Visible explosions in WTC7.The video you did not know exists...

Ye sI have he says exactly what you are saying without any supporting evidence

 

OK, I'll never convince you of the validity of the argument,
but for the lurkers on this forum, read & enjoy. the information
is truly available to the mortal mind. ( if you want to see it )

 

There is no validity to it without evidence which it lacks.

Still looking for validation from others I see.

Pretty common when ones arguments have no merit

 

You are not going to accept the arguments,
so its just going to have to be that what I have
posted, stands, or not based on is it good science.
personally I know that it is good science. so you
can do anything you want, it doesn't change the
facts here.

 

It is not good science.

Good science proves you wrong in fact.

Good science requires evidence you provide none thereby proving you are ignorant of science

 

We could go on forever
stating that it is
or it isn't and that would get nothing done.
I have become convinced beyond any doubt
that you are not interested in finding the truth,
you just want to stir the pot......

oh well .......

 

Actually that would be you it is you failing to provide scientific fact or evidence

 

So now what?

 

The feeling is mutual.

 

Because they're as fake as the one in your OP.

 

Yes.

First thing is, where is version 4 that is listed as being "currently under development"? The last version, 3.1, was written in January of 2004.


Second is this:

Why is he using the entire volume of the tower for this calculation when the tower was not SOLID. It was about 95% air?

 

Also in version 3.1:

What is he basing this on? What data show that concrete was "crushed" to this "powder size"?

 

Where is your proof it was MELTED STEEL or IRON? You have no proof. And before you post visual evidence, I'll point out that one cannot tell from visual characteristics alone what a material is or isn't. Especially when there are pollutants involved that can contaminate the material.

- - - Updated - - -

Air expulsion and the crushing of gypsum planking within the tower takes a lot of energy?

 

Personal experience,that drywall dust gets EVERYWHERE

 

So your gut level interpretation is
that the potential energy contained
in the towers mass, was sufficient
to guarantee the result that was observed?

 

Explosives provide lots of energy, don't they?

 

So do collapsing skyscrapers.

 

And so?

 

You never answered any of my questions above.

Why is he using the ENTIRE volume of the towers for his calculation?
Where is version 4 of the article as it's been 10 years since 3.1?
Where is he getting "crushing of concrete (9e10 g to 60 micron powder)" from?

 

Your claims are partially based on the fact that YOU think the dust was pulverized concrete. What is this based on? You have been asked numerous times to give evidence and information in order to understand where you are coming from regarding various claims you have made and you refuse to do it. All you do is move on to other threads and post more garbage.

What are your sources that the dust was indeed pulverized concrete and not pulverized gypsum planking? Do you know how much gypsum planking was used in the towers? Do you think it would take less energy to pulverize/break up gypsum planking than it would to pulverize concrete?

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/dust.html

a few seconds of web-search ......
do I have to do everything around here?

 

That one might have arguable problems. This is the same one nist used



you can see and plot out the exact sequencing.

 

Let me explain something to you.

When you make a claim, people either except it as is or they want verification of where you are getting your information from. Given the fact that there are numerous locations for information, it is in your best interest to cite your claim so others may see exactly where you are getting it from. It is not the person's responsibility to try and decipher where your claim actually originated from or guess which site or paper you are basing it on.

If you have a problem divulging your sources, then I suggest you move on.

Now to your website you linked.

So was the dust composition from pulverized concrete or pulverized gypsum wallboard?

Does it take less energy to pulverize concrete than gypsum wallboard?

 

Anyone can create the same effect of flashes from buildings with windows as has been demonstrated by me previously. Your photoshopped animated gifs mean nothing.

 

To answer, requires just a tiny little bit of
detective work, how much concrete
that is in some sort of solid chunks
form, was observed at ground zero?
and how much weight/volume of concrete
and gypsum existed in the towers? it would
most certainly appear that the vast majority
of all of the concrete & gypsum was pulverized
along with desks, phones, computers (etc.... )