Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

beachnut said:
... true.
911 truth movement, based on lies and delusions of CD are supported by a few fringe people who lack knowledge and refuse to think for themselves. Most will join reality when they gain knowledge and, as my Algebra teacher said, gain maturity. Not sure what maturity had to do with learning algebra, but it seems he was right. I matured real quick when faced with failure.
Click to expand...


You can lead a troofer to the facts, but you can't make him think. :blush:
 
ergo said:
The plane impact at the Pentagon, which was at ground level, did not register a seismic signal.

Working backwards from a seismic record to determine the time of plane impacts on the towers allows you to fit the data with the events you're looking for. You would automatically attribute the spikes you see to the impacts. Why would the WTC planes hitting high up the buildings register a signal when the much closer to the ground Pentagon hit did not?

http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf
Click to expand...

A very simple answer that 2 minutes of research would have given you the answer.

The Pentagon is a five story building built on former swamp land with a foundation of a series of concrete piles.

The WTC towers were 110 stories and the foundations were connected to the bedrock 70 ft down.
 
And the closest monitoring station was over twice the distance away...

But hey, we can add in ignorance of basic building with his already monumental ignorance of architecture, engineering, physics, articles, qualifiers and prepositions.
 
slojoe said:
Sadly, the only remedy is to repeat the refutation over and over, so it is readily available knowledge to a growing body of people who otherwise be unable to counter someone spouting Truther talking points.

I found this forum because it was used in just that way.
Click to expand...


It would work a lot better for you if you refuted something first, and then repeated it ad nauseum. Trying to do it the other way around is just bedunkery, of the kind we see here on the JREF forum. Good for spreading misinformation, but not for pointing out actual facts.
 
ergo said:
It would work a lot better for you if you refuted something first, and then repeated it ad nauseum. Trying to do it the other way around is just bedunkery, of the kind we see here on the JREF forum. Good for spreading misinformation, but not for pointing out actual facts.
Click to expand...

Have you managed to figure out articles yet?
How about prepositions?

Because once you figure those out, you can work your way up to similes...
 
NoahFence said:
Ergo - in those quotes you provided, how many times do you type "like" or "sounded like" or "felt like"?
Click to expand...


That is standard English for describing what something sounds like. The sentence "We heard explosions" is also standard English and doesn't try to describe what was heard in terms of something else.

How many firefighters in those accounts mention something along the lines of "the explosions we heard were typical of those we encounter in other building fires." Is it mentioned even once? Take a look and get back to us. Thanks.
 
The largest explosion I've seen with my own two eyes (and ears!) was created by WATER.

Water.
Explosions do not = explosives. Period.
 
NoahFence said:
The largest explosion I've seen with my own two eyes (and ears!) was created by WATER.

Water.
Explosions do not = explosives. Period.
Click to expand...

I made a huge explosion at work last week. Hydraulic piston stuck in its tube, get out the compressed air! The poor secretaries thought we blew up the shop lol. :jaw-dropp

(don't try that at home kids!)
 
A tech here created an 'explosion' last week when on the third floor he dropped a box of copy paper flat on the floor. Sounded like something blew up above the girls in the 2nd floor office and made everyone in the 3 storey brick building, jump!
 
Animal said:
A very simple answer that 2 minutes of research would have given you the answer.

The Pentagon is a five story building built on former swamp land with a foundation of a series of concrete piles.

The WTC towers were 110 stories and the foundations were connected to the bedrock 70 ft down.
Click to expand...

Wow!! I can scarely believe that ergo posted that.

The collapse of WTC 7 also did not register as strongly as the collapse of the towers. I wonder, given the information contained in Animal's short post above, if ergo can figure out why that might have been the case?

hint: basement foundation versus pilings
 
Animal said:
A very simple answer that 2 minutes of research would have given you the answer.

The Pentagon is a five story building built on former swamp land with a foundation of a series of concrete piles.

The WTC towers were 110 stories and the foundations were connected to the bedrock 70 ft down.
Click to expand...

Right then ergo should have experienced an "ouch" moment and resolved to shut his cakehole for a bit. But I doubt that happened.
 
ergo said:
How many firefighters in those accounts mention something along the lines of "the explosions we heard were typical of those we encounter in other building fires." Is it mentioned even once? Take a look and get back to us.
Click to expand...

How many firefighters in those accounts mention something along the lines of "the explosions we heard were NOT typical of those we encounter in other building fires." Is it mentioned even once? Take a look and get back to us.

How many firefighters are quoted as saying "I did not see Godzilla attacking the Twin Towers". Zero. Since none of them specifically deny Godzilla attacked WTC I guess that means we have to consider it as a possibility.
 
ergo said:
The plane impact at the Pentagon, which was at ground level, did not register a seismic signal.

Working backwards from a seismic record to determine the time of plane impacts on the towers allows you to fit the data with the events you're looking for. You would automatically attribute the spikes you see to the impacts. Why would the WTC planes hitting high up the buildings register a signal when the much closer to the ground Pentagon hit did not?

--Lots of firefighter's talking about explosions.--
Click to expand...
As the Implosion World article's point is about the lack of seismic spikes indicating explosions I'd say your argument is "Working backwards" to the point of evading their assertion.

Remember:

At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.​

But thanks for presenting evidence that violent shocks to the tower's columns were so clearly recorded. It makes the absence of unexplained shocks even more conclusive proof that no columns were cut by explosives, as the buildings demonstrably could transfer energy into the ground in a detectable way. ;)
 
1337m4n said:
How many firefighters in those accounts mention something along the lines of "the explosions we heard were NOT typical of those we encounter in other building fires." Is it mentioned even once? Take a look and get back to us.
Click to expand...

Somebody on this forum posted a video that cited examples of office fires unrelated to 9/11 where "explosions" were reported. I've used it to humiliate a few idiot truthers I know when they would bring up the "people heard explosions" canard, as if it were evidence for the laughably preposterous "controlled demolition" cockamamie.

I can't remember what thread it was posted in though. :mad:
 
ergo said:
It would work a lot better for you if you refuted something first, and then repeated it ad nauseum. Trying to do it the other way around is just bedunkery, of the kind we see here on the JREF forum. Good for spreading misinformation, but not for pointing out actual facts.
Click to expand...

Okay, this is physically impossible:

ergo said:
The core dropped first. Its remnants hung in the air for a bit, then they dropped.
Click to expand...

If the core dropped first, it's remnants would be on the ground underneath the building that fell on top of it.

That was simple. So how many times do you want me to repeat it? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom