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 Scepcop » 12 Jul 2010, 02:20

One new stunning argument I read in Stundie's refutation of Dave Thomas' 6 points, which I hadn't thought of before, is this:

If a few office fires burning for a few hours can bring down a whole steel skyscraper and pulverize it, why would control demolition companies need to spend MONTHS setting up rigged explosives around the core columns, when they could accomplish their task by burning jet fuel (ala WTC1+2) or gas (ala WTC7) for just a few hours? In other words, why spend months doing what you can accomplish in a few hours, which even a teenager could do? It doesn't make sense! The demolition companies would be out of business if that was true!

Likewise:

If the failure of a single column can cause a 47 story building to implode and land mostly in it's own footprint, as NIST claims, then why do demolition companies rig and blow all the columns to accomplish the same thing?

See below :)

Image
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






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

Postby Edx » 12 Jul 2010, 02:37

Scepcop wrote:One new stunning argument I read in Stundie's refutation of Dave Thomas' 6 points, which I hadn't thought of before, is this:

If by stunning you mean stunningly stupid, then I agree. I repliedto his whole post, did you miss it or just don't care?

If a few office fires burning for a few hours can bring down a whole steel skyscraper and pulverize it, why would control demolition companies need to spend MONTHS setting up rigged explosives around the core columns, when they could accomplish their task by burning jet fuel (ala WTC1+2) or gas (ala WTC7) for just a few hours?


Because they dont want to destroy massive amounts of private properly and kill many people on the streets below?

In other words, why spend months doing what you can accomplish in a few hours, which even a teenager could do? It doesn't make sense! The demolition companies would be out of business if that was true!


I have a funny feeling that demolition companies want their collapses to be "controlled", or they would be out of business and in jail for all the destruction they caused.

You don't need explosives to demolish a building, which is why Verinage works. Will you ever reply to that?

If the failure of a single column can cause a 47 story building to implode and land mostly in it's own footprint, as NIST claims, then why do demolition companies rig and blow all the columns to accomplish the same thing?


Except it wasn't just a single column, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you? I wish you would at least try to show that you WANT to understand.

Here's another reason why what you say is stupid. I can just as easily say that when they demolish a house they dont really need to tare it down with cables or machines they should just set it on fire. Well, maybe setting it on fire is not the best method of destroying a house even though, yes, that would do it.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

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

Postby Scepcop » 12 Jul 2010, 02:43

Edx wrote:Because they dont want to destroy massive amounts of private properly and kill many people on the streets below?


WTC7 did not kill anyone or destroy private property. So your point is invalid.

You don't even know basic facts. All you do is obfuscate and use mind control to get your way.

Except it wasn't just a single column, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you? I wish you would at least try to show that you WANT to understand.


That's what NIST says. They are the ones who came up with that cause they are at a loss for explanation.

Man you don't even know basic things...
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

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

Postby Edx » 12 Jul 2010, 02:57

Scepcop wrote:
Edx wrote:Because they dont want to destroy massive amounts of private properly and kill many people on the streets below?


WTC7 did not kill anyone or destroy private property. So your point is invalid.


It didnt kill anyone because they pulled everyone back earlier in the day because they knew it would probably collapse.

It did destroy private property as it critically damaged 30 West Broadway which is across a 4-lane street. Look it up, its not disputed. Truthers just neglect to tell you that and when its pointed out start stretching their definition of footprint.

If you only meant WTC7, then why did you specifically mention WTC1+2? Even your cartoon has a picture of towers 1+2, not 7.

You don't even know basic facts. All you do is obfuscate and use mind control to get your way.


Irony?

Except it wasn't just a single column, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you? I wish you would at least try to show that you WANT to understand.


That's what NIST says. They are the ones who came up with that cause they are at a loss for explanation.


Edit:

I'm going to clarify in advance. It is true that in WTC7 NIST says that the failure of one column would have initiated the whole collapse, however this is a very unique building. It is also important to note that other damage from debris and fires did have an affect on the collapse as well which they also stated. For more at least read through this.

The point is your "joke"is stupid.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

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

Postby really? » 12 Jul 2010, 05:22

Edx wrote:
Scepcop wrote:
Edx wrote:Because they dont want to destroy massive amounts of private properly and kill many people on the streets below?


WTC7 did not kill anyone or destroy private property. So your point is invalid.


It didnt kill anyone because they pulled everyone back earlier in the day because they knew it would probably collapse.

It did destroy private property as it critically damaged 30 West Broadway which is across a 4-lane street. Look it up, its not disputed. Truthers just neglect to tell you that and when its pointed out start stretching their definition of footprint.

If you only meant WTC7, then why did you specifically mention WTC1+2? Even your cartoon has a picture of towers 1+2, not 7.

You don't even know basic facts. All you do is obfuscate and use mind control to get your way.


Irony?

Except it wasn't just a single column, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you? I wish you would at least try to show that you WANT to understand.


That's what NIST says. They are the ones who came up with that cause they are at a loss for explanation.


Edit:

I'm going to clarify in advance. It is true that in WTC7 NIST says that the failure of one column would have initiated the whole collapse, however this is a very unique building. It is also important to note that other damage from debris and fires did have an affect on the collapse as well which they also stated. For more at least read through this.

The point is your "joke"is stupid.


Scepcop wrote:You don't even know basic facts. All you do is obfuscate and use mind control to get your way.

I had no idea you used mind control. You are ebil.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

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

Postby Edx » 12 Jul 2010, 05:33

really? wrote:
Scepcop wrote:You don't even know basic facts. All you do is obfuscate and use mind control to get your way.

I had no idea you used mind control. You are ebil.


Oh of course!

I regularly have to login to the HAARP facility from the NWO offices when I am arguing with truthers ( located 7 floors below CIA headquarters) and set its mind control beams to the person I'm talking to. Right now I'm currently using level 6 strength which is why Wu takes so long to reply, it makes them disorientated and Wu is strong at resisting! Soon we will have him.

:P
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

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

Postby stundie » 13 Jul 2010, 07:41

Edx wrote:I'm not really directing this response specifically to stundie, as I believe he is someone who posts or used to post at the JREF and I really don't think there's any way to get through to him.
There is a way to get through to me but I do not think you are going to be capable of doing it for a lack of reason or logic in your points.
Edx wrote:But I want to respond to specific points.
Fine by me.
Edx wrote:Is it really implied with this that truthers never really said that the towers collapsed in free fall?That they never really said 9 and 11 seconds? Well of course they did, then when it was shown that they weren't free fall truthers started saying "Oh I mean near free fall".
Some truthers may say this but you are generalising as I know plenty of people who you would call truthers who have never said the WTC 1 or 2 it fell in free fall, although that is strictly not true when it comes to WTC7.

And lets just roll with your arguement here, if truthers said free fall and then changed their argument to near free fall, then that shows they are capable of updating their thinking when presented with evidence that shows them they are wrong.
Edx wrote:But just how much is near free fall and just how much is "too fast"?
Well "near" is subjective so you might think 13 seconds is not near, where as I might. You can't argue over the term "near" for that reason it is subjective and although fake debunkers love semantics, I can tell you what I think is near but to you, it might be miles away. s

Also how much is too fast, imagine if I'm a 10 stone man and I can run 100 meters in 10 seconds (I can't so don't ask for proof! lol) but someone other people who are 11, 12, 13 stone and so on are standing 10 metres apart to try and stop me from running my 100 metre in 10 seconds all the way down the track and I ran it again. Would 16 seconds seems achievable? That would mean on average, each person who are progressively larger than me stopped me for 0.6 second??
Edx wrote:Truther's can't tell you, they just KNOW it was "too fast" but can't tell you why.
I can tell you why, because the building shouldn't have completely collapsed. I've seen the arguments over the years and I've not heard a convincing argument yet to explain how the upper portions manage to destroy the lower portions.

But let assume that it would collapse, I still think there simply wasn't enough resistance.
Edx wrote:And just so we're clear, NIST clearly says approximately 9 and 11 seconds for the first exterior panels to strike the ground. That in no way implies that the entire building fell at free fall.
And where did I argue that the entire building (WTC 1 or 2) fell at free fall??

Oh that's right!! I didn't!! lol

You made up this strawman, to make it sound like you have a point, when you didn't!! lol
Edx wrote:NIST did say at one point "near free fall" as well, however when they say "near" its simply because 15 and 21 seconds aren't that far apart from 9 and 11 seconds.
So if the NIST use it, truthers can't?? lol

Do you realise how pathetic your point is? If you complain that a truther uses the term "near free fall" then you should also complain when the NIST uses it.

Mind you, double standards in the application of criticism is one of the greatest tools of a fake debunker! lol
Edx wrote:The point being that when truthers say it its because they seem to think that the collapse times are very important to show that explosives were pushing material out of the way, so any mention of free fall is very important to them, rather than just a throw away comment someone else might use.
Again, more projections and generalisations about what you think truthers think is important.
Edx wrote:As pointed out above its not an official time of the collapse of the two buildings, its of portions of the buildings. You can even watch these exterior panels yourself falling faster than the building. I don't think they even gave a total collapse time.
I know this seeing as I quoted the NIST FAQs and highlighted it, so thanks for telling me what I had already stated in my previous post.
Edx wrote:See this is good, but here comes the arbitrary goal post manoeuvre....... there we are.
There are no goal posts being manoeuvred although you like to think so in order that it makes you sound like you have a point.

So if I reject the term near free fall, but I still think it fell to fast, how am I moving goal posts??
Edx wrote:What truthers need to understand is that none of the collapses were free fall.
What you need to understand is that your bible that you preach which is the final NIST report on WTC 7 admitted that the building collapsed at free fall speeds for approx 2 seconds.

So if you think NONE of the of the collapse were free fall, take it up with the NIST.
Edx wrote:First truthers said WTC1+2 were 100% free fall (some even said "faster than free fall", I have no idea how they figured that out).
Some truthers may have said this but that doesn't mean all truthers say this or that this is a position held by every single truther does it.
Edx wrote:Then they move onto Building 7 and say that was 100% free fall in 6.5 seconds.
I thought it collapsed in 7.2 seconds and that free fall would be 6.5, although I could be wrong.
Edx wrote:Then they are shown that WTC7 was not free fall either and that there was also a whole series of massive internal collapses as well.
Shown by whom?? lol

Nobody is doubting that there was internal collapses, but it still doesn't explain how WTC 7 fell at free fall for 2.5 seconds. Whatever was pulling it internally would be falling at free fall speeds in order for it to pull the exterior at free fall speeds.
Edx wrote:Then one of their own David Chandler has calculated there was 2.25 seconds of free fall in the entire collapse and yet he somehow tries to spin this as some kind of dishonesty by NIST?
Well the NIST were asking for comments on the draft report but they neglected to mention this so Chandler contacted them and pointed out to them.

And the dishonesty of the NIST report on WTC7 is more to do with their single column failure theory. lol
Edx wrote:How about admit the fact that for years AE911 were saying the entire collapse took 6.5 seconds in free fall?
I'm not a member of AE911, so I can't speak for them nor could I tell you exactly what they claim or have previously claimed.
Edx wrote:No they wouldn't want to do that they might look bad, so they had to try and pretend they were right all along.
Why would they pretend they were right all along about something which they were never right about?? :shock:
Edx wrote:As I said above the whole reason for saying that it was free fall is to claim that explosives were pushing material out of the way (they also ignore the fact that real demolitions also aren't free fall but that's another point), but just like before the collapse times of WTC7 shows significant resistance.
Just like you are ignoring the fact that this was not a traditional demolition.

And if something is falling at free fall speeds for whatever amount of time, for that time, the materials have been removed that would provide resistance?? Would you not agree?
Edx wrote:So about this 2.25 seconds then, the reasons Gage's troupe have such a hard time here is that they ignore the internal collapses.
Even with the internal collapses, the building still fell at free fall speeds.
Edx wrote:For years truthers would and still do chop out the dramatic east mechanical penthouse collapse, how do they think they can accurately evaluate an event like this by ignoring half of it?
It is probably ignored because although we can see the penthouse collapse, we can't tell how far it has collapsed.

There is no way of knowing.
Edx wrote:The 2.25 seconds was not because there was nothing underneath on those floors, it was because the internal collapses pulled in and downwards on the exterior of the building.
Sorry but even if the internal collapse pulled in and downwards on the exterior, it still can't do this at free fall speeds for the simple reason there will still be resistance.

You can't handwave this away I'm afraid as a cognitive reason to justify what can't be explained by your theory.
Edx wrote:If you find this difficult to imagine, maybe try and think of a car being tied to another car and pushing one off a cliff.
The problem with your analogy is that your 2 cars are not attached to anything.
Edx wrote:Except, you know, it didn't. Saying there was a small portion that was free fall doesn't mean you can legitimately say it "collapsed at free fall speeds".
Here you are arguing the semantics....It collapsed at NEAR FREE FALL SPEEDS and fell at FREE FALL for 2.5 seconds.

Which part of NEAR FREE FALL do you not understand?? And unless you think 7.2 is not NEAR 6.5 seconds, then I don't see your point.
Edx wrote:If I jump out an plane and parachute down I am not travelling at free fall speeds, but lets say my chute breaks near the ground and I break by legs and survive. It would be ridiculous, then, to say that I "jumped out a plane and hit the ground at free fall speeds", but this is exactly the kind of logic Gage and co. are using with WTC7.
If you hit the ground at free fall speeds, it is irrelevant what speed was you was before you hit the ground.
Edx wrote:I do hope you are not a Heiwa (Anders Bjorkman) fan, who thinks that a smaller upper block can never destroy the lower block of a building.
No, I'm not a fan seeing as I argued this point long before I heard of Anders.
Edx wrote:When you show him Verinage demolitions that don't use explosives, he insists that the lower part is destroyed so that it can allow the top to crush it, however he provides no evidence for this and even the patent states that it is safer than explosives as it doesn't require the pre weakening of the structure.
In the verinage video, you can clearly see that the initiation point is near the middle of the building almost a 50/50 split, maybe a 60/40 at the very most between the upper and lower portions. In the case of the WTC, it's more like a 90/10 split.

I've never seen the patent so I can't comment on about whether it doesn't require pre weakening but even if the patent does say that, evidently that is not true! As we can clearly see it as been pre-weakened at the points of initiation.
Image
See this is why you guys really don't have a point to argue.
Edx wrote:In addition to the above I should also point out that AE911 promoted Heiwa on their website as Petitioner of the Month and promoted his nutty "papers".
What nutty paper? You see you are talking in riddles here! But rather than point out the flaw in this nutty paper, you just claim it is nutty and therefore somehow that is true.
Edx wrote:Speaking of make believe physics, Gage seems to think that explosives can be both quiet and intense. Now I'd call that make believe physics as well. *See below.
Does he? Oh well, I'm guessing you are taking what he said out of context but not that I really give a shit because we all make mistakes in the things we say.
Edx wrote:What kind of demolition works that way?
A demolition that wouldn't leave any traces of wires.

Or a demolition that doesn't require their to hundred or thousands of meters of detonation cord.
Edx wrote:There's a reason why they don't do this, its because there's all kinds of interference.
Oh come on, this is a pathetic argument! lol Interference!! hahahahahahahahaha!!!

There are many ways that companies demolish buildings and just because Controlled Demo Inc don't use wireless technology, that doesn't mean that all companies use their method for demolition as shown in your verinage demolition video.

Besides that, the technology has been available for many years now.
HiEx Technologies Ltd wrote:HiEx Technologies Ltd. is a qualified firm with years of experience in the blasting and explosives industry. We provide quality products for blasting applications in mining, construction and logging. Our TeleBlaster telemetry blast initiation system was designed for blasters by blasters ; a wireless blast initiation system used to safely initiate commercial explosives blasts. We've worked hard to introduce and develop telemetric blast initiation in B.C. since 1999, proving radio remote initiation can be safe and extremely efficient.
http://hiex.bc.ca/

The radio system's signal is digitally encoded(addressed). The latest microprocessor and message encoding/validation technology has been combined to provide a safe, reliable, accurate and compact remote blast initiation device.
Image
http://hiex.bc.ca/products.html
I sure hope these devices don't suffer from interference otherwise this company could have a blank huge lawsuit on their hands and be breaching all kinds of health and safety laws.
Edx wrote:But then this is a stupid question since nano thermite is apparently a significant component in the truther theory, when no thermite has ever been used in a demolition and they seem to think that's reasonable...
So just because something as never been used for a specific job = it can't ever be used?? lol

Yeah, you logic is jumping through all kinds of pseudo nonsense!!
Edx wrote:Not all metal is steel, does it really have to be said?
Shit and here is me thinking that ALL METAL IS STEEL!! lol Thanks for correcting a point that I never made about all metal being steel. lol
Edx wrote:The descriptions used to prove molten steel by truthers can also be found in the same way for Building 6 where you can find people saying that molten metal was running down the walls for example. But I've never heard Gage say Building 6 was demolished, in fact on the contrary I've heard him use Building 6 as an argument that the other 3 had to be demolitions. Funny that.
You seem to know a lot about Gage and the things he has said and claims.

I do not know anyone who uses WTC 6 to show that molten metal was present at GZ. Maybe Gage does, or maybe you are taking a quote out of context, I do not know and more importantly, I do not give a shit because I certainly don't make this point.
Edx wrote:Its funny how truthers go on about explosion "witness'' and yet we have actual video of the collapses and we hear no explosive detonations, yet this is the exact point where people like Gage claim all this steel flinging and skyscraper pulverising is meant to be occurring.
Most of the footage of the collapses that are available do not contain much in the way of sound. Besides, there are numerous reason why the sound might not have been picked up like the over loading of the microphones from the sounds of the collapse itself.

And thermite might explain why there is a distinct lack of explosions.
Edx wrote:What truthers do have are quote-mines from people who used the word explosion who didn't mean explosive, realised later what it was they heard or in the rare case were just mistaken.
What a load of bollocks!! lol You actually believe there people who realised later what they heard?? Could you provide a quote....or is that quote mining?? lol

And if they were just mistaken as you claim, then please tell us what these explosions were.

And I''ll pre-empt your next point by agreeing that they could be other things, but if we do not know the source of the explosion, then we can't rule out it was explosive simply because we do not know what it was?

Although I await the proof of these people who didn't mean explosives or realised later it was they heard or were just mistaken.
Edx wrote:In real demolitions the explosives are timed and sequential, they don't go off randomly all over the place.
In real demolition, explosives aren't necessarily needed.

And although regular demolitions with explosives are timed and sequenced doesn't mean they can't be set off to go off randomly, all over the place because it will still collapse if rigged correctly.
Edx wrote:Truthers will use quotes from people that describe being thrown around by an explosion, and yet absolutely no one at all on 911 sustained any blast injuries whatsoever, so what kind of useless explosives work that way?
Doesn't that depend on the location of the person in relation to the explosion?? lol. Like if I'm 1 meter away, I'm probably a dead man, if I'm 10 meters I might survive with life threatening injuries and feel the blast, if I'm 20 metres away, then I might get thrown to the floor and sustain little injuries.

Just because nobody sustained any blast injuries doesn't mean there was no explosives, all it means is that nobody was near the explosives, if they were possibly planted.
Edx wrote:Truthers also use witness' of fire balls as evidence of bombs and yet fire is not a characteristic of a high explosive.
Do they? Oh well! I don't!
Edx wrote:Ignoring the fact that they all described it and the aftermath as smelling like jet fuel, a real high explosive destroys infrastructure by creating a shock wave, a human would be reduced to meat chunks before they are burnt by one.
Again, all speculative with out any critical thinking.
Edx wrote:As always truther's idea of explosives make absolutely no sense showing that they do not understand the basics of sound, explosives or thermite.
Again, another ridiculous claim. It may not make any sense to you and you might think they do not understand the basics of sound, explosives or thermite but you have yet to show what they don't understand other than giving me your opinions.
Edx wrote:Except a lot of the steel was studied, even by independent researchers while it was still in the landfill.
Sorry but I know the word "a lot" is subjective but is 2% in the case of WTC 1 & 2 and none from the WTC 7 actually constitute as "a lot"? lol

Yeah I suppose it was "a lot" of steel but in relation to the towers and considering that only a few beams were kept from the floors of imitation, I don't think it was "a lot" when you consider that fire chiefs told congress that 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.

According to Appendix D of the FEMA report, their team were not given access to Ground Zero and not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards.
Edx wrote:Sure there were a few legitimate researchers that said they should have been more careful about keeping more of it something I'd probably agree with but truther's claim is that it was all shipped off and destroyed before anyone could look at it.
Well 80% of it was apparently! So the twoofers are 80% right and you are 80% wrong then? lol
Edx wrote:Presumably this is because they think that there was evidence all over that steel of explosives and if they had just looked at it it would have been obvious.
I hope you are not thinking that even if they looked at it, it wouldn't be obvious so therefore pointless?
Because if that is the case, then on one hand we have debunkers claiming that it would be obvious of evidence of explosive at the WTC and that is why the NIST never looked for it and and on the other claiming that even if they looked at the streel it close up, it wouldn't be obvious anyway rendering it pointless. lol
Edx wrote:I've also heard the bizarrely contradictive argument that they went over all the debris with a fine tooth comb as a reason why they should have found the black boxes. Jesse Ventura in his Conspiracy Theory TV show on 911 is a great example of truther's doing this, arguing two mutually exclusive arguments.
Well I don't watch Jesse Ventura and his theory TV program but I see more contradictory arguments from people who claim to be debunkers but are guilty of employing every trick in the psuedoskeptics book. But that's just my 2 pence worth.
Edx wrote:Well you know, as a former truther, that argument would have made sense to me.
And why doesn't that make sense to you know? Why does it matter if you are a truther or debunker?
Edx wrote:However then I would have realised that no truther anywhere has ever shown that thermite can have this affect on steel beams in this way.
Thermite is more than capable of weakening, cutting and melting steel. It's been used this way for years!
Edx wrote:All experiments with thermite have done nothing to the steel, as for nano thermite, Jesse Ventura had an experiment done by Van Romero with nano thermite. Sure it burned brighter and more vigorously(... than... nothing) but curiously Ventura omits the conclusion of the experimentwhich was that the nano thermite didn't destroy the steel.
I haven't watched it but just because they couldn't suss out the method for how it could be done doesn't mean it can't be done. Are all thermites and nanothermites the same?? Surely you have never thought it could be mixed with other stuff that could possibly affect the way it is utilised or how it was achieved, if at all.

Cause i'm sure I read that thermite can be used this way to yield many different results.
Edx wrote:This is especially funny that Ventura thought he could do that since right before he showed this experiment Steven Jones just got done telling us that nano thermite turns into a "high explosive" when painted onto a steel beam and of course nothing exploded so I think its safe to say Jones just made it up to sound exciting, I think we can assume that he didn't realise Ventura was going to unintentionally debunk him.
I'll have to watch it when I have more time.
Edx wrote:Its contradictory because Richard Gage says things like this:

Well the 1st thing in this video is some voice saying demo experts wouldn't use thermite to cut a beam, you would use shape charges. And Gage explains that this would give away the game.

Then the video says....Later on! Gage says that is why the explosives were intense to hurl steel beams and say he doesn't think it was a traditional demolition.

So what the author of this tripe is doing is cherry picking quotes, or quote mining as you put it. Gage obviously believes there were explosions as do many people who were at GZ (However, I'll await your evidence they were all mistaken or realised what they heard etc etc.) and he believes that thermite was used too in other words, it would also be cutting beams silently and that somehow concludes that Gage doesn't know anything about sound or explosives?? lol

This is nothing more than pure desperation of people who are to scared to look at the possibility of a demolition.
Edx wrote:How would that work?
Well you put thermite on some columns to either cut or heat weaken them and then you put explosives on others to cut the beams.
Edx wrote:If explosives were used to fling steel around or "pulverise" the building then nano thermite does not help one bit.
It helps in that it might make it look like less of a demolition and help the buildings demise.
Edx wrote:If you want to explain the absence of explosive detonations you're going to have to drop this all talk of characteristics of explosive demolition.
Why exactly?? Because in your head, you can't grasp the concept possibility that both shape charges or thermite or any other explosive device could have been used?
Edx wrote:I think you just fell in your own trap...
Not at all! lol But if you want to believe otherwise, do go ahead. lol
Edx wrote:Truthers are the ones that need to come up with some numbers, but they cant even show they understand how explosives WORK let alone anything more complicated.
The only people who should be coming up with numbers to explain how the building collapsed are the people in charge of investigating it. FEMA gave us Pancakes with no numbers, NIST told us it was a progressive collapse with no numbers.

So to sit there and declare that truthers should have to come up with numbers shows us more of the double standards you employ. lol
Edx wrote:The thing is...

So if that is the case, then all that is needed is some explosive devices to cut those same damaged columns that he believes the plane did and add thermite to heat weaken the same areas the jet fuel did and it should still collapse. Therefore it shouldn't requires hundreds of tons, planted all over the place, up and down the building etc etc.


...that begs the question of why that is not the truther position?
Because if you ask individuals who you declare are truthers for their opinions or thoughts on the subject, they do not all have the same position.

You do know that some truthers think it was space beams. lol

Also this highlights again the lack of thinking, truthers don't adopt this position because they probably do not believe that if you planted explosives on all the beams that you say were damaged by the planes and fires at the point of initiation that it would collapse.

The point of this is to highlight an absurd position by people who claim that a demolition is not possible because it would require lots of explosives all over the place, yet none are needed all over the place in your plane and fire damage theory. So technically speaking, truthers could argue that 1 or thousands were needed and you would be wrong to differ because in your reality, it requires less than 1! lol
Edx wrote:I do agree... it would be a lot more sensible, still stupid, but a lot more sensible.
Still stupid?? lol How so?? In your theory no explosives were needed but if the perp added explosives, that would be stupid?? lol Not even as a fail safe to ensure it would collapse?? lol

Considering that the buildings were design to withstand impacts from the largest plane at the time, it would be a silly idea to add explosive, just in case?? lol
Edx wrote::ugeek:

........ you're the ones who say it had to be explosives because you believe the building can't collapse the way it did without them, built to withstand the redistributed weight of the top block, that explosives were everywhere going off randomly at all levels including the sub basements and that steel was being flung around and the whole building was being pulverised by them.

So apparently here you want to argue against yourselves... :|
No, it's you, you just misunderstand the argument.

