9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Convert me!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Wibble
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:10 am Post subject:

Quote:

Talking of earthquakes is irrelevant, what I am talking about is the specific manner in which WTC1 and WTC2 supposedly collapsed in order to completely destroy themselves.

No it is not irrelevant. Your are claiming that the fact there are survivors is suspicious but when you compare it with many other building collapses (regardless of cause) you find it is not.

You can just say stuff is irrelevant just because it goes against your theories.

Quote:

but fairly intact at the top given the lower floors of the 25 would have been absorbing the impact.

There is no logical reason to argue the floors should have been "fairly intact". They have just fallen several hundred feet and crashed down onto all the other debris. The WTC was not made out of lego. Go read the NIST report.

There is also no logical reason for the use of CD on the top 25 floors as they would CD the bottom 25 floors.

You are seeing stuff that is not there.

Quote:

The row of cars is all burnt out to some extent, they were not within range of debris, they are not close to any buildings that were on fire. An eye-witness speaks of cars bursting into flames as she runs away from the collapses. Yet people aren't being burnt and nor is paper. Odd isn't it?

You accuse Alex of broad brushing yet you make the claim "they were not in the range of the debris" without offering any proof. Again you pick and choose what is fact or not based purely on whether it supports your theory or not. IE

"nor is paper" so no paper burnt on 9/11?

What eye whiteness? Where was she? Any other witnesses?

There is nothing odd so far.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:13 pm Post subject:

Wibble wrote:

Quote:

Talking of earthquakes is irrelevant, what I am talking about is the specific manner in which WTC1 and WTC2 supposedly collapsed in order to completely destroy themselves.

I can say stuff is irrelevant because I believe it is irrelevant. Or can you show me a building collapsing from an earthquake in the same manner as WTC2?

Wibble wrote:

Quote:

but fairly intact at the top given the lower floors of the 25 would have been absorbing the impact.

The degree of intactness is just a linguistic nicety - if you are so convinced that the top 25 stories of WTC2 came to ground as expected, where is the rubble pile? It would have to be pretty high wouldn't it having landed on top of another 80 stories or so?

Wibble wrote:

Quote:

Have you read back in this thread at all? Come on, you were part of the discussion, the photos were posted - I really don't have the time to keep repeating the same posts so you can wibble away.

Or maybe you actually want to explain how debris can :-

1. Fly that far from a gravity-driven collapse.
2. Be hot enough from an office fire to set a single car on fire.
3. Manage to seriously damage a whole row of cars.

Wibble
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:59 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I can say stuff is irrelevant because I believe it is irrelevant. Or can you show me a building collapsing from an earthquake in the same manner as WTC2?

Stop messing about. You know the WTC collapse was unique but to say that you can not compare the fact there were survivors walked away with other collapse is crazy.

Please show me evidence of survivors from buldings bought down by CD?

Quote:

You seem to think the WTC was made out of lego blocks or something and are ignoring that not all of the WTC was above ground level. Plus shwo me your calculations on how high the rubble should have been?

Quote:

1. Fly that far from a gravity-driven collapse.
2. Be hot enough from an office fire to set a single car on fire.
3. Manage to seriously damage a whole row of cars.

You still dont get it do you. You are the one saying it is strange so you need to prove it could not have happened. Can you?

But

2. So 2 aircraft hitting the WTC is just an "office fire"? Your having a laugh.

Have you actually read the NIST report of have you just read all the miss quote etc on conspiracy forums?

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:15 am Post subject:

Wibble wrote:

Quote:

I can say stuff is irrelevant because I believe it is irrelevant. Or can you show me a building collapsing from an earthquake in the same manner as WTC2?

Stop messing about. You know the WTC collapse was unique but to say that you can not compare the fact there were survivors walked away with other collapse is crazy.

Of course you can't compare them unless they are the same - or do you think there is worth in comparing 110 stories of massive building completely destroyed and a 6 story brick building partly destroyed. Irrelevant Wibble.

Wibble wrote:

Quote:

Nobody can calculate how high the rubble should have been but I can make a rough guess - quite high. As the top 25 stories had nothing bearing down on them, they would have smashed on impact but still have been, maybe, 10-15 stories high. Maybe you can do some work and identify the rubble from the top 25 stories? You can see which way it was toppling, not hard to find on the ground I bet. Not to mention it would have made a significant noise upon landing on the ground - the ground would undoubtedly have shaken again with that much tonnage landing as one lump. Were those events observed?

Wibble wrote:

Quote:

1. Fly that far from a gravity-driven collapse.
2. Be hot enough from an office fire to set a single car on fire.
3. Manage to seriously damage a whole row of cars.

No the onus is on you this time Wibble This part of the thread is about OCT supporters explaining how events happened - otherwise their theory is debunked. The OCT is not a default position, it must account for all observed evidence. So you need to prove how these cars came to be on fire - explain the scientific principles involved. It has been nearly 7 years and as you are such an expert on the NIST report, maybe you can find it in there.

Wibble
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject:

KP Nuts you continue to mess about and dance around the subject and avoid answering questions.

You pick and choose what is or isn't relevant purely on whether is suits your blinkered view on events.

Please answer the questions:

Quote:

Please show me evidence of survivors from buildings bought down by CD?

Plus show me your calculations on how high the rubble should have been?

Have you actually read the NIST report of have you just read all the miss quote etc on conspiracy forums?

What eye whiteness? Where was she? Any other witnesses?

And being the typical Truther you still dont understand that if you don't believe the OCT it is up to you to prove it wrong. But as always it seems you as a truther have never read anything outside conspiracy forums and websites.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject:

Wibble wrote:

Quote:

You seem to be running scared there Wibble - all I am asking is for you to explain clearly how some cars caught fire yet you keep obsessing about CD - as I said before, the OCT is not a default position, it must stand up to the observed events and if it cannot account for these observed events then another theory must be found. The burnt cars is but one of many such events which I have selected as a test-case to see how the OCT stands up.

So Wibble, here is your chance to be a spctical hero and explain clearly, and in detail, how the parking lot cars all came to be frazzled. How hard can it be?????

Wibble
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:15 pm Post subject:

I am not running scared. You are the one avoiding the questions. Both I and Alex have offered explanations for the burning cars but you choose to ignore them. You are the one arguing that the burning cars are suspicious but do not offer any explanation of why it can not be explained by the OT. You also do not offer any other explanation (well when it suits you you imply CD). So in short you have nothing so I have nothing to argue against. Put your money where you mouth is and answer my questions, prove the OT can not account for the burnt cars and offer another explanation (backed up with some evidence of course). Do you have anything?

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:56 pm Post subject:

Wibble wrote:

I am not running scared. You are the one avoiding the questions. Both I and Alex have offered explanations for the burning cars but you choose to ignore them.

You are the one arguing that the burning cars are suspicious but do not offer any explanation of why it can not be explained by the OT. You also do not offer any other explanation (well when it suits you you imply CD). So in short you have nothing so I have nothing to argue against.

Put your money where you mouth is and answer my questions, prove the OT can not account for the burnt cars and offer another explanation (backed up with some evidence of course).

Do you have anything?

So your detailed explanations for many cars being singed and set alight many yards from the scene of any building on fire ...

Step forward Alex

Alex wrote:

Without first-hand evidence it's impossible to say 'exactly' what caused any single fire. Suffice to say that at least 8 or more large buildings suffered extreme damage and fires on that day. I would presume that these car fires had at least a passing connection with those other fires.

Alex, you know and I know that these burnt cars were a fair distance from any buildings on fire. Your explanation is inadequate and requires more work.

and come on down Wibble

Wibble wrote:

It was not just dust there would have been various small bits of light debris. The towers where on fire long enough for some of that debris to be very hot. Hot debris+car=fire. Not exactly rocket science is it. If you dont believe my go get some hot coal from your BBQ and through it at your car.

So Wibble, what sort of debris is it that can be picked up in the dust cloud and still be hot enough to set fire to a car a long distance away? How hot would it have to be? How would it remain hot? What did the debris consist of? Surely many people caught in the dust cloud would have been seriously burnt - was this the case? I propose that your explanation is inadequate and needs more work - how about some detail next time of the temperatures required for the distances involved?

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:59 am Post subject:

KP50 wrote:

Try this one

Same image - better resolution.

Interesting photo. Clearly these cars were not parked here in the course of a normal day's work. Many are jammed in tight right up against fences and totally hemmed in by other cars that are only a few inches away in places.

It looks more like a car pound than a car park. Do you have an exact location for it?

It's also mysterious that (apparently) people are wandering around there with several cars engulfed in flames.

eta: I also notice that there is massive difference in the degree of dust covering these cars. If they had been there together at the time of WTC collapse, why would this be?

If they were brought there after 9/11, why would they be burning? All very odd.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:13 pm Post subject:

sam wrote:

If you read the whole thread, you can work out where the cars are parked. If you are too lazy, use this image

You have a lot of questions there Sam, any answers? And welcome back, how is Greece?

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:25 am Post subject:

KP50 wrote:

You have a lot of questions there Sam, any answers? And welcome back, how is Greece?

Thanks for the photo.

Just a few thoughts on the "debate" going on here around these parked cars..

There's a clear line of sight from the "car park" to WTC1, as there's a large gap between WFC3 and the Verizon building.

The only building that could be considered "in the way" would be WTC6, which was actually quite low.

Close to the bulldozer in that hi-res closeup of the car park, we see what appears to be aluminium cladding panels from WTC. Somewhat smaller, but denser pieces of debris could easily travel further than these panels.

The ignition temperature of petrol is around 250°C.

Could pieces of hot debris from WTC1 have travelled that far and caused cars to ignite? It doesn't seem at all far-fetched to me. Or a tank could have been punctured and the spillage ignited later by lightweight burning material beind blown over by the blast of air caused by the collapse.

Here's a screen clip from the Bob+Bri "What we saw" video which appears to show a mass of debris heading in the general direction of the car park (the bit that looks like a bird's head, complete with beak. Hey, there are even a couple of wings. Has Killtown seen this?? ) :

Apologies if this has all been said before (see below).

Cheers

p.s. Greece is spectacular, ta. The UK is not so clever, mind. It's a bad time to be selling a house in Blighty especially when you really need the money. We have a decent offer though, which is why I'm passing some time in 9/11 conversation to take my mind of these matters.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

Wibble
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:02 pm Post subject:

KP, I can not believe you are still flogging this dead horse. WTC7 was over 300 yards from the twin towers but still got hit with large debris and was set on fire by the debris. How far away are these cars? You still dont offer and other explanation for the cars being on fire? You must have a theory by now?

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum