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.
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!
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?
“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
If by stunning you mean stunningly stupid, then I agree. I repliedto his whole post, did you miss it or just don't care?
Because they dont want to destroy massive amounts of private properly and kill many people on the streets below?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fine by me.
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.
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??
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.
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
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
Again, more projections and generalisations about what you think truthers think is important.
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.
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??
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.
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.
I thought it collapsed in 7.2 seconds and that free fall would be 6.5, although I could be wrong.
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.
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
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.
Why would they pretend they were right all along about something which they were never right about??
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?
Even with the internal collapses, the building still fell at free fall speeds.
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.
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.
The problem with your analogy is that your 2 cars are not attached to anything.
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.
If you hit the ground at free fall speeds, it is irrelevant what speed was you was before you hit the ground.
No, I'm not a fan seeing as I argued this point long before I heard of Anders.
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.
See this is why you guys really don't have a point to argue.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do they? Oh well! I don't!
Again, all speculative with out any critical thinking.
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.
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.
Well 80% of it was apparently! So the twoofers are 80% right and you are 80% wrong then? lol
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
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.
And why doesn't that make sense to you know? Why does it matter if you are a truther or debunker?
Thermite is more than capable of weakening, cutting and melting steel. It's been used this way for years!
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.
I'll have to watch it when I have more time.
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.
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.
It helps in that it might make it look like less of a demolition and help the buildings demise.
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?
Not at all! lol But if you want to believe otherwise, do go ahead. lol
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
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
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
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??
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 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.
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.
You see, those who you call truthers have lots of different theories and ideas on what happened.
Well good for you, although maybe you should concentrate on the arguments, not whether they are no planers or not.
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.
[/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.
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
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.
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?
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??
But with Two Men and a Match, there are no explosions, just create a collapse zone further than the building is tall and bingo!!
Ponders if twoofers should use the verinage techniques as opposed to thermite?? lol
I am just taking the piss of course! lol
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lets actually look at some actual real world examples, shall we?
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.
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.
How does verinage work? Seems to destroy, pun intended, almost all of Richard Gage's "indicators of explosive demolition", for example.
Personal incredulity noted.
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.
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.
I guess your brilliant retourts are why you have such a wonderful reputation over at the JREF
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.
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.
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.
And they included it, and thats dishonest apparently.
Im talking about Chandler.
They were never right, cant argue with that.
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.
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?
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.
What on earth are you talking about?
Verinage collapses also fall at "near free fall" speeds, no explosives or thermite required. Do those buildings not provide any resistance either?
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.
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.
So you're just as nutty as him then, good to know..
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.
The patent says:
Put that into Google Translate and you get:
The entire destructive force is in the upper block.
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:
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.
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
Ok well let me know when you can find me a demolition of a commercial structure that does not use any wires at all.
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.
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.
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 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.
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...
See...you too believe in quiet intense explosives. You are just as ignorant of how explosives and sound work as Gage.
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:
So lets see what Chief Turi actually thought...
Here's another firefightersaying he heard an explosion but realised later it was the South Tower collapsing...
Here's another one truther's like to use:
Is that what Louis really thought? Apparently not.
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".
When the B25 collided with the Empire State Building, was there gun fire just because someone said this?
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?
http://web.archive.org/web/200608190936 ... /0715.html
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.
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?!!
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.
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.
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?
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
LOL, no... not "speculation". Explosives are well understood and that is how explosives work.
I cant wait to get to the part of your post where demonstrate it quite nicely, even more nicely than you alread have...
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.
Well then please prove it, truthers cant prove it can cut steel beams like they say it can. Its been nearly a decade.
Of course not you didn't watch it...
But you still feel like you can give your opinion on it anyway...
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.
I'm afraid your admitedly firm conviction isn't good enough.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
You sure are vague, btw pancake collapses are progressive collapses.
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.
You're the ones that say it required explosives all other the place.
So why don't you?
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!
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.
And also this:
So I guess we'll add sarcasm to the list of things you don't understand then...
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.
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."
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.
Well hey, you were the one that said Gage's group don't promote made up physics.
Its not exaggeration, that's what Gage thinks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, it partically collapsed and why was that? The part that collapsed was steel frame and not concrete reinforced. 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.
You're not even make any sense anymore.
The point to understand is that no other buildings are built in the same way. Your joke is fail on factual grounds.
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".
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:
According to people like Stundie's logic this had to mean there were explosives and bombs they had to remove.
Geese Louise! You can dilute a sentence and turn it around like no other. Here is your original question-
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.
Can you show me any proof that commercial demolition companies do not use fire? Please back up your claim.
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.
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"?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests