Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Clayton Moore said:
Plenty of witnesses heard explosions. Including firemen and TV broadcasters/reporters.
Click to expand...
simile
No one heard explosives, there was no blast damage. You are failing to bring evidence, the same problem you have denying the Holocaust. Failure.

ergo said:
...
So we know what controlled demolition using detonation charges sounds like in emptied out buildings where the charges are laid throughout the building, including the perimeter structures. Do we know what detonations sound like if they have only been laid in the core column structure, in a building that has not been emptied out - indeed,...
Click to expand...

We would see explosions, blast effects, and loud bangs! But in your delusional world where you claim rubble the size of the moon can't crush the WTC towers, we have fantasy explosives which have no blast effects, no sound. Your OP failed.
 
beachnut said:
simile
No one heard explosives, there was no blast damage. You are failing to bring evidence, the same problem you have denying the Holocaust. Failure.



We would see explosions, blast effects, and loud bangs! But in your delusional world where you claim rubble the size of the moon can't crush the WTC towers, we have fantasy explosives which have no blast effects, no sound. Your OP failed.
Click to expand...

He still hasn't answered my question about the 60 stories of core clearly seen still standing long after the rest of the building had peeled away that only collapse after the external support of the exoskeleton was gone...clearly crushing his core-explosive nonsense. Notice how he skipped my posts and went into stupid banter over whether or not providing 3 links was an answer or not.

These two are clearly not interested what so ever in actual discourse.
 
Do we know what detonations sound like if they have only been laid in the core column structure, in a building that has not been emptied out
Click to expand...

Since we've never seen that scenario, I'm guessing we have no idea what it would sound like. If we ever do though - you'll let us know?
 
NoahFence said:
So Clayton, you don't see anything amiss with the comment, and your reply to it? Really?
Click to expand...
.
Those two words mean exactly the same thing, just like "immediately" means "after a while".

Don't niggle, or CM will put you in 'time out', like zir mommie always does to zie.
.
 
ergo said:
Posting a link is not answering the question. You post a link to back up your answer to the question. Don't make others do your research for you.

Bedunkers, none of this should be difficult: State what you want to state plainly, in words, and back it up with facts. It's only difficult if you are trying to hedge the answer in conditions and exceptions.
Click to expand...

Neither projection nor shifting the burden of proof make you seem nearly as clever as you appear to think it does.
 
DGM said:
Don't keep saying we can't answer what you're not willing to ask.
Click to expand...


What a joke. You sit passively while my threads on the subject of WTC1 and 2 collapse initiation are removed from the forum.

Then you pretend to be able to "debate" the same subject with ergo? After a year long thread on OOS propagation it is forgotten about. Amnesia is all you have to keep your arguments going.

Anmesia and repeat. Anmesia and repeat....


What an absolute joke. Censor, then debate? You would melt in a debate without censorship. You already have many times.
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
What a joke. You sit passively while my threads on the subject of WTC1 and 2 collapse initiation are removed from the forum.
Click to expand...

Because after a year, you still refused to admit that your theory has anything to do with conspiracy. It was therefore moved to Science. Or are you saying that you were not debating science in that thread?

Major_Tom said:
Then you pretend to be able to "debate" the same subject with ergo? After a year long thread on OOS propagation it is forgotten about. Amnesia is all you have to keep your arguments going.
Click to expand...

It is not forgotten. Rather, it was abandoned by you. It is still open, posters have posted, it has open questions directed at you that you have thus far refused to even acknowledge. Don't blame anybody but yourself!

Major_Tom said:
Anmesia and repeat. Anmesia and repeat....


What an absolute joke. Censor, then debate? You would melt in a debate without censorship. You already have many times.
Click to expand...

Nothing has been censored: Nothing is deleted, your dear thread is still open, you are still free to post whatever you like.
Censorship? Pah!
 
Major_Tom said:
What a joke. You sit passively while my threads on the subject of WTC1 and 2 collapse initiation are removed from the forum.
What thread(s) were removed from the forum? I know of one in "science" that YOU abandoned.

:rolleyes:
Major_Tom said:
Then you pretend to be able to "debate" the same subject with ergo? After a year long thread on OOS propagation it is forgotten about. Amnesia is all you have to keep your arguments going.
Click to expand...

You had a thread about hypothetical explosives and if this undefined quantity could be heard? I must have missed it. Wait, are you now claiming OOS does have something to do with explosives? Did you even read the OP in this thread?

:confused:

Major_Tom said:
What an absolute joke. Censor, then debate? You would melt in a debate without censorship. You already have many times.
Click to expand...

The only "censorship" is your own. I'm not sure you know what a debate is. I know I've never had one with you so, I don't know how you would know I would "melt" (or have already done so).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
What a joke. You sit passively while my threads on the subject of WTC1 and 2 collapse initiation are removed from the forum. ...
Click to expand...
Yes, it must be a joke.
Your failed technobabble, a scam to back in CD for your Satan did it claim, was upgrade to the science section. You are unable to find it?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189754
Found it in 10 seconds, you have been uable to find it for nearly 2 weeks.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7258363#post7258363
They moved your non-science TLAR method of trying to back in CD to science section, and upgrade for your nonsense.

Are you supporting ergo's failed explosives claims, his hush a bomb fantasy.
 
ergo:

Being a person that believes in openness and transparency, I wonder why you chose the option to hide the fact your on-line.

Just asking.

:rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
To be fair alot has changed with demolition tech. More compact linear shape charges for one.

Naturally this has nothing to do with what he claims.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that a lot has changed. That is quite beside the point.

The point is: Does Clayton have any idea what has changed, and can he come up with something that might be relevant to the debate (and be true at the same time)? Clayton needs to make statements of fact.

(Also, it doesn't matter much what has changed in the past 70 years; we are not comparing anything to what was done 70 years ago. We are comparing truther claims to the current state of the art. Like what did real implosion experts use in 2006, 5 years after 9/11? Answer: RDX (C-4 and derivatives) and nitroglycerin are very much state of the art today. Clayton seems to hint they are not. He needs to make a clear claim here, and back it up with evidence.)
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
The point is: Does Clayton have any idea what has changed, and can he come up with something that might be relevant to the debate (and be true at the same time)? Clayton needs to make statements of fact.
Click to expand...

I truly hope you're not holding your breath (rhetorical question). Did you notice how fast he back paddled when I challenged him to "put his money where his mouth is"?

He a toy to play with, nothing more.

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom