View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

9/11 debate on C2C I consulted on for Richard Gage

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 15 Jul 2010, 23:11

ProfWag wrote:The bottom line is that it is crystal clear how the buildings fell. There is simply no other evidence presented that contradicts weakened structures collapsing. The videos and testimony of the buildings burning is extremely clear. As Edx suggested, anyone who claims otherwise is not looking at the evidence objectively. I don't blame people for not trusting the US government. Hell I don't. But from the testimony of the terrorists themselves, to the videos, to the firemen, to the lack of any other evidence, to suggest it was anything other than jihad against America is just plain ridiculous.


Of course.

We can argue this a different way. Assuming WTC7 was demolished intentionally, then so what? Why is this suspicious at all? The remaining structures at the WTC were demolished after the fact also, but truthers aren't nearly so concerned about them. Why obsess over WTC7?

Likely, it's because if truthers can somehow prove a demolition at WTC7, then they could argue the possibility of controlled demolition of the two towers and ignore the fact that two airliners were plowed into them. But if controlled demolition was the method, then why not reproduce the 1993 attack? It would have been more discreet. Why resort to a completely unproved method that had the potential of drawing millions of eyewitnesses?

Any truther have answers to this?
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13






Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 15 Jul 2010, 23:38

Chemist wrote: But if controlled demolition was the method, then why not reproduce the 1993 attack? It would have been more discreet. Why resort to a completely unproved method that had the potential of drawing millions of eyewitnesses?

Any truther have answers to this?

Extremely good question. Seems to me the same question could be asked of the Pentagon. Why paint a missile to look like a commercial plane and have the reel one fly over while a missile is aimed at the building when all that really needed to be done was discreetly place an explosive device?
Anything but the information we've been presented doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
I'll be honest though, I'm not sure we'll ever know how much, if any, the US knew about the potential for an attack, but what happened on 9/11 itself is so cut and dry that it makes me worry about the people who think differently, almost to the point where I question my own sanity.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby really? » 16 Jul 2010, 04:18

You know they'll have some nitwit answer
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 19 Jul 2010, 00:24

Wow! Ask a few questions and everybody clams up! LOL!

Good luck with that debate Scepcop. You have some work ahead of you!
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 19 Jul 2010, 01:07

Just very busy, will reply in a few days.
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 19 Jul 2010, 01:37

stundie wrote:Just very busy, will reply in a few days.



I wont be replying, as I said anyone that has been paying attention to the rest of the debate will be able to debunk whatever it is you're to respond with themselves.

Anyone that thinks you have a point they are either just as crazy as you are or they can ask me specifically what I think about it. I have no time to deal with people who are quite clearly insane, dishonest or just stubborn and argumentative for the sake of it as they cant admit they are wrong. Either way, I'm done. Especially as there is basically no traffic through this forum anyway.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 19 Jul 2010, 17:27

Edx wrote:I wont be replying, as I said anyone that has been paying attention to the rest of the debate will be able to debunk whatever it is you're to respond with themselves.
But you haven't debunked anything, you certainly haven't debunked the fact the WTC 7 fell at free fall speeds.

Although I understand why you won't address this. lol
Edx wrote:Anyone that thinks you have a point they are either just as crazy as you are or they can ask me specifically what I think about it.
Sorry I didn't realise you were the leading authority on all things 9/11 and that if anyone who agrees that the WTC7 fell at free falls speeds is crazy. (Including the NIST!!)

Edx wrote:I have no time to deal with people who are quite clearly insane, dishonest or just stubborn and argumentative for the sake of it as they cant admit they are wrong.
Sorry but didn't the WTC 7 fall at free fall speeds?? lol

How is that insane, dishonest, stubborn or argumentative??

I think the problem is you can't admit you are wrong and neither do you have an explanation for the free fall speeds. That is why you attribute false arguments made up of straw in order to perpetuate the myth that you are debunking, but the reality is, you are avoiding an issue because the free fall speeds can't be explained by the your matchbox method of demolition.
Edx wrote:Either way, I'm done. Especially as there is basically no traffic through this forum anyway.
Sorry there isn't a big enough audience for you Edx for you to do your debunking, although why would you want to be shamed in front of a larger audience is beyond me but some people enjoy the humiliation.
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 19 Jul 2010, 17:38

ProfWag wrote:The bottom line is that it is crystal clear how the buildings fell.
If it's so crystal clear, then how did WTC 7 manage to fall without any resistance??
ProfWag wrote: There is simply no other evidence presented that contradicts weakened structures collapsing.
There is evidence but pretending that there is no evidence is a great way of soothing your brain from the uncomfortable facts with comforting lies.

That's why you claimed that the NIST didn't say the buildings fell at free fall even though you cherry picked a quote about stage one which was the acceleration to free fall speeds was 40% slower before it reached free fall speeds.
ProfWag wrote:The videos and testimony of the buildings burning is extremely clear.
I know, the WTC 7 looks like a demolition doesn't it?
ProfWag wrote: As Edx suggested, anyone who claims otherwise is not looking at the evidence objectively.
Sorry but just because you can't look at the collapse objectively without ignoring evidence which contradicts what you believe, doesn't mean others aren't looking at the evidence objectively, but keep believing this is true, that way you will fool yourself you are debunking.
ProfWag wrote: I don't blame people for not trusting the US government. Hell I don't.
So why the strong objection to anything remotely considered a conspiracy??
ProfWag wrote:But from the testimony of the terrorists themselves,
The terrorists died in the attacks, so what testimony are you talking about??

Please don't tell me OBL confession tape cause I'll really burst out laughing.
ProfWag wrote:to the videos,
Like WTC 7 which looks like a demolition.
ProfWag wrote:to the firemen,
LIke the firemen who reported molten steel and the ones who claimed it looked like a demolition.
ProfWag wrote:to the lack of any other evidence,
What like the sounds of explosions which are ANYTHING but explosions.
ProfWag wrote:to suggest it was anything other than jihad against America is just plain ridiculous.
To suggest it was OBL when even the FBI admit there is no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11 shows us that it is plain ridiculous to assume it was OBL, when there is evidence to suggest it was something else.

But why let uncomfortable facts get in the way of a comforting lies?? lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 19 Jul 2010, 20:13

stundie wrote:But you haven't debunked anything, you certainly haven't debunked the fact the WTC 7 fell at free fall speeds.


.

stundie,
According to the "official" report, WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 8 stories as the columns buckled under the weight. Are you trying to state a claim that the entire building fell at free fall speed? If so, you're wrong and spreading false or misrepresented data. If not, then 8 stories of free fall speed hardly explains a controlled demolition or whatever the hell you're point is.

ProfWag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby really? » 19 Jul 2010, 20:48

ProfWag wrote:
stundie wrote:But you haven't debunked anything, you certainly haven't debunked the fact the WTC 7 fell at free fall speeds.


.

stundie,
According to the "official" report, WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 8 stories as the columns buckled under the weight. Are you trying to state a claim that the entire building fell at free fall speed? If so, you're wrong and spreading false or misrepresented data. If not, then 8 stories of free fall speed hardly explains a controlled demolition or whatever the hell you're point is.

ProfWag


I think stundie's point is; lets fabricate a story so I can continue to delude myself into believing because conspiracy is much funner than some ol' cockamamie story that terrorists flew jets into buildings besides reality is so boring.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 19 Jul 2010, 21:01

ProfWag wrote:
stundie wrote:But you haven't debunked anything, you certainly haven't debunked the fact the WTC 7 fell at free fall speeds.


.

stundie,
According to the "official" report, WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 8 stories as the columns buckled under the weight. Are you trying to state a claim that the entire building fell at free fall speed? If so, you're wrong and spreading false or misrepresented data. If not, then 8 stories of free fall speed hardly explains a controlled demolition or whatever the hell you're point is.

ProfWag


Even if it did fall at free fall for 8 stories for 2.25 seconds because of explosives or this mythical thermite according to people like Stundie and Anders Bjorkman it shouldnt have continued to collapse either, because they claim that the smaller part of a building physically cannot crush the rest of it. Thats why they debunk themselves by tying themselves in so many of these knots. The same knots that get them into trouble by saying that they are not accusing the firefighters of anything and then they imply they are either lying or they are all incompetent or apart of some mass delusion for nearly 10 years because truthers say things that directly contradict the opinion of the firefighters there that day on subjects that the firefighters are experts in.
Last edited by Edx on 20 Jul 2010, 00:42, edited 1 time in total.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 19 Jul 2010, 21:09

Okay since I'm bored debating the previous subjects with you and anyone that has been paying attention can see you're a liar, dishonest or insane I will address a few more slightly different points


ProfWag wrote:to the videos,
Like WTC 7 which looks like a demolition.


"looks" also includes SOUNDS LIKE. I guess I am slightly breaking my own rule here.... but briefly.... you find a demolition that makes as little sound as WTC7 makes. And, once again, if it looks like a demolition then firefighters standing there for hours waiting for it to collapse so they could go and continue to work that the area you might think would have said something, anything that backs up a single contention that truthers have made about Building 7 over the past 9 years. Yet, you cant even find any hint of disagreement from any of them about it.

ProfWag wrote:to the firemen,
LIke the firemen who reported molten steel and the ones who claimed it looked like a demolition.


Molten metal was also reported in Building 6, I showed you where, therefore Building 6 was a demolition.

ProfWag wrote:to the lack of any other evidence,
What like the sounds of explosions which are ANYTHING but explosions.


You have no recordings of any explosives while all this steel flinging and pulverising is meant to be occurring.

ProfWag wrote:to suggest it was anything other than jihad against America is just plain ridiculous.
To suggest it was OBL when even the FBI admit there is no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11 shows us that it is plain ridiculous to assume it was OBL, when there is evidence to suggest it was something else.


Nonsense, they never said they have no hard evidence.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 00:19

ProfWag wrote:stundie,
According to the "official" report, WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 8 stories as the columns buckled under the weight.
So you are finally admitting that it fell at free fall speed instead of desperately trying to debunk it by taking a quote out of context about the acceleration?? lol

And rather than do the honest thing and admit you were wrong and falsely attribute that I am mistaken, you ignore it?? lol

So are you going to explain how the building fell at free fall speeds courtesy of the matchbox demolition techniques which we have discovered are much better than using those explosives.
ProfWag wrote:Are you trying to state a claim that the entire building fell at free fall speed?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! So desperate!! lol

Now I'm sure I pointed out that it fell in 3 stages and I'm sure I've said time and time again that it fell at NEAR free fall speed.

Quick ignore it and pretend I claim that it fell at free fall speeds, that way, you can pretend that you are debunking. lol
ProfWag wrote:If so, you're wrong and spreading false or misrepresented data.
Says the man who claims that it did not fall at free fall speed but at 40% of free fall in a cherry picked quote! lol
ProfWag wrote: If not, then 8 stories of free fall speed hardly explains a controlled demolition or whatever the hell you're point is.
So a fire and a single column failing explains the 8 stories of free fall?? :shock: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! :lol:

A demolition EXPLAINS the free fall for 8 stories because that is what happens in most demolitions when ALL THE SUPPORT is removed for the building to collapse at FREE FALL SPEEDS. lol

Crying about it doesn't change the facts I'm afraid. lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 00:23

really? wrote:[color=#000080]I think stundie's point is; lets fabricate a story so I can continue to delude myself into believing because conspiracy is much funner than some ol' cockamamie story that terrorists flew jets into buildings besides reality is so boring.
/color]
I think really?'s point is that he doesn't have a point at all and is doing nothing but cheer leading to delude and comfort himself and his friends from the fact that he or they can't answer the question because it points out the absurdity of the official collapse theory. lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 20 Jul 2010, 00:31

stundie wrote:
ProfWag wrote:stundie,
According to the "official" report, WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 8 stories as the columns buckled under the weight.
So you are finally admitting that it fell at free fall speed instead of desperately trying to debunk it by taking a quote out of context about the acceleration?? lol

And rather than do the honest thing and admit you were wrong and falsely attribute that I am mistaken, you ignore it?? lol

So are you going to explain how the building fell at free fall speeds courtesy of the matchbox demolition techniques which we have discovered are much better than using those explosives.
ProfWag wrote:Are you trying to state a claim that the entire building fell at free fall speed?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! So desperate!! lol

Now I'm sure I pointed out that it fell in 3 stages and I'm sure I've said time and time again that it fell at NEAR free fall speed.

Quick ignore it and pretend I claim that it fell at free fall speeds, that way, you can pretend that you are debunking. lol
ProfWag wrote:If so, you're wrong and spreading false or misrepresented data.
Says the man who claims that it did not fall at free fall speed but at 40% of free fall in a cherry picked quote! lol
ProfWag wrote: If not, then 8 stories of free fall speed hardly explains a controlled demolition or whatever the hell you're point is.
So a fire and a single column failing explains the 8 stories of free fall?? :shock: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! :lol:

A demolition EXPLAINS the free fall for 8 stories because that is what happens in most demolitions when ALL THE SUPPORT is removed for the building to collapse at FREE FALL SPEEDS. lol

Crying about it doesn't change the facts I'm afraid. lol

According to the report, WTC7 fell at second stage for a near free fall for 8 stories, the remainder fell 40% slower than free fall. The building was 47 stories high, hence, according to the "official" report, WTC 7 free fell for 17% of the entire collapse. It did not free fall for 47 stories as you are wanting people to believe. Free fall for a 47 stories bulding would be 5.9 seconds. It took WTC7 over 13 seconds to collapse.
You are misrepresenting facts stundie. Get them straight and we'll talk again.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests