• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Tricky Ways To Pull Down A Skyscraper

ergo said:
What data did they present that refers to my post above? And cite the reference please.

Your reply will consist of factual statements and not questions.
Click to expand...
Do you want a link to the NIST report where they studied the sound and pressure levels of a demolition charge?

I would have thought you would have read the report by now.

Let me know what part you missed.
 
LSSBB said:
Wait, you're the twoofer here, aren't you? Or do you now accept the common narrative that 19 hijackers carried out the events of 9/11?
Click to expand...
You missed it, He's now calling us "twoofers" instead of "bedunkers".

Don't ask me what this has to do with the argument. Apparently he feels it helps him. :rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
You missed it, He's now calling us "twoofers" instead of "bedunkers".

Don't ask me what this has to do with the argument. Apparently he feels it helps him. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Maybe all that time spent playing word games would be better spent creating a cohesive and plausible case for controlled demolition, or in crafting a graceful concession he doesn't have one.
Here we have two examples of the controlled demolition of a building. The OP demonstrates one without explosives, and now we show with explosives. None look like 9/11. They then claim 'thermite', which we have no video of for a skyscraper because no one ever used it for that purpose. So instead of demonstrating how it could be done, the Truth movement hangers on give us... word games. Pathetic.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
Maybe all that time spent playing word games would be better spent creating a cohesive and plausible case for controlled demolition, or in crafting a graceful concession he doesn't have one.
Here we have two examples of the controlled demolition of a building. The OP demonstrates one without explosives, and now we show with explosives. None look like 9/11. They then claim 'thermite', which we have no video of for a skyscraper because no one ever used it for that purpose. So instead of demonstrating how it could be done, the Truth movement hangers on give us... word games. Pathetic.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he'll also argue that I fail when I present effects and sound level data from explosives because they don't exactly match the conditions he wants.

It's easier for him to set conditions then to support his view. Someday, maybe he will actually present a theory as to what actually happened. I won't hold my breath.
 
ergo said:
What data did they present that refers to my post above? And cite the reference please.

Your reply will consist of factual statements and not questions.
Click to expand...
You failed to read NIST reports. That is standard from 911 truth followers, too busy spreading woo to read and understand. Your truth movement died on 911, you missed it. 12 years of nonsense highlighted with weak attacks on others, exposing a serious lack of knowledge, and super gullibility.

Gage fools people to the tune of 400,000 dollars a year; how much did you donate?

https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth?fref

A facebook page for dumbed down fringe Conspiracy Theorist, and a few who refuse to think for themselves. No science just woo - Gage and his band of nuts.

12 Years and no Pulitzer? Does Al Gore has all that overwhelming evidence in his lock box? The conspiracy here is the Almighty dollar, a scam for donations, over 400,000 dollars a year goes to Gage to spread the word. The word donate more. Demands a new investigation, and hopes you can't read the hundreds of studies already done. 12 years. No results. Keep up the good work. Be all you can be 911 truth followers. Don't stand up and be a leader, following is easy, you don't have to think.
 
I see DGM was not able to come up with his reference. I think we know why.

I'm not sure this is on topic, though. There are probably a number of other threads where we can discuss why:

1) the sound of detonations might be attenuated coming from inside a fully furnished building, especially the inside core, and

2) why the large booms and the sequential "pop - pop" explosions heard by eyewitnesses could not possibly be detonations.
 
ergo said:
I see DGM was not able to come up with his reference. I think we know why.

I'm not sure this is on topic, though. There are probably a number of other threads where we can discuss why:

1) the sound of detonations might be attenuated coming from inside a fully furnished building, especially the inside core, and

2) why the large booms and the sequential "pop - pop" explosions heard by eyewitnesses could not possibly be detonations.
Click to expand...

DGM does not have the burden of proof. You do. You need to prove it would be attenuated. Can't you pull it off?;)
 
ergo said:
I see DGM was not able to come up with his reference. I think we know why.
Click to expand...

Do you think I can't post the link to the WTC7 NIST report that shows they considered demolition noise and effect?

Do you think they didn't study this?

What's your wager that I can't?
 
ergo said:
My question was: What kind of noise do detonations make from the inside core of a fully furnished half-kilometre-tall highrise?

DGM claims that "this data was presented" in the (assuming he means NIST) report on WTC 7. So, no, the burden of proof is on him to show 1) what the data is and 2) how it answers my question above.
Click to expand...
It was. in the NIST report for building 7. What part don't you get?

Let me guess, it was not a study using your exact requirements?

Tell you what, tell us what it should have sounded like using the data from your study.

Bet anything you can't. This is another "moon size rubble" for you.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
My question was: What kind of noise do detonations make from the inside core of a fully furnished half-kilometre-tall highrise?

DGM claims that "this data was presented" in the (assuming he means NIST) report on WTC 7. So, no, the burden of proof is on him to show 1) what the data is and 2) how it answers my question above.
Click to expand...

Ah, so your question is meaningless, since NIST determined how much noise would be created by explosives in a CD and that noise was not present on 9/11.
 
LSSBB said:
Ah, so your question is meaningless, since NIST determined how much noise would be created by explosives in a CD
Click to expand...

130 decibels is comparable with a lot of things that would not be heard from inside a fully furnished building. What study did they do of noise attenuation by the fact that the building was fully furnished?

and that noise was not present on 9/11.
Click to expand...

No noise was present on 9/11?
 
Tell you what ergo, point us to one video (or audio) recording from 9/11 that captured the sound of explosives.

Bet you can't.
 
ergo said:
130 decibels is comparable with a lot of things that would not be heard from inside a fully furnished building. What study did they do of noise attenuation by the fact that the building was fully furnished?
Click to expand...

You're back into your "moon sized rubble" understanding of science.

Please keep posting, you're the best debunker on this site. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Dodge noted. :)
Click to expand...
What "dodge"?

You are claiming a buildings furnishings can suppress 130 dB explosive impulses to the point they can't be detected by recording devices at ground level.

Prove it. This is another "moon size" understanding of science for you. We all see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom