Edx wrote:No it doesnt, you didnt watch to the end of the video I gave you.
I watched the whole of the video.
Edx wrote:You can clearly see that there's about 3 to 4 floors crushing at least 13 with ease and falls in "near free fall speeds".
No there isn't...lol
Edx wrote:Why didnt the bottom resist the top half?
Because you are making it up. lol
Edx wrote:You still havent explained why you think one floor can hold up the entire weight of the upper block once the weight has misaligned and is no longer being supported by load bearing connections.
I haven't explained it because I have never argued that one floor can do this?? lol
Edx wrote:Forget it, others can understand.
Of course, only you and the debunkers understand it yet everyone else is just too stupid.
Edx wrote:Find any firefighter on 911, the only example you could give is Schroeder who didnt even know that the South Tower collapsed first.
Sorry but I don't do desperate debunking by using logical fallacies such as appealing to the masses. lol
Edx wrote:You pick a small fraction of the collapse time and then claim the entire thing fell in free fall, you are dishonest.
Seeing as you can't find an example of where I claim the ENTIRE BUILDING FELL IN FREE FALL, then you are the one being dishonest.
Especially when you consider that in my very 1st post on this thread to Scecop I said that the only building which I think fell at NEAR FREE FALL was WTC 7!! lol
Edx wrote:They did not fall in free fall, only a small fraction fell in free fall.
I know, you keep repeating this even though it was me that pointed this out to you debunkers.
Edx wrote:Why do you think free fall matters?
Because there is no resistance,.
Edx wrote: Does that mean WTC 1 and 2 arent demolitions because they didnt collapse in free fall?
No because the WTC 1 & 2 were demolished differently, that is why the collapses look different. Although according to your logic, all building collapses look the same or something?? lol
Edx wrote:You are so set on free fall here claiming it proves explosives, but then you also claim WTC1 and 2 were demolitions so where is the free fall there?
Unless you can think of any other way a building can fall at free fall speeds, then I'm all ears.
Now I know you want to include WTC 1 & 2 into the equation to help you get out of answer my tricky question but it's not working. lol
Edx wrote:Verinage fits exactly with those firefighter descriptions of the collapses describing pancaking floors.
You need to get your groupthink updated. There was no pancakes!! lol
Edx wrote:What we dont see on any videos anywhere on 911 are any sounds of all these steel flinging and pulverising that is meant to be occurring in the collapses yet such things can easily be heard on any ACTUAL explosive demolition.
Looking for reason to ignore and deny the fact the building fell at free fall speeds (for 2 seconds!) doesn't actually help your cause. lol
Edx wrote:See, you're being dishonest. I never said it looked exactly like one, I said thats what a building resembles when it collapses.
Building do not collapse straight down unless they have been brought down via demolitions.
Edx wrote:But if you look any closer its clearly very very different.
No it's not! lol
Edx wrote:One of the main characteristics of an explosives demolition is that of HUGE earth shaking explosive detonations.
That is a typical demolition but just because that is how they are typically done, doesn't mean the WTC were done this way.
Edx wrote:Yet, you claim that there was even more intense explosives on 911 flinging steel around which isnt even used in normal demolitions, yet we cant hear these detonations in any videos of the collapses.
I think you are confusing me with Richard Gage and you cherry picked video. lol
Edx wrote:The firefighters SAID it was a raging inferno, again this means they are stupid, incompetent, delusional or liars. Take your pick.
Or mistaken seeing as there is no video or photographic evidence at any point showing the building to be a raging inferno. lol
Edx wrote:And once again explosions doesnt necessarily mean bomb.
I know it doesn't. But it doesn't mean we rule out the possibility until we have a source for the explosion.
Edx wrote: And since you seemed to accept there were plenty of others sources for "explosions" that people could have heard, then its your burden to prove that these were - specifically - explosIVES rather than anything else.
Ahh but you are the one who claims it is NOT explosions so the burden of proof is on you. Me on the other than accept it could be explosions or something else. I do not know for sure but what I don't do is what you fake debunkers do and CLAIM they are explosions but CLAIM they are something else.
Edx wrote:The fact that no one had any blast injuries at all and the fact that truthers dont give a crap about even trying to find out says it all.
HAHAHAHAHA!! You and this blast injuries even though its been pointed out to you time and time again it doesn't prove anything.
And if truthers don't give a crap, why are they the only ones who demand a new investigation while morons like you claim there is no need because you have the answers to all things 9/11?? lol
Talk about irony....lol
Edx wrote:I disproved you and you move the goal posts and dont admit you were wrong.
I haven't moved any goal posts. lol [/quote]
You said that no one said they were misquoted, you said no one was taken out of context and you said no one realised later what it was. You were wrong, I showed you where.
Edx wrote:You dont need to know that.
I do need to know......lol Thats the whole blank point right there mate! lol
Edx wrote:There's plenty of things that could cause someone to describe it as an explosion, Ive given you loads of examples.
Of course there is, but do we then conclude that this = no explosion?? lol
Because that's your position. lol
Edx wrote:People in the Empire State Building described a elevator cable snapped as "like gunfire", does that mean gun fire should be looked into?
Well did anyone get knocked over by the gunfire?? Did the empire state building collapse??
I didn't think so! lol
Or how about that giant crane collapsing being described as "like two explosions?" [/qoute]That didn't sound like an explosions to me. lol
Edx wrote:If you had ANYONE that has blast injuries that would go a long way to proving your point and yet no one sustained any blast injuries, no one found any explosive damage to the columns, no one found any explosive remains.
That is because no one looked for explosives.
Edx wrote:If you want to say that what people experienced was specifically an explosive rather than the multitude of other things it could be then the burden of proof is yours.
It could be an explosion, it could be something else.
But you are the one who wants to say that people didn't experience an explosion but rather something else without any burden of proof. So until you have some evidence, then we can't rule out explosives as a possibility.
No matter how much you cry about it. lol
Just because you put "lol" at the end of all your comments doesnt make you look smart it makes you look stupid.
I never declared it made me look smart or stupid, I just put them on the end to convey how I feel this conversation is going.
The debunking is nothing short of a joke and your debunking makes you look stupid! lol
Edx wrote:Firstly no other video of controlled demolitions seem to have this problem of the mic "overloading" to the point where you cant hear anything.
That is because the video and the mics are set to capture the explosions. lol
Edx wrote:Secondly, if these explosions start from above then you should be able to hear the explosions 110 stories up quite easily in the videos of the collapses before it gets so loud that, according to you, it overloads this mic.
That depends on the location of the video in relation to the towers and the size of the explosives.
Edx wrote: Again, this never happened either. Thirdly, you have multiple cameras in multiple positions all over the place and no one caught any such explosive detonations on tape.
That is because most of them are overloaded with the sound of the rumble of the collapse.
Edx wrote:Lastly, these explosives are meant to be much more intense that a normal demolition, normal demolitions aren't trying to fling steel around. So that means they should be even louder.
[/quote]Who said they were "more intense!" oh that's right I didn't.
You are fighting with the figments of your imagination again aren't you Edx?? lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.