You see, I'm not the one in the truther twap, I was just the bait set to entice you! And you fell in!! lol Even after I mention it was a twap. lol

The building couldn't have collapse without explosives, but your position is that it could, so even if the position of truther is only one explosive was needed, then how is he wrong when you agree that none were EVER needed?? :lol:
Edx wrote:
That would be contradictory. I would also ask why he thinks demolition companies rig buildings from top to floor traditionally when they could use the NWO way (pardon the pun!) of demolishing buildings. Just damage a small area, set fire and bingo! lol


Hmm, yes thats a difficult one.
It is a difficult one, this is why those who you call truthers don't understand how you can adopt a position such as yours and suggest that this was enough when even traditional demolitions requires explosives all over the places to weaken the structure.
Edx wrote:I would say its because they don't want to rain down massive destruction in a wide radius killing people and destroying other peoples buildings but hey, I'm just guessing!
So setting fire in a building in order to aid in it's collapse would rain down massive destruction in a wide radius killing people?? But explosives wouldn't?? lol I supposes it is a guess but not a very good one.

And you are partially right, they sometimes don't demolish them because of destroying other people buildings, but what if there are no buildings within the vicinity. Do you know why they probably wouldn't damage less than 5% of the buildings floors and set fire to it??

My guess is that is because it probably wouldn't work.
Edx wrote:As I said to Dave on the JREF, he shouldnt really make a big deal out of no planers as even Alex Jones thinks they're nuts. But if he wants to bring it up he should make the point that Gage's group promotes Heiwa and his work, who is a no planer.
What he should concentrate on is not what Alex Jones thinks of no planers or whether Gages group promote Heiwa work or that he is a no planer either.

What he should concentrate on his the argument they are making, unless the comments are about whether a plane hit the WTC or not.
Edx wrote:Other truthers like Jim Hoffman call no plane at the Pentagon claims "hoax'"s and "disinformation".
You see, those who you call truthers have lots of different theories and ideas on what happened.
Edx wrote:You know, something thats so wrong its actually intentional and probably the government, so I really feel no need to defend the OneFlewOverThePentagon variety of no planers.
Well good for you, although maybe you should concentrate on the arguments, not whether they are no planers or not.
Edx wrote:I think the firefighter will be very good if he points out that if someone thinks that WTC7 only had minor fires, minor damage and no one would think it would collapse then they are calling the firefighters of the FDNY liars and covering up for mass murder for nearly 10 years.
And I'm guessing Dave would have employed this very same tactic of exaggerate and smear. lol

Some firefighters thought it was going to collapse, most were told it was going to collapse. So even if Gage disagrees with the people who thought that it was going to collapse, then he is not calling the FDNY liars, couldn't they be mistaken?? You know like the people who you claim DIDN'T hear explosions?? lol

Lets assume for a moment that Gage as called a firefighter a liar, doesn't that mean he thinks all firefighters at FDNY are liars?

In other words, if a politician lies, does that mean all politicians are liars?? Don't answer that one!! lol

Even if he calls a firefighter of FDNY a liars which I have never heard him say but hey, you know more about him than I do, then what you are doing is conflating the issue because Gage think a firefighters might be lying, then he MUST think the whole of the FDNY is too. That's just blank plain ridiculous and highlights when you have no point, you create a point he has never made, slap it on him like that is what he is saying, then make him out to be evil for daring to suggest that a firefighter or some firefighters might have been lying, yet alone mistaken and are covering up mass murder!

Has Richard Gage ever been quoted as saying something along the lines that Firefighters have been covering up mass murder for 10 years?? Or shall I put this in the bin along with most of your points.
Edx wrote:But no truther likes to deal with this.
[/quote]Probably because the only truthers you have debated with don't believe that all of the FDNY are in on it as you would like to project.

The post is way to long, so if you want to discuss some of the subjects surrounding 9/11, then please feel free to open a thread and I might participate. However please don't go around thinking you have debunked something when all you have done is shown the lurkers how counterfeit debunking is done.

Thanks

Stundie :)
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 » 13 Jul 2010, 07:46

Scepcop wrote:One new stunning argument I read in Stundie's refutation of Dave Thomas' 6 points, which I hadn't thought of before, is this:

If a few office fires burning for a few hours can bring down a whole steel skyscraper and pulverize it, why would control demolition companies need to spend MONTHS setting up rigged explosives around the core columns, when they could accomplish their task by burning jet fuel (ala WTC1+2) or gas (ala WTC7) for just a few hours? In other words, why spend months doing what you can accomplish in a few hours, which even a teenager could do? It doesn't make sense! The demolition companies would be out of business if that was true!

Likewise:

If the failure of a single column can cause a 47 story building to implode and land mostly in it's own footprint, as NIST claims, then why do demolition companies rig and blow all the columns to accomplish the same thing?

See below :)

Image
Hilarious picture! lol

I remember stating this over at the SLC forum many years ago to the psuedo skeptics that they should start there own demolition company and call it "The Matchbox Demolition Company". All this time pre-weakening, preparing, wiring, placing of shape charges and all you need is some jet fuel, a match and about an hour!! lol

Excellent find!! 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 » 13 Jul 2010, 08:01

Edx wrote:If by stunning you mean stunningly stupid, then I agree.
No, I think he means that there is potential business model for you to make some serious wonga!! Maybe you should charge more than the $50 though. loI replied to his whole post, did you miss it or just don't care?
Edx wrote:Because they dont want to destroy massive amounts of private properly and kill many people on the streets below?
So when the Windsor Towers were on fire and partially collapsed, did that destroy massive amounts of private property and kill many people on the streets below??
Edx wrote:I have a funny feeling that demolition companies want their collapses to be "controlled", or they would be out of business and in jail for all the destruction they caused.
But with Two Men and a Match, there are no explosions, just create a collapse zone further than the building is tall and bingo!!
Edx wrote:You don't need explosives to demolish a building, which is why Verinage works. Will you ever reply to that?
Ponders if twoofers should use the verinage techniques as opposed to thermite?? lol

I am just taking the piss of course! lol
Edx wrote:Except it wasn't just a single column, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you? I wish you would at least try to show that you WANT to understand.
So if it wasn't a single column, then how many was it that NIST said rather than just complaining that we do not want to understand when you have given us nothing to understand.
Edx wrote:Here's another reason why what you say is stupid. I can just as easily say that when they demolish a house they dont really need to tare it down with cables or machines they should just set it on fire. Well, maybe setting it on fire is not the best method of destroying a house even though, yes, that would do it.
Well houses aren't made of steel but I see your point but maybe you should use a wooden shed instead of a house in your examplet as it would have more of an effect. 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 Edx » 13 Jul 2010, 11:59

stundie wrote:Some truthers may say this but you are generalising as I know plenty of people who you would call truthers who have never said the WTC 1 or 2 it fell in free fall, although that is strictly not true when it comes to WTC7.


Most truthers however quote films like 911 Mysteries which did in fact claim that WTC1 and 2 fell in free fall in about 9 seconds.

And lets just roll with your arguement here, if truthers said free fall and then changed their argument to near free fall, then that shows they are capable of updating their thinking when presented with evidence that shows them they are wrong.


They dont admit they are wrong they just move the goal posts, that is hardly a redeemable quality. The lack of accountability and self correction in 911 Truth is what, ultimately, made me realise just how ridiculous it was.

Well "near" is subjective so you might think 13 seconds is not near, where as I might. You can't argue over the term "near" for that reason it is subjective and although fake debunkers love semantics, I can tell you what I think is near but to you, it might be miles away. s


Its important to you guys what "near" means because to you the collapse time is of critical importance (or so we would gather from truther's arguments). Therefore "near" must be defined in specific terms.

Also how much is too fast, imagine if I'm a 10 stone man and I can run 100 meters in 10 seconds (I can't so don't ask for proof! lol) but someone other people who are 11, 12, 13 stone and so on are standing 10 metres apart to try and stop me from running my 100 metre in 10 seconds all the way down the track and I ran it again. Would 16 seconds seems achievable? That would mean on average, each person who are progressively larger than me stopped me for 0.6 second?


Lets actually look at some actual real world examples, shall we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

Now, how do you relate those to your analogy? They come down very fast, and yet there appears to be rather a lot of floors for the top section to crush. In the last example its the most extreme ratio between top and bottom block.

Edx wrote:Truther's can't tell you, they just KNOW it was "too fast" but can't tell you why.
I can tell you why, because the building shouldn't have completely collapsed.


:lol: yes that is exactly the excuse truthers use. When you show them it wasnt free fall they say "near free fall", then you ask them for a specific figure on how fast it should have fallen and eventually they will say that at any collapse time would have been too much.

I've seen the arguments over the years and I've not heard a convincing argument yet to explain how the upper portions manage to destroy the lower portions.


How does verinage work? Seems to destroy, pun intended, almost all of Richard Gage's "indicators of explosive demolition", for example.

But let assume that it would collapse, I still think there simply wasn't enough resistance.


Personal incredulity noted.

And where did I argue that the entire building (WTC 1 or 2) fell at free fall??

Oh that's right!! I didn't!! lol

You made up this strawman, to make it sound like you have a point, when you didn't!! lol


No I didnt you tried to imply that NIST's comment about 9 and 11 seconds for the exterior panels had some kind of relationship to the complete collapse time, when there's no reason for you to even mention it in this context.

Edx wrote:NIST did say at one point "near free fall" as well, however when they say "near" its simply because 15 and 21 seconds aren't that far apart from 9 and 11 seconds.
So if the NIST use it, truthers can't?? lol

Do you realise how pathetic your point is? If you complain that a truther uses the term "near free fall" then you should also complain when the NIST uses it.


That's right, a truther cant use that NIST quote to prove anything about the collapse time of the towers when the measurments are involving pieces of the towers that were in free fall. :roll:

I guess your brilliant retourts are why you have such a wonderful reputation over at the JREF

Edx wrote:The point being that when truthers say it its because they seem to think that the collapse times are very important to show that explosives were pushing material out of the way, so any mention of free fall is very important to them, rather than just a throw away comment someone else might use.
Again, more projections and generalisations about what you think truthers think is important.


Uh, no its not projection.

Why else would the speed of the collapse be important? You yourself said the top section shouldnt ever be able to destroy the bottom. So if it wasn't explosives or gravity that caused the collapse, then what ARE you suggesting did it? If its not what I said truthers think, then it must be undoubtedly be something even more insane.

So if I reject the term near free fall, but I still think it fell to fast, how am I moving goal posts?? .


Very simple...

You cant say the collapse was too fast then when asked for specifics say that ANY TIME would be too fast for you. In other words the collapse time itself is actually completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if any of it was free fall, any collapse at all no matter how slow is still too fast for you, but most truthers like to pretend it is otherwise unless pressed for this admission.

Whatever was pulling it internally would be falling at free fall speeds in order for it to pull the exterior at free fall speeds.


Please think before you type. While we can obviously see evidence of it on its exterior, the Internal collapses aren't visible. If they are pulling in and down then you only visibly see the result on what it is pulling.

Edx wrote:Then one of their own David Chandler has calculated there was 2.25 seconds of free fall in the entire collapse and yet he somehow tries to spin this as some kind of dishonesty by NIST?
Well the NIST were asking for comments on the draft report but they neglected to mention this so Chandler contacted them and pointed out to them.


And they included it, and thats dishonest apparently.

Edx wrote:How about admit the fact that for years AE911 were saying the entire collapse took 6.5 seconds in free fall?
I'm not a member of AE911, so I can't speak for them nor could I tell you exactly what they claim or have previously claimed.


Im talking about Chandler.

Edx wrote:No they wouldn't want to do that they might look bad, so they had to try and pretend they were right all along.
Why would they pretend they were right all along about something which they were never right about?? :shock: .

They were never right, cant argue with that.

And if something is falling at free fall speeds for whatever amount of time, for that time, the materials have been removed that would provide resistance?? Would you not agree?


I disagree with the premise. Again, imagine a car being tied to another car and that car being pushed off a cliff. What happens to that second car? It accelerates at a far greator speed initially than free fall before leveling out.

Edx wrote:So about this 2.25 seconds then, the reasons Gage's troupe have such a hard time here is that they ignore the internal collapses.
Even with the internal collapses, the building still fell at free fall speeds.


So if you run a marathon but walk 99% of the way there and sprint at 15mph for the last 1% of it... did you really run a marathon at 15 mph, or would that be a misrepresention if you described it that way to people?

It is probably ignored because although we can see the penthouse collapse, we can't tell how far it has collapsed..


Thanks for admitting they ignore it. So apparently you think a large portion of the building falliing into itself is insignificant. But hey it doesnt matter what you think, this is the attitude that explains why you have zero mainstream scientific support.


...
Edx wrote:If you find this difficult to imagine, maybe try and think of a car being tied to another car and pushing one off a cliff.
The problem with your analogy is that your 2 cars are not attached to anything...


What on earth are you talking about?

Edx wrote:Except, you know, it didn't. Saying there was a small portion that was free fall doesn't mean you can legitimately say it "collapsed at free fall speeds".
Here you are arguing the semantics....It collapsed at NEAR FREE FALL SPEEDS and fell at FREE FALL for 2.5 seconds.


Verinage collapses also fall at "near free fall" speeds, no explosives or thermite required. Do those buildings not provide any resistance either?

And unless you think 7.2 is not NEAR 6.5 seconds, then I don't see your point.


The entire collapse of 7 was about 18 seconds, 13.5 seconds from what you can see on the videos of the internal collapses and the fact that in videos there is a significant amount of building you don't see.

Edx wrote:If I jump out an plane and parachute down I am not travelling at free fall speeds, but lets say my chute breaks near the ground and I break by legs and survive. It would be ridiculous, then, to say that I "jumped out a plane and hit the ground at free fall speeds", but this is exactly the kind of logic Gage and co. are using with WTC7.
If you hit the ground at free fall speeds, it is irrelevant what speed was you was before you hit the ground.


UH, yes it is. If you were to tell someone this story it would be much less impressive if you left out the fact that I only fell in free fall for a couple of seconds, rather than the entire time from jumping out of the plane.

Edx wrote:I do hope you are not a Heiwa (Anders Bjorkman) fan, who thinks that a smaller upper block can never destroy the lower block of a building.
No, I'm not a fan seeing as I argued this point long before I heard of Anders.


So you're just as nutty as him then, good to know..

Edx wrote:When you show him Verinage demolitions that don't use explosives, he insists that the lower part is destroyed so that it can allow the top to crush it, however he provides no evidence for this and even the patent states that it is safer than explosives as it doesn't require the pre weakening of the structure.
In the verinage video, you can clearly see that the initiation point is near the middle of the building almost a 50/50 split, maybe a 60/40 at the very most between the upper and lower portions. In the case of the WTC, it's more like a 90/10 split.


Wrong, check out that video again and you can see the last building especially is not at all near 50/50. Why would the WTC case make any difference? The floor system wasn't built to hold any loads.

I've never seen the patent


The patent says:

"Par ailleurs, ce procédé est également sans danger pour les opérateurs étant donné qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de fragiliser la structure de l'immeuble."


Put that into Google Translate and you get:
Moreover, this method is also safe for operators because it is not necessary to weaken the structure of the building.


The entire destructive force is in the upper block.

so I can't comment on about whether it doesn't require pre weakening but even if the patent does say that, evidently that is not true! As we can clearly see it as been pre-weakened at the points of initiation.


So you imagine that what is described in the patent is self contradictory. After all, they can't say they don't weaken the structure if they do in fact have to weaken it in order to set it up.

In fact they DON'T preweaken anything. They fix hydraulic jacks to load bearing walls and destroy them in a specific direction which forces them to fall asymetrcially onto the floor below it which isn't designed to hold a load.

You would do well to read it yourself I also suggest google translate if you want to check the French.

Here's a quote:

"A method for the demolition of a building comprising
several storeys and formed from an assembly of
substantially mutually parallel load-bearing walls,
generally called shear walls, and an assembly of
flags delimiting the storeys, the flags being substantially
mutually parallel and substantially perpendicular
to the said load-bearing walls, this method consisting
of demolishing the building from the top
downwards by collapsing in the manner of a house
of cards and comprising the following steps:

• a series of deflection sheaves (5) is positioned,
at a defined storey of the building, on two parallel
load-bearing walls (2) respectively by
means of an anchoring device (6), these
sheaves being disposed in zigzag fashion substantially
at regular intervals, over at least one
part of the length of these walls,

• a reeving cable (7) is disposed between these
sheaves, one (7a) of the ends of the cable being
fixed securely to one of the load-bearing walls
(2), the cable (7) passing from a sheave (5) of
one wall to a sheave of the other wall in a zigzag
and the other end (7b) of the cable being securely fixed to a traction winch (8), the reeving
cable thus being divided into the same number
of strands (7c) as there are deflection sheaves,
and

• the rotation of the said winch (8), designed to
pull on the reeving cable (7) is remote-controlled,
passing this tractive force on to the strands
(7c) and deflection sheaves (5) so as to demolish
the two load-bearing walls (2) in a defined
direction (F) causing the collapse of the flags
(3) and of the walls (2) of the upper storeys onto
those of the lower storeys, which collapse on
themselves under the effect of the weight of the
upper storeys
.



Edx wrote:In addition to the above I should also point out that AE911 promoted Heiwa on their website as Petitioner of the Month and promoted his nutty "papers".
What nutty paper? You see you are talking in riddles here! But rather than point out the flaw in this nutty paper, you just claim it is nutty and therefore somehow that is true.


No point posting it now, you agree with him, you're just as nutty. Apparently you dont care that he is a no planer and Gage promotes him.

