of any kind.
It's merely an anomaly that nobody has explained sufficiently yet. Your dude's explanation is thin because he points to smoke in the video that sure looks like all the other dust.
It's an anomoly that gets adequately explained when you consider the type of explosive was found in the dust... but since most are too busy attacking the source, it's 'unexplained anomoly'.
You just engaged in an example of 'orwellian crimestop'; Having two opposing viewpoints simultaneously while not realizing it.
You said : "It can't be thermite, but maybe there was some sort of explosive on the piece of debris" Two contradictory viewpoints that you seem to be believing simultaneously.
Invisible force? I gave a couple theories, none of which was an invisible force. Without proof either way it would be foolish to assume it was anything definitive. I have not seen this addressed anywhere else and will look for it.
Precisely, as you pointed out there are only a small number of possibilities... the only one with other evidence backing it was that the piece of debris had been coated with nano-thermite, and once ignited changed the direction.
The video also notes that while it was assumed that the smoke was 'trailing' the debris... seeing the evidence of propulsion and the white smoke changing with it, it's possible to draw the conclusion that it was actually aluminum oxide being expelled from the object.
And we've gone thru most of it piece by piece. I've seen nothing that supports any of your stories: thermite, missiles, molten steel. Nothing.
open your eyes.
are unimportant people trying to "exaggerate" their own sense of self-importance ...
