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 NinjaPuppy » 13 Jul 2010, 22:26

Edx wrote:lol, I can't prove a negative. You're the one that apparently thinks they do.

No. I simply asked for proof of your statement and in typical skeptic fashion you pull the old "Can't prove a negative" rabbit out of the hat. That BS is so last year. :lol:

Edx wrote:So what do you think about the fact that they said that ordinary materials will cause "explosions"?

What is your definition of 'ordinary'? Cleaning solvents can cause explosions as can aerosol cans, beauty products, art supplies and the list goes on. What exactly where would these ordinary materials be stored? Are you talking about an average home with an attached garage or a warehouse or the WTC?
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, 23:00

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Edx wrote:lol, I can't prove a negative. You're the one that apparently thinks they do.

No. I simply asked for proof of your statement and in typical skeptic fashion you pull the old "Can't prove a negative" rabbit out of the hat. That BS is so last year. :lol:


Well, I can't prove a negative and neither can you. Its a fallacy for a reason, Ninja. ;)

Maybe you could prove there isn't life on Mars, can you do that? If you can't does that mean there is life on Mars? Or, is it up to the person making the claim that there is life on Mars to provide evidence? Is that how this SCECOP stuff works, you believe every any old claim straight away for no reason and work backwards?

I'm saying that commercial demolitions wouldn't use fire to demolish commercial properties because it is not a controlled way of doing it. But that is just a house, there's only so much that can collapse. But lets just hypothtically accept that they do somtimes demolish houses by setting them on fire. They wouldnt do that with a tall building because "control" is even more important, let alone with a high rise. The risk is much greater.

Edx wrote:So what do you think about the fact that they said that ordinary materials will cause "explosions"?

What is your definition of 'ordinary'? Cleaning solvents can cause explosions as can aerosol cans, beauty products, art supplies and the list goes on. What exactly where would these ordinary materials be stored? Are you talking about an average home with an attached garage or a warehouse or the WTC?


Im confused as to why you dont understand my point.

According to people like Stundie's reasoning if someone said "explosion" they mean bomb. I said to him that just because you say explosion does not mean you MEAN bomb and doesn't mean the sound came from an explosIVE either. What I quoted was them saying that materials in the house could cause "secondary explosions". Now, there are quotes truthers use that also use the words "secondary explosions" but truthers claim that quotes like "secondary explosions" has to refer to bombs. As we can see here, its common for people to refer to "explosions" that do not refer to explosIVES
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, 23:24

Edx, I did actually respond to your post but then I came to log on, it disappeared. Bbesides, it would have made for another long post and frankly I'm not typing that shit again out again.

So why don't you take a point that you want make and we'll take it from there??
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, 23:39

stundie wrote:Edx, I did actually respond to your post but then I came to log on, it disappeared. Bbesides, it would have made for another long post and frankly I'm not typing that shit again out again.

So why don't you take a point that you want make and we'll take it from there??


Yes, I had that experience luckily I had saved it before I clicked submit and lost it all. I wasn't going to reply point by point next time either since it was getting ridiculous.

Lets just talk about explosives and how they work then, so for exmple why no one has blast injuries and how thermite doesn't make it quieter etc. You can find my arguments in that post.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

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

Postby stundie » 14 Jul 2010, 00:09

Edx wrote: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.
It only partially collapsed because there was not enough energy in the upper portions for it too over come the lower portions.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire - Steel Framed Building - Burned for 18 hours - didn't collapse.
Caracas Tower Fire - Steel Framed Building - Burned for 17 hours - didn't collapse.
The First Interstate Bank Fire - Steel Framed Building - Burned for 3.5 hours - didn't collapse.
The Madrid Tower - Concrete and Steel Framed Building - Burned for 18 hours - partially collapse.

WTC 1 & 2 - Steel Framed Building - Burned for about an hours - total collapse.
WTC 7 - Steel Framed Building - Burned for 7 hours - collapsed at free fall and then continued at near free falls speeds.

Notice a pattern here about steel framed buildings yet??
Edx wrote:The Windsor tower didn't collapse completely because it had a concrete core and reinforced floors.
Yeah I know and it wasn't designed to resist a collapse but it did.
Edx wrote:The WTC only had 4inch thick concrete floors, it had no other concrete and it wasn't load bearing.
That is partially incorrect as the floors were load bearing, but only a small percentage of the load as the exterior and core columns did the main job bearing the load.
Edx wrote:You're not even make any sense anymore.
I was joking whether someone like Richard Gage should use the verinage to prove a demolition instead of an explosive demolition theory.
Edx wrote:
me wrote:So if it wasn't a single column, then how many was it that NIST habeaid 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.
So it was a single column as I suggest but what I do not understand is that no other building are built this way?? lol
Edx wrote:Your joke is fail on factual grounds.
No, your joke debunking failed in that it appears you agree with me now that it was a single column, but that doesn't matter because of the way it designed. lol

Care to point out what about the design allowed it fail then fall at free fall speeds for 2.5 seconds and continuing onwards at near free fall speeds??
Edx wrote:No, you don't see my point.
I do see your point, it's just that you don't have one.
Edx wrote:Should they demolish houses by setting them on fire?
Yeah why not, I mean large steel structures collapse after about an hour so why not?? lol
Edx wrote:Why might they not do that? Fire is very unpredictable.
And probably a very slow method for demolishing houses.
Edx wrote:Is kinda a problem when you want something to be "controlled". :roll:
But it is controlled, look at WTC7 that was very controlled...all from a fire.
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 » 14 Jul 2010, 00:18

Edx wrote:Yes, I had that experience luckily I had saved it before I clicked submit and lost it all. I wasn't going to reply point by point next time either since it was getting ridiculous.
Good stuff.
Edx wrote:Lets just talk about explosives and how they work then, so for exmple why no one has blast injuries and how thermite doesn't make it quieter etc. You can find my arguments in that post.
There are many different types of explosives some which detonate with high pressure and some explosions deflagrate.

Why no one is injured is simply down to the location of the people in relation to the explosions. If no one has blast injuries, then they probably weren't close enough to the explosion.

Thermite doesn't make explosives quieter but if used would make a demolition less like noisy.

And Thermite is capable of cutting steel beams.

Although I do not know whether thermite in the WTC was used as an explosive or as a heat weakening agent.
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 NinjaPuppy » 14 Jul 2010, 02:02

Edx wrote:Maybe you could prove there isn't life on Mars, can you do that? If you can't does that mean there is life on Mars?

IMO, it means that at this point in time it hasn't been proven. That doesn't mean it has been disproven. BTW, would you care to define 'life'? Does this include bacteria and/or life forms not yet known to us on planet earth?

Edx wrote:Or, is it up to the person making the claim that there is life on Mars to provide evidence?

It is most definitely up to the person making the claim to provide evidence or some sort of proof. That is why I asked you to back up your claim but of course you opted to do that with the "can't prove a negative". Since I made NO claims of any sort other than your statement about fire not being used to demolish houses being wrong... I guess it stumped you a bit.

Edx wrote:Is that how this SCECOP stuff works, you believe every claim ever straight away and work backwards?

Golly gee...I don't know. How does this SCEPCOP stuff work? I know how an Internet forum works but I'm not too sure about what you call "this SCEPCOP stuff". Since you seem to have answers for everything, perhaps you will enlighten us 'obtuse' members into your world of semantics.

I'm saying that commercial demolitions wouldn't use fire to demolish commercial properties because it is not a controlled way of doing it. But that is just a house, there's only so much that can collapse. But lets just hypothtically accept that they do somtimes demolish houses by setting them on fire. They wouldnt do that with a tall building because "control" is even more important, let alone with a high rise.[/quote]

Ninjapuppy wrote:
Edx wrote:So what do you think about the fact that they said that ordinary materials will cause "explosions"?

What is your definition of 'ordinary'? Cleaning solvents can cause explosions as can aerosol cans, beauty products, art supplies and the list goes on. What exactly where would these ordinary materials be stored? Are you talking about an average home with an attached garage or a warehouse or the WTC?


Edx wrote:Im confused as to why you dont understand my point.

Again with the "why you don't understand my point"? I'm not asking you to explain your point, I am asking you to define your terminology.

Edx wrote:According to people like Stundie's reasoning if someone said "explosion" they mean bomb. I said to him that just because you say explosion does not mean you MEAN bomb and doesn't mean the sound came from an explosive either. What I quoted was them saying that materials in the house could cause "secondary explosions". Now, there are quotes truthers use that also use the word "secondary explosions" but truthers claim that quotes like "secondary explosions" has to refer to bombs.

So you then need to define the difference between a designed explosive (bomb) vs. common items that can do the same damage as a designed explosive (bomb)
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 ProfWag » 14 Jul 2010, 02:17

stundie wrote:Although I do not know whether thermite in the WTC was used as an explosive or as a heat weakening agent.

How do you know that thermite was even used at all?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby stundie » 14 Jul 2010, 02:33

Edx wrote:According to people like Stundie's reasoning if someone said "explosion" they mean bomb.
Ahh, you see this is where you make the mistake.

If someone said "explosion" they could possibly mean bomb.
Edx wrote:I said to him that just because you say explosion does not mean you MEAN bomb and doesn't mean the sound came from an explosIVE either.
And until we have a source for these explosive sounds, then we cannot rule out the possibility of a bomb.
Edx wrote:What I quoted was them saying that materials in the house could cause "secondary explosions".
Of course materials in the house could cause secondary explosions but until we know the source, we can't rule out the possibility of explosives.
Edx wrote:Now, there are quotes truthers use that also use the words "secondary explosions" but truthers claim that quotes like "secondary explosions" has to refer to bombs.
Some of them refer to what they think are bombs but as I said, I've not seen any other claim of the explosions other than it could be...this, that and the other, all without supporting evidence.

And until there is supporting evidence for this, that and the other as the cause of the explosions, then we can't rule out the possibility of explosives.
Edx wrote:As we can see here, its common for people to refer to "explosions" that do not refer to explosIVES
But it is also common for people to refer to explosions and booms and for them to mean explosions.

Neil deGrasse Tyson:
I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion.

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman1: Then you just sort of ... this cloud of s___

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... esses.html
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

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

Postby ProfWag » 14 Jul 2010, 02:47

stundie,
Please explain, as best you can on a keyboard, what a 100 story building full of furniture, electrical lines, walls, etc. would sound like like when it falls.
Thanks
profwag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby ProfWag » 14 Jul 2010, 03:03

stundie wrote:
Notice a pattern here about steel framed buildings yet??

No, not at all.
How many of the buildings you mentioned had a 757 fly into the side of the building, 3/4 of the way up doing 500 mph?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby stundie » 14 Jul 2010, 03:19

ProfWag wrote:
stundie wrote:
Notice a pattern here about steel framed buildings yet??

No, not at all.
How many of the buildings you mentioned had a 757 fly into the side of the building, 3/4 of the way up doing 500 mph?
two of them.

WTC 7 didn't have a 757 fly into the side of it at 500mph.

Back to the drawing board.
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 » 14 Jul 2010, 03:37

ProfWag wrote:stundie,
Please explain, as best you can on a keyboard, what a 100 story building full of furniture, electrical lines, walls, etc. would sound like like when it falls.
Thanks
profwag
Something like this....


Notice the lack of boom, boom, boom, boom, booms or poch-poch-poch-poch or anything explosive like in it's collapse.
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

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

Postby ProfWag » 14 Jul 2010, 03:47

stundie wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
stundie wrote:
Notice a pattern here about steel framed buildings yet??

No, not at all.
How many of the buildings you mentioned had a 757 fly into the side of the building, 3/4 of the way up doing 500 mph?
two of them.

WTC 7 didn't have a 757 fly into the side of it at 500mph.

Back to the drawing board.

Just to be clear, WTCs 1 & 2 were part of your argument as to a contradiction of what happens to fires in a steel framed building:
"WTC 1 & 2 - Steel Framed Building - Burned for about an hours - total collapse."
As such, those two buildings should not be counted as a comparison since they ARE different than your other examples. If you'd like to regroup and just include WTC 7, then we can talk.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby ProfWag » 14 Jul 2010, 03:52

stundie wrote:
ProfWag wrote:stundie,
Please explain, as best you can on a keyboard, what a 100 story building full of furniture, electrical lines, walls, etc. would sound like like when it falls.
Thanks
profwag
Something like this....


Notice the lack of boom, boom, boom, boom, booms or poch-poch-poch-poch or anything explosive like in it's collapse.

You're going to compare a 100 story skyscraper with a small 3-story apartment that had already had the entire contents burned to a crisp and that fell at an angle rather than straight down? Sorry stundie. As a professor, I give grades for assignments and that would get an "F" regardless of the class you are taking. No comparison at all.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests