• 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.

Split From Dick Oliver thread

RedIbis said:
Why don't you tell me what type of explosive NIST based its figures on.
Click to expand...

Wow, the fact that you failed to understand what he said about the explosives shows a complete lack of the required knowledge to make any commentary on 9/11.

I hate when people ask a question they are not going to understand the answer to.

You have to have a certain base of knowledge to ask intelligent questions red, and you simply do not have this base, if you could not clearly understand what was told to you.

The man who said there are no stupid questions, most certainly did not have experience in these forums.
 
sadhatter said:
Wow, the fact that you failed to understand what he said about the explosives shows a complete lack of the required knowledge to make any commentary on 9/11.

I hate when people ask a question they are not going to understand the answer to.

You have to have a certain base of knowledge to ask intelligent questions red, and you simply do not have this base, if you could not clearly understand what was told to you.

The man who said there are no stupid questions, most certainly did not have experience in these forums.
Click to expand...

You're right. I'm too stupid to know the answer to the question I asked, even though I already know the answer. And yet no one was able to answer it, including you.
 
Pardalis said:
I don't know why, but those words "dick and "Oliver" go so well together.
Click to expand...

That aside. I'm not sure why the mod split without giving the thread a name that describes the topic. It shouldn't be hard to determine. I was merely asking Dave what explosive NIST based its blast db levels on.
 
RedIbis said:
You're right. I'm too stupid to know the answer to the question I asked, even though I already know the answer. And yet no one was able to answer it, including you.
Click to expand...

It is not that you didn't get an answer, it is that you didn't understand the answer given. I can simplify the answer to better explain what was meant , but then in simplifying it there is going to be parts missed. But let me attempt ....

What is being said is that with the known explosives in existance , there would be a certain noise value based on the fact that the explosion would have to have certain properties.

I know that your response is going to be that it was some form of super explosive that does not make noise. But that is simply putting in a magic solution. If you don't know how these things work, then your not going to understand why your magic solution doesn't make sense.

That is one of my biggest beefs with the truth movement. Whenever they get shown something cannot happen scientifically , they can just make something up. You are using theoretical concepts ( explosives that do not make the required amount of noise for example. ) to debate real world issues. And acting like this magical explosive you mention is just as real and possible as the scientific explanations as to why it could not happen.

Think of it this way , it would be like if we were discussing military strategy. But one side has to stick to real world tactics and weaponry , and the other can use that, as well as any rules and abilities set down in world of warcraft. The person that gets to use fiction is going to easily be able to come up with more than the person who has to stick to reality.
 
RedIbis said:
Your numbers are based on a type of explosive that is not generally considered in alternative theories. You know this and that's why you refuse to acknowledge the specific type.
Click to expand...

sylvan8798 said:
Prove that nano-thermite/thermate/whatever doesn't make any noise. It should be easy enough.
Click to expand...

Heck, prove that superdupernaotherm*te can even cut steel columns. Until then it is a nonstarter. And we are left with RDX and substances like it which by the nature of how they work are extremely loud. Or perhaps RedIbis thinks that RDX is somehow significantly louder than other high explosives known to be capable of cutting steel columns. Which would be easy to prove if it were true.

So RedIbis, what kind of explosives do you think that the NWO used to destroy WTC7. Note: RedIbis will not answer the question.
 
RedIbis said:
You're right. I'm too stupid to know the answer to the question I asked, even though I already know the answer. And yet no one was able to answer it, including you.
Click to expand...


I guess you missed this post then:

Dave Rogers said:
An explosive with the required properties to sever steel. As I'm sure you're aware, the physical process which cuts the steel is the same physical process which creates the shockwave and hence the sound of the explosion. Therefore, the two can be related directly without the necessity to specify the exact type of explosive required. Hush-a-boom is no more than another truther fantasy; I use the term exactly, since it contradicts the known laws of nature.

Dave
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
Heck, prove that superdupernaotherm*te can even cut steel columns. Until then it is a nonstarter. And we are left with RDX and substances like it which by the nature of how they work are extremely loud. Or perhaps RedIbis thinks that RDX is somehow significantly louder than other high explosives known to be capable of cutting steel columns. Which would be easy to prove if it were true.

So RedIbis, what kind of explosives do you think that the NWO used to destroy WTC7. Note: RedIbis will not answer the question.
Click to expand...

And if explosives were used why would no one have noticed all the windows blowing out? And why bother with explosives if fire would have been enough as shown by NIST? heck why not blow up the Empire state building and Sears Tower as well using another shadowy thingies since you seem to think that two airliners into the WTC was not enough to spark a war, I mean everyone has heard of the Empire state building and Sears tower but almost no one had heard of WTC7 until 911..........:boggled:
 
Profanz said:
No, actually the problem [lack of explosions] is that it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't.
Click to expand...

And to Profanz earlier denial about the lack of explosions caught on camcorders, no truther has yet come up with a plausible explanation for this regarding the collapse of WTC7.

Why on earth, at the onset of global collapse, which is precisely the moment that truthers claim that support must've been removed simultaneously across the entire building, are there no loud explosions?

What realistic, fact-based explanations are there? By my count, zero.

Hushaboom explosives do not exist and are not plausible.
Simultaneous thermite melting is not plausible.

Explosives as a cause are not plausible, given the reality of lack of shockwaves and loud explosions.

Sorry truthers. You just aren't delivering the goods to back up your claims, and the only people who will fall for this nonsense are the gullible and uninformed.
A vague youtube video which is filmed sometime after the collapse of one of the WTC towers, which includes what appears to be a loud explosion (source and location unknown) is simply not proof of any kind that explosives were in WTC7.

I think that's a fair assessment, I'm not trying to be mean. If you think that's good enough, then I think your judgment is way off the mark.

That means you, Red, jammonius, Profanz and whoever else falls into that group. You guys don't know what you're talking about, plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Why don't you tell me what type of explosive NIST based its figures on.
Click to expand...

Why would I do that? You seem to have a problem with it.

What explosives could have been used?

I suspect this could turn into a another of those where you flee the thread eh?
 
RedIbis said:
Your numbers are based on a type of explosive that is not generally considered in alternative theories. You know this and that's why you refuse to acknowledge the specific type.
Click to expand...

Firstly, that's not a strawman argument; learn to speak the language you're speaking. Secondly, no type of explosive is considered in alternative theories, which consist entirely of an appeal to magic that claims the possibility that explosives exist that violate the laws of physics. It doesn't matter what specific type of explosive NIST considered; any explosive that conforms to the laws in this universe will produce a more or less similar noise level. Since your line of argument requires more than four orders of magnitude less noise, your line of argument is - not to put too fine a point on it - utterly idiotic.

Please stop pretending you have a point here.

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
You're right. I'm too stupid to know the answer to the question I asked, even though I already know the answer.
Click to expand...

No, I doubt you're stupid at all, just wilfully ignorant of the fact that the answer is irrelevant. As I've said many times, the goal of conspiracy theorists is not to add to, but to subtract from, human knowledge. So far, you're only subtracting from your own. What's so compelling about ignorance that leads you to make it a lifestyle choice?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
It doesn't matter what specific type of explosive NIST considered; any explosive that conforms to the laws in this universe will produce a more or less similar noise level.
Click to expand...

Oh is that right? So there's no such thing as impulse management and all explosives basically produce the same noise level? Is that what you're going with?
 
RedIbis said:
Oh is that right? So there's no such thing as impulse management and all explosives basically produce the same noise level? Is that what you're going with?
Click to expand...

And there was me thinking you didn't know what a strawman argument was. You have my unreserved apologies.

Oh, by the way: I suspect that anyone reading this would have understood that I meant that any explosive capable of severing column 79 would produce at least the same noise levels. RedIbis, please feel free to claim a victory for the truth movement because I didn't express myself so clearly that someone determined to misunderstand me was unable to do so. Impulse management, as you're probably well aware and as I've pointed out before, is a means of reducing the rate of energy release of an explosion, hence reducing the noise level and the intensity of the shockwave. In other words, if it's quieter, it can't do so much damage, which is the point you've been trying very hard to obscure all along.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
And there was me thinking you didn't know what a strawman argument was. You have my unreserved apologies.

Dave
Click to expand...

So you didn't say, "any explosive that conforms to the laws in this universe will produce a more or less similar noise level"?

I could have sworn you did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom