Visible PRE-COLLAPSE explosions taking place at the South Tower

[rollingrock]

In regard to 0:07 to 0:30.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_B_Azbg0go

The video shows the destruction of the south tower of the World Trade Center,
viewed from a helicopter to the south.

Why is the top section exploding before our eyes, before the collapse even starts?

Let's hear the spin doctors explain this one. It should be good.

[sabbat hunter]

1. it isnt exploding

it is starting to collapse.

[rollingrock]

2. The explosions are taking place before the collapse

try again.

[sabbat hunter]

3. no

you need to look at the video better.

The building is starting to collapse at 7 seconds (which is right when it goes from the title page to the WTC)

[rollingrock]

5. Why is the top section exploding at all?

how could the top section explode, AND still be able to act as a 'pile driver' to crush the massive building below it??

[sabbat hunter]

6. thats because

it isn't exploding, it is collapsing.

[rollingrock]

9. You didn't answer the question

fail

[sabbat hunter]

26. yes I did

" why is the top section exploding at all? and how is it acting as a pile driver if it is exploding"

I said that it isn't exploding, it is collapsing. That is your answer, it isnt exploding, thus can act as a "pile driver"

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Is it? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Can you point out the explosions in the audio track?

Like, for example, in this video taken almost next to the building? The cameraman and everyone in his frame died from debris falling.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4826764420417612701

Where are the explosive sounds comparable to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

[rollingrock]

8. The pile driver is being disintegrated before our eyes

so how could it still act as a 'pile driver' to crush the building below it?

Remember, the 'pile driver' theory is the official explanation for the destruction of the towers.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. So that is a "No, there aren't any sounds of explosives that I can hear."

Mass is still mass, unless by "disintegrate", you mean something like nukes or directed energy weapons dissolving the building into dust. Is that what you mean?

[rollingrock]

11. A mass of dust floats to the ground

it does not have the ability to crush a skyscraper.

try again, spin doctor.

[Realityhack]

12. It would appear there is going to be no reasoning with you. n/t

[rollingrock]

13. What reasoning have you provided?

Answer: absolutely none.

[Realityhack]

14. But Bolo did.

And I have witnessed your past 'responses' when people bring up valid points that you don't happen to like.

[rollingrock]

15. That's not a reasonable answer

a mass of dust does not have the ability to crush anything. except maybe in a cartoon.

he also didn't bother to explain the cause of the visible, simultaneous explosions/ejections (whatever you want to call it) coming out of the top section, prior to the collapse of the lower section below the impact point.

[Realityhack]

16. He did point out...

which you are conveniently ignoring...
that the mass of the upper section of the building would continue to be a huge mass unless it was *entirely* reduced to dust which you have no evidence of.

IIRC people have been round and round with you on this topic before. I seriously doubt you would change your mind under any circumstances.

[rollingrock]

21. The top section has no ability to crush the lower section

whether it is solid or dust. an object has no ability to crush an object many times more massive than itself, except maybe in a cartoon.

you still ignore and fail to explain the cause of the ejections/explosions coming from the top section.

[Realityhack]

30. "an object has no ability to crush an object many times more massive than itself" ROTFLOL n/t

[rollingrock]

33. The OCT is a joke

you got that right.

[Realityhack]

41. Regardless of what you think happened or did not happen...

If you think the statement I quoted from you is true your grasp of physics is a joke.

[tenseconds]

42. color contrast

I see a sharp difference in the dust coloration from the top section which is apparently infused with smoke and the very top floors of the lower section which appear off white.

If the top section were actually collapsing into the lower section at the initial point of collapse(explosion)why the sharp contrast in dust coloration? The smoke from the top section should have diffused into the pulverized lower section to produce a darker colorization.

[tenseconds]

43. color contrast

I see a sharp difference in the dust coloration from the top section which is apparently infused with smoke and the very top floors of the lower section which appear off white.

If the top section were actually collapsing into the lower section at the initial point of collapse(explosion)why the sharp contrast in dust coloration? The smoke from the top section should have diffused into the pulverized lower section to produce a darker colorization.

[Realityhack]

78. Why are you posting this in response to me? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

17. I asked YOU to clarify what you think the cause is

And you continued to dance and weave.

[rollingrock]

22. I did that in the OP

they're called explosives.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. OK, so why are you not pointing out explosions in the audio tracks? n/t

[rollingrock]

24. It has been posted many times

you obviously haven't been paying attention. or maybe you're being willfully ignorant?



www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

[SDuderstadt]

25. "Truther Logic"

Explosions = explosives

[rollingrock]

32. OCTer logic

an explosion isn't an explosion.

it's just your imagination.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Nope, that explosion happened after both towers were already down

I'm asking you about explosions being heard DURING the collapses, heard on the audio tracks the same as the Landmark demolition.

No question of loud, explosive sounds there. Point one out on an unaltered audio track of the towers coming down.

[rollingrock]

31. And I asked you what the cause is

of those ejections coming from the top section.

you still have yet to give an answer.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. And I asked you to point out sounds of explosives in any unaltered sound track of the collapses.

And I asked you first.

[rollingrock]

44. Dumb question

The helicopter is too far away to pick up the sound. you don't know if the microphone was even on. The sound of the building collapsing was obviously very loud, but that sound wasn't picked up by the video either.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Bullshit.

You keep telling yourself that. There are plenty of videos out there of the building collapsing. BRING BACK ONE with an unaltered sound track that has sounds comparable to the Landmark demolition.

You will never do this. You will only dance and weave.

[rollingrock]

48. You're full of crap, as usual

1) hundreds of witnesses said they heard the explosions, including dozens of police, firefighters, reporters and rescue workers.

2) you still fail to explain the cause of the ejections/explosions coming from the top section.

why do you continue to dance and weave?

[Bolo Boffin]

50. And yet you still haven't produced an audio track of the towers collapsing with explosions

so that we can hear them for ourselves.

And the dust and smoke being pushed out of the building by the descending debris has already been explained to you.

What do you think did it? Explosives, directed energy weapons, nuclear bombs, or something new? Surprise me.

[vincent_vega_lives]

51. No U R

1. Hundreds of witnesses said they heard loud bangs. An explosion is not a noise, it is a rapid expansion of hot gasses that makes a loud bang. But so does lots of other things.

2. A perfectly good explanation has been offered hundreds of times before here. It can't be helped if you choose to ignore it.

[rollingrock]

58. Thanks for the laugh

'a rapid expansion of hot gasses that makes a loud bang.'

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[wildbilln864]

54. not to mention that the charges.....

would probably be placed on the core columns in the center of a building where all the walls are acoustically insulated.
:eyes: And any muffled sound coming from them would have to compete with the sound of the collapses and other ambient sounds. And I'd expect if I were doing it, I'd want to use some things that wouldn't be real loud like thermit. Trigger a few explosive charges in the basement floors before(per witnesses) & higher during the impacts to weaken the structure, then ignite the thermit on the core columns. A bit later, sudden total collapse! :crazy:

[hack89]

55. But the squibs are on the external wall

are you saying they were not explosives? From your post it would seem that there would be no visible or audible signs of explosives.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. "acoustically insulated"???

No. A sheet or two of drywall and open office space to the perimeter columns does not mean the WTC was acoustically insulated.

Especially not from 14 tons of explosives.

Did the actual explosives of the Landmark demolition have to compete with the sound of the collapse or other ambient sounds?

You are fooling yourself, wildbill.

[wildbilln864]

57. don't know where you get 14 tons of explosives but yes....

office buildings have their partition walls acoustically insulated for sound!
The demo you refer to wasn't meant to look like a fire induced collapse so there was no need to mask or hide their sounds. In the WTCs there was reason.
You are fooling no one!

[hack89]

19. So the steel was turned to dust? Really? nt

[rollingrock]

59. Apparently, most of it was turned to dust

otherwise, would you care to explain what happened to millions of tons of WTC steel?

How did 110 stories of structural steel end up as nothing more than a small pile of rubble at Ground Zero?

[Bolo Boffin]

60. No. There was no steel turned to dust ever, ever. n/t

[rollingrock]

61. Then where did it go?

again, you fail to answer the question.

[Bolo Boffin]

62. It is right there on the ground.

It is all over the place. It is down in the basements. No steel was turned into dust on 9/11. None.

[rollingrock]

63. It was turned into molten steel and dust

Firefighters describe molten steel at Ground Zero.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E

[Bolo Boffin]

64. No, it was not.

There are no anecdotes you can provide that describe the sheer volume necessary for what you are saying.

No steel was turned to dust. There is never any large amount of pooling molten metal described.

You are caught in an utter fantasy about the events of the day. Until you find out the facts, there's no use discussing interpretations of those facts.

[rollingrock]

65. Are you saying the firefighters are lying?

were you there?

You must be one of those amazing psychics, then.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. There are no firefighter statements that contradict what I am saying.

Please stop speaking for them.

[rollingrock]

66. Have you analyzed the contents of the dust?

or know anyone that has?

or are you talking out of your arse?

[Bolo Boffin]

69. No, but plenty of reputable people have.

http://nfstc.org/projects/trace/docs/Trace%20Presentations%20CD-2/Petraco.pdf

77% of the dust was fiberglass, rock wool, plaster, and concrete.

Not micro particles of structural steel.

Please find the true facts about 9/11. The people you have been listening to have led you seriously astray.

[rollingrock]

70. It doesn't acount for the missing steel

there is far too little of it at Ground Zero to account for all the missing steel.

Virtually all the concrete was pulverized into fine dust,
which the paper fails to explain how that happened.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. There is no missing steel. n/t

[rollingrock]

71. And again

you continue to evade the main question, the one this thread is about.

How do you reasonably explain the ejections/explosions coming from the top section?

Apparently, you can't.

[hack89]

74. Here's another analysis of the dust - no steel particles.

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

[hack89]

76. So how was it turned into molten steel?

what mechanism do you propose?

[hack89]

75. It is not possible to turn steel to dust

just how do you think it was done?

[chaddyt]

47. If it truly was a mass of dust...

... then clean up should've taken place with brooms and dustpans rather than cranes and torches.

[vincent_vega_lives]

36. disintegrating

Right, try reducing the empty volume, and expulsion of the air within.

[hack89]

18. Where is the high pressure shock wave? nt

[Realityhack]

20. At Disney Land...

with the happy elves and the talking fish.

[wildbilln864]

28. thanks hack...

:rofl:
I think that's might be whats causing the squibs. :shrug:

[hack89]

29. Those squibs are compressed air

shock waves are onmi-directional.

[rollingrock]

34. ROFL

how do you know that? are you psychic?

[hack89]

40. So where did all the air go then?

each floor went from 150000 cubic feet of volume to zero in seconds. Sound like a classic definition of compression to me.

Think how much pressure that air would be under. Think how hot it would get due to adiabatic heating.

[rollingrock]

45. Looney tunes

that's almost too goofy for words.

:rofl:

[Retrograde]

49. PV=nRT

not just a good idea, it's the law.

It's also one of those basic equations, along with F=ma, F=G(m1m2/r**2) and K.E.= .5mv**2 that I expect anyone talking about the events of 9/11 to be conversant with. If you don't know what these mean, you are not capable to talking credibly on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.

Oh, and add m1v1=m2v2 to that.

[hack89]

53. So you deny basic physics?

explain to me why there was no compression?

This is what you are denying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

[rollingrock]

67. The pancaking/pile driver theory violates the laws of motion

The bottom section failed to provide any resistance to the pile driver whatsoever, which violates Newton's Third law of motion. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.


As for the Ideal Gas Law, whatever the heck that is, you fail to explain the relevance to the discussion.
You seem to be full of hot gas. lol.

[Realityhack]

77. "As for the Ideal Gas Law, whatever the heck that is..." See that is the problem right there.

You have no interest in even attempting to learn about the physical mechanisms involved in the collapse. You would rather hoot and babel about how it was all an inside job than do the work required to educate yourself.

[Flatulo]

73. Do you understand how diesel engines work? You compress air, it gets hot..

It's not Looney Tunes, it's thermodynamics.

Goodle 'fire piston'. I made one a few years ago out of Lexan after I saw one used on 'Survivorman'. It's a simple cylinder with a plunger and seal that you smack with one palm. With a compression ratio of only 20 to one, you can get the air in the cylinder up to 800 deg F or so. If you put some flammable substance in there, like bark fungus, it will glow. The ember can be used to start a fire. If you inject fuel in, (like a diesel), you get an explosion.

The fire piston was invented about a thousand years ago in the Phillipines.

[Realityhack]

79. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess the answer is 'No' n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

52. No but I have eyes and a fucking brain

So do you I assume. Pull up some implosion video and compare. The WTC collapse looks AND sounds NOTHING like an controled demolition in any way.

[vincent_vega_lives]

35. If that was an explosion

it....was...with...slowwwwwwww....explosives.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Fourth generation Hush-a-boom, vvl.

Actually bends time-space. That's how it hushes the boom.

[Realityhack]

39. That was an offshoot of the cone of silence project right? n/t

[rollingrock]

80. ...Still waiting for someone to provide

a plausible explanation for these visible pre-collapse explosions/ejections
(whatever you want to call it).

and if you want to make me laugh, please tell me more about the Ideal Gas Law. thanks.

[pfloydguy7750]

81. I don't see anything

[rollingrock]

82. You must have a vision problem

go have it checked out.

[Bolo Boffin]

83. Do not feed.

That guy is yanking everyone's chain, rolling.