Edx wrote:Speaking of make believe physics, Gage seems to think that explosives can be both quiet and intense. Now I'd call that make believe physics as well. *See below.
Does he? Oh well, I'm guessing you are taking what he said out of context but not that I really give a shit because we all make mistakes in the things we say.


No no, not at all. That's his main argument. In fact you even made the same argument! We'll see what you say to that later on

There are many ways that companies demolish buildings and just because Controlled Demo Inc don't use wireless technology


Ok well let me know when you can find me a demolition of a commercial structure that does not use any wires at all.


Besides that, the technology has been available for many years now.
HiEx Technologies Ltd wrote:HiEx Technologies Ltd. is a qualified firm with years of experience in the blasting and explosives industry. We provide quality products for blasting applications in mining, construction and logging. Our TeleBlaster telemetry blast initiation system was designed for blasters by blasters ; a wireless blast initiation system used to safely initiate commercial explosives blasts. We've worked hard to introduce and develop telemetric blast initiation in B.C. since 1999, proving radio remote initiation can be safe and extremely efficient.
http://hiex.bc.ca/

The radio system's signal is digitally encoded(addressed). The latest microprocessor and message encoding/validation technology has been combined to provide a safe, reliable, accurate and compact remote blast initiation device.
Image
http://hiex.bc.ca/products.html
I sure hope these devices don't suffer from interference otherwise this company could have a blank huge lawsuit on their hands and be breaching all kinds of health and safety laws.


Please do point out that it can be used for commercial demolitions, doesn't mention it even once. It does say "mining, construction and logging." but not demolition. Hey, maybe you could email them and, as they are experts in wireless detonators, ask them if such devices could be used in commercial demolitions especially in buildings like large skycrapers and if there would be any problems associated with it over conventional methods (wires). Maybe you could email any demolition companies and ask why or why not they would or wouldn't use wireless technology like this? I bet you wont, or you wont get an answer you like.

The real issue is that there were no remains whatsover of any explosives. Even AE911 hasn't claimed to have found any, they just call thermite "explosive residue", when they didnt find that either.


Edx wrote:But then this is a stupid question since nano thermite is apparently a significant component in the truther theory, when no thermite has ever been used in a demolition and they seem to think that's reasonable...
So just because something as never been used for a specific job = it can't ever be used?? lol


Its not used for a reason, it doesn't work. Its much easier to just use normal methods rather than the ridiculous ideas came up by AE911, such as the painted on highly explosive thermite paint (LOL), D.Chandlers thermite rockets, or that it only acted as "matches" for conventional explosives like C4.

[
Edx wrote:Not all metal is steel, does it really have to be said?
Shit and here is me thinking that ALL METAL IS STEEL!! lol Thanks for correcting a point that I never made about all metal being steel. lol


Oh good, because for a second there I though you said that because there was molten metal at ground zero that it meant there had to be molten steel.

You seem to know a lot about Gage and the things he has said and claims.

I do not know anyone who uses WTC 6 to show that molten metal was present at GZ. Maybe Gage does, or maybe you are taking a quote out of context, I do not know and more importantly, I do not give a shit because I certainly don't make this point.


You were the one that started talking about molten metal, I'm saying that there is the same evidence that there is molten metal at WTC6 as well. So do you also believe WTC6 to be a demolition? Come on be consistent.

Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. (Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Design and Construction)
(source)


RICH GARLOCK: Going below, it was smoky and really hot. We had rescue teams with meters for oxygen and carbon dioxide. They also had temperature monitors. Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.
(source)



Most of the footage of the collapses that are available do not contain much in the way of sound. Besides, there are numerous reason why the sound might not have been picked up like the over loading of the microphones from the sounds of the collapse itself.


Wow, what a terrible excuse...

We have cameras practically right underneath the towers and it picks up no detonations, in fact we have cameras all over the place and none pick up explosives. Gage even claims more explosives than typical demolition were used in the towers and you're saying that not one of the cameras was able to pick up any of these HUGE steel flinging, pulverising, detonations Gage talks about? Here's a video which contains a few different close up angles of the collapses, why werent they picked up? Normal demolitions can easily be heard on cameras, yet this one couldn't? Oh wait... you do have an answer...

And thermite might explain why there is a distinct lack of explosions.


See...you too believe in quiet intense explosives. You are just as ignorant of how explosives and sound work as Gage.

Edx wrote:What truthers do have are quote-mines from people who used the word explosion who didn't mean explosive, realised later what it was they heard or in the rare case were just mistaken.
What a load of bollocks!! lol You actually believe there people who realised later what they heard?? Could you provide a quote....or is that quote mining?? lol


I dont need to "believe" anything, this is what happens if you actually look up the context of these "explosion" quotes.

Here's a typical example truthers will quote:

“Chief Albert Turi told me that he was here after the events that took place this morning. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place ... and then an hour after, there was another explosion in one of the towers here. So, according to his theory, he thinks there were actually devices that were planted in the building.” - Pat Dawson NBC


So lets see what Chief Turi actually thought...

“The next thing I heard was Pete say what the blank is this? And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the building, I realized that this building was collapsing and I turned around and most everybody was ahead of me running for the garage, and I remember thinking I looked at this thing a little bit too long and I might not make this garage. But I did.”


Here's another firefightersaying he heard an explosion but realised later it was the South Tower collapsing...

“But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean, So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse." - Captain Jay Swithers


Here's another one truther's like to use:

"Louie Cacchioli, was one of the first firefighters to enter the South Tower as it burned. A 20-year veteran of the fire department, Cacchioli told People Weekly: 3
I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.
"

Is that what Louis really thought? Apparently not.

“Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated. “
- Arctic Beacon


Here's another quote from Hersley Lever who in his interview actually said he heard a bomb! But then right afterwards said "probably a transformer that blew up".

“I heard a bomb. ...so I said, probably a transformer that blew up. “
- Hursley Lever



When the B25 collided with the Empire State Building, was there gun fire just because someone said this?

"As the elevator doors closed, rescue workers heard what sounded like a gunshot but what was, in fact, the snapping of elevator cables weakened by the crash."


And if they were just mistaken as you claim, then please tell us what these explosions were.


See above for some examples.

It could be many things, explosions are common in large building fires. Even backdraft is loud. People have a tendency to call any loud sound an explosion and they tend to use hyperbole. That's why a snapping elevator cable can turn into sounding like gun fire (see above). How do you differentiate between an explosion and an explosive? Well an explosive has specific characteristics that these didn't have, but truthers make absolutely no attempt to differentiate any of them. If someone said the word explosion or bomb, that's good enough. Screw context, or if it makes any kind of sense.

This is a video of an accident where a crane collapsed. Notice the loud boomy sounds before it collapses. Well witness' described the collapses as bombs, does that mean there were bombs?



“Gary Craig lives near the main entrance of County Stadium, the Brewers' current home. "It was like two bombs going off. It was like two explosions," Craig said. "

http://web.archive.org/web/200608190936 ... /0715.html

And I''ll pre-empt your next point by agreeing that they could be other things, but if we do not know the source of the explosion, then we can't rule out it was explosive simply because we do not know what it was?


I do like it when you preemptively try and move the goal posts. Since you are claiming it was specifically an explosive that they experienced, then it is you that needs to provide a good reason for that that makes logical sense.

Edx wrote:In real demolitions the explosives are timed and sequential, they don't go off randomly all over the place.
In real demolition, explosives aren't necessarily needed.


Wow... I now know why the JREF have a "stundie award" for when someone says something really really stupid.

I could say so much about this comment ...but this aught to suffice...

If you think explosives aren't necessarily needed to demolish a building, then why are you so adamant that the WTC could only have collapsed with explosives?!!

And although regular demolitions with explosives are timed and sequenced doesn't mean they can't be set off to go off randomly, all over the place because it will still collapse if rigged correctly.


Except all this steel flinging and concrete pulverising is meant to be happening when the building is collapsing, not before while these firefighters are inside trying to get people out.

Edx wrote:Truthers will use quotes from people that describe being thrown around by an explosion, and yet absolutely no one at all on 911 sustained any blast injuries whatsoever, so what kind of useless explosives work that way?
Doesn't that depend on the location of the person in relation to the explosion?? lol. Like if I'm 1 meter away, I'm probably a dead man, if I'm 10 meters I might survive with life threatening injuries and feel the blast, if I'm 20 metres away, then I might get thrown to the floor and sustain little injuries.


If you are a thrown to the ground by an explosive you will have blast injuries, such as a ruptured ear drum. These explosives are meant to be destroying critical steel load bearing columns, presumably not just lightly throwing people across the room while sweetly kissing their ear drums and sometimes setting them on fire and melting all their skin off. The 1993 bombing had 100 tons of TNT equivilent and didnt even destroy a single core column.

See, these are such fudamental issues and its why truthers look so stupid arguing against them. They just dont understand explosives or sound. You can rely on annacdotes all you like but you cant get past this. This is the meat of the issue of why truther explosive demolition claims are complete nonsense.

Just because nobody sustained any blast injuries doesn't mean there was no explosives, all it means is that nobody was near the explosives, if they were possibly planted.


If no one sustained any blast injurioes then why do they always refer to people being thrown around by them? Dont they try and claim Barry Jennings was thrown around by one, 7 hours before the collapse of Building 7? How did Jennings still have his hearing after this, may I ask?

Look....

Just a flashbang can tear ear drums, an actual grenade will deifnitely rupure them, but you're refering to high explosives that are so powerfull they can destroy heavy steel and that these explosives were going off randomly all over the place before the towers collapsed and yet no one anywhere on 911 sustained any blast injuries whatsoever?

I would love it if Gage argued this point in the debate because it would be great to see him make himself look so ridiculous

Edx wrote:Ignoring the fact that they all described it and the aftermath as smelling like jet fuel, a real high explosive destroys infrastructure by creating a shock wave, a human would be reduced to meat chunks before they are burnt by one.
Again, all speculative with out any critical thinking.


LOL, no... not "speculation". Explosives are well understood and that is how explosives work. :lol:

Edx wrote:As always truther's idea of explosives make absolutely no sense showing that they do not understand the basics of sound, explosives or thermite.
Again, another ridiculous claim. It may not make any sense to you and you might think they do not understand the basics of sound, explosives or thermite but you have yet to show what they don't understand other than giving me your opinions.


I cant wait to get to the part of your post where demonstrate it quite nicely, even more nicely than you alread have...

According to Appendix D of the FEMA report, their team were not given access to Ground Zero and not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards.


Quote please.


Edx wrote:Sure there were a few legitimate researchers that said they should have been more careful about keeping more of it something I'd probably agree with but truther's claim is that it was all shipped off and destroyed before anyone could look at it.
Well 80% of it was apparently! So the twoofers are 80% right and you are 80% wrong then? lol


You really have no idea what misrepresention is, its funny.

They did look at the steel, they chose pieces that looked interesting for further study. That is not the same as saying they shipped it out and destroyed it before anyone could take a look.

Edx wrote:However then I would have realised that no truther anywhere has ever shown that thermite can have this affect on steel beams in this way.
Thermite is more than capable of weakening, cutting and melting steel. It's been used this way for years!


Well then please prove it, truthers cant prove it can cut steel beams like they say it can. Its been nearly a decade.

Edx wrote:All experiments with thermite have done nothing to the steel, as for nano thermite, Jesse Ventura had an experiment done by Van Romero with nano thermite. Sure it burned brighter and more vigorously(... than... nothing) but curiously Ventura omits the conclusion of the experimentwhich was that the nano thermite didn't destroy the steel.
I haven't watched it


Of course not you didn't watch it...

But you still feel like you can give your opinion on it anyway...:roll:

but just because they couldn't suss out the method for how it could be done doesn't mean it can't be done. Are all thermites and nanothermites the same?? Surely you have never thought it could be mixed with other stuff that could possibly affect the way it is utilised or how it was achieved, if at all.


If you had watched it and paid attention to what I said you would know that the Van Romero test WAS with nano thermite. Nano thermite doesnt explode when painted on like Jones claimed and it also didnt do anything to the steel like Ventura tried to make out it did.

I'd would ask you to come up with a sensible way it could have been used, but then you already have showed me you dont understand how explosives and sound works so that's probably pointless.

Cause i'm sure I read that thermite can be used this way to yield many different results.


I'm afraid your admitedly firm conviction isn't good enough.

Edx wrote:This is especially funny that Ventura thought he could do that since right before he showed this experiment Steven Jones just got done telling us that nano thermite turns into a "high explosive" when painted onto a steel beam and of course nothing exploded so I think its safe to say Jones just made it up to sound exciting, I think we can assume that he didn't realise Ventura was going to unintentionally debunk him.
I'll have to watch it when I have more time.


I'm specifically saying that Steven Jones said something monumentally stupid, that another truther then proved him wrong and didn't notice and that it also showed that nano thermite isn't going to do anything to steel when painted on or dumped onto it and you can't take the time to watch it? Hopefully Dave will remember to bring this up in the debate, because it was him that contacted Van to get the footage.

Well the 1st thing in this video is some voice saying demo experts wouldn't use thermite to cut a beam, you would use shape charges. And Gage explains that this would give away the game.

Then the video says....Later on! Gage says that is why the explosives were intense to hurl steel beams and say he doesn't think it was a traditional demolition.

So what the author of this tripe is doing is cherry picking quotes, or quote mining as you put it.


Nope, I listened to the whole debate since I made the video you just watched and was very carefull to make sure it was all in context as I was so amazed Gage was saying what he was saying. I even gave a link to the debate and also provided background information in the description which you also were probably too lazy to check.

I dont really understand why you kneejerk to saying that its a quote-mine, Gage here is saying the same thing you're saying. I do wonder what you think I was trying to get across if you're claimimg I'm making him sound like he is saying something he isn't. Anywayhoo, lets see what your excuses are...

Gage obviously believes there were explosions as do many people who were at GZ (However, I'll await your evidence they were all mistaken or realised what they heard etc etc.) and he believes that thermite was used too in other words, it would also be cutting beams silently and that somehow concludes that Gage doesn't know anything about sound or explosives?? lol

This is nothing more than pure desperation of people who are to scared to look at the possibility of a demolition.


Good god man, did you even watch the video?!

If the audio itself wasnt self explanatory enough, I dont see how my annotations could have been much clearer.

1. Gage says that you wouldnt want loud explosives going off as that would give away the demolition.

2. Gage then says that the explosives had to be extremely intense so that could rip through the building and fling heavy steel hundreds of feet.

3. Then, in responce to a caller saying that these explosives have to be extraordinarily loud, says thats why they used thermate which is quiet.

So, Gage thinks thermite/thermate makes steel flinging intense explosives quieter. That is not a quotemine, that is what he thinks and apparently what you think judging from your posts here.

Edx wrote:If explosives were used to fling steel around or "pulverise" the building then nano thermite does not help one bit.
It helps in that it might make it look like less of a demolition and help the buildings demise.


No no, you cant gloss over it.

In a real demolition explosives are only intense enough to cut critical columns, not fling heavy steel around. Therefore they would be even LOUDER than actual demolitions in order to do that. And yet, we hear no such detonations at all. Thermite cannot help you. Either there was steel flinging and "pulverisation" by explosives or there wasn't, please decide.

Edx wrote:If you want to explain the absence of explosive detonations you're going to have to drop this all talk of characteristics of explosive demolition.
Why exactly?? Because in your head, you can't grasp the concept possibility that both shape charges or thermite or any other explosive device could have been used?


How much more simple can I get, hmm...

If they used a ratio of 90% thermite to 10% explosives then it may be quieter, but there will be no shockwave capable of flinging steel around, and no shockwave = no explosion sound. Thermite doesn't explode you see. But here's the thing, if thermite really did explode and create a shockwave capable of flinging steel around, then that too would be loud. The shockwave is the sound you hear when an explosion goes off. So no shockwave = no steel flinging.

So okay, lets say someone used thermite and a shape charge but used much smaller amount of actual explosive so that it would be quieter. Well then no steel could be flung anywhere, it doesn't matter how much thermite you use as well. Is this simple enough for you?

FEMA gave us Pancakes with no numbers, NIST told us it was a progressive collapse with no numbers.


You sure are vague, btw pancake collapses are progressive collapses.

Edx wrote:...that begs the question of why that is not the truther position?
Because if you ask individuals who you declare are truthers for their opinions or thoughts on the subject, they do not all have the same position.

You do know that some truthers think it was space beams. lol

Also this highlights again the lack of thinking, truthers don't adopt this position because they probably do not believe that if you planted explosives on all the beams that you say were damaged by the planes and fires at the point of initiation that it would collapse.


So stop arguing against yourself!

It is true that if you damaged the floor system with explosives the way fire did it would result in the same collapse, but you aren't even arguing that.

The point of this is to highlight an absurd position by people who claim that a demolition is not possible because it would require lots of explosives all over the place,

You're the ones that say it required explosives all other the place.

yet none are needed all over the place in your plane and fire damage theory. So technically speaking, truthers could argue that 1 or thousands were needed and you would be wrong to differ because in your reality, it requires less than 1! lol


So why don't you?

The building couldn't have collapse without explosives, but your position is that it could, so even if the position of truther is only one explosive was needed, then how is he wrong when you agree that none were EVER needed?? :lol:


But that is not your argument!

People like Gage( who if you remember is the subject of this thread) and people like Steven Jones talk about explosives on every floor of WTC7 remember the "'squibs" stuff?

I certainly agree that if they had only referred to specific, isolated explosives on specific points it would still be a claim that required evidence they don't have, but it would still be a LOT more sensible. But the fact is that is not what any truthers talk about and "debunkers" responces to their claims about how long it would take and what a big job it would be to rig such a building up for demolition, is in responce to their/your claim that they did that!

Considering that the buildings were design to withstand impacts from the largest plane at the time, it would be a silly idea to add explosive, just in case?? lol


The head structural engineer Leslie Robertson said that story was misrepreseted. That it was not designed to withstand the impacts, the fuel on 911, no fireproofing systems were capable of handling such a fire from jet fuel and that the WTC stood up far better than expected.

For example:

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.


And also this:

...The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field).

...

Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

...

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires. - Leslie Robertson



Edx wrote:Hmm, yes thats a difficult one.
It is a difficult one, this is why those who you call truthers don't understand how you can adopt a position such as yours and suggest that this was enough when even traditional demolitions requires explosives all over the places to weaken the structure.


So I guess we'll add sarcasm to the list of things you don't understand then...

Edx wrote:I would say its because they don't want to rain down massive destruction in a wide radius killing people and destroying other peoples buildings but hey, I'm just guessing!
So setting fire in a building in order to aid in it's collapse would rain down massive destruction in a wide radius killing people??


Yes, you see that's what happend on 911, the buildings rained down massive destruction in a wide radius. I know you guys like to pretend sometimes that they fell in their own footprint but this is actualy what really happened.

But explosives wouldn't?? lol I supposes it is a guess but not a very good one.


UUUH, because the consequences of fire would result in a very UNCONROLLED collapse, obviously.

Apparently you dont understand what the word "controlled" means in "controlled demolition."

And you are partially right, they sometimes don't demolish them because of destroying other people buildings, but what if there are no buildings within the vicinity. Do you know why they probably wouldn't damage less than 5% of the buildings floors and set fire to it??


I could just as well ask why they dont do that with anything they want to demolish. You do accept that buildings do collapse eventually when you set fire to them right? Houses collapse all the time from fire. Maybe you are forgetting the truther goal post manoeuvre, its all about focusing on "steel frame high rises" that you need to make sure you stick to.

Edx wrote:As I said to Dave on the JREF, he shouldnt really make a big deal out of no planers as even Alex Jones thinks they're nuts. But if he wants to bring it up he should make the point that Gage's group promotes Heiwa and his work, who is a no planer.
What he should concentrate on is not what Alex Jones thinks of no planers or whether Gages group promote Heiwa work or that he is a no planer either.


Well hey, you were the one that said Gage's group don't promote made up physics.

Edx wrote:I think the firefighter will be very good if he points out that if someone thinks that WTC7 only had minor fires, minor damage and no one would think it would collapse then they are calling the firefighters of the FDNY liars and covering up for mass murder for nearly 10 years.
And I'm guessing Dave would have employed this very same tactic of exaggerate and smear. lol


Its not exaggeration, that's what Gage thinks.

[Some firefighters thought it was going to collapse,


No dozens of them directly thought it was going to collapse, even more commented directly on how bad the fires were directly contradicting the truther claim of small minor fires and most importantly there is no dissenting opinion between any of them after nearly a decade.

So either they were lying about it then or they are still lying about it now. Either way my extension you are saying that they are liars and covering up for mass murder.

[So even if Gage disagrees with the people who thought that it was going to collapse, then he is not calling the FDNY liars, couldn't they be mistaken??


lol, one of Gage's (and truthers in general) main argument about the collapse of WTC7 being a demolition is that no one could possibly imagine WTC7 would collapse.

So... you're saying the firefighters were just incompetent to imagine the building would collapse that was a "mistake", that they were incompetent to think the fires were that bad that was a "mistake", incompetent to say the damage was severe that was a "mistake" and yet just happened to be right that it was going to collapse because they demolished it.

Bravo on mental gymnatics.

You know like the people who you claim DIDN'T hear explosions?? lol


Speaking of explosions, why didnt any firefighters anywhere on 911 (who btw were literally waiting around for WTC7 to collapse) report hearing any explosion sounds when it collapsed? You have Alex Jones' friend Kevin McPadden, someone Gage has referred to before, saying he heard giant earth shaking explosions... and yet this was neither picked up on tape in the area nor any of the firefighters reported it. Why is it that despite so many of them being around, the truth movement has never been able to find a single firefighter that backs up ANY of their claims about Builing 7? Not even superficially like you guys try and do with WTC1+2, literally... nothing... at all. I didnt even know firefighters had anything to say about it until I took a look outside truther websites.

Lets assume for a moment that Gage as called a firefighter a liar, doesn't that mean he thinks all firefighters at FDNY are liars?


You didn't listen to what I said.

I didnt say Gage called them liars directly, I said that if truthers make the claims they do about 7 THEN by extension the firefighters HAVE to be lying. That's why they don't want to deal with it, because they want to be seen as being on their side.
Last edited by Edx on 13 Jul 2010, 21:26, edited 14 times 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 » 13 Jul 2010, 12:06

stundie wrote:
Edx wrote:Because they dont want to destroy massive amounts of private properly and kill many people on the streets below?
So when the Windsor Towers were on fire and partially collapsed, did that destroy massive amounts of private property and kill many people on the streets below??


Yes, it partically collapsed and why was that? The part that collapsed was steel frame and not concrete reinforced. :roll: Do you get it? The steel collapsed.

The Windsor tower didn't collapse completely because it had a concrete core and reinforced floors. The WTC only had 4inch thick concrete floors, it had no other concrete and it wasn't load bearing.

Edx wrote:You don't need explosives to demolish a building, which is why Verinage works. Will you ever reply to that?
Ponders if twoofers should use the verinage techniques as opposed to thermite?? lol


You're not even make any sense anymore.

So if it wasn't a single column, then how many was it that NIST said rather than just complaining that we do not want to understand when you have given us nothing to understand.


The point to understand is that no other buildings are built in the same way. Your joke is fail on factual grounds.

Edx wrote:Here's another reason why what you say is stupid. I can just as easily say that when they demolish a house they dont really need to tare it down with cables or machines they should just set it on fire. Well, maybe setting it on fire is not the best method of destroying a house even though, yes, that would do it.
Well houses aren't made of steel but I see your point but maybe you should use a wooden shed instead of a house in your examplet as it would have more of an effect. lol


No, you don't see my point.

Should they demolish houses by setting them on fire? Why might they not do that? Fire is very unpredictable. Is kinda a problem when you want something to be "controlled". :roll:
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

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

Postby NinjaPuppy » 13 Jul 2010, 19:14

Edx wrote:No, you don't see my point.

Should they demolish houses by setting them on fire? Why might they not do that? Fire is very unpredictable. Is kinda a problem when you want something to be "controlled". :roll:

The set houses on fire all the time for training purposes. http://videos.howstuffworks.com/howstuf ... -video.htm
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

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

Postby Edx » 13 Jul 2010, 21:14

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Edx wrote:No, you don't see my point.

Should they demolish houses by setting them on fire? Why might they not do that? Fire is very unpredictable. Is kinda a problem when you want something to be "controlled". :roll:

The set houses on fire all the time for training purposes. http://videos.howstuffworks.com/howstuf ... -video.htm


Yes they do, but do commercial demolition companies do that? No, because setting things on fire and waiting for them to collapse is not a very controlled method of demolishing a building.

btw I thankyou for posting this as there is a brilliant quote in it:

... They need this to be real, but not too real. So they also use the inspection to find and remove any material that may cause secondary explosions"


According to people like Stundie's logic this had to mean there were explosives and bombs they had to remove.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

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

Postby NinjaPuppy » 13 Jul 2010, 21:51

Geese Louise! You can dilute a sentence and turn it around like no other. Here is your original question-
Should they demolish houses by setting them on fire? Why might they not do that? Fire is very unpredictable. Is kinda a problem when you want something to be "controlled". :roll:

Then you turn it around as if it has anything to do with commercial demolition. You were NOT talking about commercial demolition, you claimed that they don't demolish houses by setting them on fire. Your statement was proven to be WRONG. They do set houses on fire to demolish them.

Next question:
but do commercial demolition companies do that? No, because setting things on fire and waiting for them to collapse is not a very controlled method of demolishing a building.

Can you show me any proof that commercial demolition companies do not use fire? Please back up your claim.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

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

Postby Edx » 13 Jul 2010, 22:16

NinjaPuppy wrote:Then you turn it around as if it has anything to do with commercial demolition. You were NOT talking about commercial demolition, you claimed that they don't demolish houses by setting them on fire. Your statement was proven to be WRONG. They do set houses on fire to demolish them.


If you read what I said in context you'll realise the entire point is about commercial demolitions. I do realise truther's dont like context, but it is actually important.

but do commercial demolition companies do that? No, because setting things on fire and waiting for them to collapse is not a very controlled method of demolishing a building.

Can you show me any proof that commercial demolition companies do not use fire? Please back up your claim.


Sadly I can't prove a negative. You're the one that apparently thinks they do.

So what do you think about the fact that they said that ordinary materials will cause "explosions"?
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests