Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[triforcharity]

That would have been a nasty thing to witness, jaydee but, you know, personal anecdote doesn't make you an expert in these matters. Hundreds of bone fragments less than 1 inch long were found on the Deutschebank roof. Air gusts don't fragment live human bodies, ejecting the tiny pieces hundreds of feet laterally.

Correct, air gusts wouldn't likely do that. However, a 767 traveling at 733 FPS would absolutely do that. So would multi-ton columns falling on them and pulverizing them to bits.

 

[triforcharity]

I can't find it anymore but there was an old video of a lone truther (guy in a suit jacket, shirt, and tie but with a scruffy beard, long hair, and glasses IIRC) in a sea of FDNY at a memorial (I think it was at GZ 02 or 03). He started shouting woo and almost got himself hospitalized. Anyone remember that or have a link?

NSFW warning.

 

[triforcharity]

Sorry, who are the experts you're citing? I don't recall seeing any names.

How about Jack Loizeaux of CDI? One of the worldwide leaders in controlled demolition....How about those guys?

Who was that danish (???) guy who said 7WTC was, but 1&2 were not? What's his name.........

 

[Justin39640]

NSFW warning.

Nope, it was way older than that. A fireman was gonna punch his teeth in and several others had to hold him back.

 

[The Platypus]

Never any sources
never any names
never any facts
for their numerous claims...

Yep, we know what 9/11 'debunkery' is all about.

These kind of posts are the most telling. It's funny how <snip> you can't recruit everyone into your cult's nonsense...

Cults peddling lies, always hate the doubting non-believers the most.

Edited (<snip>'ed), breach of rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[TruthersLie]

Other testimonies, compiled on 911lies.org:


The day after 9/11, a story in the Los Angeles Times, referring to the south tower, said: “There were reports of an explosion right before the tower fell, then a strange sucking sound, and finally the sound of floors collapsing."4

A story in the Guardian said that “police and fire officials were carrying out the first wave of evacuations when the first of the World Trade Centre towers collapsed. Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a ‘planned implosion.’"5

....

There were many reports about an explosion in the basement of the north tower. For example, janitor William Rodriguez reported that he and others felt an explosion below the first sub-level office at 9 AM, after which co-worker Felipe David, who had been in front of a nearby freight elevator, came into the office with severe burns on his face and arms yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"6p

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for Rule 4. This is at least one of the links.

Come on Ergo.

Were there reports of explosions at the caracas tower fire?
Were there reports of explosions at the meridian plaza fire?
were there reports of explosions at the CCTV fire?
Were there reports of explosions at the one new york plaza fire?

The answer to all of those is YES there were.

There are at least 20 common items in offices which explode in fires. Can you think of one? I can think of about a dozen.

Can you eliminate ANY of those common items from the things people may have heard explode on 9/11?

Didn't think so.

Poor Ergo. Reading for comprehension is sooooo much harder than qualifiers, prepositions and similes. No wonder you screw it up sooooo badly.

 

[NoahFence]

Wow Ergo.
You really ARE going to just flat out ignore what I presented, aren't you?

You asked us to refute and source ONE truther lie.

I did it, and you won't even give me the courtesy of a token "got me there".

Sad.

 

[NoahFence]

From this article:

http://www.seattle911visibilityproject.org/rwtcpdf.pdf

1.1 First experts suggest explosives were used.

The Albuquerque Journal further noted: “The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy,” Romero said. “One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and a secondary device,” Romero said. “Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion,” he said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers. [10]

North Tower....

wait for it

South Tower....

wait for it

Pentagon....

wait for it

Flight 93's target

Bingo.

 

[DGM]

Wow Ergo.
You really ARE going to just flat out ignore what I presented, aren't you?

You asked us to refute and source ONE truther lie.

I did it, and you won't even give me the courtesy of a token "got me there".

Sad.

I assume you've been reading his "work". Did you really expect him to admit anything?



Case in point:

Never any sources
never any names
never any facts
for their numerous claims...

Yep, we know what 9/11 'debunkery' is all about.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't know about ergo, but I'll take an anonymous internet figure who is factually accurate with what he's talking about over a named expert who can't even tie his shoes worth with his knowledge in the field. Conspiracy peddlers simply don't learn; facts stand on their own merits, not on the back of claimed authority.

 

[TruthersLie]

It doesn't mean that there weren't. See, I can repeat myself idiotically too.

Actually if you use any scientific method it does.

See when you create any type of experiment you chose an Alternative Hypothesis (the HA). Your alternative hypothesis is usually that something isn't chance.

And you have the Null Hypothesis (the HO). (basically it is chance, it is not from your experiment.)

Now in science you first want to REJECT the null. (you never really PROVE that something caused something else 100% of the time. What you do is prove that the HO (the null hypothesis) is rejected.

Before you can claim that ANYTHING is happening you first have to ELIMIATE ANY AND ALL CONFOUNDING VARIABLES.
So in the real world we have
HA- the explosions reported on 9/11 by witnesses were EXPLOSIVES.
HO- the explosions that occured on 9/11 were NOT explosives, but rather other items exploding as we have examples of in previous office fires.

Before we can REJECT the null (the HO) we need to eliminate any possible confounds.

Can you ELIMINATE ANY of the reported explosions as not being from explosives? Yes or no?

If you cannot eliminate ANY of those other possibilities, you cannot claim that it was from explosives.

It doesn't work that way.

Try again ergo... maybe after you have learned what prepositions are, qualifiers, similes and maybe get up to taking any type of research methods class... That should be after you get your GED and try to take some "sciency" courses. (maybe you can get around to reading Scott S's paper too)

 

[TruthersLie]

Evidence of explosives is also in the description provided by witnesses, in the manner in which the floors blew out, according to them, in the pressure waves described, in the expulsion of tiny bone fragments laterally onto neighbouring buildings, and in the noise they created.

What traces of explosives would you expect to find in the rubble of a building that has been reduced literally to dust? Where not even something the size of a phone remained.

Ut oh... ergo stepped into it again, and onto his dick again.

Much like his "growing exponentially" gaffe... now we have a tower reduced "literally to dust."

That must have made it soooooo much easier to pick up... just a big broom and a huge dustpan.

And even though we have these immense explosions they
a. don't show up on any video from the events.
b. no one was treated for injuries consistent with exposure to explosives
c. no windows (even in buildings across the street) were shattered w/otu debris hitting them.

 

[TruthersLie]

Typing "lie" after a statement doesn't make it so. You have to be able to refute it. You haven't done so. Nor has anyone else here. Perhaps you don't understand what they are saying here?

already done. trying to get you understand basic science is almost as hard as getting you to understand the difference between INTO and ONTO

Already debunked.

Really?
All you showed there is that you don't understand the difference between into and onto.

Have you figured that out yet?

It's been debunked.

We are sooo glad you agree that every point made by twoofs has been debunked. Good boy Ergo... it shows you can learn.

 

[TruthersLie]

That would have been a nasty thing to witness, jaydee but, you know, personal anecdote doesn't make you an expert in these matters. Hundreds of bone fragments less than 1 inch long were found on the Deutschebank roof. Air gusts don't fragment live human bodies, ejecting the tiny pieces hundreds of feet laterally.

wowsers. That is amazing.

That air gusts don't fragment live human bodies.

But do aircraft moving at 500 mph which then slam into buildings do that?

Oopsie.

But hey lets play that game.

That would be your argument for "explosives." Great. Please show any survivors who have any injuries consistent with explosives.

How about people who were in the vicintiy of explosives going off... YOu know those people in the basement. What were the extent of their injuries?

Where is the barotrauma injuries from 9/11? They should be very easy to find. I'll wait for them.

 

[TruthersLie]

Never any sources
never any names
never any facts
for their numerous claims...

Yep, we know what 9/11 'debunkery' is all about.

Lets see...
you mean the engineering world that agrees with the NIST reports?

Would those be "experts" for you?

9 years since 9/11 and not ONE SINGLE ENGINEERING paper which states that NIST is wrong.

NOT ONE. IN ANY LANGUAGE. IN ANY PEER REVIEWED ENGINEERING JOURNAL. ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

I've told you the easiest way to get a PhD and get hired in a tenure position.. just prove that NIST is wrong. It should be EASY... you twoofs have 1400+ "experts" (your claims) yet not one can get a peer reviewed engineering refutation of NIST.

hell watching Heiwa get his ass handed to him by Bazant was amusing. Not one. Why is that?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Never any sources
never any names
never any facts
for their numerous claims...

Yep, we know what 9/11 'debunkery' is all about.

Not taking those actions you do on a daily basis? Talk about being irresponsible!

 

[slojoe]

Ut oh... ergo stepped into it again, and onto his dick again.

Much like his "growing exponentially" gaffe... now we have a tower reduced "literally to dust."

That must have made it soooooo much easier to pick up... just a big broom and a huge dustpan.

And even though we have these immense explosions they
a. don't show up on any video from the events.
b. no one was treated for injuries consistent with exposure to explosives
c. no windows (even in buildings across the street) were shattered w/otu debris hitting them.

And let's add to that the lack of seismic evidence that the Implosion World article cites

(at implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf),

and ergo has studiously avoided addressing in this thread.

 

[fess]

From this article:

http://www.seattle911visibilityproject.org/rwtcpdf.pdf

1.1 First experts suggest explosives were used.

On September 11, 2001, American explosives expert Van Romero said: "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse.” The Albuquerque Journal further noted: “The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy,” Romero said. “One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and a secondary device,” Romero said. “Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion,” he said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers. [10]

The next day, Mark Taylor, demolition expert noted in New Scientist: “it cascaded down like an implosion.” [11]

Webster Tarpley notes European expert sources who immediately suggested the possibility of explosives in the towers. On Sept. 12, the Danish "bomb expert" Mr. Bent Lund stated: "an estimated amount of circa 1 tons of extra high-explosives bombs must have been detonated inside the World Trade Center complex in order to make the Towers collapse in the manner they did." [12]

Jens Claus Hansen, a high ranking officer of the Danish Military Academy, on 9/11/01 stated in an interview: “Additional bombs must have been placed inside the WTC towers--otherwise they would not have collapsed as they actually did.”

Former NATO General Keld Hillingsoe in the same interview stated: “Additional bombs must have been installed inside buildings.”

On Sept 13, 2001, Hugo Bachmann, Professor Emeritus of building dynamics and earth quake engineering at the Swiss Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule in Zurich saw two possible scenarios, and felt that both should be investigated. The first was fire and its effects on the steel supports; the second, an additional terrorist action. The article quoted by Tarpley noted that Bachmann “could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack.” [13]

....Although Van Romero later “changed his mind”, he still admitted the collapses looked like demolitions [16]

(Bolding mine)
A lot of key words that show nothing leading to actual evidence. Do you really have any?

 

[ozeco41]

I don't know about ergo, but I'll take an anonymous internet figure who is factually accurate with what he's talking about over a named expert who can't even tie his shoes worth with his knowledge in the field. Conspiracy peddlers simply don't learn; facts stand on their own merits, not on the back of claimed authority.

Well said

...and one of my favourite themes.

 

[ergo]

(Bolding mine)
A lot of key words that show nothing leading to actual evidence. Do you really have any?

Neither do the words "the", "of", "by", "and", "in", "had"....

Btw, it's called expert opinion. Got any?