I'm just wondering if any of you wanted to give any feedback to the following article:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%...209-8-06%20.pdf

Prevarication. In my opinion. And I didn't notice any argument about squibs.

Check out this response:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

Thank you, I was shure I've seen that at some time. Just couldn't pinpoint.

I don't know what aggravates me more: the fact that you brush off the entire article without bothering to offer any factual evidence of your own, or the fact that you debunk the article based on what it DOESN'T say rather than what it DOES say!

And btw, did you even read Assertion #3? That addresses the squib issue directly.

It doesn't address the squibs of WTC 7 that went up the side of the building. How do squibs go up the building?

Why does he need to address that? If he addressed every single concern by every conspiracy theorist, his paper would be as long as the 9/11 commission report. He's writing a paper, thus he can say whatever he wants. That's something that people seem to have a hard time dealing with.

I have never heard anything about squibs going up the building, but to me that seems pretty counter-intuitive to the controlled demolition idea. They say the building was blown up at the point of impact, and explosives were detonated as the building fell downward, meaning that the appearance of squibs would appear lower and lower. Is this another one of those "hey, this is weird, and weird = must have been a conspiracy theory" arguments?

Ok it does, missed that one. But I recognised the article quite quickly, because I've read it before and it is more a matter of language than of fact that the article is about. So there's no real argument here, rather syntax and style. Forced dismissal of facts which are in fact crucial. Far-fetched assumptions, e.g. 'every controlled demolition is performed exactly the same way,' which is like saying 'every rectangle is square.'

In my opinion the squibs should normally ascend the structure, because it is crucial that it were stable. WTC7 was a 'classical' controlled demolition. WTC1 & WTC2 were 'special.' They could not be imploded from the bottom, because it would be evident. They had to implode from the hitmark downward.

By the way, here is another point for explosives:
The debris was EVENLY dispersed whaereas in pancake collapse it should be stacked in a form of cone or dome. Instead we can see ground level of the WTC lobby! Think: the higher the explosion takes place the further the debri go! We can go from here for a mathematical model predicting the distribution :blink:

Why was one demolition done normally while the other wasn't done normally? If they wanted to do a special demolition to make the collapse look like it was real rather than by controlled demolitions, then why wasn't WTC 7 blown up in a special way?

Mod edit: Because it was necessary to start the controlled demolition of WTC 1 & 2 from the top down so that it could be plausible that the buildings pancaked. Of course, that doesn't address the vaporizing concrete issue that only high explosives can do, but that was their reasoning anyway.

It's one of those hey-this-is-unexplainable things, which is why I brought it up, and why the makers of that site chose not to bring it up. Same reason they chose not to address how building 7 fell in less than 7 seconds, or how it even fell at all. Just like they didn't address the hundreds of gravel-sized bone fragments that were found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building. Just like they didn't address the fact that most of the contents of the Twin Towers, other than the steel, was reduced to fine powder. Just like they didn't explain the hot spots. Just like they didn't explain the sulfidized steel that melted at 1000 degrees celsius. Steel doesn't usually melt at that temperature unless you use thermite.

It's losing durability, not melting. And the steel would have to be subjected to 2000F for 4-6 hours (standard certified) to lose enough durability.

wtf, why are mods editing what chippy has to say? wouldn't it be a little more mature to add it as a response instead of modifying his post and putting what you have to say in bold?

i mean, no offense against you guys because i definitely agree with you, but i really hate it when mods totally take control of forums. i've never seen anyone go so far as to edit people's comments! yeah, i know what the mission statement says, but i heavily disagree with it. we can learn a thing or two from the skeptics, you know? it's never any fun to just talk to people you agree with all the time! whoever edited chippy's post, i think you owe the man an apology.

Oh, you haven't been here very long, have you?

Well, we're not perfect and I tend to agree that editing a comment into another persons post is OTT -- but, still, we are attacked DAILY by people who only come here to call us nut cases. And then there are so called 'skeptics' who do nothing but argue in circles. They want us to convince them of something and I think that is not the way it works at all. You come to understand this as a result of looking at all the evidence out there or you don't. To me it is as obvious as the air I breathe but apparently to a lot of people it is more like water to a fish or a forest and the trees. You can show them the evidence point blank and they still don't believe it because an "expert" hasn't said WE are right. They may, eventually, but, as a nation and as a world, we're going to have to be ready to face the consequences if the do. Moreover, we're going to have to face even worse consequences if they don't.

@ "I love you" I will explain my reasons for placing my comments directly into that post by Chippy.

Chippy has been placed on indefinite Moderator Review, which means that all his posts have to approved by a moderator, in this case, me.

Because of the limitations of this software I am not able to bring up the slot that his comment will be placed into before I allow his comment. Thus it is difficult for me to do my moderator duties.

I either can disallow the post, which didn't seem necessary because it was a half valid comment, or I can hunt around for the exact spot in a large and multi-faceted forum so that I can quote his post and respond.

The third way is to post my refutation directly into his post. I didn't mean any disrespect by doing that. Quite the opposite actually. I was trying to be fair in allowing the post to go through.

now that's weird....how on earth can you decide whether his comment is appropriate or not if you don't even know the context of what he is saying? and i might add that i've read through his topics and posts, and he seems like an incredibly respectful and intelligent person, much more so than a lot of other people here! i see a lot of people acting like total jerks, and i don't see their comments being filtered through the moderators!

it just bothers me when truthers try to use unfair advantages against their opponents...it ruins our credibility! the reason people hate us so much is exactly because of this attitude, saying that you're retarded if you don't buy into what we have to say. we have to be nice about it, and daniels, you're definitely not being nice about it! to me it seems like chippy is the good guy in this situation!!

Who cares chippy? We've been through this a million times. Explosives account for every observable event. The NIST report offers no explanation for the collapses of the Towers.