Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

femr2 said:
As I am sure you can see by the very subtle hints TruthersLie and Animal are providing you, that's an oft made, but pretty silly thing to say. If you're going to get your, what, *debunker* wings, you're going to have to stop walking into walls :)

I am sure you could come up with an almost infinite number of scenarios, if you engaged your brain.

Your statement is as stupid as saying *You're with us, or you're with the terrorists*.

Have fun.
Click to expand...

Awww Femr.

Now if you could only come up with any type of plausible scenerio that could explain the events of the day.

The common narrative (pretty much) explains all of the events. it is supported by the evidence gathered, by the witnesses.

And what do truthers have? Oh... paint chips, sub pixel analysis and the inability to get any of it published in any peer reviewed journal, in any country, in any language.

if you guys would only come up with a plausible scenerio that explains the events... but you can't even get your group to agree on the basic premise... dEW, HAARP, nanothermite, no conventional explosives, holographic planes.

At least try to get a coherent story. I'd be happy to listen to it.
 
femr2 said:
As I am sure you can see by the very subtle hints TruthersLie and Animal are providing you, that's an oft made, but pretty silly thing to say. If you're going to get your, what, *debunker* wings, you're going to have to stop walking into walls :)

I am sure you could come up with an almost infinite number of scenarios, if you engaged your brain.

Your statement is as stupid as saying *You're with us, or you're with the terrorists*.

Have fun.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough.

Either terrorists flew planes into the WTC towers causing them to collapse, or the planes and fires didn't cause the collapse.

That's it. No more. Those are the only two options. Clearly, twoofers believe the 2nd one, and have yet to prove why or how it happened.

Is this not a fact?
 
NoahFence said:
Either terrorists flew planes into the WTC towers causing them to collapse, or the planes and fires didn't cause the collapse.
Click to expand...

You underestimate the creative lunacy of the truth movement. Either terrorists flew planes into the towers causing them to collapse, or someone else flew planes into the towers causing them to collapse, or someone projected holograms of planes flying into the towers and deliberately started fires that caused them to collapse, or someone deliberately started fires that caused the towers to collapse but didn't make any effort to give the appearance of flying planes into them because they knew that people would believe they'd seen planes hit them if the TV told them to believe it, or there were no planes and no fires but the planes and fires still caused the towers to collapse... that's five possibilities* in which some combination of the planes and the fires caused the collapse.

Dave

* OK, one of them's an impossibility, but that won't bother most truthers.
 
Dave Rogers said:
You underestimate the creative lunacy of the truth movement. Either terrorists flew planes into the towers causing them to collapse, or someone else flew planes into the towers causing them to collapse, or someone projected holograms of planes flying into the towers and deliberately started fires that caused them to collapse, or someone deliberately started fires that caused the towers to collapse but didn't make any effort to give the appearance of flying planes into them because they knew that people would believe they'd seen planes hit them if the TV told them to believe it, or there were no planes and no fires but the planes and fires still caused the towers to collapse... that's five possibilities* in which some combination of the planes and the fires caused the collapse.

Dave

* OK, one of them's an impossibility, but that won't bother most truthers.
Click to expand...

Ah....makes much more sense now.

Now, given that set of circumstances, is it OK to remind twoofers that attacks took place outside NYC and they need to be accounted for as well?

(I seriously had a twoofer say that the NYC and DC attacks were separate and distinct, coincidentally happening on the same day!)
 
Dave Rogers said:
You underestimate the creative lunacy of the truth movement. Either terrorists flew planes into the towers causing them to collapse, or someone else flew planes into the towers causing them to collapse, or someone projected holograms of planes flying into the towers and deliberately started fires that caused them to collapse, or someone deliberately started fires that caused the towers to collapse but didn't make any effort to give the appearance of flying planes into them because they knew that people would believe they'd seen planes hit them if the TV told them to believe it, or there were no planes and no fires but the planes and fires still caused the towers to collapse... that's five possibilities* in which some combination of the planes and the fires caused the collapse.

Dave

* OK, one of them's an impossibility, but that won't bother most truthers.
Click to expand...

Dave... I thought we had a nice long discussion and I proved that Mothra did it.

So that is 6 possibilities.
 
NoahFence said:
...

A) Terrorists flew aircraft into the buildings causing damage and fires on a scale that doomed the buildings.

or ...?
Click to expand...
Asking 911 truth to clearly state what happen on 911 is fruitless. 911 truth has no clue what happen on 911, and they were given the answers. All 911 truth has to do is check the answers.

The terrorist flying an aircraft into the largest buildings in NYC is too complex for 911 truth. 911 truth has to make up nonsense because they can't do simple physics, they can't come up with the energy of a gravity collapse using E=mgh. Thus, they are unable to explain in their closed minds how so much destruction can take place. The WTC complex looks like 200 2,000 pound bombs were dropped on "ground zero". The "ground zero" confuses them too. Everything confuse the immature minds of 911 truth, many of the minds will go on to be much more than I. But for now the fact that gravity alone is responsible for the energy of over 200 TONS of TNT is not a fact that 911 truth followers, blind followers, can grasp.

Don't tell 911 truth the jet fuel had the heat energy of 315 TONS of TNT in each plane. Don't tell 911 truth thermite has ten time less energy than jet fuel. Gee, if this miracle of themite was such a great thing, we would use it for heating our houses, running our cars, and making electricity. But it is not good for much, and not needed to bring down the WTC, office fires are sufficient. 911 truth uses hearsay and lies to form conclusions, the rest of th world uses math, physics, logic, knowledge, and judgment.

911 truth makes up the core was blown up by explosives, explosives which are silent, and leave zero blast damage. Taking physics should be mandatory, and other courses. (like teaching beachnut to write right)

911 was an event, it is over. Aircraft impacts, fire and gravity did the damage at the WTC complex.

The super bowl is over. Pittsburgh will not win by trying to back in themite.

911 truth can't comprehend political claptrap talk, making up fantasies, and other nonsense can't change 911. Impacts, fire, gravity. Three things science can explain, three things 911 truth can't handle. Thus, 911 truth makes up the mythology of thermite (the sun god), explosives (Thor's hammer), and move back to the middle ages, where you believe what someone else says and you never question it.

Why would anyone from 911 truth come to JREF? JREF exposes the fraud of people making up nonsense; 911 truth is a movement of made up nonsense.
 
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. Thanks.
Click to expand...

It only takes an ********* **** to mess up things about what the Firefighters said:
Edited by Locknar: 
Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12.


http://www.workingfire.net/misc12.htm

Smoke explosions: Firefighters know that explosions happen suddenly and are unpredictable. They cannot be prevented during a fire. Explosions are a constant part of the firefighter's deadly uncontrolled work environment. , However, warning signs of smoke explosions are taught to firefighters. They are: reversal of air pulling smoke back into a smoke-filled doorway; black smoke pushing out around a closed door; or window frames and glass windows stained with smoke condensation and pulsating from the pressure of the fire.

Gas meter explosion: Firefighters are trained when fighting gas meter fires to shut off the supply. They are trained not to extinguish a gas fire with a hose stream. They are trained to let the gas fire bum and protect exposures from fire until the gas can be shut off.

Edited by Locknar: 
<snip>...breach of rule 4.


Bombs: When an explosive is found at, a scene, firefighters do not disturb the device. They evacuate people, withdraw to a safe area, notify the bomb squad, and stretch a hose line and prepare for an explosion, collapse and fire.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ergo said:
Because what they were describing was clearly unusual to them.
Click to expand...

If they were not unusual, then they would have said it.
Click to expand...

How do you know these things? Can you read their minds?

The firefighters were recounting their experience after being asked to recount their experience.

Many of them mentioned smoke. Did even a single one of them say "...but smoke isn't unusual in an office fire"? No?

I guess according to your dumb logic smoke isn't a "usual" aspect of a fire because none of the firefighters SPECIFICALLY SAID SO.
 
1337m4n said:
How do you know these things? Can you read their minds?

The firefighters were recounting their experience after being asked to recount their experience.

Many of them mentioned smoke. Did even a single one of them say "...but smoke isn't unusual in an office fire"? No?

I guess according to your dumb logic smoke isn't a "usual" aspect of a fire because none of the firefighters SPECIFICALLY SAID SO.
Click to expand...

Edited by LashL: 
Removed personalization. Stick to the argument.


The question they should be asking is not "If the explosions weren't unusual, why didn't the firefighters say they weren't unusual?" The question they should be asking is: "If the explosions WERE unusual, why didn't the firefighters say they WERE usual"?

Firefighters deal with explosions ALL THE TIME. This is not speculation, this is not random coincidence, this is an undisputed fact of the industry. You become a firefighter, you get taught to expect things to explode. Sometimes the explosion comes from seemingly nothing at all. They call that backdraft. A firefighter mentioning explosions in his testimony is as normal to him as a commuter mentioning there was heavy traffic on his way to work. It's an event that, while not guaranteed to happen every time, happens often enough to be considered "usual" by default.

A firefighter mentioning that an explosion is "not unusual" would be like someone mentioning that the clouds are white today. That's completely useless information. It's when the clouds AREN'T white that it's worth mentioning. Get it? No, of course you don't, you will never get it, because you are a Truther utterly married to his delusions.

If the explosions WERE unusual, the firefighters would have said so. Care to prove that statement wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is really just another example of Dave Rogers' Unevaluated Inequality fallacy: The firefighters statements are claimed to be outside the norm, but there's no metric provided for what that norm is.

Dave's right: That fallacy gets used a lot.
 
ergo said:
Yeah? Five years later? Five years later of steady media propaganda about "What Did and Did Not Happen" on 9/11? Good work, NIST!
Click to expand...

None of them thought it was bombs or explosives did they? As you say "they were actually there" You were not. I also bet you do not have the cajones to try and clarify with those witness what they saw and heard eh?

Another no need for confirmation kind of guy.
 
ergo said:
Yeah? Five years later? Five years later of steady media propaganda about "What Did and Did Not Happen" on 9/11? Good work, NIST!
Click to expand...

So every single member of the FDNY is either a liar or stupid?

Every single one?

Because that's exactly what you're implying. Not one member of the FDNY claimed there were bombs after being asked if there were bombs...because they were all fooled by "media propaganda"?

Not even ONE?

If you are convinced that there were bombs planted in the towers do you wait five years to tell anyone? It's a good thing bomb squads aren't as dumb as you. Oops, someone reported a bomb threat, let's wait five years to respond.
 
ergo said:
Because they're firefighters.

Because what they were describing was clearly unusual to them.
Click to expand...

How did you come to that conclusion?

(I'll give you a hint. No matter what you post here, unless it is "I am making **** up" will be incorrect)

ergo said:
They don't need to wait to be asked "Well, were these unusual sounds?" If they were not unusual, then they would have said it. "Yes, we heard explosions, but they were nothing out of the ordinary for building fires." Nobody said this.
Click to expand...

You're right. Just like you won't here a football player saying that there were lots of tackles made during the game. It's standard. The person interviewing the firefighters is ALSO a firefighter himself. He didn't need to be informed on how often this occurs.


ergo said:
A few had already interpreted their impressions after hearing about what it might have been (eg; the start of collapse), but many didn't.
Click to expand...

Most did. Please feel free to list the names of the ones who don't.


ergo said:
They just reported what they heard. We also have news footage of many of them saying the same things. Why do you guys have such problems with this?
Click to expand...

Why do you have such a problem understanding that
explosions =/= explosives?

ergo said:
Bedunkers say this all the time, that the explosions were typical of building fires. Since probably 98% of bedunkers are not firefighters, why are you making these claims and pretending to speak for people who are?
Click to expand...

I am a firefighter, and was there on 9/11, and did hear explosions. Do I think there were bombs in the building? No.

Does anyone from FDNY that was there that day? Not that I have found.

If there were obviously bombs/explosives in the building, why aren't there dozens of FDNY members shouting it from the rooftops? I mean, we will run into a burning building for a complete stranger, but we're too much of a coward to stand up and say there were bombs?

Horse**&&^


ergo said:
And of course, now your tack is to overstate the argument: that, therefore, this automatically points to CD. I'm not saying this either, although I obviously have a bias. I am merely pointing out what is in the record. Why do you have such difficulty accepting what is in the record? You end up just looking like idiots or liars.
Click to expand...

Because YOU'RE the one who is taking their statements completly out of context, and making them into something that they aren't.

That is akin to lying.
 
ergo said:
That's not what the seismographers say.

[Link removed to post.]

But if that's what you want to insist upon, you go right ahead. I'm not sure our 9/11 bedunkers even know what they are saying anymore.
Click to expand...

That right ergo? What do the seismographers say? Why don't you quote them if they back you up?

It's just the old Truther dodge of posting a tangential link without an excerpt, trying to fake supporting documentation.

I'll stick with real proofs like the one you're running from. Here it is again, from people who own seismographs and know controlled demolition, your friends at Implosion World:

In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event. 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.​

BTW. Figure 4 in that Pentagon paper you cite shows no big spikes before the south tower collapsed. You probably should read your links. ;)
 
slojoe,

Just FYI, if you want to post a link, remove the http:\\www part, and just leave the rest, and someone will post it for you.

Welcome to the forum!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom